I just. Can’t. Even.
Issue discussion is less helpful when you don’t know if one of the candidates has any intention of governing according to their stated positions. The other problem is that where they could be having a debate about issues they are not because Clinton wants to win a Democratic primary so has to agree with Sanders’ critiques of her husband’s record. But how much of that record has she actually “evolved” on and how much is her just giving lip service to the base?
When it was Clinton vs. Tsongas vs Kerrey vs. Brown, the debates were also very substantive, but with all four guys you knew where they were coming from because all of them were debating consistent with their records. If Clinton had run away from his Arkansas record he might have had an easier time in the primary but would have lost credibility as a general election candidate. I think his wife is falling into that trap.
This sounds like a criticism of every politician ever, or almost all of them, at least. Based on Politifact and other trackers, Hillary’s no more dishonest than “average” politicians, and I see no evidence she’ll be any more likely to change her positions (that is to say that I won’t be terribly surprised if she does on some issues, but she’s no worse on this than most others).
It just sounds like a way to criticize actual substantive discussion – there’s nothing Hillary could ever say that wouldn’t get this kind of put down from you.
Face it – they’re having a real, substantive discussion. You don’t like Hillary, and that’s fine, but it’s not a fake discussion just because you don’t like her. The Democratic debates have been substantive, period, and the Republican debates have not.
This post won’t have in it any themes the Democrats will want to put in a TV ad, but:
Secretary of State is a job where there will be mistakes and failures. The reason it’s good preparation for the presidency is because of the hope of having learned from some of the mistakes.
It’s worse for Clinton given how much she’s flip flopped.
I don’t think so – she’s just been around a long time.
Agreed. I’ve never been able to figure out the Hillary hate among Democrats. She is eminently qualified. It must just all be personal.
Where some people see flip-flopping, others see a person that is open to contrary arguments and not set in their views. That is to say, there are some people that prefer their leaders to be competent decision makers, and not just those who happen to share their values on some specific issue.
Funny how Clinton’s views change based on her short term political needs. When she turns around and supports TPP on about oh, Day 3 in office, I guess that’ll just be evolution. I mean, the campaign was so three months ago!
One thing I will give her credit for, she’ll at least try to make something up. Obama would just arrogantly say, “the campaign’s over. Next question.”
For someone who is actually really bad at being a politician(by her own admission) she really should just stop trying:
We're going to put those coal miners out of business.Then there was her Libya gaffe. Just be yourself, Hillary. It works for Joe.
:rolleyes:
She was saying that we should not forget the miners that worked for those coal companies by increasing the rate of growth of clean energy companies where they live.
The context BTW is this: Since Republicans deny that climate change is an issue they do think that then nothing should be done, either regarding clean energy or doing something for the displaced workers, that even before any changes due to new clean air rules (many of them not implemented yet) are already losing their jobs because of cheaper natural gas.
Key point: on day 3, it will be she in office.
And her position on various issues will be? I bet you have no idea. Just guesses. That’s all anyone can do with her. What does she really believe? Who the hell knows?
Trump will be what behavioral scientists call “pain threshold experiments.”
Hillary Clinton has been in the national public eye and in many national public offices continuously from 1992 to the present. We the people can have a much better and richer notion of her political thinking than we can possibly have WRT Donald Trump, WRT whom “thinking” seems far, far too strong a word or notion, and so likewise does the word “political,” and who has been highly visible but notably apolitical for most of his adult life, and who has expressed his political views with no noticeable coherence, nor in any manner comprehensible even in the most crude and primitive and savage and bestial forms of human or protohuman speech, at any time since he announced his candicacy.
I’d rather deal with the unknown but pretty much guaranteed not to be racist to the Donald’s so-called ‘ideology.’
No one has been in the public eye longer without most people not really knowing what she believes. THe only thing we know for sure is that whatever is the most popular position among the voters she needs is the position she’ll take. Man, you should have heard her when she was in favor of traditional marriage, quite the impassioned speaker. Made Ralph Reed proud. You’d almost think she actually believed what she was saying. Or when she was tough on crime. Or when she favored the Iraq war.
She wasn’t just certain about her positions, she was also certain that anyone who questioned her certainty on those positions was a damn liar.
Excellent talking points! Let us know when you get the next RNC memo about Hillary.
Former Senator. Former Secretary of State. With experience in the legal, legislative and executive arenas, Hillary Clinton would be the most qualified Presidential candidate since Thomas Jefferson.
Which explains the Republican smears. They no longer value expertise and are blinded by their own propaganda and ideology. The lack of substantiation in their claims is the tell.
Kasich’s experience and accomplishments trump hers easily. None of her resume items are impressive when you take into account performance. Kasich on the other hand has excelled in Congress and as a governor.