Does she say what she believes or does she say what people want to hear? The question is pretty clear. I don’t think Republicans would ever nominate a candidate who they thought was basically a liar.
Tell me what the numbers are when she has the nomination.
Cite?
If 46% of dems thought she was basically a liar that would be a big problem. Fortunately that’s not the case.
It’s all in the spin.
One man’s unprincipled waffler, is another man’s candidate who listens to the will of the American people, and one man’s principled straight shooter, is another man’s out of touch bull headed ideologue.
Right now the Democrats are wanting someone who can work deals, prod, negotiate and do whatever it takes to actually get this government into a functional state. If that means paying lip service to this or that let it happen. Sure I’d rather have someone who by force of personality drive this nation on a progressive course, but I’m pragmatic enough to realize such a person in office would be another 4 years of nothing happening, and in the process would doom the progressive agenda for a generation. Far better to get a wheeler dealer in there who can actually put sausage on the table.
That’s the other problem: she’s an ink blot. Some of you say she’ll stand up to the Republicans better than Obama, some of you say she’ll be a better dealmaker.
And which people is she listening to? All the people, or whichever people she needs to win the primary, at which point she shifts hard to the center for the general? Do any of you have any idea how she’ll govern? I’ll give you a hint: in whatever way is best for Hillary Clinton. Which means triangulation. Hope you guys enjoyed it the first time.
I agree with the 84% of dems polled that very or somewhat confident that Clinton wil make the right decisions about the economy and the 83% that are very or somewhat confident in Clinton’s ability to an international crisis.
These are both from the poll you linked to earlier that shows that Clinton’s support among democrats is staggeringly high and not that democrats have serious reservations about her.
It’s possible that Democrats don’t have serious reservations about candidates that just tell people what they want to hear. Explains why they have yet to put the Republicans permanently in the minority.
Yeah… all those conservative media hit pieces from sources such as The New York Times, MSNBC, Politico, and the Washington Post reporting on Hillary Clinton’s email scandal.
Such reliably left leaning news sources must be out to get her?
Sigh.
IIUC none of the articles you cite focus on what is the current situation is, Hillary is not under investigation. DOJ has said that this is NOT a criminal investigation. As it was explained before this is really a bureaucratic fight about what security labels emais should get after the fact. And then there is the curiously forgotten item about intent, good look on demonstrating that Hillary was doing what is alleged with bad intentions.
Many allegations so far do remain that, speculation, and your cites there are indeed mostly full of that.
One should also remember that the press has an interest on keeping the presidential contest a horse race. And they will not mind that some in the right in positions of power will get them what they need.
Just another comment here:
Yes, and I can say this after looking at the matter for many years, the media is not liberal as issues like this demonstrates. They do equivocate too much when many pro and con positions are not really equally reasonable, like when they allow climate change deniers with no expertise in the matter to counter scientists being interviewed on the issue.
Ted CRUZ? Even the people on his side agree that he has the most punchable face in Washington.
But Ted will only accept face-punchings from graduates of Harvard, Princeton, or Yale. No punches from folks from the “lesser Ivies.”
If you were at Cornell, Brown, or Penn, you have to settle for kicking him in the balls.
Oh…SO tempting. :rolleyes:
QFT.
Naturally there is a lot of room in between, but no one would ever confuse Hillary Clinton with a straight talker, and her populism only applies to those she needs at any given time. For example, right now her education plan favors the teachers’ unions(thanks for the endorsement over Bernie!) whereas Obama’s policy was more reformist.
a Clinton Presidency will be the most purely transactional Presidency we’ve seen in a long time. You’ll definitely have to pay to play.
I don’t see that those are mutually exclusive. A shrewd negotiator knows when to use the carrot but also when to bring out the stick.
So much the better. I trust teachers’ unions more than any other organized voice in society to want and to do what’s best for the kids.
The teachers have been one of the Republicans’ favorite straw enemies for years, along with the unions in general and the trial lawyers. Something about their opposing ignorance, and making contributions to Democratic candidates.
Does that statement mean she will have to answer more questions?
This doesn’t mean that she will be arrested, right?
What if the cover up not to have Hillary Clinton appear for any more questions on her emails or her server becomes public?
So the solution is always more money, less accountability, and more raises for things that don’t actually matter much empirically(like getting higher degrees).
I’m also still amazed that no one seems to see Clinton’s moves to the left as insincere pandering, to be discarded the second she doesn’t need them anymore, which would be right around April if things go as planned.
Oh, I see her leftward move as a cynical ploy, but I’m voting for Bernie anyway.
I like Clinton a LOT better than Obama, as I’ve made clear here many times. I know that if she’s elected, we will do a lot of good business together because she’s looking out for her own career first and foremost(as well as her post-Presidential financial connections).
I understand the pragmatic case for Clinton. What I don’t get are the enthusiastic supporters. Even those who want to see the first female President. Do we really want the first female President to be someone whose husband was President first?