Originally Posted by Guest

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!!

Originally Posted by Guest

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.

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"

Originally Posted by Guest

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.

Originally Posted by Guest

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!

Originally Posted by Guest

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Guest

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

Originally Posted by Guest

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?

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.

Originally Posted by Guest

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'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??

Originally Posted by Guest

In 2007/2008 there was what is called a democratic primary, where mostly two candidates campaigned and duked it out, and theM 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?

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

Originally Posted by Guest

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Guest

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??

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.

Originally Posted by Guest

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.

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 !