On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 06:44:51 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:


Hillary apparently has adopted a new campaign strategy.

Don't talk to the media and if you must, ignore their questions.

Kristen Walker (NBC News) caught up with Hillary in Iowa as
Hillary exited a building. Here's the basics of their exchange:

Walker: "Madam Secretary, you lost Iowa in 2008. How do you win
this time? What is your strategy?"

Hillary: (with that false, phony tone of voice)

"H-i-i-i-i. Nice to see you. I'm having a great time.
Can't look forward hmmm anymore than I am."


That's it. That's her answer to a respected NBC White House correspondent.

What an arrogant woman with a sense of entitlement Hillary is.
Hope she continues this style ... and that of constantly repeating
the words of (and sounding just like) Elizabeth Warren. She' going
to very quickly turn off much of the mindless support she has as people
actually start to listen to what she says ... and doesn't say.

http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/hillary-clinton-tries-keep-low-profile-iowa-n341356


Her mindless support will vote for her because they're...mindless.
--

Guns don't cause problems.
Gun owner behavior causes problems.

On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 4:45:55 PM UTC-4, John H. wrote:

Her mindless support will vote for her because they're...mindless.


Like you, huh?

On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 3:44:51 AM UTC-7, Mr. Luddite wrote:
Hillary apparently has adopted a new campaign strategy.

Don't talk to the media and if you must, ignore their questions.

Kristen Walker (NBC News) caught up with Hillary in Iowa as
Hillary exited a building. Here's the basics of their exchange:

Walker: "Madam Secretary, you lost Iowa in 2008. How do you win
this time? What is your strategy?"

Hillary: (with that false, phony tone of voice)

"H-i-i-i-i. Nice to see you. I'm having a great time.
Can't look forward hmmm anymore than I am."


That's it. That's her answer to a respected NBC White House correspondent.

Tom, I think your responses were well put with some reasonable thought.

Until and if she eventually gets a democrat primary opponent she really does not have to say much. Once the general election cycle begins she will have to start speaking to the press. For now she can hide.

RGrew176 wrote:
Until and if she eventually gets a democrat primary opponent she really
does not have to say much. Once the general election cycle begins she
will have to start speaking to the press. For now she can hide.





Where's Biden in this? That would be a debate to watch!

Someone wrote:
RGrew176 wrote:
Until and if she eventually gets a democrat primary opponent she really
does not have to say much. Once the general election cycle begins she
will have to start speaking to the press. For now she can hide.





Where's Biden in this? That would be a debate to watch!

http://www.bidenforpresident.com/

"This domain is reserved with TierraNet. Website coming soon."

I doubt it.

On 4/21/15 7:53 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/21/2015 7:39 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:


Well, it's her campaign, after all.

True but it's her's to lose. As a former newspaper man don't you think
a responsible journalist is entitled to a straight answer from a
candidate so the public can be informed? Thus far Hillary has
demonstrated more of a queen's "entitlement" attitude to the throne.
Screw what anyone else is questioning.

Oh, I dunno...two of the GOP frontrunners got into doo-doo last week by
snarking at reporters who asked them fairly softballish
questions...Rafel Cruz and Randal Paul.

In article ,
says...


Mrs. Clinton is unilaterally deciding which questions she will answer
and which ones she will not.


So what? Why should she answer "Did you stop beating your husband" type
questions? She is telling her opponents to pound sand. Just like I
told you she would do. If your "feelings" are hurt - good for you.

Don't know if there is anything to the book by Peter Schweizer entitled
"Clinton Cash" that will be released next month or not
It reportedly ties her activities as Sec. of State to lucrative speaking
engagement contracts for hubby Bill. We'll have to wait and see what
the detailed evidence is.


Why wait? Wild and unsupported accusations should be good enough.

Meanwhile, Mrs. C. has brushed it off as a "Republican "distraction"
from the issues of her campaign. She didn't confirm or deny the book's
allegations. She simply refused to answer the journalist's question
(again) and answered what *she* wanted to answer.


IOW "pound sand."

And, of course, there's no email evidence of any secret "deals".
Her server files have been sanitized.


Master criminals such as HRC don't use email to commit their dastardly
deeds. You have to get them on tape.

Again, I don't know if the allegations made in Schweizer's book are
true or not or if they can be proved. But, if they can, Hillary is toast.

She may be toast anyway. People are increasingly becoming suspicious
and uncomfortable with her evasiveness in telling the truth.

So if it proved she did dastardly deeds she is toast.
And if it's NOT proved she did dastardly deeds she is toast.
Isn't that something like tying weights to a suspected witch, tossing
her in a pond, and if she floats back up she's a witch?
Worked well enough in Salem, and you're just down the road after all.

On 4/21/15 9:01 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...


Mrs. Clinton is unilaterally deciding which questions she will answer
and which ones she will not.


So what? Why should she answer "Did you stop beating your husband" type
questions? She is telling her opponents to pound sand. Just like I
told you she would do. If your "feelings" are hurt - good for you.

Don't know if there is anything to the book by Peter Schweizer entitled
"Clinton Cash" that will be released next month or not
It reportedly ties her activities as Sec. of State to lucrative speaking
engagement contracts for hubby Bill. We'll have to wait and see what
the detailed evidence is.


Why wait? Wild and unsupported accusations should be good enough.

Meanwhile, Mrs. C. has brushed it off as a "Republican "distraction"
from the issues of her campaign. She didn't confirm or deny the book's
allegations. She simply refused to answer the journalist's question
(again) and answered what *she* wanted to answer.


IOW "pound sand."

And, of course, there's no email evidence of any secret "deals".
Her server files have been sanitized.


Master criminals such as HRC don't use email to commit their dastardly
deeds. You have to get them on tape.

Again, I don't know if the allegations made in Schweizer's book are
true or not or if they can be proved. But, if they can, Hillary is toast.

She may be toast anyway. People are increasingly becoming suspicious
and uncomfortable with her evasiveness in telling the truth.

So if it proved she did dastardly deeds she is toast.
And if it's NOT proved she did dastardly deeds she is toast.
Isn't that something like tying weights to a suspected witch, tossing
her in a pond, and if she floats back up she's a witch?
Worked well enough in Salem, and you're just down the road after all.



He's hopeful.