Hillary's flaw is that you don't know what she stands for or what her vision is. At best, that could be played as a day to day person who gets things done rather than a dreamer who sometimes futiley pushes for things he/she truly believes in. What has been shown is that she's opportunistic and calculating, which paired with the nebulously left of center "New Democrat" ideology means you think of the worst she could possibly do rather than give her the benefit of the doubt. Her website is one of the most comprehensive and detailed when it comes to drilling down different areas of policy. Unfortunately, being the President is also part representative of guiding the nation through its struggles and self doubts. Reagan, Clinton, Dubya, and Obama has noticable points in their terms that did just. One term Bush Sr. seemed more out of touch even though history has judged him to be a more than capable statesman and as someone who stood up for things he believed were for the interests of the country rather than just his party. There might be hope for Hillary, but I wasn't too impressed how she moved left of center during her Senate years. All these nitpicks about her and her husband enriching themselves is disappointing but not too surprising when you have two pretty damn good lawyers who ended up with one half in lower paying government service. Of course, the fact that their combined net worth has ballooned to over a 100 million is disturbing, but if Trump is elected, I would'nt be surprised of some overt back rubbing and an extra digit added to his net worth
And here's Trump, going quietly in the face of a contested/rigged convention, by threatening riots like a B-movie mob boss:
7 things you need to know about a contested convention http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/16/politics/contested-convention-how-it-works-questions/index.html
We know exactly what she stands for. Her political career comes first. She is the worst of all candidates. Rules, laws and intentions are nothing more than road blocks to further her own cause. She stands for nothing. Democrats are suppose to be the party of the people but clearly she is nothing more than a Republican in which democrats despise.
Giving an uncontested speech is one thing........ but he cannot handle immediate adversity or conflict in a debate setting. Further, he has been completely emasculated by his a number of other candidates. He would have been eviscerated by Clinton in the debates and in the media. He does not handle a confrontational candidate well at all.
Word. <iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/H68eCEWKb7M?start=342" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
If that is the case, 3. Join a think tank and try to remain relevant for a possible future cabinet position. 4. Try to cash in by going to the private sector (might be hard since nobody seems to like the guy).
This is a fairly unfair caricature of Hillary Clinton. If you look at her career it is very clear she is to the left and is even to the left of her husband. There is no doubt that she is calculating and opportunistic but I don't think that doesn't mean she is in general on the left side of issues. She's certainly not Bernie Sanders but if you look at the stances that she took and Obama took while both were in the Senate and during the 2008 campaign they really aren't that different yet Obama was considered a true progressive, at least until he got into the presidency, while Clinton wasn't. Clinton has been hammered on the Iraq vote when others such as Joe Biden also voted for it and their liberal credentials haven't been questioned to the extent that Clinton has. Have you considered though that she might actually be more left of center and once out of the shadow of her husband she could act more in line with what her true beliefs are? As far as the Clinton's wealth I don't consider it a positive but I don't consider it a huge negative. Many politicians have are wealthy or have gotten wealthy. Consider that even Jimmy Carter's networth is $7 million. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/21/the-net-worth-of-the-amer_n_825939.html And I have no doubt Obama will be a millionaire many times over once he leaves office. The criticism of the Clinton's wealth from speaking fees and donations to the Clinton Foundation are valid criticism but we should remember that Clinton Foundation money cannot be used Hillary Clinton campaign nor go directly to her. While there have been speculation of quid pro quo for donations and speaking fees these yet to be proven.
I totally agree with your characterization of her. Unfortunately, with the options still available (excluding lame ducks Sanders and Kasich), that would make her the best of the candidates.
I'm not, I've barely followed it. If she truly committed a crime as opposed to using bad judgment (there is a legal difference), why in the world wouldn't she be indicted?
There really isn't a difference between using bad judgment with classified information and committing a crime. Mishandling classified information IS a crime in and of itself. As to why she might not be indicted....well do you really think the Obama justice department would take out the presumptive Democratic candidate for president?
The GOP should call Trump's bluff and denounce him at the Convention. Dare him to take his 35% and run as an Independent. He won't. He's too cheap to afford a self-funded campaign against both the GOP and Democrats war machines, which requires spending a billion dollars to have any chance this fall. This bet might cost the GOP this election, but it will save the party from the fracturing and becoming a permanent minority party with Trump as the standard-bearer. Plus, it would allow the GOP to hedge against wholesale losses in down-ballot races where Trump's toxic rhetoric might cost Republicans competitive House and Senate seats. This way those candidates can distance themselves from Trump and even attack him. Yes, it's not an easy pill to swallow: give up the presidency to save control of Congress rather than go down in flames and not recover for decades.
You seem to think Trump is the only real problem. Trump is only a symptom. The Republican party has known since Reagan the demographics of the USA were changing greatly and they did nothing to appeal to minorities, biracial people and immigrants, often going so far and to alienate them to hold onto the shrinking white voting block. Hell their entire strategy for 8 years was to simply block the President. They offered virtually no fresh or original ideas. So this is what they are left with, and rather than distance themselves from their last 50 years, they have pushed even further to the extreme in terms of racist rhetoric, vilification of young people, Mexicans, Arabs and the educated. Trump isn't a fool, he noticed an opportunity to exploit a party whose own members are not happy with the core of the party. Now they get to wallow in their own ****, with high ranking party leaders contradicting each other and lack any clear message or uniformity. Yet it is Trump that is the problem. Hell, a Democrat CHOOSE to reinvent himself as a Republican populist with ridiculous obvious racism and xenophobia because he knew it would appeal to enough Republican voters and the Republican leadership is made of weak (Romney, Bohnner), out of touch (Graham) or stupid (Ryan) fools that stand around with a softie in their hand.
Conspiracy Bobby at work. You skipped the indictment, the trial, the verdict, and moved straight to the Presidential conspiracy. Nice work.
