Anti-Clinton hit piece in National Journal jumps the shark hard

[bobloblaw]

I won't quote anything from this article. You must read it to believe that such a thing was posted not by Newsmax or the Weekly Standard but by the supposedly respectable NJ.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/against-the-grain/democrats-went-all-in-on-hillary-clinton-it-s-looking-like-a-terrible-bet-20150423?

She's your Chris Christie. No proof Christie broke the law, but he is a bully and corrupt and doesnt deserve the nomination.

[bobloblaw]

Of course the Hillary-fetishists don't like it if their princess is not touched with silk gloves.

In the article, there's nothing more than the plain truth. It shows that Hilldog is a deeply flawed candidate and the Dems would be better off with a fresh Obama-style candidate.

Fresh Obama style candidates are nice but there are none.

But what about Martin O'Malley...

Oh wait.

He isnt grabbing her in that pic,. Clearly his hands arent close.

[bobloblaw]

This is actually fairly tame for Hillary hit piece standards. The NYT constantly cracks out far, far worse. In fact, they're the catalyst for all the Hillary "controversies" that have come out lately. The rest of them just follow the leader and dogpile on afterwards, like this article does. It's basically just restating the same stuff that's already been repeated ad nauseum by the "political experts."

I just found hilarious the part where the writer argues with a straight face that mentioning the fact that the person who alleges all these horrible things about the Clintons is actually a Republican hack with a long history of lies, gives credence to his allegations.
I mean, what kind of logic is that?

So is none of it true? What will you say when he uncovers Jeb Bush's fund raising scandals as he is planning to do?

[bobloblaw]

The basic point remains though. Hitching your wagon to a single candidate is hardly ever a good strategy (unless that person is an incumbent obviously). Eight years ago Clinton underperfomed but the Dems had Obama to fall back on. Now they've got no one.

Of course the question remains who else could have been a contender given how abysmal the Democratic Party now is at churning out halfway decent national or state politicians.

oh my. A liberal with a well reasoned thoughtful insight. What youre saying essentially is why the 2016 campaign might be the worst in recent memory. The left is "All In" on Hillary. They have no other choice.  It's Hillary or lose.

[bobloblaw]

The National Journal publishes about as many glowing portraits of Rubio and his reform conservatism(which has no chance of winning the nomination or presidency) as it does on Clinton's alleged misdealings and supposed weakness as a candidate.

Rubio probably has the 2nd most likely chance of winning the nomination. There are a lot of Bush fans here (mostly on the left because they want to GOP to be sane which means supporting Common Core and loving illegals), but Bush isnt going to win anything

[bobloblaw]

http://nypost.com/2015/04/26/charity-watchdog-clinton-foundation-a-slush-fund/


LOL....

[bobloblaw]

More Clinton fun from the right wing NYTs

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/30/us/politics/canadian-partnership-shielded-identities-of-donors-to-clinton-foundation.html?_r=2

[bobloblaw]

More Clinton fun from the right wing NYTs

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/30/us/politics/canadian-partnership-shielded-identities-of-donors-to-clinton-foundation.html?_r=2

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Canada did not give the Clinton Foundation USA tax exempt status until 2010 and so there was a Clinton Foundation Canada founded in 2007 for Canadian donors. There is no information available about these donors because the Canadian privacy laws won't allow them to disclose it.

What a conspiracy!

So that is very convenient for the Clintons to shield their donations.

The Clinton Foundation and the Sec of State are probably the biggest scandal to afflict a candidate in modern history. So Hillary's campaign is less than a month old and it has been hit by two major scandals and the reliable liberal media outlets that rallied to protect them in the 1990s have turned on them.

[bobloblaw]

More Clinton fun from the right wing NYTs

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/30/us/politics/canadian-partnership-shielded-identities-of-donors-to-clinton-foundation.html?_r=2

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Canada did not give the Clinton Foundation USA tax exempt status until 2010 and so there was a Clinton Foundation Canada founded in 2007 for Canadian donors. There is no information available about these donors because the Canadian privacy laws won't allow them to disclose it.

What a conspiracy!

So that is very convenient for the Clintons to shield their donations.

The Clinton Foundation and the Sec of State are probably the biggest scandal to afflict a candidate in modern history. So Hillary's campaign is less than a month old and it has been hit by two major scandals and the reliable liberal media outlets that rallied to protect them in the 1990s have turned on them.

LOL, the "liberal" NYT was one of the biggest pushers of the Whitewater nontroversy.

So the NYT isnt liberal?

[bobloblaw]

More Clinton fun from the right wing NYTs

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/30/us/politics/canadian-partnership-shielded-identities-of-donors-to-clinton-foundation.html?_r=2

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Canada did not give the Clinton Foundation USA tax exempt status until 2010 and so there was a Clinton Foundation Canada founded in 2007 for Canadian donors. There is no information available about these donors because the Canadian privacy laws won't allow them to disclose it.

What a conspiracy!

So that is very convenient for the Clintons to shield their donations.

The Clinton Foundation and the Sec of State are probably the biggest scandal to afflict a candidate in modern history. So Hillary's campaign is less than a month old and it has been hit by two major scandals and the reliable liberal media outlets that rallied to protect them in the 1990s have turned on them.

LOL, the "liberal" NYT was one of the biggest pushers of the Whitewater nontroversy.

So the NYT isnt liberal?

In general they are, but when it comes to their history, it is fairly clear: they have no problem using unproven or debunked right wing talking points/faux scandals to try to smear the Clintons.

Nothing has been debunked about Clinton Foundation funding. Also the NYT wasnt the first to report on Monica Lewinsky and they were among those who successfully made it about sex instead of suborning perjury.

[bobloblaw]

How do I add a picture to my postings like everyone else does?

[bobloblaw]

How do I add a picture to my postings like everyone else does?

Put a url of an image into the img brackets:

Code:

[img]https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/forum.gif[/img]

producing...

I thought it was automatic. Most people have the same image over and over

[bobloblaw]

How do I add a picture to my postings like everyone else does?

Put a url of an image into the img brackets:

Code:

[img]https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/forum.gif[/img]

producing...

I thought it was automatic. Most people have the same image over and over

Those are signatures. You can enter a signature under the Forum Profile Information tab in your

THX