Brazille considered replacing Clinton with Biden last September

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Brazille is looking more and more like a looney gadfly.

if she were white would you call her looney still?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Am buying Donna's new book today. I want to see it for myself.

Doesn't come out until Nov 7 but I pre ordered it.
I tried to flip through Hill's book but it's was a Scoldy McScoldy diatribe

Brazille writes well and is candid. And by candid I mean truthful.

Can't wait for mine!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Brazille is looking more and more like a looney gadfly.

if she were white would you call her looney still?

Hrc is white and is way worse than looney - she literally smells like ass

I have told the story where i met her twice and she smelled like she pooped herself

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Brazille is looking more and more like a looney gadfly.

if she were white would you call her looney still?

Hrc is white and is way worse than looney - she literally smells like ass

I have told the story where i met her twice and she smelled like she pooped herself

Depends. She needs to just go back to her woods.

[Anonymous]

Hillary is running again. She did the “I couldn’t possibly” thing last time too. If she didn’t intend to run again, there would be no reason for her to continually try to steer the Democrat Party. If there would be a plausible reason that she would do that other than maintaining her base so she can run again (a reason apart from being unable to give up power even when it cripples the party and eats the young), I would like to hear it.

[Anonymous]

Hillary is your Donald Trump. Deeply flawed candidate. Deal with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Am buying Donna's new book today. I want to see it for myself.

Doesn't come out until Nov 7 but I pre ordered it.
I tried to flip through Hill's book but it's was a Scoldy McScoldy diatribe

Brazille writes well and is candid. And by candid I mean truthful.

Truthful?

Much of the criticism I'm seeing online has to do with her lying. It's tough to tell if she's lying in the book or lying on her media tour since she's back pedaling and spinning. And then there are the critics (mostly in the comment sections) asking how anyone can trust a person who literally lies about who they are (basically saying she refuses to come out of the closet).

If everything she says in the book about the campaign is true, then she was complicit. I bet her editor pushed her to make shocking statements that she now regrets...hence, back pedaling. I bet she thought she would be championed as a whistleblower, but it's far too late for that. Instead, people are criticizing her. Hence, back pedaling. She won't be welcome in DC anymore, that's for sure. She probably needs the book sales for her retirement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hillary is running again. She did the “I couldn’t possibly” thing last time too. If she didn’t intend to run again, there would be no reason for her to continually try to steer the Democrat Party. If there would be a plausible reason that she would do that other than maintaining her base so she can run again (a reason apart from being unable to give up power even when it cripples the party and eats the young), I would like to hear it.

1. You don’t know any Democrats if you think she would be nominated. Even the strong Hillary supporters have moved on. This isn’t losing in the primaries. She lost the General. Against Trump. For the the Bernie Bros, Bernie had problems. Too far left and he would have had problems governing. If someone more in the mainstream Democratic Party had run, she might have lost in the primaries.

2. Try to steer the Democratic Party???? Perez is an Obama guy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Hillary is your Donald Trump. Deeply flawed candidate. Deal with it.

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Hillary is your Donald Trump. Deeply flawed candidate. Deal with it.

Exactly.

Sorry, she was our candidate. Now she is your spin. Trump is all yours and Hillary is just a citizen , deal with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Hillary is your Donald Trump. Deeply flawed candidate. Deal with it.

Exactly.

Sorry, she was our candidate. Now she is your spin. Trump is all yours and Hillary is just a citizen , deal with it.

She's a citizen who's choosing to remain in the public eye and telling "her side" of the story. Donna B. is doing the same. Deal with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Brazille is looking more and more like a looney gadfly.

if she were white would you call her looney still?

NP: I've been calling the very white Hillary Clinton looney for years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Hillary is your Donald Trump. Deeply flawed candidate. Deal with it.

Exactly.

Sorry, she was our candidate. Now she is your spin. Trump is all yours and Hillary is just a citizen , deal with it.

I am surprised Hillary didn't renounce her citizenship and move to Canada along with her many followers from DCUM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Clinton was more qualified than Biden. Would Biden have won? Maybe. Would a man with Clinton’s qualifications have won? Absolutely. I don’t think we understood how sexist this country is. The 2020 dem nominee needs to be a white male if the Dems want to win.

Or an electable woman.

It's not women, it's "that woman."

The funny thing is, "that woman" will never be electable. She will always be "too shill." "too unlikeable.""too ambitious." etc etc etc.


Do you think it only happened to Clinton? LOL forever

Get you head out of the sand, PP. There are thousands of women in elected offices throughout the US. The fact that the Democratic party has not developed female presidential candidates is because they had to hold the place for Hillary Clinton. The fact that the party was cowled by Bill Clinton, Debbie Wasserman Schulz (under the thumb of the Clintons) into pushing down other women is disgraceful. It has nothing to do with shill (sic), unlikeable, ambitious. It has to do with a woman who cannot win an election. If I couldn't get the business I must get each year for my company, I would be sacked. The fact that the Dems sent a woman out to get the order who had failed before, is on the Dems, not on anyone else. If you are a woman, you should be ashamed for trying to hold other women back in defense of the weak one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Clinton was more qualified than Biden. Would Biden have won? Maybe. Would a man with Clinton’s qualifications have won? Absolutely. I don’t think we understood how sexist this country is. The 2020 dem nominee needs to be a white male if the Dems want to win.

Or an electable woman.

It's not women, it's "that woman."

The funny thing is, "that woman" will never be electable. She will always be "too shill." "too unlikeable.""too ambitious." etc etc etc.


Do you think it only happened to Clinton? LOL forever

No one will EVER come close to Hillary R. Clinton.
No one.

Well her first problem is that she is "Hillary R. Clinton" rather than "Hillary Rodham." She chose to give up her identity to bow to her husband's political amibitions in Arkansas. Weak sister 101.