It’s not exactly new to anyone who was paying attention at the time. The only thing that made people blind to it was bone-deep sexism I didn’t even know people still had until that point.
Be nice to have had trench warfare against the loonies all these years, instead of Mr. Stockholm Syndrome trying to figure out how to give them what they want before they have to go to the trouble of asking for it.
Let’s not fall into the trap of conflating issues. “She’s (Hillary) driven by political calculation not conviction, regularly backing away and shifting positions..”. That’s a true statement. Otherwise you can’t possibly explain her “Yes” vote to illegally invade and occupy Iraq. Or her vote to approve the Patriot Act. Etc. If a politician is simply an opportunist, shouldn’t that flaw in their character be pointed out? Say in the case of Mitt Romney? Is there something wrong with that? Hillary Clinton, like her husband, is nothing but an opportunistic, lying politician who is in the game of politics only to enrich herself. That’s one issue. The other issue is Obama. Is he an opportunistic, lying politician? The evidnce seems to indicate that the answer to that question is no. So where’s the irony?
RFLOL – BHO isn’t opportunistic? This is the guy who’s taken the AUMF and Patriot Act to dizzying heights – he’s injected those Bush-era atrocities with steroids!!
BHO has no convictions or principles other than his own advancement.
Both Clintons are hard-working (not perfect) public servants. Hillary damn well cares about women, LGBTQ and voted for AUMF (not invasion of Iraq) and Patriot Act because she was the senator from NEW YORK.
Allie, explain this comment, “…and voted for AUMF (not invasion of Iraq) and Patriot Act because she was the senator from New York,” please? Thanks.
OMG, the obama campaign’s chief political strategist wrote a memo about how to trash his political opponent!!!
seriously, why is this news? no doubt mark penn wrote a memo talking about how to trash obama, talking about how to use reverand wright to paint him as a radical that will scare middle class white people. that’s the stuff that political strategists do.
Ummmmmm – the twin towers are in NYC?
The reason this matters is BHO was supposed to be all about above-the-board transformational change.
C’mon bots – get a clue.
Allie, you do mean Hillary “bots” like yourself correct?
The reason this matters is BHO was supposed to be all about above-the-board transformational change.
this is what i don’t get. ronald reagan ran as a transformational candidate with hope as his theme (e.g. the “city on the hill”). bill clinton ran as a transformational candidate with hope as his theme (e.g. “the man from hope”). obama was trodding a well-worn path during his presidential campaign (one that is tends to be a successful strategy following a period when the opposite party was in charge). for some reason (largely from his critics) obama is held to this weird different standard. as if his lofty campaign rhetoric means that he somehow is not a politician. didn’t reagan and clinton have lofty rhetoric? did anyone ever think those two prior presidents weren’t also politicians?
even the “bots” thing i think is pretty stupid.
The “bots” thing IS pretty stupid except when it refers to Hillary “bots.” Because most of Hillary’s women supporters support her only because she’s a woman. How shallow.
Now that we know how rude people think you are, clean up your act or go. Your choice.
It’s not exactly new to anyone who was paying attention at the time. The only thing that made people blind to it was bone-deep sexism I didn’t even know people still had until that point.
Be nice to have had trench warfare against the loonies all these years, instead of Mr. Stockholm Syndrome trying to figure out how to give them what they want before they have to go to the trouble of asking for it.
Let’s not fall into the trap of conflating issues. “She’s (Hillary) driven by political calculation not conviction, regularly backing away and shifting positions..”. That’s a true statement. Otherwise you can’t possibly explain her “Yes” vote to illegally invade and occupy Iraq. Or her vote to approve the Patriot Act. Etc. If a politician is simply an opportunist, shouldn’t that flaw in their character be pointed out? Say in the case of Mitt Romney? Is there something wrong with that? Hillary Clinton, like her husband, is nothing but an opportunistic, lying politician who is in the game of politics only to enrich herself. That’s one issue. The other issue is Obama. Is he an opportunistic, lying politician? The evidnce seems to indicate that the answer to that question is no. So where’s the irony?
RFLOL – BHO isn’t opportunistic? This is the guy who’s taken the AUMF and Patriot Act to dizzying heights – he’s injected those Bush-era atrocities with steroids!!
BHO has no convictions or principles other than his own advancement.
Both Clintons are hard-working (not perfect) public servants. Hillary damn well cares about women, LGBTQ and voted for AUMF (not invasion of Iraq) and Patriot Act because she was the senator from NEW YORK.
Allie, explain this comment, “…and voted for AUMF (not invasion of Iraq) and Patriot Act because she was the senator from New York,” please? Thanks.
OMG, the obama campaign’s chief political strategist wrote a memo about how to trash his political opponent!!!
seriously, why is this news? no doubt mark penn wrote a memo talking about how to trash obama, talking about how to use reverand wright to paint him as a radical that will scare middle class white people. that’s the stuff that political strategists do.
Ummmmmm – the twin towers are in NYC?
The reason this matters is BHO was supposed to be all about above-the-board transformational change.
C’mon bots – get a clue.
Allie, you do mean Hillary “bots” like yourself correct?
The reason this matters is BHO was supposed to be all about above-the-board transformational change.
this is what i don’t get. ronald reagan ran as a transformational candidate with hope as his theme (e.g. the “city on the hill”). bill clinton ran as a transformational candidate with hope as his theme (e.g. “the man from hope”). obama was trodding a well-worn path during his presidential campaign (one that is tends to be a successful strategy following a period when the opposite party was in charge). for some reason (largely from his critics) obama is held to this weird different standard. as if his lofty campaign rhetoric means that he somehow is not a politician. didn’t reagan and clinton have lofty rhetoric? did anyone ever think those two prior presidents weren’t also politicians?
even the “bots” thing i think is pretty stupid.
The “bots” thing IS pretty stupid except when it refers to Hillary “bots.” Because most of Hillary’s women supporters support her only because she’s a woman. How shallow.
Now that we know how rude people think you are, clean up your act or go. Your choice.
I’m shocked! Shocked, I tell you!