• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hillary Clinton’s Appeal Survives Scrutiny, Poll Says

Why use the word weathered?

Do they think this is over and done with?

The story also used "appears" and "initially." The story makes no assumptions as to whether or not the issue is finished.
 
It appears as though the idea she will quit the race is unfounded, as she is seen as a strong leader.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/06/u...ton-gains-favor-times-cbs-poll-says.html?_r=0

Hillary Rodham Clinton appears to have initially weathered a barrage of news about her use of a private email account when she was secretary of state and the practices of her family’s foundation, an indication that she is starting her second presidential bid with an unusual durability among Democratic voters.


Americans now view Mrs. Clinton more favorably and more see her as a strong leader than they did earlier in the year, despite weeks of scrutiny about her ethics, a New York Times/CBS News poll has found. And nearly nine in 10 Democrats say the nation is ready to elect a woman president.


Snip

Wow. Democrats will ignore a potential scandal involving someone with the last name of Clinton, and they want Bill Clinton back in the White House. Gee, I couldn't be more surprised than if I woke up with George Clooney tomorrow morning.:roll:
 
Wow. Democrats will ignore a potential scandal involving someone with the last name of Clinton, and they want Bill Clinton back in the White House. Gee, I couldn't be more surprised than if I woke up with George Clooney tomorrow morning.:roll:

You did see the poll said "Americans," not "Democrats," right? Well, except for the "ready to elect a woman president" part, and I don't see how 100% of Democrats AND Republicans can't say we're not.
 
You did see the poll said "Americans," not "Democrats," right? Well, except for the "ready to elect a woman president" part, and I don't see how 100% of Democrats AND Republicans can't say we're not.

I guess you didn't read the article?

While roughly 48 percent of Americans say Mrs. Clinton is honest and trustworthy, about four of five Democrats think she has those traits — and about the same numbers of Democrats say she shares the values most Americans try to live by.

Fifty-two percent of Democrats said they knew nothing or very little about the Clinton Foundation, and only 10 percent said foreign donations to the foundation affected Mrs. Clinton’s decisions while she was the nation’s top diplomat. Just 9 percent of Democratic voters said they would not consider voting for Mrs. Clinton.


See the words "Democrats" and "Democratic voters" in there?

Those magic words appear here, too:

Democrats also assume that Mr. Clinton — who memorably said in his 1992 presidential bid that he and Mrs. Clinton represented “two for the price of one” — would play a substantial role were Mrs. Clinton to win the White House. Seven in 10 Democratic voters said he would have a great deal or some influence on Mrs. Clinton if she became president.

I also never said anything about being ready to elect a woman. I commented on those 2 things I posted just now for you.
 
I guess you didn't read the article?

While roughly 48 percent of Americans say Mrs. Clinton is honest and trustworthy, about four of five Democrats think she has those traits — and about the same numbers of Democrats say she shares the values most Americans try to live by.

Fifty-two percent of Democrats said they knew nothing or very little about the Clinton Foundation, and only 10 percent said foreign donations to the foundation affected Mrs. Clinton’s decisions while she was the nation’s top diplomat. Just 9 percent of Democratic voters said they would not consider voting for Mrs. Clinton.


See the words "Democrats" and "Democratic voters" in there?

Those magic words appear here, too:

Democrats also assume that Mr. Clinton — who memorably said in his 1992 presidential bid that he and Mrs. Clinton represented “two for the price of one” — would play a substantial role were Mrs. Clinton to win the White House. Seven in 10 Democratic voters said he would have a great deal or some influence on Mrs. Clinton if she became president.

I also never said anything about being ready to elect a woman. I commented on those 2 things I posted just now for you.

Nope, I just was referring to what was quoted. Mea culpa.
 
Of course they are. However, IF poll results continue to hold (which they might not), then they will probably relax a bit.

It's also not 1992. The Clinton crew already have an approach to these types of media dust-ups. The candidate says as little as possible and stays on message, while the campaign and surrogates wage trench warfare on the negatives.

And of course, almost every major candidate has issues like this.



Meh. There's not really much new here. Every potential candidate for President with half a brain knows they will be thoroughly tarred and feathered by next March. Nor is running for President such an impulsive decision that a couple of scandals (real and fake) will encourage someone to jump in the ring.


Her team does want everybody to think the Email scandal is over.....but that's just her people and supporters doing all they can to deflect.

Hillary has more than couple and now many are starting to see her act as if she above the law. Treat the matter as if it wasn't serious.

Despite the Clintons having surrogates in the MS media and with CNN.....they won't be able to avoid dealing with what is going to come out with all emails and that server.

Right now as it stands.....the only thing the Republicans need to do. Is Subpoena that Server.
 
We can't forget about Bill tripling his speaking fees when Hillary became SOS. What would make him worth tree times as much? We will have to ponder that question.

Mornin Mason. :2wave: Nor can we forget that her Team Leader Podesta.....was lobbying State. Even while working for BO peep.
 
Her team does want everybody to think the Email scandal is over...but that's just her people and supporters doing all they can to deflect.
Just like every other politician tries to deflect and/or sweep crap under the rug. *Yawn*


Hillary has more than couple and now many are starting to see her act as if she above the law.
Yes, that's why "Americans now view Mrs. Clinton more favorably and more see her as a strong leader than they did earlier in the year, despite weeks of scrutiny about her ethics" and "her favorability rating has improved by nine percentage points since the disclosure in late March that she did not use a government email account as secretary of state."


Despite the Clintons having surrogates in the MS media and with CNN.....they won't be able to avoid dealing with what is going to come out with all emails and that server.
I'm guessing they will. They're a slick bunch.


the only thing the Republicans need to do. Is Subpoena that Server.
Why, so they can read Hillary's emails about Chelsea's wedding? lol

Sorry dude, but the only people who care are the ones who were never going to vote for Hillary in the first place. No one else cares. They don't care about Benghazi, they don't care about lost emails or any of it.

Meanwhile, Hillary is already staking out policy positions in regards to income inequality and immigration, no strong indication yet of serious challengers for the Democratic primaries, and what looks like another circus of a Republican primary. Should be interesting....
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/06/u...ton-gains-favor-times-cbs-poll-says.html?_r=0

Hillary Rodham Clinton appears to have initially weathered a barrage of news about her use of a private email account when she was secretary of state and the practices of her family’s foundation, an indication that she is starting her second presidential bid with an unusual durability among Democratic voters.


Americans now view Mrs. Clinton more favorably and more see her as a strong leader than they did earlier in the year, despite weeks of scrutiny about her ethics, a New York Times/CBS News poll has found. And nearly nine in 10 Democrats say the nation is ready to elect a woman president.


Snip

Absoltuely no surprise. I think it was widely expected she was gonna "survive", and she will continue to "survive".
 
Just like every other politician tries to deflect and/or sweep crap under the rug. *Yawn*

Yes this is what politicians do. Some are more popular at it then others. Basic common knowledge. * Whatch out for flies, winter is over*

Yes, that's why "Americans now view Mrs. Clinton more favorably and more see her as a strong leader than they did earlier in the year, despite weeks of scrutiny about her ethics" and "her favorability rating has improved by nine percentage points since the disclosure in late March that she did not use a government email account as secretary of state."

Yeah and dishonest too. Like that GFK Poll showed.

I'm guessing they will. They're a slick bunch.

That's true you would be guessing.

Why, so they can read Hillary's emails about Chelsea's wedding? lol Sorry dude, but the only people who care are the ones who were never going to vote for Hillary in the first place. No one else cares. They don't care about Benghazi, they don't care about lost emails or any of it.

Nah even better.....so they can read what her and Blumenthal were discussing about State Business.


Meanwhile, Hillary is already staking out policy positions in regards to income inequality and immigration, no strong indication yet of serious challengers for the Democratic primaries, and what looks like another circus of a Republican primary. Should be interesting....



Hard to not be out in front without any challengers. Actually it will be quite interesting from the Repubs side. Especially with 2 Hispanic Senators, a Black Repub and a Woman all running for the Presidency. The Demos wish they could come up with that kind of diversity.
 
Just like every other politician tries to deflect and/or sweep crap under the rug. *Yawn*



Yes, that's why "Americans now view Mrs. Clinton more favorably and more see her as a strong leader than they did earlier in the year, despite weeks of scrutiny about her ethics" and "her favorability rating has improved by nine percentage points since the disclosure in late March that she did not use a government email account as secretary of state."



I'm guessing they will. They're a slick bunch.



Why, so they can read Hillary's emails about Chelsea's wedding? lol
Sorry dude, but the only people who care are the ones who were never going to vote for Hillary in the first place. No one else cares. They don't care about Benghazi, they don't care about lost emails or any of it.

Meanwhile, Hillary is already staking out policy positions in regards to income inequality and immigration, no strong indication yet of serious challengers for the Democratic primaries, and what looks like another circus of a Republican primary. Should be interesting....


That's all that was there?
I did not know that.
So you saw them, then.
And they were all totally private Chelsea and yoga type emails?
That's a relief.
Hmmm ... then why on earth would she have deleted them ... and destroyed the server?
BTW ... who owned the server? What else was on it? And how could she have destroyed it? Where was it located? Who managed the service?
I ask you because you seem to be privy to stuff no one else is.
Thanks in advance for your reply.
 
That's all that was there?
I did not know that.
So you saw them, then.
And they were all totally private Chelsea and yoga type emails?
That's a relief.
Hmmm ... then why on earth would she have deleted them ... and destroyed the server?
BTW ... who owned the server? What else was on it? And how could she have destroyed it? Where was it located? Who managed the service?
I ask you because you seem to be privy to stuff no one else is.
Thanks in advance for your reply.


Heya B. :2wave: Now Hensarling From the House Finance Committee.....has started another investigation. Well he started before then but made the call April 30th. Says that BO and Team. Plus Hillary are not transparent like they say. So he will go after Hillary with some more hearings. Some more testimony from her.

Do you think her attorney was ready for that move by Hensarling and the Finance Committee.
 
Heya B. :2wave: Now Hensarling From the House Finance Committee.....has started another investigation. Well he started before then but made the call April 30th. Says that BO and Team. Plus Hillary are not transparent like they say. So he will go after Hillary with some more hearings. Some more testimony from her.

Do you think her attorney was ready for that move by Hensarling and the Finance Committee.

WTF do they care.
They're planning on scandal saturation to then claim it's all old news and nothing came of any of it.
Howard Dean laid it all out on MOJO and you know what an independent strategist he is.
He was on the verge of a breakdown.
TV at it's best.
 
WTF do they care.
They're planning on scandal saturation to then claim it's all old news and nothing came of any of it.
Howard Dean laid it all out on MOJO and you know what an independent strategist he is.
He was on the verge of a breakdown.
TV at it's best.

Yeah, that was the best Podesta could come up with. But then they didn't take into account. Its not the 90s anymore. Just sayin.
 
Go back in time and picture Hillary and Billy Bob planning out their mutual quest for the office of the president of the united states. The private conversations had to be hilarious as Hillary knew she would be second behind the "Dress Stainer" as she outlined things he could and could not do so she could do them in her term. But then came along Obama and he slaughtered her mercilessly. So after years of wiping the Monica Lewinsky off her face (even though those stains will never go away) we see an aging ever so desperate criminal running from the truth on the highway of long and lost support bases. How tragic the democratic party has become to offer up one old lifeless liar for the office of president. Who will follow her, LBJ?
 
Go back in time and picture Hillary and Billy Bob planning out their mutual quest for the office of the president of the united states. The private conversations had to be hilarious as Hillary knew she would be second behind the "Dress Stainer" as she outlined things he could and could not do so she could do them in her term. But then came along Obama and he slaughtered her mercilessly. So after years of wiping the Monica Lewinsky off her face (even though those stains will never go away) we see an aging ever so desperate criminal running from the truth on the highway of long and lost support bases. How tragic the democratic party has become to offer up one old lifeless liar for the office of president. Who will follow her, LBJ?

:lol: Go back and time eh.....No need to, Hillary said she was all for Bodycameras. :mrgreen:

kn050715dAPC20150506064541.jpg
 
Yeah, that was the best Podesta could come up with. But then they didn't take into account. Its not the 90s anymore. Just sayin.


When you show a picture of a candidate and ask what word comes to mind and 75% of 'em say "untrustworthy" then the usual spin ain't working.
 
Peggy Noonan has an interesting take. How the Clintons Get Away With It - WSJ

Heya G. :2wave: Yep and Noonan's word will go round and round. Message to the Media types too.



BN-IH747_noonan_J_20150507174420.jpg



By the end I was certain of two things. A formal investigation, from Congress or the Justice Department, is needed to determine if Hillary Clinton’s State Department functioned, at least to some degree and in some cases, as pay-for-play operation and whether the Clinton Foundation has functioned, at least in part, as a kind of high-class philanthropic slush fund. I wonder if any aspirant for the presidency except Hillary Clinton could survive such a book. I suspect she can because the Clintons are unique in the annals of American politics: They are protected from charges of corruption by their reputation for corruption. It’s not news anymore.

Mr. Schweizer offers a tough view of the Clinton Foundation itself. It is not a “traditional charity,” in that there is a problem “delineating where the Clinton political machines and moneymaking ventures end and where their charity begins.” The causes it promotes—preventing obesity, alleviating AIDS suffering—are worthy, and it does some good, but mostly it functions as a middleman. The foundation’s website shows the Clintons holding sick children in Africa, but unlike Doctors Without Borders and Samaritan’s Purse, the foundation does “little hands-on humanitarian work.” It employs longtime Clinton associates and aides, providing jobs “to those who served the Clintons when in power and who may serve them again.” The Better Business Bureau in 2013 said it failed to meet minimum standards of accountability and transparency. Mr. Schweizer notes that “at least four Clinton Foundation trustees have either been charged or convicted of financial crimes including bribery and fraud.”

There’s more. Mrs. Clinton has yet to address any of it.....snip~

How the Clintons Get Away With It - WSJ
 
Back
Top Bottom