Hillary shows how nuts she is. Defends the indefensible.

[_subgenius]

We all knew the attack was premeditated, with terrorism as its aim, well before the election. You saw how big a deal that was to voters..

It was a big deal with the voters...but "we all knew"???

Jay Carney, the White House spokesman, said on Sept. 14 about the Benghazi attack, “We have no information to suggest that it was a preplanned attack.” On Sept. 16, Ms. Rice said, “What this began as was a spontaneous, not a premeditated, response to what happened, transpired in Cairo,” where protesters angered by the video stormed the grounds of the American Embassy. Hedging her remarks by saying that her information was preliminary, Ms. Rice also said, “We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people, came to the embassy to — or to the consulate, rather — to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo.” That initial protest, she said, “seems to have been hijacked” by “extremists who came with heavier weapons.”

[_subgenius]

FOX viewers who think Hillary was bested today are living in the bubble.

To be fair to Fox, I read one of their online articles and saw some reporting briefly on TV and at least what I saw nobody said Hillary was bested. My take on what I saw she did fine. I think her exasperatuion was justified and her comment on what does it matter should not be taken out of context.

and exactly what context was that? Because anyway you spin it, her arrogance and callous attitude just sank her 2016 aspirations. Her showing emotion for the loss will forever be overshadowed by her lunacy:

[_subgenius]

Yes, there is a difference when she, as is the Obama policy,
took no responsiblity:
she blamed Bush
she blamed lack of money (even though her dept had almost $3 billion in unspent embassy security funds)
she blamed "not receiving any cable warning of possible attacks"
she blamed work overload with Iraq/Afghanistan
she blamed Bosnia
for someone who claims to be "responsible" she sure blames others a lot.

Yes, you're really this dumb.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2013/0 ... lin/192354

but not quite the moron status you have attained.
obviously you did not watch the hearing
obviously we all know of her posturing and "taking the blame" for the media spoon fed such as yourself..as you so deftly posted the obvious
but also as obvious are the facts that she "blamed"

[_Quasimodo]

Hillary did some serious butt kicking today.

I keep asking without an answer. Who do you think republicans will run against Hillary in 2016?

1. Jon Huntsman would be a better choice for President than Hillary Clinton.

2. Chris Christie would be a better choice for President than Hillary Clinton.

3. Rick Santorum would be a better choice for President than Hillary Clinton.


Just kidding on #3. However, Jon Huntsman or Chris Christie would be a better choice for President than Hillary Clinton.

Thanks Brackite! At long last an answer from someone! I've been trying to get bc to answer that question since long before the elections.

I agree that Huntsman would be the best bet for Republicans (not better than Hillary, though). The hardline right drove him out of the primaries this time. Will they again?

Chris Christie might have that same problem now that he is a pal of Obama in hardline eyes.

I understand your joke about Santorum, but as a cautionary note, he did do very well in the primaries. I'll bet he runs again and will do well again if the Republicans can't hold back the tea party. If he does win the nomination I think it could well be the end of the party. It will split.

[_EAllusion]

I agree that Huntsman would be the best bet for Republicans (not better than Hillary, though). The hardline right drove him out of the primaries this time. Will they again?

Huntsman got no traction in the primaries at all. He was not popular with any substantial body inside of the Republican coalition. It wasn't the "hardline right" that drove him out. It was everyone. Mitt Romney was the preferred candidate among moderate Republicans less concerned with social issues. The only reason he gets mentioned is because he was popular among middle-brow journalists who kept his name alive despite borderline nonexistent polling numbers.

Chris Christie might have that same problem now that he is a pal of Obama in hardline eyes.

Chris Christie appeals to the same type of Republicans Mitt Romney did minus the Jell-O belt.

[_Quasimodo]

I agree that Huntsman would be the best bet for Republicans (not better than Hillary, though). The hardline right drove him out of the primaries this time. Will they again?

Huntsman got no traction in the primaries at all. He was not popular with any substantial body inside of the Republican coalition. It wasn't the "hardline right" that drove him out. It was everyone. Mitt Romney was the preferred candidate among moderate Republicans less concerned with social issues. The only reason he gets mentioned is because he was popular among middle-brow journalists who kept his name alive despite borderline nonexistent polling numbers.

Chris Christie might have that same problem now that he is a pal of Obama in hardline eyes.

Chris Christie appeals to the same type of Republicans Mitt Romney did minus the Jell-O belt.

I guess I can see all that. Although, I do think that Mitt really wasn't anyone's favorite, either. No Republican seemed very happy that he was the nominee (except the Jell-O belt, as you called them). I think those that voted for Mitt were really just voting against Obama. Those voting for Obama were definitely voting FOR Obama.

All that still leaves us with the question. Who will run against Hillary?

[_krose]

Do you think Republicans would vote for a pro-choice primary candidate?

likely more would than would Democrats for a Pro-Life primary candidate....with the former doing so because of their conscience and the latter because of their blind adherence.

That is such partisan BS. "Conscience versus blind adherence. We're good, you're bad." Blah blah blah.

Republicans eventually voted for Mitt (after trying out every other nutty alternative first) as their nominee, not because they liked him or trusted him on their core issues (abortion, etc.), but because they thought he had the best chance of beating Obama. It was a calculated, strategic vote.

So, to answer my own question, I can see them doing that again with a candidate that is better positioned just to give their side a "win," and putting aside about their anti-abortion principle.

[_krose]

We all knew the attack was premeditated, with terrorism as its aim, well before the election. You saw how big a deal that was to voters..

It was a big deal with the voters...but "we all knew"???

Guess you didn't understand the statement. We saw by the outcome how big a deal it was to voters, meaning not at all.

And of course we all knew well before the election. They were even arguing about the use of the word "terrorism" in the second debate. At that point it was clear. It doesn't matter what Rice said the first week. By the election we knew what happened. The Romney camp correctly saw that going after the president on foreign policy was a loser (no matter how much Fox was trying to turn it into a "-gate" scandal), because Obama was seen as very strong there.