Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I say this because she has been blaming her loss on Comey's intervention and the Russian hacking - both events that she alleges caused her to lose the election.

Whether this is true or not is neither here nor there because she wants to send the message to her supporters that she would have been a perfectly viable candidate had it not been for these interventions.

Combine this with the full court press that the Clinton campaign has been busy with promoting this line of defense combined with Palmieri's accusations of dog whistles to white nationalists and racists and I fully expect that she will, at the least, make a run for it in 2020. Keep in mind that the Democratic bench of potential alternatives to Hillary is not exactly deep with the main alternatives being Biden and Sanders who will both be 78 years and Elizabeth Warren who would be viewed by some as too much to the left without the populist appeal that Sanders and Biden have.

It will also have the added dividend of getting contributions revved up to the Clinton Foundation and speaking fees for herself and Bill C since donors are likely to want to hedge their bets in case she does get the nomination and the presidency.

Hillary has some fervent supporters and if she can persuade them that the election was "stolen" from her by the Russians and Comey, they are likely to get on board. Then, of course, there is her pitch about the glass ceiling and how she might be the person to break it ....... and how there is "special place in hell" for women who don't support her!

Did you ever play sports? If you did, did your team ever engage in a post-game analysis? That's all Hillary is doing. This is what worked. This is what didn't. These things potentially interfered. And if so, how much impact did they have? Why did it happen?

This has nothing to do with her running again. It may have a lot to do with the Democratic party's reorganizing its game plan, though.

DP. If you played sports and your post-game analysis consisted of blaming the other team and the refs for your loss, you probably weren't very good at sports.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

BTW, I did not vote for her ..... nor did I vote for Trump.

I see this all the time, from posters here and commenters on FB. They ALWAYS say it while trashing Hillary, though, and never deriding Trump. Hmmm.

Curious, isn't it? Like that one "I'm a minority woman" poster all election season long who was in the bag for Trump.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No she's not. She's done. You'll have to find someone new to obsess over.

Why do you think she is blaming her loss on Comey and the Russian hacking? She wants to blame her loss on extraneous events and not on her own flaws.

Well her flaws let her smash Trump in the popular vote. Wonder why he was such an epic failure with educated people in the highly populated richer areas of America.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I say this because she has been blaming her loss on Comey's intervention and the Russian hacking - both events that she alleges caused her to lose the election.

Whether this is true or not is neither here nor there because she wants to send the message to her supporters that she would have been a perfectly viable candidate had it not been for these interventions.

Combine this with the full court press that the Clinton campaign has been busy with promoting this line of defense combined with Palmieri's accusations of dog whistles to white nationalists and racists and I fully expect that she will, at the least, make a run for it in 2020. Keep in mind that the Democratic bench of potential alternatives to Hillary is not exactly deep with the main alternatives being Biden and Sanders who will both be 78 years and Elizabeth Warren who would be viewed by some as too much to the left without the populist appeal that Sanders and Biden have.

It will also have the added dividend of getting contributions revved up to the Clinton Foundation and speaking fees for herself and Bill C since donors are likely to want to hedge their bets in case she does get the nomination and the presidency.

Hillary has some fervent supporters and if she can persuade them that the election was "stolen" from her by the Russians and Comey, they are likely to get on board. Then, of course, there is her pitch about the glass ceiling and how she might be the person to break it ....... and how there is "special place in hell" for women who don't support her!

Did you ever play sports? If you did, did your team ever engage in a post-game analysis? That's all Hillary is doing. This is what worked. This is what didn't. These things potentially interfered. And if so, how much impact did they have? Why did it happen?

This has nothing to do with her running again. It may have a lot to do with the Democratic party's reorganizing its game plan, though.

Anonymous wrote:

BTW, I did not vote for her ..... nor did I vote for Trump.

I see this all the time, from posters here and commenters on FB. They ALWAYS say it while trashing Hillary, though, and never deriding Trump. Hmmm.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I say this because she has been blaming her loss on Comey's intervention and the Russian hacking - both events that she alleges caused her to lose the election.

Whether this is true or not is neither here nor there because she wants to send the message to her supporters that she would have been a perfectly viable candidate had it not been for these interventions.

Combine this with the full court press that the Clinton campaign has been busy with promoting this line of defense combined with Palmieri's accusations of dog whistles to white nationalists and racists and I fully expect that she will, at the least, make a run for it in 2020. Keep in mind that the Democratic bench of potential alternatives to Hillary is not exactly deep with the main alternatives being Biden and Sanders who will both be 78 years and Elizabeth Warren who would be viewed by some as too much to the left without the populist appeal that Sanders and Biden have.

It will also have the added dividend of getting contributions revved up to the Clinton Foundation and speaking fees for herself and Bill C since donors are likely to want to hedge their bets in case she does get the nomination and the presidency.

Hillary has some fervent supporters and if she can persuade them that the election was "stolen" from her by the Russians and Comey, they are likely to get on board. Then, of course, there is her pitch about the glass ceiling and how she might be the person to break it ....... and how there is "special place in hell" for women who don't support her!

Did you ever play sports? If you did, did your team ever engage in a post-game analysis? That's all Hillary is doing. This is what worked. This is what didn't. These things potentially interfered. And if so, how much impact did they have? Why did it happen?

This has nothing to do with her running again. It may have a lot to do with the Democratic party's reorganizing its game plan, though.

Tell me which candidate who lost the presidential election in the past 50 years got on a soap box even before the next president was sworn in to explain away the loss? Think about Romney, Kerry, Gore, Dole, Bush 41, Dukakis, Mondale, Carter, Ford, McGovern, Humphrey and so on.

Your problem is that you assume this was a normal election. It was not.

Which will be Hillary's pitch for why she should have another shot at it. The Clintons never give up. They believe in Churchill's admonition: "we shall never surrender"

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No she's not. She's done. You'll have to find someone new to obsess over.

Why do you think she is blaming her loss on Comey and the Russian hacking? She wants to blame her loss on extraneous events and not on her own flaws.

because it is true... also she won the popular vote

BTW, I did not vote for her ..... nor did I vote for Trump.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No she's not. She's done. You'll have to find someone new to obsess over.

Why do you think she is blaming her loss on Comey and the Russian hacking? She wants to blame her loss on extraneous events and not on her own flaws.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I say this because she has been blaming her loss on Comey's intervention and the Russian hacking - both events that she alleges caused her to lose the election.

Whether this is true or not is neither here nor there because she wants to send the message to her supporters that she would have been a perfectly viable candidate had it not been for these interventions.

Combine this with the full court press that the Clinton campaign has been busy with promoting this line of defense combined with Palmieri's accusations of dog whistles to white nationalists and racists and I fully expect that she will, at the least, make a run for it in 2020. Keep in mind that the Democratic bench of potential alternatives to Hillary is not exactly deep with the main alternatives being Biden and Sanders who will both be 78 years and Elizabeth Warren who would be viewed by some as too much to the left without the populist appeal that Sanders and Biden have.

It will also have the added dividend of getting contributions revved up to the Clinton Foundation and speaking fees for herself and Bill C since donors are likely to want to hedge their bets in case she does get the nomination and the presidency.

Hillary has some fervent supporters and if she can persuade them that the election was "stolen" from her by the Russians and Comey, they are likely to get on board. Then, of course, there is her pitch about the glass ceiling and how she might be the person to break it ....... and how there is "special place in hell" for women who don't support her!

Did you ever play sports? If you did, did your team ever engage in a post-game analysis? That's all Hillary is doing. This is what worked. This is what didn't. These things potentially interfered. And if so, how much impact did they have? Why did it happen?

This has nothing to do with her running again. It may have a lot to do with the Democratic party's reorganizing its game plan, though.

Tell me which candidate who lost the presidential election in the past 50 years got on a soap box even before the next president was sworn in to explain away the loss? Think about Romney, Kerry, Gore, Dole, Bush 41, Dukakis, Mondale, Carter, Ford, McGovern, Humphrey and so on.

Your problem is that you assume this was a normal election. It was not.

Which will be Hillary's pitch for why she should have another shot at it. The Clintons never give up. They believe in Churchill's admonition: "we shall never surrender"

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No she's not. She's done. You'll have to find someone new to obsess over.

Why do you think she is blaming her loss on Comey and the Russian hacking? She wants to blame her loss on extraneous events and not on her own flaws.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I say this because she has been blaming her loss on Comey's intervention and the Russian hacking - both events that she alleges caused her to lose the election.

Whether this is true or not is neither here nor there because she wants to send the message to her supporters that she would have been a perfectly viable candidate had it not been for these interventions.

Combine this with the full court press that the Clinton campaign has been busy with promoting this line of defense combined with Palmieri's accusations of dog whistles to white nationalists and racists and I fully expect that she will, at the least, make a run for it in 2020. Keep in mind that the Democratic bench of potential alternatives to Hillary is not exactly deep with the main alternatives being Biden and Sanders who will both be 78 years and Elizabeth Warren who would be viewed by some as too much to the left without the populist appeal that Sanders and Biden have.

It will also have the added dividend of getting contributions revved up to the Clinton Foundation and speaking fees for herself and Bill C since donors are likely to want to hedge their bets in case she does get the nomination and the presidency.

Hillary has some fervent supporters and if she can persuade them that the election was "stolen" from her by the Russians and Comey, they are likely to get on board. Then, of course, there is her pitch about the glass ceiling and how she might be the person to break it ....... and how there is "special place in hell" for women who don't support her!

Did you ever play sports? If you did, did your team ever engage in a post-game analysis? That's all Hillary is doing. This is what worked. This is what didn't. These things potentially interfered. And if so, how much impact did they have? Why did it happen?

This has nothing to do with her running again. It may have a lot to do with the Democratic party's reorganizing its game plan, though.

Tell me which candidate who lost the presidential election in the past 50 years got on a soap box even before the next president was sworn in to explain away the loss? Think about Romney, Kerry, Gore, Dole, Bush 41, Dukakis, Mondale, Carter, Ford, McGovern, Humphrey and so on.

Your problem is that you assume this was a normal election. It was not.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I say this because she has been blaming her loss on Comey's intervention and the Russian hacking - both events that she alleges caused her to lose the election.

Whether this is true or not is neither here nor there because she wants to send the message to her supporters that she would have been a perfectly viable candidate had it not been for these interventions.

Combine this with the full court press that the Clinton campaign has been busy with promoting this line of defense combined with Palmieri's accusations of dog whistles to white nationalists and racists and I fully expect that she will, at the least, make a run for it in 2020. Keep in mind that the Democratic bench of potential alternatives to Hillary is not exactly deep with the main alternatives being Biden and Sanders who will both be 78 years and Elizabeth Warren who would be viewed by some as too much to the left without the populist appeal that Sanders and Biden have.

It will also have the added dividend of getting contributions revved up to the Clinton Foundation and speaking fees for herself and Bill C since donors are likely to want to hedge their bets in case she does get the nomination and the presidency.

Hillary has some fervent supporters and if she can persuade them that the election was "stolen" from her by the Russians and Comey, they are likely to get on board. Then, of course, there is her pitch about the glass ceiling and how she might be the person to break it ....... and how there is "special place in hell" for women who don't support her!

Did you ever play sports? If you did, did your team ever engage in a post-game analysis? That's all Hillary is doing. This is what worked. This is what didn't. These things potentially interfered. And if so, how much impact did they have? Why did it happen?

This has nothing to do with her running again. It may have a lot to do with the Democratic party's reorganizing its game plan, though.

Tell me which candidate who lost the presidential election in the past 50 years got on a soap box even before the next president was sworn in to explain away the loss? Think about Romney, Kerry, Gore, Dole, Bush 41, Dukakis, Mondale, Carter, Ford, McGovern, Humphrey and so on.