Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
December 18, 2014, 11:33:09 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
83696 Posts in 2261 Topics by 1067 Members
Latest Member: Shinobi Dog
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 Print
Author Topic: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history  (Read 48170 times)
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6166


« Reply #300 on: August 19, 2014, 11:06:20 AM »

As I have been hammering for several years now, the Reps are utterly divided on foreign affairs and much of the core attitude that used to underlie Rep political strength on foreign affairs is gone.  With good reason the American people do not trust the competence of either party to lead this nation in war.  Which is a real big fg problem because it sure looks like a big war is coming!

Looked at through a political lens, Hillary's strategy is very interesting, potentially quite dangerous for us. 

Riddle me this:  How will the Reps respond to it?  More hawkish?  More Dovish?  How will each of the potential Rep nominees respond to it?  The American voter?  Given the American voter's well-earned distrust and looming war, is he/she likely to go for untested neophytes like Cruz or Paul? or Rubio? or?

(Oh and by the way, how does it square with what each of us thinks is best for American and the world?  This probably would be better answered in the Foreign Policy thread where I also posted it.)

Tangent:  I wonder why no one seems to note that Hillary's recent distancing from Baraq by pointing out that she, Petraeus, and Sec Def Paneta also supported arming the FSA in the early days of Syria, is also exactly what Sen. John McCain and Lindsay Graham advocated , , ,

She chose to serve BHO and carry out his vacuous foreign policy.  Now, assuming she's running, she needs to both distance herself from him - on foreign policy - while still getting 100% support from him and his staff, loyalists and band of campaign outlaws.  So she gave an interview ripping him, then immediately called him to "clarify".  Got ripped back badly by Axelrod, and still failed to distance herself.  (And WE are the ones screwed?)

Republicans will have the same heart wrenching debate over foreign policy that Americans are having with themselves.  Marco Rubio is hawkish. Rand Paul is dovish.  Mike Pence is busy exercising his executive experience.  This will play out.  The hawks need to demonstrate they aren't warmongers and the doves need to convince people they aren't pushovers.  The key will be to keep the debates positive and substantive.  In the end, we need to strengthen America from within and they all agree on that.

It is the Dems who can't run on abstractions.  They had their chance and they blew it.

Forgotten about Hillary Clinton's empty foreign policy experience is that her victorious rival named a special envoy to all the difficult areas, 24 in all, leaving her free to take unlimited trips to nowhere.
http://www.usip.org/publications/us-special-envoys-flexible-tool
Obama administration’s 24 special envoys represent an unprecedented expansion of this mechanism
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6166


« Reply #301 on: August 19, 2014, 11:24:02 AM »

While it appears to all observers (including myself) that I am losing my bet that she won't run, won't win the nomination if she does run and won't win the Presidency if she does run, today a couple of articles today seem to show the tides may be turning:

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2014/08/19/hillary-clinton-summer-slide/2pc6mTziecszWDGeZ34jUL/story.html
Hillary Clinton's SUmmer Slide, Hillary is inevitable no longer
By Tom Keane,  Boston Globe Columnist   August 19, 2014
Clinton’s numbers have dropped by 10 or more points
(Not much new here except that someone besides us is saying it.)


Hillary Clinton Not Campaigning Much for her Party in 2014
By Michael Barone - August 19, 2014
http://washingtonexaminer.com/hillary-clinton-not-campaigning-much-for-her-party-in-2014-unlike-richard-nixon-in-1966/article/2552070

Just about everyone noticed Hillary Clinton's scathing comments on President Obama's foreign policy in her interview with The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg.  But almost no one has noticed where Clinton hasn't been seen. That's on the campaign trail or at fundraisers for Democrats running for the Senate.
-----------------------------------

Why isn't she out campaigning for Democrats?
a)  This is going to be a lousy year for Dems.
b)  The candidates don't want her there.
c)  She isn't very good at campaigning.
d)  She doesn't like doing it.
e)  She doesn't want to face the difficult questions that come with being out there:

 Barone:  "That might force her to weigh in on Obamacare, illegal border crossings and fracking."

In other words, maybe she isn't running after all.   )








Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12168


« Reply #302 on: August 19, 2014, 11:31:31 AM »

She is making serious money from her speaking events. Whoops! I mean the Clinton Foundation is making serious money from her speaking events.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31806


« Reply #303 on: August 20, 2014, 09:37:37 AM »

She does not need to be doing the rubber chicken circuit.  The nomination is hers for the asking.  The Dems have absolutely NO ONE to run if she does not.  Biden?  cheesy cheesy cheesy  Warren is not stupid but is not presidential in the slightest.  The outcry for her to run should she hesitate is such a sure thing that it would not surprise me that should would do a bit of a Hamlet should-I-shouln't-I routine to elicit it.

To top it off, it is not like the Rep offerings are looking all that daunting politically.

You think she'd be scared of Cruz?

As for Rand Paul, I remind everyone of the recent and current discussion of her Atlantic interview on the Foreign Affairs thread.   Anyone here bet on Rand Paul to win that exchange?
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6166


« Reply #304 on: August 20, 2014, 10:43:49 AM »

I believe the point of stumping for others is to create loyalties and political indetedness .  I can think of only one scenario where she won't ever need that.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31806


« Reply #305 on: August 20, 2014, 01:13:59 PM »

With no opposition, she has need for neither.

My dad, who was a conservative Democrat businessman (such things did used to exist) was quite unhappy with McGovern in 1972 and wound up being Co-Chairman of Democrats for Nixon for the state of Pennsylvania. (He was on the City Committee for the Dem Party for Philadelphia and active in local politics).  In that context he got to meet with President Nixon (I have a photo of the two shaking hands at some function) and John Connally (former Gov of and Senator for TX, Sec of Treasury under Nixon and perhaps his campaign manager).  My dad said he was shocked at how little they cared about the other Rep candidates for other positions.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6166


« Reply #306 on: August 21, 2014, 12:11:59 AM »

 I love the personal story. It's hard to say what we can learn from Nixon. He was both a fool and a political genius. He won 49 states that year.

Hill doesn't just need loyalty, she is obsessed, with it. Something is amiss here IMHO.

What greater loss did O have than losing the House? And now the Senate.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6166


« Reply #307 on: August 21, 2014, 07:30:56 AM »

POTH tries to explain the unexplainable:

 http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/08/21/us/politics/in-midterm-elections-a-miss-for-obama-could-be-a-hit-for-clinton.html?ref=todayspaper&_r=0&referrer=

But if her election is already a certainty, why lose the Senate.  Those are 6 year terms!
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6166


« Reply #308 on: August 25, 2014, 11:33:03 AM »

Speaking of Cruz' view on foreign policy, what is HRC's view on Ferguson ? ? ?

 http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/potential-2016-candidates-cautious-ferguson-25088527

Not ready for prime time.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31806


« Reply #309 on: August 25, 2014, 11:39:10 AM »

Well, my position is we should wait for the facts.  Given that I am hard put to fault Hillary for keeping her mouth shut.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6166


« Reply #310 on: August 25, 2014, 12:57:03 PM »

Well, my position is we should wait for the facts.  Given that I am hard put to fault Hillary for keeping her mouth shut.

I agree, but we are not in her targeted constituencies.  And I think she didn't say wait and see, she said run and hide.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6166


« Reply #311 on: August 25, 2014, 01:39:24 PM »

Silence to violence is not leadership.  Is the looting of private stores right?  Wrong?  Or check with our focus group guy.  Dearest leader Hillary says the latter.

In contrast, Dr. Carson said something about personal responsibility and can back it up with specific policies.
« Last Edit: August 25, 2014, 01:55:10 PM by DougMacG » Logged
objectivist1
Power User
***
Posts: 613


« Reply #312 on: August 29, 2014, 06:59:09 AM »

Hillary Joins the Ferguson Lynch Mob

Posted By Matthew Vadum On August 29, 2014

Breaking her calculated silence on the issue, Hillary Clinton said young Michael Brown was a victim of police brutality in Ferguson, Mo., the latest in a long line of helpless black victims mowed down by racist cops who are part of America’s corrupt criminal justice system.

It’s just more left-wing sloganeering, staples of which are knee-jerk cop hatred and making excuses for black criminals.

Clinton, wife of the man some used to call America’s “first black president,” has a long history of race-baiting and race-based pandering. She patronized black Americans in her insultingly awful mock African-American accent when she gave her infamous “I don’t feel no ways tired” speech.

The all-but-declared candidate for the 2016 Democratic nomination for president’s media-hyped public epiphany about Ferguson and Michael Brown comes days after 18-year-old Brown was laid to rest following a grotesque political rally led by the abominable racial arsonist Al Sharpton.

The former U.S. secretary of state embraces the politically correct lie that a helpless 6’4″ 292-lbs. Brown was shot in cold blood, arms raised while attempting to surrender to white police officer Darren Wilson, instead of the less convenient truth that Brown was trying to crush the decorated cop’s skull with his bare hands and reaching for the man’s handgun. Left-wingers like Clinton also prefer to ignore that fact that minutes before he attacked Wilson, Brown was captured on video bullying a much smaller East Indian shopkeeper during a robbery, an act that some might consider a hate crime. And the public is still waiting for Brown’s not-yet-released postmortem toxicology report.

The myth that Brown was a gentle giant won’t die. The racial-grievance industry, egged on by President Obama and his fellow radicals, won’t let it go. They need rampant racial tension and cop-hatred to persist in order to motivate their political base if Democrats are to have any hope of maintaining control of the U.S. Senate after the November congressional elections.

Clinton, the Benghazi bungler whose studied nonfeasance on Sept. 11, 2012, got four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens, killed by Muslim terrorists, told a San Francisco audience:

“This summer, the eyes of our country and indeed the world have been focused on one community in the middle of the American heartland, Ferguson, Missouri. Watching the recent funeral for Michael Brown, as a mother, as a human being, my heart just broke for his family, because losing a child is every parent’s greatest fear and an unimaginable loss.

But I also grieve for that community and for many like it across our country. Behind the dramatic, terrible pictures on television, are deep challenges that will be with them and with us long after the cameras move on. This is what happens when the bonds of trust and respect that hold any community together fray. Nobody wants to see our streets look like a war zone, not in America. We are better than that.”

Although black violence is a persistent problem in America, Clinton, as always, has nothing to say about anything that might actually help black communities. They are always victims in the leftist narrative. She and her comrades have done everything in their power for the last half century since the War on Poverty was launched to weaken black families, yet they are always calling for more government programs and social engineering to cure the problems that they themselves have created.

Clinton spoke of the violence in Ferguson as if it had materialized in response to some kind of injustice, ignoring the role of what police called “outside agitators” played in driving the nightly street battles with police. She continued:

“We saw our country’s true character in the community leaders that came out to protest peacefully and worked to restrain violence. The young people who insisted on having their voices heard and in the many decent and respectful law enforcement officers who showed what quality law enforcement looks like. Men and women who serve and protect their communities with courage and professionalism, who inspire trust, rather than fear. We need more of that, because we can do better.”

Apart from her perfunctory praise of law enforcement officials and denunciation of violence, Clinton’s wording implies that Ferguson police officer, Darren Wilson, who shot Brown in self-defense, is not one of the “many decent and respectful law enforcement officers.” According to Clinton’s reasoning, Wilson must be a racist villain who is part of the problem.

Then Clinton began to sound like Barack Obama and other believers in the kooky legal philosophy known as Critical Race Theory, pretending that violent crimes in this country are not disproportionately committed by blacks. She ignores the fact that in some communities blacks receive heightened scrutiny from police because they seem to fit the profile of wanted suspects. If black crime were not prevalent in a specific area, chances are blacks would not receive much attention from police. But logic is not something left-wingers are often blessed with. They prefer to explain social ills by blaming white people.

Clinton continued:

“We can’t ignore the inequities that persist in our justice system that undermine our most deeply held values of fairness and equality. Imagine what we would feel and what we would do if white drivers were three times as likely to be searched by police during a traffic stop as black drivers. Instead of the other way around; if white offenders received prison sentences 10 percent longer than black offenders for the same crimes; if a third of all white men, just look at this room and take one-third, went to prison during their lifetime. Imagine that. That is the reality in the lives of so many of our fellow Americans and so many of the communities in which they live.”

Whether the specific statistics Clinton cites are valid is an arguable point, but what is not arguable is that violent black crime in America is far more prevalent that violent crime committed by whites. The statistics for young black males are particularly horrifying.

As liberal Democrat academic John McWhorter, a black American, wrote last year:

“[Y]oung black men do commit about 50% of the murders in the U.S. … Hardly uncommon are cases such as the two black guys who doused a white 13-year-old with gasoline and lit him on fire, saying “You get what you deserve, white boy’ (Kansas City, Mo.) or 20 black kids who beat up white Matthew Owens on his porch ‘for Trayvon’ (Mobile, Ala.) … t’s just fake to pretend that the association of young black men with violence comes out of thin air. Young black men murder 14 times more than young white men. If the kinds of things I just mentioned were regularly done by whites, it’d be trumpeted as justification for being scared to death of them.”

But Hillary Clinton would never beat up a key political constituency. She’s too busy inflaming black voters, making them feel good about their dysfunctional communities, and reinforcing the worst pathologies of inner cities.

Of course Clinton is completely supportive of Eric Holder’s witch hunt in Ferguson, where Justice Department and FBI officials have been busy gathering evidence to use in what promises to be a high-profile trumped-up civil rights prosecution against Officer Wilson. Clinton said:

“I applaud President Obama for sending the attorney general to Ferguson and demanding a thorough and speedy investigation, to find out what happened, to see that justice is done, to help this community begin healing itself. We should all add our voices to those that have come together in recent days to work for peace, justice and reconciliation in Ferguson, and beyond, to stand against violence and for the values that we cherish. We can do better.

We can work to rebuild the bonds of trust from the ground up. It starts within families and communities. It was 51 years ago today that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr called us to live out true meaning of our creed, to make the dream real for all Americans. That mission is as fiercely urgent today as when he stood on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in the hot August sun all those years ago.”

Except that Clinton, a Saul Alinsky adherent just like Barack Obama, has no interest in rebuilding bonds of trust. Like Obama, she wants to tear down America in order to rebuild it and replace it with a socialist state. Talk of “equality” and “healing” are merely arrows in her rhetorical quiver.

Clinton’s attempt to stoke the flames of racial resentment came as up-and-coming independent investigative journalist Charles C. Johnson announced he has filed a lawsuit after two law enforcement sources told him Michael Brown’s juvenile criminal record is under seal in a St. Louis court. Johnson also wonders why the so-called gentle giant opted to attend the most violent high school in the St. Louis area when he could have easily gone elsewhere.

Meanwhile, black leftists are plotting further unrest to ensure the survival and flourishing of their narrative of cop-hatred.

At a Washington, D.C. branch of Busboys and Poets, owned by celebrated radical leftist Andy Shallal, an NAACP official and other neo-communist radicals like Hugo Chavez-loving actor Danny Glover vowed to escalate their activities.

The town hall-style meeting was titled, “Ferguson and Beyond – The Way Forward: A Town Hall Meeting on Police Killings of Black Men.”

Dr. Ron Daniels, former executive director of the Marxist public interest law firm, the Center for Constitutional Rights, which has been essential in the Left’s long-running drive to dismantle the Global War on Terror, seemed to sum up the feelings of participants.

“We need to get ungovernable,” Daniels said. “We’ve been too tame.”

Hillary Clinton, who is determined to carry on Barack Obama’s agenda of racial antagonism, wholeheartedly agrees.
Logged

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6166


« Reply #313 on: September 10, 2014, 01:13:38 PM »

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/09/09/hillary-clintons-approval-numbers-return-to-earth-wsjnbc-poll/
Hillary Clinton’s Approval Numbers Return to Earth — WSJ/NBC Poll

Hillary;s approval/disapproval numbers have slid from +37 and +31 down to +2, 43 approve, 41 disapprove.
(Those will slide further as we re-acquaint ourselves with her character, personality and record.)

Inevitable that she will run, win the nomination, and win the general election?  I don't think so.   )
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4212


« Reply #314 on: September 11, 2014, 08:54:14 AM »

This is really a Clinton story.   The Clintonites are turning the screws to BamBam to clear the stage for their new exalted chosen one:  Hillary.
********NYT Baghdad Bureau Chief: Obama 'Ignored' Iraq, Is 'Ignorant of Reality'
 
by Jordan Schachtel  10 Sep 2014 430  post a comment 


Tim Arango, Baghdad Bureau Chief of the New York Times, lit up President Obama’s Middle East policies in a recent “Ask Me Anything” Q & A session with users of the online forum Reddit.

One user asked, “How do you rate the Obama administration’s actions in Iraq? What did they do right? What did they get wrong?

The Baghdad Bureau Chief responded by bluntly stating that the Obama administration since 2011 has “basically ignored the country [Iraq].”

He continued, “when [US] officials spoke about what was happening there they were often ignorant of the reality.”

The NYT correspondent said that Obama officials stubbornly refused to see the realities on the ground, “because it conflicted with their narrative.”

He then took a jab at Deputy National Security Advisor Tony Blinken, known as one of the President’s trusted advisers on foreign policy.

“In 2012, as violence was escalating I wrote a story, citing UN statistics, that showed how civilian deaths from attacks were rising,” Arango added. “Tony Blinken, who was then Biden’s national security guy and a top Iraq official, pushed back, even wrote a letter to the editor, saying that violence was near historic lows. That was not true.”

Blinken is now Deputy National Security Advisor to President Obama. After obtaining his JD Columbia Law School, he went straight into Democratic politics -- fundraising for the presidential campaign of Michael Dukakis. Blinken then joined the Clinton administration under the assistant Secretary of State for European and Canadian affairs. In 2008, he worked on Joe Biden’s failed campaign for President but was then appointed by President Obama to be his Deputy National Security Advisor in January of 2013.

VP Biden has previously referred to Blinken as his “go-to-guy” on Iraq -- known for helping to facilitate the US withdrawal from Baghdad -- a plan marred by the administration's failure to secure a status-of-forces agreement.

Even when the Islamic State was marching across Iraq unchecked, Obama officials ignored the jihadi group’s rise because it wasn’t politically expedient to tackle such issues, according to the NYT journalist.

Arango concluded: “Even after falluja fell to ISIS at the end of last year, the administration would push back on stories about Maliki’s sectarian tendencies saying they didn’t see it that way. So there was a concerted effort by the administration not to acknowledge the obvious until it became apparent -- with the fall of Mosul -- that Iraq was collapsing.”

Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4212


« Reply #315 on: September 11, 2014, 09:04:22 AM »

Doug writes:

"Inevitable that she will run, win the nomination, and win the general election?  I don't think so.   )"

I hope your right.   But they have such a mafia like mob behind them and so many careers, opportunities, money at stake for so many who have influence, money and power and want more of the same that t she is a formidable force even though flawed when she tries to think and speak unprepared as well as everything else we know about here.


Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6166


« Reply #316 on: September 11, 2014, 11:50:16 AM »

This is really a Clinton story.   The Clintonites are turning the screws to BamBam to clear the stage for their new exalted chosen one:  Hillary.
********NYT Baghdad Bureau Chief: Obama 'Ignored' Iraq, Is 'Ignorant of Reality'   ...

That's right.  They want her (or someone) to represent all of the hope and change, but without the incompetence and glibness.  Liberalism is not the problem,they mistakenly argue, it is the flawed messenger.  Obama kept a tee time 5 minutes after his 5 minutes of vacation interrupting outrage over a beheading video.  Hillary traveled some record number of miles willing to accomplish nothing just to prove her unending commitment to work endlessly.

If not ignorance or inexperience, Hllary has her own problems.  She was for, against, and now for the Iraq war?  Her healthcare passage and rollout would have been different.  Really?  Her competence and readiness for the 3am phone call was on display during the warnings prior, the 13 hours during, and the aftermath cover-up of the Benghazi attacks?  Not so.

She needs 3 things to win and succeed.  The first two are mutually exclusive and the third is impossible:

1.  A nearly complete break with the Obama administration, calling him out on his errors and failures.
2.  The full backing and support of the Obama political machine that won two presidential elections.
3.  To be a candidate with a gift for politics and communication on a par with Bill Clinton, Obama and Reagan.

she has done all the ground work to be ready to launch a campaign.  Taking the Sec State job, quitting after one term, writing the book, working the book tour, and obviously her previous efforts getting elected and serving in the Senate.   She has test marketed her product and I say it failed.  Next should be to take her message nationwide in support of Dem candidates across the country.  To be the de facto national leader of her party as Obama implodes.  We are well into Sept with a month and a half to go and, for whatever reasons, she has not done that.

Very shortly after the midterms she needs to announce her decision one way or the other.  She can bring her flawed product to market and finish her career very likely as a two time loser.  Or as many smart people do, exit the scene while still perceived to be on top.  If she chooses the latter, she better do it soon; her polling trend looks like that is the last right side up one already happened. 

Once she announces she is out, her polling numbers and the value of her opinion and endorsements will go up.  Look at her husband's numbers.  The Dem party will be forced to scramble, same as the Republicans are doing now.  The next year will be interesting.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31806


« Reply #317 on: September 11, 2014, 07:32:42 PM »

Note that in his interview with Chris Wallace, Romney laid the black hole that Libya has become at her feet-- and correctly so.  While Baraq went on vacation to Brazil, Hillary, Susan Powers, and Samantha Wuzhername crafted the "Lead from behind strategy" for Libya.  Presumably the  presumed gun running operation in Benghazi supplying Syrian rebels was her idea too.  Now Libya is an anarchic wasteland of Islamo-fascism-- just what we went to Afpakia to prevent.

Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6166


« Reply #318 on: September 12, 2014, 08:45:38 AM »

Note that in his interview with Chris Wallace, Romney laid the black hole that Libya has become at her feet-- and correctly so.  While Baraq went on vacation to Brazil, Hillary, Susan Powers, and Samantha Wuzhername crafted the "Lead from behind strategy" for Libya.  Presumably the  presumed gun running operation in Benghazi supplying Syrian rebels was her idea too.  Now Libya is an anarchic wasteland of Islamo-fascism-- just what we went to Afpakia to prevent.

"Presumably the  presumed gun running operation in Benghazi supplying Syrian rebels was her idea too."

The gun running out of Bengazi doesn't seem to be backed up with evidence, at least yet, so we still have no idea what the mission was.  The rest of that statement rings 100% true without the missing piece.

"Hillary, Susan Powers, and Samantha Wuzhername"  - Susan Rice and Cass Sunstein's wife, Samantha Power, lol.  Oddly, President Obama opposed his own policy in Libya, a difficult point to argue after the fact.  Ask Michelle about her entourage booking 60 rooms at a Spanish villa during the economic collapse and flying the family dog on a separate jet to Nantucket, he doesn't know how to stand up to strong women.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6166


« Reply #319 on: September 15, 2014, 10:57:07 PM »

The discussion on the Benghazi thread is worth noting here.
http://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=2362.msg83741#msg83741
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hillary is not popular anymore
http://hotair.com/archives/2014/09/10/hillary-isnt-popular-anymore-and-the-campaign-hasnt-even-begun/
"a staggering decline in favorability"

Worse yet her strong approval / disapproval is now in negative territory.

The story ends with a good point, that the Republican nominee is the one who can still improve his/her standing, still make a good first impression.  Hillary cannot.

Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6166


« Reply #320 on: September 16, 2014, 10:15:12 AM »

Liberal journalist John Dickerson from Slate covers the trip:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/09/hillary_clinton_visits_iowa_former_secretary_of_state_attended_the_tom_harkin.html

One observer: based on what he’d heard, that she was running for president. “It's obvious she is. I mean, unless you're really, really dumb.”

More correctly she is "obviously" testing the waters, failing, and now we will see if SHE is "really, really dumb”.    wink

"The conventional complaint among Democratic campaign veterans and strategists who are not in the Clinton camp is that she has not developed a message and a rationale for her candidacy. She’s running on the fact that it’s her turn. Inevitability is deadly for candidates."
(Dickerson goes on, unpersuasively, to disagree with that view.)

I asked a man passing by what he thought of the afternoon. “She’s no Bill,” he said.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no doubt in my mind that she hates campaigning, hates being questioned, and above all, hates losing.  Dickerson argues she is working to fix her problems.  But they can't all be fixed.  The only way she wins is in a hold-your-nose election where everybody hates all of the candidates.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6166


« Reply #321 on: September 16, 2014, 10:19:41 AM »

Loaded with links and extremely well documented.  These are not small issues that will go away easily. 

http://conservativeamerican.org/top-50-hillary-clinton-benghazi-lies/
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4212


« Reply #322 on: September 16, 2014, 10:59:38 AM »

 cry

Doug, 

That Hillary Clinton is a serial liar and outright criminal is clear.

Sadly, many people just don't care or will look the other way. 

We can minimize her with negative stuff like this (and we should continue to press on about it) but this will not defeat her. 

75% of people in this country are reportedly living from pay check to pay check.  Until Republicans can come up with policies and messages that can resonate to some of these 75% Republicans will always struggle in MHO.
Once again the Clintons show they "get it":.   How to reach the masses and to re-ignite the American Dream without demonizing the rich. 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2756751/Hillary-spent-summer-Hamptons-crafting-presidential-message-based-job-creation-friends-say.html

Republicans need to do the same thing but without more government, more regulations, more taxes, and more welfare.  I am not sure if they will or even can.   They just don't seem to be as clever.  And some are clearly corrupt.   

See how the Clintons can continue to stay in the game no matter how vile they are?  They know how to message and sometimes come up with the policies that resonates with many people.

The Republicans can't (or won't). angry cry
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4212


« Reply #323 on: September 19, 2014, 07:07:21 AM »

It takes a village - the state, the employer and everyone other than the mother and father to raise a child.   What single mother is going to hear this and think of course she should get paid time off to pick up her child in minus 30 degree weather?

**********Hillary Clinton Blames Republicans for 'Egregious' Policies Toward Women
ABC News By Liz Kreutz

During a panel at the Center for American Progress today, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's message was clear: Equal pay for women, access to affordable, quality childcare, paid sick leave, and the full participation by women in the U.S. labor force will lead to a stronger economy (even a 10% increase in the GDP, she argued).

But Clinton also made clear she believes politicians on "the other side of the aisle" are preventing any such policy changes from passing through.

"Congress increasingly, despite the best efforts of my friends and others, is living in an evidence-free zone where what the reality is in the lives of Americans is so far from the minds of too many who don't place the highest priority on … family-centered economics," Clinton said.

"We could all tell stories of people we know who had really egregiously been impacted by the failure of our political leadership on the other side of the aisle to recognize the importance of making sure that people who work hard, play by the rules, have a chance to get into the middle class and certainly a chance to stay in the middle class," she added.

I'm Baa-aack! Clintons Give Hillary's 2016 Efforts An Unofficial Start in Iowa

Everything You Need to Know About the Iowa Steak Fry

In Las Vegas, Hillary Clinton Pushes For Energy Efficient Casinos

Today's panel in Washington, D.C., which also included Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., and Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., focused on women's economic security and finding solutions to what Gillibrand dubbed as "Mad Men" era policies that she believes still exists in the United States today.

One featured guest, a student and single mother from Chicago, described how she was laid off from her job at Whole Foods after she took a day off to pick up her son after his school cancelled classes in -30 degree weather.

Gillibrand said that lack of paid leave makes her "the angriest," arguing that even Pakistan and Afghanistan have more paid leave than the United States. She said stories like this Chicago mother's were "outrageous."

The overall message among all the panelists was the notion that "the number one" thing the U.S. could do to make its economy stronger would be to tap into the full potential of women in the workplace. Without this support, Gillibrand argued, "we are providing an artificial drag on the economy."

Clinton, however, was the most vocal of the women to slam Republicans for their resistance to change.

"I think the other side will hang on for all they're worth - Nancy [Pelosi] knows that better than anybody. But I think if voters, if citizens speak up for themselves, for their families and their futures, we will see the kind of changes we're all advocating for," Clinton said to audience applause.

While the panelists engaged in an amiable conversation about an issue they are all passionate about, the end took a bit of a competitive turn.

Pelosi teasingly called out Clinton (former Senator of New York) for "bragging" that New York had the first women's rights conventions at Seneca Falls in 1848. Pelosi reminded everyone that her state - California - had just celebrated its 10 th anniversary with paid leave.

DeLauro then chimed in to defend her state too. "I just don't want to pre-empt New York or California, but quite frankly Connecticut was the first state to have paid sick leave and to increase its minimum wage," she quipped.

Clinton simmered down the group: "Competition is good on this one!" Clinton yelled out, with a smile.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6166


« Reply #324 on: September 19, 2014, 10:12:42 AM »

I don't follow how they made the leap from a business not firing her for caring for her son to having the government force the business to pay her whether she comes to work or not.  Since they are arguing policy with anecdotal stories, Whole Foods is already under a squeeze right now with competition coming at them from all sides.  Paying the people who don't work already took down the airline and automaking industries.  Let's take down your local store next and you can drive further with no car to a Soviet style supply outlet with its empty shelves.

What about the consumer?  There are women in that role too.  They worked hard all day but can't buy fresh fruits and vegetables for their little ones because their preferred store is no longer has one checkout lane open with the workers out on paid leave.  Unintended consequences of liberal activist policies are not that hard to imagine.  What we can't see are all the business competing for workers that never started because the all rules are just too complicated, costly and constraining.

Showing a little compassion is good for a business in the eyes of their customers, community and in their competition for good workers.  Having the rules for those businesses all same-sized and set in Washington takes away competitive differences and advantages, increases the costs, cuts out competition, worsens the service and raises the prices.  That is a women's issue too.

Women are faring TERRIBLY in the Obama era economy.  Thom Tillis, Sen candidate in NC, was just making that point, but no one is shouting it nationwide from the rooftops.

The Clinton administration (of the 90s) started a lot of this with the big push for "family leave".  They said it was limited to larger companies and it was unpaid leave.  How can we be against that?  Well, for one thing it is the federal government setting local, private establish rules, and secondly we know that mandated unpaid leave leads to mandated paid leave, which is one more way of paying people to not work.

Paid leave is what Adrian Peterson is receiving, by union rules and government subsidy from our far-left Governor.  $700,000 a week for beating up children with no wear and tear on your knees is not bad pay, and with the money committed to Peterson, the team can leave that position vacant, lose games, money and viewership.  What could possibly go wrong with feminist and activists running our formerly private sector.

How about if we leave welfare programs to the government, and allow businesses employ workers in privately negotiated agreements between consenting adults.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4212


« Reply #325 on: September 19, 2014, 11:36:40 AM »

Doug,

I couldn't agree with you more. 

We will have to listen to 2 more years of the Hillary propaganda.  Hopefully not 10.

OTOH there are always more ready to pick up where she leaves off.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6166


« Reply #326 on: September 19, 2014, 03:26:10 PM »

"...there are always more ready to pick up where she leaves off."

Yes.  It is so easy to pick on the personal flaws of Pres. Obama or Hillary Clinton, but the more lasting hit is to expose the flaws and fallacies of that governing philosophy to everyone.

Obamacare (or HillaryCare) did not fail because of who was President or because of website or a bad roll-out.  It failed because it is a bad idea.  The economy isn't stalled because Obama plays golf.  It is stalled because that is the best case, economic effect of all these policies.  Hillary is dishonest, in bed with wall street and has no management skills, but the reason I don't want her to be President is because she would lead us further in the wrong direction.

If we succeed in knocking HRC out of her political captain's chair, some clone with better communication skills and less baggage will emerge with an even better sounding version of the same old liberalism/socialism - like what happened in 2008.

We probably would be better off pulling for her to win the nomination, and then lose.

But I agree with Bigdog who once mentioned Jim Webb, or some other moderate Democrat.  America would be better off if both parties looked for candidates with some common sense and required a high level of integrity in their leaders.  It would be nice if the country didn't completely fall off the deep end every time Republicans put up a losing candidate.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6166


« Reply #327 on: September 22, 2014, 10:27:56 AM »





Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31806


« Reply #328 on: September 24, 2014, 10:03:35 AM »

Some over the top content, but some real goodies too.  This could turn into a really good resource:

http://thehillarydaily.com/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31806


« Reply #329 on: September 24, 2014, 02:31:11 PM »

second post of day

http://www.tpnn.com/2014/09/22/new-written-correspondence-revealed-between-hillary-clinton-and-america-hating-marxist-saul-alinsky/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31806


« Reply #330 on: September 28, 2014, 11:35:49 AM »



Hillary Clinton is all but running for president, boasting about her reset diplomacy while secretary of state during Obama’s first term. But it is hard to find a single example of inspired diplomacy during her tenure. Canceling missile-defense cooperation with the Czechs and Poles while resetting relations with Vladimir Putin was not wise. Nor was leading from behind in Libya (“We came, we saw, and he died”). Nor was her emphasis on climate change as a global threat or her pressure on Israel to grant concessions supposedly to ensure Middle East peace. Nor was welcoming the election of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Nor was ignoring requests for beefed-up security at the consulate in Benghazi. Nor was claiming that the deaths of the four Americans in Benghazi were due to a spontaneous riot over a video (“What difference at this point does it make?”). Nor was pulling all troops out of Iraq. Nor was lifting the embargos and trade sanctions against Iran. Nor was much of anything except an impressive near million miles of traveling while secretary, an astonishing feat for someone in her sixties and often in poor health.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4212


« Reply #331 on: October 04, 2014, 02:12:23 PM »

Panetta:  he and the Hill were right!!!

I am not sure what he means by arming Syrian rebels.  Aren't many of them now ISIS?   Aren't many of them now using our weapons from Iraq. 

From the guy touted as having no political "axe to grind" though if you ask me he is clearly setting up Hillary to look courageous and insightful while lobbying for a job with her after she wins 2016 this is so self serving. 

The building up of Hillary as a geopolitical stalwart continues.  At the same time using her grandparent hood to woo the babes hearts. 

********Leon Panetta: Obama Ignored Panetta and Clinton's Advice
 
Friday, 03 Oct 2014 09:14 AM

By Melissa Clyne

President Barack Obama regularly ignored the advice of former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and instead made foreign policy decisions based on the opinions of his insular White House staff, Panetta writes in his new book "Worthy Choices," scheduled for release on Oct. 7, according to The Daily Beast reports.

 Despite warning Syria that the use of chemical weapons would constitute a "red line," Obama did nothing when the Syrian military killed some 1,400 with them. Panetta writes that the president had initially decided to strike, but "abruptly reversed himself — without consulting his national-security Cabinet members."

 "The result, I felt, was a blow to American credibility," Panetta said. "When the president as commander in chief draws a red line, it is critical that act if the line is crossed. The power of the United States rests on its word. [Syrian President Bashar] Assad's action clearly defied President Obama's warning; by failing to respond, it sent the wrong message to the world."

 The president also overruled Panetta and Clinton and when deciding not to arm the Syrian rebels in 2012, resulting in the current mess and emboldening the Islamic State (ISIS), according to Panetta. The U.S. waited too long to get involved in Syria and left Iraq too soon,  said Panetta who appeared last month on CBS News "60 Minutes."

"Hesitation and half steps have consequences as well — and those remain to be determined," he writes in his book.

 Panetta and those who agreed with him "viewed the White House as so eager to rid itself of Iraq that it was willing to withdraw rather than lock in arrangements that would preserve our influence and interests," he wrote.

 Panetta's fears have been realized about what might happen in Iraq without the stability of residual U.S. forces.

 "It was clear to me — and many others — that withdrawing all our forces would endanger the fragile stability then barely holding Iraq together" he writes. "My fear, as I voiced to the President and others, was that if the country split apart or slid back into the violence that we'd seen in the years immediately following the U.S. invasion, it could become a new haven for terrorists to plot attacks against the U.S. Iraq's stability was not only in Iraq's interest but also in ours. I privately and publicly advocated for a residual force that could provide training and security for Iraq's military."

 Speaking publicly was a no-no in the Obama White House.

 Panetta says he was "chastised" if he dealt directly with Congress or the media without prior White House approval.

 Another conflict arose during the 2012 discussions of the swap of kidnapped Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl for five members of the Taliban held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, according to Panetta. Obama and his inner circle ignored the recommendation of Panetta, Clinton, and others on the national security team that it was a bad idea.

 "I opposed the swap for several reasons," he wrote. "First, I did not believe the Taliban were sincere in their efforts to reconcile with the Afghan government; they were, after all, attacking our forces on the field of battle. Second, I did not believe it was fair to trade five for one," Panetta wrote. "Secretary Clinton and I — and others — did not think we could proceed, and as much as we wanted to bring Sergeant Bergdahl home and reunite him with his family, the deal evaporated."

 While that deal fell through, another was struck this year that still included a five-for-one exchange. Panetta writes that U.S. law "had to be changed to weaken the assurances given by the Qatari government that the Taliban would be kept out of the fight going forward," according to The Daily Beast.

 "The bigger issue is: Is this a good deal for the security interests of the United States? That depends entirely on the assurance that we received and whether in fact these five very bad men are prevented from returning to the fight," Panetta wrote.

 He remains concerned that Iraq — which "U.S. forces had fought and died to secure" — will become al-Qaida's next safe haven.

 "That is exactly what it had in Afghanistan pre-9/11," he wrote. "After all we have done to decimate al-Qaida's senior leadership and its core, those efforts will be for naught if we allow it to rebuild a base of operations in the Middle East."

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31806


« Reply #332 on: October 05, 2014, 09:26:31 AM »

"From the guy touted as having no political "axe to grind" though if you ask me he is clearly setting up Hillary to look courageous and insightful while lobbying for a job with her after she wins 2016 this is so self serving." 

EXACTLY so!!!

I've seen the two of them interviewed together-- quite the mutual admiration society.

Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6166


« Reply #333 on: October 05, 2014, 06:10:09 PM »

Hillary's fan club is gearing up with this hard hitting piece in the MSM: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/gail-sheehy-hillary-hamlet-moment-article-1.1962563

"Hillary has waited for more than 50 years to make her dream come true. As a little girl, she spent hours dancing in the sun and, as she wrote from Wellesley College to a former high school classmate, she imagined the sunlight was intended for her — beamed down by God, with heavenly movie cameras watching my every move.”

Still they don't know if she is running:

"will she or won’t she? Should she or shouldn’t she?"

I am more than a little nervous about my bet with ccp.  There is no doubt she is running trial balloons about running.  And there is no doubt those trial balloons are failing.  On the other hand, being liberal and being delusional go hand in hand.  And there is by definition no one in her upper, inner circle who is not a yes ma'am.  What we know for certain is the timing, that her party needs to know URGENTLY after the mid-term elections if she is NOT running.  If she runs, (as Dick Morris puts it) that puts her in the semi-finals, and she has a one in four chance of winning.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31806


« Reply #334 on: October 05, 2014, 09:17:51 PM »

There is NO other Democrat who can run.  She WANTS to run.  She WILL run.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6166


« Reply #335 on: October 06, 2014, 11:09:46 AM »

"There is NO other Democrat who can run."

First, that's not her problem.  )    But if so, then there is no ready made running mate, ready to step in on a moments notice.  

You may mean - no one who can run without the machine behind them, but if she doesn't run, the Clintons will still most certainly be involved with power brokering, fundraising, etc.  Maybe it is irrelevant, but who is his Obama's hand picked successor?  It wouldn't honestly be Hillary or Biden.  Maybe they can run Valerie Jarrett for a third term.

"She WANTS to run."

I think you mean she wants her name in the record books as first woman President and wants some of the parts of being President.  But she doesn't like campaigning.  She doesn't like dealing with little people.  She can't work a room like the masters of politics do.  She hates criticism and hates being questioned.  I'm sure she hates the unflattering pictures of her running posted around the internet, and is starting to see those every day in the mirror - to put it as nicely as I can.  

"She WILL run."

Maybe so, but there are some very real, personal and political issues that will guide that.  It is a 10 year commitment unless you start thinking one term.  It's physical and it's on your feet.  If it was a one term plan then we are back to the lightweight running mate issue.  She will be of record age, and in medium health and condition, best case.  She has no magical connection with young people, or blacks, or gays, or Hispanics, or males of any kind.  Clintons are the masters of polling.  She still holds the big lead but they see the trend line downward throughout the trial balloon period and it must be troubling.  The more she runs, the less popular she gets.  The only question is whether she is smart and objective enough to see that.  (Most think she isn't.)

Being President is a cut in pay and a curtailment of her freedoms.  Losing twice, and losing ugly isn't the best way to start off in retirement, nor to build the Foundation.  Can't she do more for the women of the world there, make the Grandmother excuse, and never face scrutiny again?

They survived more scandals than anyone in history, but if she is really so confident, in private, that they will sail through every mis-step and scandal without damage, including Bill's, why throw the lamps around the living quarters?

Who would want to follow Obama running or serving on the left?  The left is already turning on him.  Thye media is turning.  What Dem wants to be President with a Republican House and Senate, preside over budget fights, healthcare cutbacks and debt ceiling hike fights?  Her agenda would be meaningless with a Republican congress.  She would have a divided country at best, with little room for triangulation.  The mid-term wave, if it happens, will shape events.  If Republicans can hit 53 Senators, the next Dem is in for a struggle.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4212


« Reply #336 on: October 06, 2014, 09:27:48 PM »

Doug wrote, "I am more than a little nervous about my bet with ccp."

Doug I wish I am wrong.  There is no question she is running and will run.  Read this shit spewing from her phony mouth.  Her grandchild should grow up and do anything a boy can.  The same opportunity.  The same wages etc etc etc.    Sickening.  don't underestimate how this will make many of the babes swoon.  Their female hormones will be swirling with pride and energy to vote for the FIRST GIRL.  Not all but many.  Many of the young ones.  Nearly all the single mothers.  Probably most if not nearly all of the minority babes - Latino,  Black and definitely the Asian ones.   The MSM will be googoo freakin gagga.  The CNN babes will be blushing from here to the moon.  Huffington Post will be wall to wall girly power.  The entire Crat machine will rally behind her.  The lib Jewish crowd from Hollywood to the Big Bankers to the billionaires Soros Fuckerberg and the more will be out in force along with  Chucky Schumer to Debbie the crazy Schultz to the other crazy Schultz on MSLSD.  The Wall street crowd will be funding the Clinton Foundation till their coffiers overflow with gold, silver, and stock options pennies on the dollar the rest of us pay, as will Chelsea have million dollar board room offers.   The mobster army from McAullife to Panetta, to Carville  to hundreds others will be lining the halls showered gifts of support on the Clintons while slipping *remember me* notes into the Hill's pants suits pockets.

Read this.  Caution this is so obscene I would rate this triple XXX in its shameless and raw vulgarity:
 

*********Hillary Clinton has "grandmother glow" after Charlotte's birth
 As she weighs another bid for the White House, Hillary Rodham Clinton said Thursday she has a "grandmother glow" that's fueling her campaign for female empowerment and gender equality around the world.

Speaking to a national convention of female real estate professionals, the former secretary of state and potential 2016 Democratic presidential contender called on business and political leaders to close the gap in wages and leadership positions between men and women.

Will new grandma Hillary Clinton run for president in 2016?

A woman in the audience complimented Clinton, telling her she looked "beautiful," and Clinton responded, "I think it is a grandmother glow."

Clinton's first grandchild, Charlotte, was born to her daughter Chelsea and son-in law Marc Mezvinsky last Friday.

During her speech, Clinton said she wanted all women to grow up in a world of "full participation and shared prosperity."

"I think my granddaughter has just as much God-given potential as a boy who was born in that hospital on the same day," she said. "I just believe that. That's the way I was raised."

Some have speculated that Clinton's granddaughter might make her more likely to launch a presidential bid. "Let's be serious. She is running for president," said Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus Sunday on CBS News' "Face the Nation." "She does not want to be explaining to 10-year-old Charlotte that grandma could have been president but decided to stay home and change diapers."

Drawing heavily on her own professional and personal experiences - including several references to her bruising presidential campaign in 2008 - Clinton said in her speech on Thursday that women face double standards in business and politics and that governments should work to enact policies that break down barriers to equal opportunity. The crowd offered several standing ovations in response.

"These ceilings I'm describing don't just keep down women, they hold back entire economies and countries," she said, "because no country can truly thrive by denying the contributions of half of its people."

It's a familiar message for Clinton, who's repeatedly hit those themes as she travels the campaign trail to help Democrats in the midterm elections. On Thursday, she said the U.S. should eliminate what she called the "motherhood penalty" by requiring paid leave for new mothers. The measure, she said, would pave the way for more women to participate in the workforce.
 
"Laws matter," Clinton said. "I believe 100 percent in women being able to make responsible choices, but it's hardly a choice if you're working at a low-wage job, you get no leave and you can't even afford to bond with your baby because you have to get back to work."

Though Clinton's 2008 presidential bid downplayed talk of gender politics, many expect Clinton to lean more heavily on a message of women's empowerment if she runs again in 2016. She's frequently invoked former first lady Eleanor Roosevelt's quip that women in public life need to have "skin as thick as the hide of a rhinoceros" in public appearances, and she's dwelt at length on the double standards faced by men and women in the professional world.

Clinton was also in South Florida to promote her book about her tenure as the nation's top diplomat and to help Democrat Charlie Crist raise money for his gubernatorial campaign. Crist, a former Republican governor, is locked in a tight race with Repubican Gov. Rick Scott, who has outspent the Democratic nominee by a 2-1 margin in television advertising. The two are currently neck and neck in public polling - Scott was up 46 to 44 percent in a Quinnipiac poll released in September, but other recent surveys have shown the Democrat ahead.

Clinton has said she expects to make a decision on a White House bid by the beginning of next year. The appearances help increase her exposure to voters in the nation's largest swing-voting state and allow her to reconnect with some of the same big-money donors who supported her and her husband's past political campaigns.

Polls have shown Clinton dominating the Democratic primary if she decides to run. They've also shown her in a competitive position against many of her prospective Republican challengers.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31806


« Reply #337 on: October 09, 2014, 02:05:06 PM »

http://www.dickmorris.com/isis-war-endangers-hillary-candidacy-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/?utm_source=dmreports&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31806


« Reply #338 on: October 09, 2014, 09:19:21 PM »

Panetta's Book Is A Contract Hit On Obama By Hillary
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on DickMorris.com on October 9, 2014
Leon Panetta, Bill Clinton's former Chief of Staff who was appointed with Hillary's blessing, has written a book with one clear motive: To bolster Hillary's narrative that the failures of the foreign policy that she designed were simply not her fault.

Everything was Obama's fault, not Hillary's and, of course, not Panetta's.

In the former Secretary of State's book Hard Choices, she criticized Obama's lack of strategic vision saying "not doing stupid stuff" is not an overarching foreign policy organizing principle.

Now Panetta echoes this criticism in his own book, Worthy Fights, describing a president who "avoids the battle, complains and misses opportunities."  He accuses Obama of "coordinating negotiations" to allow our troops to stay in Iraq to guard against an ISIS resurgence without "really leading them."
 
According to Panetta, the White House "seemed content to endorse an agreement if State and Defense could reach one" to keep our troops in Iraq, But, Panetta points out that without Obama's personal involvement, it became impossible to convince Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki to reverse his position and agree to let a garrison of American troops remain.  And Obama did not make the effort to persuade him.
Panetta amplifies the impact of the failure to leave troops there saying  "To this day, I believe that a small U.S. troop presence in Iraq could have effectively advised the Iraqi military on how to deal with al Qaeda's resurgence and the sectarian violence that has engulfed the country."

He said Obama had "kind of lost his way" and famously noted that the president too often "relies on the logic of a law professor rather than the passion of a leader."
   
Panetta's comments come as Hillary wrestles with a central threat to her candidacy.  She was Secretary of State for four years yet the foreign policy crafted then has proven to be an unprecedented failure.  Everything that she worked on has blown up in our face.  The Arab Spring has become a nightmare. 

We are on the verge of signing a phony deal with Iran that will let them enrich uranium far into the future so they can make a bomb anytime they want.

The reset button with Russia is a joke and we have made zero progress on human rights or fair trade with China.
   
Hillary realizes that this is not a record on which to predicate a presidential campaign.  So if the foreign policy she helped to craft is a fiasco, she has to blame someone else -- the president.
     
Panetta stepped into help frame the issue.  A Clintonista above all, he legitimized Hillary's efforts to distance herself from the president on foreign policy without having to attack him herself.  Now the negative points for disloyalty will accrue to Panetta not to Hillary.
     
The former defense secretary underscores the extent to which Obama's failure to act against Syria when it crossed the "red line" he had drawn against the use of chemical weapons.  He said "It was damaging."  Obama "sent a mixed message, not only to the Syrians, but to the world. And that is something you do not want to establish in the world: an issue with regard to the credibility of the United States to stand by what we say we're gonna do."

As our involvement in Iraq and Syria escalates into a full blown war -- as it must now that our airstrikes are failing to do the job -- the blame game will grow with it.  Panetta's comments are an attempt to swat the blame away from Hillary Clinton.

He will get his reward. Just wait.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4212


« Reply #339 on: October 10, 2014, 07:15:34 AM »

Hi Crafty.  Morris  points out pretty much what we said here a few days ago.

Certainly he knows the Clintons.

This is why I put Panetta into the "snake" category.   And we must never forget this guy does not believe in the United States as a sovereign country.  He is for one world government in his heart.  The rest is all stage play.

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31806


« Reply #340 on: October 23, 2014, 07:02:45 PM »

An Affair to Remember
As Hillary gears up to run, look for attempts to rewrite 1990s history.
Hillary and Bill Clinton in New York in 1998 ENLARGE
Hillary and Bill Clinton in New York in 1998 Getty Images
Oct. 22, 2014 7:00 p.m. ET
630 COMMENTS

As Hillary and Bill Clinton prepare for another White House ramble, the country is fated to endure more than a few 1990s flashbacks, often including attempts to whitewash the real history. The latest character to re-emerge is Monica Lewinsky, the former intern who is doffing her beret to reinvent herself as an anti-cyberbullying activist.

In a speech this week at a Forbes magazine conference that went viral on the Web, Ms. Lewinsky describes herself as a “survivor” of online abuse—she became “the creature from the media lagoon.” As the worst abusers, she cited Matt Drudge and the New York Post, which gave Ms. Lewinsky a term of tabloid endearment as “the portly pepperpot.” Another culprit was “a politically motivated independent prosecutor,” or Ken Starr.

The problem is that Ms. Lewinsky was actually the victim of the Clinton lagoon, as White House operatives tried to destroy her reputation when the scandal broke. The real bullies weren’t online but in the West Wing.

On Jan. 21, 1998, Mr. Clinton told his aide Sidney Blumenthal that Ms. Lewinsky “came on to me and made a sexual demand on me,” according to Mr. Blumenthal’s deposition to Mr. Starr. Mr. Clinton added that he “rebuffed her” and then she “threatened him. She said that she would tell people they’d had an affair, that she was known as the stalker among her peers, and that she hated it and if she had an affair or said she had an affair then she wouldn’t be the stalker any more.”

Mr. Blumenthal then repeated this tale to anyone in the press corps who would listen, and the “stalker” smear soon made it into multiple media reports under the authority of “a White House source.” Mrs. Clinton for her part described Ms. Lewinsky as “a narcissistic loony toon,” as the first lady’s friend Diane Blair recounted in the personal papers archive opened in 2010 by the University of Arkansas library.

Meanwhile, Mr. Clinton fanned out across the talk shows to deny that he had any romantic or otherwise improper relationship, which he continued to insist until he was forced to admit his lies by the blue DNA dress. Then the Clintons flipped to attacking the respected jurist Mr. Starr as a rabid partisan. Mr. Clinton was impeached for obstruction of justice and lying under oath, and he later was stripped of his law license.

We correct the record not least to point out that the Clintons weren’t above falsely smearing a young woman not much older than their daughter as an oversexed psycho blackmailer. Since Ms. Lewinsky brought it up, we also wonder what the modern feminists applauding her address think about men in positions of power publicly shaming a female subordinate without her consent.

But the story is especially instructive for what it reveals about the Clinton family mores of saying or doing whatever it takes to win. Mr. Blumenthal and the rest of the Clinton menagerie are rested and ready for another run at political power. As the 2016 election nears, Americans should be prepared for more attempts to rewrite 1990s history.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31806


« Reply #341 on: October 27, 2014, 01:48:58 PM »



link.theblaze.com/52d10b9f0f365bf272f1d1cd1xl73.9klm/VE0NaMPoaWc60owGA336f

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/10/25/hillary-clinton-dont-let-anybody-tell-you-that-its-corporations-and-businesses-that-create-jobs/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=Firewire&utm_campaign=Firewire%20-%2010-26-14%20FINAL
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6166


« Reply #342 on: October 28, 2014, 10:42:10 AM »



What is the cartoon bubble over Hillary saying right now?  'Elizabeth Warren said it.  Obama said it.  No problem.  So I said it and the shit hits the fan!  What's up with that?!'

Now she says entrepreneurs do create jobs.  [No they don't - if you tax them and regulate them to death.]

The twitter world is abuzz at the "gaffe" and "correction" from Hillary Clinton:  http://twitchy.com/2014/10/27/too-late-grandma-hillary-clinton-flip-flops-now-says-that-entrepreneurs-create-jobs/  "Too late Grandma". "How is "businesses don't create jobs" a shorthand for "businesses create jobs"?"  You don't understand jobs, or you're a pandering,l double speaking flip-flopper, or both.

The double standard of being held accountable for what you say and what you believe is sooo unfair ... when Barack was not at this point in his candidacy!

Guess what Hillary, this is not 2007-2008.  You are not a shining, innocent face from the great unknown.  And America is not looking for a 5th straight President that doesn't understand economics.

Becoming a stay at home Grandma ought to look pretty good to her right now.  I expect her announcement within the next 2-3 weeks.

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31806


« Reply #343 on: October 28, 2014, 11:50:45 AM »

This woman took it in front of the country as her serial humper of a husband did his thing over the years across the country. 

She does not embarass easily.  Her will to power is extraordinary and she has the entire progressive-liberal-Democratic machine and its running dogs in the Pravdas at her beck and command.    She is running.  Period.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6166


« Reply #344 on: October 28, 2014, 01:12:48 PM »

This woman took it in front of the country as her serial humper of a husband did his thing over the years across the country. 

She does not embarass easily.  Her will to power is extraordinary and she has the entire progressive-liberal-Democratic machine and its running dogs in the Pravdas at her beck and command.    She is running.  Period.

Hard for her (or anyone) to take back words spoken anywhere in this day and age, and she has NONE of the agility of Bill or Barack.  What was she saying in that quote?  I have read it, heard it and viewed it and it sounds to me more like senility than ignorance.  The point was a cheap copy of Elizabeth Warren's angry, anti-capitalism rant followed by the punchline that her husband brought arithmetic to Washington, which is the punchline to a different joke.  And this script came from a teleprompter!  Besides the non-sense, how many times in how many speeches over the next two years will she be able to say, "what my husband" said or did.  I'll tell her what her husband said and did.  He presided over two years of failed, lethargic, Obama-like growth and then lost historically in his first mid-terms.  He responded by firing the First Lady as head of Healthcare, and she was never again given a public, policy role.  He scrapped Hillary-care completely, gave the finger to the left wing of his party, passed Reagan's hemisphere-wide free trade agreement with majority Republican support and against majority Dem opposition.  Bill Clinton cut capital gains tax rates - on the wealthiest among us, and he ended "welfare as we know it."  By 1996 he was perhaps more Republican than Bob Dole.  Does anyone think Hillary has the ability to pivot like that -without political consequence?

No one can stop her from running if that is her choice.  But she is not capable of running with the magic of her husband or a 2008 Barack Obama who pitched a perfect campaign, and she will not get a free ride in the press. (IMHO)  She just has WAY too much baggage.  As for the formidable political machine, she had that last time too; it was her turn.  She had no one to beat of any stature then as well.  The emerging popularity of the new guy was accelerated by the weaknesses seen in the formidable front runner.

For 2016, she can either run against Obama's policies and the record of the far left, or she can adopt the slogan, "Four More Years!"  We can see that she doesn't flip flop easily between these two, opposing strategies.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6166


« Reply #345 on: October 28, 2014, 11:20:16 PM »

Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6166


« Reply #346 on: October 28, 2014, 11:33:09 PM »

IBD Editorials

Hillary's Backtracking Balderdash About Jobs


"Don’t let anybody tell you that it’s corporations and businesses that create jobs," Hillary Clinton said at a campaign rally for Martha Coakley...
 [Boston Globe has Coakley trailing the Republican in Mass. Governor race by 9 points! http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/10/23/baker-pulling-away-from-coakley-new-poll/t1UAIVNm4FWE9i31bf6YTM/story.html]

Politics: In case you haven't heard: Hillary Clinton wants to retract the statement she made at a campaign rally last Friday in front of adoring fans that businesses and corporations don't create jobs.

Never mind that it's all on camera and that she certainly looked like she was in full command of her faculties and having a grand old time ripping the nation's job creators.

After becoming a national laughingstock, she now says she meant to say: "Our economy grows when businesses and entrepreneurs create good-paying jobs here in America, and workers and families are empowered to build from the bottom up and the middle out — not when we hand out tax breaks for corporations that outsource jobs or stash their profits overseas."

That's right: She really loves businesses, always has.

This is the same Hillary whose first contribution to public policy was 20 years ago, when she foisted the wildly unpopular HillaryCare on the nation. When informed then that it would drive many businesses into bankruptcy, she haughtily replied: "I can't go out and save every undercapitalized entrepreneur in America."

Yes, she's a real champion of the nation's employers.

But almost equally absurd is her new spin that what she's really against is "tax breaks for corporations that outsource jobs" and the "trickle-down economics" that has "failed spectacularly."

Oh really? We're losing iconic American companies and "good-paying jobs here" because of our highest-in-the-world corporate tax rate, which she has opposed cutting. Her line about "trickle-down economics" is the liberal fairy tale that refuses to go away.

Under Reaganomics, which the left disparages as trickle-down, the economy expanded at 4%, and middle-class and black incomes went up.

Under Hillary's old boss, the economy has grown at barely 2%, middle-class incomes have lost ground to inflation, and black incomes have seen their fastest decline. Under Obama, nothing has trickled down, and poverty rates remain near record levels.

If supply-side economics was such a failure, why did Clinton's husband sign into law a capital gains tax cut? Why did he agree to welfare legislation that replaced government handouts with work?

Hillary originally wanted to run in 2016 as her husband did two decades ago — as a centrist, pro-business "new Democrat." Alas, hers isn't the party of moderation any longer. To be pro-business, it believes, is to be an enemy of the people.

Hillary Clinton has been exposed. Her radical beliefs about how a modern economy works were on display for the world to see last weekend. It was her Howard Dean moment, and it won't go away soon.

 Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/102814-723862-hillary-clinton-backtracks-into-balderdash-about-businesses-and-jobs.htm#ixzz3HVLSlmYt
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4212


« Reply #347 on: October 29, 2014, 07:02:21 AM »

Missing from the statement is exactly what or who does create jobs if businesses don't.

I hazard to assume she meant big government.   In hers and Obama's world she is to a limited degree correct.  Expand big government wildly and yes we now have many more jobs.  Just that those people are now paid for by taxpayers. 

But lest never take our eye off the ball when speaking of the Clintons.  Remember when Bill said the "era of big government is over"?  And his approval ratings went from somewhere in the 40+% to well over 50%?  Myself along with Rush were astonished at this.  One darn speech is all it took.

Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6166


« Reply #348 on: October 29, 2014, 10:08:44 AM »

Missing from the statement is exactly what or who does create jobs if businesses don't.

I hazard to assume she meant big government.   In hers and Obama's world she is to a limited degree correct.  Expand big government wildly and yes we now have many more jobs.  Just that those people are now paid for by taxpayers. 

But lest never take our eye off the ball when speaking of the Clintons.  Remember when Bill said the "era of big government is over"?  And his approval ratings went from somewhere in the 40+% to well over 50%?  Myself along with Rush were astonished at this.  One darn speech is all it took.

Their economics comes out of focus groups testing what Dem constituents like to hear.  So Hillary mumbles something about trickling from the ground up and the middle out as a fictional alternative to their fictional construction of trickle down.  How about we just recognize the positive qualities in an economy required for healthy economic growth and run that direction.  If you want jobs, you need investment.  If you want investment, stop punishing it.  If you want more people to work and fell like they are contributing, don't pay them more to do the opposite.  If you want people to rise freely up the income ladder, don't chop off the lower rungs.

Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12168


« Reply #349 on: October 30, 2014, 02:55:59 AM »

If only we had a population that could grasp these concepts.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!