I was at a Hilary book-signing for “Living History” – so it was well over a decade ago – and since there was such a huge line, we were told not to engage her in conversation. Well, I couldn’t resist and asked if her hand was holding out (I was near the end of the line despite being there since 4:00 am), and she looked up and said it was fine or o.k., I don’t quite remember. But I do remember how warm and relatable she was with a genuine smile. That doesn’t translate at all to her public speeches or debate performances…although some of it does come through in her one-on-one interviews.
That he’s too old. That he’s too curmudgeonly. That he bites off more than he can chew. That he’s losing.
OK, I’ll grant you the first three. 
But he never had anything to lose, except for very large expenditures of energy. He didn’t expect to be nominated in the first place. He’s tilting at a different windmill, and has more than enough gas to carry it through to July.
I’m morbidly curious to know which definitions of “middle class” and “rich” you could possibly be applying to make this statement true.
- Nearly always voted Republican. Jason Carter was the first Democrat I voted for. That said, after realizing it’s more than likely going to be Trump v. Clinton, I’m voting Hillary. Guess that makes her my preferred candidate.
Dislike her emphasis on unions. Very much like her views climate change and energy. Her tax plan isn’t Trump’s so that’s another win in my book.
Strange times for me.
Gary Johnson, I’m pretty sure, wants to eliminate the income tax.
What emphasis on unions? Call me when she’s openly campaigning for repealing the “slave labour” (as President Truman aptly called it) Taft-Hartley Law.
[QUOTE=Qin Shi Huangdi]
What emphasis on unions? Call me when she’s openly campaigning for repealing the “slave labour” (as President Truman aptly called it) Taft-Hartley Law.
[/QUOTE]
Her website says she will “strengthen” unions. Right below that, she is quoted as saying:
“If we want to get serious about raising incomes, we have to get serious about supporting union workers.”
If you’re suggesting that it’s nothing more than posturing, great, I’d love to worry about nothing. I work with unions every day. I do not have a very high opinion of them.
Given that Sanders is more or less out of the running, my preferred candidate is Hillary. The thing I dislike most about her is that she is a pro-war hawk, an unabashed Wall Street crony, a shameless liar, a rank opportunist, a soulless charisma vacuum, and a brazen corporate whore. Other than that, she’s great.
Did Karl Rove write that for you? :rolleyes:
Nope. Hillary Clinton did. She wrote it through her own actions; specifically, her voting record (consistently hawkish), her blasé acceptance of exorbitant pay cheques for speechifying in front of Goldman-Sachs executives, her focus-group guided pandering, her wooden performances on the stump, and, again, her blasé acceptance of exorbitant pay cheques for speechifying in front of Goldman-Sachs executives (“It’s what they offered.” Well then you shouldn’t have taken the fucking gig, Hillary, because it makes you look like their employee).
Like I said, now that Sanders is more-or-less out, Hillary genuinely is my preferred candidate. That doesn’t change the fact that she’s objectionable on about fifteen different levels.
Now, don’t you have a Game of Thrones thread to fuck up somewhere?
Do you object to the speeches because you believe Clinton is a tool of the financial industry, or because they merely make her look like one?
Hillary, Obama, Kerry, Gore all of my candidates have had the same problem: they do not defend their records like they should.
The Sanders campaign sends out emails suggesting that Hilary is a bought and paid for lobbyist for Wall Street and other corporate interests, but won’t come out and just say so flat out. It’s the kind of weasely language I expect from other politicians, but not him.
That seems to imply that if she looks like one, she isn’t one really. I don’t think that’s the case. The speeches are a symptom of her cronyism. Given that Goldman, in collusion with the other ‘Too Big To Fail’ banks, damn near destroyed the universe through sheer lunatic greed-headed recklessness less than a decade ago, the fact that she thought she could get away with pocketing hundreds of thousands of Goldman dollars for a couple of speeches not only shows she’s out of touch, it shows a galling contempt for the electorate.
Like I said, I genuinely think she’s the best viable candidate, but she’s far from a good candidate.
This is absolutely earning you a warning. Don’t do it again.
Yeah. She was a highly paid public speaker. They paid her. Her taking of that job in no way implies her support, just that their check cleared.
Now, you can deride the custom of ex-public servants making a living by doing so, but it *is *customary and usual.
Before Hillary, people were ragging on Bill for taking high-paying speaking gigs. I didn’t understand it then and I don’t now. Are they supposed to give their time away? Is the act of being a paid speaker prima facie evidence of corruption? What do people expect exactly?
Wait, what? I could see how Apu could suffer serious consequences if he were to manage the Kwik•E•Mart into financial ruin, but we are not talking about people at that level. Look at, for example, Ms. Fiorina, who nearly collapsed Hewlett-Packard. Did it cost her anything? Does not seem like it. Where is the accountability in that?