Posted on 12/02/2014 2:42:47 PM PST by Kaslin
In late October, Hillary Clinton traveled to the Hawkeye State to campaign for Democratic Senate nominee Bruce Braley. Hillary offered some choice words about Braley's Republican opponent, Joni Ernst, who'd recently declined to meet with a major state newspaper's editorial board. Ernst's refusal to answer tough questions (besides in her many media interviews and debates, that is) was "disqualifying," the likely presidential candidate averred:
Hillary Clinton on Wednesday turned up the heat on Republican hopeful Joni Ernst for skipping meetings with newspaper editorial boards, calling it a “disqualifying” factor in the Iowa Senate race. “You test your candidates. You force them to be the best they can be — I understand that,” Clinton, the former secretary of State and failed 2008 presidential candidate, told about 400 supporters at a rally at a union hall for Ernst’s Democratic opponent, Rep. Bruce Braley. “They have to be willing to answer the tough questions, which Bruce has been willing to do and his opponent has not,” she continued. “It really seems like it should be disqualifying in Iowa of all states to avoid answering questions.”
The voters of Iowa disagreed, electing Ernst by a resounding 8.5-point margin, and relegating Bruce Braley to the heaping pile of defeated Democrats for whom the Clintons unsuccessfully campaigned in 2014. Within days of her "tough questions" attack against Ernst, Mrs. Clinton traveled to Kentucky (for a cool $17,000) to stump for Alison Lundergan Grimes -- who adamantly refused to answer such penetrating questions as, "did you, as a Barack Obama convention delegate, vote for Barack Obama?" Grimes was defeated by Mitch McConnell in a blowout. One "tough question" that Hillary has been ducking and dodging for many months is whether she supports the overwhelmingly popular, job-creating Keystone Pipeline project, which her former colleagues at the State Department have cleared of environmental concerns in numerous studies. One one hand are the vast majority of voters, jobs, and science. On the other are Democrat-environmentalist mega donors. Tough call for a calculating, hyper-ambitious pol. And thus Hillary has said...basically nothing at all. Which leads to fun juxtapositions like this:
Sec. Clinton went right from a fundraiser for pro-KXL Mary Landrieu to event for anti-KXL enviro group. Heh. http://t.co/zzmd90fdHQ— Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) December 2, 2014
December 2006 CNN poll: Hillary 37, Obama 15. December 2014 CNN poll: Hillary 65, Warren 10. For all you “she was inevitable BEFORE!” folks.— daveweigel (@daveweigel) December 2, 2014
Is the author suggesting that Hillary! is a self-serving political opportunist with no integrity?
That makes sense, you have two-faced Hillary! talking out of both sides of her mouth about the pipeline doing a fundraiser for two-faced Mary who talks out of both sides of her mouth about supporting Obama. They are perfect for each other.
Hey, for $300k a pop, Hillary will speak at a KKK meeting and a NAACLP meeting on the same night!
She’s a WHORE.
What difference, at this point, does it make?
Perfect, my thoughts exactly.
"Vot are dose tings? Are dose dildos? Iss dat eine dildo throne?"
lol
Yes, but this is not what the American people believe. They want even demand HRC! And many want Jebbie as her punching bag.
One unwavering trait of the Clintons is the art of the lie. There is much about lying that Obama could learn from them.
Hillary is a lawyer and like the scorpion in Aesop’s Fable, lawyers will do what is is their nature, go to and for the money. As the 4 part comparison to use in animal testing goes, I see Hillary in every line;
1. The lab assistants were becoming very attached to their little rats. This emotional involvement was interfering with the research being conducted. No such attachment could form for a lawyer.
2. Lawyers are in much greater supply.
3. Lawyers are much cheaper to care for and the humanitarian societies won’t jump all over you no matter what you’re studying.
4. There are some things even a rat won’t do.
Well if he's not, I will.
You know, I honestly don’t think she’s ever going to get the “traction” that many think that she will.
During the Clinton administration, they came across to me as being so politically ‘tone-deaf’. I know Bill was popular with a lot of people, but I kept noticing that politics had become a matter of saying the “right” things, instead of really DOING anything. Talk was all that they thought mattered. And people aren’t going to fall for that in such numbers anymore.
The people get tired of old, familiar faces accompanied by the same ol’ droning propaganda; they get wise to it.
And who else do the dems have to offer?
I don’t see things stacking up well for them, in 2016...
-JT
Playing both sides against the middle-class.
Obviously The Beast wants to be president of all the people - not just those she agrees with.
Especially those willing to pay the going rates.
/s
will they stand on their heads to beat all deals? that is the question.
Make ‘em squeal, Joni.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.