Toughening Up Hillary
I write today to challenge what is fast becoming conventional wisdom in the political world. In particular, the notion that Hillary Clinton really needs a strong primary challenge to "toughen her up" for the upcoming race with whomever the Republicans decide upon. When you deconstruct the logic behind this idea, however, it falls apart.
There are many reasons for wishing Hillary will have a competitive primary race with at least one other strong Democratic candidate. The biggest of these is the hope that someone will "challenge her from the left," and thus draw Clinton further in that direction. Liberals have a healthy amount of mistrust of Clinton, and would really like to see an Elizabeth Warren (or perhaps a Bernie Sanders) campaign to challenge Hillary on the finer points of fighting income inequality and Wall Street banks.
Ideology aside, the pundit class (including many liberal commentators) are already pretty bored with the Hillary Clinton campaign, and we're still a year away from most of the primary contests. The punditocracy craves a dustup in the Democratic primary race for the crassest of reasons: entertainment value. I shouldn't even be that exclusive -- there are plenty of voters who would also enjoy lively Democratic Party debates before the primaries. What is the alternative, really? Hillary sitting in a chair on a stage by herself? Yawn. At best, it appears we'll have Hillary sitting on a stage while the other Democrats vie to be named her veep. Not exactly a recipe for excitement, in other words.
There's a third reason a lively primary fight might be hoped for by some, but I should say that so far I don't see any signs of this happening. Barack Obama supporters were (justifiably) angry with Hillary Clinton in 2008 for a number of reasons, but the final one was that she refused to gracefully exit the race, even though mathematically it had become all but impossible for her to win the nomination. Clinton kept running for two or three months longer than most candidates would have done. She refused to throw her support behind Obama until the last vote in the last primary was counted, which proved what the mathematically-astute had known for weeks: she couldn't win. There was a lot of hype, at the time, about Hillary's supporters being so upset that they'd refuse to vote for Obama (remember the "PUMAs" -- "Party Unity My Ass"?), but this never really manifested itself outside of the blogosphere. So it's pretty far-fetched to think that Obama supporters could have held a grudge for eight years against Hillary and would now wish her a bruising primary battle, on the grounds of it being her just desserts. It could happen, I suppose, but I don't think it's very likely.
But all of these reasons for wishing a lively primary for Hillary are just that: reasons for wishing. None of them address the practicality argument at all. To put it another way, these are reasons for wanting a primary challenger for Hillary, not a reason for why she might need a primary challenger. This is the argument that doesn't hold water: Hillary needs a challenger to toughen her up, to sharpen her campaigning skills, and to guarantee that when the general election rolls around she'll be in top form. On the face of it, it seems a cogent argument.
But while it might be desirable (for other reasons) to see Hillary in a tough nominating fight, it is by no means necessary for her at all. There are two sides to this argument, both with handy recent historical examples. Barack Obama was unquestionably toughened up by Hillary's campaign. He faced many hard questions and had to refine his positions accordingly. Because Hillary's team threw a lot of mud at Obama, much of it was "old news" by the time the general election campaign began -- which took the wind out of Republican sails when they attempted to use the same negative tactics. On the flip side of this coin, Mitt Romney had to run a grueling primary campaign against multiple strong opponents. But it didn't do him any good in the general election at all. In fact, it hurt his chances because he had been forced to move so far to the right that tacking back to the center just wasn't possible. Granted, the two primary races were different, but other examples can be used just as easily (Obama and Romney are merely the most recent).
Hillary Clinton is a different sort of candidacy, though. I say this because she has the highest possible name recognition imaginable. You could poll 1,000 Americans on what they thought about Hillary Clinton, and my guess would be that at least 990 of them would have some opinion (positive or negative) about her. Very few would respond: "Hillary who?" So Hillary doesn't even have that biggest of first steps most other candidates have to face: introducing yourself to the American public. Everybody already knows who she is.
But the real reason the "she needs to be toughened up" argument falls apart is that it completely ignores reality outside of the Democratic primary race. Sure, if you vowed to read only news about what other Democrats are saying about Hillary Clinton for the next year, you could make the argument that she really needs a strong primary challenger. But that would be ridiculous, because there will be plenty of media attention given to the Republican primary race during that period.
If this were a normal (although wide-open) presidential race, the two parties would be much more concerned with their own primary races. Nobody would know (until the end) which candidate would appear victorious from the other side. So very little energy would be spent (at least, at this early a stage) on attacking any particular candidate across the aisle, because doing so might be a wasted effort if the nomination ultimately went to someone else. The real Democrat-versus-Republican mudslinging wouldn't begin until it was obvious which two people would be in the final race.
That is probably not going to happen this year, obviously. Republicans are already off and running in Iowa and New Hampshire, and they all know exactly who they're going to face in the general election. Because it is so obvious, they have already begun aiming most of their attacks against Hillary Clinton, rather than (as would happen in a normal year) at each other. So Hillary Clinton isn't just going to have one or two Democrats "toughening her up," she's going to have 20 or more Republicans incessantly beating up on her.
Again, pushing aside all the reasons people might want a Democratic challenger for Hillary, it's pretty easy to see that it won't be necessary. The onslaught of anti-Hillary invective has already begun, and it's only going to get more and more frenzied as the Republican nomination race heats up. This is as it should be, since each and every Republican candidate will be auditioning to be the best Hillary-basher of the lot. That's how they figure they're going to win the general election, so they'll be straining to outdo each other in this regard. Who will be snarkiest? Who will be downright vicious? Who will skate over the line of outright misogyny? The contest will be fought over who can score the most points against Clinton, like it or not.
Hillary Clinton is going to be the favorite target for Republicans. However, by doing so this early, they might just undercut the strength of all their mudslinging. The Clintons are no strangers to having mud slung at them, as the right-wing orgy of Clinton-hating in the 1990s should easily prove to anyone who was alive back then (see: Richard Mellon Scaife). Bill Clinton's campaign moniker was actually "The Comeback Kid" because he overcame so many stumbles.
The Republicans risk, by their early targeting of Hillary, playing their cards too early. The American public, as a whole, doesn't pay a whole lot of attention to politics in general, and they have a notoriously short attention span. So any "scandal" that happens quickly morphs into "old news." And old news isn't considered effective in the waning days of a campaign. The easiest example of this might be Benghazi, in fact. Republicans were so sure they had the Hillary-killing scandal to beat all Hillary-killing scandals that they pretty much stomped the issue into the ground. Nowadays, the word "Benghazi" prompts nothing short of eye-rolling among most of the public. "There they go again" is the overriding feeling. Likewise, by next November's election, my guess is that few people are going to care about Hillary Clinton's email server. The story will have been hashed over so many times for so long that it will have lost whatever shock value it might once have had.
So what might conceivably happen is that the Republican field focuses so strongly on Hillary at the very beginning of their primary race that they run out of ammo by the time the general election rolls around. This is precisely what people are predicting when they repeat the conventional wisdom of "Hillary needs a primary challenger to toughen her up for the general election," though. This is, after all, exactly what Hillary Clinton did for Barack Obama in 2007 and 2008. She threw everything but the kitchen sink at Obama, and it helped him in the general election because by the time John McCain brought the same things up, the Obama campaign could just shrug and say "we've already addressed that" and move on.
Granted, having the Republicans be sort of a de facto primary opponent will be different than having an actual Democrat opposing Hillary. The attacks will certainly come from a different direction. Because of this, though, Hillary won't be pulled too far to the left. All she'll have to do is appear reasonable and sane in response to all the hysterical screeching from the Republican primaries. That'll be a pretty good contrast for her to paint. By the time the Republicans do decide on a nominee, the cupboard of "new mud to sling at Hillary" will be all but bare. The public will also be tired of Republicans endlessly rehashing Hillary's record, as what might be called "Clinton-bashing fatigue" sets in.
Though it runs counter to the conventional wisdom inside the Beltway, the truth is that by being the sole target for Republicans all throughout the primary campaign season, Hillary Clinton will likely emerge much tougher than she would if all she had to cope with was a single Democrat pulling her slightly leftwards. This is why what seems like an intuitive idea falls apart. If there really were a truly competitive race on the Democratic side, then Hillary would have to face less hostile attacks from Republicans (whose focus wouldn't be as clear), and fewer of them. With no challenger, she's going to have a much tougher time in the primary season, because she won't just be facing a few Democrats or one Republican, she'll be subject to attacks from 20 or more Republicans. And that, I have to say, will indeed toughen her up just fine.
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
I think you're right Chris. I'd rather see Hillary spend a year talking to people around the country because I do think she'll gain from that process. What I hope (among other things) it will do is enable her to begin to express herself in a way that's more in touch with reality -- life sucks out in much of America. I don't want to hear people telling me how great the stock market is doing -- it has nothing to do with my life. It is completely decoupled from my life. I don't want to be told how the TPP will help -- it won't. And the sheer hucksterism that characterizes the repubs vying for the slot -- they live in their own reality and will attract only likeminded others but they won't offer anything useful to the electorate.
I also think the repubs will ultimately hurt themselves by throwing all the usual junk at Hillary til we're all sick to death of it (we are already, actually) and in the end no one will care. Certainly no Dems will take their stuff seriously. There will be lots of huffing and puffing but it will all happen between folks like us and the media, not most of the rest of the country.
Hillary's problem is going to be getting Dems fired up and I think the way to do that is different than the way repubs get their people fired up. We'll see if she can figure that out. She needs to motivate a lot of people who are just tired out and don't see the point. I don't think the repubs will attract them because their offerings are so utterly, utterly stale. Plus all the scandal-slinging, etc. I predict will, as you suggest, backfire in the end. We've heard it ten million times. She's still standing.
The veep-stakes will be interesting.
I did send you an email directly and through your web form -- did you receive either?
CW - nice job, the other pundits will eventually figure it out.
The veep-stakes will be interesting.
How so?
Paula -
You make several good points there.
As for the email, thanks for the heads-up, I am in the process of cleaning my email out (my mailbox was full, but I don't get a warning email when that happens).
TheStig -
We'll see... I think it'll get to be more and more obvious every time the Republican candidates get together as they did this weekend in NH.
-CW
Sounds like a lot of wishcasting...
Let's face it, Hillary can't talk to or relate to normal everyday Americans..
Her famed Scooby Doo tour??
Not a regular normal every day Iowan in the bunch. They were ALL staged events that were populated with Dem operatives..
The REAL everyday Americans were on lockdown when Queen Hillary was in the area..
Is THAT how ya'all think that your candidate should "interact" with everyday Americans??
By locking them down!??
Seriously!???
The ONE time Hillary actually had a chance to actually talk to everyday Americans, she wore huge sunglasses inside as a disguise and looked like AMERICA'S MOST WANTED....
Again, the question just BEGS to be asked..
Is THIS the best that Democrats can offer???
A plastic candidate who wouldn't know a real everyday American if they came up and asked her a question running a staged astro-turf campaign??
Slam the GOP all you want, but at least those candidates are actually out there talking to REAL Americans, not locking them down...
Michale
Hillary is the most trolled person on the planet. She's tough enough.
CW,
hough it runs counter to the conventional wisdom inside the Beltway, the truth is that by being the sole target for Republicans all throughout the primary campaign season, Hillary Clinton will likely emerge much tougher than she would if all she had to cope with was a single Democrat pulling her slightly leftwards.
There's a BIG problem with yer theory, CW....
By being "toughened up" by GOP candidates, that will pull Hillary farther and farther to the RIGHT..
The more Hillary moves to the Right, the more it will disillusion the Left and cause them to stay home in droves as they did in 2012 and 2014...
Plus there is the coronation factor which will further alienate Left AND Independent voters..
Never one to argue for conventional wisdom, but in this case, it's dead on ballz accurate...
Without a viable Democrat challenger, Hillary is doomed...
Michale
The easiest example of this might be Benghazi, in fact. Republicans were so sure they had the Hillary-killing scandal to beat all Hillary-killing scandals that they pretty much stomped the issue into the ground. Nowadays, the word "Benghazi" prompts nothing short of eye-rolling among most of the public.
Actually, the only "eye rolling" is coming from Hillary sycophants..
Average everyday Americans are pissed off that our Ambassador was allowed to be killed and a total BS cover story about a YouTube video was blamed...
. "There they go again" is the overriding feeling.
I am also constrained to point out that the "There they go again" feeling is more accurately, "There she goes again"...
This was readily apparent from both Republicans AND Democrats during Hillary's email scandal..
I mean, come'on CW... It's obvious that you are an avid history buff... Doesn't it piss you off that Hillary would intentionally delete records from her time as SecState??
I mean, strictly from a historical point of view... In a hundred years, Hillary's 4 yrs as SecState will be a big question mark..
Oh sure, future historians will know WHAT happened...
But WHY things happened will be a huge void because of Hillary Clinton's secretiveness and her irrational need to control all the information..
I mean, forget politics... As a historian, wouldn't that just piss you off??
As far as everyday Americans who don't really give a rip about history and such, the email scandal holds a different meaning..
Hillary's a liar. Pure and simple.. She said it was for "convenience" so she would only have to have one device.. But she is also on record as stating she uses many devices...
Her biggest confidant publicly state for the record that Hillary set up her own email server so she could have total control so as to keep things hidden from Congress...
And THIS is the person ya'all support for President???
I guess transparency is only for Republicans and "Administrations" that have "BUSH" in front of it, eh??
Michale
I also think the repubs will ultimately hurt themselves by throwing all the usual junk at Hillary til we're all sick to death of it (we are already, actually) and in the end no one will care. Certainly no Dems will take their stuff seriously.
Actually, MANY Dems took the email scandal VERY seriously.. To the point of publicly condemning Hillary for her secretiveness and her attempts to deceive the American People.. Some of her closest allies berated Hillary about her actions..
So, it's clear that MANY Democrats are wary of Clinton scandals and not just brushing them off as you imply...
And then there is the Clinton Foundation and all the billions of money it takes from countries that debase and abuse women..
Surely that means SOMETHING to Democrats???
I mean, how can ya'all complain with a straight face about pay disparity between men and women in the US then turn a blind eye to Hillary becoming a filthy rich 1%er with money from countries who KILL women in "honor" killings and who execute women for adultery??
I mean, the hypocrisy is staggering and cries out to be addressed...
Michale
Speaking of trolls, Carly Fiorina has apparently been designated as the GOP's female fake candidate.
"I think that if Hillary Clinton were to face a female nominee, there are a whole set of things that she won't be able to talk about . . . she won't be able to play the gender card."
LOL. You've gotta love this harpy bitching about Hillary's "gender card" while playing her own gender card. The GOP's identity politics are tiresome. Fake female candidate, fake black candidate, fake hispanic candidate. I'm not sure which is more ludicrous, but this woman is meaner than Ann Coulter and only there to troll Hillary. Her job destruction record will be as appealing as Rmoney's.
LOL. You've gotta love this harpy bitching about Hillary's "gender card" while playing her own gender card. The GOP's identity politics are tiresome. Fake female candidate, fake black candidate, fake hispanic candidate. I'm not sure which is more ludicrous, but this woman is meaner than Ann Coulter and only there to troll Hillary. Her job destruction record will be as appealing as Rmoney's.
Ahhhhh
So, only DEMOCRATS can have "real" women candidates and "real" black candidates...
Bigotry much??? :D
Michale
Since we're on that subject, maybe someone can clarify something for me..
When a Right Wing guy says, "I am voting for Rubio because he is a guy!" that is sexist..
But when a Left Wing girl says, "I am voting for Hillary because she is a woman!" that is perfectly acceptable...
When a white Right Winger says, "I am voting for McCain because he is white!" that is racist..
But when a black Left Wingers says, "I am voting for Obama because he is black!" that is perfectly acceptable..
Can someone explain the logic or rationale of these facts??
Michale
LOL. You've gotta love this harpy bitching about Hillary's "gender card" while playing her own gender card. The GOP's identity politics are tiresome. Fake female candidate, fake black candidate, fake hispanic candidate.
You can bitch and moan about alleged "fake" candidates.. But the simple fact is that Democrats HAVE no other candidates...
It's a sad commentary on the Democrat Party that the ONLY candidate they can field is an old, wretched, control-freak has-been who has so many skeletons in her closet that THEY have skeletons in THEIR closets...
Face the facts, son..
When it comes to diversity in their candidates, the GOP is taking the Democrat Party to school this election...
"These are the facts. And they are undisputed."
-Kevin Bacon, A FEW GOOD MEN
Michale
M- "Not a regular normal every day Iowan in the bunch. They were ALL staged events that were populated with Dem operatives.."
So, the last non-staged political event, by any party, that was not populated by party operatives, was: whose, where and when???????
Seriously, when you rent a hall, or put out a press release, you are staging an event. When you stage an event, you hire pros to manage it. Extras if you need to fill the seats. Security because there are nuts with guns. Politics is largely theater. Good theater is managed. Theater is not real life.
Tell us something we don't already know.
M- "Not a regular normal every day Iowan in the bunch. They were ALL staged events that were populated with Dem operatives.."
So, the last non-staged political event, by any party, that was not populated by party operatives, was: whose, where and when???????
The recent gatherings in and around New Hampshire by GOP candidates was a perfect example of candidates talking to real every day Americans...
Taking REAL questions from REAL Americans..
I mean, honestly.. The 1st question asked of Hillary at her email scandal presser was, "Do you think the outcry from all this is because your a woman??"
Do you HONESTLY believe that wasn't a planted question??
I would be very disappointed..
"Your not from the military are you?? Training whales to recover torpedos or some dipshit stuff like that."
"No ma'am. No dipshit."
"Well, good. Because if it was, I would be very disappointed."
-STAR TREK V: The Voyage Home
:D
eriously, when you rent a hall, or put out a press release, you are staging an event. When you stage an event, you hire pros to manage it. Extras if you need to fill the seats. Security because there are nuts with guns. Politics is largely theater. Good theater is managed. Theater is not real life.
Tell us something we don't already know.
No... In this context, a "staged event" is when you claim you are going to do an "Everyday American" tour and put everyday Americans on lockdown and populate the alleged "every day Americans" group with Democrat Operatives..
A REAL everyday American tour is Hillary sitting down with Americans she happens to run into on the street and in Chipolte...
If a GOP candidate staged such an event and tried to pass it off as "every day Americans" ya'all would be making the EXACT same argument I am making...
Right??
Of course it's right...
Michale
I agree that it would be very useful to have Hillary encounter people on both sides who strenuously disagree with her positions and can give cogent arguments to support their reasoning. If nothing else, she is an extremely bright lady, and she would incorporate that outside information into her outlook. it would help both her ability to campaign and, if elected, to govern.
If, as Michale asserts, her "listening" stops are staged events with hand-picked softball questioners, it would be a disservice to the public and to Hillary herself.
That said, i don't think the "toughening up" argument holds water at all. She spent four years as the head of the state department that got osama bin laden and otherwise generally kicked butt all around the globe, and had to deal with some very difficult questions. if she wasn't tough before, she certainly is now.
Here's an article from Washington Monthly about Hillary in Iowa: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2015_04/suddenly_all_that_iowa_hostili055184.php
A story from Mike Glover in today’s Iowa Daily Democrat shows that lo and behold, now that HRC has launched her presidential campaign by coming to Iowa and beginning to build a labor-intensive local effort, activists are suddenly less restive towards her
This is what I mean by Hillary being willing to do the work (previous discussion). Whatever you think about her I think it is indisputable that she is willing to roll up her sleeves and work.
We'll see what she takes from things as she goes along but to me it's an encouraging start. She doesn't need to talk to the press nearly as much as she needs to talk to non-beltway Americans. And she needs to reach activists who will be the folks who toil at GOTV etc. when the time comes.
Paula,
We'll see what she takes from things as she goes along but to me it's an encouraging start. She doesn't need to talk to the press nearly as much as she needs to talk to non-beltway Americans. And she needs to reach activists who will be the folks who toil at GOTV etc. when the time comes.
I completely agree... She doesn't need to talk to the press nearly as much as she needs to to talk to non-beltway Americans..
But the argument is valid that the Americans she DID talk to in Iowa were "BELTWAY" Americans.. They simply relocated to Iowa.. :D
If Hillary wants my vote, Joe Sixpack's vote then she, as JL points out, needs to talk to people who DISAGREE with her..
She'll earn my respect if she talks to people on the street in Austin, Texas or St Augustine FL...
She earns my disdain if the locks down REAL every day Americans and puts forth her staged events as a "listening tour"...
It's easy to "listen" to people when you already know what they are going to say because you gave them the script...
Wouldn't you agree???
Michale
If, as Michale asserts, her "listening" stops are staged events with hand-picked softball questioners, it would be a disservice to the public and to Hillary herself.
To date, that is all her "listening" stops have been...
If she changes her MO down the road, then I will adjust my thinking accordingly..
But, so far, all we're seeing is how Hillary would be if she had total and complete control over her world and everyone in it...
When she (IF she ever) steps out of her comfort zone, when she forgoes her own private email server and walks amongst the little people... THAT will be a true test of her character and integrity...
or lack thereof...
Michale
She spent four years as the head of the state department that got osama bin laden and otherwise generally kicked butt all around the globe, and had to deal with some very difficult questions. if she wasn't tough before, she certainly is now.
We don't know ANYTHING about Hillary's time at State because there is no paper trail to indicate her time at State..
All we have is Hillary's sanitized version of events.
We know WHAT happened..
We don't know HOW or WHY it happened...
And we never will...
Michale
She spent four years as the head of the state department that got osama bin laden and otherwise generally kicked butt all around the globe, and had to deal with some very difficult questions.
The State Department had little to nothing to do with getting Osama Bin Laden...
On the other hand, Hillary WAS the head of the State Department when a US Ambassador was killed due to negligence and improper security arrangements.....
Michale
The State Department had little to nothing to do with getting Osama Bin Laden..
Having said that, it IS possible that State might have negotiated some agreements with other countries for intelligence and military purposes.
It's possible that Hillary might have had a hand in that..
Let's check her emails and get some historical perspective...
Oh... wait.....
Michale
If Hillary wants my vote, Joe Sixpack's vote then she, as JL points out, needs to talk to people who DISAGREE with her..
And I am constrained to point out that if Hillary doesn't WORK for my vote, WORK for Joe Sixpack's vote and all the other Independent's votes, she will LOSE the election..
"Dems da facts, JACK!!!"
-Bill Murray, STRIPES
Michale
And let's face the facts....
Bill Clinton has all the political charisma in the Clinton Family...
Hillary Clinton has absolutely NO charisma or personality whatsoever..
So, Bill could boink some intern and still come out smelling like a rose... He has the charisma to get people to ignore the negatives..
Hillary has none of that.. So the negatives will be all there is...
That's why she lost against Barack Obama..
That's why she will lose against practically ANYONE the GOP fields...
Michale
Michale -
Except for, you know, the fact that Hillary's way way up in the polls compared to every GOP candidate.
:-)
So much for what "the American people" think, eh?
-CW
Except for, you know, the fact that Hillary's way way up in the polls compared to every GOP candidate.
Perhaps...
But compared to where she was BEFORE the email scandal??
Here in FL, her disapproval rating went from 26% in Feb to 47% in Mar....
And in many of the SWING states, Hillary's lead is non-existent to within the margin of error..
And we're still a year and a half from the election..
Do you HONESTLY believe that there will be no more Clinton scandals in the next 18 months??
I'll ask again...
Is Hillary Clinton the BEST candidate that Democrat Party can offer??
That is a sad commentary on the Democrat Party, wouldn't you agree??
I mean, when the GOP can run rings around the Dem Party when it comes to diversity, ya KNOW the world is topsy turvy... :D
Michale
What's yer take on the fact that Hillary's foundation was collecting millions and billions from governments and individuals that benefited from her position as SecState..
What's yer take on Hillary's position on women's rights but still collects hundreds of millions of dollars from countries whose record on women's rights is abysmal???
All of these things and so much more, the Left would be going bat-shit hysterical crazy if it was a GOP Candidate that had this kind of baggage...
Am I wrong??
I think everyone here would agree that I am dead on ballz accurate...
Which is why there is never any response on these issues...
Michale
Poor Michale: you mostly don't get responses because you consistently regurgitate republican talking points on cue. You then begin circular arguments and when driven to the wall by facts fall back on "Democrats are Hypocrites" argument.
Speaking for myself, I've watched Hillary Clinton since before she was First Lady and I watched the tsunami of bull that was flung at her and Bill throughout the Clinton presidency. I remember slimy Ken Starr and all his hearings and remember, too, how, after Bill left office Starr eventually closed down his operation and admitted they never found anything. Nada. All those hearings. All that innuendo. All that money spent. All those accusations. All bull.
So when all the blustering starts again: Benghazi! Emailgate! by another round of rightwing witch hunters wasting taxpayer dollars -- I do two things: I yawn, and I think repubs are swine. When you act as their spokesman here, I think you're either a swine, an idiot or a paid tool. You probably aren't -- but you consistently speak for people who are. You lie down with dogs, get up with their fleas.
Poor Michale: you mostly don't get responses because you consistently regurgitate republican talking points on cue.
As opposed to the Dem Talking points that ya'all regurgitate??
At least my points have the benefit of being.. yunno.. FACTUAL...
Speaking for myself, I've watched Hillary Clinton since before she was First Lady and I watched the tsunami of bull that was flung at her and Bill throughout the Clinton presidency. I remember slimy Ken Starr and all his hearings and remember, too, how, after Bill left office Starr eventually closed down his operation and admitted they never found anything. Nada. All those hearings. All that innuendo. All that money spent. All those accusations. All bull.
Really???
Clinton DIDN'T boink Lewinsky in the Oval Office??
Clinton DIDN'T commit perjury by lying about it??
You see what I mean about ya'all's talking points being factually challenged??
So when all the blustering starts again: Benghazi!
Yea... "Blustering"... A sad state of affairs when Democrats call 4 Americans being brutally slaughtered.... "blustering"...
Emailgate!
Of course, you conveniently ignore the FACT (there's that word again) that it was Democrats who were complaining about "emailgate" as much as Republicans..
Once again, facts.. Such inconvenient things, eh :D
When you act as their spokesman here, I think you're either a swine, an idiot or a paid tool. You probably aren't -- but you consistently speak for people who are. You lie down with dogs, get up with their fleas.
So, ignore the facts and attack the presenter.. :D
No worries. It simply proves my points are valid... :D
Michale
Am I wrong??
I think everyone here would agree that I am dead on ballz accurate...
Which is why there is never any response on these issues...
Bears repeating apparently.. :D
Michale
And there you go: millions of dollars were spent chasing down about 15 separate pretend-scandals, all of which were found to have no merit and all you can muster is "Bill Clinton got a blow job".
And don't even try Benghazi dude -- we did that dance when the fifth, sixth, seventh report came out indicating it was another un-scandal. I actually read the report, remember? You focused exclusively on the republican comments at the end, not the actual report. Coz, it's all about blow jobs with you guys, and "what if's".
You are a silly, silly man. You will repeat your talking points and I'll go on mostly ignoring you. I'll stop now so you can get in the last word because you won't be able to sleep tonight if you don't.
CW....
You were talking about polls???
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's expected presidential campaign got some bad news in a new set of Quinnipiac University polls released Thursday.
Quinnipiac surveyed three crucial swing states — Colorado, Iowa, and Virginia — and found Clinton's lead slipping against her possible Republican rivals. Peter Brown, assistant director of the polling outfit, said the shift is because voters increasingly see Clinton as a dishonest candidate.
"Clinton's lead is wilting against leading Republican presidential candidates," Quinnipiac said in its write-up of the survey. "In head-to-head matchups, every Republican candidate effectively ties her in Colorado and almost all Republicans effectively tie her in Iowa."
http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-honesty-perception-problem-2015-4#ixzz3XzdJ7TqT
Whether ya'all want to admit it or not, Hillary Clinton has a integrity and trustworthiness problem...
Ignoring it won't make it go away...
Michale
And there you go: millions of dollars were spent chasing down about 15 separate pretend-scandals, all of which were found to have no merit and all you can muster is "Bill Clinton got a blow job".
No.. Clinton LIED about getting a blow job..
Now, ya'all seem to have a HUGE problem when a Republican lies..
When a Democrat does it??
Not so much...
And don't even try Benghazi dude -- we did that dance when the fifth, sixth, seventh report came out indicating it was another un-scandal.
Really???
Americans DIDN'T get brutally slaughtered???
Whew!! I am really glad to hear that...
You will repeat your talking points and I'll go on mostly ignoring you.
Yep.. Which simply proves my point...
You CAN'T address the points.. So you simply continue to attack the messenger...
Maybe if you addressed the POINTS with facts, the cycle would end..
But you can't because the facts are completely as I have laid them out...
Hillary got paid millions of dollars in speaking fees from countries who KILL women and KILL gay people... Which completely negates her so-called War On Women attacks against the GOP...
Hillary's foundation took in hundreds of millions of dollars while she was SecState and those who gave the hundreds of millions of dollars to her foundation benefited from Clinton's position as SecState...
These are established and bona fide FACTS...
Which is why you continue to ignore them...
Michale
Sleep tight little Republican Sheldon!
When ya look at it, the Democrat Party has created a Perfect (Losing) Storm...
Clinton has too much baggage and too many skeletons to win... Ya'all have acknowledged that her positions and her coziness with the 1% and Wall Street make her unsuitable to be POTUS...
But she has created such a (2.5 BILLION DOLLAR) juggernaut that no one else can enter the race.. THIS keeps quality people from the Left (of which there are a few, I readily admit) from seriously attempting a candidacy...
Hillary CAN'T win because she will NOT attract Independent voters..
This is fact...
No other Democrat can even attempt to run because Hillary has engineered a coronation...
Slam me and attack me and ignore me all ya'all want...
But ya simply cannot deny reality...
2016 is going to be a GOP election that will make 2010 and 2014 seem a family picnic by comparison...
You heard it here first...
Michale
Sleep tight little Republican Sheldon!
Whatever you need ta think ta help ya sleep at night... :D
Michale
I know what ya'all are thinking..
"Michale's on a tear again..."
But keep in mind one thing...
That is the exact same thing ya'all were thinking in the run-up to the 2014 MidTerms...
And my prediction of that election was dead on ballz accurate...
Of course, it's impossible to know for certain this far out what will happen.. We don't even know who Hillary will be facing...
But ignoring the GOP side of the equation, the simple fact is this...
Hillary has a real trustworthiness issue... This isn't ME saying it. It's every Independent voter in the country thinking it...
It's not a GOP Talking Point.. It's a simple fact.
Now, ya'all can ignore this fact and all the other facts that show Hillary is a deeply DEEPLY flawed candidate with a Grand Canyon size container of baggage and skeletons in the closet up the wazzooo...
But ignoring these facts do not make them any less factual..
"There are none so blind as those who will not see. The most deluded people are those who choose to ignore what they already know to be true."
-POLITE CONVERSATION, Jonathan Swift
Michale
Here is but one example of the person ya'all want to be POTUS..
In 2008, Hillary Clinton opposed a Free Trade Agreement with Columbia due to that country's abysmal record on worker's rights..
A couple years later, the Clintons grew chummy with a Canadian oil magnate named Frank Giustra who had founded an oil company, Pacific Rubiales.
Oil company??? Really??
Anyways, Giustra's company was at the center of all the worker strife in Columbia. According to testimony from hundreds of workers, Giustra used Columbian military to round up union orgainizers and worker protesters...
Once Giustra and the Clintons became chummy and millions were donated to the Clinton Foundation, Hillary changed her position on the Free Trade Agreement with Columbia and Hillary's State Department lauded Columbia's record on worker's rights..
This isn't spin.
This isn't a talking point.
All of the afore are well documented facts...
So, let's take stock...
Hillary grew chummy with and helped an oil magnate..
That should piss off the environmentalists...
Hillary accepted millions of dollars from a guy who used Columbia's military to union bust oil workers in Columbia...
That should piss of Left Winger Union fans...
Hillary was bought and used her position as SecState to sign off on a deal that she said was a bad deal but that, after she got millions, all of the sudden it became a good deal...
That should piss off every real American..
And THIS is just one of many many MANY problems that Hillary has..
So, I'll ask again.
THIS is the person ya'all want for President???
SERIOUSLY???
Michale
Here is but one example of the person ya'all want to be POTUS..
In 2008, Hillary Clinton opposed a Free Trade Agreement with Columbia due to that country's abysmal record on worker's rights..
A couple years later, the Clintons grew chummy with a Canadian oil magnate named Frank Giustra who had founded an oil company, Pacific Rubiales.
Oil company??? Really??
Anyways, Giustra's company was at the center of all the worker strife in Columbia. According to testimony from hundreds of workers, Giustra used Columbian military to round up union orgainizers and worker protesters...
Once Giustra and the Clintons became chummy and millions were donated to the Clinton Foundation, Hillary changed her position on the Free Trade Agreement with Columbia and Hillary's State Department lauded Columbia's record on worker's rights..
This isn't spin.
This isn't a talking point.
All of the afore are well documented facts...
So, let's take stock...
Hillary grew chummy with and helped an oil magnate..
That should piss off the environmentalists...
Hillary accepted millions of dollars from a guy who used Columbia's military to union bust oil workers in Columbia...
That should piss of Left Winger Union fans...
Hillary was bought and used her position as SecState to sign off on a deal that she said was a bad deal but that, after she got millions, all of the sudden it became a good deal...
That should piss off every real American..
And THIS is just one of many many MANY problems that Hillary has..
So, I'll ask again.
THIS is the person ya'all want for President???
SERIOUSLY???
Michale
Wooops...
Double tap....
My bust....
Michale
M - Have you succumbed to the lure of a tablet????
I finally found where the "pinwheel" hides on mine...which happens to be way off screen when I zoom to read the microscopic composition and text review boxes.