Reply With Quote
.....i do that at work.
For months they had meticulously updated a wall-size dry-erase board with color-coded symbols, letters and arrows to track which lawmakers were leaning toward endorsing Hillary and which were headed in Obama’s direction. For example, the letters “LO” indicated that a lawmaker was “leaning Obama,” while “BD” in blue denoted that he or she was a member of the centrist Blue Dog Coalition on Capitol Hill.
As one of the last orders of business for a losing campaign, they recorded in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet the names and deeds of members of Congress. They carefully noted who had endorsed Hillary, who had backed Obama, and who had stayed on the sidelines—standard operating procedure for any high-end political organization. But the data went into much more nuanced detail. “We wanted to have a record of who endorsed us and who didn’t,” a member of Hillary’s campaign team said, “and of those who endorsed us, who went the extra mile and who was just kind of there. And of those who didn’t endorse us, those who understandably didn’t endorse us because they are [Congressional Black Caucus] members or Illinois members. And then, of course, those who endorsed him but really should have been with her … that burned her.”
For Hillary, whose loss was of course not the end of her political career, the spreadsheet was a necessity of modern political warfare, an improvement on what old-school politicians called a “favor file.” It meant that when asks rolled in, she and Bill would have at their fingertips all the information needed to make a quick decision—including extenuating, mitigating and amplifying factors—so that friends could be rewarded and enemies punished.
mas @ http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...7.html?hp=t3_3
.....i do that at work.
You are dumb if you don't. And like or dislike them, Bill and Hillary aren't dumb.
how exactly is this some type of news?
anyone with half a brain would do this.
It's not about it existing so much as who is on it and why. Its excellent reporting.
Hillary is history though. If she is the presidential nominee, it's because the demonrats plan on losing. She can never recover from Benghazi.
How on Earth can you possibly think you are a good measure of something like that?
Consider her the measuring stick. If she gets elected, the American population is even more ed up than I thought.
outside of the Fox's its stone-ignorant viewers, Benghazi has always been a non-issue, esp with the sectors who are Dem main strengths. and the HRC - Benghazi link is non-existent in those sectors.
That doesn't even make sense. Who was the last democrat you supported in any way shape or form?
Use your imagination, and think about how much has not been reported the the left leaning media, and how much will come out if she is the nominee. That, and her being instrumental in starting Libya...
outside of the Fox's its stone-ignorant viewers, Benghazi has always been a non-issue, esp with the sectors who are Dem main strengths. and the HRC - Benghazi link is non-existent in those sectors.
Very few. However, that doesn't mean I can't see good or bad leadership in them. She made some very bad choices that I believe there is no coming back from. I never voted for her hubby, but I would have never made such a statement against him.
And again why on earth do you think that what you think has any relevance to independent or dem voters who will be the key to her winning the primary or the national election?
you are always going to think that any dem is going to lose and be a bad candidate no matter what. you are the epitome of partisan. you have demonstrated that again and again and I call bull on you not badmouthing Bill Clinton.
Once again, it will be voting for the lesser of two evils. It will be very hard for the republicans to nominate a worse candidate than Hillary.
Hilary will have one of the easiest path's to the white house ever if the GOP is still throwing a temper tantrum about Benghazi in 2016
But it will ensure she gets none of the tea-bagger vote that was so up for grabs.
Introspection is important here. Again, what makes you think you are an objective, much less good, judge of this?
Can you give one example of what in your eyes would represent a 'better' dem candidate than any candidate the GOP would put up?
No.
They all suck as much or more than the GOP sucks. However, Hillary has too much ammunition to be used against her.
smh. at least any objective reader can see how ignorant of others and yourself you are.
Well, that most definitely leaves you out.
you did notice the three other people that came in and laughed at your notion as well?
elections are about money and not about your favorite Fox News spam. Hillary has 2 superPACS coordinating a campaign and garnering promises of financial contributions. She hasn't even announced but the dem base is starting to rally around the notion of her running in two years. It's way early but she has the infrastructure and financial backing. That and she has the most popular democratic president since FDR in her back pocket who was still a public darling as evidenced but this most recent campaign.
Then there are objective popularity measures called polls. Here is one from a couple of weeks ago. Note that this is post Benghazi and something she has maintained for 12 years.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/166646/ob...man-woman.aspx
And mind you I don't like the Clinton's. I have railed against them and their deregulation of the banking industry in 1996. She still takes lots of money from them and will certainly perpetuate what I still see as one of the biggest problems this country faces today. I am just no so stupid as to think that as much money, power, and influence as she has that she is not a viable candidate with an electorate that already elected a black man. This is doubly so after watching the GOP for the last 12 years.
You are simply a fool.
double double toil and trouble
WC will be bringing up Vince Foster next.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
