ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW
Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!
This one is serious. Hillary has a lot of people who do not trust her. The charge has been made that she is the most polarizing figure ever to run for president. These internet responders seem to reinforce that notion. So many negative comments do not just appear out of no where. There is something behind this, and it could be her character:
"All that is required for evil to triumph is for good to do nothing."
DONATE TO PATSFANS.COM
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!
Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.
NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98
There is so much anecdotal hyperbole it is difficult to tell right from wrong, I suspect that Hillary is a likely target as she is a woman.. any woman running for prez right now would be subject to more scrutiny than any man, with her baggage she is even more vulnerable.
If you read the comments there are counter claims regarding her answering questions..
I do not like Hillary, not sure who I like, but she deserves better press and more consideration than she is getting.
“We like to say that dependability is more important than ability,” Bill Belichickism....
The right's fear of Clinton says more about them than it does about her. One reason to give up on taking questions would be the right's tendency to ignore the 100 or so articulate, well thought out answers for the one answer that can be twisted or taken out of context. I'd be unwilling to hand them any ammo either.
I don't know. You who like -- or say you don't like, but think she is being treated "unfairly" (despite Bill Clinton being her husband, constantly committing adultery on her, and she doing nothing about it because she was using him as much as he was using her) -- Hillary might want to think about these points:
- She's in a corner...she can't use the old "plant" question anymore and shes run out of people to accuse of drug use...she has no other tools...heres a novel idea...how about answers!....wait a minute...can't use those either..they're locked up in the archives....damn!....maybe she should just go back to Chicago, I mean New York, I mean Arkansas and inhale.....
Posted by: Mike Sweetman | December 28, 2007 at 07:50 AM
Hillary won't take questions because she has no good answers other than meaningless platitudes. She has been presented by the main stream media as the smartest woman in the world. She is not. She is also afraid of any questions on some of the things she was responsible for as co-president such as WTC1 bombing, refusing to capture or kill Bin Laden when he was offered to us on a platter, the Waco massacre, IRS audits of the women Bill is alleged to have sexually assaulted, FBI files, bombing the people of Kosovo who were no threat to us, selling pardons, selling military secrets to China, to name just a few. If the press was doing it's job these are all valid questions and should have been asked.
Posted by: Frank Fawcett | December 28, 2007 at 07:51 AM
Typical Hillary maneuver. When she first ran for Senate here in NY, she went all over the state on her infamous 'listening tour' and the yokels in NY bought into her 'concern' and elected her. The yokels haven't seen her since, except on national news coverage of her preseidential bid. Hillary is an evil, self-centered, egotistical, focus group driven, look at me, but don't ask questions flack who rode the coattails of Bubba to get where she is today. I know Iowa is not the overall face and conscience of America, but let's hope they can set the tone for Hillary's quick and overdue departure from the political stage.
Posted by: WirelessCobra | December 28, 2007 at 07:50 AM
Of course she wont answer questions. The last time she tried to answer a question in the Philadelphia debate marked the beginning of a terrifying (to her) slide in the polls, from which she has not recovered. Mrs. Clinton can only win if certain questions are never asked; immigration, her documents from the White House years, any specifics about her Amazing Snake-Oil Health Care Miracle, the giant tax increases she has in store, Chicom bundled donations... there's no telling what people will ask if you give them the chance. The last thing she wants to do is turn into Richard Nixon in drag as Phyllis Diller like she did in Philly. So let's stick to the soothing platitudes, blame everything on George Bush and KEEP SMILING!
Posted by: skep41 | December 28, 2007 at 08:40 AM
"Don't Ask," tells me one thing. Hillary Clinton does not trust herself to answer a question under fire. A president spends his four years under fire and must be prepared at all times to answer any question. I think Hillary is afraid that someone will ask her if she thinks there will be another Dotcom boom like that which made her husband's presidency a financial success or if she thinks she might have to go it on her own without a market boom. Oh well, she could always trade futures &/or sell pardons, two very lucrative endeavors for the Clintons in the '90's. Don't need that anymore.
Posted by: Mike in Ohio | December 28, 2007 at 08:48 AM
- Hillary Clinton not only ducks audience questions. She has not done ONE hard-hitting full-length news interview - with ANYONE.
People in Iowa (and the people of this country) ought to know why by now, especially after the eight years of lies, corruption, and weekly scandals we got during "her first two terms" in the 90s.
The sad thing is - the media isn't screaming from the rooftops that they have no access to this socialist who wants to be queen.
Posted by: Robert hazlett | December 28, 2007 at 08:01 AM
This is Ms. Clinton before being President. How do you think she will act if elected? I understand her reluctance to engage the press (they're all dishonest car salesmen). But she should allow a few questions -- and no plants, please. If President Bush can make it through some Qs (and the press calls him an idiot), surely Ms. Clinton can do so, too.
Posted by: RK | December 28, 2007 at 08:17 AM
Everything seems to be a smoke and mirror approach to the Clinton’s. Do not look behind the curtain, is the theme song to this train bound for a disaster. Hillary claims to have “Leadership” experience; however we cannot review the records from the Clinton Library. She has stated not to have held a “Clearance” yet has review Top Secret documents, a violation of law. She is a lawyer who never practice, a Senator from a State she never lived in, to serve the people that have voted Democratic without exception. She has not leaded in the Senate, but ridden the coat tails of policy when it would suit her glory. She has taken both sides of an issue, refused to take question from the field, and if necessary would plant her own people to offer her a pre-scripted question for her prepared field test answer. She has sent her staff on the internet and to CNN Republican debates to throw thrash into the arena of political debate.
Is it not time for a change? White-Water, Hillary-care and the idea that the country cannot afford her programs is enough to send this Junior Senator back to the hallow halls of the under performing Congress? After a year of Democratic control Congress, Hillary ready to lead as given us what? Nothing! No budget, not tax reform, just the same old ideas with a more vacationing Congress.
The Democratic screamed “READY TO LEAD”, after one and half year they have not even started. Maybe it is time to bring on leadership from the private sector into the government and remove the do nothing leaders of congress.
Posted by: Steve Garmin | December 28, 2007 at 08:40 AM
- This is typical of Hillary's "spin" campaign--it's all about the image she wants to project. God forbid she have to answer a spontaneous question about something she knows very little without Bill's help.
I did not ask for 2-for-1 then, nor do I ask for it now. That's just the life-long Clinton strategy that moves Hillary into a position for which she is not qualified.
Bill moves up (think Gov of Arkansas); Hillary moves up with him (think Attorney General of Arkansas). Bill moves up (think President of the US); Hillary moves up with him (think US Senate). See the pattern, women?
Consider what America got with the first Clinton co-Presidency:
• Abuse of the powers of the office of the President
• Granting Presidential pardons to buy Hillary's election to the Senate. As a woman who made it on my own, Hillary's need to ride Bill's coattails and her sense of entitlement makes me doubt her capabilities.
• Hillary's long-suffering marriage to Bill, enabling a lifetime of sexual trysts and trying to contain the Bimbo eruptions, gives me a President without the backbone to stand up to a man. Hillary claims to be tough enough to play with the boys when, in fact, she is unable to leave a cheating husband. How will she stand up to other male leaders who see this in "Mrs." Clinton and walk all over her?
• Being married to a former President does not make one qualified to be President.
Hillary has less experience in elected office than Barack. She's held elected office for one Senate term plus one year and has introduced no major legislation during that time. Is this the kind of experience we want in the Oval Office?
I am not a "Hillary hater;" I am an America lover. Please consider very carefully which candidate the Democratic Party puts on the ballot. The future of this country absolutely depends on it.
They don't like the hard questions thats why many of them are afraid of Fox News, what does that say about them, don't we want a President that will face up to anything and have the courage to answer the questions from the "other side".
Pant Suit Hillary & Billy Blue Dress are the last of the old time back room back slapping politicians and they will do anything to win, they are also true far left wing liberals who if they don't like what your saying they want you censored if they can't shut you up they will avoid you, they are grinning spineless very dishonest dangerous cowards.
(I give the little UFO loon Kunootchi credit though he had the balls to take on Fox news and he did pretty good at it)
Republicans & Democrats:
The group of people running for President in this election are the biggest bunch of losers I have seen in my lifetime, our country could be in big trouble we should FEAR the safety of our people because our enemy is waiting and watching.
I have heard many times that it is our duty to Vote well I'll be damned if I will go to the polls and vote for somebody I can't stand the sight of.
Unless an old time Patriotic American (Reagan-Truman) comes along between now and November I'm staying home.
Listen To Bill Cosby
Harry Boy (Genius)
In The Absence Of Law And Order Society Will Surely Destroy Itself
Should Hillary be the nominee, one of her biggest challenges will be to undo all the lies that the right have spread about her--Whitewater, Vince Foster, insider trading, lesbianism, and God knows what else. My guess is that those who already embrace those lies would't vote for her under any circumstances. They simply use those lies to feed their Clinton obsession, and as their form of negative campaigning.
As far as Clinton not taking questions, that's just bull. She hasn't been doing it for the last few days simply because she's on a breakneck pace to meet as many voters a possible. The Democrats, unlike the cowardly Republicans, have already appeared in far more debates, and I know that Hillary has taken questions at many of her stops. At any rate, no one get set the bar on taking questions any lower than Bush has. He's held far fewer press conferences than his predecessors and has staged far more events, even excluding the opposition at some taxpayer funded events.
Hillary is a fraud & fony, and too many people see right through her. Thankfully. Her negatives are as high as her positives, and in politics, that's not necessarily good. She should hope that some fraud on the pubbie side wins the nom, because she won't do well against one specific person on the GOP side, and could very well lose to another. She better hope that Romney or Huckabee wins the nomination. That might be her chance. Then again, Huckabee is such a smooth talker he might beat her too. He's got a lot of Slick Willy in him. Bill Clinton was never caught off guard by a question, and in alot of matters, seemed to be made of teflon. In politics, that's an exceptional quality. Hillary is very flawed, and in a national election, she will get torn to shreds. IMO anyway. Her only chance is a preferable match up.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him." Leo Tolstoy, 1897
From a victory point of view, the candidate hardly matters. What matters is the candidate's organization and the marketing of the him/her. Clinton won't win many white conservative men, but she won't try too hard. It's a waste. They're conservative, and have always been threatened by her.
Hillary will count on enthusiasm among women and blacks, lack of enthusiasm for the Repug candidate, the popularity of her husband, and increased support for Democratic ideas.
I think there's a possibility that the Hillary haters will go over the top. That's what happened with Bill. When the Bill haters were full tilt, his approval ratings went up, up, up. In fact, during the impeachment, his approval, I believe was in the 60s.
At any rate, the Repugs have some structural advantages in the electoral college, know how to run very good national campaigns, and are not above disenfranchising people with various quasi legal (or possibly even illegal) methods. So, no matter who the Democratic nominee is, you can't count the Repugs out.