WOW!!!!

A single post qualifies to tar the entire group....convenient vrbiage to promote one's case no matter if it is accurate or not in this case.

And the crumbling of the "crush" continues:

Democratic support for Hillary Clinton softens: Reuters/Ipsos poll | Reuters

I can't wait to see how the response to this is re-stated.

Obama's rein over the kingdom show be cuff iciest reminder of what destruction to America can happen when an unqualified person trained in the letter of the law is elected.
The free lunch is not worth losing our freedoms and all that IS AMERICAN!

I need the ability to edit.......the underlined should read:

"...Obama's reign over the kingdom should be sufficient..."

The corruption of the Clintons continues … basically raking in millions of solicited “donations” (i.e. purchase of future access) … what could be wrong with that??

WSJ: “Some donors have direct ties to foreign governments. One is a member of the Saudi royal family. Another is a Ukrainian oligarch and former parliamentarian. Others are individuals with close connections to foreign governments that stem from their business activities… All told, more than a dozen foreign individuals and their foundations and companies were large donors to the Clinton Foundation in the years after Mrs. Clinton became secretary of state in 2009, collectively giving between $34 million and $68 million, foundation records show…After Mrs. Clinton left the State Department in 2013, the foundation resumed accepting donations from foreign governments. Just after she stepped down as secretary of state, it received a large donation from a conglomerate run by a member of China’s National People’s Congress. In response to questions about foreign donations, a foundation official said the individuals have given to a host of other major philanthropies.”

The Wall Street Journal...blah, blah, blah. Is that the best they got? The Clinton Foundation's books are open for anyone to see, as are the Gates Foundation, etc etc. How else would the WSJ get access to all these facts?

Does anyone think that the average working woman voter gives a rat's patootie about how much the CGI took in or where it went? Most voters are just trying to balance their own books.

If they lived and worked in Washington using other people's money they wouldn't have that burden!!

Let me translate what you're really saying if I could ...

" I'm a Liberal Democrat through and through, and I don't care how dishonest or corrupt Mrs Clinton is ... I'm voting for her anyway. Plus the alleged corruption is just part of the vast right wing conspiracy ... just like when all those foxxy conservative women jumped in bed with Bill"

The Clinton Global Initiative is a CHARITY. The books are open for inspection, just like the Gates Foundation books. And just to be clear; Bill Clinton is not running for president. If he were, he would probably win in a landslide.

I see the party kool aide strength has gone up to triple strength!

WOW....what tripe

Do you read ANYTHING..ANYTHING AT ALL, except what feeds your party line ?

You would be amazed what information is out there that is UN biases, and neither left nor right.

This blind defense of ANYONE, not just her, is unhealthy and speaks to a very closed mind.

What were all you women voters who think they are going to slam dunk Clinton to office in 2016 doing in 2008?

Sma e person. Nothing changes except more controvery to her already questionable past.

Her numbers back in 2007 campaign mode showed her to be the heir apparent...just like now.

Same question I asked in another thread....how did all you so certain in 2016 ladies allow an unknown, unqualified dark horse (no pun intended) to knock her off her perch?

I also suppose if there was a better female candidate running as a republican you all would most certainly vote for the better woman.....right?

I guess what I find, with the thread, as well as almost all other threads on the political forum is there is a group for posters that know everything.

If someone even hints at an opposing or liberal view, they are catagorized as unknowing or as a low information voter. Even when there are links to information, that info is dismissed as biased.

It would seem that the right wing posters are angry and opposed to just about anything that would be accomplished by this President. Somehow, it must be just what it's like in DC with that party....no to everything.

It seems the country is in unbelievable bad shape and we will not recover. Most rational persons will not buy such theories. Certainly, the economic data does not suggest that to be the case.

In general, this entire political forum is for those that want to preach to the choir (themselves and like minded) and not really debate anything.

Before you say it: I'm a low information, stupid, know nothing voter.

With a few word/party inference changes the message fits either the right or the left shoe.

Such a sad assessment of one's self. Here is another (left or right) statement....things will start to improve after the 2016 election:D

In 2007/2008 there was what is called a democratic primary, where mostly two candidates campaigned and duked it out, and the one with the most votes won.

Hilary Clinton fought a long hard battle and won in big states like California, Pennsylvania, and Ohio, but in the end Barack Obama had the most delegates and he won. It was in all the papers. There were televised debates.

The next election cycle in 2016 will be like the 2012 cycle when Barack Obama ran unopposed, no contests, no primary debates. By the way, are republicans going to have a candidate in this race?

I think what you said was you ladies who have been waiting all these years couldn't make it happen.
She lost to an unknown to a better debater?
Wait one while I recover from laughter.
So you think she will be unopposed? Where did that revelation come from?
The rest of the snide commentary is not worth the keystrokes to answer.

I'm going to ask you a simple question. I'm hopeful you will provide a simple and HONEST answer ...

Do you think it's appropriate for a Secretary of State to solicit donations from foreign leaders to her personal Foundation??

So the thinking is she will run un-opposed?
Really?
Thank you for the dissertation on how she LOST!

IMO Barack Obama had one item in his winning playbook that no other candidate had then or has had since, and that is a winning ground game based on using the internet. The organization that went into his effort for getting out the vote was phenomenal.

Women across the country were devastated when Hilary lost, but they did not sit around and mope. They jumped on the Obama bandwagon to make sure there was a democratic president. Hopefully, the president is going to give Hilary full access to his data bases and strategies.

Josh Earnest, White House press secretary, said today that even though the president usually stays out of primary politics, he thinks he will be endorsing a candidate.

Your angst is understandable, considering the GOP has lost the popular vote in five of the last six elections, and 2016 will make it six of seven.

BTW: Hilary gave her last paid speech yesterday. The campaign begins. Game on.

There is no simple and honest answer, because we lay people have no idea how this works. Aren't donations pledged when the foundation meets in NYC the same time as the UN General Assembly meeting?

As far as these foreign countries getting any special favors from the secretary of state, this would be highly improbable. Under the US constitution, only the president sets foreign policy and the secretary of state is his emissary, traveling around the world to see that his policies are implemented.

The Clinton Foundation books are open for all to inspect.

Gotta give you credit....you nailed it in what you said. Said like the typical "game player" but admitetly, pretty accurate.

Candidates sucked, except for Romney, on the GOP side as well.

What you DID NOT SAY, was that now we have a record to look at. Turning our back on long time allies, welcoming and warming to terrorists and terrorist sympathizers (HAMAS and IRAN for two, but there are more) Lack of any leadership at all, as I do not include a President who feels HIS agenda is the only agenda in town.....and on and on.

But what you said is correct and said by someone who obviously has the party interest before the country !

Your inability to make a simple distinction between appropriate and inappropriate behavior for a senior Government officer is open for all to see ... thanks for in effect answering the question in spite of your attempt to dodge it

That would be absolutely inappropriate.

I totally agree that asking for donations from foreign leaders while you are secretary of state would be absolutely inappropriate, and this is something that was never done by Hilary Clinton.

If Hillary Clinton had even thought of doing such a thing as secretary of state, there would be all kinds of congressional investigations. Even the GOP wouldn't make up something this bizarre.

I hate to have to break the news to you ... but that is what she apparently did and the primary reason why she set up her own mail server. The objective was to make sure any incriminating emails never got into the hands of a congressional committee.

And you know this because???????????????????

OK for the die hard Clinton/no matter what supporters (not derogatory but factual) why was/is it OK that she not only did not follow the guidelines of communications for the secretary of state......she knowingly violated the law and the protocols set up to keep the information honest, transparent where security allows and available.

Why does the government now have to go through jumping through hoops to get what the would and should have by the protocols of her then office.

Now why is it OK that she allowed/directed that to happen?

My opinion? As a lawyer she wanted to insure she had control of anything that would incriminate or affect her ability to deny. She has the background and the training to use, abuse and or hide behind the letter of the law. She with the help of her counsel know exactly how far out to go on the thin ice of truth. Lawyers don't lie....they just do not tell the truth!

Instead of attacking my opinion first. Please answer the question asked. Then have your say about my opinion.

When I see a charmingly naive question such as yours, I'm reminded of the young boy in La Grange TX who, when first learning about the Chicken Ranch, asked "what goes on inside a whorehouse anyway?"

April 9, 2015 - Paul Blooms As Clinton Wilts In Colorado, Iowa, Virginia, Quinnipiac University Swing State Poll Finds
PDF format

---

COLORADO: Paul 44 - Clinton 41
IOWA: Paul 43 - Clinton 42
VIRGINIA: Clinton 47 - Paul 43

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's lead is wilting against leading Republican presidential candidates in three critical swing states, Colorado, Iowa and Virginia, and she finds herself in a close race with U.S. Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky in each state, according to a Quinnipiac University Swing State Poll released today. In head-to-head matchups, every Republican candidate effectively ties her in Colorado and almost all Republicans effectively tie her in Iowa.

2016 Presidential Swing State Polls Poll - April 9, 2015 - Paul Blooms As Clinton Wilts I | Quinnipiac University Connecticut

Just wait until if and when she comes forward and declares she is running.
Then the gloves will come off and the wilt will turn into an unrecoverable slide.
Just like 2008.

Some more good news for Hillary as she rolls towards the nomination.

The prostitutes of Nevada are now endorsing her and, much to my relief, Bill announced that he too is solidly behind these women.

The hookers are especially impressed with Hillary's foriegn policy record as we all are ... the rise of ISIS, Iran about to go nuclear and Russia on the warpath. Heckuva job indeed.

Anyway, good to know the "ho's" are supporting her.

‘Hookers for Hillary’ initiative kicks off at Bunny Ranch; something Bill can get behind! - BizPac Review

Nixon was booted because of watergate and now we are talking about someone the democrats are saying "she is the most experience to run for president" does hooking herself up privately for e-mail sound like experienced or corrupt?

Yes. Very experienced at corruption, deception, lying and faking caring. Look how well she plays the loving wife....ON CAMERA (good politics she thinks.....phony some of us think).

The democrats know they can do better. Just waiting for the right moment where and when it won't look like they wanted to do it....you know like 2008.

Watergate was tame compared to many of Hillary's scandals and for that many of the scandals past and present by the Washington set.

Nixon was a gifted statesman compared to many in Washington. but there was one critical difference. The liberal media took delight in destroying conservatives and nothing has changed to this day

Agree they are personality traits. Still waiting to hear One thing this woman accomplished as secretary of state? Answer is nothing but to the clueless they will say "what difference does it make"?

Hillary is a wonderful wife.

Just because she screams and screeches at Bill, while throwing plates and dishes at him (ie actually drawing blood at one point according to Secret Service sources) is no reason for any of us to be "judgmental" :)

If this is the best you got against Hillary, we might as well declare 'game over' and don't even bother selecting a sacrificial lamb to run against her from the ever growing list.

How about we meet at your campaign headquarters on election night and pop the champagne like we did in 2008 and 2012, when the Daily Sun reported that residents at Lake Sumter Landing were euphoric (their words, not mine). There must have been a lot of Obama supporters out that night.

78% of 18-29 year olds favor marriage equality.

But yeah, let's run a bunch of old right wing wackos who think they have a right to tell people who they can marry.

Hilary in a landslide.

I was just listening to Fox News and they had yet another anti-Hillary Clinton story on.

I got to thinking (since I do not watch Fox News on a regular basis, I am still able to think for myself), that instead of all the anti-Hillary stories, WHY are they not doing POSITIVE stories about all the accomplishments of the Republivan candidates and prospective Republican candidates?

They could incorporate these personal positive positions with the positive positions of the Republican party instead of just focusing on trying to tear down Mrs. Clinton or President Obama.

I think it is so sad that we have reduced the office of the President of the United States to issues such as gay rights, women's rights, who can give the most freebies out while in office, etc. Not to say that these are not important issues to discuss, but shouldn't the President have more pressing issues to deal with - like the safety of our country for one thing? Aren't leadership qualities and experience more important than ideology for a President? If the majority really does think as you do, I'm afraid we are in real trouble as a country.

Give me a real leader who has integrity, experience, and a willingness and ability to bring people together, and I will vote for him or her no matter what party!