Monday, August 11, 2014

Hillary Clinton throws Obama to the wolves as she moves to define herself for a future 2016 presidential run.

Courtesy of Salon:  

During a long and in-depth interview with the Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg, former secretary of state and likely future presidential candidate Hillary Clinton distanced herself from President Obama’s foreign policy, implying the Islamist extremist group ISIS would not be so powerful had the president listened to her advice and thrown American power more forcefully behind “moderate” Syrian rebel forces. 

“The failure to help build up a credible fighting force of the people who were the originators of the protests against Assad — there were Islamists, there were secularists, there was everything in the middle — the failure to do that left a big vacuum, which the jihadists have now filled,” Clinton said. 

Clinton was known at the time to support a larger American investment in the Syrian civil war, and reiterated her belief that not doing so was a mistake in her recently released book about her time as secretary of state, “Hard Choices.”

Look I understand the importance of making distance from a President whose poll ratings are down when you are planning to run for his job in two years, but this really seems tacky. Especially considering how the Right Wing press is going to use this to beat up the President even more than before.

The conservatives have been attacking Obama over his decision in Syria for quite some time now, and this will give them that "I told you so" moment that they have been hoping for.

I mean just imagine how happy John McCain will be to read this.

I think former UK foreign secretary David Miliband was more honest in his assessment that the war in Iraq was really the destabilizing force which led to the rise of ISIS:  

"It's clearly the case that the invasion of Iraq, or more importantly what happened afterwards, is a significant factor in understanding the current situation in the country," Miliband told the Observer.

He said that he accepted that the consequences of the Iraq war had left the majority of the public in the US and the UK unwilling to support interventions in the Middle East, even to prevent humanitarian catastrophes, such as Syria. 

"You have to, you have to take responsibility," said Miliband. He added: "You can't press the rewind button."

In other words the President was responding to the desires of the American people when he made his choices in Syria, and those desires were the result of war fatigue and anger over our interventionist war in Iraq. (Hell even Laura Ingraham agrees with this.)

And who was it again who voted FOR that war?

Clinton's response to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is also troubling: 

Pressed on whether Israel was doing enough to limit civilian casualties, she answered: “It’s unclear. I think Israel did what it had to do to respond to the rockets. And there is the surprising number and complexity of the tunnels, and Hamas has consistently, not just in this conflict, but in the past, been less than protective of their civilians.” 

She said anti-Semitism was a factor in the unfair international reaction against Israel: “There are a number of factors going into it. You can’t ever discount anti-Semitism, especially with what’s going on in Europe today. There are more demonstrations against Israel by an exponential amount than there are against Russia seizing part of Ukraine and shooting down a civilian airliner. So there’s something else at work here than what you see on TV.” 

So our response to the over 1,000 dead Palestinians, mostly civilians, is due to antisemitism?

You know I am going to support Clinton during her run for President, as I think that any Republican that won the White House would be a disaster, but I am going to have a hard time ginning up any enthusiasm while doing so.

There are other ways that Hillary could have fielded these questions, and I think it speaks to certain troubling signs in her character that she chose to answer them in this manner.

87 comments:

  1. Anonymous9:06 AM

    She's always been a hawk and will probably always be one. This attitude is what caused me to look for alternatives and switch my vote to Obama.
    I also believe that ANY Republican will be an unmitigated disaster for this country. But, I have to tell you I'm looking for alternatives and I really hope we have someone else (Bernie Sanders comes to mind) to counter Hillary's bloodthirst business as usual foreign policy.
    As an aside, I strongly believe that we (the US) needs to pull ALL government financial support from Israel. At this point, we aren't any different than Papa Kennedy supporting Hitler.
    In either case, we are supporting genocide.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Well, it IS Jeffrey Goldberg authoring that attack on President Obama, what did you or anyone else expect, Gryphen?

    I think people who routinely read politically charged articles about our politicians and nation's leader should take all the articles with a grain of salt -- there's obviously an agenda behind these articles, whether it be a pundit/reporter inserting himself/herself into the news (hello, Chuck Todd and Mrs. Alan Greenspan!) or the head honcho directing his minions to slag a pol.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. P.S. After reading the rest of these comments, I have to say, Gryphen, this topic sure brought in the propaganda trolls.

      Delete
  3. Anonymous9:12 AM

    I think the presidents policy of don't do stupid shit is an excellent foreign policy. Read the interveiw past the writers attempt to put words in Mrs. Clintons supposed diss of the President.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous9:27 AM

    I WILL not be supporting Hillary. She's showing her true colors (again). My biggest problem with Democrats is that they're Republican-lite, especially Hillary. Let's not forget where DADT and DOMA came from--her husband's administration. Democrats never supported President Obama. With him, we had a chance to be great, but we squandered it out of fear, racism, and stupidity. What does Hillary stand for? Nothing. She's attempting to appear to white voters. Period. That's all this country cares for anyway--winning white votes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous10:57 AM

      Huh? Democrats never supported President Obama? He was elected 2 times with the popular vote as well as electoral. Only one so far in this century to win the popular vote.....

      Delete
    2. Anonymous4:11 PM

      Oh please, just grow the fuck up!!

      Delete
  5. PalinsHoax9:28 AM

    I'm really disappointed (but not surprised) at Mrs. Clinton pulling a Palin - throw anyone under the bus who has helped me but now stands in my way.

    I agree with Anonymous 9:06 AM, regarding Bernie Sanders. Also love Elizabeth Warren.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous9:52 AM

      Also, too, Hillary voted to go into Iraq in the first place. If she shifts the blame now to Barack's decisions on Syria, she can distance herself from the stink she helped create in Iraq.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous1:29 PM

      I'm so happy to hear that there are others who aren't blindly following HRC. I will not vote for her for several reasons--chief among them is the transparent way she makes all of her decisions based on politics with one goal: getting her elected to the presidency. That seems to be her only principle.
      She's a well-connected game-playing glad handler. Her friends are the monied elite.
      Also, I can't vote for her on my own principle because she is part of a political dynasty--I detest dynasties.
      Her being a woman has nothing to do with it--I'd gladly vote for Elizabeth Warren.

      Delete
    3. Paul in Minnesota4:51 AM

      I'm also more enthusiastic about Elizabeth Warren than HRC. Both as a candidate to vote for and as POTUS.

      Delete
  6. Anonymous9:29 AM

    In 2008 I really wanted Hillary to get the nomination, later I was happy that Obama got it. I would like a woman candidate, and I don't dislike Hillary for trying to distance herself to define herself, I just don't particularly think she has my interests at heart...more affordable education, more bank regulation, less bombastic foreign policy, on and on. Someone else does share my interests, but her candidacy is a long shot. Hillary is about as RW dem as you can get. I'll vote dem no matter who it is because of SCOTUS nominations, women's health rights, voting rights, etc, just wish it was feasible to nominate Warren.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous10:20 AM

      Anonymous 9:29, I totally agree with every word you wrote!

      Delete
  7. Anonymous9:37 AM

    This is why I switched my support from Hillary to Barack in early 2008.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous10:20 AM

      I never supported her. She's a ruthless opportunist. The Clinton camp started all the birth certificate, he's not like us he's secretly gay bullshit & the repug/baggers ran with it. I may have to in good conscience sit this one out. It will be the first time I won't vote for potus since I turned 18 if that's what I opt to do.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous10:49 AM

      Think it over well. There is a lot more to vote for than the "person". Think of what has happened since 2010 in women's health care rights, voting suppression, on and on. Take a look at Kansas under a Rep gov. I wonder if you are for real, as clinton did not start the birth certificate, "he's secretly gay", etc. Maybe you could provide a link?

      Delete
    3. Anonymous11:02 AM

      I'm for real. I am a life long democrat & a staunch supporter of our current president. I know all that garbage started during the "battle" before the Obama won the nomination. I've been around the block and know what kind of folks the Clintons are so don't even question my motive or whatever. I'll probably end up pulling the lever for Hillary if she actually is the candidate but I'll never support her the way I did the current president.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous11:52 AM

      >> as clinton did not start the birth certificate

      Yes, actually her team did, and she NEVER put a stop to it.

      Birther row began with Hillary Clinton

      The lie that Barack Obama was not born in the US has been fuelled by fringe Republicans — but supporters of Hillary Clinton, now Mr Obama’s Secretary of State, are largely to blame for starting it.

      ...

      It was not until April 2008, at the height of the intensely bitter Democratic presidential primary process, that the touch paper was properly lit.

      An anonymous email circulated by supporters of Mrs Clinton, Mr Obama’s main rival for the party’s nomination, thrust a new allegation into the national spotlight — that he had not been born in Hawaii.

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/8478044/Birther-row-began-with-Hillary-Clinton.html

      Delete
    5. I don't know about anyone else, Anonymous @11:02 AM, but when I support someone I call them by their title and name, for instance "President Obama", not "the current president".

      Delete
    6. jcinco2:03 PM

      KaJo, I'm not sure why my response to you didn't post but I will post the gist of my comment one more time. I worked phone banks for President Obama, I knocked on doors for President Obama, I urged everyone I knew to vote for President Obama, I contributed weekly to President Obama's campaign & I voted twice for President Obama. I'm sorry you were offended by me calling President Obama the "current president". For anyone here to insinuate I'm a troll or dissing the president is beyond mind boggling. I've noticed a lot of folks including myself seem to be on edge today, perhaps it can be attributed to the super moon? Anyway as I said earlier I always backed President Obama and still have a bad taste in my mouth over the "goings on" in 08.

      Delete
  8. Hilary is like an effing viper. She is vying for the neo-con vote.
    That she is a hawk is disturbing; and the fact that she used to be a Goldwater girl freaks me out, but that she attacks her ex-boss in this insane political climate is making me have 2008 flashbacks of how much I couldn't stand her.

    It will be a sad day when I have to vote for Hilary--I will have to swallow a bunch of the nasty bullshit she's said. Damn
    it is sick that the republicans are hell bent on destroying the country so much that we might have to choose the lesser of two evils.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous11:20 AM

      So, you don't like who she is or what she stands for but you would STILL vote for her? That makes no sense. She could be just as bad for this country as one of the GOP clowns!

      Delete
    2. You are right. But I have lived through republicans the last six years and there is NOTHING worse than them. But If there is a viable alternative to Hilary, who can win---I shall vote for them

      Delete
  9. Anonymous9:48 AM

    Clinton has close ties with the Muslim Brotherhood so she's trying to make herself look innocent after Obama's failed foreign policy ignored the brutal massacres in Syria which led to the rise of the ISIS movement in order to create more instability in Iraq and to protect Israel's apartheid policies against the Palestinians. .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous10:50 AM

      I think you are from C4p, but that's alright.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous10:59 AM

      What are Clinton's "close ties" with the Muslim Brotherhood?

      Delete
    3. Anonymous11:06 AM

      You are totally lost Anon 9:48, and not just on the Internet.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous11:32 AM

      Would you please link to anything that supports your comments? Thanks

      Delete
    5. Anonymous11:51 AM

      Betcha it's Breitbart, 11:32!

      Delete
    6. You are stupid and gullible, 9:48, or insane. Or maybe all three.

      Delete
    7. Anonymous4:14 PM

      You are stupid as hell and naive.
      You are clueless about Israel and their goals and you are uneducated about the complexity of the situation there.

      Delete
    8. Anonymous4:14 PM

      Fuck off Nefer!

      Delete
  10. Anonymous9:52 AM

    Neither President Obama, Hillary, or any other person on earth will ever solve the religious wars in the middle east.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous11:49 AM

      Agreed +1000!

      Delete
    2. Anonymous4:19 PM

      I so agree with you. Gryphen stated the other day that this fight had been going on for 100 years. It's been more like thousands. Arabs and Jews are brought up to hate each other. Yes this is a generalization and not all are like this, but it's true. As a Jew I grew up fearing Arabs because they wanted to kill us. This is what we were told. They are told similar things. And the really radical ones to want to kill all Jews or really anyone who isn't a Muslim extremist.
      I just don't see this changing unfortunately. It's really really sad.

      I'm an agnostic now because religion is the root of all conflict in history in my mind. People are fighting over superstitious beliefs.

      Delete
  11. Anonymous9:56 AM

    I can't in good conscience vote for her. If Obama hadn't won the primary in 2008 I was going to sit that election out. I hope someone else throws his or her hat into the ring because I don't think Hills can pull off a win, too many people dislike her. But hey, who says she's even running?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous4:20 PM

      That would just be silly. There is no perfect candidate or president. Just accept that and vote for the lesser of two evils.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous5:54 PM

      4:20pm

      Voting for me has never been choosing amongst the "lesser of two evils" as you say. I am undeclared so can go either way, and I tend to vote the candidate AND the issues and never by party. That being said, there will be no nose-holding and Hillary voting in this house.

      Delete
  12. lostinmn10:14 AM

    Let's never forget Hilary is a hawk. That's been true since the get-go. What will Sara do when the woman she hates second most in the world (besides herself) aligns with her warlike attitude?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous11:02 AM

      Palin is stuck in the mind set of dressing up like other politicians to mock them (this year), following around real candidates (2012), and mouthing insanities to try to get people to subscribe to her TV channel that is not on TV, and is available free on Breitbart. (2014)

      Delete
  13. Anonymous10:21 AM

    I absolutely don't like what Hillary has done here, but the Republican alternative voting-wise, would be 1000 times worse!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Anonymous10:24 AM

    Warren or Sanders.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous4:21 PM

      It's not going to happen and neither would win a national election right now.

      Delete
  15. Anonymous10:24 AM

    Very well said. This same tendency led to a lack of needed enthusiasm during her first attempt and it may again be her downfall. She's never on principle or lack of same going to win over the right/Repubs so going there is only likely to lose important votes on the Dem side. As the saying goes, it's an election, not a coronation; and no one is guaranteed a win. I wince a little each time I see/hear/read how easily she seems
    cast right and if not lose voters, tamp down their enthusiasm. We have seen that too much in the last losing cycles and can't afford it again.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anonymous10:29 AM

    I really have no use for either of the Clintons. But if you want to talk about a propensity for throwing people under the bus, Barack Obama is just as bad as Hillary Clinton. He threw his long-term pastor under the bus! Politicians have no loyalty to anyone except themselves.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous11:55 AM

      Propensity? Try Palin.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous1:27 PM

      Obama also regularly throws the people who voted for him under the bus. His first term, he was far more dedicated to placating Republicans than he was in carrying out his campaign promises of hope and change. He made no bones about it. Neither did Obama's first chief of staff, the utterly loathsome liberal-insulting Rahm Emmanuel. And Obama continues to protect lawbreaking torturers while going after whistleblowers, because the former are his peers.

      So I do think it's ironic that Hillary Clinton is now giving Obama a taste of his own disloyal medicine. I just wish she didn't seem to be the only viable Democratic presidential candidate at this point. She is really doing the Republicans' dirty work for them, which again is ironic considering how much of the Republicans' dirty work Obama has done for them too.

      Delete
  17. Anonymous10:35 AM

    I think democrats are going to remember why they chose not to vote for her in the first place.

    Also, I recall an interview this spring with one of the Bush daughters, and she disclosed how close she and her family are to the Clintons and said they she considers them her 2nd family. That relationship disturbs me.

    OT, RadarOnline is now reporting that there will be no hearings in Levi/Bristol case.....a "truce" has been called. hmm.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous11:46 AM

      OT, RadarOnline is now reporting that there will be no hearings in Levi/Bristol case.....a "truce" has been called. hmm.
      Gryphen, can you shed some light on this? Thks

      Delete
    2. Anonymous12:07 PM

      they're also still saying bristles had zero income for two years. radar-on-line makes the national enquirer look like a pulitzer prize winning news source.

      Delete
  18. Anonymous10:44 AM

    Sounds like Hillary wants to shake off any loose ends, those loose ends of having been a supporter of President Obama. She may be playing to the crowds who never accepted a black president and she wants to burn her bridges to start anew.

    Hope I'm wrong, but this is quite a disappointment, strike a man down when every move he's tried to make has been blocked, sabotaged, criticized and him incessantly being sued or called for impeachment. He's been the worst treated President in the history of the U.S.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous11:16 AM

      She may be making the mistake of taking for granted the minority vote. I think there is more "ho hum" towards her candidacy than she may realize. Groups have popped up to support her, long before she's even said one way or another whether or not she's running. I wish she would s hit or get off the pot so we can help form her planks, or let us get behind someone else with less baggage. Others may not agree with me, I wholeheartedly respect Bill Clinton and think by far he is the best at explaining and understanding issues. But I don't particularly like the idea of him being there with her in the WH, diluting the situation. Not fair, I know, she should be evaluated separate from him.

      Delete
  19. Anonymous11:05 AM

    Hillary dropped in my estimation. I'll rethink her candidacy, as will many others who would naturally gravitate to her succeeding President Obama.

    O/T - ha ha. http://www.nationalmemo.com/sarah-palin-video-elizabeth-warren/

    ReplyDelete
  20. Anonymous11:10 AM

    That was very Republicunt of her. She's a bitch on wheels to attack Obama after the opportunity he offered her. She's a worthless piece of shit for doing this and she hasn't even declared, so she can't say she's trying to 'define' herself for a political campaign. She's a vicious, back stabbing, opportunistic witch and she will NEVER get my vote.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous12:55 PM

      Somehow I don't think she'd get your vote if she were a democrat mother Teresa.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous4:22 PM

      How stupid and naive. Get over yourself.

      Delete
  21. ManxMamma11:41 AM

    Gryphen, I couldn't agree more. Hilary fatigue is settling upon me in a big way. I'll support her if I have to, but I won't love doing it.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Anonymous11:42 AM

    On one of the first major foreign policy rifts between President Barack Obama and his former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, one top former administration official is siding with the president.

    Former Deputy CIA Director Mike Morell said he disagreed with Clinton’s suggestion –- offered in a recent Atlantic Magazine interview -– that the United States should have armed Syrian rebels far earlier than it did.

    “There is no doubt that what ISIS [the Islamic State] was able to do in Syria was probably the key factor in strengthening them in terms of what they are doing in Iraq today,” Morell told "CBS This Morning" on Monday. “It is difficult for me to see how arming the moderate rebels would have made that much difference in Syria. We would have had to have it on a very, very large scale that I think would have frightened our partners in the region because it would have put a very, very large footprint, U.S. footprint on the ground in the Middle East."

    “So you support the decision made by the president at the time,” host Charlie Rose asked.

    “Yes,” Morell replied.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/11/hillary-clinton-syria_n_5668370.html

    ReplyDelete
  23. Anonymous11:47 AM

    I can't help but wonder if Hillary and President Obama discussed this prior to her publically saying it? He is very aware of what will be detrimental to her candidacy (coming from his two-year term and her serving in his Administration).

    It would be a given that she would have to move away from him politically (in some instances). This is politics, folks!

    I love President Obama and think Hillary has the experience and knowledge to be a good POTUS too. IF, she actually does run!

    ReplyDelete
  24. Anonymous12:01 PM

    Let's all just step back off the ledge for a few minutes, folks, and consider the following:

    1. The worst Democrat is better than the best Republican. If you want to see the ACA repealed or a couple more Scalias on the SCOTUS, sit out the 2016 election instead of voting for HRC. Have you folks forgotten the consequences of the 2000 election???!!! We might have had a president who actually paid attention to daily intelligence briefings, tracked down the 9/11 hijackers before the fact, didn't start two botched wars, and didn't throw the economy into a tailspin...oh, and also who didn't appoint a couple more mini-Scalias (Roberts & Alito) to the SCOTUS.

    2. Think back a few short weeks ago when most people here were gloating about how HRC was going to kick the Republicans' ass--how they had absolutely no-one of comparable stature. She still can and will kick their asses if we support her instead of sitting on our hands.

    3. I didn't support HRC back in 2008 because I didn't think we needed another Clinton in the WH any more than I thought we needed another Bush in 2000, however HRC has proven herself during her tenure as NY senator and SoS as more than qualified for the job and a formidable politician in her own right. She isn't just trading on her name unlike GWB.

    4. Suppose HRC is trending a bit rightward right now. Try thinking about this election strategically rather than focusing on just a couple of issues. As so many here like to say about PBO, don't play checkers politically, play chess. Maybe she's thinking about turning a few red states blue and carrying a few more Dem senators or congresspeople into office with her so she can actually enact and implement the policies she wants to during her term in office. I don't think what she says now necessarily reflects what she will do in office. She may be somewhat of an Etch-A-Sketch, but dammit, at least she'll be OUR Etch-A-Sketch.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anita Winecooler5:54 PM

      Bravo!

      Thanks for saving me from commenting.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous8:24 PM

      Anonymous 12:01 PM - As a lifelong Democrat and prior to giving Hillary my vote, I'm interested in the SPECIFICS of what HRC accomplished as a NY Senator or as Secretary of State? What legislation did she sponsor as Senator? As Secretary of State, how did she make our country safer?

      Delete
    3. Anonymous11:25 AM

      I like the idea of having Hillary as POTUS! With the experience she and Bill have, don't think we could have anyone better.

      Plus, we all know that Bill would have influence/input because he is so loved throughout the world and so popular within the USA today!

      I'd have such comfort knowing we have a continuation of a Democratic government continuing vs Republican.

      Delete
  25. Anonymous12:19 PM

    I think she's putting all this out there, testing the waters for a run for POTUS and is going to find she doesn't have the support she thought she did and will not run.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Anonymous1:29 PM

    I agree 100%, Gryphen. Something has not sat well with me since her book came out. And this sure didn't help. She seems to want to win at all costs and I'm not at all sure what she stands for. I wish she would sit this one out.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Obama can't run again.

    I have a feeling that behind closed doors, he is OK with this.

    You said it. She has to distance herself from him. And if we want a Democrat in the White House in 2016, our best shot is Hillary and her best chance is to do exactly what she is doing.

    I think Obama knows that and is OK with it.

    She's still more respectful than the rabid right wing conservative nutjobs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous3:32 PM

      There are alot of way that she could have handled that. She could have disagreed without mocking him. She's low rent.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous7:22 PM

      Obama sucks anyway.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous11:17 AM

      Hillary will have my vote. There is NO way in Hell I'd cast my vote for a Republican or third-party candidate.

      I wrote earlier on this blog that I think President Obama was totally aware of this - remember, they have worked closely together and have respect for each other.

      Hillary could not and would not be in total agreement w/everything President Obama has done in his terms!

      This is pure politics, folks!

      Delete
    4. As far as I'm concerned, anything to avoid a Republican president in 2016.

      I'll bet Obama and Hillary would agree.

      Delete
  28. Anonymous2:14 PM

    There is no way that I would vote for a Republican for president ever. While Hillary is not my Democratic favorite, I'll vote for her should she get the nomination. Staying home or voting third party in 2016 would be tantamount to voting Republican. We do NOT want another GOP president.
    Beaglemom

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous5:51 PM

      I'm not holding my nose to vote for ANYONE, sorry, if Hills is the candidate I would vote third party, or being an undeclared even for a Republican, if there was an old-school non batshit crazy option, which is doubtful at this juncture. Didn't like Hills in '08 an don't like her now, she simply doesn't deserve my vote.

      Delete
  29. London Bridges2:34 PM

    Shrillary is no different than the Bush crime family. She will do idiotic,irrational things just to prove she has big balls. She had zero accomplishments as SOS, and during her SOS press conferences she was unable to EVER string together more than four words without referrihng to her written notes. If she runs the rethugs who control the votong machines will make sure she gets the nomination. It was one of her biggest supporters that started the birther movement, and if it were not for her, there would be no citizen's united. All she cares about is making money for her family. Her support for the Honduran coup is a big reason why so many children are arriving in the US. She supported a criminal Honduran government. She is a horrific potential candidate. She should run as a rneocon republican which is what she is.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous4:23 PM

      Oh Lord!! I see a post like this and I realize the far left is as bad as the far right. You are so idealistic!! You will never be happy with any candidate!

      Delete
    2. Anonymous5:49 PM

      What you fail to realize 4:23pm, is that many of us Dems were totally against Hillary in 2008 and thankfully we had Obama, whom many of us found to be a good choice for the nomination. If there would have been no Obama then I would have done what I usually do when there is no favorable candidate and that is vote 3rd party. We didn't like Hillary then and we don't like her now and if she runs she won't automatically get all of the D votes. Sorry, that's life. There are a lot of us Dems that won't "hold our nose" to vote for anyone!

      Delete
  30. Anonymous2:41 PM

    Between the diehards on the left and the nutcases on the right who will jump at the opportunity to stir up sh*t, I sadly conclude it's a losing game to try to have a sensible conversation about Democratic candidates in this forum.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous4:25 PM

      2:41-- I'm a Democrat and I agree. Are all these people trolls or what...???

      Delete
  31. Anonymous3:34 PM

    I will vote for anyone except Hillary in the primary. It's like she thinks she has the D primary wrapped up and is already running to win the general election, and is doing it by throwing Obama under the bus..for policies she help develop, no less. F her.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Anonymous3:38 PM

    One more thing, if Hillary thinks she can win the democratic primary without the black vote, she's nuts, and if she thinks she can win the black vote while trashing Obama, she's delusional.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Anonymous3:47 PM

    It's obvious that Hillary will be running on Jewish money. She should have told her donors it would have been polite and politic of her to STFU until such time as she announces. Maybe she did; I can't see them listening to her anyway.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous4:06 PM

      WTF??? Seriously?? Another anti-Semite!

      Delete
  34. Anonymous4:33 PM

    Hilary is dead right about anti-semitism. You still don't get it Gryphen! You just don't get the conflict there at all or the history or the struggles of Jews and Israelis. The news we get is so ridiculously inaccurate. Do you have ant idea how many thousands have been kicked in Syria and Iraq in the past few weeks?

    It's amazing how clueless many on the left are about Israel and anti-semitism. I can't figure out why that is. It's either ignorance or anti-semitism. I don't agree with everything Israel does at all but how fucking naive are some of you. War sucks. People die. Civilians die. Do you know how many civilians died in Iraq that we killed.
    I'm losing total faith in this blog. You aren't as well read as I thought Gryphen. You basically read a few articles, believe them as absolute truth without question and regurgitate the info as fact. You all know how crappy the media was at exposing Sarah so why on earth are you so silly to believe every article you read about Israel or Hilary?
    It's hysterical that you don't realize our news is as biased on the left as Breitbarts is on the right..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous5:46 PM

      So, big deal if one is an anti-semite? Who says that we ALL have to like EVERYONE? I have no more concern for a dead Jew than I do for a dead Palestinian or Syrian or Iraqi or whomever, and I'm not alone in my feelings....why do WE have to care about any of it? It's been going on for thousands of fucking years in the Middle East, let them figure it out and finish it. My whole point is that these people need to FIGHT THEIR OWN BATTLES and America needs to take a step back from being the world-fucking-police! Not our job, these people will figure it out sooner or later. We have enough troubles here in the good ole USA to be worrying about these people.

      You keep beating this dead fucking horse here in the comments section. Why don't you write your congress people instead or better yet, go on over there and see if you can fix it, since you care so much.

      Delete
    2. Mary in San Antonio1:41 PM

      You know people can be against what the Israelis have done to the Palestinians, for example, without being anti-semitic. We are allowed to criticize when we think someone has done something wrong. I like the Israelis, what I don't like is the Likkud or Zionists. They are a lot like our fundamentalists here in the US in their rigid, hardline thinking. And anyway, the Palestinians are also Semites. Jews are not the only Semites in the Middle East.

      Delete
  35. Anonymous7:42 PM

    If hillary were republican , youd be posting nonstop about all the screaming matching she and Bill have had over his behaviors and such.

    ReplyDelete

Don't feed the trolls!
It just goes directly to their thighs.