The Hillary Papers

On May 12, 1992, Stan Greenberg and Celinda Lake, top pollsters for Bill Clinton’s presidential campaign, issued a confidential memo. The memo’s subject was “Research on Hillary Clinton.”

freebeacon.com...

'Narcissitic loony toom'

is how hillary decribes Lewinsky.

ALL THOSE WHINEY WOMEN

Hillary Clinton’s blunt assessments were not confined to Monica Lewinsky. In a Dec. 3, 1993, diary entry, Blair recounted a conversation with the first lady about “Packwood”—a reference to then-Sen. Bob Packwood, an influential Republican on health care embroiled in a sexual harassment scandal.

Sorry what did Hillary need a congressman on healthcare for ?

Being the 'First lady' and all that jazz.

YOU ARE ENTERING A WORLD OF PAIN

Days after President Clinton’s impeachment in 1998, the first lady called Blair in good spirits, telling her friend that, “Most people in this town have no pain threshold.”

“HC says press has big egos and no brains,” wrote Blair on May 19,

Yeah Hillary they do considering who runs the current government right now.

Your epic failure on Benghazi.

And the Press sweeping anything 'negative' under the rug.

This is an interesting read.

For those who care.

I tell ya Republicans better get their snip together or she will be Potus.

That is bad news people.

neo96
I tell ya Republicans better get their snip together or she will be Potus.

Who do you think could run against her?

Chris Christie is toast.
Rand Paul makes himself more unelectable every time he opens his mouth.
Ted Cruz (lol)

I'm no Hillary fan but I did find this quote encouraging....

“At dinner, [Hillary] to [Bill] at length on the complexities of health care—thinks managed competition a crock; single-payer necessary; maybe add to Medicare,” Blair wrote.

Is it not more telling about the Republican party that you have to really think and dig to find some candidate that could at least compete against Hillary?

Considering all this mud that is being flung at her direction by the right, she's the most evil woman to have ever lived..But what does this say about the Republican party though? Who will the Republicans nominate to run against her?

reply to post by BritofTexas

Who do you think could run against her?

Dunno

Chris Christie is toast. Rand Paul makes himself more unelectable every time he opens his mouth. Ted Cruz (lol)

Don't like any of those.

“At dinner, [Hillary] to [Bill] at length on the complexities of health care—thinks managed competition a crock; single-payer necessary; maybe add to Medicare,” Blair wrote.

They have done such a 'wonderful job' with the so called 'single payers' we have already.

Social Security, and Medicare, and Medicaid are all cluster effs.

But the Care Act was 'suppose' to fix all that!

What is a crock is the pipe dream of 'single payer' when means everyone using it hardly anyone paying for it, and it you don't like the service, tough luck.

It's the only 'game' in town.

A massive monopoly.

muse7
Who will the Republicans nominate to run against her?

I am sure they will find someone; Hillary lost in 2008 and then again
she botched a dignified exit from Secretary of State in 2012 trying
to hide from the Benghazi scandal, once again proving that she is
not Presidential material.

Besides, Benghazi still hangs over her head like a dark storm cloud,
she was after all, Secretary of State and she was certainly aware
of the security problems but did nothing; 4 dead americans
and what difference did it make to her?
www.washingtontimes.com...


HIllary has more skeletons in the closet than anyone else in the ring,
and what does she have to offer?

swampland.time.com...

burntheships

muse7
Who will the Republicans nominate to run against her?

I am sure they will find someone; Hillary lost in 2008 and then again
she botched a dignified exit from Secretary of State in 2012 trying
to hide from the Benghazi scandal, once again proving that she is
not Presidential material.

HIllary has more skeletons in the closet than anyone else in the ring.

c'mon, you can do better than that, where is that outraged, angry, republican zeal...no mention of her being a communist?, a socialist, a ball busting feminazi?

i can't believe the memory retention of most of my fellow U.S. citizens or the laziness of them.

to me any person that name has been linked to the shear number of scandals should never be concindered by any one who belieaves in honesty and intergerty.

here are but a few the rose law frim scandels.
whitewater
mina ak scandel
filegate
chinagate
the number of people that have died or been killed under mysterious circumstances, that had dealings with hillary or bill in professional or personal ways.

you know the old saying where there is smoke, there is fire. i say at the very least there is a smoldering ember.
if she was just a everyday person and that much stuff was brought out, she would be treated just like the street crooks when people say that you just don't have that many coincidences happen unless your doing something.
if her hands weren't dirty no one would be able to link her to sh@@.

if you think obama likes to play king sh@@ on turd hill, wait til billary gets to be queen.

reply to post by jimmyx


The truth of it no one needs to do any sensationalizing when it comes
to Hillary Clinton, she has lots of enemies, scandals to boot and offers nothing
to the country. Benghazi is still a huge liability for her.

February 7th, 2014 - Benghazi Report

“Systemic failures at the State Department during Secretary Clinton’s tenure resulted in a grossly inadequate security posture in Benghazi,” the report concludes. “These vulnerabilities contributed to the deaths of four Americans, including the first U.S. ambassador killed in the line of duty since 1979.”

The report points to Mrs. Clinton’s own testimony that she was aware of the security concerns in Benghazi — though other reviews have said she was never made aware of the specifics, including some of the requests for additional security or military protection that were denied.
www.washingtontimes.com...

burntheships

muse7
Who will the Republicans nominate to run against her?

I am sure they will find someone; Hillary lost in 2008 and then again
she botched a dignified exit from Secretary of State in 2012 trying
to hide from the Benghazi scandal, once again proving that she is
not Presidential material.

Besides, Benghazi still hangs over her head like a dark storm cloud,
she was after all, Secretary of State and she was certainly aware
of the security problems but did nothing; 4 dead americans
and what difference did it make to her?
www.washingtontimes.com...


HIllary has more skeletons in the closet than anyone else in the ring,
and what does she have to offer?

swampland.time.com...

edit on 10-2-2014 by burntheships because: (no reason given)

Good job at avoiding the question.

What does the other side have to offer that's better than Hillary?

Oh that's right no one, because both sides are equally as corrupt.

reply to post by jimmyx

c'mon, you can do better than that, where is that outraged, angry, republican zeal...no mention of her being a communist?, a socialist, a ball busting feminazi?

Nice red herring there.

Let's listen to what she calls herself:

reply to post by hounddoghowlie


yup, I can't wait for her to ascend to the throne....make way for the queen!...geez, a black man and then next a woman as president?...republicans will lose their collective minds...reminds me of what happened during that old movie "scanners"...GOP heads exploding all around the country from rage.

reply to post by muse7


Im predicting the GOP will nominate Scott Walker or Jeb Bush, not my choice. They will probably win only because the Democrats are so incompetent, and the elites have to switch parties every few years. Otherwise, people will get angry and there will be mass riots.

reply to post by muse7


Im predicting the GOP will nominate Scott Walker or Jeb Bush, not my choice. They will probably win only because the Democrats are so incompetent, and the elites have to switch parties every few years. Otherwise, people will get angry and there will be mass riots.

reply to post by muse7

Good job at avoiding the question. What does the other side have to offer that's better than Hillary? Oh that's right no one, because both sides are equally as corrupt.

Good job at avoiding the topic.

The Hilary papers.

Guess some people would rather talk about the right, and avoid talking about that narcissist Clinton.

neo96
I tell ya Republicans better get their snip together or she will be Potus.

That is bad news people.

edit on 10-2-2014 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

I'm addressing a part of your O.P

muse7
Considering all this mud that is being flung at her direction by the right, she's the most evil woman to have ever lived.

Mud?
She has always been muddy.
They are throwing water on her and now the country can see what an evil witch looks like.

reply to post by muse7


If she is not even competent enough or cared enough to protect an
American Consulate, how in the world could people count on her
to protect The United States?

muse7

neo96
I tell ya Republicans better get their snip together or she will be Potus.

That is bad news people.

edit on 10-2-2014 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

I'm addressing a part of your O.P

The op was about a lot more than that.

But hey who cares.

Avoid talking about Clinton.

Get used the idea people. Barring a serious health issue or death, Hillary will be elected POTUS in 2016. When this happens, we will wish for the good ol' days of Obama. Just think, it will be 30 straight years of a Bush or Clinton occupying the West Wing in some capacity.

“HC says press has big egos and no brains,” wrote Blair on May 19,

Amazing how many glossed over this.

Since the 90s was the era when CNN was king.