On 2/1/2014 2:20 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/1/2014 11:48 AM, Hank wrote:
On 2/1/2014 10:50 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
Oh nooo...Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi!


--
There’s no point crying over spilled 4-Methylcyclohexanemethanol.

Probably won't see Billery uttering that chant.


She has already made the media rounds, describing Benghazi as her
biggest disappointment as Sec. of State and accepting full responsibility.

She's getting that issue taken care of and out of the way early.



Oh good. Now she has a clean slate. ;-)

On Sat, 01 Feb 2014 16:19:29 -0500, Hank wrote:

She has already made the media rounds, describing Benghazi as her
biggest disappointment as Sec. of State and accepting full responsibility.

She's getting that issue taken care of and out of the way early.



Oh good. Now she has a clean slate. ;-)

===

And that depends on what the meaning of is, is.

On 2/2/2014 2:07 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 01 Feb 2014 16:19:29 -0500, Hank wrote:

She has already made the media rounds, describing Benghazi as her
biggest disappointment as Sec. of State and accepting full responsibility.

She's getting that issue taken care of and out of the way early.



Oh good. Now she has a clean slate. ;-)

===

And that depends on what the meaning of is, is.

Right out of the "Famous quotes from ankle pants"

On 2/2/14, 10:33 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 02:07:35 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Sat, 01 Feb 2014 16:19:29 -0500, Hank wrote:

She has already made the media rounds, describing Benghazi as her
biggest disappointment as Sec. of State and accepting full responsibility.

She's getting that issue taken care of and out of the way early.



Oh good. Now she has a clean slate. ;-)

===

And that depends on what the meaning of is, is.

I bet all of that White Water/Rose Law firm stuff comes up again. In
1992 it was written off as being Hillary's deal that Bill said he had
no part in.
We might even hear about Hillary's contribution to Walmart moving from
a "buy American" company to the China outlet mall they became while
she was sitting on their board.

I still think it will be health and age that keeps her from running.



Hillary's former law firm, et cetera, will only be an issue for those
voters who wouldn't vote for her under any circumstances. Using that
crap is just appealing to the base. *If* she decides to run, she will
clean the clock of any of the sane Republicans with wide appeal who so
far have expressed even a semi-serious interest. For the moment, though,
I can't think of the names of those "sane" Republicans. Who are they?

--
There’s no point crying over spilled 4-Methylcyclohexanemethanol.

On 2/2/14, 11:58 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 10:51:07 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/2/14, 10:33 AM, wrote:

I bet all of that White Water/Rose Law firm stuff comes up again. In
1992 it was written off as being Hillary's deal that Bill said he had
no part in.
We might even hear about Hillary's contribution to Walmart moving from
a "buy American" company to the China outlet mall they became while
she was sitting on their board.

I still think it will be health and age that keeps her from running.



Hillary's former law firm, et cetera, will only be an issue for those
voters who wouldn't vote for her under any circumstances. Using that
crap is just appealing to the base. *If* she decides to run, she will
clean the clock of any of the sane Republicans with wide appeal who so
far have expressed even a semi-serious interest. For the moment, though,
I can't think of the names of those "sane" Republicans. Who are they?

Jeb is pretty sane but I doubt he will run.

I do tend to agree, there are not really any attractive candidates ...
from either side. It is probably why I have not voted for a major
party candidate since 1988 and I was wrong then.


It's been a long time since Jeb has run for office, and he has *that*
last name. I don't have a problem with Hillary as POTUS if she decides
to run. I don't think Biden is really interested. I don't know who else
might consider it on the Dem side. There was talk of Elizabeth Warren
but she says she isn't interested. Martin O'Malley? John Tester?



--
There’s no point crying over spilled 4-Methylcyclohexanemethanol.

wrote:
On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 12:37:27 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/2/14, 11:58 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 10:51:07 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

Jeb is pretty sane but I doubt he will run.

I do tend to agree, there are not really any attractive candidates ...
from either side. It is probably why I have not voted for a major
party candidate since 1988 and I was wrong then.


It's been a long time since Jeb has run for office, and he has *that*
last name. I don't have a problem with Hillary as POTUS if she decides
to run. I don't think Biden is really interested. I don't know who else
might consider it on the Dem side. There was talk of Elizabeth Warren
but she says she isn't interested. Martin O'Malley? John Tester?

The bottom of the barrel comes up pretty fast doesn't it?

The GOP wannabes are under the barrel!

On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 11:58:27 -0500, wrote:

Jeb is pretty sane but I doubt he will run.

===

Too bad because I think he's very electable. I can certainly
understand any reluctance on his part however, or anyone else's for
that matter. You almost have to be a bit insane to consider exposing
yourself to today's politics by mass media character assassination.
It doesn't bode well for the long term viability of our democracy in
my opinion.

On 2/2/2014 3:58 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 11:58:27 -0500, wrote:

Jeb is pretty sane but I doubt he will run.

===

Too bad because I think he's very electable. I can certainly
understand any reluctance on his part however, or anyone else's for
that matter. You almost have to be a bit insane to consider exposing
yourself to today's politics by mass media character assassination.
It doesn't bode well for the long term viability of our democracy in
my opinion.


It's amazing to me how much it has deteriorated in a somewhat short
period of time. Thinking back, Nixon vs Kennedy and up to Bush number
1 vs Clinton were reasonably civil and mutually respectful campaigns.
I think it turned south shortly thereafter.

I think the Internet and ability for many to express opinions and the
advent of politically biased cable TV networks have contributed greatly
to the decline of respectful political views and character assassination.

On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 16:27:22 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 2/2/2014 3:58 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 11:58:27 -0500, wrote:

Jeb is pretty sane but I doubt he will run.

===

Too bad because I think he's very electable. I can certainly
understand any reluctance on his part however, or anyone else's for
that matter. You almost have to be a bit insane to consider exposing
yourself to today's politics by mass media character assassination.
It doesn't bode well for the long term viability of our democracy in
my opinion.


It's amazing to me how much it has deteriorated in a somewhat short
period of time. Thinking back, Nixon vs Kennedy and up to Bush number
1 vs Clinton were reasonably civil and mutually respectful campaigns.
I think it turned south shortly thereafter.

I think the Internet and ability for many to express opinions and the
advent of politically biased cable TV networks have contributed greatly
to the decline of respectful political views and character assassination.


===

Yes, and we also have conventional media outlets who make no secret of
their political bias.

So how do we fix it?

On 2/2/2014 5:07 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 16:27:22 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 2/2/2014 3:58 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 11:58:27 -0500, wrote:

Jeb is pretty sane but I doubt he will run.

===

Too bad because I think he's very electable. I can certainly
understand any reluctance on his part however, or anyone else's for
that matter. You almost have to be a bit insane to consider exposing
yourself to today's politics by mass media character assassination.
It doesn't bode well for the long term viability of our democracy in
my opinion.


It's amazing to me how much it has deteriorated in a somewhat short
period of time. Thinking back, Nixon vs Kennedy and up to Bush number
1 vs Clinton were reasonably civil and mutually respectful campaigns.
I think it turned south shortly thereafter.

I think the Internet and ability for many to express opinions and the
advent of politically biased cable TV networks have contributed greatly
to the decline of respectful political views and character assassination.


===

Yes, and we also have conventional media outlets who make no secret of
their political bias.

So how do we fix it?


Herculean task but the demand for change has to come from the people.
Refusal to support candidates that engage in over the top smear
campaigns, boycotting the viewing of politically biased news and making
the objections known.

Never happen.