When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

So you feel like she will be a good president like your employer? If she becomes president, I hope she is..

This is why most of the people who can't stand the thought of another Clinton raking in the dough feel th way they do.

They are shake-down liars.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/09/tracking-the-clinton-controversies-from-whitewater-to-benghazi/396182/

I don't think we should elect our President based on innuendo and rumor. I'm not good with some of her more hawkish positions and I think she would not have been as good as Obama over the last seven years, but I think she will be significantly better than any of the Republicans running. As for her likability, I'm sure we won't be out drinking together so it's really not a factor.

It's not about "likeability." Who gives the keys to the country to a supremely untrustworthy person who is saturated in what she can do for herself and how she can enrich herself.

She tells the country she'll let them know her positions on important things after the election?

She's selling the environment and black Americans to the highest bidder?

Likeability???

It matters.

As the Atlantic article Lash posted here made clear, there's a lot more to the Clinton controversy than "innuendo and rumor" as engineer put it.

On what basis should we elect our Presidents? I believe the historical answer is that it is done based on perceived impressions of the candidate's beliefs and positions relative to topical issues, and on impressions of the candidate's character and disposition generally - i.e. will he/she make a good, reliable, inspiring and effective leader for our government.

None of us is able to know the inner thoughts and motivations of others, or indeed get a reliable assessment of their characters as they may later be revealed in stressful moments. As a result we base our judgments on what candidates say about their positions ("If you like your health plan you can keep it...") and as well our overall impressions of their past actions and truthfulness. In short we base it on the information we have from sources both reliable and unreliable, and statements the candidates make, both true and false.

Being President of the country isn't just like an ordinary job. Presumably we seek high degrees of intelligence, responsibility and integrity from such candidates. The issues attending Hillary Clinton are not whether she deserves punishment for a crime or bad behavior, but rather whether based on what we know she should be given that responsibility and public trust. Serious doubt is sufficient reason for witholding that.

What do we know about the Benghazi affair? We know that despite repeated requests from the Ambassador the State Department failed to provide a level of physical security that was later proven to have been required. Who is responsible for that and the deaths and injury to the country that resulted? No one in the Department was fired or disciplined for this breech, despite expressed concerns from Congressional oversight Committees responsible for this.Indeed the Secretary's testimony was "What difference does it make now". Is that a good recommendation for her leadership or sense of responsibility? I don't think so. Heads of corporations in analogous situations usually lose their jobs. The stakes are even higher in government, yet we are urged to believe that unless it can be proved that the accountable leader literally took the action that lead to the breech they should be absolved of any responsibility. That is crazy.

We also know that notwithstanding intelligence information to the contrary, the Secretary of State broadcast a very self-serving story - just two weeks before a national election - that the attack was motivated by an obscure and long forgotten film, and that she repeatedly pushed this story intil it was finally refuted beyond doubt. That doesn't prove she knowingly lied. However it is hardly a strong recommendation for her election to a position requiring a high degree of integrity, personal accountability and trust.

In a similar vein there are indications that, in exclusively using a private e-mail acccount, she knowingly violated a directive she herself issued as applicable to all State Department personnel, and for good named reasons. That appears to involve a remarkable degree of self-serving hypocrisy that is generally not associated with holders of high office, or captains of ships, or managers of companies.

In addition there are questions of national security and compliance with the law that appear to be at least equal to those for which General Petraeus was recently convicted. Surely this is at least sufficient to question her suitability for the position she seeks. That and the growing list of contradictions to assurances she issued publically about her "complete disclosure" are certainly sufficient for serious people to question her candor and truthfulness.

We're involved in the preliminaries of an election, not a trial before a court of justice. The issues involve the likely suitability of the contending candidates for the office they seek, and opinions on the matter vary widely. The expressed belief that a candidate is not suitable is not necessarily an assault on them - unless of course you believe the candidate in question is already ordained and destined for the job - a queen in effect.

there's no there there with Benghazi or the email fizzle

I think if there was something there that rose to the level of prosecution or even some seriously harsh shaming in the court of public opinion, they certainly have looked hard and long enough to find it. Not that having no "there" there will stop the **** slinging, but I agree it's just noise in search of an ear.

Damn, someone even brought up whitewater. Vince Foster references on the way?

Of course you being a smart guy know that your argument " this does not matter" is creamed by the reality of the Clinton poll numbers..... . What matters is whatever the people say matters. Surely you are not so blinded by your emotional storms that you cant see this.

I'll take my kind of blindness any day over the kind of blindness it would take for someone who would willingly put Donald Trump in the oval office.

They do indeed, George.



The expressed belief that a candidate is not suitable IS NOT NECESSARILY an assault on them - but in the case of American conservatives and their fifth column pseudo-liberals attacking Hillary Clinton...it is.

Just is!

I, for one, do not "believe" Hillary Clinton to be "already ordained" (whatever that is supposed to mean)...nor that she is "destined for the job"...nor that she is a "queen, in effect."

I just think she is a strong, intelligent woman who has ideas I like...and a person who so rattles weaker, less capable people that they just cannot help spewing their bile and hatred of her. I'd love to see her as president...and I think her frailties are not substantially different from the negatives every president has had.

Frankly, I am enjoying this segment of "Hate _____"...a game that came into significant force with Bill Clinton...gained some speed with Barack Obama...and has now gotten some people totally out of whack with Hillary Clinton.

The book ought to be titled, "See 'em squirm!"

If you cannot enjoy this one...probably political contests are not your cup of tea.

If Hilary was intent on enriching herself, she wouldn't be running for a job that only pays $400,000. She could simply go on a speaking tour and earn that every couple of months.

I'm afraid Lash can't see anything but bad when she looks at Hillary Clinton.

I was always taught there's some good in the worst of us and some bad in the best of us. I bet that's even true with politicians.

Jesus ******* Christ. Do you really think the money any politician earns is their salary? Why would ANYONE raise millions of dollars to earn that salary?

And I thought I was the naive one here.

A little harsh there, don't you think, Lash? I mean, he's just saying that if enriching oneself was the primary directive there are more efficient ways. That's true enough, isn't it?

Politicians make money when the leave office and can demand $100,000 or more in speaking fees or $4million a year for lobbying. They don't earn money when they are in office. Hillary will be in her late 70's if she serves 8 years. Hardly an incentive to get the job to make money after she has been President.

The reality is the Clinton's income will go down if she is elected. Bill will end up with restrictions when he becomes the spouse of a sitting President.

People go into politics for a number of reasons. Many of which have little to do with enriching themselves. If we accept your argument then clearly, Bernie is doing it for the money since his yearly income will increase if he is elected. But I'm sure you have already assigned some altruistic reason for Bernie's attempt at the office at the same time you assign devious reasons to everyone else.

Killary had a personal relationship with Alinsky. She is a collectivist and gives a flying **** about our Constitution or our citizens. She is a power hungry witch who might have very well converted to Islam by now. There have been rumors to that effect.

Anything involving Killary is one lie after another. The MSM keeps her alive along with the progressive **** people are made to think other people believe.
But the wake up call is in. Trump, like him or not, took care of that, with Carsons help and Cruz with his unusual honesty that has Washington hating his guts.





Killary is history.

You are full of ****, dude.

Why do you think Bernie Sanders is sweeping into office from nowhere? Big money in politics being traded under the table for votes, policy, regulations etc is strangling America. Dirty money is why we're basically an oligarchy instead of a democracy.

She and Bill play the dirty money game with aplomb. The private prison business he launched; Citizens United? I had to laugh. You don't know much about American politics.

Your post is neither informative nor persuasive. The available evidence fairly strongly suggests that yours is a minority view by a wide margin. However if you keep repeating it something might happen.

In addition the argument that the evident failures of candidate leaders don't quite rise to the level of criminality (though several of Hillary's appear to do just that) is hardly a recommendation for high office or the leadership of anything.

Lastly she has proven to have a fairly wooden public personality, self-centered with a tin ear for others, and obviously evasive and deceptive when cornered on any subject. Not very good indicators for future success in office.

I believe the claim that this is for show, that in reality she has a volcanic temper and that her personality revolves around her constant attempts to manipulate who ever is around her into carrying out her will. This is not nice, but it is not wooden. I think also that she learned to be manufactured back in the 80's, and that she is not smart enough to understand that this does not fly in 2015. We want authenticity, which she can not do, like at all.

Do you really believe that the Democrats who are running from Hillary and urging the selection of other candidates, whether Bernie Sanders or Joe Biden or others, are stooges of American Conservatives???? Do you have any evidence of that, or you just mouthing off?

I see a mixture of folks like Lash who are truly excited about Sanders and his ideas, and others who appear to believe that Hillary is fatally flawed (or damaged) and has failed to deliver the political savvy to deal effectively with the issues (most of her own creation) before her, and want an alternative candidate to her.