I hope this is a good sign for 2016.
Oh, and the haters can just go and suck it.
For an old lady
Hilly's coming to the White House!
Weep, bitches. You got some serious ass to kiss and groveling to do. And I will be extremely happy when the moment comes.
Link please, OP.
It's all being orchestrated with a lot of class. Hopefully once she starts campaigning, she'll rein in her "schoolmarmish" behavior that occasionally detoured her last campaign. So far, though, the photos are dynamite.
She didn't have schoolmarmish behavior. She had a lousy team that did a lot of infighting and Senate colleagues who coldcocked her.
Still waiting for photos.
I love Hillary. She has not lost any weight since leaving the State Dept like maybe she intended to. In fact, she seems to have gained more weight.
I read that she intended to exercise in her new life away from the State Dept. She doesn't appear to be exercising other than walking, but it is difficult to lose weight at her age.
I think she is a very attractive pretty woman.
I've always thought that through all her different permutations and different looks.
I saw her very close-up in person - one foot from her - during the 2008 campaign, and she positively glows and is lovely.
If she can control the cackle and the grotesque facial expressions, she may have a chance.
I love her facial expressions, and I love her laugh.
I Googled Hillary Clinton to see which recent pics would pop up, but my first hit was a CNN article titled, "Sarah Palin: Hillary Clinton ill-suited for president."
I read it for shits and giggles. Here's an example of what Palin was selling on Faux this Sunday:
[quote][Palin] said "anyone who would just throw away 200 years of military ethos and leave our men behind to be murdered" should "never be considered as a commander in chief."
This POS and her psychotic tea people allies are sticking with Benghazi as their best hedge against Hillary. Their desperation is obvious and refreshing.
a compulsive liar who can be depended on not to spill the 9.11 secrets or reform the economy. Perfect for the military and the 1%. Not perfect for the people, and she won't win in either case.
Feel free to write-in Ralph Nader, r11.
Where are the photos you refer to? I still don't see any posted anywhere on this thread.
R13, all I can think of is that Hillary made the cover of New York Magazine this week. You can see the image at the link.
Look at the current front page of huffingtonpost.com
And maybe today's mailonline.com
I just saw a brand new photo of her from her appearance at the Clinton Initiative meeting today where she sported a new hair style - shorter and with wispy layers. It looks very attractive.
Here's another set of photos (which actually show her wrinkles, unlike the cover photo!):
She will need a facelift and makeover for 2016. Seriously. I supported Hillary in 2008, but women are judged more on their age and appearance than men are, and so it will be necessary.
That cover is a fucking Photoshopping Mall.
Merkel of Germany gets by just fine with her plain but attractive looks.
So did Madeline Albright (Sec of State, I know, not president)
Gennifer Flowers is making a ton of money right now from HRC-haters.
Nobody ever complained about my looks.
Hilary is in like Flynn, minus any tragedy. Bushco is quite comfortable with the Clintons.
I'll vote for her, though.
I seem to remember it differently, R22. Perhaps you didn't see the hundreds of nasty comments about you?
She looks old and frumpy. She'll look even worse by 2016. The Clintons need to just disappear from society. They're trash.
R16, those are pretty old photos and NO ONE can look good in those very "candid" photos. Those were some hardy laughs going on.
I guess R25 would have rather had George H.W. Bush win in 1992 and Bob Dole in 1996.
r25, "trash"? You should be such trash, Sarah.
She's a corrupt tool of Wall Street and a faux feminist sell-out. Stop fawning over this bloated piece of crap.
She is way too old to run.
She isn't even going to run. She'll pull a Palin and keep her fans hanging on to the last moment to fatten up her PAC. She wouldn't have signed on to that Clinton "charity". It's so bloated with scandals that will be broken as a bigger story as reporters wait until she runs. Truth is Benghazi killed it for her.
What's with all the hateful comments on this thread? Who are they coming from? Hillary was more popular on this board than Obama in 2008, and is well-liked amongst the general public so I find it odd that this thread seems to be full of haters.
I don't understand why Benghazi is an issue, R31. 3,000 people were killed on U.S. soil on Bush's watch. A few people die overseas and it's Hilary's fault?
She's well liked and a perfect candidate until she's actually a candidate. I know I'm sorry I've posted this a few times here when her name comes up. As soon as she's the candidate, and the one under the spotlight, all her glaring deficiencies come shining through. The public likes her? She couldn't even get the nomination from her own party last time. She was beaten by a relative unknown.
She's a big bore who doesn't seem to stand for anything.
R32, it gets thrown around a lot, but there are some genuine Freepers on this board. R31 is one.
Then you have those that like to paint themselves as far left social activists by trashing Democrats.
[quote]She couldn't even get the nomination from her own party last time. She was beaten by a relative unknown.
This is such a ridiculous statement.
She only narrowly lost, and that was a once in a lifetime candidacy. No one knew that a charismatic, African American man would be able to do what he did. She was up against history and there was no way to stop it at that time.
No one else in the Democratic Party can pose that type of challenge to her this time.
I like her.
What is ridiculous about that statement? She lost and couldn't even get her party to back her.
Did you read what I wrote, R38?
She conceded. She didn't officially lose.
Anymore questions you need answered?
R40, Hillary lost. Let's not play word games. But as I pointed out to R38 above, he's ignoring most of the other relevant points.
Okay, anti-HRC crowd. Whom do YOU prefer? (Separating the men from the morons.)
The good news for the Democrats is that there are some viable candidates beyond Clinton - unlike the freak show on the other side of the aisle.
R41. But she didn't lose. She conceded. And she even had the unite the party because the relative newcomer was incapable of doing it at the time.
It's not word games. It's facts.
R42 Expect fairytales about Elizabeth Warren coming to the White House and vanquishing the big bad guys. Speaking of delusions of grandeur.....
You're not going to get a statement rooted in any sort of reality.
R43 - she conceded that she lost the nomination.
As far as relative newcomer - Obama had more years in elected office than HRC did in 2008.
How did HRC unit the party? Unless of course you mean her and Bill's behavior during the primaries solidified Obama's support.
Let's just say it, if Obama had been white he never would have been elected.
If Hillary had stayed in the race, Obama wouldn't have won.
[quote]If Hillary had stayed in the race, Obama wouldn't have won.
How do you figure?
The primaries were over when Obama declared himself the presumptive nominee.
It was four days later with no remaining primaries that Clinton admitted defeat.
r47 that is more or less what Geraldine Ferraro said and she got dumped from the HRC campaingne
R50, Hillary did not have enough votes at the Democratic Convention to win the nomination.
And she did not garner enough votes for the Democratic nomination during the caucuses and primaries.
Does Hillary still channel Eleanor Roosevelt?
looking good in a campaign sense=yes
in a physical sense=well, looks were never her thing
OP of course not only spits at the other posters here for no reason but is stupid enough to draw a line between Hillary's getting some rest and looking at and being set to campaign.
It may be true, asshole, and I assume she's running, but your logic is as faulty as your disgusting posture.
r47 r48 r49 r50
Are you guys trolls, morons, or do you just have really bad senses of humor?
I like Hillary. I hope she runs. I hope she wins. That being said, I'll never understand the people here on DL who continue to act as if she actually won the nomination in 2008 and refuse to accept the fact that her 2008 campaign was a disaster in many ways. Let's hope Hillary has learned from her mistakes and is ready to run a different style of campaign in 2016.
Yes, Obama would not have gotten elected if he were white. And that is a very good thing.
If there's one thing Hillary is good at, it's learning from her mistakes. I have to believe she'll not make the same disastrous choice as she did with Mark Penn.
Hillary's 2008 candidacy revealed the deep misogyny in the Democratic party that many were unwilling to admit, and that had to be aired before a Democratic woman can win. Hillary did that for the country.
R59 is right that there is more support for a woman President now than there was 5 years ago. Christiane Amanpour said on CNN this week that she also believes that women voters will want a woman President in 2016 - something they had not yet gotten behind in 2008.
Hillary didn't lose because she is a woman. She lost because she is a servant of the corporations and supported Dubya's disastrous foreign policy.
If I wanted someone like Hillary to be president, I would vote for Kindasleazy Rice. At least that Kindasleazy is honest about what she is.
[quote]She lost because she is a servant of the corporations and supported Dubya's disastrous foreign policy.
So did most of the Democratic Party. As has Obama, after he got into office.
Sorry, Obama is winding down the "War on Terror".
Obama opposed Dubya's foreign policy, Hillary supported it.
Obama is smart. Hillary, not so much.
You are so naive, R63. Obama is one of the biggest supporters of the military-industrial complex in history and has engaged in a record crackdown on civil liberties and huge expansion of the powers of surveillance of citizens.
Well if Christiane Amanpour said it then I'm on board.
Hillary's supposed intelligence is a big myth. After decades in public life, what has she ever said or written that is brilliant or even thought-provoking? She flunked the D.C. bar exam the first time she took it -this after attending Yale Law. And she was fired from the Watergate investigation for lying.
But she was the World's most successful cattle futures trader in history. Seeming to be able to make her sales at exactly the highest price of the day on every trade she made.
[quote]She didn't have schoolmarmish behavior.
IMO, she has always had that "I'm so much smarter than you" look about her. That's one reason so many people don't like her.
She is smarter than you, bitch.
[quote]She is smarter than you, bitch.
That must be why she thought invading Iraq was such a great idea.
oH nOOOOOOOoooooooooo she can't become presdent, she can't! Just when I thught it might be safer to come back to the USA!!!!!! Nooooooooooooooo
R63 R64 Obama might be smart and a better choice than Hil but he is still a stooge of corporate interests. He is not the left wing zealot that the right wing portrays at all BUT his Syrian bombing campaign and pro-Muslim Brotherhood policy is a continuation of Dubya's idiocy. It's bad but could have been much worse under Hil who is a Republican in sheep's clothing.
R68. Thank you for recognizing that aspect. Most of the time she hs it under control, but every so often during her 2008 "tryout," she'd let loose and she just made one feel like the stupidest kid on the block. Keep uit in check this time, Hil old girl.
She is not smarter than we are. She married Bill Clinton, didn't she, and that is proof enough she has poor judgement.
[quote]That must be why she thought invading Iraq was such a great idea.
This is such a STUPID comment. Do you even realize why?
She didn't come up with the idea to invade Iraq. The Bush Administration did. She just happened to be one of SEVENTY SENATORS who voted for it. She was part of the overwhelming majority that supported it.
You'd think she was the only one who voted for it.
R68 - Actually she has good favorability ratings.
Conservatives don't dislike because she has "I'm so much smarter than you" look.
They don't like her because she is smarter then they are.
Indeed. I guess R68 hasn't looked at the fact that she has some of the highest favorability ratings in the country, but that doesn't fit with his theory.
R63, at least with HRC we know what we're getting. I won't be fooled by an anti-war, idealist candidate again, no matter how awesome I think Elizabeth Warren is. The bigger interests of Wall street and the military industrial complex are just too influential on the presidency for a true social progressive to ever be president.
So if it's a choice between a centrist Dem and a right-wing/conservative Republican, I'll take the Dem.
Ninety-eight senators voted for the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. They were all wrong, just like the seventy senators who voted for the invasion of Iraq.
Hillary doesn't get a pass for being part of a large group of idiots.
I don't think you get it, R79. Please read R78's post. It's a more pragmatic analysis of the way things work in Washington.
Joe Biden voted for the war too.
And I think John Kerry & John Edwards too, R81. And probably most other notable Democrats.
That's the whole point.
Get the Pant Suits Ready!
Don't bother arguing with r63. He's the weirdo who always posts about how Obama makes him "relax". Facts don't concern him.
What kills me is that there were no consequences to Obama's anti-Iraq war speech. He wasn't in the US Senate and not in the position to actually vote on it.
We all know that Obama is not the most bold mover and shaker...I don't think he would have made the speech if he was in the senate. I think he would have voted 'yes' the same as Hillary & Biden if he were.