That ignores that Biden has little chance of being the nominee. And that anti-Clinton Dems, who would likely vote for Clinton if it came down to it, want someone else.
Saying she’s not the most electable is a bit far fetched. Biden has half her support.
Electable is in how a candidate does against opponents from the other party. Biden does better than Clinton, and Sanders only slightly less well than Clinton.
Fair enough.
Wow. You’re being pretty harsh.
I think she’s crooked. I don’t want to be in a party led by her and her pig of a husband. I think they represent yuppie entitlement, contempt for the poor and less “high-achieving,” rape culture (or something in spitting distance from it), and the betrayal of the social liberal tradition.
But robotic? That’s just mean, and I think unfair.
She’d have to have a personality in the first place. But she has the vagina to be President, which is all that’s required of her halfwit supporters.
Surely she has a personality; she is human, after all.
Does she, in your opinion, have any supporters that aren’t halfwits? Do you believe anyone else believes she has any qualifications besides a vagina?
Dishonest? Sure. Entitled? Oh yeah. But crooked? No. One reason that Clinton supporters get away with suggesting there is no real scandal attached to her is because the Clintons have never sought to illegally enrich themselves or kneecap their political opponents. Their scandals are based on personal problems, Bill’s womanizing and Hillary’s obsession with secrecy and privacy. It’s amazing that people with those problems were ever able to get into high office, but part of the reason they did succeed is because their issues never led to actual corruption like it would for less intelligent or focused politicians.
She exudes phoniness with an extra dash of a smug attitude that she thinks everyone is falling for it.
I was listening to All Things Considered last night and they were playing clips of her and her campaign surrogates answering questions about whether they merely deleted e-mails or if she had the data on the server permanently wiped.
The official response was to condescendingly dismiss the question by saying they don’t even know what *wipe *means. This stupid e-mail scandal has been dragging her down for months, but nobody in the campaign can be bothered to take 60 seconds to explain to her what the word ‘wipe’ means? That’s about how long it took for everyone listening to NPR who didn’t already know to learn what it means.
To me, the smug, phony way she dismissed the question was the perfect example of why she’s so unlikable.
It’s going to be a nauseating presidential election.
That is just perfect!
Know who else was a bombastic, genuine, emotional nationalist with an overly-aggressive combover? Now I’m wondering if Trump was ever turned out from art school.
Bombastic genuine nationalists have existed in every country, many of them lauded by liberals as heroes.
No, I’m pretty sure it’s the actual corruption.
Hillary’s Cash Cows And Other Sweet Deals Newsweek, April 1994:
There are actually a few politicians who don’t play the game this way, and some of us would prefer not to have the leader of the party be someone quite so ready to wheedle favors from “friends” on the basis of her position. These are red flags.
That much I agree with. We can do better. The Democrats have four fine candidates running with a fifth in the wings. There’s just no reason to settle.