You didn’t include this caveat. I’ll ask again kindly that you try to put a little more effort into your posts – you could have easily avoided this by clearly stating what you meant.
Agreed (among other things).
New stuff coming seemingly every day. Now we’ve got a possible quid pro quo with a donor to the Clinton foundation:
What it actually looks like to me is just typical Democratic behavior of opposing trade deals during campaigns and favoring them once elected. I won’t feel bad for her though, because karma’s a bitch. Don’t lie to your supporters.
This is the surest sign of how strong Clinton’s chances are.
If you see people “explaining” why some other Democrat can’t get elected, then it’ll be the time to start worrying about Clinton.
Yes, Clinton is definitely unique in being the only politician to ever lie to her supporters. Never happened before.
On a slightly more reality-based note, I often wonder how Obama would have done in 2008 without Clinton to act as a stalking horse. The GOP had aimed all their heavy artillery at her early on, and when Obama zipped past her they had to recalibrate their mudslinging machines at relatively short notice which gave him an advantage.
Which occasionally makes me consider that she’s doing it again for this election, but on purpose this time - stand out in front, get the opposition all worked into a tizzy and then later in the game step aside to let the “real” contender come to the fore. To be honest, I’d consider this a more likely scenario if it wasn’t the Democrats we were talking about here - they’re not exactly known for shrewd campaign strategies.
The difference is that her change of position did coincide with donations to her foundation. That looks really bad.
That’s a difference? 
Assuming it’s a fact, that is.
Looks like Sunday is the official entry day. I don’t see how any other Democratic candidate can enter now, all the donors will be putting their money on a sure thing and not take a chance on anybody else.