And “some analysts” have said that it’s a perfectly legitimate business model, one of which I actually cited. You’re certainly entitled to think it’s “shady” but that would be an “opinion” unless you have anything more substantial than sneering insinuation.
After 25 years of an endless stream of bullshit accusations, ignoring her critics is probably the only way she can get anything done. Still waiting for that wolf to show up.
I’m a little gobsmacked at the people who think it’s a black mark that she stayed with her husband after he cheated. For one thing, I would have thought that would be a plus to any “devout Christian”. For another, who the fuck cares?
I’m sure you realize that what they’re really upset about is his and her very existence, not their actions. They’re conditioned to deplore any Democrat on any pretext, and would blast HRC whether she stayed *or *left. It’s counterproductive to try to please or even assuage that contingent - just move forward, which is what she’s doing.
Everything.
I don’t understand this reasoning. If accepting the donations is bad, why would he wait until she is elected to stop doing it? If the donations are OK, then why stop?
It’s so typically Clinton - it matters not whether it is right or wrong. It only matters if it affects politics.
Hillary reminds me of Nixon. Same paranoia, same obsessive need to keep secrets, no sense of humor. I suspect that, like Nixon, the problem will not necessarily be with the scandals but with the cover-ups. She is going to get caught again, and she is going to spend her political capital on cover-ups and finally have none left.
Don’t know if that will happen before the election, or not.
What has been said about her speeches is right, but few politicians are really great speakers (Obama and Bush included). Hillary’s flaw is not only that she is stiff and condescending, but that she is a policy wonk. She doesn’t have a vision, she has a series of Power Point slides.
And that over-arching sense of entitlement. ‘How dare you question me?’ Bill promised if she looked the other way while he whored around, and kept in the background after Hillarycare blew up, that she could be President. And she appears to think that obligates the rest of us to elect her.
Regards,
Shodan
This sounds like right-wing-fantasy stuff – is this a factual assertion, or just an ass-pulled throwaway?
And how does it work out when we elect guys who can fit their agenda on a bumper sticker? How many Republicans have been elected to Congress since Obamacare passed and they STILL don’t have a proposal for what to replace it with?
I see no evidence that Hillary thinks that she’s entitled to the office because of Bill’s indiscretions and find it incredible to think that Bill would be in position to promise her the White House if she stayed by him.
Right wing fantasy stuff.
Simple reality, many many marriages survive infidelity. Despite Dick Armey’s line about being in Bill Clinton’s position - “If I were, I would be looking up from a pool of blood and hearing my wife say : ‘How do I reload this thing?’” - most spouses do not murder or even divorce in the face of infidelity. A large number of spouses stay with their partners.
On the other point there is some validity. Candidates do better if they have a vision that they can articulate well. Better yet if they also have the intellectual chops and competency to deliver and best yet if they are able to come off as simple folk who are just doing that with the good common sense that all of us would have if put into the position. That was Bill’s gift, he could do all of that. Gore came off as the wonk and failed and of course there was Dukakis.
It is a weakness, this election cycle not a likely a fatal one for many reasons, but one that the GOP will do their best to exploit.
Jesus made an explicit exception for divorce in the case of adultery. Can’t answer the second question.
OP, I get what you’re saying, and I think it’s understandable that you feel put off by her acting that way; but it’s understandable that she *acts *that way.
Personally, I thought her husband was the smarmy, falsely self-righteous one.
LOL. Yeah, the problem with Nixon is not that he used the FBI, CIA, and IRS to harass, spy on, and attack his political opponents in order to stay in power. It’s that he tried to hide it.
Maybe I’m just atypical. Back in 1992, Jerry Brown was the candidate who I liked to hear speak. I kind of like Joe Biden now, too, and his sort of “Senator next door” aura.
Yeah, Mrs Clinton’s sort of…apparently objective-focused and exasperated by other people? She can come off as impatient and bossy? Kind of what **Sinaptics **says here. I’ve known other people in real life who had that attitude or mode of speech, and I’ve probably done it myself when I was really full of will to do something and other people were, you know, not just following. 
Oh, I agree with both these paragraphs. Poppy Bush actually seemed to have some engagement with practical foreign policy, even if some of his poicies were wrongheaded. His sons are charming naïfs at the best of times and entitled brutes at…other times. As for Hillary’s ability, well, I think it is there, but her celebrity–and her vaguely trying to claim her husband’s resumé for herself–exaggerates it.
Much how I feel about her, and why I roll my eyes at her, somewhat in Hillaryesque fashion.
No, he just said that, if he marries again, he didn’t make her a victim of adultery. “But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” (Matthew 5:32)
And as for the idea that any sin requires divorce, we have what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 to new believers with unbelieving spouses:
“To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.”
If you think it was bad listening to them, try plodding through them on her website. There aren’t just four, by the way, there are, like, a bazillion, all broken up into groups of fours. It’s the weirdest thing I’ve ever seen. And they’re filled with right-wing talking points and frames, like how investment will lead to more jobs which will increase wages. Uhm, what? That’s trickle down in all its ridiculous glory. No mention of how she intends to make that magic happen.
And she’s so bought into the right-wing way of thinking, she tells us that when “the economy” improves, so will our lives. Again, no. That’s just more right-wing gobbledygook.
How will she address the rising cost of child care, education and health care? Why, with the right-wing solution of “tax relief.” For the segment of society that is in such bad shape, most don’t even have any federal income tax liability. Frank Luntz is laughing all the way to the bank! He really has permeated our consciousness, especially hers.
So forget how stiff and arrogant she comes off in speeches and start looking at substantive policy issues. She falls down even harder there.
I think this is a valid point. I supported Clinton in the primaries but figured Obama would leverage his exceptional connect-with-the-audience skills to get the public behind his initiatives.
He’s been more effective as prez than has tended to show up on our daily radar screens, but his success has not been due to his oratorial skills or his ability to sway public opinion.
Anyway, back to Clinton. She’s bloody awful at the connect-with-the-audience stuff. Admitted negative. Let’s assume she’ll not do better at that strategically than Obama did (who has the skill but hasn’t made really effective political use of it). She has other skills. YES she’s a totally insider-type politician with a capital P. Deal-maker, policy-geek, chessplayer in the once-smoke-filled-room modality. Schemer. Plotter, planner.
I think I will like most of her agenda.
I think she might be the most skilled Democrat at the inside game that the Democratic Party has put in office (assuming it does so) since Lyndon Johnson. Although admittedly her husband wasn’t altogether without skills in that area.
She has my vote.
Hillary vs. Sanders is substance vs. style and substance.