There isn’t a single person I know who hasn’t been watching the latest wave of Clinton scandal with anticipation. Waiting for the next piece of embarrassing Clinton laundry to…
thesnarkyteapartier
I hope it does have a negative impact on her campaign. But low-info voters are probably still gonna salivate over her.
Mika Brzezinski, of the morning “news” show Morning Joe on MSNBC, seemed to think that it was a joke worthy of air quotes (much like I feel about her career) to refer to Benghazi as a Crisis Moment for Hillary Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State.
During a segment this morning it was pointed out that there wasn’t any one “crisis moment” to point to as an accomplishment in Clinton’s tenure as…
Person on facebook: The Benghazi thing is misrepresented. If the consulate requested security the state dept would have responded. Regardless, this is well below the presidents radar. Also, cia seems to have been covering their asses on this one. But it's very disingenuous to think this is somehow a cover up instead of what is more likely - an intelligence failure. It happens. It happened in 2001 under Bush as we all know.
Me: You're right that state department responded, emails are already online showing denied multiple requests for additional security to the ambassador prior to the attack. It's clear the failures weren't due to a lack of intelligence. When you know something is a terror attack, blame a youtube video no one watched, claim it was spontaneous for 2 weeks despite all evidence it was terror related, spend tax dollars on apology commercials for an american's free speech & arrest the creator of the video all while putting off a real investigation and ignoring tough questions until after the election... it leads to a cover up of the failed policies which resulted in 4 deaths. All current intel points in that direction. When/If transparecy comes, an official investigation is conducted and i'm presented with evidence to the contrary, I will gladly accept it. Right now I draw my conclusion from current facts and connecting the dots. It's been confirmed drone footage of the 7 hour attack was being viewed live at the white house, marines were 1 hour away and not sent, Clinton prohibited the use of Marines as security at any american diplomatic instillation in Libya and ordered that the consolate security have no bullets in their guns, the crowds were chanting "Obama, Obama we're all Osamas", the crowd showed up with assault rifles, the attack was on the anniversary of 9/11, Ansar-Al Sharia claimed responsibility for the attack the day of and around 300 security figures were receiving the email updates including this info, the FBI took 3 weeks to get in Libya to investigate, the consolate was attacked this year 2 times prior to 9/11 including one attack which left a huge hole in the security perimeter, the state department denied requests for more security prior to the attack as seen in emails and 2 CIA operatives have come out stating that during the attack they were told to "stand down". In no way do I condone or support our vast military presence in over 150 countries around the world. However, one of the 2 duties of our federal government is to protect its citizens, so as long as they remain oversees they must be properly protected. I'm unsure who the responsibility falls on or how high up it goes, but it lies somewhere in the administration and they must be held accountable.
<p> *hands the person on facebook some ice for that burn*</p>
When even Salon doesn’t think you’ll win the primary, you have a problem.
I mean they think you’ll lose because you aren’t ideologically far enough left, which is a fair point. But it also means that if Sanders does win he’ll have a hell of a time trying to appeal to anyone outside the hard left and progressive millenial vote.
Hillary plays less to the hard left because she’s well aware that after the primary she would have to pull back to a more moderate campaign to win in a national election. Bernie has thrown himself so far left that there’s no real way he could pull himself back from that and run a compaign that will pull in libertarian, moderate, or independent voters in most cases.
You shouldn't harp on Hillary and William Clinton with ad hominem. Face it, if they were Republicans, you'd love them.
No, I tend to not like hypocritical liars or rapists no matter what political party they are in.
Also what part is ad hominem exactly? I haven’t made up anything about them. They are genuinely horrible people and that does, in fact, have bearing on whether either one of them should be allowed back in the White House.
Apparently in recent AP polls Hillary Clinton only has a 39% favorability rating among Americans.
25% of
That’s down 8 points from just a couple of months ago.
This woman can’t run a campaign to save her life. Her creepy rapey husband is more well liked than she is and if that doesn’t tell you something about her, nothing will.
Just 39 percent of all Americans have a favorable view of Clinton, compared to nearly half who say they have a negative opinion of her. That’s an eight-point increase in her unfavorable rating from an AP-GfK poll conducted at the end of April.
The drop in Clinton’s numbers extends into the Democratic Party. Seven in 10 Democrats gave Clinton positive marks, an 11-point drop from the April survey. Nearly a quarter of Democrats now say they see Clinton in an unfavorable light.
“I used to like her, but I don’t trust her,” said Donald Walters of Louisville, Kentucky. “Ever since she’s announced her candidacy for the presidency I just haven’t liked the way she’s handled things. She doesn’t answer questions directly.”
While Clinton’s approval rating fell, Obama’s stayed constant at 46 percent since April.
