The Right is truly, truly terrified of Hillary Clinton

[Derideo_Te]

Seriously?

All you have are allegations about something a neophyte lawyer wrote back in the 1970's.

BWAHAHAHAHA

Yeah, and the Rose Law Firm, fraudulent SBA loans on Lot 17 of the Rio Grande Estate development with James McDougal - who went to prison for the act. Whitewater fraud, firing civil service employees and replacing them with family members in Travel Gate.

Dude, Hillary is a life-long criminal - she'll be torn to shreds.

She wasn't in charge. She was doing what she was told to do by those who were leading the investigation. Trying to claim that establishes a "pattern of behavior" when all you actually have is the word of one person making a claim with no substantive corroboration (quite the opposite in fact) is a very thin gruel.

But if that is all you have then best of luck. My prediction is that if you try to use that it will be seen as an act of desperation on the part of the Republicans. You honestly stand a much better chance of digging up something on Benghazi via the FOI act.

She's criminal, always has been. While party hacks will do or say anything to promote the party, she is damaged goods. IF she ran, the GOP will tear her to shreds and shine a light on the mile long list of felonies tied to her neck.

She knows it well, so will not run.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news but Whitewate, Rose Law, Travelgate, etc are all old news. Rehash them at your peril but only Fauxnews will give those tired old stories any air time. The rest of the media will be focused an actual NEWS, as in NEW information, which is what they are paid to do for a living. BTW are you aware that Fauxnews is a self admitted entertainment channel that has confessed in a court room to lying to their viewers?

So when it comes to trying to bring down Hilary all you have are the brain dead zombie stories from the past. That explains why you are so fixated on Benghazi. It is the only hope you have of flinging any mud that might just stick but first you need to find some.

Hilary has a lot of flaws but no politician, especially experienced ones, are flawless. The electorate knows this and takes it into account. When faced with 2 choices they will make a decision (unless they are party line partisans) and decide for themselves who is most likely to have their best interests at heart. Independents decide presidential elections. When it comes to woman voters they will take Hilary over someone who is associated with a party whose platform is anti-women and whose candidates are on the record as being anti-women.

Since women are the largest voting bloc of all you are going to have to scramble to come up with an exceptional candidate who can negate that advantage that Hilary has in the bag should she run. No amount of mudslinging is going to do that for you.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I hate to be the bearer of bad news but Whitewate, Rose Law, Travelgate, etc are all old news. Rehash them at your peril but only Fauxnews will give those tired old stories any air time. The rest of the media will be focused an actual NEWS, as in NEW information, which is what they are paid to do for a living. BTW are you aware that Fauxnews is a self admitted entertainment channel that has confessed in a court room to lying to their viewers?

So when it comes to trying to bring down Hilary all you have are the brain dead zombie stories from the past. That explains why you are so fixated on Benghazi. It is the only hope you have of flinging any mud that might just stick but first you need to find some.

Hilary has a lot of flaws but no politician, especially experienced ones, are flawless. The electorate knows this and takes it into account. When faced with 2 choices they will make a decision (unless they are party line partisans) and decide for themselves who is most likely to have their best interests at heart. Independents decide presidential elections. When it comes to woman voters they will take Hilary over someone who is associated with a party whose platform is anti-women and whose candidates are on the record as being anti-women.

Since women are the largest voting bloc of all you are going to have to scramble to come up with an exceptional candidate who can negate that advantage that Hilary has in the bag should she run. No amount of mudslinging is going to do that for you.

I understand, you're a democrat. You think women are stupid, and will vote based on gender.

Hillary won't run, but if she did, you'd have a rude awakening coming.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

WHAT did Shrillary accomplish as Secretary of State?

Liberal reply (from the laughable likes of carby): "Oh yeah? Well, well, well -- <<splutter>> -- what did any Republican Secretary of State ever 'accomplish?' "



FIRST of all, what carby imagines his rejoinder does is to deflect. Nobody's nibbling though. Deflection effort = a fail. Why? Because there ARE accomplishments by SOME secretaries of State in our history.* If any Sec'y of State (Republican, Democrat or Whig) ever accomplished anything, that's far more than Shrillary managed to do.

SECONDLY, even if carby was right and if no Sec'y of State had ever accomplished diddly dog, then that would only amount to an admission that Shrillary hadn't "accomplished" anything either. So stop touting her stint as Sec'y of State as some kind of "record" upon which she should be able to run for President, you lummox.

_________________
John Adams outlined the Monroe Doctrine. Not a bad accomplishment.
Seward committed the "folly" of BUYING Alaska. Not a bad accomplishment.
George Marshall developed the Marshall plan. I thought liberals in particular just ADORED that accomplishment. HELL, even some conservatives see some virtue in it.

Your intellectual response is just amazing!

Maybe next time you can write it as a Poem?

Your reply to it reveals your inability to address any part of it.

Maybe next time when you want to fail and flail, you can post it as a tribute to your intellectual superior, tderpm.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Why is it that when a modern American "liberal" sees ANY reason to make the claim, he invariably refers to the age, gender and race of his conservative opposition? ("Old white men.")

Such petty use of cheap and fundamentally flawed stereotype caricaturization seems antithetical to "liberal" ideology.And lotsa libs love to make the claim that conservatives are intolerant and "homophobic."

Yet on this Board, quite often, when certain liberals are getting soundly thrashed in some argument, they will invariably make some claim about the conservative opponent suggesting that he is "gay." As ignorant and hypocritical as that is, it is even more striking how the Board's liberal gay members never so much as comment on that kind of (intended?) "ad hominem."

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Hillary won't run, but if she did, you'd have a rude awakening coming.

Won't run? Dude, she's 90% there already! And the panties will vote for her, they're sick of the dicks getting jack-shit done.

 

[The Rabbi]

Hillary won't run, but if she did, you'd have a rude awakening coming.

Won't run? Dude, she's 90% there already! And the panties will vote for her, they're sick of the dicks getting jack-shit done.

Because all women think just the same, right?
Sexist.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Hillary won't run, but if she did, you'd have a rude awakening coming.

Won't run? Dude, she's 90% there already! And the panties will vote for her, they're sick of the dicks getting jack-shit done.

Because all women think just the same, right?
Sexist.

Nope, but plenty of the ***** are getting damn tired of the dicks.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I hate to be the bearer of bad news but Whitewate, Rose Law, Travelgate, etc are all old news. Rehash them at your peril but only Fauxnews will give those tired old stories any air time. The rest of the media will be focused an actual NEWS, as in NEW information, which is what they are paid to do for a living. BTW are you aware that Fauxnews is a self admitted entertainment channel that has confessed in a court room to lying to their viewers?

So when it comes to trying to bring down Hilary all you have are the brain dead zombie stories from the past. That explains why you are so fixated on Benghazi. It is the only hope you have of flinging any mud that might just stick but first you need to find some.

Hilary has a lot of flaws but no politician, especially experienced ones, are flawless. The electorate knows this and takes it into account. When faced with 2 choices they will make a decision (unless they are party line partisans) and decide for themselves who is most likely to have their best interests at heart. Independents decide presidential elections. When it comes to woman voters they will take Hilary over someone who is associated with a party whose platform is anti-women and whose candidates are on the record as being anti-women.

Since women are the largest voting bloc of all you are going to have to scramble to come up with an exceptional candidate who can negate that advantage that Hilary has in the bag should she run. No amount of mudslinging is going to do that for you.

I understand, you're a democrat. You think women are stupid, and will vote based on gender.

Hillary won't run, but if she did, you'd have a rude awakening coming.

Actually you don't get it at all because you are wrong on all counts.

Hillary has every incentive to run and if she does she will be a formidable opponent. Currently she is beating Jeb Bush by 8% in his home state of FL. Negative advertising only goes so far. Jeb is anti-abortion and even with Hispanic support he is going to have a very hard time appealing to enough women voters to close the deal. On top of that he has to deal with the negative Bush legacy. Plenty of voters recall the bad economies under his father and brother. They will be hesitant about a 3-peat.

 

[bedowin62]

it' comical the way the self-deluging left creates their own talking points

truth is there isnt anybody the Right wants to run more than Hillary. a non-name would be more of a challenge.

hillary has mountains of baggage; and then there's Benghazi'

stay tuned for that one!

lol

 

[Derideo_Te]

Why is it that when a modern American "liberal" sees ANY reason to make the claim, he invariably refers to the age, gender and race of his conservative opposition? ("Old white men.")

Such petty use of cheap and fundamentally flawed stereotype caricaturization seems antithetical to "liberal" ideology.And lotsa libs love to make the claim that conservatives are intolerant and "homophobic."

Yet on this Board, quite often, when certain liberals are getting soundly thrashed in some argument, they will invariably make some claim about the conservative opponent suggesting that he is "gay." As ignorant and hypocritical as that is, it is even more striking how the Board's liberal gay members never so much as comment on that kind of (intended?) "ad hominem."

Goes both ways, Ilar. The "petty use of cheap and fundamentally flawed stereotype caricaturization" about liberals coming from conservatives is no different.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Hillary won't run, but if she did, you'd have a rude awakening coming.

Won't run? Dude, she's 90% there already! And the panties will vote for her, they're sick of the dicks getting jack-shit done.

You mean like Obama, right, Sock?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Hillary won't run, but if she did, you'd have a rude awakening coming.

Won't run? Dude, she's 90% there already! And the panties will vote for her, they're sick of the dicks getting jack-shit done.

You mean like Obama, right, Sock?

PaintedSock says WHAT?

 

[Statistikhengst]

Contend that's not really relevant to anything , but this is were you like to keep it. Pretty weak actually. I've kinda learned now, not to expect much more from you than any of the other the liberal hacks. Hurt conservatives? i very highly doubt it, by the time 2016 rolls around, Hillery may not even run.

[MENTION=46168]Statistikhengst[/MENTION]

What are you contending, again?


Actually, the OP is really quite relevant, Jroc, for a well-known Right-winger named Glenn Beck, whose radio program and TV presence has made him an icon and he has literally made millions and millions of dollars off of angry right wingers, has now gone where no other TV/Radio personality has gone: he has sexualized Hillary Clinton in this way. He has gone down that rabbit hole, something that no other RW personality with this much name recognition has not done.

I wonder how you would feel had Glenn Beck made those kind of comments about, say, for instance, Laura Bush? Hmmm....?

Bet you would not be too thrilled about that. Bet you would think that it is totally inappropriate.

But unlike you, instead of me bitching about it, I decided to turn RW lemons into LW lemonade!

Fact is - the OP IS relevant to what is shaping up for 2016, whether you like it or not, for although Hillary Clinton has not yet declared, she certainly is doing all of the things that an as-of-yet undeclared candidate who is very likely to declare is going to do: she has written a book, she is giving speaking engagements, she is suddenly appearing more and more in the media.

And polling across the board shows a strong, almost draft-like movement for her among Democrats.

So, the next time, instead of attacking ME the person, why not attack the idea?

But on one point, you may be right... perhaps Hillary will not run, but it sure looks like she is going to.

I hope you will consider my words.

I think the only people who pay attention to Glen Beck et,al. are left wingers. They just loooove to post out of context stuff and then claim they represent the GOP somehow.

Hillary won't run. If she runs she wont win the nomination. If she wins the nomination she'll lose the general election. Old has-beens like Hillary dont win elections.

Yes, just like, say, Ronald Reagan!!

 

[Statistikhengst]

I think the only people who pay attention to Glen Beck et,al. are left wingers. They just loooove to post out of context stuff and then claim they represent the GOP somehow.

Hillary won't run. If she runs she wont win the nomination. If she wins the nomination she'll lose the general election. Old has-beens like Hillary dont win elections.

Old has-beens like Reagan didn't win elections?

Hate to tell you this but Hilary is a great communicator, she can connect with people on a personal level (much like Bush jr could and Romney couldn't) and she has the contacts, organization and fundraising to do it all. As the first viable female presidential candidate she appeals to the largest demographic voting bloc of all.

In essence the presidency is hers to decline at the present time.

BTW it looks like Jeb is running too so 2016 could be the ultimate showdown.

Reagan was a one off. Tick off all the losers in presidential elections after that and every one of them was someone who had been around forever.
Hillary cannot communicate. She can lie pretty effectively, which is a positive in the Democrat party these days. She hardly connects with people who aren't already angry and ill informed. My wife and mother can't stand her. My mother a life long Democrat, btw.

Why, yes, just like Richard Nixon. Oh, wait, he came back 8 years later to win.

Or, FDR! Yes, FDR!

Oh, wait, he came back 12 years later to win the Presidency.

Your logic has more holes in it than swiss cheese.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Contend that's not really relevant to anything , but this is were you like to keep it. Pretty weak actually. I've kinda learned now, not to expect much more from you than any of the other the liberal hacks. Hurt conservatives? i very highly doubt it, by the time 2016 rolls around, Hillery may not even run.

[MENTION=46168]Statistikhengst[/MENTION]

What are you contending, again?




Actually, the OP is really quite relevant, Jroc, for a well-known Right-winger named Glenn Beck, whose radio program and TV presence has made him an icon and he has literally made millions and millions of dollars off of angry right wingers, has now gone where no other TV/Radio personality has gone: he has sexualized Hillary Clinton in this way. He has gone down that rabbit hole, something that no other RW personality with this much name recognition has not done.

I wonder how you would feel had Glenn Beck made those kind of comments about, say, for instance, Laura Bush? Hmmm....?

Bet you would not be too thrilled about that. Bet you would think that it is totally inappropriate.

But unlike you, instead of me bitching about it, I decided to turn RW lemons into LW lemonade!

Fact is - the OP IS relevant to what is shaping up for 2016, whether you like it or not, for although Hillary Clinton has not yet declared, she certainly is doing all of the things that an as-of-yet undeclared candidate who is very likely to declare is going to do: she has written a book, she is giving speaking engagements, she is suddenly appearing more and more in the media.

And polling across the board shows a strong, almost draft-like movement for her among Democrats.

So, the next time, instead of attacking ME the person, why not attack the idea?

But on one point, you may be right... perhaps Hillary will not run, but it sure looks like she is going to.

I hope you will consider my words.

if you want to push Hillary, push what makes her qualified to be president. Push what you like about her. Give us some reasons why you think she'd make a good president. all this is, is childish bullshit, and an off the cuff remark from Glenn beck which is not relevant to anything actually...Grow up.

Weak sauce, weak sauce!! Come on, Jroc, you can do better than that!

"off the cuff"? For one minute and 20 seconds? You consider that "off the cuff"?




I love it: anytime a Righty really fucks-up (which is so very, very often), you don't think it's relevant.

Priceless. Love it. Carry on.

 

[Statistikhengst]

The Dems like Hillary because they think she can win. Period. That's what it's all about. They thought Obama could win and flocked to him. He had nothing else going for him.

Luck.

obama is the luckiest candidate to ever run for -- Anything.

Seriously. Look back at his run at the White House...

Hitlery fucked up on the Florida and Michigan electoral votes which were taken away by the DNC because they voted too early but she figured, "fuck it, I've still got the nomination in the bag so I can afford to be magnanimous"

She didn't even bother with Iowa because it was a 'Caucas' State. A serious mistake on her part but lucky for obama that she was that incompetent.

Had the DNC not penalized Florida and Michigan for early voting by taking away the delegates she won from those two BIG States, it would have been over before The Lying Cocksucker In Chief even got started.

Over.

Then there was the Market Crash in Oct 2008, right before the election. Remember McRINO saying he was going back to Washington to try and help out while the Liar In Chief stayed on the Campaign Trail? Which actually hurt McRINO

Then in 2012, there was Hurricane Sandy, the traitor Chris Fatass Christie, the secret taping of Romney, the 2nd debate where Candy Fatass Crowley jumped in and helped obama when he was stammering all over himself....

obama isn't nearly as skilled as people want to give him credit for.

He's lucky. REAL lucky.

But like the old axiom goes, "I'd rather be lucky than good" Luck counts.

First bolded: no. Not electoral votes. DELEGATES, delegates won in a primary contest.

Second bolded: Wow. The butthurt runs deep and wide with you.

Now, the Op to this thread is:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...truly-truly-terrified-of-hillary-clinton.html

Got anything relevant to say about the OP, or is diversion the only thing you got left in your fishing bucket of old tricks?

 

[Statistikhengst]

Old has-beens like Reagan didn't win elections?

Hate to tell you this but Hilary is a great communicator, she can connect with people on a personal level (much like Bush jr could and Romney couldn't) and she has the contacts, organization and fundraising to do it all. As the first viable female presidential candidate she appeals to the largest demographic voting bloc of all.

In essence the presidency is hers to decline at the present time.

BTW it looks like Jeb is running too so 2016 could be the ultimate showdown.

Reagan was a one off. Tick off all the losers in presidential elections after that and every one of them was someone who had been around forever.
Hillary cannot communicate. She can lie pretty effectively, which is a positive in the Democrat party these days. She hardly connects with people who aren't already angry and ill informed. My wife and mother can't stand her. My mother a life long Democrat, btw.

Coming from someone who is both angry and ill informed I suspect that you got that backwards.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Just remember - it took Obama to keep her out of the White House the last time she ran.
Love or hate him - you have to admit he's very good at getting people to vote for him.
Does the GOP have anyone who is that good at it?

I don't know if "terrified" is the right word - but I hope Republicans don't think they can just sleepwalk into the White House like they did in 2012.

Wrong.

8/25/07: Clinton DNC operatives strip FL of all 210 delegates [UPDATED 2X]

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/06/the-florida-michigan-morass/

obama is lucky.

The DNC took away more than enough delegates early enough that dimocraps thought he was the 'chosen one' and voted for him en masse. Hitlery got cheated out of the nomination.

Period

Had the DNC not penalized Hitlery by taking away the 366 delegates she rightfully won in early 2008, you still wouldn't know who barack insane obama is.

She's damaged goods. yesterday's breakfast. I truly, truly hope dimocraps are stupid enough to run her against us.

It won't even be close if they do

Of course, you are lying and unfortunately for you, I also analyzed the DEM nomination process every step of the way and blogged it all through the process in 2008, every single step of the way.

Here the end results:

Statistikhengst's ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond: Obama CLINCHES the nomination - 2,162 and counting

Obama first clinched the nomination on June 4, 2008, after the SD primary, which Hillary won.

Even without Florida, even without Michigan, Obama was winning. Even WITH Florida in the mix, with WITH Michigan in the mix, Obama would still have won.


The margins in both of those states, even had Hillary won them 70-30, would not have been enough to make up for the end margin in delegates that Obama had.

And both of those states were not penallized by either the Clinton or the Obama camp, they were penalized by the DNC for breaking primary rules. You do understand the meaning of the word "rules", right? And just to point out your ignorance in this matter, the first link you provide would like to implicate the Clinton camp for the disqualification of the FL delegates, which means that they thought that had those delegates been counted, Obama's margin would be even WIDER.

BTW, I was a Clinton voter in 2008, but gladly switched my support to Obama when it was clear he would win the nomination. And I am one of just millions and milllions and mllions of voters who will now gladly vote for Clinton, because she is only about 10 times better than anything the GOP can somehow scraped together from the bottom of the barrel, like it has done the last 16 years.

 

[Jroc]

What are you contending, again?




Actually, the OP is really quite relevant, Jroc, for a well-known Right-winger named Glenn Beck, whose radio program and TV presence has made him an icon and he has literally made millions and millions of dollars off of angry right wingers, has now gone where no other TV/Radio personality has gone: he has sexualized Hillary Clinton in this way. He has gone down that rabbit hole, something that no other RW personality with this much name recognition has not done.

I wonder how you would feel had Glenn Beck made those kind of comments about, say, for instance, Laura Bush? Hmmm....?

Bet you would not be too thrilled about that. Bet you would think that it is totally inappropriate.

But unlike you, instead of me bitching about it, I decided to turn RW lemons into LW lemonade!

Fact is - the OP IS relevant to what is shaping up for 2016, whether you like it or not, for although Hillary Clinton has not yet declared, she certainly is doing all of the things that an as-of-yet undeclared candidate who is very likely to declare is going to do: she has written a book, she is giving speaking engagements, she is suddenly appearing more and more in the media.

And polling across the board shows a strong, almost draft-like movement for her among Democrats.

So, the next time, instead of attacking ME the person, why not attack the idea?

But on one point, you may be right... perhaps Hillary will not run, but it sure looks like she is going to.

I hope you will consider my words.

if you want to push Hillary, push what makes her qualified to be president. Push what you like about her. Give us some reasons why you think she'd make a good president. all this is, is childish bullshit, and an off the cuff remark from Glenn beck which is not relevant to anything actually...Grow up.

Weak sauce, weak sauce!! Come on, Jroc, you can do better than that!

"off the cuff"? For one minute and 20 seconds? You consider that "off the cuff"?




I love it: anytime a Righty really fucks-up (which is so very, very often), you don't think it's relevant.

Priceless. Love it. Carry on.

Notice you ignored the main point of my post, only to focus on your stupidity ..."carry on" not much substance with you, is there? Disappointing really.

 

[Jroc]

Just remember - it took Obama to keep her out of the White House the last time she ran.
Love or hate him - you have to admit he's very good at getting people to vote for him.
Does the GOP have anyone who is that good at it?

I don't know if "terrified" is the right word - but I hope Republicans don't think they can just sleepwalk into the White House like they did in 2012.

Wrong.

8/25/07: Clinton DNC operatives strip FL of all 210 delegates [UPDATED 2X]

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/06/the-florida-michigan-morass/

obama is lucky.

The DNC took away more than enough delegates early enough that dimocraps thought he was the 'chosen one' and voted for him en masse. Hitlery got cheated out of the nomination.

Period

Had the DNC not penalized Hitlery by taking away the 366 delegates she rightfully won in early 2008, you still wouldn't know who barack insane obama is.

She's damaged goods. yesterday's breakfast. I truly, truly hope dimocraps are stupid enough to run her against us.

It won't even be close if they do

Of course, you are lying and unfortunately for you, I also analyzed the DEM nomination process every step of the way and blogged it all through the process in 2008, every single step of the way.

Here the end results:

Statistikhengst's ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond: Obama CLINCHES the nomination - 2,162 and counting

Obama first clinched the nomination on June 4, 2008, after the SD primary, which Hillary won.

Even without Florida, even without Michigan, Obama was winning. Even WITH Florida in the mix, with WITH Michigan in the mix, Obama would still have won.


The margins in both of those states, even had Hillary won them 70-30, would not have been enough to make up for the end margin in delegates that Obama had.

And both of those states were not penallized by either the Clinton or the Obama camp, they were penalized by the DNC for breaking primary rules. You do understand the meaning of the word "rules", right? And just to point out your ignorance in this matter, the first link you provide would like to implicate the Clinton camp for the disqualification of the FL delegates, which means that they thought that had those delegates been counted, Obama's margin would be even WIDER.

BTW, I was a Clinton voter in 2008, but gladly switched my support to Obama when it was clear he would win the nomination. And I am one of just millions and milllions and mllions of voters who will now gladly vote for Clinton, because she is only about 10 times better than anything the GOP can somehow scraped together from the bottom of the barrel, like it has done the last 16 years.

How so? spell it out why Hillery?