Plan B Forum

At this very early stage, it appears that Hillary Rodham Clinton is destined to be the Democrat nominee for President in 2016. Further, in the absence of a reincarnated Ronald Reagan to run on the other side, she is the presumptive next President of the United States.

Based on what, exactly?

She accomplished nothing as Secretary of State. Her claim to fame was that she travelled a lot of miles and avoided a couple of scandals that could have soiled her dress, so to speak. But diplomatic accomplishments or breakthroughs? Iran? Iraq? Libya? Israel/Palestine? Canada? Anyplace? Not too many (which is to say none at all).

As a Senator representing New York, she can point to not a single piece of legislation or accomplishment, other than running for President. She did vote to send troops into Iraq then courageously regretted it, once that vote became an embarrassment. Oops.

As a First Lady, she is remembered for her failed attempt to shove socialized medicine down our throats, and her sage comment about Government not being responsible for the failure of every under-capitalized pizza shop (which would go out of business under the weight of Hillary-Care). And of course she “stood by her man.” (It is hilarious that she fumes about being compared with Mrs. Weiner. Weiner’s conduct as a husband is exemplary next to WJC’s).

Name a single quotable thing she has ever said in public. Name a single successful initiative that she, herself, sponsored. And this vacuum of accomplishment covers DECADES.

Like Bush43, the less she is seen in public, the more the public likes her. Throughout her public life, her poll numbers rise when she is out of sight, and they fall when she is in the news.

America has demonstrated that it will elect an empty suit, but will it elect a wrinkled dress? The only positive thing one can say about her now is that she couldn’t possibly be any worse than the pretender who now resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Those who lack a regard for facts appeal to emotion. Not unexpected. But why is it always negative emotions like hatred and fear?


Yrs,
Rubato

I'm gonna vote for Hillary in hopes it will finally make Dave's head explode

Crackpot wrote:I'm gonna vote for Hillary in hopes it will finally make Dave's head explode

That right there could be reason enough.

dgs49 wrote:Name a single quotable thing she has ever said in public. Name a single successful initiative that she, herself, sponsored. And this vacuum of accomplishment covers DECADES.

A lot of people could have said much the same about some movie star-turned governor in California. What exactly did President Reagan do before he was President?

Grim Reaper wrote:What exactly did President Reagan do before he was President?

On May 15, 1969, during the People's Park protests at UC Berkeley, Reagan sent the California Highway Patrol and other officers to quell the protests, in an incident that became known as "Bloody Thursday", resulting in the death of student James Rector and the blinding of carpenter Alan Blanchard.[83][84] Reagan then called out 2,200 state National Guard troops to occupy the city of Berkeley for two weeks to crack down on the protesters.[83] A year after "Bloody Thursday", Reagan responded to questions about campus protest movements saying, "If it takes a bloodbath, let's get it over with. No more appeasement."[85]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan

Documents show that Reagan was more involved than was previously known as a government informer during his Hollywood years, and that in return he secretly received personal and political help from J. Edgar Hoover, the longtime F.B.I. director, at taxpayer expense.

***

The newly released files flesh out what Reagan only hinted at. They show that he began to report secretly to the F.B.I. about people whom he suspected of Communist activity, some on the scantiest of evidence. And they reveal that during his tenure as president of the Screen Actors Guild in the ’40s and ’50s, F.B.I. agents had access to guild records on dozens of actors. As one F.B.I. official wrote in a memo, Reagan “in every instance has been cooperative.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/02/opini ... wanted=all

You do realize, don't you, Sue, that Dave considers those activities excellent qualifications for the office of POTUS?

Age and health are the problems for Hilary. 10 years younger and she would likely win the election.


Yrs,
Rubato

Not sure about health, but she'd still be younger than Reagan was when he ran in 1980, not to mention 1984.

Hilary has more experience and knowledge of politics at the level of president of the United States than most people. Her experience being a Senator and the Secretary of State gives her more hands on knowledge of how things work.

Being Bill Clinton's wife when he served would have given her insight that no other presidential candidate that has ever run for office has had.

I'm sure the republicans will once again come up with more candidates at the level of Palin or Bachmann. That will cause Hannity & Limbaugh to drool saliva of joy for a while until they once again realize that they can't find anyone in their party who has a chance to win. Chris Christie may be their only hope.

I agree with rubato, she's too old and knackered.

Hillary will win because by the time she runs she will look very presidential.

She will look a lot like George Washington.

Big Edie Beale



The Hill

"What Reagan did" is a warning, not an endorsement.

Reagan fucked US foreign policy and our economy for a long time.

yrs,
rubato

Big RR wrote:Not sure about health, but she'd still be younger than Reagan was when he ran in 1980, not to mention 1984.

When he ran, Reagan wasn't a hideous old hag looking like 20,000 miles off bad road. Hillary is.

You haters can go eff yourselves. Where were your snarky agist comments when ancient man McCain was running? Oh right, in men it's just "experience."

They are conceding that the Republicans have absolutely no one to match her on substance, and that she will be the next POTUS, and so are resigned in their flaccid impotence to mock her appearance. Take it as a compliment.

Guinevere wrote:You haters can go eff yourselves. Where were your snarky agist comments when ancient man McCain was running? Oh right, in men it's just "experience."

My wife has let me know in no uncertain terms that she would be voting for Hillary...

Guinevere wrote:You haters can go eff yourselves. Where were your snarky agist comments when ancient man McCain was running? Oh right, in men it's just "experience."

"haters"???

Hilary had some alarming problems from a 'fall' followed by a blood clot which altered her vision for quite a long time afterwards. There is evidence of circulatory/neurological issues related to aging which would concern me. It is regrettable because I think she would be a good president and certainly a strong candidate as well. If she got the nomination I would vote for her but hope for an unusually capable vice president who could take over.

McCain was not only too old but he had completely whored himself and contradicted every single thing which made him worth respecting before.

The fact that we are human and our bodies get older and fail is not partisan.

yrs,
rubato

And what part of being concerned about her health necessitated calling her a "hag" and some of the other choice epithets expressed in this thread?