Politico: Clinton ducking NSA, surveillance issues

posted at 12:01 pm on February 18, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

When was the last time Hillary Clinton used her lucrative public-speaking platform to address the issues of NSA and surveillance in the context of national security — or at all? Politico has been counting the days, and Josh Gerstein cites September as the last mention from the presumed Democratic frontrunner to succeed Barack Obama on those responsibilities. Since then, Gerstein says, Hillary “skirts” the issue:

Clinton aides indicated at the time that she largely abandoned her planned speech at the National Constitution Center because President Barack Obama decided to address the nation that same night about his decision to seek congressional approval to use force in Syria. Indeed, she mentioned Obama’s imminent White House address and called for a “strong response” to the Syrian crisis.

While Clinton’s decision to put aside her original speech that night was understandable, her near silence on the issue since has been more open to question. As the national debate over the National Security Agency’s broad array of data collection programs has rolled on, courts, lawmakers, blue-ribbon panels and even Obama himself have weighed on the legality, effectiveness and wisdom of the snoopingClinton has not.

But it’s not clear how long she can keep up the silent treatment: As she mulls a bid for the White House in 2016, she’s beginning to face pressure to outline her views on the surveillance issue more clearly.

Other potential 2016 contenders — ranging from Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) to Gov. Chris Christie (R-N.J.) to Gov. Martin O’Malley (D-Md.) — have weighed in. Paul, who has taken a staunchly libertarian stand against the NSA programs, filed a class-action lawsuit over the surveillance last week. By contrast, Christie and O’Malley have warned about the dangers of retreating in the battle against terrorism.

Completely sidestepping such questions would seem odd — and probably unsustainable — if Clinton wants to remain close to the national political debate.

This is why it’s bad news to start a presidential campaign too early. Once it becomes known, then every issue requires a position and a statement. It’s why top-tier candidates try to wait as long as possible before testing the waters. It keeps the press from beating them up, and it might be why Mitt Romney is taking a more public profile in 2014 — as a way to screen other Republicans from press scrutiny until after the midterms.

On the other hand, Hillary is so high profile that it probably wouldn’t matter. Even if she tried to get off the radar screen, she’s not going to disappear entirely, or much at all. Besides, she should be at least asked about the Obama administration’s national-security policies, including surveillance. As Secretary of State, Hillary would have at least been a customer of those practices, if not a participant in some fashion.

At least this focuses on the present and the future. In my column for The Week today, I again offer my advice to the GOP to stop partying like it’s 1998:

If voters had little interest in Lewinsky in 1998, why would they take an interest in the affair 18 years later? More importantly, why would voters blame Hillary for the Lewinsky affair when they’ve long since forgiven the husband who conducted it? Paul and others may see this as a means of skewering the Democratic “war on women” talking point — which is demagogic and silly — but punishing the wife for the philandering of her husband won’t win them many points among women, either.

Besides, this is all water under the bridge. Even those disgusted by Bill Clinton’s behavior aren’t going to change their politics over it at this late date. Romney lost two bids for the presidency and has little credibility among the conservative grassroots because of his campaign failures, but in this case he’s correct. Voters won’t care about how Hillary handled the affairs of her husband, or even an abuse of power by Bill Clinton in the issuing of presidential pardons in the final days of his term, especially the pardon for Marc Rich.

Voters will care about Secretary Clinton’s record at the State Department, especially since it is the only executive experience Hillary can claim, and Republicans have a wealth of material to use. She started by handing a “reset button” to Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov as an apology for the Bush years, and ended her term with the U.S.-Russian relationship at its worst level since the end of the Cold War. Her tenure included an Arab Spring policy that fueled a military intervention in Libya without congressional approval, leaving Libya as a failed state where terrorist networks metastasized. That led directly to the sacking of an unconscionably unprotected consulate in Benghazi and the death of four Americans, as well as a rebellion in Mali that required French intervention to stamp out. On the other side of the ledger, Hillary can claim no trade agreements, no peace settlements, and really, no landmark achievements of any kind. Even longtime Clintonite Lanny Davis, who counseled Bill Clinton during the 1998 impeachment, could not name a single achievement from Secretary Clinton in four years at State.

Republicans need to focus on the future, rather than keep relitigating a debate they lost nearly two decades ago. Voters don’t need another round of blue-dress nostalgia. The GOP should just stick to the subjects of 2016 rather than party like it’s 1998.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Hillary is the war on womens.

Schadenfreude on February 18, 2014 at 12:03 PM

The War on Womens, from the Left, apace…

Schadenfreude on February 18, 2014 at 12:03 PM

Completely sidestepping such questions would seem odd — and probably unsustainable — if Clinton wants to remain close to the national political debate.

Asking Hillary! questions on surveillance is sexist!

rbj on February 18, 2014 at 12:05 PM

She and Bill are too busy propagandizing the illegal aliens with Univision.

Goebbels laughs his dead azz off, while he orgasms in his grave, again.

US and world media, almost suffocated dead, from eating obama/Clinton chit.

Schadenfreude on February 18, 2014 at 12:05 PM

Here you go. Goebbels sends his Thanks.

Also, your president is a racist.

Schadenfreude on February 18, 2014 at 12:07 PM

Sorry, here you go.

Schadenfreude on February 18, 2014 at 12:08 PM

What is she going to run on?

Anybody?

Del Dolemonte on February 18, 2014 at 12:08 PM

Since then, Gerstein says, Hillary “skirts” the issue:

Nice turn of phrase…in a men-suit, heh.

Schadenfreude on February 18, 2014 at 12:09 PM

She’ll try to skate through to the nomination(and she hopes the general election) without having to take definitive positions on controversial issues. Obama was able to do that for the most part in 2008. But I don’t think it’ll work. Unlike Obama, she doesn’t have that “blank canvas” persona. She’s already a polarizing figure and an established political figure who’s been around for over 20 years. She’ll have to state what she believes and that’s when her numbers will start to plummet. Remember, she was cruising along just fine toward the Democrat nomination in 2008 before that fateful debate where Tim Russert got her to waffle on driver’s licenses for illegals. It was all downhill from there.

Doughboy on February 18, 2014 at 12:09 PM

What is she going to run on?

Anybody?

Del Dolemonte on February 18, 2014 at 12:08 PM

Yes, on Bill Clinton

(I know, I know…playing with words)

Schadenfreude on February 18, 2014 at 12:10 PM

I triple dare anyone to name one success she had as Sec. of State. Better be factual.

Schadenfreude on February 18, 2014 at 12:11 PM

HA, you know damn well that the pic. up front is not realistic.

Schadenfreude on February 18, 2014 at 12:12 PM

My, My. what a pedigree! Who would not want to jump on that bandwagon/

No Time Clock on February 18, 2014 at 12:13 PM

Ed, with all due respect, I think you are missing the point.

Recalling that Bill Clinton, the most popular Democrat of my lifetime, was a scumbag and philanderer, and predator, reflects in Hillary Clinton in no way at all, other than how it reflects on the Democratic Party as a whole, that they would rally around such a scumbag predatory philanderer.

While accusing the Right of waging the War on Women.

Amusing, at very least.

But it’s not the character part that is the key to this. You pointed out that this was 16 years ago, in the sixth year of a Clinton presidency. That would place the 2016 elections just about a quarter of a century after the Clintons oozed their way into the national psyche.

Say it again: A quarter of a century. For the voters that put Barack Obama into office, that is, quite literally, a lifetime ago.

That means that Hillary Clinton, any way you look at it, is… and I don;t really apologize for being indelicate here… is old. Older than any person her party has ever nominated to be POTUS, if I’m not mistaken. Just a wee bit younger tha Joseph Kennedy was, when Jack Kennedy was elected POTUS.

Mighty tough to paint an election being “about the future”, when it is so clear that the best days of the candidate you are putting forth, are so far behind her.

And if that sounds like dirty pool, then so be it…

JohnGalt23 on February 18, 2014 at 12:15 PM

I understand your argument Ed but its the double standard that the gop receives that makes my blood boil…they get bashed for issues that occurred 40 years ago 24/7 but we are suppose to not touch Hillary’s past?

cmsinaz on February 18, 2014 at 12:16 PM

Schadenfreude on February 18, 2014 at 12:11 PM

She successfully failed miserably as Sec. of State. Fact.

Bmore on February 18, 2014 at 12:17 PM

I still say that the real question is: Will George Soros oppose Hillary’s nomination AGAIN like he did in 2008?

Soros wants a PUPPET in the White House that he can control.

ConstantineXI on February 18, 2014 at 12:17 PM

Republicans need to focus on the future, rather than keep relitigating a debate they lost nearly two decades ago. Voters don’t need another round of blue-dress nostalgia. The GOP should just stick to the subjects of 2016 rather than party like it’s 1998.

Well said.

As Hugh Hewitt notes, the issue the GOP needs to focus on is getting the incompetent and complacent GOP leadership focusing on leading and 2014′s midterms as opposed to trying to derail a possible 2016 Presidential candidate.

No mention, however, of a messaging strategy built on an aggressive hearings schedule, which continues to be the House leadership’s greatest failure. They plan for nothing when it comes to moving public opinion and so they achieve nothing when it comes to moving public opinion.

There ought to be a well planned and publicized sets of hearings every Tuesday and Wednesday between now and November that cue story-lines and commentary and drive themes for the fall elections. That calendar of hearings ought to have been developed over the Christmas break, rolled out at the House retreat for review and tweaking, and in place now. As it is, if any plan exists, it is a secret one, like President Nixon’s plan for Vietnam, but the better money is on their being no plan at all. The Speaker and his team have great disdain for the idea of shaping public opinion. The are “old school” which means “huh?”

How hard would it be to actually think through messaging along those lines? Maybe only one in three hearings would generate traction, but perhaps more than that and in any event, it beats doing nothing and allowing the president to set the agenda each and every week. Too bad today doesn’t feature a hearing on what went wrong in the Oregon health care exchange, next week a hearing on the medical device tax, and the following weeks hearings focused on Obamacare’s ravaging of religious freedom as the Administration’s war on faith rolls toward an argument before the Supreme Court on the Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties Company cases on March 25.

As for the ‘inevitable’ HRC – I doubt she is an inevitable as much of the lapdog media wants to spin her. She’s extremely vulnerable – on the basis of her record as a carpet-bagging NY Senator and a feckless Secretary of State who accomplished nothing. Benghazi and it’s aftermath is a far more damning reflection of her unsuitability for further office, elected or appointed, in government.

My biggest fear remains, not HRC running in 2016, but the feckless and narcissistic GOP establishment snatching defeat from the jaws of victory this November.

Athos on February 18, 2014 at 12:19 PM

Rightie wimps and weasels

Schadenfreude on February 18, 2014 at 12:19 PM

Hillary has done nothing and deserves nothing. If you perceive me to me wrong then please list her accomplishments. She’s nothing but another actor in this big phony scam we call politics.

rplat on February 18, 2014 at 12:20 PM

I triple dare anyone to name one success she had as Sec. of State. Better be factual.

Schadenfreude on February 18, 2014 at 12:11 PM

More miles traveled! What do I win?

butch on February 18, 2014 at 12:20 PM

She can’t call herself a “liberal” if she supports the ObamaStasi…

She can’t anyway, but..

DinaRehn on February 18, 2014 at 12:21 PM

I like the pictures of Cankles when she was in the senate during her “I’m tired” phase – when she practically showed up to work in pajamas looking like she’d been on an all night bender the night before.

Ruckus_Tom on February 18, 2014 at 12:23 PM

I triple dare anyone to name one success she had as Sec. of State. Better be factual.
 
Schadenfreude on February 18, 2014 at 12:11 PM

 
This administration considered not having a penis a success.

rogerb on February 18, 2014 at 12:23 PM

I triple dare anyone to name one success she had as Sec. of State. Better be factual.

Schadenfreude on February 18, 2014 at 12:11 PM

First Ambassador Killed in recent memory..

Oh! You wanted successes for the US instead of the terrorists.. .. rolling snakes eyes on that one.

DinaRehn on February 18, 2014 at 12:23 PM

Even if she tried to get off the radar screen, she’s not going to disappear entirely, or much at all.

No, I won’t. Not going there…

Blimp…

Dang it…

Kraken on February 18, 2014 at 12:25 PM

I think since Rand Paul threw down the gauntlet regarding that war on women crap, the donks will put that card away, for now. At risk of my using double metaphors, he fired a shot across their bow. A big thank you to Slick Willie Jeff for making it possible.

butch on February 18, 2014 at 12:27 PM

Hillary! take “a stand” on something? Why? So that later she can say that she’s “evolving”?

GarandFan on February 18, 2014 at 12:30 PM

I understand your argument Ed but its the double standard that the gop receives that makes my blood boil…they get bashed for issues that occurred 40 years ago 24/7 but we are suppose to not touch Hillary’s past?

cmsinaz on February 18, 2014 at 12:16 PM

Agreed.

Remember, the idiot the Democrats ran for President in 2004 based his entire “campaign” on what he had supposedly done nearly 40 years before. And in that same election cycle his opponent, the incumbent, was accused of being AWOL nearly 40 years before.

In 2000, Chimpy Bush nearly lost the election after a decades-old DUI arrest was disclosed just days before the election.

And when Bill Clinton first ran for President in 1993, a centerpiece of his campaign propaganda was a nearly 30 year old photo of him shaking hands with JFK. Even today, when you do a Google search on the words “when bill clinton met john f. kennedy” you get 1.99 million results.

And guess what? Many of those search results were from 2013, which was the 50th anniversary of when Bill met his hero. NBC “News” even did a fawning story about it last July:

Clinton says it was that handshake that inspired his life of public service. Nearly 30 years later, in January of 1993, Bill Clinton was sworn in as the 42nd president.

Even O’bama ran on his past-he convinced voters that his living in Hawai’i 40 years before he ran for President was somehow a “qualification” for the job.

Del Dolemonte on February 18, 2014 at 12:30 PM

If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck…it’s a Democrat!

It’s not going to hurt her, because her ideological peers/supporters hold the majority of the levers which could be used to actually make it an issue, including the media (imagine the difference it would make to hear negatives about Clinton non-stop as we do about Christie?!? Incalculable value to that for Dems), the academy (try piping up about issues with Dem politicians on campus! GOOD LUCK! You’ll be ostracized, or worse), and among low-info voters who only want their bread and circuses.

She’s going to skate to the nomination and probably to the presidency, which will be terrible (though I think she would have actually been a bit better than Obumbles, but not by much).

xNavigator on February 18, 2014 at 12:33 PM

Hillary’s war on womens

Schadenfreude on February 18, 2014 at 12:33 PM

What is she going to run on?

Anybody?

Del Dolemonte on February 18, 2014 at 12:08 PM

Del, you should have seen poster HillAREwe last evening.

Some epic posts….I told her you would be drop shipping some
Sun dials to her….

ToddPA on February 18, 2014 at 12:33 PM

I’ve said it before and will say it again.
hillary was the power in the clinton administration, bill was a figurehead. so the handling of the lewinsky issues reflect directly upon her and are extremely pertinent, she enabled/allowed a predator to ply his craft.
And when you tie it into the history he had with other victims IT MATTERS!!

dmacleo on February 18, 2014 at 12:35 PM

There are no Marquis of Kingsbury Rules in politics. Just as in any competition, you do not win by being a wuss. You suck it up and COMPETE. You give it your best shot. You give as good as you get.

These “Moderate” Republicans seem to live in their own little, isolated Beltway Bubble.

Quite frankly, if they do not want to fight for the most powerful Governmental Office in the World, they do not deserve to win the presidency.

The past of the Clintons is heavily documented, and easily brought to the public eye. For example…

kingsjester on February 18, 2014 at 12:36 PM

The guy is black, and a Democrat, from Chicago.

The Zimbabweans should release him immediately, so he can be Hillary’s VP choice.

Schadenfreude on February 18, 2014 at 12:39 PM

The past of the Clintons is heavily documented, and easily brought to the public eye. For example…

kingsjester on February 18, 2014 at 12:36 PM

Beat you – see 12:33 :)

Schadenfreude on February 18, 2014 at 12:40 PM

Del Dolemonte on February 18, 2014 at 12:08 PM

Del, you should have seen poster HillAREwe last evening.

Some epic posts….I told her you would be drop shipping some
Sun dials to her….

ToddPA on February 18, 2014 at 12:33 PM

Must have been in the Quotes of the Day thread-I did a drive-by post there early on but then wandered off elsewhere.

But in one of the other Hot Gas threads earlier in the day, I asked HillAREwe what “accomplishments” Mrs. Clinton was going to run on.

Sound of crickets ensued.

Del Dolemonte on February 18, 2014 at 12:42 PM

Voters won’t care about how Hillary handled the affairs of her husband, or even an abuse of power by Bill Clinton in the issuing of presidential pardons in the final days of his term, especially the pardon for Marc Rich.

Voters will care about Secretary Clinton’s record at the State Department, especially since it is the only executive experience Hillary can claim, and Republicans have a wealth of material to use.

Amen, Ed!!!

Hillary’s decision to “stand by her man” during Bill Clinton’s Lewinsky and Paula Jones affairs won her a lot of “sympathy votes” from women during her 2000 campaign for the Senate seat from New York State. Dredging up these affairs now will only hand her MORE sympathy votes from younger female voters who might not remember the 1990′s.

Any Republican criticism of Hillary Clinton should be focused on what SHE did when SHE was in power, including her time as Secretary of State and as a Senator, and this is certainly a target-rich environment. One issue from the 1990′s that could be relevant is Bill Clinton’s pardon of FALN terrorists in New York State in order to gain Puerto Rican votes for Hillary in her 2000 Senate race.

Steve Z on February 18, 2014 at 12:42 PM

As someone put it on Bennett this morning, “Imagine a political party that thought Hillary Clinton would make a good presidential candidate…”

Akzed on February 18, 2014 at 12:43 PM

“Hillary Benghazi Clinton.”

Say it loud and often.

Akzed on February 18, 2014 at 12:44 PM

OT: Today is the first day of early voting for the March 4 Texas primary.
VOTE! VOTE! VOTE!

annoyinglittletwerp on February 18, 2014 at 12:46 PM

Exactamundo Del@12:30

cmsinaz on February 18, 2014 at 12:46 PM

And guess what? Many of those search results were from 2013, which was the 50th anniversary of when Bill met his hero. NBC “News” even did a fawning story about it last July:

Clinton says it was that handshake that inspired his life of public service. Nearly 30 years later, in January of 1993, Bill Clinton was sworn in as the 42nd president.

Maybe Republicans can remind younger voters that Hillary Rodham was a Goldwater Girl in 1964, the year after Bill Clinton’s handshake with JFK.

Steve Z on February 18, 2014 at 12:46 PM

The Clintons are the ultimate Mafia of the USSA.

Schadenfreude on February 18, 2014 at 12:47 PM

Must have been in the Quotes of the Day thread-I did a drive-by post there early on but then wandered off elsewhere.

But in one of the other Hot Gas threads earlier in the day, I asked HillAREwe what “accomplishments” Mrs. Clinton was going to run on.

Sound of crickets ensued.

Del Dolemonte on February 18, 2014 at 12:42 PM

yes, it was QOTD.

ToddPA on February 18, 2014 at 12:47 PM

Sheepledom

Poll: 71% of Obama voters, 55% Democrats ‘regret’ voting for his re-election

Schadenfreude on February 18, 2014 at 12:50 PM

Why does Politico think she won’t be able to keep up her silence for much longer? They’re not going to ask her about it. And she certainly won’t put herself in a position where someone might. The toughest question she’ll have to answer before accepting the nomination will be along the lines of “Just how perfect a woman are you, and how hard has it been keeping up that level of perfection?”

BKeyser on February 18, 2014 at 12:52 PM

Ducking questions about the NSA or perhaps EVERYTHING she has been involved with, e.g. Bimbo Eruptions is a lot easier than ducking sniper bullets in Kosovo. Right Hillary Rodham?

And I doubt the Manure Stream Media is going to make ANYTHING difficult or challenging for her when she announces her run for POTUS.

Missilengr on February 18, 2014 at 12:54 PM

Sound of crickets ensued.

Del Dolemonte on February 18, 2014 at 12:42 PM

It thinks that not liking filthy Russian womens is “racist”. It’s not very smart, or is a t-shirt selling ploy.

Schadenfreude on February 18, 2014 at 12:55 PM

Any Republican criticism of Hillary Clinton should be focused on what SHE did when SHE was in power, including her time as Secretary of State and as a Senator, and this is certainly a target-rich environment. One issue from the 1990′s that could be relevant is Bill Clinton’s pardon of FALN terrorists in New York State in order to gain Puerto Rican votes for Hillary in her 2000 Senate race.

Steve Z on February 18, 2014 at 12:42 PM

No one cares about Hillary’s record. It’s just like no one cared about Obama’s first four years as POTUS. Barry was defined as a nice, hard-scrabble guy while Romney the boy scout was morphed into Mr. Potter shaking down George Bailey.

Emotion, emotion, emotion.

Republicans will talk about some guy named Ben Ghazi while Democrats are telling me how such-and-so wants to bring back slavery and dodge his taxes! I heard he also killed some woman!

Punchenko on February 18, 2014 at 12:56 PM

Just a second…I have to sneeze…
“Ahhh….ahhh…ahh…Ben..ghazeeee!!!”.

albill on February 18, 2014 at 12:58 PM

Nothing says “progressive” like a battered wife from the ’90′s.

Who didn’t her horndog,impeached, perjured, disbarred, rapist husband do?

Murphy9 on February 18, 2014 at 1:00 PM

Sheepledom

Poll: 71% of Obama voters, 55% Democrats ‘regret’ voting for his re-election

Schadenfreude on February 18, 2014 at 12:50 PM

Limbaugh was just talking about this. But if this was a YouGov poll, it was probably done online, and as such its credibility would be suspect.

From the link:

In YouGov research conducted from February 6th-7th, we went about it in a slightly different way, asking people who voted for Mitt Romney or Barack Obama whether they would do it again. We found an ostensibly similar picture: 90% of people who voted for Romney would do it again, compared to only 79% of Obama voters who would.

But when you go to the pdf they provide showing all of the questions asked and the results, they do not state how they conducted the poll. But in the past they have pretty much relied on online polling.

Del Dolemonte on February 18, 2014 at 1:01 PM

Poll: 71% of Obama voters, 55% Democrats ‘regret’ voting for his re-election

Schadenfreude on February 18, 2014 at 12:50 PM

But they did vote for him because he cares about people like me. Emotion.

Hillary will play the same game and will probably win since some people want to talk about her time at the State Department. Because, you know, people really follow what’s going on overseas even though they cannot name the VPOTUS.

Punchenko on February 18, 2014 at 1:01 PM

OT: Today is the first day of early voting for the March 4 Texas primary.
VOTE! VOTE! VOTE!
annoyinglittletwerp on February 18, 2014 at 12:46 PM

If you insist, but I’m in Alabama, so I don’t think it will count.:)

Doc Holliday on February 18, 2014 at 1:05 PM

Sheepledom

Poll: 71% of Obama voters, 55% Democrats ‘regret’ voting for his re-election

Schadenfreude on February 18, 2014 at 12:50 PM

Socialism: One Man, One Vote….. Once.

DinaRehn on February 18, 2014 at 1:06 PM

Del Dolemonte on February 18, 2014 at 1:01 PM

Either way…I’d believe the rats. They want even more handouts from their Jesus.

Schadenfreude on February 18, 2014 at 1:07 PM

Just imagine the Clinton Crime Family that stole FBI files on all the Republicans in Congress in 1996 being put in charge of all the new wonderful tools that the NSA has.

That’s what Rand Paul should be talking about. That’s the real danger of the CCF back in the White House.

slickwillie2001 on February 18, 2014 at 1:08 PM

Focus.

Strawman.

besser tot als rot on February 18, 2014 at 1:10 PM

Doc Holliday on February 18, 2014 at 1:05 PM

On the dim side…Go WENDY.
*Evil laugh*

*Also-on the dim ballot-a Richard Friedman is running for comptroller. Normally he runs for governor. That man is so crazy. LoL*

annoyinglittletwerp on February 18, 2014 at 1:11 PM

At least this focuses on the present and the future. In my column for The Week today, I again offer my advice to the GOP to stop partying like it’s 1998:

Then your column must be mind-numbingly stupid, arguing against an asinine strawman.

besser tot als rot on February 18, 2014 at 1:11 PM

Sheila Jackson-Lee/Al Sharpton 2016!

Try to fight that ticket, mofo’s. First black mentally-challenged female space alien as president, and continuing the tradition of having a gaffe prone clown for VP!

What could possibly go wrong?

Anyone fighting this team is a misogynistic racist, pink cowgirl hat hating tea-bagger!

/

ZeusGoose on February 18, 2014 at 1:14 PM

More miles traveled! What do I win?

butch on February 18, 2014 at 12:20 PM

Except that Condi Rice traveled more than Hillary (and had more to show for it). Condi didn’t brag about it.

Trafalgar on February 18, 2014 at 1:14 PM

What is she going to run on?

Anybody?

Del Dolemonte on February 18, 2014 at 12:08 PM

I’m guessing her good looks and Bill’s charm.

DDay on February 18, 2014 at 1:22 PM

Can’t wait to see Kathleen Willey tonight on Megyn Kelley’s show.

Let’s see how Killary responds to that vast right wing conspiracy, since she once considered both Clintons as friends before Bubba’s groping.

Mr. and Mrs. Clinton should do the US and themselves a favor and slink away in shame. The fact that they don’t tells you all you need to know.

ZeusGoose on February 18, 2014 at 1:22 PM

Hillary is a fat old white woman with a voice like broken glass. So that’s supposed to attract the Obama voter and trump her complete lack of real accomplishments. Or is marrying power (and exploiting the marriage so some power rubs off) considered an achievement now?

Demonized on February 18, 2014 at 1:24 PM

What is she going to run on?

Anybody?

Del Dolemonte on February 18, 2014 at 12:08 PM

I’m guessing her good looks and Bill’s charm.

DDay on February 18, 2014 at 1:22 PM

Ooooh Noooo, Mr. Bill,

I think we need another billion dollars from our corrupt foreign ‘donors’!

ZeusGoose on February 18, 2014 at 1:30 PM

Some people are running scared of this woman.

And the funny thing is there is nothing republicans can do about it.

She will be President.

If she even loses it will be to a democrat in a primary…she is definitely not losing against a republican.

Remember the Republican party’s record when it comes to popular votes is….. 1 in 6.

liberalrules on February 18, 2014 at 1:40 PM

Ooooh Noooo, Mr. Bill,

I think we need another billion dollars from our corrupt foreign ‘donors’!

ZeusGoose on February 18, 2014 at 1:30 PM

Lets see Obama, an otherwise unknown Senator from the land of thieves wins his party nomination. And in return for the Secretary of State position, the Clinton’s open up their little donors black book (no racist intent). With an assist from Obama, the Federal Reserve opens the spigots and all those donors make billions and now it is time for payback. So, yes Mr. ZeusGoose, I do believe your comment will come to fruition soon enough.

DDay on February 18, 2014 at 1:42 PM

Hillary “skirts” the issue:

OMGZ, WAR ON WOMEN – JUST LOOK AT THAT WORD CHOICE!!1! /

Midas on February 18, 2014 at 1:42 PM

Nobody positively advocates for any agenda, it is all cult of personality government worship..

You people are fringe FREAKS.

Murphy9 on February 18, 2014 at 1:43 PM

Hillary is a fat old white woman with a voice like broken glass. So that’s supposed to attract the Obama voter and trump her complete lack of real accomplishments. Or is marrying power (and exploiting the marriage so some power rubs off) considered an achievement now?

Demonized on February 18, 2014 at 1:24 PM

Hehe, I hear you – and have to ask – you think Dems *wont* vote for her because of the above-mentioned reasons? If so, you underestimate the stupidity *and* loyalty/reliability of the average brain-addled sheep that vote Democrat no matter *who* is on the ticket.

Once the DNC and media (redundant) roll out the “they’re gonna put you all back in chains!”, “they’re going to take away your food, kill your grandma and poison your water – THEY’RE COMING FOR YOU!!!1!” routine, which Dems are going to decide to stay home or vote GOP instead?

Midas on February 18, 2014 at 1:46 PM

Remember the Republican party’s record when it comes to popular votes is….. 1 in 6.

liberalrules on February 18, 2014 at 1:40 PM

And what was it for the 6 elections before that? 5/6 – i.e., the Democrats were 1 in 6. So, if you’re looking for patterns, I guess that means the GOP is due for another 5 in 6 run, eh?

besser tot als rot on February 18, 2014 at 1:50 PM

And what was it for the 6 elections before that? 5/6 – i.e., the Democrats were 1 in 6. So, if you’re looking for patterns, I guess that means the GOP is due for another 5 in 6 run, eh?

besser tot als rot on February 18, 2014 at 1:50 PM

Only relevant pattern you should be looking at is demographics.

The next republican has to win close 65 to 70% of the white vote going forward to stand a chance.

Good luck with that

Romney pretty much beat every McCain Stat in 2012 and still lost.

liberalrules on February 18, 2014 at 1:56 PM

Just imagine the Clinton Crime Family that stole FBI files on all the Republicans in Congress in 1996 being put in charge of all the new wonderful tools that the NSA has.

That’s what Rand Paul should be talking about. That’s the real danger of the CCF back in the White House.

slickwillie2001 on February 18, 2014 at 1:08 PM

Actually, the FBI files were stolen in 1993 and 1994, right after the Clintons took office (“We ARE the President.”)

It’s just that the Clintons managed to keep it a secret until 1996 (June 5, to be exact).

fyi not all of the purloined files were those of Republicans-just most of them.

Del Dolemonte on February 18, 2014 at 1:59 PM

Some people are running scared of this woman.

And the funny thing is there is nothing republicans can do about it.

She will be President.

If she even loses it will be to a democrat in a primary…she is definitely not losing against a republican.

Remember the Republican party’s record when it comes to popular votes is….. 1 in 6.

liberalrules on February 18, 2014 at 1:40 PM

This is how illogical and dumb the leftist ‘thinkers’ are.

obama-voter on display

Schadenfreude on February 18, 2014 at 2:01 PM

Some people are running scared of this woman.

And the funny thing is there is nothing republicans can do about it.

She will be President.

If she even loses it will be to a democrat in a primary…she is definitely not losing against a republican.

Remember the Republican party’s record when it comes to popular votes is….. 1 in 6.

liberalrules on February 18, 2014 at 1:40 PM

Tell us again what she is going to run on.

liberalrules on February 18, 2014 at 1:56 PM

Tell us again what she is going to run on.

Del Dolemonte on February 18, 2014 at 2:02 PM

Hillary is a fat old white woman with a voice like broken glass. So that’s supposed to attract the Obama voter and trump her complete lack of real accomplishments. Or is marrying power (and exploiting the marriage so some power rubs off) considered an achievement now?

Demonized on February 18, 2014 at 1:24 PM

Leftist thugs want their sheepledom uneducated, suppressed, in the modern day plantation, all equally dumb and poor.

All else is sheer propaganda.

Goebbels loves the thugs.

Schadenfreude on February 18, 2014 at 2:04 PM

Leftist trolls, this thread is in dire need of you.

Schadenfreude on February 18, 2014 at 2:10 PM

I can’t even begin to imagine how the NSA would be misused under a Clinton regime.

HellCat on February 18, 2014 at 2:28 PM

If voters had little interest in Lewinsky in 1998, why would they take an interest in the affair 18 years later? More importantly, why would voters blame Hillary for the Lewinsky affair…

…because Billy had to go elsewhere…for a blowjob?

KOOLAID2 on February 18, 2014 at 2:33 PM

She is an expert on narcissistic loony toons.

maevio on February 18, 2014 at 2:44 PM

Remember the Republican party’s record when it comes to popular votes is….. 1 in 6.

liberalrules on February 18, 2014 at 1:40 PM

Cherry picking your stats is a loser.

itsspideyman on February 18, 2014 at 3:13 PM

She has the media in her pocket. She will be your next president. The electorate is stupid. Birth control and abortions will be the top priorities in 2016. The media will see to it. Rand Paul or bust.

alanstern on February 18, 2014 at 3:15 PM

Hillary at least allowed and at worst participated in the personal destruction of sexual harassment victims in order to protect her personal ambitions. Don’t pretend it was just Monica. Monica was just the one that proved that all the others were telling the truth, and that the Clintons lie, destroy and cover-up.

xuyee on February 18, 2014 at 3:31 PM

Cherry picking your stats is a loser.

itsspideyman on February 18, 2014 at 3:13 PM

good luck with the demographics….

it’s about to get worse.

A republican president maybe possible in the future but they are guaranteed to lose the popular vote.

liberalrules on February 18, 2014 at 4:10 PM

Some people are running scared of this woman.

And the funny thing is there is nothing republicans can do about it.

She will be President.

If she even loses it will be to a democrat in a primary…she is definitely not losing against a republican.

Remember the Republican party’s record when it comes to popular votes is….. 1 in 6.

liberalrules on February 18, 2014 at 1:40 PM

Who is running scared? The media started the woman mantra the day after the Nov election. Hillary has a record to run on and trust me all of her record is fair game and will be used. We have a few that’s going go get down in the sewer with your rats.

Redford on February 18, 2014 at 4:28 PM

but they are guaranteed to lose the popular vote.

liberalrules on February 18, 2014 at 4:10 PM

The popular vote doesn’t count, dummy.

Schadenfreude on February 18, 2014 at 4:34 PM

good luck with the demographics….

it’s about to get worse.

A republican president maybe possible in the future but they are guaranteed to lose the popular vote.

liberalrules on February 18, 2014 at 4:10 PM

Tell us again what she is going to run on.

Del Dolemonte on February 18, 2014 at 2:02 PM

Non-response duly noted. She has nothing.

Neither do you.

PS, tell us again why Gore lost the Electoral Vote in 2000. Hint: it had something to do with his own home state of Tennessee.

Del Dolemonte on February 18, 2014 at 5:00 PM

When you are incompetent you gotta lie like a Clinton to cover your azz.

SparkPlug on February 18, 2014 at 9:03 PM

I don’t get it, will someone please explain why the elitist in our party, try to keep the demonRat candidates record on the down low. You can’t win if you don’t fight. Would airing Obama’s phony BC and SSN have helped, or making His visit with Farrakhan and the rev. Wright to Libya have helped. Will never know will we because it wasn’t allowed, hell McCain even fired a guy for daring to openly say Obama’s middle name. So once again the elites want us to fight with one arm tied behind Hillery’s back. Either fight or shut up because you hurt us more with your whinning.

jainphx on February 18, 2014 at 9:52 PM

What is she going to run on?
Anybody?
Del Dolemonte on February 18, 2014 at 12:08 PM

A lot of stuff. Free birth control, free Hillary phones, Big Bird, Notebook Binders, and the Polar Vortex. And for Jeb Bush, it will be Amnesty. Because if the GOP wins an election, MSNBC won’t like them

Brock Robamney on February 19, 2014 at 5:39 AM