Video & Multimedia
Related: About this forum6502
(249 posts)She was crazy effective.
Even that I was missing news while overseas, everything I saw about her was always 110% spot on stuff.
If she was involved, it ended in success.
I used to think it would be Elizabeth Warren...
... but she will need much more time to run the merchants and the money-changers from the temple.
(eg. Banksters, 0% tax paying corporations and 1%ers).
That will keep Warren busy for at least a decade pushing new laws and regulations and starting commissions and chairing commissions and so on.
Hillary was hardcore when she ran against Obama and lost.
Obama needed someone hardcore for the job, so he picks the most hardcore person he knows.
She gets in and totally rocks the job.
She leaves the job hardcore and crazy level experience on the world stage flexing qualities that were always there --- and winning over people... negotiating on the world stage.
Yeah.
Now I want her to run.
PADemD
(4,482 posts)Last edited Wed Dec 5, 2012, 11:02 AM - Edit history (1)
If she is the Dem nominee, I'll vote for her; but I won't volunteer for her.
I prefer Martin O'Malley.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)... Who was already qualified to run in 2008, but, as usual, chose the hard earned route of foreign diplomacy.
I hope it gets her the respect she deserves in 2016, frankly.
Three things that made me throw up just a little... Gramps, Netanyahu and Kissinger. I guess that makes her an all around respected person, but they are 3 major assholes (Kissinger and Netanyahu, the war criminals they are) I suppose one has to have recognition if one runs the big race.
Oye...