Well, Lookie Here
It appears that the Benghazi committee did no damage.
But a new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds the Democratic front-runner and former secretary of state is better-trusted on dealing with the terrorism threat, with her biggest edge over Donald Trump.
By 50 percent to 42 percent, more Americans say they trust Clinton to handle the threat of terrorism than Trump …
I dunno. Running around playing bully seems like a really good idea. The Raving Maniac Doctrine just might be Trump’s legacy.
I have long thought that Clinton’s tough stance on foreign policy–hawkish, even, at times–was a deliberate strategy on her part. A woman candidate cannot afford to look soft at all or she will be targeted for it and we know how good the Republicans are at doing that. Remember Swift Boating?
I suspect that Clinton’s real stance is a lot more calm and balanced than the one she presents in public. She is not a neocon.
If this is all a strategy then she has carried it out flawlessly. She is well positioned during our current heightened awareness of terrorism as the strongest, most competent candidate to deal with it.
Clinton has been criticized for being too much of a politician, but politicians win elections and we desperately need that.
1LynnN, what thou sayeth!
By comparison, Trump is deliberately alienating himself from the GOP so that he can run as the Lone Ranger independent savior. He never had any intention of being a part of a group he considers a bunch of losers. The most frightening thought I have of him is instigating war with our ALLIES! Forget ISIS, Al Quiada, Boko Harom. They’re all losers not worth the ammunition. Real winners make war on friends.
2If anyone doesn’t think former Secretary of State Clinton is “tough enough,” they need to have a brief conversation with Chelsea and the Big Dog. Senator Sanders is no “softie,” either. He has serious ‘fiscal conservative’ chops and a career honed on reality.
Meanwhile, it’s doubtful that Mental Ben can continue his grift until Christmas. From what remains past January, the snacilbupeR can pick their poison. That poison will provide a mere tasty little snack for either Bernie or Hillary in a debate.
3Hillary is the most experienced, most competent and most electable candidate running. Much as I admire Senator Sanders, I fear his promoting himself as a Democratic socialist will scare the conservative Dems, the centrist Republicans and Independents away. Republicans haven’t a chance with any one of their so-called “candidates”.
4I agree with LynnN about Hilary.
PKM, I’ve been reading more articles about Mental Ben and his serial liar habit, home as a shrine to self, and that “successful” surgery that made him a star.
It’s all fairly creepy, a narcissistice mental illness on public display, but it’s the surgery that seems to be the catalyst.
What is it that made the surgery, separating conjoined twins at the skull, a “success?” One died. The other was severely disabled. How is that successful? Is it that both are not dead? That both of them didn’t die in the OR? This is not snark. I’m asking serious questions.
I know there are American twins conjoined at the head who are living full lives. I’ve seen the two women on tv. Undoubtedly, there is much I don’t know about the procedure, so I’m open to more information.
BTW, I have seen conjoined twins in my town, Minneapolis. The young women have one body, but two separate heads. They are 2 different teenagers in one body, 2 arms, 2 legs. Talk about teen angst!
5None of the candidates will be “too soft”. First, the new POTUS will immerse themselves in experts who will help them give legs to the foreign policy, good or bad in my eyes, they articulate and envision. US Foreign Policy isn’t a Lone Ranger deal. Secondly, there will be a hue and cry from not only the loyal opposition but from within their own party to “get tough(er)” on this or that group. FP isn’t about hard or soft it’s about appropriate, measured response to every provocation, including ignoring the provocation when called for.
6My husband wondered some years ago why the only female heads of state are Iron Ladies like Thatcher and Gandhi. I said that those were the only women a lot of men would vote for, and they can’t get elected with only women’s votes. Actually there are plenty of other non-Iron women who’ve been elected in saner countries such as Iceland and New Zealand.
“By 50 percent to 42 percent, more Americans say they trust Clinton to handle the threat of terrorism than Trump.”
Mercy, I may have to conclude that there’s a strain of sanity in the American electorate after all.
7@Debbo, don’t forget that the medical team that Mental Ben headed numbered at least 60 people and a number of them were also doctors. He didn’t separate the conjoined twins all byhisownself, but you’d would think so by what you hear.
I’ve heard it said that St. Reagan controlled Thatcher, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it were the reverse. Many pit bulls are female. Smartness can often equal toughness and I believe Hillary is one smart, tough woman. Her time at the Benghazi hearing proved that.
8I think the damage was monetary, $5 million plus in wasted taxpayers money that could have been put to a better use. Hillary has some pretty thick skin after 20 years of some form of investigation by the republican party.
9Seriously!?!?!
42% of the American public believe that Donald Trump is better qualified to deal with the problem of terrorism than Hillary Clinton???
I weep for my country.
10I’m chill with Hill.
11Rhea: Sane by a 50 to 42 margin is really living on the edge!
12Calling Trump a raving manic is an understatement. He just loves to incite fear and hatred.
13Then Trump has the nerve to say Mrs. Clinton doesn’t have endurance. He of the “I can’t debate for 3 hours, I’ll just take my fame and go home if we go a minute over 2.” Sorry lad, there are times when you can’t quit when you get tired or discouraged. Ask any woman who’s had a long labor and delivery!!
14