I find it ironic that many of the people I grew up with are so rabidly anti-Obama because they believe the lies the right puts out about him. Now that Hillary might win the Presidency they are practically foaming in disbelief and denial. From my standpoint the right had to make up things about Obama to keep their base hating him: He's a socialist, Muslim, Kenyan immigrant who did poorly in school. With Hillary they don't have to make things up and that must really burn them.

I have to disagree on this point. His job at Bain was to make money. If that meant saving a company made more money, that's what he did. If more money was made chopping it up to sell and shipping the jobs to China, that's what he did. Romney is a pure capitalist.

My question is why are you willing to blame her for everything that has happened to the US under her watch? Why do you have that need? That's like me needing to blame Collin Powell for 9/11. He was the Secretary of State at the time.

So far many of the things that have been complained about took decades to come to fruition and some of them are not diplomatic in nature. For example, ISIS is a terrorist organization but that is somehow Clinton's responsibility not CIA or NSA according to the parent. The administration's failures to act in Syria is something that reflects badly on Clinton. The unrest in Yemen may also prove to be a negative on Clinton's legacy.

That maybe so but what if like many Americans she was misled about the true nature of Iraq's threat when she voted? Remember 97 other Senators and 420 Representatives joined her including Kerry, McCain, Biden, Saunders (Congressman).

Yes she voted for AUMF. And as a member of the Senate she was in charge of the Bush administration's diplomacy? She was in charge of the military decisions of the Bush administration?

What are you smoking? The administration is criticized for not doing enough in Syria and your complaint is that they made "regime change". Again you must on something really powerful.

You are apparently fixated on her as being one of 98 Senators and 420 Congressmen who voted for it. You seem less fixated on the Bush administration that misrepresented the justifications as well as mismanaged the war. But yes blame one Senator.

Really, she could have stopped North Korea from developing nukes? Something that the CIA, MI6, Mossad could not do. Are you serious?

I'm a registered Republican but like all things, your assumptions are telling of what kind of logic you use.

You missed the point. It was not a criticism of GWB as pointing out to you the EXACT reason ISIS came to power. But it must be Clinton's fault right?

The US did nothing really to foment the crisis in Libya as it is a civil war. As opposed to Iraq where the US went in an army and occupied the country for more than a decade. Thus the other Muslim countries are not upset at the US about this. See the difference?

First of all that is not what you posted in your other thread.

Second, your complaint is that he voted "present" still implies that this was more important than the thousands of "yes" or "no" votes he cast. I would argue that was an important part of job was to cast votes.

Having exposed your lie, now you want to switch it that so that he proposed no meaningful legislation. Seriously, can you use the internet?

Washington Post says you're lying. The New York Times says it as well. Do you live in an alternate world where you just believe things which are not only untrue but easily verified to be untrue but believe them anyway?

Add to that: They don't have preconceived notions because they have never done things the wrong and learned from it.

Yes because her being in her post for 4 years can reverse the 12 years of Putin rule and the undo decades of Ukranian-Russian tensions in Crimea. Yes, totally her fault on that one.

Because the US removal of Saddam Hussein under Bush leaving a power vacuum which fomented and led to the rise of ISIS is completely Clinton's fault.

I agree with you 100% that Hillary should do something to undo China's tendencies that they have had for decades.

Yes because she should have parachuted in James Bond style and erased their program which they had been building for decades especially after their first successful test while Bush was in office.

So far your biggest complaint about Hillary is her lack of a time machine to change things that have been decades in the making and happened before her time as secretary.

And as such Alaskans are much more independent and rely much more on their local governments than the state government for these reasons. That would make her job easier not harder.

Your penchant for posting factually untrue things is Palinesque. Obama's "present" votes represent 3% of his voting record.

Do I believe Hillary or Bill are the most trustworthy people? No. You, however, are willing to believe anything to justify your opinion. Even things that are not true.

Because what you allege is factually untrue unless you want to redefine 3% as "more than anything." Senator Obama voted "present" 129 times which is 3% of the 4,000 votes he cast. This is why no major news picked it up; it wasn't really news and it wasn't true. Second, in the Illinois Senate, the "present" vote is often used to as disapproval of measure without having to vote "no." Simply put it: Your facts are wrong.

So you are alleging is that having a meeting at someone's house is a wringing endorsement of everything about the host? That must mean that Ted Cruz is most definitely gay. Are you really that naive in thinking that when raising funds you can only attend functions with people you agree with 100%. Seriously are you that naive? Or do you recognize that you need a broad consensus and support for offices like Senator.

And I have never said anything about her gender up until now. You are the first to mention it. Being a woman wasn't her problem. Being Sarah Palin was her problem.

No, she didn't get elected because people thought she was dumb. I personally believe the stories that she didn't know the difference between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. That she didn't know there were two Korean countries. That she didn't know the Queen of England does not actually run the UK. These are simple things that she could have known if she was basically aware of history or the world. Now the if the average American does not know these things it is merely a shame; someone wanting to run the country needs to know these things.

Really, is that why George W Bush was President? Or why retired Naval Captain John McCain is a Senator.

And when above did I EVER say anything that you allege? In fact, the main reason that the Lewinsky scandal exploded was because Clinton lied. It's not the crime; it's the coverup that draws the press.

Someone complained that they sent many reporters to Wasilla because of the "liberal" media. That's a distorted viewpoint. She was unknown. There were things to report. You know how many people were sent to Arizona for McCain or Delaware for Biden? Few if any because both them had served in the Senate for decades and were known to the press. Maybe they both have scandalous hidden skeletons but they may be better at hiding them than Palin.

Except that in both cases, the reporters were asking tough questions. Or did you not read the article? Or view the clips? He simply came off as condescending and arrogant jerk. Shushing a reporter while they are asking you a question? Is that really a ringing endorsement of a candidate's ability to deal with people.

And the fact that her married a Mexican woman and had children with her must really cause them to seethe. She wasn't even a citizen when they married! Imagine the insult to the GOP base of marrying someone who isn't white and an immigrant! Jeb is doomed in certain parts of the base for this perceived travesty which is ironic because Jeb probably has the best chance of any of the candidates so far.