Clinton Demonstrated In Tuesday's Speech Democrats Have A Strong Candidate!

Hillary Clinton gave a great speech last night in Brooklyn she is a first rate politician and showed that last night giving a speech where she demonstrated that she is a very attractive candidate. Although I think she made some mistakes in this speech. On the night where she would secure the majority of pledged delegates essentially winning the case for her to be the Democrat nominee for President this year for Senator Sanders to continue his pursuit of the nomination is now indefensible it would be based on a really remote occurrence like a Hillary Clinton indictment over the e-mail issue not a rationale a quality person embraces on this biggest night of her campaign so far Hillary Clinton chooses to first focus on the gender milestone of her campaign that for the first time in our nation's history the Presidential nominee of a major political party will be a women. The American people would rather have heard Secretary Clinton lead with how she is eager to solve some of the nation's pressing problems. The Clinton campaign would be better served considering that many Americans don't care one iota that after this years Presidential election the President will be called Madame President they care about the serious problems the country has negatively impacting their life. That is not to say that it isn't great that the last major door to political opportunity for women in American being elected President has a good chance of being opened this year.



I also think Hillary Clinton and her supporters make a big mistake and miss an opportunity to garnish supporters for their goals going after Donald Trump's slogan "Let's Make America Great Again". To the majority of Donald Trump's supporter it is not code for going back to the 1950's and 1960's and sixties where certain races were second class citizens and there were two economic groups in America those on the right side of the tracks wealthy Americans and those on the wrong side of the tracks poor Americans. To the majority of supporters for the call and hope of "Let's Make America Great Again" it is about having an America where if you work hard and are a law abiding citizen you are going to have a job that provides an income that provides for a middle class life. It's about having an America where ordinary Americans don't have to live in fear over health insurance and being able to get medical care if they or their loved ones get sick. It's about an America when we go to war we fight with awesome power and competence and win the war and come home like World War II and the Korean War and we don't get caught in fifteen plus year old military quagmires where the death of American soldiers never stops! Americans understand the issues in Afghanistan and Iraq are complex, of course we helped establish democracies in those countries and some time democratic elections don't produce good leaders which was the case on steroids with Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan who was corrupt and a terrible ally in the war against the Taliban and with Nouri al Maliki in Iraq who was massively discriminatory against the Sunni Iraqi population. Both countries now have great leaders and are headed in the right direction that is not to say America couldn't be acting better to be an America that is great on these fronts. Afghanistan will never be a truly good country being the number one heroin producing country in the world heroin drug trafficking is pure evil considering what it does to its addicts America should be lobbying the Afghanistan government hard to institute a capital punishment program against major players in the Afghanistan drug trade and a program that makes it clear to Afghanistan farmers you can't grow poppies good countries don't grow drugs and to that end the government has to burn down your poppy crops to stop this wrong in Afghanistan. In Iraq the best development for success for that country is if the Iraq Army would grow in numbers and this growth would include lots of Sunnis, Kurds as well as Shiite to heal the sectarian divide in this country. A great America would train and equip at least two or three more Iraqi Army brigades with a multi-sectarian make-up so they can handle Iraq's security challenges and the American troops there can come home!



I am not suggesting that the Clinton campaign give Donald Trump a pass on his plans, suggestions or whatever he calls them for what he wants to do in America. Donald Trump exhibits racist, bigoted and ignorant behavior. He is unfit to be President, in part, because he is unstable on fundamental policy and when it comes to dealing with the multitude of issues a President would be faced with. I am not calling for Hillary Clinton or her supporters to show one drop of mercy to Donald Trump someone with his make-up should never have run for President he would be a very dangerous person if held the office of President! Although Hillary Clinton and her campaign should be careful not to alienate Donald Trump's supporters. A lot of Trump's supporters don't turn their back on Trump for his ignorant and inexcusable behavior not because they align with Donald Trump or his bad behavior but rather because they hope his make-up will be able to achieve what American elected officials for the last fifty years have been unable to achieve and that is to stop and reverse the decline of America and the American way of life, to solve some of America's major problems.



The Hillary Clinton campaign it seems to me is making a mistake in two areas. Yes Donald Trump should be condemned for his empty and false promises on how he can reverse America's lost manufacturing to China and Mexico; international law and the WTO makes him delivering on these problems impossible. But I think for especially a Democrat President candidate and any good leader they need to recognize that this free trade model that the entire world has embarked on isn't working too many countries, developed countries in Europe and the United States are importing too many products these countries should be manufacturing more domestically and thereby creating jobs for their people, the writing is on the wall that the world's free trade model needs to change countries need to be able to protect a certain percentage of their domestic market thereby protecting the jobs they hold for their people. Good leaders in America should be calling for change to international and domestic law to fix the free trade model however they should represent that it is a complicated effort that will not bear fruit in the short term it will take many years to accomplish! Secondly, Secretary Clinton and her staff make a mistake for making emphatic criticism of Donald Trump's call for a wall between the U.S. and Mexico. Okay go to town that it will be a Donald Trump wall and he is obsessed with getting the Mexican government to pay for it. Doesn't this guy see how crazy it is for Mexico to have to pay for it, America is building it to protect her interests to stop illegal immigration she is doing it to help enforce her laws on immigration plus Mexico has a very serious existential threat for the country of Mexico confronting the power of the drug Cartels, why would the American government want to add this significant burden on this Mexican government we want the Mexican government to succeed not fail? More specifically Ms. Clinton is foolish spazing our about the wall because she prudently wants comprehensive immigration reform and she shouldn't paint herself into a corner if she wins in November she ain't no way going to have sixty Democrat Senators so she is going to have to get some Republican Senators to vote for her comprehensive immigration reform bill if she wants it to become law and no Republican is going to vote for such a bill unless it responsibly seeks to stop the illegal immigration problem which necessitates building and maintaining some walls along the Mexican border because walls work any highly competent expert on the subject will tell you this.



Lastly, part of why Hillary Clinton's speech was really excellent last night was because she tapped into the hopes of ordinary Americans she recognized that all Americans hope for a better, fairer and stronger American one where there is more economic opportunity and less income inequality and things like that. Also, very valuably for America Secretary Clinton framed up this election quite correctly as it has shaped up to become it is choice between Hillary Clinton where respect for others, unity and consideration for all will prevail or Donald Trump where ignorance, division and the interests of the few over the interests of the many will prevail. God help the American people to correctly make this choice come November!

 

she look tired and old to me, sick like

fairer in her mind is she is going to tax the middle class more..to pay for the lazy ones
she really has no plans to create jobs and bring them back from mexico and china like trump does, shes blowing smoke up someone a>s here

 

She made Donald Trump look like a high school kid reading from Cliff Notes.

 

she's a low wattage fraud whose "accomplishments" are all due to her much more intelligent and charismatic-but equally corrupt-husband. She flunked the DC bar which is why she ended up in Little Rock. She didn't even graduate cum laude from Wellesley. and yet people lionize her as the brilliant avenging feminist here to right all the wrongs inflicted on hapless women for decades

 

No she really did do something odd in that speech. There was part of it when she phased shift and she seemed almost like she was using the same tone/voice, etc of someone telling a little kid a ghost story that is scary but not too scary. It was quite peculiar. I assume some focus group told them that she came across in a negative way to some voters and she was trying out a way to seem more likeable.

 

Wall of text, tl;dr

But, yes, I do agree with the premise that Hillary is a strong candidate.

 

Of course Hillary is tough. She proved that when she started intimidating Bill's victims. Plus she's paid $225,000 per speech so she better be good. Did the DNC foot the bill for this one or did the American people have to pay her fee?

Democrats prove yet again they love Wall St, to big to fail, and a women abuser.

 

She carries hot sauce in her purse and wears a $12,000 sack while giving a speech on inequality... and maybe has a vagina.

She's perfect!

 

It's a shame that we've been turned into such a shallow culture that this is actually considered an important qualification for the highest job in the Nation. Reflects badly on us I'm afraid.

Oh boy, more Historic magazine covers....

Emabarrassing.

 

Clinton is an adult, and a smart one at that. Trump is a spoiled brat who lacks the character to lead the country.
By any metric, she is the better candidate.

 

Even if what you said were true (it isn't) it would be dramatically less embarrassing than the fact that a nation that prides itself on being meritocratic has managed to exist for well over 200 years without a single woman even being nominated for President of a major party.

Either American women are a singularly unimpressive lot, or gender has been a qualification for the Presidency for over 200 years - just not the same gender as Hillary. Somehow I doubt many of those making snide remarks about the 'historical' element of this were as concerned when the job was 'men only'.

 

Must be why she got fewer votes this time around and why dem vote is down by 7 million.

 

it is.

It's the same thing as 8 years ago when every article had to tell us about the First African American. Just watch the Articles and News stories about Hillary and the election, they'll all never fail to remind us of her gender.

As for Meritocratic, what successes has she had? What, besides "it's time for a Woman", are her Merits?

 

So there hasn't been a single woman in over 200 years capable of being President? Either that fact should be embarrassing, or the fact that so many qualified women haven't been given a chance should be. Take your pick. Any nation that excludes more than 50% of the population from consideration for high office for so long (women, non-whites) should be embarrassed - and I include my own nation in that criticism. Yet you are embarrassed that a woman is running. That is embarrassing in itself.

Of course there will be lots of coverage about the historic nature of this, as there was 8 years ago. There would have been lots of coverage about the historic nature of a Palin Vice Presidency if she'd made it, or a Lieberman Vice Presidency if he had (or Geraldine Ferraro for that matter). None of that would be happening if it hadn't take over two centuries to nominate a woman. To focus on the coverage rather than the centuries of failure is churlish at best.

 

The focus on the gender is whats embarrassing. We also havent had an Asian President, or a Latino, or a Gay one...those all up next too?

Your focus is off, none of thsoe things are an actual qualification, and if you vote on that kind of basis, you are the shallow American that they are counting on. And if you vote for gender, after looking at her record, it's even worse than simply being shallow.

 

Grade 3: Module 1: Unit 1: Lesson 8 Paragraph Writing Instruction

https://www.engageny.org/sites/default/files/resource/attachments/3m1.1l8.pdf

 

Most women are just not crooked enough to be professional politicians, and they have had other more productive things to do.

 

The only reason there is a 'focus on gender' at the moment is because the gender that makes up 50-51% of the population has been locked out of the Presidency for 240 years. Just think about that for a moment. Think about the towering absurdity of it. Half the damned population (plus a few other sub-groups) not given an opportunity to be head of state.

That is the thing about 'firsts', they happen once & then everyone moves on. If conservatives had practiced the meritocracy they preach a woman would have run for President decades ago. If Liberals had been as good at equality as they think likewise.

I don't consider gender a reason to vote or not vote for anyone, but some people make decisions on a shallower basis than I do. Some folks won't vote for a person simply because of their race or gender. Others fail to see the historical import in the 'other 51%' finally getting a Presidential candidate because their politics get in the way. I don't see any conflict in acknowledging the significance of the moment while still opposing the candidate. Indeed, some might say the inability to draw such a distinction is a bit of an embarrassment.