Nah, that is old news.
people will know that it is old news.
People want someone who can take on Hillary and no one can do that better than Fiorina.
“According to Todd Bartlem, there is nothing surprising in Carly’s tendency to place herself at the front and center of every narrative.
‘She is pathologically narcissistic and all she cares about is her,’ he said. ‘Nothing holds together with her.
‘I got kind of suspicious of her towards the end of the marriage because she had no old friends. She had nobody that she knew in the past, and I thought, “God that’s kind of weird.”’
Today Bartlem believes the reason lies in Carly’s ‘modus operandi’ of ‘dropping people’ as soon as they have fulfilled their useful purpose in her life. Certainly it’s what he believes happened to him.
‘I had no utility and that’s what the judgment was,’ he said. ‘If you aren’t useful to her, your time is over. She learned that in business school. I was heartbroken. It was brutal.’
Bartlem claims that when Carly walked out on him she did so without leaving so much as a forwarding address or phone number. A year after the divorce, he claims, she pulled up in the driveway of their former home and calmly said, ‘I will never see you again.’”
From the uk article linked above
I don't see what makes her better at taking on Hillary. She's a woman, and almost no woman (maybe Maggie Thatcher?) can project strength compared to a significant male candidate. The GOP also projects weakness when it tries to appease the PC philosophy. The Dems will exploit this—whether or not they nominate Hillary. I don't think Carly can bring out the base and attract random voters across the board as Trump has. She has ranting energy. Trump has strength. Even Mexicans like Trump, because he is manly. Carly is, for most blue-collar men, just kind of first-wife scary. For instance, she doesn't smile. Yikes.
Carly said some good things in the debate and on the campaign—but over the course of her career, these are the first un-PC things I've heard from her. And I don't see the foundation of any real change. She's still plays the feminist, woooooman card. That tells me she still sees the world that way.
She's shown some good rhetoric, energy, and persistence. Loved the Iran-abortion point in the debate. But it's an outlier idea for her, and didn't seem sincere. More to the point, there's an accomplishment gap. She did a disastrous job at two companies in succession and she's never made sense of that—just a lot of "glass-ceiling" whining. Then she ran as a liberal Republican against Barbara Boxer when Boxer was weak, and lost by 10 points. I grant that it's California. But I don't see principled boldness, nor do I see a record of commitment to, for instance, laissez-faire capitalism.
I have never liked The Donald, but I find him more sincere and effective as what he is. The entire Western world needs a leadership wrecking ball who knows how to build things. Trump has made his living by knowing what people need in order to live, earn, and spend money. I'm a New Yorker, and I remember the Grand Central area before Trump. He saw what others didn't, and he's done it again and again.