90 Scandals Threaten to Erode Hillary Clinton's Strength with Women

[SillyAmerican]

The article in the New York Times on Thursday:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/21/us/politics/90s-scandals-threaten-to-erode-hillary-clintons-strength-with-women.html?_r=0

Comments?

[Lief 🗽]

Another garbage anti-Clinton hit piece from the New York Times. They literally interview a Sarah Palin supporter as evidence that this might hurt with women.

[SillyAmerican]

Another garbage anti-Clinton hit piece from the New York Times.

Yeah, but the New York Times is not known to be a bastion of conservatism, is it? And if hit pieces are coming from publications like these, what does that say exactly?

[Lief 🗽]

Another garbage anti-Clinton hit piece from the New York Times.

Yeah, but the New York Times is not known to be a bastion of conservatism, is it? And if hit pieces are coming from publications like these, what does that say exactly?

Nah, the New York Times has hated the Clintons since the 90s.

[Fusionmunster]

Another garbage anti-Clinton hit piece from the New York Times.

Yeah, but the New York Times is not known to be a bastion of conservatism, is it? And if hit pieces are coming from publications like these, what does that say exactly?

The New York Times has long history of "anti-Clinton" hit peices going back to when Bill Clinton was in the white house. Heres one of their more recent attempts where they just ended up with egg on there faces and had to apologize:  http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/07/27/a-clinton-story-fraught-with-inaccuracies-how-it-happened-and-what-next/

[SillyAmerican]

Another garbage anti-Clinton hit piece from the New York Times.

Yeah, but the New York Times is not known to be a bastion of conservatism, is it? And if hit pieces are coming from publications like these, what does that say exactly?

The New York Times has long history of "anti-Clinton" hit peices going back to when Bill Clinton was in the white house. Heres one of their more recent attempts where they just ended up with egg on there faces and had to apologize:  http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/07/27/a-clinton-story-fraught-with-inaccuracies-how-it-happened-and-what-next/

Ok, but what if anything in the following text would you characterize as inaccurate? And if true, shouldn't this raise legitimate questions in the minds of Clinton's women supporters? (If not, why not?)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[HAnnA MArin County]

The fact that only two posters (three including myself and aside from the OP) have commented on this thread should be a red flag for its hackery.

Come on, at least stick with EmailGate or Benghazi, a recent faux scandal, if you're wanting to troll.

[SillyAmerican]

The fact that only two posters (three including myself and aside from the OP) have commented on this thread should be a red flag for its hackery.

Come on, at least stick with EmailGate or Benghazi, a recent faux scandal, if you're wanting to troll.

Yeah, the initial post was made all of an hour ago, so it must be complete hackery, given that only three people have responded. And note: no answer here regarding my question...

[SillyAmerican]

Another article on Thursday, this one in the Wall Street Journal:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/clintons-emails-a-criminal-charge-is-justified-1453419158

Comments?

[Admiral Kizaru]

A wife who decides to stick by and defend her husband initially ............... I mean  that never happens in real life.


Kids these days.

[SillyAmerican]

A wife who decides to stick by and defend her husband initially ............... I mean  that never happens in real life.

Actually, a woman who sticks by and defends her husband by calling the women accusing him nuts, then that same woman runs for President of the United States and says that she's a champion of women everywhere? You're right, that never happens in real life, but unfortunately it's happening right now...