CDZ Democrats have a major uphill battle because they cannot shake Clinton...

[shockedcanadian]

So she is back in the spotlight, doing speeches. Probably well paid for too. As the Democrats are trying to determine their direction, leadership, where their support might lie and what future policies to support, how does someone like Clinton help them?

Unless she is doing all of this to try and set her daughter up for a career; quite self serving as it would be, this cannot help the democrats out. I would even go so far as suggest her constantly being in the news is welcome news for the GOP.

Thoughts?

 

[HenryBHough]

The more often she speaks the more rich she becomes.
The more often she speaks the odds of Republicans holding the presidency for a century increase.

Keep up the good work!
Nobody gets to take their money with them when The Avenging Angel Alzheimer flutters down.
But a hundred year presidency....yeah, that lasts and lasts!

 

[mamooth]

Why do the Democrats want to shake Clinton? By now, everyone who isn't a 'tard understands all the negative stories about her were bullshit. Every sane person thinks she looks damn good compared to Trump. And the insane, we were never getting their votes anyways.

Plus, the mention of her name causes the bedwetter brigades to go insane with butthurt, and that's worth a lot of votes. Henry, please keep bringing in more votes for the Dems.

 

[Borillar]

Why do the Democrats want to shake Clinton? By now, everyone who isn't a 'tard understands all the negative stories about her were bullshit. Every sane person thinks she looks damn good compared to Trump. And the insane, we were never getting their votes anyways.

Plus, the mention of her name causes the bedwetter brigades to go insane with butthurt, and that's worth a lot of votes. Henry, please keep bringing in more votes for the Dems.

Even if the right wing muckraking brigade came up with tons of fake "scandals", the fact remains that she just isn't very likeable or appealing to voters. IMHO, it would be better if she just fades away. Time for new leadership.

 

[MarathonMike]

I hope Bill and Hillary continue their self-serving greedy run at the top of the Democratic Party. It is all good for the GOP. Go Hillary!

 

[DGS49]

The DNC Road Show now includes the co-chairmen, both of whom are off-the-rails Leftists, and a Septuagenarian Socialist who is not even a registered member of the Party (Recently voted "the most popular politician in the United States"). HRC is much too conservative for 2017's Democrat Party. Even Squaw Betty Warren is starting to look "moderate" next to these clowns.

 

[Fueri]

some of them don't realize she's rat poison for the dems.

and that's fine with me.....

 

[Mac1958]

Thoughts?

I don't see her as any kind of handicap to the party, unless of course she runs in the 2020 primary. But if she's just jetting around doing speeches, a vast majority of the electorate won't know about it.

Right now, the Democrats' focus is getting Trump's negatives as high as possible, and they know he may be their biggest help there.

Hillary, meh.
.

 

[usmbguest5318]

So she is back in the spotlight, doing speeches.

She was, in all likelihood, going to do speeches whether she won or lost the election.

Hillary Clinton's making one-off appearances is hardly "in the spotlight" in any general sense of the term.

Unless she is doing all of this to try and set her daughter up for a career; quite self serving as it would be

What? Do you realize just how incoherent and convoluted must be one's thinking to construe "setting up" someone else "for a career" as "self serving?" Doing such a thing serves someone else, namely the person one "sets up," not oneself.

I hardly think that Hillary Clinton's "retirement plan" -- means of sustenance and support in her old age -- is Chelsea Clinton.

 

[shockedcanadian]

So she is back in the spotlight, doing speeches.

She was, in all likelihood, going to do speeches whether she won or lost the election.

Hillary Clinton's making one-off appearances is hardly "in the spotlight" in any general sense of the term.

Unless she is doing all of this to try and set her daughter up for a career; quite self serving as it would be

What? Do you realize just how incoherent and convoluted must be one's thinking to construe "setting up" someone else "for a career" as "self serving?" Doing such a thing serves someone else, namely the person one "sets up," not oneself.

I hardly think that Hillary Clinton's "retirement plan" -- means of sustenance and support in her old age -- is Chelsea Clinton.

Self serving in that it's not for party benefit, unless we are to presume her daughter is the best person for the job she applies to in the political sphere. Staying in the public eye with her political and somewhat controversial history is certain to bring media attention, she know this. It also opens old wounds from the Sanders supporters who themselves are struggling with what the post-Clinton Democratic party should be.

 

[usmbguest5318]

So she is back in the spotlight, doing speeches.

She was, in all likelihood, going to do speeches whether she won or lost the election.

Hillary Clinton's making one-off appearances is hardly "in the spotlight" in any general sense of the term.

Unless she is doing all of this to try and set her daughter up for a career; quite self serving as it would be

What? Do you realize just how incoherent and convoluted must be one's thinking to construe "setting up" someone else "for a career" as "self serving?" Doing such a thing serves someone else, namely the person one "sets up," not oneself.

I hardly think that Hillary Clinton's "retirement plan" -- means of sustenance and support in her old age -- is Chelsea Clinton.

Self serving in that it's not for party benefit, unless we are to presume her daughter is the best person for the job she applies to in the political sphere. Staying in the public eye with her political and somewhat controversial history is certain to bring media attention, she know this. It also opens old wounds from the Sanders supporters who themselves are struggling with what the post-Clinton Democratic party should be.

Self serving in that it's not for party benefit

Last I checked, the meaning of "self-serving" hasn't changed. Self-serving serves oneself. If Hillary's actions served the party, they too cannot not be termed self serving for such acts benefit someone other than Hillary Clinton.

When people do things that serve their own and others benefit/ends, we describe such actions are "mutually beneficial," not self-serving. Mutually beneficial is what aptly describes Mrs. Clinton's appearances; Hillary is surely benefitting somehow from them, but so are others. And when one does something that does not benefit oneself in any way shape or form, well, that's called acting "selflessly."