Voters see Hillary as a return to the past

posted at 3:31 pm on June 22, 2014 by Noah Rothman

Elections, political professionals like to say, are about the future. Non-incumbent office seekers more often seek to impart a sense of hopefulness about the coming days during a campaign rather than to relitigate the past. Republicans, however, have fretted that voters may be attracted to Clinton because voters see her as representative of a stable and prosperous time in American history. Whether or not voters want to return to the 1990s is the subject of debate, but what isn’t debatable is that most voters believe Clinton represents a return to the past.

NBC News and the Wall Street Journal, in conjunction with the Annenberg Public Policy Center, found that voters associated Clinton as well as former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush with the past more than the future. A plurality, 49 percent, said Clinton represents a “return to past policies” rather than someone who would “provide new ideas and vision.” That impression is even greater for Bush. 48 percent of respondents in the June 9 – 15 survey said he represents a return to the past compared to just 30 percent who said that he would “provide new ideas and vision.”

That may be unfair; at this stage in a presidential cycle, public opinion surveys are primarily name recognition and association tests. More voters associate the Bush name with the George W. Bush presidency and the post-9/11-era in the same way voters associated the Clinton name with the post-Cold War period. Fair or not, it is more often a liability than an asset to be associated with the past rather than being perceived as a bridge to the future.

Speaking of the past, it seems Clinton simply cannot get over the fact that she was almost universally scolded in the media two weeks ago when she inexplicably asserted that her and her husband “struggled” when they left the White House in 2001 because they were “dead broke.”

Politifact rated this claim “mostly false,” even though the family was strained by the legal fees associated with the impeachment proceedings and did have to take a loan from Terry McAuliffe in order for Clinton to purchase a New York home to show residency ahead of her Senate campaign. Nevertheless, and probably against the wishes of her handlers, Clinton doubled down on this claim in an interview with The Guardian.

Addressing the theme of income inequality which her nascent presidential campaign has recently adopted, Clinton said that the Montagnards would not lead her to the gallows because she is one of the good ones.

“They don’t see me as part of the problem,” Clinton said of those frustrated by the surging income inequality which she once called a “cancer.”

“[W]e pay ordinary income tax, unlike a lot of people who are truly well off, not to name names,” she continued, “and we’ve done it through dint of hard work.”

Nothing could possibly be motivating this doubling down save Clinton’s pride. She was thoroughly scolded in the press for claiming that her and her family “struggled” in any meaningful sense, and that admonishment seems to have stung.

This instinct to correct the record rather than to brush off criticism and seek more favorable ground is a troubling sign for Clinton backers. If she is perceived as a representative of the past, she may be spending a lot of her time defending against what she perceives to be unfair characterizations of her and her husband’s behavior in the 1990s rather than touting the good times and letting the rest roll off her back.


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

Noah Rothman officially endorses Hillary Clinton… News at 11…

oscarwilde on June 22, 2014 at 3:33 PM

Along with the Bushes.

31giddyup on June 22, 2014 at 3:33 PM

So…old and busted?

Knott Buyinit on June 22, 2014 at 3:34 PM

A bridge to the 20th century.

I see what you did there.
Clever. :)

.

(For those who don’t know, he reworded their 20th century campaign slogan “bridge to the 21st century”)

itsnotaboutme on June 22, 2014 at 3:35 PM

She isn’t even going to run.

If she did run, she would get crushed by the Bolshevik wing of the Democrats just like she did in 2008.

Al Gore held off as long as possible not announcing not running, because it made him totally irrelevant after he did. Hillary Clinton will do the same.

Moesart on June 22, 2014 at 3:41 PM

Lofo’s will be told by the media she deserves to be the first woman President. Men are lying pigs, after all- her husband included- and also, to vote against her is to go back to the SUFFRAGETTE days! – not the 1990s.
Shillary will win in a landslide…and as always 2016 will have nothing to do with character, nationalism, qualification or integrity.
It’s not anymore complicated then that she will be the first WOMAN president. All she needs is a good showing on the late night entertainment programs…. And some cameos with Jay Zee and the Hollywood big names.
Clinton 45, ugh.

FlaMurph on June 22, 2014 at 3:43 PM

The feud between the Obamas and ‘Hildebeest’
http://nypost.com/2014/06/21/inside-the-jealous-feud-between-the-obamas-and-hildebeest-clintons/

Clinton bristled at Benghazi deception
http://nypost.com/2014/06/22/clinton-bristled-at-benghazi-deception-book/

albill on June 22, 2014 at 3:44 PM

Hillary’s big claim to fame always has been that she was married to a man who became governor and then presidents, while cheating on her.

bluegill on June 22, 2014 at 3:44 PM

I’m going to call it right now. You all may think it’s crazy, but I think we could be heading for a Cruz vs. Warren 2016 showdown. It will be explosive.

bluegill on June 22, 2014 at 3:47 PM

I am a staunch conservative.

However, I have worked for, with and against the United States Government for 25+ years. The Clinton Administration from 1993 through 2000 was by far the most competent administration I’ve had the pleasure opportunity of working with since Ronald Reagan was President.

I give credit to the Bush 41 Administration for laying the groundwork, but frankly, those people knew how to get shet done.

By contrast, the current administration is the absolute worst I’ve ever worked with or against. Every political appointee has no clue about how things are supposed to be done.

The only exception is FEMA Chief Craig Fugate. He’s the former head of Florida’s EMA, and I am told that after the midterms, he’s tending his resignation because no one seems to “get it.”

I would rather have a conservative running the Executive Branch. But if Ms. Clinton can restore the competence that was evident with her husband in office…

Well…

Business is business.

Conservative Mischief on June 22, 2014 at 3:53 PM

Mark my words: (doesn’t that sound ominous? Needs a little dee dee dee DAH music)

The Dems’ candidate in 2016 will be Black and Ghey. Way more toxic to Pubs and just as historic than a First WhoaMan.

Dolce Far Niente on June 22, 2014 at 3:54 PM

just as more historic than

ugh.

Dolce Far Niente on June 22, 2014 at 3:56 PM

EXCELLENT! More flight schools teaching people how to fly but not land!!! Good times.

WryTrvllr on June 22, 2014 at 3:57 PM

Hillary’s big claim to fame always has been that she was married to a man who became governor and then presidents, while cheating on her.

bluegill on June 22, 2014 at 3:44 PM

I’m going to call it right now. You all may think it’s crazy, but I think we could be heading for a Cruz vs. Warren 2016 showdown. It will be explosive.

bluegill on June 22, 2014 at 3:47 PM

bluegill on March 3, 2014 at 1:49 PM
Kiddo, how in the world can you appreciate comments that are totally void of substance and only criticize others? You’re better than that and at least you don’t bother to comment on things that don’t interest you instead of being annoyed at those who do. Geez, one thread out of a day that is free wheeling is hardly the end of the world.
Cindy Munford on March 3, 2014 at 5:23 PM

1) that is a misrepresentation of my comment history.

2) you lecture but fail to lecture the instigator(s). Very telling.

frank on March 3, 2014 at 5:51 PM

Bluegill, I’m going to settle into the fact you were frank and the one that made the comments about my wife. “frank” answering a question posed to “you” by Cindy Munford as “Bluegill” … really can only be rationalized one way. You forgot who you were posting as.

You played the perpetual victim here and were nothing but a troll in sheep’s clothing. While idiots like me were asking folks to be more tolerant of you, you held on to your grudges and systematically tried to ban people you hated. The worst part is that you would attack someone who has never said a single word to you, my wife, for the simple reason that someone loved her above all else and you thought that was a weapon you could use. I’m sure it was your motivation when you attacked two women over the issue of their children.

You are utterly despicable.

hawkdriver on June 22, 2014 at 9:50 AM

She finished up with this.

You’ve bullied many away from here. I’m not them.

frank on March 3, 2014 at 7:08 PM

Of course we couldn’t bully you away. Your freakish commentary got this sock banned. (thank me)

I’m guessing you’re working on some rationale to bring your BG sock back because you have so much time invested in it. (Like a Dungeons and Dragon Character?) Or are you resigning yourself to using your other QOTD sock?

hawkdriver on June 22, 2014 at 10:01 AM

…your phone must have one heck of a filter on it…the way it blocks out some comments…so someone can play “unawares”!…waiting for the follow-up!

JugEarsButtHurt on June 22, 2014 at 3:57 PM

The Dems’ candidate in 2016 will be Black and Ghey. 

So we’re looking at King Putt finishing off the Constitution by running for a third term?

Wisdom_of_Homer on June 22, 2014 at 3:58 PM

That’s good news. I feel the same way, there’s no way in hell this country needs to go back to the trough to find our next president. There has to be good, honest, capable, courageous, honorable people out there with the ability to LEAD out there somewhere. These two aren’t it.

scalleywag on June 22, 2014 at 3:58 PM

More Tomahawks at tents! Oh wait, O’bozo cancelled those.

WryTrvllr on June 22, 2014 at 3:59 PM

Voters see Hillary as a return to the past

…it should make the employment number of female White House interns…just skyrocket!

JugEarsButtHurt on June 22, 2014 at 4:00 PM

JugEarsButtHurt on June 22, 2014 at 3:57 PM

Please stop with this spam that has nothing to do with the article post. I am sure the bloggers and other readers here do not appreciate it. For the millionth time, I have only one name here, and have always had only one name here. You people accuse me and others of being dozens of people. It’s sad. You are grasping at straws. I am not going to waste any more time or space here on that idiocy.

bluegill on June 22, 2014 at 4:02 PM

we could be heading for a Cruz vs. Warren 2016 showdown.

Warren is a lock if she runs.

Cruz has a zero chance. Could be a VP though.

Moesart on June 22, 2014 at 4:02 PM

Hillary has b!tched and moaned, sticking her nose in my business since I was a teenager.

So yea..

wolly4321 on June 22, 2014 at 4:03 PM

Cruz has a zero chance. Could be a VP though.
Moesart on June 22, 2014 at 4:02 PM

Zero chance at the nomination? How so?

I think he can fire up the base like no one else, and he isn’t at all prone to gaffes. If he runs, I could see the primary season being a story of Cruz versus a series of challengers (similar to how it was with Romney last time.)

bluegill on June 22, 2014 at 4:06 PM

bluegill on June 22, 2014 at 4:02 PM

Maybe we should do a poll on who appreciates it.

I vote yea.

wolly4321 on June 22, 2014 at 4:06 PM

even though the family was strained by the legal fees associated with the impeachment proceedings and did have to take a loan from Terry McAuliffe in order for Clinton to purchase a New York home to show residency ahead of her Senate campaign.

A loan ? Yeah right .
Remember , Rezko bought a house for Hussein .
It’s the same thing.

burrata on June 22, 2014 at 4:07 PM

Warren is a lock if she runs.

Moesart on June 22, 2014 at 4:02 PM

OK. I’ll bite. Why? Because people want more covert inflation? Higher energy prices? More surveillance? Seriously, why?

WryTrvllr on June 22, 2014 at 4:12 PM

Maybe we should do a poll on who appreciates it.

I vote yea.

wolly4321 on June 22, 2014 at 4:06 PM

Yes vote from me too.

oceansidecon on June 22, 2014 at 4:14 PM

Warren is a lock if she runs.

Cruz has a zero chance. Could be a VP though.

Moesart on June 22, 2014 at 4:02 PM

A lock for the Dem primary, or a lock for the election? I can see the former, but not so sure on the latter. Ms. High-Cheekbones has no substance other than “You didn’t build that!”

Othniel on June 22, 2014 at 4:17 PM

I don’t think anyone can make a prediction at this point about who will be running, but if it’s Jeb vs. Hillary we lose, no matter who ‘wins’. In fact, the only likely scenarios I can see are ones where we continue to dig the hole we’re in deeper. But, you never know, miracles happen.

Fenris on June 22, 2014 at 4:17 PM

bluegill on March 3, 2014 at 1:49 PM
Kiddo, how in the world can you appreciate comments that are totally void of substance and only criticize others? You’re better than that and at least you don’t bother to comment on things that don’t interest you instead of being annoyed at those who do. Geez, one thread out of a day that is free wheeling is hardly the end of the world.
Cindy Munford on March 3, 2014 at 5:23 PM

1) that is a misrepresentation of my comment history.

2) you lecture but fail to lecture the instigator(s). Very telling.

frankon March 3, 2014 at 5:51 PM

Please stop with this spam that has nothing to do with the article post. I am sure the bloggers and other readers here do not appreciate it…………………………… I am not going to waste any more time or space here on that idiocy.

bluegill on June 22, 2014 at 4:02 PM

…that’s odd…^ ^ ^ …they’re just trying to clear up the spam on posts…so we know who and what we’re talking too on topics!

JugEarsButtHurt on June 22, 2014 at 4:20 PM

Conservative Mischief on June 22, 2014 at 3:53 PM

A Clinton (apparently) on the campaign trail has some folks pining for the 1990s and the alleged “Clinton economy”. Look at these facts to get a better perspective:

–The economic boom of the Reagan era was still going strong into the George H. W. Bush years, but toward the end of his term we finally slid into a recession (I wonder whether breaking his “no new taxes” pledge had anything to do with that?). But the recession’s recovery was already strong by the time Bill Clinton took office (Bush’s last quarter showed over 4% GDP growth). So Bill inherited a good economy.
–Clinton went too radical too quickly (trying to take over the healthcare industry), and the American people spanked him by voting for the 1st Republican Congress in decades during the mid-term elections. This conservative legislature prevented Clinton from enacting any more significant economic policies except for NAFTA, which never would have made it through a Democrat Congress. NAFTA was–and is–great for our economy.
This Republican Congress forced some conservative economic policy on President Clinton, most notably welfare reform. Bill vetoed it twice, but was subsequently pressured to sign the popular measure during an election year. Hundreds of thousands of people who had turned the welfare safety net into a hammock were forced to find jobs. They became taxpayers, and their new salaries enabled them to spend more, helping the economy.
The 90s was the decade of the computer. Nearly every business went digital, exponentially increasing productivity and profits, enabling companies to hire and expand. Businesses weren’t the only ones buying from Bill Gates–schools, universities, charities, and households around the world bought American-made computers, pumping more dollars into the economy.
–The downturn that supposedly began during W’s 1st term actually had been declining since the previous summer. In fact, Bush (and others) saw it then, but when he warned us about it, he was accused of trying to “talk down” the economy. This downturn was accelerated by the fear, destruction, and insecurity brought on by the 9/11 attacks (Why did you slash the military and intelligence budgets, Mr. Clinton? Why did you refuse–twice!–when the Sudanese offered Osama to you on a silver platter? Why did your FAA allow Muslim radical illegal aliens to learn how to take off but not land jets?).

So we see that Clinton cannot take credit for the 90′s economic good times.

itsnotaboutme on June 22, 2014 at 4:21 PM

Knott Buyinit on June 22, 2014 at 3:34 PM

Dolly is “old and busted”, KB.

…Shrillary is just an “old bag”…

flyovermark on June 22, 2014 at 4:21 PM

I see a cursing, swearing, ill-mannered, person who loathes the military and the Secret Service that protect this poor excuse of a politician. She has nothing of a record except her lying; She’s close to Obama on that category of lying.

mixplix on June 22, 2014 at 4:23 PM

Warren is a lock if she runs.

Cruz has a zero chance. Could be a VP though.

Moesart on June 22, 2014 at 4:02 PM

warren is a joke. I do hope they run her.

VegasRick on June 22, 2014 at 4:25 PM

The field seems to be opening up for both parties. The electorate is as divided as any in our history. Thanks,’O. When politics is in such a flux, ‘stuff’ happens. Consolidation of power within the parties drags down polity, with the country being the fall guy. Personally, I believe that the political opportunists getting the nod in both parties will be the reps of the lowest common denominator of the country, right in line with our current educational system.

vnvet on June 22, 2014 at 4:27 PM

warren is a joke. I do hope they run her.

VegasRick on June 22, 2014 at 4:25 PM

Obama got 65+ million votes in round 2. And I don’t think the stupid are going to take Herman Cain’s advice. Clinton or Warren. Don’t think these idiots cannot be conned a 3rd time.

Judge_Dredd on June 22, 2014 at 4:29 PM

I’m going to call it right now. You all may think it’s crazy, but I think we could be heading for a Cruz vs. Warren 2016 showdown. It will be explosive.

bluegill on June 22, 2014 at 3:47 PM

I respectfully disagree. The GOP establishment won’t let Cruz anywhere near the nomination. They’d sooner nominate Daffy Duck just to make a point that so-called “fringe elements” are not welcome to leadership positions within the party. Therefore, I feel that even if Cruz runs, wins many primary states, and is the Republican voters’ most popular choice for the nomination, the party bigwigs will see to it that he loses.

As for Ms. American-Indian, the biggest issue that the non-Hillary factions among the Left have is that they can’t deny A WOMAN the party’s nomination two elections in a row. Luckily for Ms. American-Indian, she’s also a woman and would thus fit right into the Democratic party’s prerequisites for being qualified: racial and sex/gender identity politics.

As for whom the GOP eventually nominates? My money’s on Christie or Heb Bush simply because it matches an already established pattern with regard to how the GOP picks its candidates: either someone on “the bench” (a loser from a previous election), or a popular RINO who’s seen as “electable.”

Aizen on June 22, 2014 at 4:33 PM

I continue to be worried about our low info electorate, who’d vote for a D if if he was Van Jones.

22044 on June 22, 2014 at 4:34 PM

Republicans, however, have fretted that voters may be attracted to Clinton because voters see her as representative of a stable and prosperous time in American history.

The Clintons get too much credit for what a Republican House & Senate did in the last 6 years of Bill’s Presidency.

In Bill Clinton’s first 2 Fiscal Years, with a Democrat House & Senate, deficits (as a % of GDP) were nearly 60% above average.

It wasn’t until after Republicans took control of both houses of Congress that deficits came down.

The FY 1947-2007 average deficit: 1.6% of GDP.

FY 1994-1995, Clinton with Democrat majorities ran deficits which were 59% ABOVE average (2.5% of GDP)

FY 1996-2007, Republican majorities ran deficits which were 50% BELOW average (0.8% of GDP).

FY 2008-2014, Democrat majorities have run deficits which are 300% ABOVE average (6.4% of GDP)

Data Source:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2015/assets/hist01z2.xls

Again, the Clintons get too much credit for what a Republican House & Senate did in the last 6 years of Bill’s Presidency, and George W. Bush gets too much blame for what a Democrat House & Senate did in the last 2 years of his Presidency.

Deficits under Democrat majorities for the last 7 fiscal years have been crazy… FOUR TIMES the previous average!

ITguy on June 22, 2014 at 4:36 PM

So we see that Clinton cannot take credit for the 90′s economic good times.

itsnotaboutme on June 22, 2014 at 4:21 PM

I wasn’t writing about who gets credit for the economic conditions at the time. I was referring to how the government conducted its business. How it got stuff done.

I really do hate to admit it, but the Clinton administration got stuff done. I also credit the Bush 41 administration for laying the groundwork for it. The people Bush 41 appointed were professionals. So too were the people Bill appointed.

They. Got. Stuff. Done.

I;m not sure that, in this political environment, that Ms. Clinton could appoint competents as well as her husband did and I would prefer a conservative running the Exec Branch.

The business of America is business. And whatever candidate promotes business interests without crony capitalism gets my vote.

I have a payroll to make each two weeks. I also have to pay myself so that my family has a roof over their heads, food on the table and shirts on their backs.

Whoever gets shet done gets my vote.

Conservative Mischief on June 22, 2014 at 4:36 PM

The business of America is business. And whatever candidate promotes business interests without crony capitalism gets my vote.

I have a payroll to make each two weeks. I also have to pay myself so that my family has a roof over their heads, food on the table and shirts on their backs.

Whoever gets shet done gets my vote.

Conservative Mischief on June 22, 2014 at 4:36 PM

Medtronics just relocated to Ireland. Democrats getting shet done.

WryTrvllr on June 22, 2014 at 4:41 PM

interesting question to answer. “To the past” may be a dream that all was well and we were secure, safe and prosperous. Or, it can mean old-fashioned or trying to apply out-of-date policies to a very different world.

2016 is no where near 2008 nor the 1990′s.

MN J on June 22, 2014 at 4:42 PM

Obama got 65+ million votes in round 2. And I don’t think the stupid are going to take Herman Cain’s advice. Clinton or Warren. Don’t think these idiots cannot be conned a 3rd time.

Judge_Dredd on June 22, 2014 at 4:29 PM

Good. If the leeches win (or steal) another election and we get a joke like warren as POTUS we will all know that the country is done for and we can just get started with the remake. Get it over with already.

VegasRick on June 22, 2014 at 4:42 PM

The Progressive Ruling Class don’t care ultimately what brand / suit runs the show because they will continue to grow the power of our Lords and Ladies.

All hail the Clinton’s, Bushes, whoever …..

…just keep the power coming to DC.

PappyD61 on June 22, 2014 at 4:43 PM

The point of the candidacy would be Bill Clinton’s third term. That will be the sell during the run up to the 2016 election.

Not Hillary’s rough edges, but Bill popularity.

And once in office he’d act like the president too.

Gotta love what the Dems can get a way with. What’s important is that we play by the rules they don’t. For some reason.

FrankT on June 22, 2014 at 4:43 PM

So we see that Clinton cannot [legitimately] take credit for the 90′s economic good times.

itsnotaboutme on June 22, 2014 at 4:21 PM

Fixed that for you.

But seriously, that’s not Hillary’s biggest problem. One is Obama, since it would be a 3rd Democrat term. Two is also Obama, who doesn’t like the Clintons and will do no real campaigning for them (and has already converted his campaign organization into a permanent self-promotion organization). Three is Hillary’s horrible political instincts (somewhat mitigated by Bill’s excellent ones). Or maybe that should’ve been problem number two. But then we finally get to her fourth biggest problem, her record (which was the subject of your comment).

After all, who votes on a candidate’s record and competence anymore? And who gets held responsible for their actions by the press? Conservatives, that’s who. So she won’t lose many votes that way.

Fenris on June 22, 2014 at 4:44 PM

Get it over with already.

VegasRick on June 22, 2014 at 4:42 PM

I don’t disagree. But we may not see a “remake” as you put it in our (yours and mine) lifetime. Communist Russia lasted what? 80 years?

Judge_Dredd on June 22, 2014 at 4:45 PM

The business of America is business. And whatever candidate promotes business interests without crony capitalism gets my vote…

Conservative Mischief on June 22, 2014 at 4:36 PM

So, I take it, you’re sitting 2016 out. heh.

Fenris on June 22, 2014 at 4:47 PM

This!:
http://nypost.com/2014/06/22/clinton-bristled-at-benghazi-deception-book/
Provides an inside look at Hillary/ Bill/ Obama in terms of values and
their guiding principles.

3dpuzzman on June 22, 2014 at 4:49 PM

I don’t disagree. But we may not see a “remake” as you put it in our (yours and mine) lifetime. Communist Russia lasted what? 80 years?

Judge_Dredd on June 22, 2014 at 4:45 PM

I think it’s different here. Lots and lots of gun owners and a patriotic military. Our men and women pledge to uphold the constitution not a man or woman. If it comes to that I want it to happen sooner rather than later as I want to contribute to the fight. I’ve got at least 20 good years in me and plenty of resources.

VegasRick on June 22, 2014 at 4:51 PM

If she is perceived as a representative of the past, she may be spending a lot of her time defending against what she perceives to be unfair characterizations of her and her husband’s behavior in the 1990s rather than touting the good times and letting the rest roll off her back.

I can see Matt Drudge rubbing his hands together and giggling like a little girl !

burrata on June 22, 2014 at 4:53 PM

I don’t disagree. But we may not see a “remake” as you put it in our (yours and mine) lifetime. Communist Russia lasted what? 80 years?

Judge_Dredd on June 22, 2014 at 4:45 PM

And only 70+ years because a still relatively free America existed. Without such a countervailing force (the death of America is the death of freedom worldwide), it probably would have never ended …

ShainS on June 22, 2014 at 4:53 PM

You can never go home again.

trigon on June 22, 2014 at 4:54 PM

But the recession’s recovery was already strong by the time Bill Clinton took office (Bush’s last quarter showed over 4% GDP growth). So Bill inherited a good economy.

itsnotaboutme on June 22, 2014 at 4:21 PM

In fact, Fed stats prove that the economic recovery began in March of 1991, 18 months before the Democrat Media got him elected…by not reporting that the economic recovery had begun in March of 1991.

The NY Times finally got around to admitting that the recovery had in fact started in March of 1991…near the end of 1999.

Del Dolemonte on June 22, 2014 at 4:54 PM

This!:

http://nypost.com/2014/06/22/clinton-bristled-at-benghazi-deception-book/

Provides an inside look at Hillary/ Bill/ Obama in terms of values and
their guiding principles.

3dpuzzman on June 22, 2014 at 4:49 PM

Saw that piece posted on another board.

Along with this reply, questioning Hillary’s version:

If she was so opposed to Obama’s lie, who forced her to walk up alone to the slain Seal hero’s father and deliver a face to face ratcheted up version of that lie?

“Father of SEAL Killed in Benghazi Attacks: White House ‘Watched This Battle Happen’ and Hillary told me ”We are going to have the filmmaker arrested.”

“{The father} told Hannity he believed he’d been lied to repeatedly. “Hillary Clinton came up to me and I gave her a handshake and a hug, and when I shook her hand she said to me, ‘We are going to have the filmmaker arrested.’ Even at that time she was trying to place a spin on what happened.”

Link

Del Dolemonte on June 22, 2014 at 4:57 PM

Please stop with this spam that has nothing to do with the article post. I am sure the bloggers and other readers here do not appreciate it. For the millionth time, I have only one name here, and have always had only one name here. You people accuse me and others of being dozens of people. It’s sad. You are grasping at straws. I am not going to waste any more time or space here on that idiocy.

bluegill on June 22, 2014 at 4:02 PM

You are a liar, Hagfish. Otherwise you wouldn’t be ducking QOTD and hawkdriver, frank…

OmahaConservative on June 22, 2014 at 4:57 PM

ITguy on June 22, 2014 at 4:36 PM

Yes.

itsnotaboutme on June 22, 2014 at 4:21 PM

Yes.

dpduq on June 22, 2014 at 5:01 PM

I think it’s funny that nobody even asks why Biden won’t be running.
Just assuming he’s not, since even the D’s aren’t that stupid.

Hmmm… yes, yes, yes, Biden and Hitlery! I love it.

Now, the R’s will run someone for whom NOBODY will vote and we lose again!

Jesus Wept.

Tard on June 22, 2014 at 5:02 PM

Mark my words: (doesn’t that sound ominous? Needs a little dee dee dee DAH music)

The Dems’ candidate in 2016 will be Black and Ghey. Way more toxic to Pubs and just as historic than a First WhoaMan.

Dolce Far Niente on June 22, 2014 at 3:54 PM

Cory Booker?

SouthernGent on June 22, 2014 at 5:14 PM

Del Dolemonte on June 22, 2014 at 4:57 PM

Killerisms :
I was so against Hussein for maligning Palin that I unleashed my own people on her and her family.

I was so against Hussein’s blaming the video for Benghazi that I not only lied to the grieving families while using flag draped coffins as props for Hussein’s campaign speech, I also made taxpayers pay for a video which blamed the video for Benghazi .

I was so against Hussein’s terror financing that I went around the world carrying American cash and weapons for islamic dictators and jihad , when I was SOS.

I was so against Hussein shoving jiziahCAIR up America’s you know what that I actually was the one who came up with Hillerycare .

burrata on June 22, 2014 at 5:15 PM

I wasn’t writing about who gets credit for the economic conditions at the time. I was referring to how the government conducted its business. How it got stuff done.

I really do hate to admit it, but the Clinton administration got stuff done…
Whoever gets (stuff) done gets my vote.

Conservative Mischief on June 22, 2014 at 4:36 PM

So it doesn’t matter if it’s helpful, unhelpful, good, or evil, as long as stuff gets done, you’re happy???

itsnotaboutme on June 22, 2014 at 5:25 PM

But the recession’s recovery was already strong by the time Bill Clinton took office (Bush’s last quarter showed over 4% GDP growth). So Bill inherited a good economy.

itsnotaboutme on June 22, 2014 at 4:21 PM

In fact, Fed stats prove that the economic recovery began in March of 1991, 18 months before the Democrat Media got him elected…by not reporting that the economic recovery had begun in March of 1991.

The NY Times finally got around to admitting that the recovery had in fact started in March of 1991…near the end of 1999.

Del Dolemonte on June 22, 2014 at 4:54 PM

It was doubtless prominently displayed on page F27, right? :)

itsnotaboutme on June 22, 2014 at 5:29 PM

The NY Times finally got around to admitting that the recovery had in fact started in March of 1991…near the end of 1999.

Del Dolemonte on June 22, 2014 at 4:54 PM

It was doubtless prominently displayed on page F27, right? :)

itsnotaboutme on June 22, 2014 at 5:29 PM

It was buried in one of their editorial pieces.

They said the March 1991 economic recovery was “unrecognized” at the time. But what they really meant was that it was “unreported” at the time.

Of course, the Democrat Search Engine Google will never let you find that editorial; I just did a search for it and the first Google result I got was…Boris Yeltsin?

Del Dolemonte on June 22, 2014 at 5:34 PM

Shocking! An fat, brain-damaged old woman is more associated with the past than the future.

ROCnPhilly on June 22, 2014 at 5:40 PM

Clinton represents a “return to past policies”

BILL Clinton would be a return to the past. Hillary! would be Obama v2.0.

And as for the Clinton’s paying taxes like everyone else, BULLSHIT! They use every legal tax dodge they can, just like rest of the uber-rich.

GarandFan on June 22, 2014 at 5:42 PM

The feud between the Obamas and ‘Hildebeest’
http://nypost.com/2014/06/21/inside-the-jealous-feud-between-the-obamas-and-hildebeest-clintons/

Clinton bristled at Benghazi deception
http://nypost.com/2014/06/22/clinton-bristled-at-benghazi-deception-book/

albill on June 22, 2014 at 3:44 PM

That should be the topic.

slickwillie2001 on June 22, 2014 at 5:51 PM

I AM Bluegill!

teacherman on June 22, 2014 at 5:56 PM

This Noah Rothman character is a real piece of………….work. Where the hell did Hot Air did this person up at?

bgibbs1000 on June 22, 2014 at 6:06 PM

I’d like a return to the past…

A past when 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue wasn’t the home of socialistic sexual deviant grifters, looters, moochers and destroyers.

When it was the home of people who wanted to serve the nation and its citizens, not rob them blind and enslave them.

Hillary probably has more in common with 0bama than she does her putative husband that so much of the country worships as a great man and a great leader.

Hillary isn’t ‘a return to the past’… She is ‘back to the future’… a dystopian future, for sure.

LegendHasIt on June 22, 2014 at 6:10 PM

What person in their right mind thinks Hillary will have “new policies and vision”?

cat_owner on June 22, 2014 at 6:31 PM

I really do hate to admit it, but the Clinton administration Deng Xiaoping got stuff done…
Whoever gets (stuff) done gets my vote.

Conservative Mischief on June 22, 2014 at 4:36 PM

/
:p

S. D. on June 22, 2014 at 6:37 PM

Of course, the Democrat Search Engine Google will never let you find that editorial; I just did a search for it and the first Google result I got was…Boris Yeltsin?

Del Dolemonte on June 22, 2014 at 5:34 PM

It’s not too difficult to confuse old Boris Badenuv with his comrades at the NYT. They’re all FOGs (Friends Of Google).
:)

itsnotaboutme on June 22, 2014 at 6:38 PM

I guess “Forward!” is not all what it’s cracked up to be. Time for Reverse!

PaddyORyan on June 22, 2014 at 6:38 PM

This Noah Rothman character is a real piece of………….work.

bgibbs1000 on June 22, 2014 at 6:06 PM

Why do so many heap contempt on poor Noah?
I spotted a couple of grammatical errors in one of his earlier posts, but what’s wrong with this one?

itsnotaboutme on June 22, 2014 at 6:41 PM

rather than touting the good times and letting the rest roll off her back

What good times? The day Bush took office the Nasdaq was down 42% from the Clinton “surplus peak” or whatever hoohah they wistfully call it now.

HopeHeFails on June 22, 2014 at 6:49 PM

Ahhh…So Hillary is going to start blowing young male interns? Can’t wait for that.

Old eagle on June 22, 2014 at 6:58 PM

Clinton said that the Montagnards would not lead her to the gallows

Montagnards? Meaning “Hill people”? Is that supposed to be clever?
Or are we comparing the Dem base and every other half-wit voter to the Montagnards in Vietnam?
I’m not sure how to interpret this.

The Montagnards in Vietnam earned the respect and admiration of U.S. Special Forces and for all their loyalty during the war, they pretty much got sh*t on in the end by the United States government and were basically abandoned by us after the fall of South Vietnam.

“Montagnard” is a reference worthy of caution in when and how it’s used.
Alot of those people are owed alot more than that.

lynncgb on June 22, 2014 at 7:06 PM

Hillary was born a poor black child.

MCGIRV on June 22, 2014 at 7:22 PM

However, I have worked for, with and against the United States Government for 25+ years. The Clinton Administration from 1993 through 2000 was by far the most competent administration I’ve had the pleasure opportunity of working with since Ronald Reagan was President.

I give credit to the Bush 41 Administration for laying the groundwork, but frankly, those people knew how to get shet done.

Yeah, that’s exactly how I feel about it, and I bet a lot of people do too. The only question is whether she can convince people this same effect will happen in her administration.

vlad martel on June 22, 2014 at 7:27 PM

What’s the meaning of this?

Politifact rated this claim “mostly false,” even though the family was strained by the legal fees associated with the impeachment proceedings and did have to take a loan from Terry McAuliffe in order for Clinton to purchase a New York home to show residency ahead of her Senate campaign. Nevertheless, and probably against the wishes of her handlers, Clinton doubled down on this claim in an interview with The Guardian.

That the Clintons’ claims to poverty because they had to borrow money to buy another $1mil+ house to further their political careers was absurd and Politifact’s “mostly false” was too soft a call?

-or-

That the Clinton’s financial situation really was dire and Politifact was too hard on them?

ROCnPhilly on June 22, 2014 at 7:29 PM

The past.. as in Berlin 1933?

viking01 on June 22, 2014 at 7:31 PM

A bridge to the 20th century.

More like a bridge to the 7th century, with Ted Kennedy at the wheel.

MrKleenexMuscles on June 22, 2014 at 7:54 PM

The Dems’ candidate in 2016 will be Black and Ghey.

Dolce Far Niente on June 22, 2014 at 3:54 PM

Hey, it worked in 2008 and 2012, why change the game plan?

MrKleenexMuscles on June 22, 2014 at 7:56 PM

She isn’t even going to run.

If she did run, she would get crushed by the Bolshevik wing of the Democrats just like she did in 2008.

Moesart on June 22, 2014 at 3:41 PM

.
She was “crushed” by the ‘shadow party’ elites, who knew she’d most likely lose the general.
Barack was relatively unknown (not enough “dirt” known about him, ahead of time) … he and the missus were both young and sharp looking … he could really sound good giving speeches, as long as the teleprompter worked right … it was a sort of a “second coming” of the JFK Camelot … throw in the “white guilt” factor, and voila ! … His odds of winning the general election were much better than Hillary’s odds.

listens2glenn on June 22, 2014 at 8:27 PM

I really do hate to admit it, but the Clinton administration got stuff done. I also credit the Bush 41 administration for laying the groundwork for it. The people Bush 41 appointed were professionals. So too were the people Bill appointed.

They. Got. Stuff. Done.

Conservative Mischief on June 22, 2014 at 4:36 PM

Yeah, you’re right. Let’s look at what they “accomplished”:

1. Clinton DOJ successfully prosecutes a female federal employee (VA doctor, no less) for lying under oath about sex. Several years later, Clinton claims he is Above the Law for doing the exact same thing.

2. Clinton DOJ indicts bin Laden and specifically mentions that he is in cahoots with Saddam Hussein. Clinton Regime then passes on several prime chances to take him out, deciding that treating terrorism as a law enforcement issue rather than a national security issue is the way to go. He leaves his successor the deadliest attacks on US soil in history.

3. Gives us Waco, Ruby Ridge, and OK City. They blame the latter on Rush Limbaugh.

4. Clinton Administration triples the number of sub-prime mortgages issued to totally unqualified borrowers, solely based on the color of their skin. The primary Clinton Department of Justice person responsible for that legal shakedown of lenders is O’bama’s current Attorney General.

5. Clinton Administration launches a non-UN-sanctioned War of Choice that soon nearly becomes World War III; Clinton fires his hand-picked fellow Arkansas Hog 4 Star General as a result.

Want more?

Del Dolemonte on June 22, 2014 at 8:43 PM

Voters see Hillary as a return to the past

Yeah, I miss the heyday of the (Howard) Stern Nation and Pets.com.

No, not really.

Dr. ZhivBlago on June 22, 2014 at 9:09 PM

Hillary! at this point may be a bridge to the CCU.

The Klein book says she’s got a bad heart (what caused the falls) and, if they’re still hot to try in light of that, this must be the sickest power couple since Josef and Magda Goebbels.

I really do hate to admit it, but the Clinton administration got stuff done. I also credit the Bush 41 administration for laying the groundwork for it. The people Bush 41 appointed were professionals. So too were the people Bill appointed.

They. Got. Stuff. Done.

Conservative Mischief on June 22, 2014 at 4:36 PM

Yeah, you’re right. Let’s look at what they “accomplished”:

1. Clinton DOJ successfully prosecutes a female federal employee (VA doctor, no less) for lying under oath about sex. Several years later, Clinton claims he is Above the Law for doing the exact same thing.

2. Clinton DOJ indicts bin Laden and specifically mentions that he is in cahoots with Saddam Hussein. Clinton Regime then passes on several prime chances to take him out, deciding that treating terrorism as a law enforcement issue rather than a national security issue is the way to go. He leaves his successor the deadliest attacks on US soil in history.

3. Gives us Waco, Ruby Ridge, and OK City. They blame the latter on Rush Limbaugh.

4. Clinton Administration triples the number of sub-prime mortgages issued to totally unqualified borrowers, solely based on the color of their skin. The primary Clinton Department of Justice person responsible for that legal shakedown of lenders is O’bama’s current Attorney General.

5. Clinton Administration launches a non-UN-sanctioned War of Choice that soon nearly becomes World War III; Clinton fires his hand-picked fellow Arkansas Hog 4 Star General as a result.

Want more?

Del Dolemonte on June 22, 2014 at 8:43 PM

You forgot how the subprime mortgages gave us the market crash

…how they knew about Enron and did nothing

…how Willie was offered bin Laden on a silver platter and turned him down

…how Willie got a lot of good Rangers killed in Mogadishu and then cut and ran giving the crazies the idea for 9/11

…how Willie shot off most of our cruise missiles in his wag the dog attempt to divert attention from Monica (and, yeah, most of what got done in those years was interns and 50-something groupies) by going after (remember?) Saddam’s WMDs.

formwiz on June 22, 2014 at 9:13 PM

claiming that her and her family “struggled”

Ok, I’ll be the jerk that picks on the grammar. “She struggled,” not “her struggled.” Thus, “she and her family struggled.” C’mon now!

I was going to let it go, but he did it TWICE! Sorry, the English major in me starts twitching when I see stuff like that. I’m better now.

So…now back to your regularly scheduled comments section.

KKinFLA on June 22, 2014 at 9:15 PM

in conjunction with the Annenberg Public Policy Center

Hmmm, Annenberg…Annenberg…Annenberg……wasn’t he the the rich TV Digest guy who was personal friends with Saint Ronnie and whose organization matched almost $50 million to start the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (which data I’m sure shows has done so much to improve education in the Chicago area…/s) which included both Bill Ayers and Obama?

These pro-Communist, NWO, Bilderberger types have been playing us for suckers for decades.

Dr. ZhivBlago on June 22, 2014 at 9:20 PM

Yeah, Clinton ‘Got Stuff Done.’

Well, Obama ‘gets stuff done,’ too.

This is not an endorsement of either.

TimBuk3 on June 22, 2014 at 9:55 PM

“Republicans, however, have fretted that voters may be attracted to Clinton because voters see her as representative of a stable and prosperous time in American history.”

OK Repubs, you want to control the House, Senate and White House? Stop “fretting” and start acting, talking and legislating like Reagan, so we conservative “voters see you as representatives of a stable and prosperous time in American history”.

Reagan learned the hard way that Hispanics don’t want to be Americans they want American handouts, so stop worrying about giving them a better life and concentrate on your suffering constituents. You remember, like in the *good old days*, when you used to represent legal constituents.

AppraisHer on June 22, 2014 at 10:00 PM

Warren is a lock if she runs

She could be a lock for the Dem nomination but in the general I doubt it. I live in a community with a large Native population and they hate her. For all the issues the Native populations in this country have there are two things that they excel at. They know who their relatives are and what the percentage of Native blood that they are. They know who is and isn’t Indian. That’s why the real Cherokees were so upset when she couldn’t prove her heritage.

And if you think the Koch brothers and Tom Steyer and other wealthy people are going to influence the outcome of the election with donations, wait until you see how much money the 500 or so Indian tribes have stuffed away from all those CASINOS….It will blow your mind….

MnCoyote on June 23, 2014 at 1:03 AM

Killary Child Rapist Lawyer Clinton.

John the Libertarian on June 23, 2014 at 2:07 AM

She was thoroughly scolded in the press for claiming that her she and her family “struggled” in any meaningful sense, and that admonishment seems to have stung.

Sheesh, if the best Hot Air can do is hire a pro-choice RINO, could you at least get one who understands basic grammar??

Maddie on June 23, 2014 at 6:26 AM

Considering that “the past” means pre-Obama, I can understand the attraction.

kozmocostello on June 23, 2014 at 8:19 AM