Naw. We have Joe Biden, Lincoln Chafee, Martin O’Malley, Bernie Sanders, Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz, etc. There are a lot of good alternatives. None happen to be Republican.
It’s way, way too early to be saying any of this. This latest “scandal” hasn’t penetrated the national consciousness. Maybe it will once the campaign is in full swing, and Republican candidates are talking about it with every stump speech (though they’ll probably wait until they’ve sown up the nomination), but it hasn’t yet. If Hillary had a ‘vigorous response’ at this point, it could just blow the scandal up, since so many people aren’t paying attention.
This isn’t a big scandal, at this point, and it doesn’t need a big response. Maybe it will later, but responding too early can be bad just like responding too late.
Nope. Democrats don’t think this. You’re wrong about what Democrats think. Lots of people liking Hillary and rooting for her doesn’t mean they don’t like O’Malley, Biden, Brian Schweitzer, and others. It just means that, at this point, most Democrats are rooting for Hillary.
Who’s spreading that one? And what makes you think it’s more likely than a desire to clear the field early?
Is that a standard you apply to all candidates? Who’s left afterward?
Same question as always: Who? Same saying as always: You can’t beat somebody with nobody.
After more than twenty years of that and similar shit, you’re still not sure?
Now that I’d like to hear more about. How would Bush and Rubio go about doing that?
But it sure looks like the same old scandal-mongering, doesn’t it? How are you going to convince the electorate you’re not still slinging mud and crying wolf anymore?
Etc. Your concern for her, no doubt sincere, is noted.
HRC has only one “vulnerability” that is truly disturbing: Her ties to The Family and the Christian Right.
Responding at all can be bad, if it serves to legitimize the assertion.
Ignoring it or laughing it off instead serves the narrative that this is just more of the Republicans’ habitual smear campaigning, and helps keep it rebounding against them. It’s worked for a long time for her, and there is no reason to expect it to stop working unless she starts to change the way she responds.
Regarding the uranium scandal, one item I haven’t seen addressed yet is the claim that Bill Clinton very conveniently got a $500,000 speaking fee for a speech in Moscow after the sale was approved. If that part proves to have legs, then forget about winning any elections; Bill & Hillary might want to start looking at real estate in non-extradition countries instead.
Holy shit- does that mean that Russia might develop a nuclear bomb?
Elvis, not responding to a story because you don’t want to give it legs makes sense if the story is reporting in the Moonie Times or Drudge. When the NY Times and Washington Post are running with it, it has legs already.
Not if spreading the story is helping serve the narrative that the Republicans are still working on their smear campaign, instead of working on making themselves something to vote for.
But you can hope. Hope is a wonderful thing.
Wait, is the current talking point “Hillary Clinton may have changed U.S. foreign policy in response to a bribe from Russia, but the Republicans are worse” or “Hillary Clinton is the all-perfected savior and any allegations that she is capable of doing wrong are fabricated smears?” I haven’t checked Gawker today so I don’t know what you believe until you tell me.
Good one. She “may” have done lots of things. But, given how sorry is the state of Russia’s relations with the US and the rest of the world, “may” is less likely than “didn’t”, isn’t it?
Where have you seen that?
You *could *try paying attention and engaging in actual discussion. I do understand how much easier and more self-gratifying simple denunciation is by comparison, though.
You guys are entering “skewed polls” territory here. There is no smear campaign. This is real stuff. The media is piling on mercilessly.
Even if you are SURE that this is nothing, it HAS to be responded to, because it is already a huge deal. She can’t make it huger by responding to it. If anything, she makes it huger because the media keeps on running stories like, “The Clinton campaign did not respond to inquiries”.
Then there’s the simple fact that the administration itself, which I think we would all agree is a pretty important entity, is referring the media to the Clinton campaign for answers. Once the administration starts referring the media to you, you can’t exactly get away with keeping your head down anymore.
Do you finally understand what those are? 
When did it stop?
Hope is indeed a wonderful thing.
The reasons for Clinton not to respond are the same as the reasons for Obama not to respond. You may not realize it, but they’re on the same side.
There’s “no comment” and “ask the Clinton campaign”. The entire White House Press Corps has been referred to the Clinton campaign. That is officially a big deal.
Stories on the NY Times front page don’t just go away on their own. It is you who is hoping a bit too fervently here.
Please change the channel once in awhile.
Would you please define “ties” in this context?
I’m surprised it doesn’t bother anyone that she thinks you’re stupid. Her campaign’s response has been to attack Schweizer rather than his allegations. Which would be fine if the media hadn’t already done their OWN investigations, the results of which her campaign won’t address and probably can’t rebut.
I’m less than confident in your mind-reading ability.
Where does it say that?
A common response, even here, when one’s facts and/or reasoning are comprehensively refuted - complain of a personal attack. :rolleyes: But that isn’t what “he omitted key details and has no direct evidence” amounts to, now is it?
You want to see a personal attack? Here’s one from that same link you provided but evidently didn’t read, one *synonymous *with many you yourself have made here: