Clinton struggles trying to re-define who she is?
 

Showing us her grandmother? Her mother? What she looked like 40 years ago? What she looks like now sfter leaving the wardrobe and make up departments?

None of which address who and what she is today.

She is spending time and money too make us feel better about her and like her?
I fault her confidants and advisors for embarking upon an impossible mission.

She is what she is today and all the pumping of the past does not change that.
She flashed and disappeared in 2008 and it is starting again:

Shades of 2008 for Hillary Clinton - Chicago Tribune

Her story of who she is is what she is what it is and putting a new cover on the book will not make the story come out any better.

The republicans may look dis-organized because of the size of the herd of candidates. The democrats ARE dis-organized as they enter the "what are we gonna do now" phase of the Clinton flame out!

When I first read the title of the thread, I thought maybe she was doing the Bruce Jenner thing, in reverse. After looking at a recent photo of her, I could see why.

I am certainly no fan of Hillary Clinton, etc, but I do not think these kind of comments help in anyway.

Disagree with issues and that is easy for me anyway, disagree with character issues if you want, but this kind of thing does not add anything to any discussion

What I see that is pertinent in the make over is that they are now dressing her hair, putting make up on her and somebody, thank God, is doing something about her usual atrocious clothes she always wears. She always looked haggered to me in the way she did not attend to her appearance.....before the make over(s).

Yes candidates do things to be more appealing to one audience or anothertaking off one's jacket or showing up in a open shirt, jeans and cowboy boots, etc......

For Clinton it is always about making her look better, sound better, act better (like she cares, etc.). What can she do this time to make people like her.

Don't they know all that staging and scripting and isolating, etc. does not change who or what she has become and is.

Let there be no doubt, the Clintons, likeable or not does not matter....everything they do is for the personal gain of the Clintons and that is what the American people see and do not like.

It's very enlightening that there are so few comments about the male candidate's appearance. Jeb Bush has been on a diet, Chris Christie had gastro-bypass surgery, which is slightly more extreme than getting a new hairstyle. But in the end, this election will all come down to the issues, as it should.

Obviously, someone does not have a sense of humor this morning. :MOJE_whot:

I agree. Women's looks get picked on way more than men.



I agree. Women's looks get picked on way more than men's. And remember, anyone can have a bad hair day. [emoji6]

Attachment 53856

Yep, you are right...the issues. How much is in it for me..me...me. Not the country, but me. But, we do enjoy a stand up comic like Obama. After all, where would SNL be without him?

:ho: There are dozens of clips of her as SOS, looking haggard and frazzled. Unable to cope. She would never be my candidate, but it made me question her stamina to cope with the presidency.

The dramatic improvement in appearance is, as you said, staging. She's still the same empty suit.

:agree: Totally

Bruce Jenner is trying to re-define who she/he is. They should get together and compare notes.

You can rearrange the spots on a leopard and when you are done you still have a leopard.

My comments about her looks are deserved. Most women I know her age or older are very conscious of their appearance and always look nice.
Clinton as I stated in the original post at best always looked unkempt, untidy, no make up, totally ugly mis matched clothing on top of looking like she had been out all night (in the same clothes).

Another level of not caring (to me).

Ouch! I agree. That's about what her former employees from the DOS say about her.

The clintons about money, either way they are making money and that's what politic's is about making and controlling money. Service of county has NOTHING to do with the two party system. IMO parties should be outlawed along with lobbyists. IMO there is nothing worst that lobbyist and crooked statesman. Both when caught should be hung by the neck till dead.:boom: IMO that will fix everything.

A bit extreme, but I believe that would work to a point. Corruption would probably just end up being less visible. As far as doing away with the two party system, I am in total agreement. Let each candidate run on his experience, reputation and what he "says" he stands for. They'd still lie, but at least everyone wouldn't just be voting party line. That probably wouldn't work, but the divisiveness between the two parties is not helping this country. We are on a down hill trend right now, and we might as well consider that we may very well be company with Greece if we don't stop the fall.

Anybody who wants to have this country get back on track will need to be sure to not vote for any career politicians. They know politics only....which means their top priority is their career, second is their party, then special inteand minority groups.

To fix broken entities means making changes or eliminating that which does not add value or make the improvements needed. Politicians will never ever be capable of doing that. The will not rock the political boat/system. The will not eliminate something that is not working for fear of upsetting another politician's turf.

So for sure Clinton is not qualified to get anything done other than accomplish her own personal objectives. Being dishonest and untrustworthy are not attributes one wants in a POTUS......we have seen enough of that the past 7 years.

In addition she is phony. in KY this week it was noted how her southern accent was back in full use while there. Does she think people are stupid?
Do those who advise her have no more brains than to keep phonying up her visits?

There is only one answer to all these problems and his name is DONALD TRUMP!!!!!

Amazing that all the Village Republicans (low information voters) are chiming in on why they think that Mrs. Clinton is dishonest, etc.

You Republicans are running scared that she is going to win the presidential election.

We Democrats are not scared of any Republican winning because they have all said stupid things about women, minority groups, or climate change.

People that think (not Republicans, because they do not know how to think for themselves) vote Democrat.

Run scared, Republicans and Tea Party, you are headed for another loss!

Same old talking points. You sound like a broken record.:blahblahblah::blahblahblah::blahblahblah:

You know I assume that you folks touting the DEMOCRATIC party on here are embarrassing yourself.

The "Village Republicans (low information voters) " are smart enough despite your insulting remark, to be aware it is mucho too early to begin campaigning as we don't even know who the candidates are.

I might add on your insult to a lot of Villagers, that just reading this forum it would indicate that the intelligent quotient and especially the grasp of actual issues, of those who lean to the right FAR outweighs the posters who simply make up cute names and cite polls.

Also, you say that posters "think" Ms Clinton is dishonest. I think, even checking your own party you will find doubters of her character. Defending her character simply points out again how ill informed you are.

You all simply enjoy the kid games and allow us adults to have intelligent conversations.

I think having a post that insults most Villagers reflects the grasp of reality this poster does not have.

Lets add to her resume....the country, Libya, that Hillary Clinton oversaw the complete destruction of, is back in the news.

Seems people are fleeing that country, one of two called success stories (the other being Yemen) because of our action. iF ONLY we could destroy ISIS that easy.

"More than 2,000 migrants have now died this year as they tried to make the perilous crossing, the International Organization for Migration said in a statement Tuesday.

"As in 2014, the overwhelming majority died in the Channel of Sicily on the Central Mediterranean route connecting Libya and Italy, where unseaworthy vessels used by smugglers and traffickers significantly increase the likelihood of tragedies occurring," the organization said."


Rescuers try to save migrants in Mediterranean shipwreck - CNN.com

How the Democratic party can allow this woman to be their representative in a presidential campaign simply speaks to the basic tenants and beliefs that now exist on the left. That is.....win elections, which they can do....but win elections at any cost.

Yep, we know that liberals will BLINDLY vote for any thief or liar as long as they offer handouts. Ethics mean nothing to liberals. They don't even know the definition. And "morals?" Forgetaboutit.

Justice for all, as long as it gets me votes.

Do the right thing, as long as there are votes to be gotten.

Just keep good attorneys on hand to help parse your words and insure that they cannot put you in the pokey.

:agree:

It is interesting about Ms Clinton.

She wants to be certain things.

Her past makes her certain things.

And it confuses her party.

The link below is a discussion of how she will eventually win the nomination but how it will not come without pain of a sort....this quote from the article is sort of an example of that pull that is going on...

"In July, the American Federation of Teachers became the first union to endorse Mrs. Clinton, with union President Randi Weingarten calling her “a tested leader who shares our values.”

But on the union’s Facebook page, several teachers reacted angrily. One person wrote: “We have a great candidate by the name of BERNIE SANDERS who stands by labor and the movement and you endorse a corporate Democrat!”

Hillary Clinton-Bernie Sanders Race Is a Dilemma for Many Democrats - WSJ

The New York Daily News is historically a LEFT leaning newspapers, and thus this article appearing that surprised me a bit. Almost as much as the attack on Hillary Clinton by the New York Times which we know is a friend of the left.

In any case....

"Without a doubt, the Times’ treatment of the story has been sloppy and the Clinton campaign had good reason to pounce. But the bad news for Team Hillary is that this issue is going to fester. Indeed, over the next months, given the law, precedent and facts already on the record, the imbroglio holds the potential to kill her candidacy.

The law is plain. Under the Espionage Act of 1917, “gross negligence” in the handling of national defense information is a punishable offense. If such information is “removed from its proper place of custody,” the responsible government official faces a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment.

The Obama Justice Department has been making vigorous use of this and related statutes that punish the mishandling of government secrets, prosecuting leakers of classified information in the fiercest crackdown since Richard Nixon’s plumbers. The highest ranking official hit to date is Gen. David Petraeus, whose secrecy violations resulted in a fine and two years of probation.

Now comes the case of Hillary Clinton’s use for official purposes of a private email server housed in her Chappaqua home. Even though the referral to the Justice Department was not criminal in nature, the facts do not look good for Clinton.

According to the inspectors general, four of a sample of 40 emails drawn from the 30,000 emails the former secretary of state turned over to the State Department late last year contained information that was classified at the time it was generated and remains classified today."

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/g...icle-1.2311178

To their point, this is NOT going away anytime soon and this should give everyone pause....

"McClatchey News Service reports that among the emails are secrets generated by five separate U.S. intelligence agencies. A State Department official has cautioned that hundreds of other Clinton emails may also contain classified material. A release of documents on Friday revealed 37 more replete with government secrets.


This is emerging as a major security breach. A private server that could readily be penetrated by hackers or a foreign intelligence agency would certainly not qualify as a “proper place of custody” for government secrets. The national security division of the Justice Department will be compelled to investigate.

How this will play out is impossible to predict. But there is a precedent of surpassing importance."

The article then goes on to detail one of the precedents, which was a member of Bill Clintons team. It went on for years until finally President Clinton gave him a pardon. Not a road that the Clntons want to travel.

And remember what I highlighted in red comes directly from the State Department warning more to come.

Dear Guest: Hmmm

Cattle futures, selling over nights in the Lincoln Bedroom, Rose Law firm documents that suddenly appear in the West wing, were dead broke*, under attack while on inspection during the Iraq-Aghan war oops wasn't even close, Benghazi and what difference does it make , Clinton Charitable Foundation and selling U S uranium mines to Russia, personal server and no classified e-mails ever sent or received

*Reported income of $139 million during those hardship years of 2007-2014.
But they did give $15 million to charity..Great...Wait all but $200,000 went to you guessed it the Clinton Charity Foundation (WSJ 8/5)

Geezzz talk about having no class and a lot of greed

Personal Best Regards:

It becomes very humorous that these posters, well let me say at least one poster, keeps posting about Jeb Bush and the two gaffes he made this week, both of which will be in the wind as time wears on and have little to no importance except to her..the poster.

I find these kind of things all over the country recently and to me, this seems relatively important...

"True to the Clinton playbook, former secretary of State Hillary Clinton is trying to wave away legitimate questions about her appalling behavior as either baseless “partisan” attacks or narrow legalisms normal people don’t care about.

Even if you ignore the very live question of whether or not she’s guilty of criminal transgressions, you’re still left with a woman with abysmal judgment."

The article begins on how almost the entire 8 years that Clinton was in office it was one scandal or another "When her husband was in the Oval Office and embroiled in myriad of scandals, Bill Clinton’s defenders would often say the president isn’t above the law but he isn’t below the law, either. In other words, the president should be judged only by a legal standard. This always struck me as more than a little absurd. Yes, the law matters. Even so, it is but just one relatively short stretch of a much longer border dividing the realms of right and wrong."

Goldberg: Ready for Hillary?

Beautifully ended...

"Wise people learn from their mistakes. And one could argue Clinton has. But she learned the wrong lessons. Instead of changing her behavior, she learned how to better hide the evidence of it. Even former Clinton staffer James Carville surmised she created a private server to hide her emails from congressional oversight.

What hasn’t changed is the Clinton way of obfuscating and parsing, attacking motives and deploying attack dogs. That’s what she does. And if you want more of it, than you are indeed “Ready for Hillary."

I want to know if the Clintons ever returned the china/silverware that they stole from the White House when they departed. THIEVES!!

If Hillary is the best that the Dems have to offer, they need to resurrect Kennedy(if only). Dems would be better off backing Biden. At least, that would be an honorable support. Oh yeah, I forgot that we are talking about Dems. No ethics and no morals. Sorry if I am bitter, but they were the party of my father, and they have really disappointed me for a long time.

I don't blame Hillary for attempting to re-define who she is. Because who she is now is not very flattering. I wonder how she is going to look in orange. I understand that orange is the new black.

I understand that in Hillary's new campaign adds, she is adorned in an orange jumpsuit. She doesn't say a whole bunch, but when someone asks her a question, she has been told by her lawyers to plead the 5th. She plans to introduce a new dress code in the White House, orange. You see, orange is the new black.

Reading a left wing British paper today a newspaper that is supportive of a lot that Ms Clinton has done, but ....

"Part of the trouble is that she is simply not a very good candidate. The offstage Clinton has a captivating laugh and a terrific sense of humour. But this human touch gets lost on the campaign trail. All too easily she comes across as joyless and calculating.

What successful politician, you may ask, doesn’t appear calculating? Well, her husband for one; no one has ever done premeditated spontaneity like Bill Clinton. Watch the pair perform at the same event and the contrast in the ability to connect is almost embarrassing.

There are deeper reasons for this summer of discontent with Clinton. There is the matter of her age. Yes, both Biden and Sanders are even more ancient, but she would be 69 on inauguration day 2017 – older than any incoming president bar Ronald Reagan. Presidential elections are about the future. Reagan had a vision for the future, but Republicans will ceaselessly underline that Clinton is a creature from the past – a fixture of top-level national politics for almost a quarter of a century, with nothing more to offer."

Now she has one fan on this forum who is always repeating her tweets trying to knock down real candidate that answer questions by skewing any little misstep, but this writer says.....

"And what precisely is her vision? Even now it's hard to know what Clinton really stands for. In keeping with her new family status, her advertisements seek to foster a caring, grandmotherly image. Her overriding concern, they make clear, is the plight of the “99 per cent”, shorthand for an American middle class that has taken a beating over the past two decades. But – thanks both to old contacts and vast fees from corporate speeches – the Clintons themselves are now part of the 1 per cent. They move in its gilded circle as if to the manner born.

Under pressure from Sanders, an unvarnished conviction politician who is drawing massive crowds with his excoriations of Wall Street and advocacy of a single-payer healthcare system, Clinton has moved to the left. But how far, and for how long? A candidate long cosy with high finance now advocates a crackdown on Wall Street (sort of). She’s silent on the merits of the mooted Asian trade pact, and of the pipeline to bring oil from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico."

It goes on and on, this supporter of hers......

Why Hillary Clinton shouldn't gloat over the Republicans just yet - Voices - The Independent

Might add the final paragraph or so begins...

"Many voters simply do not trust her. The reasons are manifold: "

And Donald Trump is two years older than Hillary Clinton, and yet he leads the republican pact by a long shot (mostly two to one in the polls) and his age is rarely mentioned, if ever. There seems to be some misogyny happening here.

I am stupid....do not use words like misogyny since I do not have a good working knowledge of that word.

I posted a link and copied it so you could read it...

WHO ARE YOU ARGUING WITH ? THE WRITER ? I suggest that you write him and tell him what you think.

So that is the only thing in his article that you considered of value....gee...check the next post

"ALEXANDRIA, Va.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Scott Taylor, President of SPECIAL OPERATIONS EDUCATION FUND (OPSEC), announced today that OPSEC is formally calling upon Secretary of State John Kerry to immediately suspend any and all security clearances presently held by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton; her former Chief of Staff, Cheryl Mills; her former Deputy Chief of Staff, Jake Sullivan and her advisor Huma Abedin until final adjudication of any violations of national security regulations or laws." http://opsecteam.org/download/080315_Letter.pdf

Not a political group by far

"Two independent Inspectors General, General Linick at U. S. Department of State and General McCullough at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, have separately established that classified information has been mishandled and that the scope and nature of the attendant circumstances are serious enough to warrant referral to the Department of Justice."


OPSEC Calls for the Immediate Suspension of Any Security Clearances Held by Former Secretary Hillary Clinton and Three Other Former State Department Officials | Business Wire

I do understand how much more important the issue of Bush's gaffe was.....so much more to make an error like that.

It always is interesting to read these posts...

in 2008 and even in 2012, the age of the Republican candidate was an issue on the stump, but more in this political forum...NOW....it appears to have become less of an issue and a response to an editorial who mentioned Clintons age is met with a retort about Donald Trump's age.

In 2012, Mr Romney's finances and how much he made were an issue. Now you hear crickets about Ms Clinton and her money and how she ranks in the same percentile.

In 2012, I recall a weeks worth of discussion on CNN and especially on MSNBC about Romney being a bully in MIDDLE SCHOOL.

How can posters totally ignore how Ms Clinton served as Secy of State and her mishandling and bad judgment ? How much bigger of a condemnation can there possibly be for a candidate for President ?

i do not get it at all. If Perot did not run in 1992 wonder where she would be today ?

Now do not come on here and tell me how she might be the next President. I know that and that is what is so sad...so very sad the state of our politics.

You know as I think about it....I had a duo in my mind I would like to see, but maybe Donald Trump is the answer.

Possibly you only hear crickets about the Clinton's money because the republican front runner, Donald Trump, could buy and sell the Clintons 100 times over. When Trump gets the nomination and releases eight years of tax returns, it will be like holy-moly.

You will need to show me the relationship.

Donald Trump is a private business person and seems to be very proud of his income and net worth.

Now, Hillary Clinton left the WH broke and in debt and made her money by speaking and being a senator and ex Secy State

DIFFERENCE is SHE is so hypocritical it is almost funny....on July 7 of this year, she made a speech at a house party where she said a lot of things but one was this..."And we've got to get all this dark, unaccountable money out of our political system. "

This is from an newspaper article just last week..""A Democrat-aligned super PAC financed by a pair of dark money groups wrote a seven-figure check to Hillary Clinton's super PAC in June, infusing a key pro-Clinton outfit with money whose sources are virtually untraceable."

There are many many more examples of the hypocrisy. One reason Trump is popular is that it appears there is no hypocrisy.

You are making being RICH a bad thing...that is not what people do not like about Hillary Clinton. It is her lying about where she got it...how she got it and then the hypocrisy she spreads about it.

Nothing wrong with being rich.

AGAIN ....You have no clue about the issue. How much you have is not the issue although it was in 2012 when Romney, who was considered a hero millionaire was chastised for having it.

OH...and no crickets my lady.

It is all over the mainstream media...you should try something other than party propaganda and once the Republican primary is over, I am betting it will be one of the biggest issues....NOT how much she has, but where it came from and the hypocrisy in what she says about it.