Who killed it, and what should she have done about it?
Nothing has been more thoroughly explained.
What has she not said?
What questions?
Seven years of Starr’s investigations.
Then you haven’t been paying attention.
IOW, hate mode again.
Why? A respect for reality.
Yes, I know, there are a lot of foolish people out there. Still not enough to get her to victory any more than last time. But hey, if you don’t mind a traitor to what are supposed to be our core principles, that’s on you. But you can save your Hillary-approved talking points, because I ain’t buying them; they’re as manufactured as everything else about her.
And IF she did, what are your thoughts?
+1
A year from now, all this talk will be distant memory. Hillary may be leading the Republican candidate by 5-10% by then.
She’s not retaining her lead; she continues to lose ground daily.
You won’t hear me say this often, but ElvisL1ves is right. She has justified it. She said she wanted to preserve the same privileges for future presidents. And we all know exactly who she had in mind. Her vote was not a principled vote on whether war was the right thing to do, it was a very calculated move by the Queen of Political Career Chess. No way in hell was she going to deny a president a right she wanted to be able to preserve for herself should she need it, the consequences to people and their loved ones be damned.
And people wonder why I hate her guts.
You do know Bill isn’t running for president, right?
Velocity: That sounds about right, no matter whether the Republican is Rubio or W2! or Walker. If it’s somehow Trump, maybe more than 10%.
The NY Post reporting on her getting badgered by Fox News trolling for a sound bite. Wow.
Now that’s convincing. Just not convincing of what you think it is.
She says it starting at the 7:18 mark. You can always find someone’s real motivation if you listen carefully enough.
Would you prefer the Washington Post?
In a testy exchange with reporters following a town hall meeting in North Las Vegas, Clinton responded, “What, like with a cloth or something?” when asked if the server had been wiped.“I don’t know how it works at all,” she added.
Yeah, that’s the temperament I want as the leader of the free world. Except not.
Not familiar with Chris Cilizza’s work, are you?
If you were quoting Charles Krauthammer, would you claim it was “The Washington Post”?
Sorry, you’re right. She answered honestly then. And that’s reason enough never to support her.
Shayna, this is close to a warnable line, here. Placing ‘blah blah blah’ inside a quote can be interpreted as disparaging the poster quoted. I’d prefer not to see that happen in Elections.
While I support your desire to disclose that you’ve removed something from the quotebox - which is within the rules - I’d prefer some other wording that might not give offense.
No warning given.
Will do.
If she did it would make me less likely to support her in the primary. It probably wouldn’t affect my general election vote, since all of the Republicans are so awful that even a loose lipped Hillary is way better (or far less bad) then they would be.
My favorite though (same article, above) was
The “Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy” against Hillary keeps growing, apparently.
She’s looking pretty toasty at this point, down to 47% in the national polls for the nomination.
You’re certainly among friends in this thread. 
When does it get re-titled “Two Minutes Hate”?
Yup, because anyone–from President Obama’s Justice Department to ultra-right NPR is filled with “hate” when they question Saint Hillary’s Server Hijinks.
I’m curious: Was Former CIA and NSA Director Michael Hayden (under Clinton, Bush and Obama) talking “hate” when he was on MSNBC (another right-wing station, presumably) and said
Or, is it just that you can’t cope with the fact that Hillary is dangerously stupid or wildly crooked that prompts you to label anyone who comments on her misbehavior a “hater”?