• 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!

Why is Hillary Clinton's popularity sliding?

I agree that it's good to know what led up to the attack, who attacked us an how it happened so that we can be better prepared in the future, so you'll be happy to know that Hillary Clinton thinks that too. Know how I know that? Because she said that, and you can see that in the same paragraph the "what difference does it make" comment is lifted from.



Although even the whole unedited quote is a bit misleading if you miss the question and answer session that finally led up to it. Clinton focuses her answers on the facts of the attack and all the while Senator Johnson just wants to talk about whether it was said that a video started it. So when she finally explodes with the infamous "what difference does it make" comment she's not saying that why the attack started isn't important but that the priorities of Senator Johnson line of inquiry at that point in time and the investigation were completely misplaced. Read the whole interview and you'll see that clearly.

PolitiFact | In Context: Hillary Clinton's 'What difference does it make' comment

I've watched the long exchange a number of times and my impression is unaltered.

But myself, I've never understood the appeal this woman has that would inspire anyone to put her in charge of much of anything. And, being a Conservative, I conserve knowledge. Hillary has been involved in a number of investigations now. And she is never forthcoming with information. If you or I failed to produce subpoenaed documents that were later "found" in our residence we'd probably go to jail. Not Hillary, oh no.

If you or I told a senate investigating committee 184 times that we "couldn't recall" when asked about our own actions, we'd be lucky to avoid having a legal guardian appointed, instead of being held in contempt and investigated for possible prosecution. But Hillary had the right marital connections.

And of course, somehow Hillary wasn't held to be a major figure when four Americans died in a fiasco created by mindless dismissal of professional security concerns, and the following attempts by the Administration to stonewall legal and journalistic investigations of the debacle.

Why would a sane person not bent of the ruin of the country want to see such a shady character in power?
 
She was probably the best candidate of the entire dem/GOP field in 2008. That is NOT a positive comment on HC so much as it is an indictment on the entire field in 2008. Now...why is she unpopular? She is a liar...but then so are most politicians. She has avoided any responsibility and leadership in her most recent government role...maybe people are tired of the I didnt know, it wasnt my fault, and besides, it doesnt MATTER schtick. Her comments throughout the Benghazi hearings were ludicrous. AS the head of the Dept of State she didnt know who ignored known specific terrorist threats? She didnt know who failed to act on this emails requesting assistance? She didnt know which of her own people offered up the ludicrous lie about the protests being really nothing more than a reaction to some unknown and poorly done video on youtube and who fed that lie to the UN leadership, the WH, her self? She never bothered to find out who?

Horse****. She lied. Might just be that people are tired of the same old schtick. Or...it MIGHT be that people see in her the same thing people saw in Barrack Obama. Barrack Obama was not elected because he was the best candidate. He was elected because he was, in the words of Joe Biden, a clean, articulate, well spoken black man. Finally...they found one of those to run. Now...Hillary isnt black, but she is a woman and I reckon she is clean enough. Her voice is grating...but that wont matter. She is a woman and when she is trotted out she will be embraced, regardless of her record, regardless of her character and nature.WHen people talk lovingly of Hillary for president...how many people talk about her record? How many talk about her actual qualifications?
 
And she's right, you know. We needed to be focusing at that exact moment on who attacked us, how they organized the attack, bringing them to justice and how this tragedy could be avoided in the future. Not on whether Obama said a video started it. That's just silly.
If you are in a middle of a firefight, you dont have time to stop and ponder what got you there...you just have to win the firefight. However...thats not what was happening at the time and the REASON why it mattered was that every person in the chain of command at State that was responsible for every failure was still there and no one could (or still has yet to) identify who arbitrarily decided to ignore intel, direct requests that ended up costing people their lives, who deemed their lives unworthy of response, and who lied about the reasons for the attack in the first place. It ABSOLUTELY mattered that someone KNOWINGLY fed the public (and by the Administrations account, the administration itself) a lie which Hillary, Rice, Obama, and many others trotted out for months.

What does it matter? Seriously?
 
Indeed, I would assume her absence from politics has a bigger impact than anything else.

PS not sure what the point is harping over the fact the guy disagrees with the article from the OP though. Seems rather pointless

I am more of a numbers guy and like to keep track on what is going on. Their is a lot of insights insides polls that can confirm or put to rest what one believes or not. Numbers are fun
 
Funny, that is not any of the reasons listed in your source. In fact your source has actual thought out reasons, primarily that people are not real happy with any politicians right now.

The greater question might be why she was ever popular. Any accomplishments she may have are few, despite the opportunities handed to her.

Perhaps people are ready for a real president rather than a celebrity.
 
Why is Hillary Clinton's popularity sliding?

Probably because sooner or later people have to realize that she's a pretty unpleasant person with a very high opinion of herself, who has been caught in numerous lies, was an ineffective Senator and Secretary of State and was only considered for those offices because she was married to a popular, albeit sleazy President who cheated on her, and who made the infamous "what difference does it make," statement.

All true, but they have also gained much wealth and power inside Washington and few Democrat insiders want to get on the wrong side of them. She had already begun a campaign a few months ago but was advised to stop. She will start campaigning again the first chance she gets and it will be an Obama revisited campaign where we have to put away the past and look to the future. A good way as any to gloss over her history.
 
Benghazi...what? Just "Benghazi?" Were you planning on backing that up with anything, like a reason?
Nope. Where does the question that I responded to require a reason that the incident in Benghazi doesn't address itself? Are you in doubt about what occurred there?
 
I've watched the long exchange a number of times and my impression is unaltered.

Why? There isn't anything in that exchange that could allow you to arrive at your conclusion. :confused:
 
Nope. Where does the question that I responded to require a reason that the incident in Benghazi doesn't address itself? Are you in doubt about what occurred there?

That sounds like a prize strategy. I expect it should work about as well as when Benghazi was splashed across the news 24/7 leading up to the 2012 election.
 
I am more of a numbers guy and like to keep track on what is going on. Their is a lot of insights insides polls that can confirm or put to rest what one believes or not. Numbers are fun

I agree. It just seems that some people were acting like the OP disagreeing with the article was some high crime.
 
The greater question might be why she was ever popular. Any accomplishments she may have are few, despite the opportunities handed to her.

Perhaps people are ready for a real president rather than a celebrity.

As of right nw, I'd probabl vote for Hillary over any other potential nominee from either major party. She seems like she would make a competent executive and party leader (something woefully missing from the current administration) and that she's able to navigate the halls of washington. At this point I'm looking for competence in the WH, not political allignment
 
As of right nw, I'd probabl vote for Hillary over any other potential nominee from either major party. She seems like she would make a competent executive and party leader (something woefully missing from the current administration) and that she's able to navigate the halls of washington. At this point I'm looking for competence in the WH, not political allignment

Why would you think she'd be competent? Has she yet demonstrated any competence, leadership abilities, avoided any scandals?

That she is able to navigate the halls of Washington is without question but any longtime staff can do that. All Hillary has going for her is political alignment, nothing more.
 
I agree. It just seems that some people were acting like the OP disagreeing with the article was some high crime.

RCP has a 2016 general election match up of polls, Clinton leads Christie by 8, Ryan by 9, Paul by 13, Jeb Bush by 7, Rubio by 9, Cruz by 20. But we all know these mean nothing this far out and we don't even know if Clinton will win the Democratic nomination. Still they do provide some intel to the situation. RCP also has some with Biden as the Democratic nominee, Christie slam dunks him, but Biden is ahead by about 5 points over all the rest. All this does is give someone a feeling about how people looked at the upcoming race today. Not 2 years into the future.
 
That sounds like a prize strategy. I expect it should work about as well as when Benghazi was splashed across the news 24/7 leading up to the 2012 election.
I'll stick with the truth as I know it and leave the strategy to the strategists.
 
Why would you think she'd be competent? Has she yet demonstrated any competence, leadership abilities, avoided any scandals?

She seemed to take the leadership role while SS, often coming across as the more dominate personality in shaping foreign relations

That she is able to navigate the halls of Washington is without question but any longtime staff can do that. All Hillary has going for her is political alignment, nothing more.

I think the Obama admin speaks directly against that assumption
 
I'll stick with the truth as I know it and leave the strategy to the strategists.

And that strategy will work great with people who would already eat their first born before casting a vote for Hillary. Everybody else recognizes that the Benghazi attack was a tragedy and probably the result of failure in the lines of communication, not some insidious desire by Obama personally to see people die. The right wing rhetoric on Benghazi is successful with its base of voters that be relied upon to vote, but sounds shrill and hysterical to everyone else.

Anyway, good luck with that.
 
And that strategy will work great with people who would already eat their first born before casting a vote for Hillary. Everybody else recognizes that the Benghazi attack was a tragedy and probably the result of failure in the lines of communication, not some insidious desire by Obama personally to see people die. The right wing rhetoric on Benghazi is successful with its base of voters that be relied upon to vote, but sounds shrill and hysterical to everyone else.

Anyway, good luck with that.
I believe I already said I don't strategize. You must have missed it. I'm interested in the truth about Benghazi, and it appears that Hillary, Obama and a host of others are complicit in a coverup, or the witnesses would be allowed to testify. Funny you should mention Obama's personal association with death: Book Alleges Obama Told Aides About Drone Strikes: I’m ‘Really Good At Killing People’ « CBS DC
 
I agree. It just seems that some people were acting like the OP disagreeing with the article was some high crime.

I don't know about it being a high crime, but if the one article you link to in your OP doesn't actually support your argument, that's just sloppy.
 
I believe I already said I don't strategize. You must have missed it. I'm interested in the truth about Benghazi, and it appears that Hillary, Obama and a host of others are complicit in a coverup, or the witnesses would be allowed to testify. Funny you should mention Obama's personal association with death: Book Alleges Obama Told Aides About Drone Strikes: I’m ‘Really Good At Killing People’ « CBS DC

As I said, shrill and hysterical. And now I can add "off topic" to that list.
 
And that strategy will work great with people who would already eat their first born before casting a vote for Hillary. Everybody else recognizes that the Benghazi attack was a tragedy and probably the result of failure in the lines of communication, not some insidious desire by Obama personally to see people die. The right wing rhetoric on Benghazi is successful with its base of voters that be relied upon to vote, but sounds shrill and hysterical to everyone else.

Anyway, good luck with that.

Although I agree with you that Benghazi has little use as a political issue as of this time to garner votes, shall I say from independents. There is one thing that the present administration has yet to explain. That is why are they keeping hidden the survivors from congress or giving interviews on TV. As long as the present administration does this, there is more than a hint that it is attempting to hide something, something they do not want the American public to know.

Now this probably won't change a single vote, if you are for Clinton or any Democrat, you don't care what is being hidden, it is rah, rah, myside. If you are a Republican and anti-Clinton, even if there is nothing there once there is a TV interview or something like that with the survivors, it won't change a single vote with them either, they are also rah, rah myside and boo Clinton.

But if there is something there and if is a mighty bit word, it could explode right in the Democrats face. No one will know for certain one way or the other until the survivors testify or give an interview on 60 minutes or some other show.
 
She seemed to take the leadership role while SS, often coming across as the more dominate personality in shaping foreign relations
And how did that work out? We have Benghazi,. the silliness of blaming it on Youtube and the reputation of the US among our Allies has never been weaker. Surely there are better people around then Hillary Rodham Clinton.

I think the Obama admin speaks directly against that assumption

Not quite sure what you mean here.
 
Although I agree with you that Benghazi has little use as a political issue as of this time to garner votes, shall I say from independents. There is one thing that the present administration has yet to explain. That is why are they keeping hidden the survivors from congress or giving interviews on TV. As long as the present administration does this, there is more than a hint that it is attempting to hide something, something they do not want the American public to know.

Now this probably won't change a single vote, if you are for Clinton or any Democrat, you don't care what is being hidden, it is rah, rah, myside. If you are a Republican and anti-Clinton, even if there is nothing there once there is a TV interview or something like that with the survivors, it won't change a single vote with them either, they are also rah, rah myside and boo Clinton.

But if there is something there and if is a mighty bit word, it could explode right in the Democrats face. No one will know for certain one way or the other until the survivors testify or give an interview on 60 minutes or some other show.

If the survivors want to come forward what's stopping them?
 
And how did that work out? We have Benghazi,. the silliness of blaming it on Youtube and the reputation of the US among our Allies has never been weaker. Surely there are better people around then Hillary Rodham Clinton.

I'm not convinced Benghazi is the major issue many make out



Not quite sure what you mean here.

If the ability to navigate washington was simply dependent on aids then some one inexperienced like Obama shouldn't be having so much issue with it.
 
If the survivors want to come forward what's stopping them?

Pressure from the CIA, state department, etc. Such accusations are flying pretty freely in the press and come from seemingly credible sources ...
 
If the survivors want to come forward what's stopping them?
From what I heard all the names are being kept hidden. Isn't it strange we do not even know their names. As I said this will not deter me from whomever I vote for or against, it is just something in the back of my mind. Think back through history, all the interviews of tragic events. Boston marathon, 9-11 and WTT, any hurricane or tornado, interviews up the ying yang, but yet none here. Hmm...............
 
Back
Top Bottom