She’s definitely a liar, but less of one than most prominent Republicans. According to Politifact, she is untruthful significantly less often than Romney, McCain, McConnell, and Boehner, just to name a few examples.
If you think us liberals all are going to vote for Hillary (assuming she wins the nomination) because we love her, you’re just deluded. Most of us liberals will vote for Hillary because the Republican alternative will be so, so much worse for America.
You don’t have to be a liberal to hold that sentiment.
I’m counting on it 
Based on recent performance, I have every expectation they’ll screw it up.
Top. Men.
So, a failed CEO and the personification of the educated idiot.
<post snipped>
You ARE aware that her time as CEO wasn’t successful, correct? Laying off 30k people is, in no way, a success.
Did such a great job at HP that their stock rose as soon as she was dumped as CEO.
[quote=“DJ_Motorbike, post:36, topic:719231”]
She worked her way up from Management Trainee to become the first woman to be the CEO of a Fortune 20 company.
[quote]
And failed miserably by any measure you care to use once she got there. At least mitt Romney was a good businessman.
She attended Wellesley College and then Yale Law. She didn’t meet Bill until she was already at Yale so her association with him did not help her in attending one of the most prestigious and exclusive liberal arts colleges and an Ivy league law school.
It’s amusing to me that the best you can do to denigrate her is to call her “stupid” when she is obviously not.
While marrying the eventual POTUS certainly didn’t hurt her, she was a very successful senator and also had a very good tenure as Secretary of State. Regardless of Bill’s notoriety helping her, that is actual experience that she brings to the job.
The only failures in her life that I can point to was her inability to get healthcare reform as the first lady (something nobody until Obama was able to accomplish and we all see how hard it was even for him to use a Republican plan) and not getting the Democratic nod in 2008 but those still pale in comparison to how Fiorina ran HP into the ground.
I don’t even like Clinton that much - she’s too much of a corporatist for my tastes and I am hoping that Bernie Sanders will influence her campaign to veer further left - but to say she is stupid flies in the face of the facts.
If that’s the best you can do, might I suggest MPSIMS.
Compared to whom? Sarah Palin, who couldn’t answer a question like “How was your day, Governor?” without descending into an incoherent mess of factual inaccuracies? Michele Bachmann, who - when the economy was in freefall and the country was shedding hundreds of thousands of jobs a month - declared that America’s top priority should be worrying about homosexuals? I think you need to recalibrate your stupidmeter.
She’s not stupid. No one can answer questions with 1000 word answers while not saying anything at all the way Clinton can.
Well, she came out big on immigration. Seems to me she’s already said more of substance than all the Republicans put together.
The reason Fiorina is so terrible is because she’s Clinton-like without the benefit of Clinton’s fame and experience. She’s actually got some political skill and isn’t likely to make a fool of herself in debates or interviews. She just doesn’t really have anything interesting to say.
Sounds to me like Hillary has made a political calculation that getting out the Latino vote is vital. Be interesting to see how much support from everyone else such a liberal stance costs her. There’s a reason Obama waited until after the midterms to do what he did. I commend her for actually taking a risk. This could backfire tremendously, especially if Latinos don’t trust her in the first place to keep her word and so deny her any benefit from such a stance.
Convincing Latinos to support you is a *liberal *stance? Not simply an American one?
What political skill? Do you remember anything from her last campaign? It was dire.
ETA: Not “Martha Coakley dire”, granted, but still dire.
Those anti-Boxer commercials looked like evidence of a serious drug problem.
I may have found a flaw in your analysis.
Let’s see- you’re betting that after losing 71% of the Latino vote in 2012, you’re going to beat the woman who beat Obama 2-1 among Latinos in 2008 after she comes out with a pro-immigrant platform because you’re convinced Latinos don’t trust her? I would advise you not to put money on the election.
Fiorina, the tech candidate, was issued a takedown notice from NBC for putting her interview with Jimmy Fallon on her YouTube channel.
Yeah, that’s another thing. Bill Gates would be a tech candidate. Steve Wozniak would be a tech candidate. Mark Zuckerburg would be a tech candidate. Carly Fiorina is not a techie, she’s a career manager who oversaw techies.
If she had been good at doing that, she’d have a compelling case to be elected President. Since she wasn’t she has neither that, nor any real tech experience.
All she did was be a little better at climbing that ladder than most Americans. Which is a testament to her political skill, which I have actually acknowledged. She used that political skill to move up the ranks of the companies she worked for and that skill could actually get her a career in politics. But not at the Senate or Presidential level. Fiorina should be running for a House seat.
You should probably tell her that, the words Tech and Technology are all over her web page. It’s almost as if she wants to be seen as the tech candidate.