Connect the dot, man!
Why not hold that info? What good does it do to damage Fiorina in a way that makes her less likely to be the nominee, unless you don’t want her to be the nominee?
A Fiorina-Clinton matchup is not favorable to Clinton. Two females, one who became a success on her own, the other who became a success due to her husband’s name. Fiorina is also a more forceful debater, whereas Clinton is plastic and stiff.
I know I’d vote for Clinton in that matchup, but on style Fiorina would kick her ass and I think she’d do more to appeal to women since she made it on her own rather than marrying well.
Clinton wants Trump bad. She NEEDS Trump.
Way to dismiss Clinton’s considerable personal accomplishments as being entirely due to her marriage. How exactly did that get her onto the advisory staff to the House Committee to the Judiciary during the Watergate investigation? Due to her articles on child and family law she was described by one (presumably biased) historian as "“one of the more important scholar-activists of the last two decades”. Hell, one could argue that marrying Bill hindered her career by forcing her legal work to play second fiddle to his political career (in much the same way Michelle Obama, who was considered by her Harvard professors to be even more promising than her husband in the field of law, has done).
That she gained national prominence through Bill’s presidency is undeniable; that her only accomplishment was marrying him is ludicrous.
That’s her only accomplishment that put her in position to run for President. Had she not married Bill, she would have probably been a fine lawyer. Maybe even a politician. But with her lack of charisma and stiff speaking style she would never have gotten as far as she has. At best, she’d be an obscure Congresswoman from Illinois.
She is nothing if not ambitious, so I disagree.
But postulate all the alternate realities you like; even being “an obscure Congresswoman from Illinois” would make her more qualified to be President than being a laughingstock of a failed CEO does.
Which is why I said I would support Clinton over Fiorina.
My argument was just that I think Fiorina would do better among women due to her career being independent of her husband’s, and probably just for having a better marriage that is held together by something other than shared ambition.
It wasn’t all that long ago you were telling us how Rand Paul would attract the youth vote with his good looks.
So, there’s that.
Rand Paul does have a following among young voters. You haven’t proved me wrong until there’s a general election featuring Rand Paul.
Fiorina’s not going to be the nominee. But since Fiorina’s the GOP’s designated throw-shit-at-Clinton person, Clinton’s got a continuing interest in reducing her credibility. And now is obviously the best moment so far in the campaign to get anything Fiorina-related into play.
Nah, it would be Obama-Keyes all over again. One candidate who was a Senator for eight years and Secretary of State for four years, and was a work horse rather than a show horse in both capacities, and one candidate who was briefly the head of a successful corporation, managed to run it into the ground, and has no further credentials.
If Team Clinton believed Fiorina had a realistic chance at the nomination, they might give her more slack. But is there really any reason to believe she can win it? At some point, this is (I sincerely hope!) going to be a bit deeper than a “GOP’s Got Talent!” show.
Got some poll data to show us? 
It’s like action films where one of the villains is female but you can’t show the male hero beating up a woman, even an evil one, so you put in a female protagonist to smack the villainess around.
The extent to which you wish to continue that analogy is entirely up to you.
Maybe I’m nit-picking, but I always thought marrying well meant marrying someone already successful. Trump’s second and third wives, at least, married well. Romney’s wife married well - he was the son of a CEO and governor. Bill was a nobody when Hillary married him. Maybe she helped him, you know.
I myself am considerably happier to vote for her today than I was 8 years ago, since she seems to have gotten over herself at least some.
I think it is hi-larious that lots of those who said they were against Obama because of lack of political experience are now for Trump (I just typed Tramp) and Carson for that very reason.
Elephants in the circus also have a following. Same function.
It is truly weird…
“Obama is just a big celebrity!” Celebrity Trump leads in the polls.
“Obama just speaks in platitudes!” Platitudes are all that Trump and the Quitter from Wasilla *can *speak.
“Obama has no experience!” Rubio, Carson, Paul, Cruz, Trump, Fiorina, etc., etc.
Some see her being the real winner in the debates, but her views are overall like the other ones and she does not come off as a likable person. In the debate there was a moment where it looked like she will cry, and I felt bad for her. But she did not take Jake Tapper’s bait and was civil and Donald Trump was equally good too. Neither fell for Tapper’s childish questions.
The debate clearly gave her a boost.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/carly-fiorina-heritage-action-213846
Agreed on all accounts. Fiorina is a douchebag, especially when it comes to selling printers to Iran during sanctions…http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-09-14/under-fiorina-hp-earned-millions-from-sales-in-iran
CNN is breaking news that: http://www.cnn.com
“Carly Fiorina surges to second place among GOP presidential hopefuls after CNN’s Wednesday debate. Donald Trump still leads, but lost some support, according to a new CNN/ORC Poll.”
She handed Trump his ass with her one-liner in that debate. Trump has had his armor cracked now, in front of his base, and regardless of what happens in the end, she did that.