From what I've read it's the more liberal Democrats who are not too
thrilled with Clinton. She has a very cozy relationship with Corporate America,
and very hawkish views on foreign policy. A very interesting matchup would be
Clinton vs Rand Paul. A Hawkish Democratic Internationalist against a Dovish
Isolationist Republican. People might be confused.
The public has turned on Hillary because they figured out that she can't be
Roaland Kayser -" A very interesting matchup would be Clinton vs
Rand Paul"Yeah . . . another interesting loss for the Repubs.In fact, the Republicans could not field a candidate with a chance of
beating Hillary Clinton.
I seriously don't think she was EVER a "great" candidate for
President.What have her major political accomplishments been???===========She was married to a great politician (but I
don't know if it rubs off on you by being married to him).She
ran for Senate in New York and won (even though she's not a New Yorker).
But what big things did she accomplish when in office? She voted
FOR the war in Iraq. And then later tried to de-fund it (kinda like Lee trying
to de-fund the ACA).In 2006 Clinton spent more on her reelection
than any other candidate. And then promptly resigned and ran for President (and
lost).So she doesn't have a great track record of winning
elections. And she doesn't have a reputation for getting a lot done when
she does win.I don't know what kind of President she would be.
But if her leadership as Sec of State is any indication... I don't want
her as President.I think she COULD win. But I don't think it
would be as easy as Democrats hope.
Given up? She leads every potential Republican candidate head to head in just
about every poll since the bridge scandal took down Chris Christie.
I would hate to be the last President of the United States of America. If
Hillary Clinton is elected president, there will be enough of the anti-America
people, with enough money, to bring down our nation, just to win a political
battle. If she does run for the presidency, I would think her the
bravest woman in history.
2 bits -"What have her major political accomplishments
been???"Her major accomplishment?She became a
Democrat. That shows her perspicacity, mental acuity, and just plain
good sense . . . And the ability to learn from her mistakes.Not many
people realize that Hillary was once a Goldwater Republican, who actually
worked for his campaign.. . . Of course, that was in her
impressionable youth, when she apparently was not yet mature enough to make
@2 bitsCottonwood Heights, UTI seriously don't think she was
EVER a "great" candidate for President.What have her major
political accomplishments been???======= Haha -
You're kidding? Let's see...She's holds a
Doctorate from Yale University Law School.She was First Lady of Arkansas
-- TWICE.She was the First Lady of the United Sates -- Twice.Senator
of New York -- Twice.Scretary of the United States.I'm
looking forward to another GOP Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachhmann, or Donald Trump
to run against her.IMHO -- I don't think it's a Hillary is
the best of all bestest candidates, so much as it is the public has just
plain given up on the GOP.
With everything the right wing has thrown at her, she still leads every
Republican by a comfortable margin. This "discussion" is little more
than wishful thinking.
@GaryO,But what actual "Accomplishments" does she have that
qualify her to be President??I mean BESIDES her awesomeness... and
being a Democrat.Do you have any actual ACCOMPLISHMENTS that
convince you she would be a good President?I mean saying you
didn't even know our embassy had been asking for reinforcements... and the
embassy is eventually overrun and our ambassador killed (and she blames a video,
and then blames underlings for not telling her)... doesn't seem like she
has the right stuff to run the State Department... much less the whole United
States Government!IF you have some super-awesome things she has
actually accomplished in her stellar political career... I'd love to hear
about them. IF she has a lot of actual accomplishments... you may change my
mind.What did she accomplish as a Senator? What bills did she
propose? Did they pass? She voted FOR the Iraq war you know... yet that is
only a liability IF you are a Republican???What did she accomplish
as SOC? Benghazi?Tell me what she has accomplished that makes her
so awesome! BESIDES being a Democrat...
Compare her career to Mitt Romney's.She has accomplished so
much more. There's no comparison.
I would vote for her over almost any Republican. But I would prefer a more
To "LDS Liberal" you do realize that until she was Secretary of State
that she had no leadership experience. Then, as Secretary of State she showed
her incompetence by leaving an ambassador in Libya when everybody was telling
her that it was a dangerous situation.Tell us how she is able to
empathize with us commoners. She has an Ivy league education, and spent a long
time as first lady where she waited on by government employees.Did
she have to campaign to be First Lady? Because that really isn't an
accomplishment of hers, but is an accomplishment of Bill's.
The GOP must really fear Clinton if they're already daily producing
anti-Clinton pieces and finding the most awkward pictures of her. It seems like
readers will be punished to read anti-Clinton pieces non-stop for the next 2
years along with the usual anti-union and public education nonsense.My question is, why doesn't the dnews report anything about Swallow?
Payday loan lenders? Corrupt legislators?A corrupt local government
is far more relevant than a possible Clinton presidential run in 2 years.
Real Mav is absolutely correct. I too find it funny that I've seen about 5
articles in the past 3 days about Clinton and zero articles about the
investigations on Shurtleff and Swallow. In order to learn anything about them I
have to go to the Trib or NY Times. Why? Locally, we have a very important
election between a candidate that was smeared by the Payday loan lenders. They
helped to finance the campaign for Dana Layton. I haven't read anything
from the Deseret News about this. Yet, somehow the NY Times finds it relevant
enough to report on it.Why doesn't the Deseret News stick to
Hilary hasn't accomplished anything of note or value. She was Bill Clintons
wife - she became a NY Senator mainly due to her celebrity status and she served
as Sec or State and oversaw the Benghazi scandal. Listening to her on Fox News
she really has nothing to offer other than the old liberal re-runs that have
already been a miserable failure. Numbers don't lie.
@MaverickRe: "Compare her career to Mitt Romney's"...
OK. Romney was a Governor (not MARRIED to the Governor). A popular
Republican Governor of a very Democrat State I may add. Being MARRIED to a
Governor, or a President... is NOT an accomplishment that qualifies YOU to be
President! Palin never ran for President. But she was a
Governor.Senators don't need the same governing skills a
Governor or a President needs to do their job.IMO We should add a
requirement for President that the candidate serve as a Governor first... so we
can see if they have the management and leadership skills, and the ability to
compromise... needed to govern and balance a budget, and make tough decisions...
The Senate is just a debate-club. They don't govern. They
talk a lot and posture for the cameras, and campaign, and carry the party's
water... but they aren't real leaders making tough decisions. They are
party-followers. But struggle when put in charge, where they have to make the
final decision on everything (not just talk about it and debate it for the
Redshirt: "as Secretary of State she showed her incompetence by leaving an
ambassador in Libya when everybody was telling her that it was a dangerous
situation."------------"There were 12 attacks on
American embassies, consulates and compounds during the administration of
President George W. Bush. In those attacks 60 people (excluding attackers) were
killed, including 11 Americans....Embassy assaults have occurred throughout the
20th century and into the 21st, including incidents under Presidents Carter,
Reagan, both Bushes, Clinton and Obama. One of the most notorious ones came in
1979 when revolutionary Iranians stormed the embassy in Tehran when Carter was
president. The most deadly assaults came during the administration of Ronald
Reagan. In 1983 a suicide bomber drove a truck loaded with explosives into a U.S
Marine compound in Beirut, Lebanon, killing 241 Americans. There had been a
warning. Just six months earlier, another bomber killed 63 people, including 17
Americans, during an attack on the U.S. embassy in Beirut. Reagan, whose
calling card was "peace through strength," acknowledged that his
administration had lacked the necessary intelligence to stop the attacks. "I
think that terrorism is the hardest thing to curtail," he said at one
@2 bitsCottonwood Heights, UTShe was married to a great
politician (but I don't know if it rubs off on you by being married to
him).She ran for Senate in New York and won (even though she's not a
New Yorker). Senators don't need the same governing skills a
Governor or a President needs to do their job.9:21 a.m. June 23,
2014========She still IS married to a great
politician.2 for the price of 1Presidents can't do
anything without getting it through the Senate.Being President after
serving in the Senate is a HUGE assist.Bbetter qualified than being
a Govenor from Alaska, or egotistical Casino owner.
She did vote for the Iraq fiasco.
Numbers-shmumbers! Anybody who discounts Hillary at this point is not looking
past the end of their nose. Having her as President is more than just a
poassibility. It is a horrifying probability. We already have a foot in the
grave with the current administration and many of those who have preceeded this
one. Putting her in will put the last nail in the coffin. Not just conjecture
but a terrible reality.
"Recent headlines have suggested that Hillary has brain damage, is old
enough to be using a walker, and fondly remembers representing a child rapist
when she still practiced law."Here's the problem. One only
has to listen to Secretary Clinton for 5 minutes to conclude she does not have
brain damage. One only has to watch for a minute or two to conclude she does
not use a walker. This leads me to conclude the third headline is also a
deliberate attempt to mislead the reader.Why does DN persist in
trying to further mislead the public?
The liberal media has already crowned Hillary "Queen" and unless she
does something really dumb during the 2016 campaign, she will be the next
President of the United States.The voters of this country were
determined to elect a black president no matter the cost, and now they want the
first woman president. I, for one, will not be voting for her.
To "Lane Myer" and how many of those attacks on the US embassies were
preceeded with the number of warnings that we had in Benghazi? I would bet
none. Even wose is the fact that the Red Cross and other nations were busy
pulling out of Benghazi when Hillary made the decision to keep an ambassador
there, while ignoring his request and the military offer for additional
security.Tell us, of the 12 attacks that occured under Bush, how
many had the warnings from the intelligence community and how many were in areas
that other nations and relief organizations were abandoning?We can
further examine her poor performance by lookin at her response. Of the 12
attacks under Bush, how many were mired in a cover up from the President on
down? How many of the soldiers that died had their parents lied to by the
Secretary of State?If you want to keep pressing the issue, we can
see even more examples of how Hillary failed in her duties as Secretary of
Vote for Hillary! She's a Democrat! And she's female! What else
could possibly matter? Those two qualifications alone make her better than any
Republican! Just because she's presided over failure after
failure doesn't mean she's not presidential material! Just because
her foreign policy as Secretary of State puts her in the running for worst job
ever isn't a disqualifer! She is female! What else matters to
Democrats? Surely not qualifications, competence, or experience? After all,
what difference does it make?
Here's hoping the public has given up on her!!!
IMO if anybody's given up on Hillary being President... it's
Hillary.I think after Benghazi she's tired of big decisions and
having every move scrutinized to the Nth degree by the media and your political
opponents.I think she's over being President. She wants to be
a Grandma (without all the pressures of the WH and the middle-east, and
North-Korea and Russia distracting her all the time).She's
mentally over her prime. She may have liked hardball politics when she was
young.... but I think she's over that now.I think her brain
injury was more serious than most people know. You don't stay in the
hospital that long for a simple concussion. I think she's recovered from
that. But I don't know if she wants to get back into a high-stress
lifestyle right away.There's nothing more stressful than being
President of the United States.Both Clinton and Romney have more
wealth than they need. They have kids and grand-kids they probably want to see
(without media and Secret Service lurking). I would not blame EITHER for not
wanting to be President...
I recall all the public crying, the petitions to secede from the Union,
the promises to leave the country -- If President Obama was
re=elected.He was, by a land-slide.The same Neo-Cons are still
here, still crying the same crocodile tears.One can only
imagine their re-action when President Hillary wins in 2016, and re-elected in
2020.It will be 2024 before the Republicans wake-up from the Tea
induced coma, and actully be willing to consider a moderate Center-Right,
Big Tent, Reagan-RINO, like; ambassador/Govoner Jon M. Huntsman Jr,
General/Secratary Colin Powell, BTW -- For all the rhetoric,
Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and Mike Levin are doing more harm
for the Republicans, and strengthen the Democrats, Than all the
Benghazis, Birthers, Obamacare, Government Shutdowns combined...
I am no particular fan of Mrs. Clinton. And I wish the country had more choices
than Clintons or Bushes. However, that being said, it is high time we had a
woman in the office of the Presidency. And a smart, seasoned one is Mrs.
Clinton.These poll articles are only meant to jazz up the Clinton
phobics into their traditional hysteria. Polls go up and polls go down. It is
more than 2 years before the election. Time will tell who actually is the
nominee of each party. So, unless the paper is trying to stir up the
conservative base, I don't know why we are even having this discussion.
@2 bitsCottonwood Heights, UTShe's mentally over her
prime. She may have liked hardball politics when she was young.... but I think
she's over that now.=========== 2bits - She's younger than Margret Thatcher was -- and Lady Thatcher was
Prime Minister for 10 years.Not to mention Reagan or your buddy
Speaking of presiding over failure after failure...Today's GOP!
Instead of worrying about Clinton, why doesn't the GOP focus on itself and
provide us with a candidate that we can get excited about?
2 bits -"But what actual "Accomplishments" does she have
that qualify her to be President??"There's a good article
in US News and World Report.. . . Entitled "Hillary
Clinton's Accomplishments Speak for Themselves"Check it
LDS Liberal -"She still IS married to a great
politician.". . . A great public servant too, who led the
nation, raised taxes for high earners against the will of the GOP, and presided
over a nation at peace, a booming economy, and four consecutive budget
surpluses. With Hillary, we also get her key adviser . . . William
I just hope she doesn't run. We don't need another Clinton, nor do
we need another Bush. With 320 million people, surely we can find someone from
outside these two families who can lead.
"With 320 million people, surely we can find someone from outside these two
families who can lead."Certainly we can. But with such things
as Citizens United, the most necessary qualification is the ability to bring in
big $$.Why does every American, R and D alike, work to get the big
money out of politics. We are quickly becoming a country where those with the
money can buy elections.
"Tell us, of the 12 attacks that occured under Bush, how many had the
warnings from the intelligence community and how many were in areas that other
nations and relief organizations were abandoning?"Redshirt...
your kidding, right? For example, The 2008 American Embassy attack in Yemen in
Sana'a, Yemen on September 17, 2008, resulted in 18 deaths, that was
carried out be l Qaeda, you are saying the Bush administration was unaware in
advance of the threat by al Qaeda. You are saying that despite the fact that the
same embassy came under attack just 6 months earlier... they had no clue. You
are claiming all this despite the fact that the government said "On November
1, a Yemeni security official said the attackers had links to al-Qaida. He added
that the United Nations had raised its security level in Yemen in response to
such threats."So 18 died, the administration knew threat in
advance.... and yet they still get a pass while Libya is viewed as a total
collapse. Funny the double standard yet again. And it only took me 15 minutes
research after looking up just one of the 12 events. Let the partisan dogs
To "UtahBlueDevil" so what you are sayign is that of the 12 attacks that
occured under Bush you have NO EVIDENCE that the US had any warning.You are wrong about Yemen, there was no warning. According to the NY Times
article "10 Are Killed in Bombings at Embassy in Yemen" from September
17, 2008, NO US officials or employees were killed. 6 were Yemen guards and 4
were civilians waiting to come in. I think that the fact that the terrorists
never got past the guard shack is a successful defense of the embassy and
showing that it was secure. Plus, where is the coverup? Plus, within a day
there were 25 arrests of the terrorists. It took the Obama administration 1 1/2
years to get one arrest.So again, how many of the 12 attacks on US
Embassies were preceeded with warnings, and were followed up with the President
covering up what happened?
All Hilary has to do is play some clips from 07' when republicans LOVED her
for running against Obama in the primaries. They said the nicest things back
@Screwdriver -- Even more recently than that. They praised her constantly until
about a year ago when they calculated we are getting too close to 2016. Of
course it was all a way to try to undermine Obama. It's all political
strategy regardless of how they really feel. But the lemmings on the right suck
it all in and are now going from thinking she's ok to thinking she's
the spawn of Satan. The funny thing is, in 5 or 10 years, they will suddenly
wake up and realize that Obama wasn't the anti-Christ, Kenyan, communist,
socialist, cause of everything bad, they always "knew" he was, never
realizing that all the red meat their leaders threw at them was only for
Redshirt - ok... lets try the direct quote then..."While U.N.
officials would not confirm whether there have been any threats against them, on
Oct. 18 the international organization increased its security level to
"phase 3," which means family members and essential staff have to leave
the country."The U.N. Secretary General has temporarily
increased the security level to phase 3 purely as an internal precautionary
measure," resident coordinator Pratibha Mehta said in a statement. "U.N.
essential staff will remain and we will continue to implement all UN programs
and operations."Looks like evidence to me. As to
casualties..."Armed with rocket propelled grenades and assault
rifles, the attackers drove two cars packed with explosives into the embassy
gate and sprayed it with bullets before being killed. Aside from the attackers,
13 others died in the incident, including an 18-year-old American woman of
Yemeni origin."Associated Press Writer - 11/1/2008 9:32 AMYou are assuming there was a cover up in Libya... not proven yet. This
event also happened in a "friendly" country where local law enforcement
made the arrest. Libya, is still basically governmentless country.Big difference.
To "UtahBlueDevil" thanks for admitting that there has not been any
confirmation that the attack had been pre-empted by a warning like there was in
Benghazi. Remember, within a few weeks of Benghazi the media had leaked that
there were multiple warnings that an attack was immenant. In Yemen the State
Department only knew that tempers were rising, but did not know of a specific
planned attack on the embassy.Again, the american killed was NOT
part of the embassy staff, nor was she a target. The administration was quite
clear that she was an innocent bystander, unlike the staff in Benghazi.Actually Yemen was not a very friendly country. Prior to the September
attack, there was a failed attack on the Embassy. The state department knew
that the relations were strained, and that is why they had a travel advisory
telling US citizens that Yemen was not a great vacation destination.Wanna try again?I am still waiting to see evidence anything like
Benghazi occured under Bush.
I would love to see Hilary in office. She scares the Republicans because she has
a TON of dirt on all of them. Why do you think they work so hard to discredit
Redshirt... if a UN directive to remove all unnecessary personal just before the
attack doesn't register for you...... I have no idea what level of truth
would register.And yes, I have been to Yemen... several times. Not
sure what your are referring to. Perhaps not a "vacation spot", but
lots of people who do business go there often enough.A mortar
attack, a UN warning, removal of all unnecessary personal, ... nothing like it.
Trying again would be pointless because I am sure you would still not be able to
see nothing will be an exact parallel, but "like" events happened
frequent and often.I am sure you don't remember this headline
either..."Horror at Fallujah / SAVAGE ATTACK: Bodies dragged
through street, hung from bridge 4 U.S. contractors killed in ambush hours after
5 soldiers slain in Iraq"Oh thats right... no official warning
on Fallujah... right? Completely different.... right? How selective our
memories are. Completely different....
After seeing the headline and the very worst, most unflattering photo of Ms
Clinton that I have ever seen, I didn't need to read the article.For the life of me, I do not understand why the Deseret News thinks it is cool
to not only publish slanted views, but to use words and photos that unduly
disparage whatever Democrat is involved. --- Where I come from this is
"fighting dirty" and not very Christian.Fox, Breitbart, etc,
are owned by folks who are in the business of playing dirty pool to put over
their views and promote their candidates, not by a church.
@redshirtcaltech Just the mother of ALL attacks happened under Bush. Bush was
warned of a pending attack and ignored it. Box cutters and boarding passes were
all it took under Bush on 9/11. And that's the best case scenario.The more devious scenarios are a black flag attack to enable the neocons free
reign. Bush hasn't explained how building 7 collapsed without being hit by
anything nor how many experts say there was thermite present in the rubble of
the twin towers.Republicans will no doubt investigate Benghazi until
we're all blue in the face or a political squirrel runs across the room. I
still remember the day I realized Rush Limbaugh was lying.
To "UtahBlueDevil" prove it, where are your sources. Everything that I
found shows that there was no warning that the embassy was going to be attacked
like the US received for Benghazi. All of the reports I found only had a travel
advisory from the State department. Where do you get the information that the
UN told the US to evacuate all non-essential people. Provide a verifiable
source.You keep claiming that the US received warning, yet have NO
PROOF. Provide your proof.With Benghazi MSNBC reported that the US
was warned. See "Benghazi report: State Dept. didn’t heed security
warnings" at MSNBC.Where are the similar news stories about
anything you claim?To "Screwdriver" that is a nice
distraction, but you do realize that the discussion is attacks on US embassies.
I don't know of any US embassy located in New York. Also, FYI that atack
was missed because of faulty Clinton era intelligence. Just read the
Congressional reports on the attack. They found that Bush did everything
possible based on the intelligence at hand.
She may have some qualifications but trust is more important and I don't
trust anything that comes out of her mouth. She is a politician pure and simple.
Will say and do whatever she has to in order to appease the American people.