Hillary Clinton may be using Richard Nixon playbook.

[hadit]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/20/u...n-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

That sounds strange, but could be true. Tricky Dick had to remake himself to win the White House. Hillary may be attempting the same.

WOW! And the far left will still vote for her!

Nixon won didn't he? You posts threads on all types of shortcomings, but no link to support your "accusations." You post "maybes", "if", and "probably".

I find it funny. You guys on the left kicked and screamed about Bush being a liar and not transparent...and lectured the right about how such a person in the White House is bad for America

SO now you have a candidate who has been caught in several lies regarding her tenure in a very high government position. She is far from transparent....yet you still want to see her as president.

Why?

Because it's just different, that's why! Leave Hillary alone!!!!!

 

[Jarhead]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/20/u...n-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

That sounds strange, but could be true. Tricky Dick had to remake himself to win the White House. Hillary may be attempting the same.

WOW! And the far left will still vote for her!

Nixon won didn't he? You posts threads on all types of shortcomings, but no link to support your "accusations." You post "maybes", "if", and "probably".

I find it funny. You guys on the left kicked and screamed about Bush being a liar and not transparent...and lectured the right about how such a person in the White House is bad for America

SO now you have a candidate who has been caught in several lies regarding her tenure in a very high government position. She is far from transparent....yet you still want to see her as president.

Why?

Because it's just different, that's why! Leave Hillary alone!!!!!

You know, what I find disturbing is the state departments initial reaction to Benghazi. Now don't get me wrong, I get it. They were not 100% sure if it were a planned terrorist attack or if, in fact, it was a reaction to a video an American made and put on line.

But seeing as we know the bad guys do not believe in free speech as we do......why on earth would you throw out there that it was likely an American Citizen exercising his right to free speech?

I mean, even if she were 100% sure it was the video...I would expect a true leader of America do everything he/she can to not reveal that to the enemy.

She had 3 choices.....say "we don't know yet"...say "it was the video" ...or say "it was a planned terrorist attack"

Yet she chose to blame an American.

And the left sees her as qualified to lead America?

 

[hadit]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/20/u...n-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

That sounds strange, but could be true. Tricky Dick had to remake himself to win the White House. Hillary may be attempting the same.

WOW! And the far left will still vote for her!

Nixon won didn't he? You posts threads on all types of shortcomings, but no link to support your "accusations." You post "maybes", "if", and "probably".

I find it funny. You guys on the left kicked and screamed about Bush being a liar and not transparent...and lectured the right about how such a person in the White House is bad for America

SO now you have a candidate who has been caught in several lies regarding her tenure in a very high government position. She is far from transparent....yet you still want to see her as president.

Why?

Because it's just different, that's why! Leave Hillary alone!!!!!

You know, what I find disturbing is the state departments initial reaction to Benghazi. Now don't get me wrong, I get it. They were not 100% sure if it were a planned terrorist attack or if, in fact, it was a reaction to a video an American made and put on line.

But seeing as we know the bad guys do not believe in free speech as we do......why on earth would you throw out there that it was likely an American Citizen exercising his right to free speech?

I mean, even if she were 100% sure it was the video...I would expect a true leader of America do everything he/she can to not reveal that to the enemy.

She had 3 choices.....say "we don't know yet"...say "it was the video" ...or say "it was a planned terrorist attack"

Yet she chose to blame an American.

And the left sees her as qualified to lead America?

We have been and will be witness to many mind-bending moral gymnastics as Hillary sycophants twist themselves into pretzels trying to find ways to support her. There will be vast stretches of silence when uncomfortable questions like the above are raised, followed by "But BUUUUUSSSSHHHHH!!!!".

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Strange bedfellows.

But some interesting thoughts:

Not since Richard M. Nixon mounted a comeback in 1968, historians and pollsters say, has a candidate entered a presidential contest with so low a bar for name recognition or so high a bar for changing voters’ opinions.

The campaign playbooks of Nixon and Mrs. Clinton seem to share some pages.

Nixon strove to show a more casual side by bypassing journalists and staging town-hall-style events — orchestrated by his media consultant, Roger Ailes — at theaters across the country packed with friendly audiences. Taking softball questions, he kept to his talking points and struck television viewers as more relaxed than the sweaty man they remembered from his debates against John F. Kennedy in 1960.

“A lot of people who thought they’d made up their minds about him saw a different version,” said Kenneth L. Khachigian, a speechwriter for Nixon and later for Ronald Reagan. “That’s a prime example of someone who had a lot of perceived political baggage and who remade himself.”

Mrs. Clinton, too, has been ducking reporters and instead holding round-table discussions with carefully chosen voters in early voting states. (Aides say the questions those voters ask are not screened.) She has used the sessions to share lesser-known vignettes from her past: her mother’s impoverished upbringing; her middle-class childhood in Chicago; her work in the 1970s as an advocate for children; her juggling work and child rearing as a young lawyer in Arkansas.

So low a bar for name recognition? I think everybody has heard of her, stat. Or are they referring to how unappealing, dirty, corrupt, deceitful that she is.....this century's version of boss tweed.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Strange bedfellows.

But some interesting thoughts:

Not since Richard M. Nixon mounted a comeback in 1968, historians and pollsters say, has a candidate entered a presidential contest with so low a bar for name recognition or so high a bar for changing voters’ opinions.

The campaign playbooks of Nixon and Mrs. Clinton seem to share some pages.

Nixon strove to show a more casual side by bypassing journalists and staging town-hall-style events — orchestrated by his media consultant, Roger Ailes — at theaters across the country packed with friendly audiences. Taking softball questions, he kept to his talking points and struck television viewers as more relaxed than the sweaty man they remembered from his debates against John F. Kennedy in 1960.

“A lot of people who thought they’d made up their minds about him saw a different version,” said Kenneth L. Khachigian, a speechwriter for Nixon and later for Ronald Reagan. “That’s a prime example of someone who had a lot of perceived political baggage and who remade himself.”

Mrs. Clinton, too, has been ducking reporters and instead holding round-table discussions with carefully chosen voters in early voting states. (Aides say the questions those voters ask are not screened.) She has used the sessions to share lesser-known vignettes from her past: her mother’s impoverished upbringing; her middle-class childhood in Chicago; her work in the 1970s as an advocate for children; her juggling work and child rearing as a young lawyer in Arkansas.

So low a bar for name recognition? I think everybody has heard of her, stat. Or are they referring to how unappealing, dirty, corrupt, deceitful that she is.....this century's version of boss tweed.

I am not sure I follow you. Did you read that same link that I read?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Strange bedfellows.

But some interesting thoughts:

Not since Richard M. Nixon mounted a comeback in 1968, historians and pollsters say, has a candidate entered a presidential contest with so low a bar for name recognition or so high a bar for changing voters’ opinions.

The campaign playbooks of Nixon and Mrs. Clinton seem to share some pages.

Nixon strove to show a more casual side by bypassing journalists and staging town-hall-style events — orchestrated by his media consultant, Roger Ailes — at theaters across the country packed with friendly audiences. Taking softball questions, he kept to his talking points and struck television viewers as more relaxed than the sweaty man they remembered from his debates against John F. Kennedy in 1960.

“A lot of people who thought they’d made up their minds about him saw a different version,” said Kenneth L. Khachigian, a speechwriter for Nixon and later for Ronald Reagan. “That’s a prime example of someone who had a lot of perceived political baggage and who remade himself.”

Mrs. Clinton, too, has been ducking reporters and instead holding round-table discussions with carefully chosen voters in early voting states. (Aides say the questions those voters ask are not screened.) She has used the sessions to share lesser-known vignettes from her past: her mother’s impoverished upbringing; her middle-class childhood in Chicago; her work in the 1970s as an advocate for children; her juggling work and child rearing as a young lawyer in Arkansas.

So low a bar for name recognition? I think everybody has heard of her, stat. Or are they referring to how unappealing, dirty, corrupt, deceitful that she is.....this century's version of boss tweed.

I am not sure I follow you. Did you read that same link that I read?

No, I surmised it from your cliff note version. This part right here is what i was addressing:

"Not since Richard M. Nixon mounted a comeback in 1968, historians and pollsters say, has a candidate entered a presidential contest with so low a bar for name recognition or so high a bar for changing voters’ opinions."

 

[Statistikhengst]

Strange bedfellows.

But some interesting thoughts:

Not since Richard M. Nixon mounted a comeback in 1968, historians and pollsters say, has a candidate entered a presidential contest with so low a bar for name recognition or so high a bar for changing voters’ opinions.

The campaign playbooks of Nixon and Mrs. Clinton seem to share some pages.

Nixon strove to show a more casual side by bypassing journalists and staging town-hall-style events — orchestrated by his media consultant, Roger Ailes — at theaters across the country packed with friendly audiences. Taking softball questions, he kept to his talking points and struck television viewers as more relaxed than the sweaty man they remembered from his debates against John F. Kennedy in 1960.

“A lot of people who thought they’d made up their minds about him saw a different version,” said Kenneth L. Khachigian, a speechwriter for Nixon and later for Ronald Reagan. “That’s a prime example of someone who had a lot of perceived political baggage and who remade himself.”

Mrs. Clinton, too, has been ducking reporters and instead holding round-table discussions with carefully chosen voters in early voting states. (Aides say the questions those voters ask are not screened.) She has used the sessions to share lesser-known vignettes from her past: her mother’s impoverished upbringing; her middle-class childhood in Chicago; her work in the 1970s as an advocate for children; her juggling work and child rearing as a young lawyer in Arkansas.

So low a bar for name recognition? I think everybody has heard of her, stat. Or are they referring to how unappealing, dirty, corrupt, deceitful that she is.....this century's version of boss tweed.

I am not sure I follow you. Did you read that same link that I read?

No, I surmised it from your cliff note version. This part right here is what i was addressing:

"Not since Richard M. Nixon mounted a comeback in 1968, historians and pollsters say, has a candidate entered a presidential contest with so low a bar for name recognition or so high a bar for changing voters’ opinions."

Yes, that wording is strange. It just means that not since Nixon has a candidate had such universal name recognition and yet would have to work like hell to get voters to like him (her).