PDA

View Full Version : Hillary Clinton conceded 2008 nomination fight...



Black Diamond
10-13-2015, 03:43 PM
In exchange for her Secretary of State position.

DragonStryk72
10-13-2015, 05:19 PM
Well yeah. I mean, she was going to lose to Obama, and she saw the writing on the walls. Since she had dumped everything into the campaign, there really wasn't anything else for her to do. If she had suddenly tried to regain her Senate seat, it would've looked weak, like she was skulking off back home. Better to get a more solid position on the federal scene for when she makes her next go at it.

gabosaurus
10-13-2015, 06:53 PM
In exchange for her Secretary of State position.

You are just finding this out? :eek:

Elessar
10-13-2015, 06:58 PM
Well yeah. I mean, she was going to lose to Obama, and she saw the writing on the walls. Since she had dumped everything into the campaign, there really wasn't anything else for her to do. If she had suddenly tried to regain her Senate seat, it would've looked weak, like she was skulking off back home. Better to get a more solid position on the federal scene for when she makes her next go at it.

She was a Carpetbagger as a Senator, and a poor one at that.

I remember when Bill got sworn in, she shortly thereafter proclaimed "WE are the President". She is a narcissist and egotist.

Here is more for all Hilary fans, as well as that above quote: http://listverse.com/2007/09/05/top-10-unfortunate-comments-of-the-clintons/

Black Diamond
10-13-2015, 07:29 PM
You are just finding this out? :eek:

I have never seen proof. I just have always believed it.

DragonStryk72
10-13-2015, 07:45 PM
She was a Carpetbagger as a Senator, and a poor one at that.

I remember when Bill got sworn in, she shortly thereafter proclaimed "WE are the President". She is a narcissist and egotist.

Here is more for all Hilary fans, as well as that above quote: http://listverse.com/2007/09/05/top-10-unfortunate-comments-of-the-clintons/

Oh yeah, I was IN New York for her senate run. However, it doesn't really change that she made a tactical decision. Going back would've been a pure defeat, while taking the Secretary of State position is more or less at least a minor victory.

My main issue with Clinton is this: She never leads anything. She's involved in stuff, sure. It's pretty hard not to be involved in various bills, but if she wants to be president, then she needs to show some degree of leadership. When is the last time you saw a bill that SHE put forth? When's the last time you saw her rounding up bi-partisan support for anything? Even with Benghazi, it was Obama who took the lead on it, not her.

She's says she wants to be the leader of the free world, but she doesn't really want to lead it.

Elessar
10-13-2015, 07:57 PM
Oh yeah, I was IN New York for her senate run. However, it doesn't really change that she made a tactical decision. Going back would've been a pure defeat, while taking the Secretary of State position is more or less at least a minor victory.

My main issue with Clinton is this: She never leads anything. She's involved in stuff, sure. It's pretty hard not to be involved in various bills, but if she wants to be president, then she needs to show some degree of leadership. When is the last time you saw a bill that SHE put forth? When's the last time you saw her rounding up bi-partisan support for anything? Even with Benghazi, it was Obama who took the lead on it, not her.

She's says she wants to be the leader of the free world, but she doesn't really want to lead it.

Exactly.

And that is one reason why she would be an Obama Clone!

No Leadership skills at all.

Remember she got booted from the Watergate Investigation?

http://jacksonville.com/reason/fact-check/2014-03-08/story/fact-check-was-hillary-clinton-fired-watergate-investigation

All Dems and Libs would have to do is a search, and they want this lying, conniving hag as President?

Russ
10-13-2015, 08:13 PM
Oh yeah, I was IN New York for her senate run. However, it doesn't really change that she made a tactical decision. Going back would've been a pure defeat, while taking the Secretary of State position is more or less at least a minor victory.

My main issue with Clinton is this: She never leads anything. She's involved in stuff, sure. It's pretty hard not to be involved in various bills, but if she wants to be president, then she needs to show some degree of leadership. When is the last time you saw a bill that SHE put forth? When's the last time you saw her rounding up bi-partisan support for anything? Even with Benghazi, it was Obama who took the lead on it, not her.

She's says she wants to be the leader of the free world, but she doesn't really want to lead it.

Here's a question I often end up asking myself: Who is worse? The Carpetbagger Senate-candidate Hillary Clinton, or the voters that can see she's a Carpetbagger but vote for her anyway. Or who's worse? Obama running for re-election in 2012, and somehow saying "I've been doing a job as President for 4 years", barely managing to keep a straight face, or the mindless lemmings (or free stuff recipients) that voted for him in 2012 even though there was 4 years of evidence that he's a train-wreck of a President?

In the end, I often decide it is the voters that are worse.

Perianne
10-13-2015, 08:33 PM
Here's a question I often end up asking myself: Who is worse? The Carpetbagger Senate-candidate Hillary Clinton, or the voters that can see she's a Carpetbagger but vote for her anyway. Or who's worse? Obama running for re-election in 2012, and somehow saying "I've been doing a job as President for 4 years", barely managing to keep a straight face, or the mindless lemmings (or free stuff recipients) that voted for him in 2012 even though there was 4 years of evidence that he's a train-wreck of a President?

In the end, I often decide it is the voters that are worse.

Of course it is the voters who are worse. That is why I support some means of lessening the liberal impact on America.

fj1200
10-15-2015, 11:07 AM
Oh yeah, I was IN New York for her senate run. However, it doesn't really change that she made a tactical decision. Going back would've been a pure defeat, while taking the Secretary of State position is more or less at least a minor victory.

She was reelected in '06; She didn't have to go back for that. But I agree she made a decision so that she wouldn't have to be subject to whims of whiny voters and pad her resume a bit more.