2016 Presidential Thoughts, RUN BERNIE , RUN … Vermont Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders Says He’d Make a Better President Than Hillary Clinton
RUN BERNIE … RUN!!! WILL HILLARY HAVE A CHALLENGE FROM THE LEFT?
In an interview with Time, the senator from the Socialist Republic of Vermont, Bernie Sander (VT-
IS), had much to say on a wide range of issues like the legalization of marijuana, social security, and Barack Obama’s job as president; however, the biggest news was when Sanders said that he would make a better president than Hillary Clinton. When asked who would make a better president, Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders, he said … Bernie Sanders. Will the Independent socialist, who caucuses with Democrats in the Senate be the thorn in Hillary’s 2016 presidential election side? The Independent Socialist Senator said he “liked Hilliary” and she is a “very, very intelligent person”. However, Sanders said there needs to be a leader “to wage a political revolution in this country which brings millions of people into the political process to stand up and fighting for their rights in a way that we have not seen right now,” and Hillary Clinton was not the leader of that movement.
Q. Who do you think would make a better President, Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders?
Bernie Sanders. So you’re asking your question more direct. [Laughter] And I think in this particular moment when the problems facing this country are so severe, when we have seen class warfare being waged by the billionaires against the working families of America, when we have seen the billionaire class use its money in an unprecedented way for its political purposes to let more right wing extremists, I think we need people in leadership roles in the House and the Senate and governors’ chairs, in the White House, who are prepared to stand up and say, ‘You know what? This country belongs to all of the people: the waiters and the waitresses who are trying to make it on low incomes, they have a right to see their kids go to college and all people, that the United States is going to join the rest of the industrialized world in guaranteed health care to all people as a right and not any longer be the only country, major country on earth that does not guarantee that right, that all kids regardless of income have the right to a college education, that we need a tax system which in fact makes it very clear that the wealthy and large corporations are going to start paying their fare share of taxes, that we’re going to have real campaign finance reform so that the Koch brothers and other billionaires cannot buy elections, that we’re going to overturn Citizens United.’ Do you think that’s Hillary Clinton’s agenda? I don’t think so.
There is no truth to the rumor that when asked about a Sanders 2016 presidential run, Hillary said … What difference does it make!
But is Sanders really willing to run for president? More importantly as Liberland asks,” he big question is whether Sanders runs as an independent, which he is, or as a Democrat, a party with which he caucuses, but with which he many differences.” If Sanders runs as either, it will be problematic for Hillary Clinton and Democrats. If Sanders runs in the Democrat primary, Hillary will be forced to move to the LEFT to attract the base.If Sanders runs as an Independent in the general election, he will siphon the far Left vote from an establishment Hillary Clinton. We say Run Bernie, Run!!!
Personally, I agree with 0.000527% of Bernie Sanders’ agenda; however, I will give him his due and that he is an unabashed, self-proclaimed socialist. Because he stands by his beliefs and policies, no matter how wrong I think they might be, I give him kudos for standing by his socialist principles. However, after saying what he did about the need for a political revolution and Hillary not being the standard bearer of that movement, I would cry foul and bullsh*t if now Sanders did not run and instead sat back and got in line behind Hillary Clinton like a good establishment Democrat.
The reality is, these days Bernie Sanders probably represents more of what the Democrats are all about these days than Hillary Clinton. Vermont don’t stop there, let’s add former Green Mountain Gov. Howard Dean back for another run as well … YEEHAAA!!!
Rutgers Faculty Approves Resolution to Rescind its Invitation to Condoleeza Rice to Speak at Commencement
THE LIBERAL INDOCTRINATION OF AMERICA’S COLLEGES …
Liberal, duplicitous Rutgers faculty looks to rescind the university’s original invitation to former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice to speak at their Commencement. Condi is just to Republican to speak at Rutgers, according to the libs in the faculty. Get a load of the reason why the liberal elite at Rutgers do not want Condi to speak at the commencement. One professor said, “She was intimately involved in a campaign that was a manipulation. Whether she was aware of it or not. Our students are being manipulated to deliver a political point.” Another said, “an honorary Doctor of Laws degree should not honor someone who participated in a political effort to circumvent the law.” Hmm, I guess that also means that Hillary Clinton (Benghazi) and Barack Obama (Obamacare and his entire presidency) would be deemed the same as not fitting the criteria to speak at a Rutgers commencement? Add the entire Obama administration since the Rutger’s profs added, “whether some one was aware of it or not.” Who are these two face, elitist, liberal moon-bats kidding. Sadly, they are
teaching indoctrinating our children.
Hey Rutgers lib profs … talk to the hand
The Rutgers University New Brunswick Faculty Council approved a resolution yesterday urging the university’s Board of Governors to rescind its invitation to Condoleeza Rice to speak at commencement.
The Board of Governors voted earlier this month to award an honorary Doctor of Laws degree to Rice, who served as Secretary of State under President George W. Bush. She will be paid $35,000 for her commencement address.
But the faculty council cited her war record and her misleading of the public about the Iraq war as reasons for their opposition.
“Condoleezza Rice … played a prominent role in (the Bush) administration’s effort to mislead the American people about the presence of weapons of mass destruction,” according to the resolution. And she “at the very least condoned the Bush administration’s policy of ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ such as waterboarding,” it said.
“A Commencement speaker… should embody moral authority and exemplary citizenship,” it continued, and “an honorary Doctor of Laws degree should not honor someone who participated in a political effort to circumvent the law.”
Bill Clinton Back in His Element at Charity Gala … Poses for Picture with Two Hookers, Ava Adora and Barbie Girl, From the Famed Nevada Bunny Ranch Brothel
Hillary Clinton must be so proud of what she hopes is her future “First Man” … Tabloids and Late Night Comedy Shows are begging, even praying that Hillary wins in 2016 for the endless Bubba material!
You just can’t make this stuff up. Former President Bill Clinton is back in the tabloids after TMZ gets a hold of a picture of the former prez and two women at a gala charity event for Unite4Humanity. Seems innocent enough, right? Well, not when Slick Willie is involved. It turns out that the two women were prostitutes at the famed Nevada Bunny Ranch brothel, Ava Adora and Barbie Girl. I guess it all depends on how you define selfie.
I did not take a picture with those two women, Ava Adora and Barbie Girl, I never told anyone to take a picture, not a single time
Slick Willie probably had no clue … but the women Bill posed with at an L.A. charity event Thursday night are two star hookers at the famed Nevada Bunny Ranch brothel.
The brunette goes by Ava Adora and the blonde goes by Barbie Girl. According to her bio on the BR website, the blonde is very flexible and specializes in de-virginizing. The brunette “knows how to please a variety of both men and women.”
We have no idea how they got in to the star-studded Unite4Humanity charity gala — which honored Clinton along with several other philanthropic celebs like Robert De Niro and Martin Scorsese — but we can take a wild guess why they showed.
Hillary Clinton was asked for her opinion of Bill’s latest pic, at least it wasn’t with porn stars this time.
The Hillary Papers … Archive of ‘Closest Friend’ Paints Portrait of Hillary Clinton as Ruthless First Lady
THE HILLARY PAPERS … Hillary Clinton as Ruthless First Lady, Imagine that?
Hillary Clinton is the overwhelming odds on favorite to be the Democrat presidential nominee for the 2016 presidential election, so when it comes to the Hillary Papers, What difference, at this point, does it make? Maybe this might be of some relevance … her early support for single-payer, despite later denials, is directly relevant to the current Obamacare debacle that will be an issue in the 2016 election. How is she going to be able to run from Obamacare when she had Hillary Healthcare?
If many think today that Barack Obama cannot be trusted, what would they think of Hillary Clinton who has a political motivation for everything that she does?
On May 12, 1992, Stan Greenberg and Celinda Lake, top pollsters for Bill Clinton’s presidential campaign, issued a confidential memo. The memo’s subject was “Research on Hillary Clinton.”
Voters admired the strength of the Arkansas first couple, the pollsters wrote. However, “they also fear that only someone too politically ambitious, too strong, and too ruthless could survive such controversy so well.”
Their conclusion: “What voters find slick in Bill Clinton, they find ruthless in Hillary.”
The full memo is one of many previously unpublished documents contained in the archive of one of Hillary Clinton’s best friends and advisers, documents that portray the former first lady, secretary of State, and potential 2016 presidential candidate as a strong, ambitious, and ruthless Democratic operative.
The papers of Diane Blair, a political science professor Hillary Clinton described as her “closest friend” before Blair’s death in 2000, record years of candid conversations with the Clintons on issues ranging from single-payer health care to Monica Lewinsky.
The question remains for 2016, does Hillary have too much political baggage in her past and a lack of accomplishments to be president? Please tell me that America has learned from just electing someone for being the first?
Hillary Clinton Now Says Benghazi Is My Biggest Regret … But What Happened to What Difference Does it Make?
BUT WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE? IT WOULD APPEAR IT NOW MAKES A BIG DIFFERENCE FOR A HILLARY WHITE HOUSE RUN …
As Hillary Clinton eyes the 2016 Presidential election, she must first clean up the disasters in her political past and gloss over them hoping that the American people will some how forget. On Monday Clinton said in an interview that the “terrible tragedy” of the 2012 Benghazi attack that resulted in the death of four Americans was the “biggest regret” of her tenure at the Department of State. Regret, what exactly does she regret … completely ignoring the obvious like being told Benghazi was a terror threat?
Let the MSM slobbering love affair begin for the Hillary in 2016 campaign. What happened to the tape? What happened to this investigation? What happened to holding anyone accountable? But what difference does it make.
QUESTION: Any do-overs that you would — relative to Secretary of State?
HILLARY CLINTON: Oh, sure. I mean, you know, you make these choices based on imperfect information. And you make them to — as we say, the best of your ability. But that doesn’t mean that there’s not going to be unforeseen consequences, unpredictable twists and turns.
You know, my biggest, you know, regret is what happened in Benghazi. It was a terrible tragedy, losing four Americans, two diplomats and now it’s public, so I can say two CIA operatives, losing an ambassador like Chris Stevens, who was one of our very best and had served in Libya and across the Middle East and spoke Arabic.
Sorry, there should be a lot more than regrets:
- House of Rep Report: President Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and State Department Blew the Benghazi Consulate Response
- Sen. Rand Paul (KY-R) To Hillary Clinton at Senate Foreign Relations Committee Hearing on Benghazi Terrorist Attack: ‘I Would Have Relieved You Of Your Post’
What Hillary Clinton really regrets is losing her cool in the Benghazi hearing and being caught on VIDEO say, what difference does it make, when it came to the deaths of four Americans. Because in the end, its all about Hillary and her run for 2016.
How much will it be political precedent and how much will it be America’s strong distaste with liberalism, big government and eight years of a failed Obama presidency and his policies that will make 2016 not be a slam dunk for Hillary Clinton? Then again, how much will it be Hillary’s own doing with her disastrous handling of Benghazi, where four Americans, including Ambassador Stevens died or her own not doing in that what did she ever really do as a Senator or Secretary of State? But as Hillary Clinton says, what difference does it make!!!
Obamacare is a disaster, the economy stinks, job growth is terrible, food stamps are at record levels, federal debt is at all time highs and growing, the Middle East is a powder keg … why would America want 4 more years of the Obama administration?
How much will Benghazi and “What Difference Does It Make” will doom Hillary?
Inevitably, she will consider how much she wants, or is able, to keep going at a killer pace throughout her 70s and, more important, her chances of prevailing in November 2016.
Much of it is out of her hands. Low job approval numbers for President Obama, should they persist, will make it difficult for any Democrat to win, even with the party’s seeming Electoral College edge and growing demographic advantages among minorities and the young. Just ask John McCain how President George W. Bush’s unpopularity affected his 2008 White House bid. (Of course, you can’t rule out the very real chance that the Republicans will rescue the eventual Democratic nominee by putting forward an out-of-the-mainstream nominee.)
The Clintons are nothing if not shrewd, and they’ve lived through the entire era of postwar American politics. So Hillary Clinton would be the last to believe what I have heard with increasing frequency: that, in the end, no one of real heft, even Vice President Joe Biden, will challenge her for the Democratic nomination she nearly won in 2008, and she will steamroll over the minor contenders who do. Most frequently mentioned in the “minor” category are former Gov. Brian Schweitzer of Montana and Gov. Martin O’Malley of Maryland. (O’Malley also made a little-noticed appearance at the McAuliffe inauguration.) Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts would be a major opponent should she run, but she insists she will not. When California Gov. Jerry Brown also bowed out, NBC News’s First Read called it “a reminder that Hillary Clinton will probably face little to no serious competition if she runs.”
Hillary Clinton’s Hit List: She Kept a File of Sinners and Saints … A Special Circle of Clinton Hell Reserved for People Who Endorsed Obama over Hillary
So Democrats, are you on Hillary’s Hit List?
This morning The Politico writes about Hillary Clinton’s hit list. Who would possibly believe that some one so warm, kind and compassionate like Hillary Clinton could have a “hit list” for paybacks against individuals who abandoned her in favor of Barack Obama for the Democrat nomination in the run up to the 2008 presidential election and thus devastating her life-long political aspirations of becoming president? Hell hath no fury like a Hillary scorned. According to the Politico, those that stabbed the Clinton’s in the back after all the fundraising and political favors. Individuals were rated on a scale of 1 to 7, where 7 was considered Hilary’s “SH*T” list. Interestingly enough, then, Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), who would succeed Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State in the Obama administration, was among those who received a “7″. The list also contained, the late and former Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy.
For Hillary it is all about 2016 and her ambition to be president at all cost.
As one of the last orders of business for a losing campaign, they recorded in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet the names and deeds of members of Congress. They carefully noted who had endorsed Hillary, who had backed Obama, and who had stayed on the sidelines—standard operating procedure for any high-end political organization. But the data went into much more nuanced detail. “We wanted to have a record of who endorsed us and who didn’t,” a member of Hillary’s campaign team said, “and of those who endorsed us, who went the extra mile and who was just kind of there. And of those who didn’t endorse us, those who understandably didn’t endorse us because they are [Congressional Black Caucus] members or Illinois members. And then, of course, those who endorsed him but really should have been with her … that burned her.”
For Hillary, whose loss was of course not the end of her political career, the spreadsheet was a necessity of modern political warfare, an improvement on what old-school politicians called a “favor file.” It meant that when asks rolled in, she and Bill would have at their fingertips all the information needed to make a quick decision—including extenuating, mitigating and amplifying factors—so that friends could be rewarded and enemies punished.
Their spreadsheet formalized the deep knowledge of those involved in building it. Like so many of the Clinton help, Balderston and Elrod were walking favor files. They remembered nearly every bit of assistance the Clintons had given and every slight made against them. Almost six years later, most Clinton aides can still rattle off the names of traitors and the favors that had been done for them, then provide details of just how each of the guilty had gone on to betray the Clintons—as if it all had happened just a few hours before. The data project ensured that the acts of the sinners and saints would never be forgotten.
There was a special circle of Clinton hell reserved for people who had endorsed Obama or stayed on the fence after Bill and Hillary had raised money for them, appointed them to a political post or written a recommendation to ice their kid’s application to an elite school. On one early draft of the hit list, each Democratic member of Congress was assigned a numerical grade from 1 to 7, with the most helpful to Hillary earning 1s and the most treacherous drawing 7s. The set of 7s included Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), Bob Casey (D-Pa.) and Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), as well as Reps. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Baron Hill (D-Ind.) and Rob Andrews (D-N.J.).
Yet even a 7 didn’t seem strong enough to quantify the betrayal of some onetime allies.
When the Clintons sat in judgment, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) got the seat closest to the fire. Bill and Hillary had gone all out for her when she ran for Senate in 2006, as had Obama. But McCaskill seemed to forget that favor when NBC’s Tim Russert asked her whether Bill had been a great president, during a Meet the Press debate against then-Sen. Jim Talent (R-Mo.) in October 2006. “He’s been a great leader,” McCaskill said of Bill, “but I don’t want my daughter near him. VIDEO”
The book by Amie Parnes and Jonathan Allen is called “HRC: State Secrets and the Rebirth of Hillary Clinton.”
UPDATE I: I could not agree more than with Jammie Wearing Fool who says that this jit list most likely goes back decades. Amen brother. An excel spreadsheet? More likely a Tera-byte hard drive of enemies.
Could Bob Gates’s memoir Haunt Hillary Clinton in 2016 … “Hillary told the president that her opposition to the  surge in Iraq had been political because she was facing him in the Iowa Primary”
Imagine that, Hillary Clinton doing something for political purposes … Is this woman really Presidential timber?
Say it isn’t so, who would possibly think that anyone with the last name of Clinton would do some thing for political purposes, rather than conviction. Thus comes the bombshell from Bob Gates new book where the former secretary of War says that “Hillary told the president that her opposition to the  surge in Iraq had been political because she was facing him in the Iowa primary.” Nice, so she fakes a position knowing that a surge was needed, but puts a mission in danger for political purposes. But that begs the question, what hasn’t Hillary done in her lifetime that was not political?
Take a real good look at what many believe will be the next president of the United States. God Help Us.
To Hillary Clinton, What Difference Does It Make … ITS ALL POLITICAL!
In a new memoir of his time as secretary of defense in the Obama administration, Gates writes: “Hillary told the president that her opposition to the  surge in Iraq had been political because she was facing him in the Iowa primary. .?.?. The president conceded vaguely that opposition to the Iraq surge had been political. To hear the two of them making these admissions, and in front of me, was as surprising as it was dismaying.”
Oomph. Just to jog your memory, Clinton announced that she opposed the Iraq surge being pushed by President George W. Bush in the days leading up to the announcement of her presidential bid. She instead proposed a freeze in troop levels in the country and advocated for a troop increase in Afghanistan.
The stories written at the time mentioned how Clinton was coming under pressure from the increasingly vocal anti-war left to oppose the troop surge — particularly given that it was becoming increasingly obvious that then-Sen. Barack Obama, who, unlike Clinton, opposed the Iraq war from the start, was going to be her main rival for the nomination. Opposing the surge was cast by many political observers as a sign to the left that she had evolved since her vote for the use-of-force resolution earlier in the decade.
Kind of makes you wonder why she did what she did with Benghazi and refused to fortify the consulate prior to September 11, 2012, even after repeated requests were made to do so. Nothing political there either, hmm?
But of course as Hillary says … WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE!
NY Times Goes in the the Tank for Barack Obama & Hillary Clinton … Revisionist History Report Says Al-Qaeda Not Linked to Benghazi Attack & Was Fueled by Anti-Islam Video
hands liberal MSM on deck … its time to shill for Obama and namely protect Hillary Clinton for 2016 … Benghazi-gate, What Benghazi-gate?
The NY Times reported this morning that Al Qaeda was not linked to the Benghazi consulate attack that killed four Americans, including US Ambassador Christopher Stevens. Instead, the attack was led by fighters who had benefited directly from NATO’s air power and logistics support during the uprising against Colonel Qaddafi. However, most astonishingly, the Times was back touting that the attack was “fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.” GOOD GRIEF. Hmm, doesn’t the Times realize that Hillary Clinton is already on record that in September of last year, Clinton suggested the attack was the work of Al Qaeda or Al Qaeda affiliates?
Darrell Issa disputes NY Times Propaganda Piece on Benghazi and tries to educate a bias NBC ‘Meet the Press’ David Gergory
Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault. The attack was led, instead, by fighters who had benefited directly from NATO’s extensive air power and logistics support during the uprising against Colonel Qaddafi. And contrary to claims by some members of Congress, it was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.
A fuller accounting of the attacks suggests lessons for the United States that go well beyond Libya. It shows the risks of expecting American aid in a time of desperation to buy durable loyalty, and the difficulty of discerning friends from allies of convenience in a culture shaped by decades of anti-Western sentiment. Both are challenges now hanging over the American involvement in Syria’s civil conflict.
The attack also suggests that, as the threats from local militants around the region have multiplied, an intensive focus on combating Al Qaeda may distract from safeguarding American interests.
In this case, a central figure in the attack was an eccentric, malcontent militia leader, Ahmed Abu Khattala, according to numerous Libyans present at the time. American officials briefed on the American criminal investigation into the killings call him a prime suspect. Mr. Abu Khattala declared openly and often that he placed the United States not far behind Colonel Qaddafi on his list of infidel enemies. But he had no known affiliations with terrorist groups, and he had escaped scrutiny from the 20-person C.I.A. station in Benghazi that was set up to monitor the local situation.
You thought the MSM was in the tank for Obama? You haven’t seen nuthing yet. They will be all-in, all the time for Hillary Clinton from now until the 2016 presidential election. The Libs in the MSM now have to make up for a weakened, scandal plagued, dishonest and untrustworthy lame duck Barack Obama, the lie and disaster that is Obamacare and an anemic economy. So why not start with as Powerline calls it, some revisionist history on Benghazi. It would appear that we have found Hilary’s weak spot and the MSM must now cover it up … but what difference does it make?
The Times stops short of claiming that the Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi was “spontaneous.” It says, instead, that the attack was not “meticulously planned.”
That may or may not be true. But the quality of the planning — good enough, as it turned out — seems irrelevant. Again, what matters is that the State Department should have been prepared for the attack and taken action accordingly. This the New York Times does not dispute.
It also matters that the Obama administration’s account of the attack, per Susan Rice, was inaccurate even if one accepts the Times’ dubious reporting. The Times acknowledges this, though it chooses to characterize Rice’s account as just a “misstatement.”
The adequacy or inadequacy of the Obama administration’s response as the Benghazi attacks unfolded also matters. So does the treatment of those in the State Department who have dared to question Hillary Clinton’s actions relating to Benghazi.
Whatever else the Times story demonstrates, I believe it shows that this story won’t go away as long as Hillary Clinton aspires to be president.
The 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya was an “Al Qaeda-led event” according to multiple on-the-record interviews with the head of the House Intelligence Committee who receives regular classified briefings and has access to the raw intelligence to make independent assessments.
“I will tell you this, by witness testimony and a year and a half of interviewing everyone that was in the ground by the way, either by an FBI investigator or the committee: It was very clear to the individuals on the ground that this was an Al Qaeda-led event. And they had pretty fairly descriptive events early on that lead those folks on the ground, doing the fighting, to the conclusion that this was a pre-planned, organized terrorist event,” Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., told Fox News in a November interview.
“Not a video, that whole part was debunked time and time again,” Rogers added of the attack which killed Ambassador Chris Stevens, Foreign Service officer Sean Smith and former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, “which just leads to questions of why the administration hung with that narrative for so long when all the folks who participated on the ground saw something different.”
Charles Krauthammer Says Hillary Clinton Will Be “Relatively Weak” Presidential Candidate & Republicans Going to Have “a Really Good Shot at the White House”
Krauthammer Says Hillary Clinton Will Be “Relatively Weak” Presidential Candidate …
Yesterday, syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer has some interesting things to say regarding Hillary Clinton as a Democrat nominee for 2016 and how she would fare in the general election. Much like a recent CNN poll and many others, Krauthammer believes that, should she ran and he believes she will, Hillary Clinton will have a cake walk thru the Democrat primaries. Krauthammer stated that the status that Hillary has with Democrats is semi-devine, the primaries are “not going to be a coronation, it is going to be a worship service.” And we all know how that worked out with the Obamamessiah. There will be no serious challenger against her in the Democrat primaries. But where Charles differs from many is that he believes that that in the general election … Hillary will be “a relatively weak opponent. And, Republicans are going to have a really good shot at the White House.”
“I think she’s going to be a rather weak, if she decides to run which she likely is, a relatively weak opponent. And, Republicans are going to have a really good shot at the White House.”
As it is, in a hypothetical match-up between NJ Gov. Chris Christie and Hillary Clinton, Hillary trails. It is not a draw as the Politico headline says, Christie leads 48-46. So even with all the popularity and exposure of a Hillary Clinton without even delving into the real Hillary, she is behind.
Hmm, I am not sure if I would call her a weak candidate; however, I will say that she will be weakened by many factors that did not even exist when she was stunned by Barack Obama in the 2008 Democrat primaries.
- Hillary Clinton is going to have to defend Benghazi and why she did nothing to protect Americans where individuals begged for extra security in the run up to the anniversary of 9-11.
- How is the black vote going to rally when Clinton most likely is going to have to distance herself from a toxic Obama?
- What accomplishments did she ever do as a US Senator or Secretary of State … Hillary is not Bill Clinton.
- How is she a change from the policies of Barack Obama?
- Obamacare! … Can you say Hillary Healthcare?
- Her husband campaigned and said that no one could have fixed the economy, so why should anyone think Hillary could?
- A shift in the electorate against Democrats due to Obama fatigue.
- Trying to defend the comments, “What Difference Does it Make!”
- Duck Dynasty voters
- Did we say Obama and Obama scandal fatigue?
Posted December 27, 2013 by Scared Monkeys
2016 Elections, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Blacks, Chris Christie - NJ, CNN Opinion Research, cronyism, Democrats, Economy, Epic Fail, Healthcare, Hillary Clinton, Liberals, Misleader, Obamacare, Obamanation, Obamanomics, Polls, Progressives, The Lying King, Unemployment, You Tube - VIDEO | one comment