Scratch the surface of a gathering of Republican operatives and you'll
find some serious fear (you don't have to scratch the surface to find
loathing). Fear, specifically, of Hillary Clinton. Time's Zeke Miller
went to the Republican National Committee's spring meeting and found
"more than two dozen operatives and officials [who] expressed worry that
none of their party’s potential 2016 candidates can take her down."

One early primary state RNC member put it simply: “If she gets in,
we’re toast.” [...]

And one former Romney aide here warned that grassroots activists
pushing for an even more conservative GOP identity could seal the
party’s fate: “If we listen to some of the people here and come back
with a hardline conservative in 2016, she’ll wipe the floor with us.”

It's early yet and things can always change, but given all the
Republican rebranding fail going on here lately, they have good reason
to worry. In general. When it comes to Hillary Clinton, fear is the
right emotion.

- - - - -
Swiped from KOS

Make it so, Hills...

On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 13:27:42 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

Got 'Special Circumstances', FOAD?


Salmonbait

--
'Name-calling' - the liberals' last stand.

On 4/12/13 2:06 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 13:27:42 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:


Scratch the surface of a gathering of Republican operatives and you'll
find some serious fear (you don't have to scratch the surface to find
loathing). Fear, specifically, of Hillary Clinton. Time's Zeke Miller
went to the Republican National Committee's spring meeting and found
"more than two dozen operatives and officials [who] expressed worry that
none of their party’s potential 2016 candidates can take her down."

One early primary state RNC member put it simply: “If she gets in,
we’re toast.� [...]

And one former Romney aide here warned that grassroots activists
pushing for an even more conservative GOP identity could seal the
party’s fate: “If we listen to some of the people here and come back
with a hardline conservative in 2016, she’ll wipe the floor with us.�

It's early yet and things can always change, but given all the
Republican rebranding fail going on here lately, they have good reason
to worry. In general. When it comes to Hillary Clinton, fear is the
right emotion.

- - - - -
Swiped from KOS

Make it so, Hills...

She will be the same age as Reagan when she would be inaugurated.
Wouldn't the same people be saying she was too old?
They might bring up health concerns too.
My guess is she won't run anyway.


I don't think she will, either, but I love how she is giving the GOP the
****s. I wonder if Elizabeth Warren will move on up. She's asking all
the right questions in her Senate committee and making the banksters and
their non-regulating regulators squirm.

On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 16:24:57 -0400, Gogarty
wrote:

In article ,
says...

Hilary Clinton backed the invasion of Iraq against the opinion of her
constituency, the voters of New York, and that cost her the presidency. She
will founder on the same rock again.

Maybe, maybe not. It's one issue. She was wrong. She admitted it.
There's plenty of dirt on Clinton. She's been pretty well vetted over
the years, and she did an outstanding job as SecState.

On 4/12/13 4:24 PM, Gogarty wrote:
In article ,
says...

Hilary Clinton backed the invasion of Iraq against the opinion of her
constituency, the voters of New York, and that cost her the presidency. She
will founder on the same rock again.


Yeah, right, Mrs. Clinton so turned off her constituents in New York
State that she won 67% of the popular vote when she sought re-election,
compared to 55% in her first term.

Where do you righties get these nonsense ideas?

At the moment, if she decides she wants the nomination, it is hers, and
there isn't a Republican at the moment who could defeat her. It's along
way to the nomination and election, of course, so let the right-wing
craziness continue.

On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 17:49:19 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 4/12/13 4:24 PM, Gogarty wrote:
In article ,
says...

Hilary Clinton backed the invasion of Iraq against the opinion of her
constituency, the voters of New York, and that cost her the presidency. She
will founder on the same rock again.


Yeah, right, Mrs. Clinton so turned off her constituents in New York
State that she won 67% of the popular vote when she sought re-election,
compared to 55% in her first term.

Where do you righties get these nonsense ideas?

At the moment, if she decides she wants the nomination, it is hers, and
there isn't a Republican at the moment who could defeat her. It's along
way to the nomination and election, of course, so let the right-wing
craziness continue.

As well as the Democrats have fixed the next election, only pure stupidity could cause them to lose.


Salmonbait

--
'Name-calling' - the liberals' last stand.

On 4/12/13 6:57 PM, J Herring wrote:
On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 17:49:19 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 4/12/13 4:24 PM, Gogarty wrote:
In article ,
says...

Hilary Clinton backed the invasion of Iraq against the opinion of her
constituency, the voters of New York, and that cost her the presidency. She
will founder on the same rock again.


Yeah, right, Mrs. Clinton so turned off her constituents in New York
State that she won 67% of the popular vote when she sought re-election,
compared to 55% in her first term.

Where do you righties get these nonsense ideas?

At the moment, if she decides she wants the nomination, it is hers, and
there isn't a Republican at the moment who could defeat her. It's along
way to the nomination and election, of course, so let the right-wing
craziness continue.

As well as the Democrats have fixed the next election, only pure stupidity could cause them to lose.


Salmonbait

--
'Name-calling' - the liberals' last stand.


Ohhh. Herring channels Scotty

On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 19:01:41 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 4/12/13 6:57 PM, J Herring wrote:
On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 17:49:19 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 4/12/13 4:24 PM, Gogarty wrote:
In article ,
says...

Hilary Clinton backed the invasion of Iraq against the opinion of her
constituency, the voters of New York, and that cost her the presidency. She
will founder on the same rock again.


Yeah, right, Mrs. Clinton so turned off her constituents in New York
State that she won 67% of the popular vote when she sought re-election,
compared to 55% in her first term.

Where do you righties get these nonsense ideas?

At the moment, if she decides she wants the nomination, it is hers, and
there isn't a Republican at the moment who could defeat her. It's along
way to the nomination and election, of course, so let the right-wing
craziness continue.

As well as the Democrats have fixed the next election, only pure stupidity could cause them to lose.


Salmonbait

--
'Name-calling' - the liberals' last stand.


Ohhh. Herring channels Scotty

You think with all the giveaways, the rigged elections, the fighting against voter ID, the illegal
alien citizenship, Obamacare, Obamaphones, etc, that the Democrats could lose?

Ain't no channeling anywhere!

BTW, Got 'special circumstances'?


Salmonbait

--
'Name-calling' - the liberals' last stand.

On 4/12/13 8:07 PM, J Herring wrote:
On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 19:01:41 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 4/12/13 6:57 PM, J Herring wrote:
On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 17:49:19 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 4/12/13 4:24 PM, Gogarty wrote:
In article ,
says...

Hilary Clinton backed the invasion of Iraq against the opinion of her
constituency, the voters of New York, and that cost her the presidency. She
will founder on the same rock again.


Yeah, right, Mrs. Clinton so turned off her constituents in New York
State that she won 67% of the popular vote when she sought re-election,
compared to 55% in her first term.

Where do you righties get these nonsense ideas?

At the moment, if she decides she wants the nomination, it is hers, and
there isn't a Republican at the moment who could defeat her. It's along
way to the nomination and election, of course, so let the right-wing
craziness continue.

As well as the Democrats have fixed the next election, only pure stupidity could cause them to lose.


Salmonbait

--
'Name-calling' - the liberals' last stand.


Ohhh. Herring channels Scotty

You think with all the giveaways, the rigged elections, the fighting against voter ID, the illegal
alien citizenship, Obamacare, Obamaphones, etc, that the Democrats could lose?

Ain't no channeling anywhere!

BTW, Got 'special circumstances'?


Salmonbait

--
'Name-calling' - the liberals' last stand.


If the Dems win again, it will not only be because it doesn't field a
crazy candidate, it will be that the Republicans have managed to keep
intact all the groups they've insulted to the point that the party is a
poison pill to the voters.

On 4/13/2013 12:22 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 17:49:19 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 4/12/13 4:24 PM, Gogarty wrote:
In article ,
says...

Hilary Clinton backed the invasion of Iraq against the opinion of her
constituency, the voters of New York, and that cost her the presidency. She
will founder on the same rock again.


Yeah, right, Mrs. Clinton so turned off her constituents in New York
State that she won 67% of the popular vote when she sought re-election,
compared to 55% in her first term.

Where do you righties get these nonsense ideas?

At the moment, if she decides she wants the nomination, it is hers, and
there isn't a Republican at the moment who could defeat her. It's along
way to the nomination and election, of course, so let the right-wing
craziness continue.

Hillary is a neocon and the neocons are pro Israel.
Why wouldn't she do well in New York?


What's the alternative? Progressive?
Def: Becoming more seve describes a disease that becomes more
widespread or severe over time.