Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Hillary Clinton is looking awesome, bitches!

I hope this is a good sign for 2016.

Oh, and the haters can just go and suck it.

by Anonymousreply 8509/26/2013

For an old lady

by Anonymousreply 109/24/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 209/24/2013

Link please, OP.

by Anonymousreply 309/24/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 409/24/2013

She didn't have schoolmarmish behavior. She had a lousy team that did a lot of infighting and Senate colleagues who coldcocked her.

by Anonymousreply 509/24/2013

Still waiting for photos.

by Anonymousreply 609/24/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 709/24/2013

If she can control the cackle and the grotesque facial expressions, she may have a chance.

by Anonymousreply 809/24/2013

I love her facial expressions, and I love her laugh.

by Anonymousreply 909/24/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 1009/24/2013

Feel free to write-in Ralph Nader, r11.

by Anonymousreply 1209/24/2013

Where are the photos you refer to? I still don't see any posted anywhere on this thread.

by Anonymousreply 1309/24/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 1409/24/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 1509/24/2013

Here's another set of photos (which actually show her wrinkles, unlike the cover photo!):

by Anonymousreply 1609/24/2013

Thanks, R14. She looks pretty terrific there.

by Anonymousreply 1709/24/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 1809/24/2013

That cover is a fucking Photoshopping Mall.

by Anonymousreply 1909/24/2013

Merkel of Germany gets by just fine with her plain but attractive looks.

So did Madeline Albright (Sec of State, I know, not president)

by Anonymousreply 2009/24/2013

Gennifer Flowers is making a ton of money right now from HRC-haters.

by Anonymousreply 2109/24/2013

Nobody ever complained about my looks.

by Anonymousreply 2209/24/2013

Hilary is in like Flynn, minus any tragedy. Bushco is quite comfortable with the Clintons.

I'll vote for her, though.

by Anonymousreply 2309/24/2013

I seem to remember it differently, R22. Perhaps you didn't see the hundreds of nasty comments about you?

by Anonymousreply 2409/24/2013

She looks old and frumpy. She'll look even worse by 2016. The Clintons need to just disappear from society. They're trash.

by Anonymousreply 2509/24/2013

R16, those are pretty old photos and NO ONE can look good in those very "candid" photos. Those were some hardy laughs going on.

by Anonymousreply 2609/24/2013

I guess R25 would have rather had George H.W. Bush win in 1992 and Bob Dole in 1996.

Idiot.

by Anonymousreply 2709/24/2013

r25, "trash"? You should be such trash, Sarah.

by Anonymousreply 2809/24/2013

She's a corrupt tool of Wall Street and a faux feminist sell-out. Stop fawning over this bloated piece of crap.

by Anonymousreply 2909/24/2013

She is way too old to run.

by Anonymousreply 3009/24/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 3209/24/2013

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?

by Anonymousreply 3309/24/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 3409/24/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 3509/24/2013

[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.

by Anonymousreply 3609/24/2013

I like her.

by Anonymousreply 3709/24/2013

What is ridiculous about that statement? She lost and couldn't even get her party to back her.

by Anonymousreply 3809/24/2013

Did you read what I wrote, R38?

by Anonymousreply 3909/24/2013

"She lost"

She conceded. She didn't officially lose.

Anymore questions you need answered?

by Anonymousreply 4009/24/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 4109/24/2013

Okay, anti-HRC crowd. Whom do YOU prefer? (Separating the men from the morons.)

by Anonymousreply 4209/24/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 4309/24/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 4409/24/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 4509/24/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 4609/24/2013

Let's just say it, if Obama had been white he never would have been elected.

by Anonymousreply 4709/24/2013

Bingo, r47.

by Anonymousreply 4809/24/2013

R47: true.

by Anonymousreply 4909/24/2013

If Hillary had stayed in the race, Obama wouldn't have won.

by Anonymousreply 5009/24/2013

[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.

by Anonymousreply 5109/24/2013

r47 that is more or less what Geraldine Ferraro said and she got dumped from the HRC campaingne

by Anonymousreply 5209/24/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 5309/24/2013

Does Hillary still channel Eleanor Roosevelt?

by Anonymousreply 5409/24/2013

looking good in a campaign sense=yes

in a physical sense=well, looks were never her thing

by Anonymousreply 5509/24/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 5609/24/2013

r47 r48 r49 r50

Are you guys trolls, morons, or do you just have really bad senses of humor?

by Anonymousreply 5709/25/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 5809/25/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 5909/25/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 6009/25/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 6109/25/2013

[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.

by Anonymousreply 6209/25/2013

r56

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.

by Anonymousreply 6309/25/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 6409/25/2013

Well if Christiane Amanpour said it then I'm on board.

by Anonymousreply 6509/25/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 6609/25/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 6709/25/2013

[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.

by Anonymousreply 6809/25/2013

She is smarter than you, bitch.

by Anonymousreply 6909/25/2013

[quote]She is smarter than you, bitch.

That must be why she thought invading Iraq was such a great idea.

by Anonymousreply 7009/25/2013

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

by Anonymousreply 7109/25/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 7209/25/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 7309/25/2013

She is not smarter than we are. She married Bill Clinton, didn't she, and that is proof enough she has poor judgement.

by Anonymousreply 7409/25/2013

[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.

by Anonymousreply 7509/25/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 7609/25/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 7709/25/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 7809/25/2013

r75

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.

by Anonymousreply 7909/25/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 8009/25/2013

Joe Biden voted for the war too.

by Anonymousreply 8109/25/2013

And I think John Kerry & John Edwards too, R81. And probably most other notable Democrats.

That's the whole point.

by Anonymousreply 8209/25/2013

Get the Pant Suits Ready!

by Anonymousreply 8309/25/2013

Don't bother arguing with r63. He's the weirdo who always posts about how Obama makes him "relax". Facts don't concern him.

by Anonymousreply 8409/26/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 8509/26/2013
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.