Nope. You can attempt to go that route if you like but it isn't the case. My dislike of her is not gender based. And no, there aren't a lot. She struggles to gain public defense even among the dems. So, Obama doesn't like her because she's a woman? No, I will not consider context. It was a stupid comment which she still defends despite knowing the fallout. She said in her interview yesterday that the comment was meant to "get back" at the relentless questioning by republicans. Why is it that you defend context here, and yet disregard context with McCain's comment about "details" as they pertained to the Bergdahl exchange? I am talking about the affair....the stuff that happens between man and wife when that occurs. She blamed the wrong entity and then when provided the truth, she never went back to it. I am not blaming her. I am calling into question her behavior as it relates in the human context. She took an active role by going on American TV and blaming the right wing....when the truth was that Bill cheated....and lied.
Where do you get the notion that she isn't liked? She almost won the nomination in 2008! How many democrats have said that they dislike her? No, the Clintons and Obama tossed a lot of rhetoric around in 2008 during the primaries that have soured the personal relationships, especially among their loyal staffs. Obama and Hillary are pragmatic politicians who work with who they have to. Thus Obama appointed Hillary to be SoS and Bill campaigned for Obama. Then I need say no more. You aren't listening. Are you talking about the Dianne Sawyer interview? That's not exactly what she said, is it? I defend context everywhere. Context is essential in understanding what anybody is saying. When exactly did I "ignore" context from John McCain? Well, what you said was that Bill had committed a crime of sexual harassment. It was the Republicans who were behind the Whitewater/Monicagate witch hunt that came to exactly nothing. Fact. Truth. She was talking about the failed Whitewater/Monicagate prosecution, not Bill's foibles! How many times must I point this out. It's pretty obvious if you read the remark in context. Ooops, you don't believe in context. Sorry, but cherry-picked comments applied to the wrong issue are misleading. Intentionally so.
How many have said they like her? Most are holding their nose....the lesser of 2 evils as LaSalle would say. Okay. So then please accept that I may not like her for a myriad of reasons that have nothing to do with her gender. Obama appointed her to a position where he could send her and keep her out of DC. Success! Susan Rice was the willing idiot who insisted on blaming that stupid video. Republicans who were questioning Hillary wouldn't let it go and hence, her comment....frustration she says was about the talking point but clearly she was pissed off at the unwillingness of the republicans to let that line of questioning go. It was a really bad comment and she would do better to own it, rather than try to defend and deflect which is a regular thing for her. If it wasn't you, then I apologize. I recall some conversation in that thread about McCain wanting to make a trade but his comments were completely twisted. He wasn't convicted. Monica may have been pressured to say it was consensual. She was 22....an intern....being propositioned by the POTUS. I find him absolutely culpable and in abuse of his power and disrespecting the Office. Here's how I see it....she made the comment in an attempt to frame the discussion around a conspiracy rather than deal specifically with the affair and Bill's cover-up. Bill had a very long history with cheating. Juanita Broaddrick, Elizabeth Ward Gracen, Lewinsky, Perdue, Flowers, and Paula Jones. And Hillary talks conspiracy? Even Bob Kerry immortalized Bill as "an unusually good liar." In a 1992 interview, Hillary said, "We reached out to them," said Hillary. "I met with two of them to reassure them they were friends of ours." Huh? She just admitted that she participated in a possible cover-up but then years later, it was a "vast conspiracy".
Here's the thing...the GOP is often cast as the party of the rich white man, who is detached from the average American. So here comes the likely Dem candidate for POTUS claiming to be flat broke in an attempt to "share" the American experience of "hard times". She was responding the the question about accepting $200k/per speaking engagement. The Clintons had $30M in advance book deals coming in. She is no more familiar with the American experience than Romney was. However...I agree that there are probably better topics. This isn't my home board obviously but I saw almost a couple days go by and no new topics, very few new comments. It was my apparently weak attempt at getting a conversation going so I apologize if I have participated in the board going to shit. If you got something better, go for it.
I find it funny that some see it as moving to a rigged election, I see it as the republicans doing the rigging themselves. I am a former republican, but that party has gone to shit. It is no longer my party. As long as the republican party is held hostages by extremist the dems will win. As the baby boomers die off it is only going to get worse for the republicans. They need major reform within their party. Plan and simple the dems are putting forward electable candidates now which many former Republicans are seeing as viable candidates. I wish Senator Warren would run, that would be my candidate. I hate Hillary as a candidate. This idea of no taxes ever is insane, how the hell do you expect anything to be paid for. My republican party was about small effective government. They have gone to far right, it is to the extreme. Look at the vote to change student loans, what a great idea to pick up our country. Let students refinance their loans. It lost because republicans refuse to vote in the buffet rule, which was going to pay for it. And instead of working with the dems to come up with a way to pay for it. They just kill it dead in the water. When will the middle class learn that the current politicians are not out for them and start voting these people out of office. When we start to do that we get back our country.
Perhaps that is just a perception from right field. Sure. I was just pulling your chain anyway. Indeed. It was a trade. It got Hillary a foreign policy job so she could add that to her domestic experience in the Senate, which she had to give up to run for President in 2008. I have never really understood Susan Rice and I'm beginning to think that she is just a political brown-nose rather than a diplomat caught up in politics. No apologies needed in a debate. Debate is a blood sport and not for the thin-skinned. Monica never even made an issue out of what was an adventure for her and something for her diary. It was her "friend" that betrayed her by going to the Whitewater prosecutor with the story and put Monica into an embarrassing position. It was not Clinton that violated her privacy. It was Linda Tripp. Disrespectful of his office for sure. Not much power abuse. Far less powerful people hook up for the same lustful reasons. Well, in context, that was not really the case. She was talking about the whole three-year attempt to reverse two elections. And she has addressed the Monica affair. Understandably she doesn't make a big deal out of it publicly. Who would?
I don't think so but perception is reality. Bill, for all his lying and glad-handing, is a likable feller. Hillary just isn't. She has made lying an art form and people just know not to trust her. Little things like claiming to be named after Sir Edmund or being under sniper fire in Bosnia....she lies. Noted, lol. Maybe both. The "movie made them do it" thing was sad but the "Bergdahl kidnapped from a latrine" was beyond. Time to go back to private employment I think. I don't disagree. Tripp and Lucianne Goldberg are scum. They also took advantage of a naive Lewinsky. Nothing more intoxicating to a 22 year old White House intern than the POTUS. It worked for Kennedy too. Bill cheats. She knows it. She tried to cover it up. Ultimately she framed the entire conversation into a conspiracy. She distorts the truth like nobody's business. I understand Southern lawyers can do that.
Lol, this board should be on Fox News. Everything you read on here except from a few people sounds like it comes straight from Hannity or O'Reilly.
