Let's pick on Hillary (Her Thighness)

BaalsTears

Senate Member
Jan 25, 2011
5,732
0
36
Santa Cruz, California
they are all liars, that is part of the politicians pre requisite to get the job.


I assume you are aware you have just admitted that Hillary Clinton is a liar.

hillary is a very intelligent person,
On some levels, but not others. She wasn't a very good judge of men.


she didn't have time to be spoiled,
I was joking...that's why there is a smilie face at the end of the post in question.
she was a top student, and
moved on from there to excel in further education,don't kid yourself by thinking she was an Airheaded
female,
She was good academically, but a failure as Secty of State. Intelligent, but flawed. She is so flawed that she chose to marry a man who is a serial adulterer. And rather than leave the cheater, she covered for his bimbo eruptions.


spoiled by her political husband, nothing is further from the truth.
Why do you overlook her willingness to remain with a man who cheated on her over and over and over? She's like a beaten dog that licks the hand of the man who beat it.


she could have done very
verywell in life, on her own merits and knowledge, in many different fields in life, probably wouldn't
have been politics, had she not met bill.
Hillary would have made a wonderful marriage counselor. Hillary doesn't have the personality or speaking ability to be a successful president. She is too wooden.

sarah palin was railroaded into being john mccain's running mate just to add a woman, she didn't have the
knowledge to be there,
Present your evidence as a lawyer would do so in a court of law and I will analyze it. Alternatively, don't present evidence and retract your unsupported opinion.


but she did have the looks, and loved to talk, i felt sorry for her,
Are you aware that exactly the same things could be said about Barack Obama?


as she
embArrassed herself on more than one occasion, by not being prepared, and just lacked any experience.
American leftists demonized her and kept her under constant attack. The same treatment should be administered to Hillary Clinton as revenge.

the republican party did her an injustice by thinking she could suck in voters,
because she is a woman, who looked good, and talked a blue streak.
Democrats need the votes of women to be viable. That's why the Democrats and their media lapdogs were compelled to destroy her. Even now she is attacked, ridiculed, and diminished.


I want Hillary to experience exactly what Palin experienced. Let's start by a discussion of her judgment in sending the American Ambassador to Libya to conduct discussions with the Turkish Charge d'Affairs in Benghazi over sending Libyan weapons to Syria.
 

eh1eh

Blah Blah Blah
Aug 31, 2006
10,749
103
48
Under a Lone Palm
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
548
113
Vernon, B.C.
Why do you overlook her willingness to remain with a man who cheated on her over and over and over? She's like a beaten dog that licks the hand of the man who beat it.




There was probably a few perks connected to that job that Bill had, that she was able to get in on. :) As a matter of fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they are both still getting perks.
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
70
Saint John, N.B.
The Audacity of Hill

by Mark Steyn • Mar 10, 2015 at 8:02 pm


235



[UPDATE: Here's the video of Mark's appearance on Hannity]
[And, here's how Breitbart covered my interview: "This is Queen Mary Antoinette, instead of 'let them eat cake,' 'let them eat spin,' and not even good spin at that."]
I'll be talking about today's Hillary Clinton press conference later tonight with Sean Hannity on Fox News, but it was an amazing performance. Amazingly wooden and unconvincing, of course, but in a sense that was part of its brazenness. Its sheer implausibility underlined her central message: Yeah, and what are you gonna do about it?
Most political figures would be terrified at having to advance this thin a defense in public:
Oh, well. I didn't have a government email address because I didn't want to be forced to carry "two devices". Who'd she get that one from? Bill? "Aw, honey, you know I couldn't possibly be arkansashorndog@yahoo.com, and distinguishingcharacteristics@gmail.com, and cigaraficionado@aol.com, and hotmale@hotmail.com, and youmightwanttoputsomeiceonthat@clintonmentoring.com, and all the rest, because I'd have to have 12 different devices. And, if I had 12 different desktops on the desk, there'd be no room for the intern, would there?"
But apparently it's easier to set up your own email domain on a personal server at your home than ask a State Dept underling if there's anybody there who can figure out how to get two email addresses on one "device". And apparently your reluctance to carry two "devices" trumps anything so footling as the law. And, in any case, you said on camera just two weeks ago that you had an iPhone and a Blackberry.
Hillary announced today that she'd deleted everything other than the 55,000 pages of emails she handed over to the government. And, while 55,000 sounds like a lot, it boils down to fewer than 38 a day for a four-year term. The average person in work has over 120 business-related emails a day. So Hillary's 55,000 sounds a little on the low side. Happily for her, she handed them over to the feds as print copies only, so Trey Gowdy is going to have to wait until some State Dept minion has scanned them all in in a searchable form before he can enter search terms like "Benghazi".
The risibilty of these defenses is the point. To reprise one of my favorite Theodore Dalrymple quotes:
In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better.
That's why all this stuff is coming out now. If Hillary can get away with something so obviously and uniquely and intentionally wrong, and that compromises national security to boot, and for which she offers nothing but the most laughable explanations, then she will have set the rules for the next 18 months. If she can make the court eunuchs of the media and the Democrats' own base complicit in this absurd and unconvincing lie, they're hardly in a position to complain about all the others in the months ahead.
 

Locutus

Adorable Deplorable
Jun 18, 2007
32,230
47
48
66
The Clinton Way

They write their own rules. Will it work this time?




As a rule, these are words no politician wants to be speaking in the days leading up to the launch of a major campaign:


“What I did was to direct, you know, my counsel to conduct a thorough investigation …”

“I fully complied with every rule that I was governed by.”


“They were personal and private, about matters that I believed were in the scope of my personal privacy.”


As a rule, a candidate wants to take flight on outstretched wings of hope, not scramble in the dirt on the crabbed limbs of legal compliance. Every day spent saying “Trust me, my lawyer’s O.K. with it” is a bad day–and worse if she appears to be reading from lawyer-vetted notes.


As a rule, these would be dire, perhaps fatal, markers of a campaign crashing on takeoff. But in this case the politician was Hillary Clinton, whose carefully laid plans to unveil her latest presidential bid hit turbulence on March 10 as she fumbled her way through an awkward press conference in a corridor at the U.N. At issue: Clinton’s decision to ignore White House guidance as Secretary of State and instead conduct government business through a private email account hosted on her family’s personal server.


more


Hillary and Bill Clinton: TIME Cover Story

heh



har

 

gopher

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2005
21,513
66
48
Minnesota: Gopher State
Clinton = 30,000 deleted emails



Bush = millions of deleted emails:



The George W. Bush email scandal the media has conveniently forgotten - Salon.com



The George W. Bush email scandal the media has conveniently forgotten
Back in 2007, the White House "lost" more than five million private emails. The story was barely covered




Even for a Republican White House that was badly stumbling through George W. Bush’s sixth year in office, the revelation on April 12, 2007 was shocking. Responding to congressional demands for emails in connection with its investigation into the partisan firing of eight U.S. attorneys, the White House announced that as many as five million emails, covering a two-year span, had been lost.

The emails had been run through private accounts controlled by the Republican National Committee and were only supposed to be used for dealing with non-administration political campaign work to avoid violating ethics laws. Yet congressional investigators already had evidence private emails had been used for government business, including to discuss the firing of one of the U.S. attorneys. The RNC accounts were used by 22 White House staffers, including then-Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove, who reportedly used his RNC email for 95 percent of his communications.

As the Washington Post reported, “Under federal law, the White House is required to maintain records, including e-mails, involving presidential decision- making and deliberations.” But suddenly millions of the private RNC emails had gone missing; emails that were seen as potentially crucial evidence by Congressional investigators.

The White House email story broke on a Wednesday. Yet on that Sunday’s Meet The Press, Face The Nation, and Fox News Sunday, the topic of millions of missing White House emails did not come up. At all. (The story did get covered on ABC’s This Week.)

By comparison, not only did every network Sunday news show this week cover the story about former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton emails, but they were drowning in commentary. Between Meet the Press, Face The Nation, This Week, and Fox News Sunday, Clinton’s “email” or “emails” were referenced more than 100 times on the programs, according to Nexis transcripts. Talk about saturation coverage.

Indeed, the commentary for the last week truly has been relentless, with the Beltway press barely pausing to catch its breath before unloading yet another round of “analysis,” most of which provides little insight but does allow journalists to vent about the Clintons.

What has become clear over the last eight days however is that the Clinton email story isn’t about lawbreaking. “Experts have said it doesn’t appear Clinton violated federal laws,” CNN conceded. “But that hasn’t stemmed the issue that has become more about bad optics and politics than any actual wrongdoing.” The National Law Journal agreed, noting that while the story has created a political furor, “any legal consequences are likely to prove negligible.”

Still, the scandal machine churns on determined to the treat the story as a political blockbuster, even though early polling indicates the kerfuffle will not damage Clinton’s standing.

Looking back, it’s curious how the D.C. scandal machine could barely get out of first gear when the Bush email story broke in 2007. I’m not suggesting the press ignored the Rove email debacle, because the story was clearly covered at the time. But triggering a firestorm (a guttural roar) that raged for days and consumed the Beltway chattering class the way the D.C. media has become obsessed with the Clinton email story? Absolutely not. Not even close.

Instead, the millions of missing Bush White House emails were treated as a 24-hour or 48-hour story. It was a subject that was dutifully noted, and then the media pack quickly moved on.

How did the Washington Post and New York Times commentators deal with the Bush email scandal in the week following the confirmation of the missing messages? In his April 17, 2007 column, Post columnist Eugene Robinson hit the White House hard. But he was the only Post columnist to do so. On the editorial page, the Post cautioned that the story of millions of missing White House emails might not really be a “scandal.” Instead, it was possible, the Post suggested, that Rove and others simply received “sloppy guidance” regarding email protocol.

There’s been no such Post inclination to give Clinton any sort of benefit of the doubt regarding email use as the paper piles up endless attacks on her. Dana Milbank: “Clinton made a whopper of an error.” Ruth Marcus: “This has the distinct odor of hogwash.”

As for The New York Times, here’s the entirety of the newspaper’s commentary on the Bush White House email story in the week following the revelation, according to Nexis:

Last week, the Republican National Committee threw up another roadblock, claiming it had lost four years’ worth of e-mail messages by Karl Rove that were sent on a Republican Party account. Those messages, officials admitted, could include some about the United States attorneys. It is virtually impossible to erase e-mail messages fully, and the claims that they are gone are not credible.

Three sentences from a single, unsigned editorial. That’s it. No Times columnists addressed the topic. By comparison, in the week since the Clinton story broke, the Times has published one editorial dedicated solely to the subject, and no less than five opinion columns addressing the controversy.

Just to repeat: In 2007, the story was about millions of missing White House emails that were sought in connection to a Congressional investigation. Yet somehow the archiving of Clinton’s emails today requires exponentially more coverage, and exceedingly more critical coverage.

Of course, back in 2007 Fox News seemed utterly uninterested in the Bush email story days after the news broke. A search of Fox archives locates only one panel discussion about the story and it featured two guests accusing Democrats of engineering a “fishing expedition.”

From then-Fox co-host, Fred Barnes: “I mean, deleted e-mails, who cares?”