Fuckin’ Boromir.
Oh, c’mon, who wouldn’t?!
She’s shrewd but she’s still not very good at being a politician. She could probably teach political science with the best of them, but she doesn’t have the performance aspect down like her husband or Obama does. SHe’s wooden, obviously faking when she’s faking, and as David Geffen said during the Clinton-Obama campaign, those two just lie too easily. And about stupid stuff, too, in her case. First it was supposedly getting shot at in the Balkans, now she and her husband are dead broke when they leave the White House? And her talk of needing money for mortgages for “houses” for her family. Almost all the Republican candidates come from modest backgrounds and still aren’t filthy rich. Which candidate is going to look more like a candidate of the people?
If push comes to shove, I still favor Clinton because her poll numbers are still so far ahead of most of her GOP opponents. But if there’s one thing we learned about Clinton 2008, it’s that she does not campaign well. Her poll numbers before a campaign will always be much higher than her poll numbers once people get to know the alternatives. She could very well lose in the primaries again. Support for her among Democrats is very shallow. They like that she can win, they like that she’s female, but bring an exciting, more liberal candidate into the mix and they’ll dump her like yesterday’s news.
Hmm…legitimate news story…perhaps we differ on the definition of this term?
She recently managed to pwn Fox News. That’s something.
But even there, the article primarily focuses on her risk avoidance. That will only work for her if she doesn’t face serious competition. It was fine in her New York Senate races, it ended up killing her against an exciting young primary opponent.
And while most SDMB liberals have nothing but disdain for the GOP field, it does have the virtue of being young and not likely to run a safe campaign Romney-style.
She ran a pretty decent campaign. Not great, and a lot of missteps, but it was decent, especially at the end. Obama just ran a phenomenal campaign – like one of the best in history.
This is true of just about any well-known politician, and is part of the nature of political campaigns.
It’s possible she won’t win, but this statement is hyperbole. She’ll probably win, even against liberal candidates, if she runs.
She had an incredibly dysfunctional campaign and her normally brilliant husband lost his bearings because it just meant too much to him. Don’t get me wrong, every single thing he said about Obama was true, but it wasn’t good politics to say it at the time. Nowadays it would just be stating the obvious.
I guess, but going from prohibitive frontrunner to defeat is a pretty big fall. There are frontrunners and then there are frontrunners, and she was the real deal.
Is there anyone who wouldn’t have made that prediction in 2008? You think she’ll kick Liz Warren’s ass if she runs?
‘Incredibly dysfunctional’? No. She lost in a nailbiter, mainly because of one big misstep – mostly ignoring the caucus states. But most campaigns have missteps, and most even have big missteps. It wasn’t because of anything Bill Clinton said. And no, not every negative thing that anyone has ever said about Obama is true. There is no need for you to insert your pathetic personal biased potshots into every political post you make.
Sure, because the victor ran a terrific, nearly unparalleled campaign.
Where did I say she’ll kick anyone’s ass? I think she’d probably beat Warren if they both run, but it would likely be close. I seriosly doubt both will run. It’s still early, of course, but unlike you, I have a pretty solid track record of political predictions 
If so, the nominee has no hope whatsoever of winning.
I don’t think anyone says she shouldn’t have defended the guy. As a junior public defender she probably had little choice in the matter.
If I didn’t know any public defenders I would vehemently disagree with you, because we expect to see remorse or at least resignation (rather than what seems to be pride or arrogance.)
However, in my limited experience with criminal defense this seems to be a near-universal attitude: “somebody needed to do this job, and I did it, and did it well.” I think for most people that may be the only way to function as a criminal defense lawyer, because you are going to deal with cases every day where you know your client is guilty of a heinous crime. So personally I’m not that concerned about her apparent attitude.
It’s just another way of saying “Bless his heart.”
Is that really her accent? She grew up in the Chicago area and went to school in New England. The accent is an affectation, no? Something to help her shed the Yankee carpetbagger cooties.
Our local Little Rock station had a report on this a couple nights ago. The victim is still very much alive and quite hurt by these revelations. Which is understandable because she was twelve and raped by this scumbag.
Cite?
The link I provided from katv is the cite.
The victim was interviewed by the daily beast. Only her 2nd interview about the case since 1975. The article mentions that Hillary filed an affidavit discrediting the 12 year kid. Classic rape blaming by a defense attorney. Something a lawyer today wouldn’t dare attempt.
Here’s the affidavit Hillary filed on behalf of her client. Pretty disgusting by todays standards.
After wading through twenty some odd pages of court documents I had to call a tl;dr. Can you either point directly to the specific document you are referring to, or else summarize it?
No, I mean cite that “she was raped by this scumbag”.
The guy raped a twelve year old? Well, you’ve convinced me. No way am I voting for that guy.
Oh, no wait, the one you’re mad at is his lawyer. Sorry, I keep forgetting who the real criminal is here.
First, she was laughing about the absurdity of the lab cutting a hole in the guy’s underpants (as she repeatedly referred to them), then the prosecution having the temerity to provide her with the underpants with the big ol’ hole in them where the alleged evidence had been cut out, as if it were evidence of anything. But the morons at the lab threw away the sample they’d cut out! And then how she schlepped the underpants with the hole in them to the nation’s foremost expert in New York to see if there was any evidence left in the underpants with the hole in them, which really is laughable.
However, and to my second point, she was not, as she claimed in her 2003 book, “forced” to take this case (in the book she said a judge gave it to her and she could not refuse it). The uncovering of this tape puts the lie to that claim because in it she says she was doing it at the request of the prosecutor as a favor to him.
It’s reminiscent of her claim of ducking bullets when she got off the plane in Bosnia, then a video coming out that showed her being greeted by little girls with flowers.
Hillary being a liar will be her undoing. Dear lord I hope she doesn’t run (or doesn’t win the nomination).