Comments about ‘A fresh start for Hillary Clinton and liberals?’

Return to article »

Published: Sunday, Feb. 9 2014 1:31 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
worf
Mcallen, TX

Fresh?

Recycling the same people who have been around for decades, is not a fresh start.

Many people would love the opportunity to serve their country.

Let's share the opportunities, and see some new faces.

wYo8
Rock Springs, WY

Benghazi

FT
salt lake city, UT

Worf-
Couldn't agree with you more. Lots of talented people out there. Let's hope they get a good look.

one vote
Salt Lake City, UT

The next President thanks to the tea party.

Enough is enough!
Saint George, UT

A review of her past service, well . . . at this point what difference does it make?!

Why wasn't there a mention of Benghazi in the article, or did I miss it?

The thought of her as president is FRIGHTENING!

Mountanman
Hayden, ID

Hillary will need a new new slogan about Benghazi, Obamacare, Whitewater, cattlegate, etc.: "Hope and change the subject."

boneheaded, but not a smidgen
SLC, UT

this is the best libs have to offer? she has no chance. way to much baggage. there is much that the american public don't know about billy's wife, but will as things heat up.

JBQ
Saint Louis, MO

As far as the statement that "in my mind, we have a different Hillary", that is not so. As with almost all politicians with maybe Abe Lincoln being a notable exception, it is a matter of image projection. Hillary has never changed from the moment that she set eyes on Bill at Yale Law School. She has the same agenda and has been locked into her goal of the presidency from that very moment.

GaryO
Virginia Beach, VA

Why would Hillary want to shift direction? Who do you think she is? . . . Mitt Romney? Hillary doesn't flip flop like a dying carp.

Her past Iraq-war stance isn’t relevant. As a result of GW Bush's WMD scandal, millions of Americans including Ms Clinton, were mislead into believing a war against Iraq was absolutely essential for America's defense.

You do remember the WMD scandal don't you? It originated from faulty intelligence and resulted in a trillion dollars lost, thousands of brain trauma cases, the complete destabilization of the Middle East to the detriment of America, over a hundred thousand dead Iraqis, and over FOUR THOUSAND dead American service members.

To refresh your memory, the WMD scandal is similar to the Benghazi scandal where four Americans died . . . But it's over a THOUSAND times worse.

Remember now?

Hillary has too much integrity to change her stance on substantive issues just to get votes. Why should she? She already reflects the pragmatic, can-do spirit of most Americans.

Hillary is no dying carp. You’ll find them on the other side of the aisle.

USU-Logan
Logan, UT

@bungalow and GaryO

Well Said.

Redshirt1701
Deep Space 9, Ut

Ok conservatives. Yes we know that Hilary has a terrible record for letting bad things happen while she was Secretary of State. However, you forget that we have a complicit media that will ignore any blemishes that she has, but will be an unpaid propaganda arm for her. The only way to defeat Hilary is to have somebody that the media loves more, and in that case I really would worry about the type of person they would pick.

To "GaryO" If you do some searches, WMDs were found in Iraq. The problem is that they were finding small supplies, and not a big wearhouse full like the media would like to report on.

To "bungalow" since brought up deficits, lets use the same year 2000 debt as a comparison point for deficits. In 8 years bush took the debt went from $5.5 Trillion to $9.9 Trillion. That is a 80% increase. Using the same year as comparison, Obama has raised the debt to $17.2 Trillion with 3 years left. That is a 132% increase in 5 years.

Obama's track record is looking really poor.

The big question for you and your liberal friends is this. What has Obama done differently than Bush?

Redshirt1701
Deep Space 9, Ut

To "bungalow" tell us what Obama has done differently than Bush. You obviously hate Bush, and will follow the Democrat party line no matter what. I would like you to step back, and tell us what Obama has done that is any different than what Bush did. The only difference I can find is the magnitude of the choices.

The Republicans have little chance of winning unless they can articulate why they are different from the Democrats. Bush is a Progressive, and if we had elected McCain in place of Obama, we would still be headed to the same end that Obama is. The only difference is that the GOP will take 20 years to go where the Democrats went in 5.

Do you want to walk or run to socialism? That is the question, and that is why the Republicans need to run a canidate that is not just a "Lite" version of the Democrats, but is a libertarian to run in opposition to the Progressive Democrat.

GaryO
Virginia Beach, VA

Redshirt, contrary to what you prefer to believe, no WMD's were found in Iraq. Some yellow cake uranium was found, but even if they had tons of that stuff, it wouldn't make a good dirty bomb.

The closest thing to a WMD found in Iraq was a bottle of drain cleaner underneath Saddam's kitchen sink.

"What has Obama done differently than Bush?" Well, just look at the facts, and you tell me.

Clinton left Bush a country at peace, with a recent history of balanced budgets, a pretty good economy, strong international allies, and a solid revenue stream.

GW left Obama a country simultaneously involved in two very expensive and possibly fruitless wars, a history of massive budget deficits, a doubling of the debt, estranged former allies, and complete financial devastation.

Now, under Obama's administration, the country is on the upswing again, in spite of massive obstructionism on the part of Right Wing ideologues.

Things are looking up. And things will look a lot better after we vote out the obstructionists and replace them with sensible people

Oh . . . and no sky scrapers have come tumbling down lately either. That only happens under Republican administrations.

Redshirt1701
Deep Space 9, Ut

To "bungalow" actually, you are wrong.

Bush had negociated to pull out of Iraq in 2007. See the "U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement" signed by Bush in November 2008. That required the US combat troops to be out of Iraq by December 16, 2011.

Obama didn't have BinLaden tracked down. Bush had set that in motion back in 2001. Bush tracked down and got Saddam.

So what has Obama done to get those jobs added? The jobs that have been added have not kept up with the population increase. Obama has the lowest job participation rate since Jimmy Carter. That means that the percent of working age people is lower today, than it has been since early 1978.

Domestic oil production has soard on PRIVATE lands. Government lands are more locked up than ever. Obama has been hindering US oil production. Gas prices under Obama have nearly doubled since he was sworn in.

Solar, that is a great one. Obama is following the Spain example. They lost 2.2 jobs for every "green energy" job created. I don't think that is a big selling point.

So again, what has he done differently than Bush. They have both been lackluster on every front.

Redshirt1701
Deep Space 9, Ut

To "GaryO" actually, WMDs were found.

Pay close attention to the WikiLeaks article.

"Troops 'foil Iraq nerve gas bid'" July 2, 2004
"US did find Iraq WMD" NY Post October 25, 2004
"Iraqi Nerve Gas, WMD Find Blows Away Pundits" NewsMax, May 17, 2004
"WikiLeaks Show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq – With Surprising Results" Wired October 23, 2010
"Iraq mortar shells contain blister agent" USA Today January 11, 2004
"Bomb said to hold deadly sarin gas explodes in Iraq" MSNBC May 17, 2004
"Sarin, Mustard Gas Discovered Separately in Iraq" Fox New May 17, 2004
"Hundreds of WMDs discovered in Iraq" WorldNetDaily June 21, 2006
"Initial tests of Iraqi chemicals show nerve agent" CNN April 27, 2003

They point to a lot of chemical agents being found.

GaryO
Virginia Beach, VA

Redshirt, first of all, most of the sites you listed are not legit.

The NY Post and FOX "News," for example, are both owned by Rupert Murdoch, a would-be plutocrat, whose collection of Right Wing propaganda mills churn out misinformation and opinion designed to create and sustain pliable citizens who will support a corporatist Right Wing Agenda.

And WikiLeaks is incredible . . . as in not at all credible.

News Max and World Net Daily are completely disconnected with reality. I never said that nonfactual right-wing sights are not omnipresent on the net.

MSNBC quoted someone as having said something? Good for them, but hardly proof of WMD's.

You say CNN said "Initial tests of Iraqi chemicals show nerve agent?" "Initial tests?" What did the final tests say?

Sure, it's possible that shells from way back when may have gotten lost. After all, WWI mustard gas shells are still being dug up in Europe . . . But was Iraq a WMD threat in 2003?

No way.

So far, you have provided no legitimate sources that support your claims. And GW's WMD scandal still racks up damage to this nation.

GaryO
Virginia Beach, VA

Redshirt, I checked on your wikileaks claim.

Wikileaks made no such claim. Right Wing "News" organizations and bloggers claimed that Wikileaks made that claim . . . But of course those Right Wing "News" organizations and bloggers misrepresented the facts.

CBS news tells all about what Wikileaks found in this article: "WikiLeaks Iraq War Logs: No Evidence of Massive WMD Caches"

worf
Mcallen, TX

Don't be fooled!

The media will decide our next president, because our public is easily persuaded.

If they wanted Lady GaGa,--the American people could be talked into voting her in. If they want Hillary, that's who they'll get in.

Any decent person would be victimized, and our people would fall for it.

Sorry folks, but that's the way it is. We have no say.

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

To "GaryO" no matter what, you have to admit that WMDs were found. Granted it wasn't the wearhouse full of freshly manufactured weapons, but, as they found there were mustard gas shells found. You should read the Senate report. The confirmed that indeed WMDs were found. They also found that no new chemicals were being manufactured, but there were still WMDs being found throughout the country.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments