Hillary Clinton Now the Focus of GOP Attacks, or...

b.c.

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Posts
20,540
Media
0
Likes
21,779
Points
468
Location
at home
Verification
View
Gender
Male
...is THIS the REAL Reason Behind the Bengazi Hearings??"

In this "First Thoughts" article from nbcnews.com we find some new revelations about the apparent shift in focus from Obama to Hillary Clinton, the projected front runner and anticipated 2016 Democratic nominee for President of the United States:

First Thoughts: GOP shifts focus to Hillary - First Read

The article brings to light several interesting points including the following:

"Wednesday’s congressional hearing probing last year’s attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi revealed this political development: Key parts of the conservative movement are turning their attention from President Obama to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton."

"...for the first time since Feb. 2008 (when Obama overtook Hillary in the Democratic presidential contest), Republican groups inundated our inboxes with emails about Clinton."

"EDITOR'S NOTE: NBC's Lisa Myers reports that Hicks never told Clinton at 2 am that the attack was terrorism. He said in his testimony that he had previously told that to the State Department and said it was not necessary to say it again.... Myers followed up with Hicks' attorney who affirmed that Hicks did not tell Clinton personally that this was a terrorist attack."

"...as Democrats prepare for Hillary’s possible political comeback, so are Republicans and conservatives. Consequently, the GOP’s shift in focus shouldn’t be surprising, especially with 2016 on the horizon. But what’s striking is how sudden the transition seemed yesterday."


"Also striking is that it comes at a time when Clinton is enjoying her highest polling numbers, even among Republicans. In the April NBC/WSJ poll, 56% of respondents had a favorable view of her, including 23% of Republicans"

Good reason for the GOP to be concerned? You bet. The article also includes these little "gems":

"Census: African Americans had a higher turnout rate than whites did in ‘12..."

and:

"After the 2012 election, the Republican National Committee embarked on a soul-searching mission to see what was wrong and deliver recommendations for how to fix them. The result was a 97-page report with suggestions on issues ranging from women, Hispanics, blacks, Asians, gays, and young voters."

"...how is that re-branding effort going? Well, there are mixed numbers. Yesterday, our NBC/Marist poll found the Republican Party’s fav/unfav rating at 37%-53% among registered voters in Virginia..."

"Also yesterday, a Pew poll found respondents blaming Republicans by 20 points (42%-22%) for failing to better work with President Obama on key issues."

My conclusion? Expect the lies, distortions, character assassinations, obstructionism, and the rest of the usual bag of GOP dirty tricks to commence in earnest.
 
Last edited:
D

deleted15807

Guest
A major major failing of the political system in the US is the constant 24/7 campaign that begins the day after the election. It's distorts the entire government. They've been after Hillary as soon as they saw she wasn't going to be a garden planting First Lady. Remember Vince Foster and that smear campaign? And now they want to clip her 2016 wings ASAP. She's a star and they know it.
 

Dakota Kid

Admired Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Mar 5, 2009
Posts
359
Media
9
Likes
829
Points
373
Location
Cavorting between fresh and salt water peninsulas.
Verification
View
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
If Hillary:
-was the one ignoring repeated requests for additional security by Ambassador Stevens,
-was involved in rewriting the CIA report and eliminating any mention of an Al-Quida involvement,

Then she sure as hell should be tossed out of politics.
 

MisterB

Worshipped Member
Staff
Moderator
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
May 11, 2012
Posts
5,187
Media
0
Likes
17,912
Points
558
Location
Arlington, VA, USA
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
I love how certain posters pontificate their "knowledge" of State Department inner workings. So far off...

It speaks volumes when the person with the highest positive polling numbers isn't even a currently elected member of Congress or government official.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is the reason the Benghazi issue will drag on and on and on. Not to mention, we can't have a woman in the White House as President, especially after the African-American.

That's what's driving almost all politics these days, period.
 

b.c.

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Posts
20,540
Media
0
Likes
21,779
Points
468
Location
at home
Verification
View
Gender
Male
If Hillary:
-was the one ignoring repeated requests for additional security by Ambassador Stevens,
-was involved in rewriting the CIA report and eliminating any mention of an Al-Quida involvement,

Then she sure as hell should be tossed out of politics.

Yes....IF....we'll see.
 

FuzzyKen

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Posts
2,045
Media
0
Likes
97
Points
193
Gender
Male
Hillary is a perfect target simply because right now she is in a self imposed retirement last I understood for health reasons. At the same time she is the potential candidate in demand for the next U.S. Presidential election. Who knows, maybe she is "resting" for the battles yet to come.

She is feared by the GOP because she will easily get the nomination over other DEM candidates should she decide to run. They know that if they are to take back the WH in 2016 that they better destroy her right now. Unless we get another dark horse that comes from the woodwork, she is the most likely to defeat the GOP. She will easily take minority votes and the votes of women.

Right now the GOP is trying to encourage Jeb Bush to run. I tend to agree with Jeb's Mother in that the Bush family has already done an incredible amount for the United States and they do not need another one in the White House.

I personally think that had this country had Jeb instead of George W. we would have been far better off. If we had Jeb we would not have had "Dick" and that right there would have helped us a great deal.

Any GOP member running in 2016 is going to have to run against the Bush legacy, the Reagan Legacy, the Nixon Legacy and many others who were later discovered to have sold the average American down the tubes.

There were GOP candidates I could have voted for last time but at the last minute they pandered to the extremists and in so doing lost my vote.

When a member of the GOP stands up and does what is right instead of what is going to put money in his party's pocket serving the citizens of the United States rather than special interests he/she would be the best candidate.

To me, the GOP never seems to learn. They fielded John McCain then stacked the deck against him by throwing in the "Palin Monster" McCain would have won if Palin had not been the VP candidate. Though it was less pronounced there was a possibility that the spoiled brat Romney could have won, but again they pandered to extremists and gave him Ryan as his VP candidate.

Anyone who thinks that the President picks his VP running mate is dreaming. The candidate is told by the party who his running mate will be. Barak Obama did not pick Joe Biden, the Democratic Party picked Joe Biden and Barak had to go along with it.

I am now over 60 years old. If one studies Presidencies the service of Barak Obama will in truth look a great deal like the service of Dwight D. Eisenhower who was a Republican. One has to take into consideration the changes in media capability and the changes brought about by how political contributions have been allowed to change and how that money is now managed.

Based on how the world is now, no President be they GOP or DEM is going to have anything resembling an easy road. Obama is not fighting right now for much of anything and my personal belief is that he has been instructed by his party to do exactly that. The more the unrelenting demands and tactics of the GOP continue, and the more public it becomes the more likely many GOP members will be removed at the mid-terms and again at the 2016 big election. The sound bites against Senators and Congressmen and particularly Congressmen are going to flow like water because they think that they are going to get away with it. Every extremist thing will be replayed as they potentially watch campaigns destroyed by their performance and failure to represent those who elected them.

Hillary to me is a "long shot" and she has not publicly stated as yet that she would be willing to be the candidate of the Democratic Party. Right now after the nuclear disintegration of Mitt Romney at nearly the last minute they have little to offer and they know it. I think that Hillary is just going to sit back and watch like the rest of us and make her decision somewhere about the end of next year as to her potential candidacy.
 
D

deleted15807

Guest
May the nastiest Republican win the next nomination, then lose the WH to the Democrat. Again.
 

ConanTheBarber

Legendary Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2011
Posts
5,305
Media
0
Likes
2,087
Points
258
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
To me, the GOP never seems to learn. They fielded John McCain then stacked the deck against him by throwing in the "Palin Monster" McCain would have won if Palin had not been the VP candidate. Though it was less pronounced there was a possibility that the spoiled brat Romney could have won, but again they pandered to extremists and gave him Ryan as his VP candidate.

Anyone who thinks that the President picks his VP running mate is dreaming. The candidate is told by the party who his running mate will be. Barak Obama did not pick Joe Biden, the Democratic Party picked Joe Biden and Barak had to go along with it.
Runs counter to everything I've ever heard about the choice of the VP.
Can you support this?
 

redneckgymrat

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Posts
1,479
Media
0
Likes
17
Points
73
Location
Texas
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Party involvement is enormous. While the VP pick is not mandated by the party, most Presidential candidates are unduly influenced by their party's wishes. On both sides.

Functionally, the VP is "chosen by committee" more times than not.
 

Fuzzy_

Legendary Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2011
Posts
4,253
Media
0
Likes
1,105
Points
258
Location
Wuziland
Gender
Male
I love how certain posters pontificate their "knowledge" of State Department inner workings. So far off...

It speaks volumes when the person with the highest positive polling numbers isn't even a currently elected member of Congress or government official.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is the reason the Benghazi issue will drag on and on and on. Not to mention, we can't have a woman in the White House as President, especially after the African-American.

That's what's driving almost all politics these days, period.

Sadly, they'll never be appeased. They aren't the type to let things go. As John Kerry said, there is nothing new from the latest Benghazi hearings. It's just a continued effort to bring down either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama -- either way, they'll get their pound of flesh. If anything, the network of conspiracies will only grow and Hillary will be just another player.
.
 

Attachments

ConanTheBarber

Legendary Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2011
Posts
5,305
Media
0
Likes
2,087
Points
258
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Party involvement is enormous. While the VP pick is not mandated by the party, most Presidential candidates are unduly influenced by their party's wishes. On both sides.

Functionally, the VP is "chosen by committee" more times than not.
Did a committee choose Palin?
I think you are underestimating the weight of the presidential candidate's preference.
Sure, he may take advice from the party and particularly from his own advisors ... and these may in a sense constitute a 'committee.' But his choice is quite free.
That's why there are so many surprises among the VP picks.

Here's a Wikipedia entry on selecting the VP candidate:
The vice presidential candidates of the major national political parties are formally selected by each party's quadrennial nominating convention, following the selection of the party's presidential candidates. The official process is identical to the one by which the presidential candidates are chosen, with delegates placing the names of candidates into nomination, followed by a ballot in which candidates must receive a majority to secure the party's nomination. In practice, the presidential nominee has considerable influence on the decision, and in the 20th century it became customary for that person to select a preferred running mate, who is then nominated and accepted by the convention. In recent years, with the presidential nomination usually being a foregone conclusion as the result of the primary process, the selection of a vice presidential candidate is often announced prior to the actual balloting for the presidential candidate, and sometimes before the beginning of the convention itself. The first presidential aspirant to announce his selection for Vice President before the beginning of the convention was Ronald Reagan who, prior to the 1976 Republican National Convention announced that Richard Schweiker would be his running mate. Reagan's supporters then sought to amend the convention rules so that Gerald R. Ford would be required to name his vice presidential running mate in advance as well. The proposal was defeated, and Reagan did not receive the nomination in 1976. Often, the presidential nominee will name a vice presidential candidate who will bring geographic or ideological balance to the ticket or appeal to a particular constituency. The vice presidential candidate might also be chosen on the basis of traits the presidential candidate is perceived to lack, or on the basis of name recognition. To foster party unity, popular runners-up in the presidential nomination process are commonly considered. [emphasis added]
 
Last edited:

KTF40

Sexy Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2009
Posts
1,877
Media
3
Likes
60
Points
133
Location
DC
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Bottom line is when Hillary Clinton was blaming a video for the attack on the embassy she was lying and she knew it. There were no rioters, no demonstrations or anything. It was a planned and coordinated terrorist attack.

So for her to now be a focal point for GOP attacks on the Benghazi incident shouldn't be surprising or deemed to be anymore politically motivated than her post-Benghazi attack actions and statements.
 

hot-rod

Legendary Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
May 9, 2006
Posts
2,272
Media
0
Likes
1,279
Points
583
Location
Austin, Texas, US
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
If Hillary:
-was the one ignoring repeated requests for additional security by Ambassador Stevens,
-was involved in rewriting the CIA report and eliminating any mention of an Al-Quida involvement,

Then she sure as hell should be tossed out of politics.
What about the whole cast of characters in the Bush camp who all lied about getting the US into these wars? Including Gen. Colin Powell. Don't forget him, he lied too, right thru his teeth.
You're not going to bring this lady down to their level. Never, Never, Never!
 

KTF40

Sexy Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2009
Posts
1,877
Media
3
Likes
60
Points
133
Location
DC
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Fwiw on the comparison to Bush, virtually every single intelligence agency on the planet thought Iraq had WMDs including the UK and Israel. Even countries who opposed the war like France and Russia thought Iraq had WMDs. Prominent Democrats were making the exact same claims. It's not like the Bush Admin was out by themselves on this as the only people in the world making this claims. There were plenty of people who were both pro and anti-war that believed Iraq had WMDs regardless of what Bush was saying.

This differs from the Obama Admin's claims regarding Benghazi where there wasn't a single ounce of truth to support their claims that a spontaneous riot caused by a video resulted in the embassy attack. The Obama Admin knew this to be true and continued to propagate this lie. In addition, the Obama Admin were the only ones, and I stress "only ones" claiming this nonsense.

I'm against the Iraq War probably as much as anyone here, but this continued liberal defense line of well "Bush lied, so the Obama Admin can do no wrong" is pretty out of touch.
 

Fuzzy_

Legendary Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2011
Posts
4,253
Media
0
Likes
1,105
Points
258
Location
Wuziland
Gender
Male
Bottom line is when Hillary Clinton was blaming a video for the attack on the embassy she was lying and she knew it. There were no rioters, no demonstrations or anything. It was a planned and coordinated terrorist attack.

Hindsight is 20/20.
 

PerfectlySexy

Sexy Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jul 11, 2007
Posts
263
Media
26
Likes
71
Points
273
Location
The Pacific Northwest
Verification
View
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
It is a good point that plenty of people did not support invading and occupying Iraq may also have been believed, incorrectly, that Iraq had WMD. However, those people generally supported leaving the UN inspectors to do their jobs, which the Bush administration did not. But the real crime was that the Bush administration sought fabricated evidence (yellow cake uranium, aluminum tubes, mobile weapons labs, etc) from non-credible sources (ie Curveball, Ahmed Chalab, etci) to convince the public to support the war.

As for the claim that the Obama administration did not have evidence for its claims, they came straight from the Libyan interior minister. There were protests against the film in several cities, including Benghazi, so it was understandable that the Libyan security forces thought there was a connection and relayed those suspicions to the US. Of course the Obama administration can be criticized for releasing information before the enough information was in, but if they had kept quiet, they would have been attacked for that.

In my opinion this show is highly entertaining.
 

rogerg

Cherished Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2012
Posts
613
Media
0
Likes
370
Points
148
The only reason the republicans are attacking Hillary is because she is Black and Gay and they are all a bunch of homophobic racists.
 

rogerg

Cherished Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2012
Posts
613
Media
0
Likes
370
Points
148
It is a good point that plenty of people did not support invading and occupying Iraq may also have been believed, incorrectly, that Iraq had WMD. However, those people generally supported leaving the UN inspectors to do their jobs, which the Bush administration did not. But the real crime was that the Bush administration sought fabricated evidence (yellow cake uranium, aluminum tubes, mobile weapons labs, etc) from non-credible sources (ie Curveball, Ahmed Chalab, etci) to convince the public to support the war.

As for the claim that the Obama administration did not have evidence for its claims, they came straight from the Libyan interior minister. There were protests against the film in several cities, including Benghazi, so it was understandable that the Libyan security forces thought there was a connection and relayed those suspicions to the US. Of course the Obama administration can be criticized for releasing information before the enough information was in, but if they had kept quiet, they would have been attacked for that.

In my opinion this show is highly entertaining.

If this is what you believe then you are being lied to. You'll see.
 

Fuzzy_

Legendary Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2011
Posts
4,253
Media
0
Likes
1,105
Points
258
Location
Wuziland
Gender
Male
The only reason the republicans are attacking Hillary is because she is Black and Gay and they are all a bunch of homophobic racists.
It's because this is their last chance to get her. As a result, those 4 deaths in Benghazi will be considered comparable to any man-made disaster.
 

KTF40

Sexy Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2009
Posts
1,877
Media
3
Likes
60
Points
133
Location
DC
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Hindsight is 20/20.
They didn't have a single shred of evidence to support their claims. That isn't the benefit of hindsight.

Feinstein: It Was Obvious it Was a Terrorist Attack 'Minute it Happened' | National Review Online

"But this is one instance where, you know, it was what it was. And you saw it. The minute you knew what happened, you knew it was a terrorist attack. And you knew these groups had camps all around the area.”... "the real-time video which we have all seen reveals that there was virtually no defense" - This coming from the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee

As for the claim that the Obama administration did not have evidence for its claims, they came straight from the Libyan interior minister. There were protests against the film in several cities, including Benghazi, so it was understandable that the Libyan security forces thought there was a connection and relayed those suspicions to the US. Of course the Obama administration can be criticized for releasing information before the enough information was in, but if they had kept quiet, they would have been attacked for that.

See the quotes above. Even if you were to believe that the Obama Admin was only relaying the info they received from some Libyan official (which I don't for a second), that's no excuse to ignore your own intelligence community and the ample evidence on the ground contradicting those claims. Especially when you have been sitting on this evidence for days.
 
Last edited: