Can you make a logical, rational case for why Hillary Clinton would make a better candidate than Martin O’Malley apart from her fame?
On the GOP side, all the governors are getting a fair hearing because governors are automatically credible. On the Democratic side, in 2008 and today governors didn’t get the time of day. Which I guess is probably a necessity now, since the Democrats don’t have many governors.
:dubious:
Would it surprise you to find that my opinion of the credibility of ANY of these wingnut governors differs from yours?
You’re free to believe that, but the resume alone entitles them to at least get a fair hearing so that we can judge for ourselves whether or not they are up to being President. O’Malley doesn’t even look like he’ll get that. Webb is also quite well qualified. Historically, Republicans have always given candidates that check the correct resume boxes a fair hearing. Democrats did too, at least before 2008. I made what turned out to be another dumb prediction in 2008 that Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Tom Vilsack, and Bill Richardson would do much better than their polls at the time showed. I predicted that as they were heard by Democratic primary voters, they would realize that these candidates had a lot to offer. In the end, that just didn’t happen. I’d like to be able to predict that O’Malley and Webb will give Clinton a stiff challenge, but that assumes Democratic primary voters are going to be paying attention.
With what we know now, because she can raise tons more money, is very popular with Democrats (and looked upon favorably in the country at large), and probably has the best chance to win.
I still might vote for O’Malley (or others) in the primary, though – I’m waiting to see if he announces, and I’ll listen to what he has to say.
All governors shouldn’t be automatically credible – Sarah Palin shouldn’t be, Jindal shouldn’t be, Brownback shouldn’t be, Rick Scott shouldn’t be. Any Democratic governor with good ideas, good charisma, and good campaigning should be (and will be) credible, even if they ultimately lose because Hillary is so damn popular. We’ll see.
You’re way, way off here. 2008 (and presumably 2016) are the outliers – Obama was a brilliant candidate and would have dominated any recent non-incumbent primary (other than against the equally brilliant Bill Clinton). Hillary is similarly unusually popular within the party.
But even so, any good candidate will be given a “fair hearing”, just like Biden/Dodd/Vilsack/Richardson did. They were given a fair hearing and lost – they weren’t particularly charismatic, they weren’t particularly interesting, and they were just not nearly as good as Obama. But any similar candidates will have a very difficult task, just like they did in 2008 – Obama was a brilliant candidate who ran a brilliant campaign, and Hillary is incredibly popular among Democrats.
(post shortened, underline and bold added)
You claim previous Benghazi hearings found much of how RW media was reporting it was outright false.
(post shortened)
I reminded you that the Congressional Committee isn’t investigating the LSM.
(post shortened)
Yes, I know that. I was responding to your statement that the Benghazi hearings found much of how RW media was reporting it was outright false. The Benghazi hearings made no such finding.
No it wasn’t. Feel free to educate yourself:
http://intelligence.house.gov/sites/intelligence.house.gov/files/documents/Benghazi%20Report.pdf
There was no “stand-down” order. There was no manipulation of evidence. There was no real-time video feed. There was no one in position to do anything.
Those are all lies that the RW media hyped, and still hype to this day. And I’d guess that you still believe all or some of it.
What is the LSM? Don’t hide a childish, petulant, nonsense phrase behind acronyms. Say it.
Some of the things the RW media was reporting didn’t happen. According to the findings. That’s a fact. <3
LSM = lame stream media. It’s a word-play of the term main stream media.
You know the type. The Rolling Stone magazine for running a college rape story that didn’t contain a word of truth. And they saw no reason to discipline any of the employees for not upholding any journalist standards because they don’t have any.
And the repeated Bridgegate lies told by MSNBC, night after night. They liked the “Christie punishes some nobody Mayor in NJ” story so much, they made up two more lies. Holding the Hudson Lights project hostage and fighting with Democrats over a state Supreme Court justice appointment, just to make the first lie sound more plausible.
CNN for trotting out every person who was willing to say, “Hands up, don’t shoot”, on-air, even if there was no evidence those words were ever said.
The dailykos for almost every hate-mongering article they’ve ever run with.
You know, the LSM.
Meanwhile, back at the Benghazi report -
I noticed that the only media outlet mentioned by name, in the report, is Reuters. Is that the RW media outlet you were referring to?
It appears the Committee found that the Obama Administration’s, and Susan Rice’s initial public narratives were not accurate. Imagine my surprise that the main stream media couldn’t get the facts straight. :rolleyes:
*Page 25 -
IV. After the attacks, the early intelligence assessments and the Administration’s initial public narrative on the causes and motivations for the attacks WERE NOT FULLY ACCURATE. HPSCI asked for the talking points, Ambassador Rice ended up using for her talk show appearances on September 16, solely to aid the Members’ ability to communicate publicly using the best available intelligence at the time. THE PROCESS AND EDITS MADE TO THESE TALKING POINTS WAS FLAWED.
Finding #11: Ambassador Rice’s September 16 public statements about the existence of a protest, as well as some of the underlying intelligence reports, PROVED TO BE INACCURATE.
After reviewing hundreds of pages of raw intelligence, as well as open source information, it was clear that between the time when the attacks occurred and when the Administration, through Ambassador Rice, appeared on the Sunday talk shows, intelligence analysts and policymakers received a stream of piecemeal intelligence regarding the identities/affiliations and motivations of the attackers, as well as the level of planning and/or coordination. Much of the early intelligence was conflicting, and two years later, INTELLIGENCE GAPS REMAIN.
Various witnesses and senior military officials serving in the Obama Administration testified to this Committee, the House Armed Services Committee, and the Senate Armed Services Committee that they knew from the moment the attacks began that the attacks were deliberate terrorist acts against U.S. interests. No witness has reported believing at any point that the attacks were anything but terrorist acts.*
http://intelligence.house.gov/sites/intelligence.house.gov/files/documents/Benghazi%20Report.pdf
Oh, good. You’re using a Palinism, which immediately lets me know that your opinion is uninformed and probably stupid.
Are you aware that you’re posting in the Great Debates forum? Or doesn’t that matter to you?
I don’t believe anybody ever said that “Hands up don’t shoot” was something that any police shooting victim ever said. It was a rallying cry.
Your arguments can be stupid here. Like using a childish LSM buzzword coined by one of the most vapid RW idiots thrust upon the scene in years. And that’s saying something. This is a party whose currently ruling faction is based on not knowing what’s actually happening in reality.
So, you’re asserting that you have no idea that RW Media was selling a bill of goods for years about Benghazi that has shown to be not true? Do you think there was a “Stand Down” order? Do you think there was a live feed? Do you think there was an active attempt to mislead by the WH or intelligence agencies? If you watch FOX you might. What exactly do you think the GOP is investigating here? What issues do you think there are?
If you want to go into if Mainstream Media or RW Media is more true in general, that’s fine, but it probably belongs in another thread, and you’ll lose the argument there too.
I called your OPINION uninformed and stupid. How does that not pass the GD rules?
Yes, we know. The question was about why you’re using it, with an implication about your desire to be taken seriously.
Haven’t you been pretty pious about “waiting for the investigation to be complete” there? 
If you’re being selective about applying a principle, it isn’t really a principle, knowhamean?
What’s you’re failing to acknowledge is that when it’s Christie being investigated and there’s substantial evidence of wrongdoing amongst his coterie it’s a non-issue drummed up by liberals and has nothing to do with Christie and no one should pay attention to it, but when it’s Clinton answering questions in the eighth investigation in two years on the same topic it’s of vital importance to the country and she must answer every question and give the investigation anything and everything they ask for for years on end until they’re satisfied or else the voters will condemn her.
Because reasons.
Trey Gowdy “warns” this investigation may drag on until right before Election Day.
Please proceed, Mr. Chairman. Please.
I’m in favor of investigations in to the actions of elected, and appointed, government employees and into government agencies. I wouldn’t stop the investigation into Christie’s actions any more than I would stop the investigation into all-things-Benghazi, which includes Ol’ Hillary’s time as Sec. of State.
However, my recent reference to MSNBC-Christie was one example of what I consider to be the actions of the LSM.
MSNBC is no more a part of the “mainstream” (or “lamestream”) media than Fox News.
MSNBC is nowhere near as bad as Fox, but it makes no pretense at ideological balance AFAIK and is widely understood to be very left-leaning.
CNN selected many interviewees who claimed Brown had his hands up. (Whatever happened to that “Hands up don’t shoot” rallying cry? I don’t hear it anymore. Did protestors lose interest when it couldn’t be proven that Brown had his hands up?)
Meanwhile, there is a sufficient number of examples proving that the main stream media outlets have acted in a lame manner. The term Lame Stream Media (LSM) suits them to a T.
I sit corrected. That is what you said. Mea culpa.