Originally Posted by Guest

Some on this board have asked for a summary of why Hillary Clinton is clearly the best qualified person in the Democrat Party to become President of the US. I accept the challenge.

Hillary has many qualifications… too numerous to list. I will simply give you five. No doubt others can provide many more.

1. People Skills. A President must be able to relate to people, especially the “little people”. Hillary’s skills are unsurpassed. Many examples can be found from people who know her best and as reported in Ron Kessler’s book “First Family Detail.” “She is so nasty to agents that being assigned to her detail is considered a form of punishment,” “She claims to be a champion of the little people, and she's going to help the middle class. And, in fact, she treats these people around her, [who] would lay down their lives for her like sub-humans; and I think voters need to consider that.” She also apparently shouts a lot, throws dishes when angry, and can not stand to see anyone in a military uniform around her.

2. Courage Under Fire. Hillary came under heavy sniper fire as First Lady, but she showed courage and was an inspiration to those who were with her. Here’s a video which captured the moment.
Hillary Clinton dodges sniper fire in Bosnia - raw footage - Video Clinton says she 'misspoke' about sniper fire - CNN.com

3. Foreign Policy. Any President must be able to defend the Country. As Secretary of State, Hillary excelled. She managed to get an Ambassador killed during a predictable terrorist attack, and then through a series of further bungles, caused the formation of ISIS (with some credit to her boss at the time.) which increasingly dominates the Middle East. In any event, even Rube Republicans will quickly agree the world is a much safer place thanks to her service.

4. Feminist. Hillary sets the bar high for young girls to emulate. She is loathe to benefit from a “man’s” (such as a husband) power or reputation, and we all know she would still be a contender even if she had never married Bill Clinton. Hillary loves her fellow women which is why she hunted down and destroyed scores of women who slept with her husband … all of whom were put up to it by Right Wing fanatics.

5. Anti-Wall Street. It’s important to keep the big money out of the White House, and Hillary is a known foe of the bankers on Wall Street, even putting Elizabeth Warren to shame in this regard. She is also loathe to profit off the Clinton name and refuses to accept extortionate fees for speaking at universities or engage in unseemly campaign fund raising. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/op...dogs.html?_r=0

This list needs to have at least one more qualification added to it—integrity.

A President MUST have integrity … people have to know in their gut POTUS is honest, trustworthy and can be counted on to do the right thing, most especially when in a dark room and when no one is watching. Thus, Hilary Clinton clearly qualifies yet again.

While it’s true she’s had a problem with her emails lately, ( Hillary Clinton used private e-mail for government business at State Dept. - The Washington Post ), and while anyone who has ever worked in DC knows it’s the law that all “official records” must be kept otherwise it’s a felony, this is not a big deal. The reason is Hillary oozes with integrity, going back to the beginnings of her career, and she loves the people, is always wanting to do things to them, and because of her special status, these laws were never meant to apply to her even if technically they do.

Another perfect example of her unquestionable integrity has to do with the Clinton Foundation. Concerns over Gulf donations to Clinton Foundation as Hillary mulls 2016 race - Politics & Economics - ArabianBusiness.com
No one, except the rabid right wing conservative wingnuts, who are easily unhinged by the despicable faux news, really sees a problem here. Ok, so she’s Secretary of State, and at the same time, in effect soliciting “donations” from foreign governments at the same time. BFD! Hillary has the people’s interests at heart, has great intentions (it’s a charity after all) and thus is immune to such small minded criticism. Just look at her track record dating back to Arkansas, and shut up already.

In sum, Hillary 2016 –we are accepting donations today, with a minimum gift of $100,000.

Originally Posted by Guest

This list needs to have at least one more qualification added to it—integrity.

A President MUST have integrity … people have to know in their gut POTUS is honest, trustworthy and can be counted on to do the right thing, most especially when in a dark room and when no one is watching. Thus, Hilary Clinton clearly qualifies yet again.

While it’s true she’s had a problem with her emails lately, ( Hillary Clinton used private e-mail for government business at State Dept. - The Washington Post ), and while anyone who has ever worked in DC knows it’s the law that all “official records” must be kept otherwise it’s a felony, this is not a big deal. The reason is Hillary oozes with integrity, going back to the beginnings of her career, and she loves the people, is always wanting to do things to them, and because of her special status, these laws were never meant to apply to her even if technically they do.

Another perfect example of her unquestionable integrity has to do with the Clinton Foundation. Concerns over Gulf donations to Clinton Foundation as Hillary mulls 2016 race - Politics & Economics - ArabianBusiness.com
No one, except the rabid right wing conservative wingnuts, who are easily unhinged by the despicable faux news, really sees a problem here. Ok, so she’s Secretary of State, and at the same time, in effect soliciting “donations” from foreign governments at the same time. BFD! Hillary has the people’s interests at heart, has great intentions (it’s a charity after all) and thus is immune to such small minded criticism. Just look at her track record dating back to Arkansas, and shut up already.

In sum, Hillary 2016 –we are accepting donations today, with a minimum gift of $100,000.

I am not a big fan of oblique or indirect or between the lines messaging, but this one is a prize winner.....the only thing left out is what I consider to be her identifying comment on how she thinks (or does not).......

'WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?"

Originally Posted by Guest

I am not a big fan of oblique or indirect or between the lines messaging, but this one is a prize winner.....the only thing left out is what I consider to be her identifying comment on how she thinks (or does not).......

'WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?"

Please respond with the question to which Sec. Clinton asked "What difference does it make?". Looking forward to your reply. Doubt if you know, though.

A poster said a president must have integrity. Well, George "Weasel" lacked that trait completely as did his puppet master, Cheney.

Originally Posted by Guest

This list needs to have at least one more qualification added to it—integrity.

A President MUST have integrity … people have to know in their gut POTUS is honest, trustworthy and can be counted on to do the right thing, most especially when in a dark room and when no one is watching. Thus, Hilary Clinton clearly qualifies yet again.

While it’s true she’s had a problem with her emails lately, ( Hillary Clinton used private e-mail for government business at State Dept. - The Washington Post ), and while anyone who has ever worked in DC knows it’s the law that all “official records” must be kept otherwise it’s a felony, this is not a big deal. The reason is Hillary oozes with integrity, going back to the beginnings of her career, and she loves the people, is always wanting to do things to them, and because of her special status, these laws were never meant to apply to her even if technically they do.

Another perfect example of her unquestionable integrity has to do with the Clinton Foundation. Concerns over Gulf donations to Clinton Foundation as Hillary mulls 2016 race - Politics & Economics - ArabianBusiness.com
No one, except the rabid right wing conservative wingnuts, who are easily unhinged by the despicable faux news, really sees a problem here. Ok, so she’s Secretary of State, and at the same time, in effect soliciting “donations” from foreign governments at the same time. BFD! Hillary has the people’s interests at heart, has great intentions (it’s a charity after all) and thus is immune to such small minded criticism. Just look at her track record dating back to Arkansas, and shut up already.

In sum, Hillary 2016 –we are accepting donations today, with a minimum gift of $100,000.

That's a classic!

Originally Posted by Guest

Please respond with the question to which Sec. Clinton asked "What difference does it make?". Looking forward to your reply. Doubt if you know, though.

A poster said a president must have integrity. Well, George "Weasel" lacked that trait completely as did his puppet master, Cheney.

I will never understand why some just have to always, ALWAYS spew a negative snipe. You have absolutely no grounds to doubt whether one knows or not. Very rude and derogatory and now I'll do it....as if you care!

Anyway here is the answer; to get the perspective it goes back to more than just the question. So here is the dialogue starting with Johnsons question ultimately leading to her what difference does it make response:

Johnson: But, Madame Secretary, do you disagree with me that a simple phone call to those evacuees to determine what happened wouldn’t have ascertained immediately that there was no protest? That was a piece of information that could have been easily, easily obtained?

Clinton: But, Senator, again—

Johnson: Within hours, if not days?

Clinton: Senator, you know, when you’re in these positions, the last thing you want to do is interfere with any other process going on, number one—

Johnson: I realize that’s a good excuse.

Clinton: Well, no, it’s the fact. Number two, I would recommend highly you read both what the ARB said about it and the classified ARB because, even today, there are questions being raised. Now, we have no doubt they were terrorists, they were militants, they attacked us, they killed our people. But what was going on and why they were doing what they were doing is still unknown --

Johnson: No, again, we were misled that there were supposedly protests and that something sprang out of that -- an assault sprang out of that -- and that was easily ascertained that that was not the fact, and the American people could have known that within days and they didn’t know that.

Clinton: With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator. Now, honestly, I will do my best to answer your questions about this, but the fact is that people were trying in real time to get to the best information. The IC has a process, I understand, going with the other committees to explain how these talking points came out. But you know, to be clear, it is, from my perspective, less important today looking backwards as to why these militants decided they did it than to find them and bring them to justice, and then maybe we’ll figure out what was going on in the meantime.

Now that I have passed the security question may I procede?

This is a classic post by someone who has no intentions what so ever to carry on a legitimate discussion. Starting with the challenging "I doubt it" snipe. And then the other classic of name calling. ANd the referral to George Bush adds what value?

It is either follow the party or get ready for the discourteous catharsis. No added value to the discussion.

A don't engage candidate!

Personally I am waiting for someone to spin this email scandal. As of now not one dem has tried to defend these actions. And she of course has yet to respond, but at some point I would think she would have to. I hope her response isn't "What difference at this point does it make".

Originally Posted by Guest

Please respond with the question to which Sec. Clinton asked "What difference does it make?". Looking forward to your reply. Doubt if you know, though.

A poster said a president must have integrity. Well, George "Weasel" lacked that trait completely as did his puppet master, Cheney.

Well one difference is, according to one of the (illegally maintained private emails recently discovered ) HRC knew it was a terrorist attack within 4 minutes. No biggie because even a village idiot could figure that out

What Hillary Clinton possesses is name recognition only. Hillary has not even opened her campaign officially and we already have deep and disturbing problems with the Clinton Foundation which was accepting money from Qatar and Algeria and god knows who else while Secretary of State, and during that time exclusively used only private e-mails subjecting her to cyber spying by our enemies. Recall The Riadas, Johnny Chung, Travelgate, the vanish Rose Law Firms billing records, a killing in cattle futures, the Marc Rich pardon.

Hillary pushed the reset with Russia and Hillary said after four American were murdered n Benghazi "what difference does it make. Hillary traveled exclusively while Secretary of State on the dole and did nothing but unethically feather her nest for a run once again for president. Its one thing to be an opportunist its quick another to do it taking ethical shortcuts and leaving a trail of controversies in your wake. Simply stated the Clintons are master manipulators who can't hide how greedy they really are.

As an side I believe the next president must possess great political courage, impeccable reputation free from scandal, highly ethical, intestinal fortitude, time served in the military and a uniter.

Unfortunately the Democrats only hope is Hillary purely because of name recognition. The Republicans are also hurting for a quality candidate.

I did believe that of all the candidates thus far Mitt Romney at least demonstrated high ethics and morality, an proven leadership ability a way to turn this non responsive economy around and he was correct on many of the foreign issues that arose in the last election. Perhaps America missed an opportunity. I do pray that voters become more serious and more engaged in this election skipping the headlines and digging into the details of candidates promises

Originally Posted by Guest

and now I'll do it....as if you care!

Clinton: With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator.
!

Yes, you are right. I do not really care.

However, you did get the question right. Sec. Clinton was saying it does not make a difference if our men were killed by protesters or by plan. We just have to make sure it does not happen again.

It is my belief that many of the uninformed masses think Sec. Clinton believed that it made no difference that 4 men were killed that night - by using that one phrase, "What difference at this point does it make?".

I will say something similar. At this point in time, what difference does it make? Hillary Clinton will be YOUR next President of the USA.

Originally Posted by Guest

Yes, you are right. I do not really care.

However, you did get the question right. Sec. Clinton was saying it does not make a difference if our men were killed by protesters or by plan. We just have to make sure it does not happen again.

It is my belief that many of the uninformed masses think Sec. Clinton believed that it made no difference that 4 men were killed that night - by using that one phrase, "What difference at this point does it make?".

I will say something similar. At this point in time, what difference does it make? Hillary Clinton will be YOUR next President of the USA.

You obviously do not have a choice as she is the presumed dem candidate. And for thos who are party is all that matters oriented, your choice is made for you. And if she bombs out like she did in 2008 you will be touting whoever it is that survives the fallout like Obama did. So there is no assurance she has the candidate of the party's choice locked up....no different than 2008.

What I think the dems have going against them in 2016?
Hillary Clinton's past.
Obama's past.
I personally do not believe the dems will carry the same following as in 2008 and 2012 regarding blacks and hispanics. The one's who are not in line for hand outs or dedicated to a black candidate are not exactly jumping for joy art Clinton.
Add to that the large percentage of republicans who satyed home in 2008 and 2012 will not dare do so again after seeing what doing has done to the politics of this country and the world.

Just to embellish a couple of points of significance that did not exist in the previous two elections.

Clinto just like 2008 will be over shadowed by somebody that is more current and perhaps respected than she is. She is nothing more than politics as usual.
Another lawyer who knows how to use, abuse or hide behind the law. And only understands one language "Clinton Politics".

Remember back in 2006/2007...she was the shoe in dem candidate....and then out of no where (literally) a total unkown from Illinois was able to knock her off her perch. And given all the controversy and past and not to mention no qualifications that clouded him .........he did it.

She is MORE vulnerable this time from both sides of the aisle.
She brings nothing new to the party and only politics as usual.

I think a lot of we the people (that is a non party specific group) have had just about enough of that!

Clinton email policy violated Obama administration guidance - AOL.com

WOW! Now the president is saying that Mrs Clinton clearly violated his administration guidelines of transparency by not using the government email system.

Hilary might as well just drop out now.

Originally Posted by Guest

Clinton email policy violated Obama administration guidance - AOL.com

WOW! Now the president is saying that Mrs Clinton clearly violated his administration guidelines of transparency by not using the government email system.

Hilary might as well just drop out now.

Send the old bag to prison like Martha Stewart.

Originally Posted by Guest

Send the old bag to prison like Martha Stewart.

Progress

Originally Posted by Guest

Yes, you are right. I do not really care.


I will say something similar. At this point in time, what difference does it make? Hillary Clinton will be YOUR next President of the USA.

Are you sure? Hilary may end up in prison ... ie really.

Hillary apparently sent and read thousands of classified emails on her "private" email system. If true all kinds of problems stem from this. For example, it's highly likely numerous hostile foreign intelligence services penetrated her emails. Oops.

Hillary also ran her private email on a private server running in her home --WTF !!!!!! A reasonable inference is she didn't want anyone to know what she was doing or saying as Secretary of State, while conducting official business. Violation of Federal records act ... oops another felony.

The smartest woman in the world has fatally damaged her candidacy.

Didn't Sarah Palin do the same thing when she was governor of Alaska?