Then again, you were predicting the stalker was going to be senator, so maybe your predictions aren't spot on. barfo
1972 was a crooked election. Nixon's burglars broke into many crucial Democratic locations. After the Watergate revelations, some media writers were surprised that there weren't riots demanding to re-do the fake election.
Franky, if Hilary actually makes it past the primaries, she is dead in the water. She has too much bad history to overcome.
Why you should vote for Hillary: Even if we break this down to its simplest form, ignoring any mention of who is or isn’t running for president, then the question really comes down to: Who do you want potentially replacing four Supreme Court Justices in the next 8 to 10 years – a Democrat who supports same-sex marriage, abortion rights, health care and the separation of church and state, or a Republican who opposes all of that and then some? Read more at: http://www.forwardprogressives.com/reality-hillary-clinton-liberals-need-face/
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/06/hillary-clintons-gay-marriage-problem/372717/ Hillary Clinton's Gay-Marriage Problem Until 2013, she held a position that lots of Democratic voters now regard as deeply wrongheaded. Hillary Clinton didn't refrain from supporting same-sex marriage for political reasons—before last year, she earnestly believed that marriage equality should be denied to gays and lesbians. That's the story the 66-year-old Democrat settled on when NPR host Terry Gross pressed her on her views. The admission is easily the most significant in the interview with the former senator, secretary of State, and presidential candidate, though much of the subsequent media attention has focused on the perception that there was a "heated exchange" where Clinton "lashed out" at her interviewer.* The mild tension stemmed from persistent questioning as Clinton obfuscated on an issue that could damage her chances in a 2016 primary but is relatively unlikely to hurt her in a contest against a Republican, given that her coalition is so much stronger on gay rights than the opposition. In a primary, Clinton could be forced to explain a longtime position that a significant part of that Democratic political coalition now views as suspect or even bigoted. Most famously, the Silicon Valley left forced the ouster of Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich for a 2008 donation he made to an anti-gay-marriage ballot initiative. That same year, Clinton ran for president while openly opposing gay marriage. If she is to be believed, she also opposed gay marriage as recently as 2013, long after a majority of Americans already held a more gay-friendly position. Would the subset of Democrats who thought 2008 opposition to gay marriage should prevent a man from becoming CEO in 2013 really support the 2015 presidential campaign of a woman who openly opposed gay marriage until last year? (More at the link)
You don't remember Clinton in office, do you? When he was elected, there was a massive LGBT march on D.C. Clinton left town, as a way of showing support. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_on_Washington_for_Lesbian,_Gay_and_Bi_Equal_Rights_and_Liberation http://www.nytimes.com/1993/04/26/u...archers-throng-mall-in-appeal-for-rights.html "President Clinton, who chose not to attend the rally or make a video or audio presentation, going instead to Boston to speak before newspaper publishers sent a five-paragraph letter that was read to marchers by Representative Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California. Reaction to the letter was moderate applause mixed with boos."
If you are looking for a president that supports gay marriages, you better hope and pray it's not Hilary that wins the primaries.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/20/us/politics/book-questions-clinton-donations.html?_r=0 Book Questions Clinton Donations “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich,” by Peter Schweizer — a 186-page investigation of donations made to the Clinton Foundation by foreign entities — is proving the most anticipated and feared book of a presidential cycle still in its infancy. The book, a copy of which was obtained by The New York Times, asserts that foreign entities who made payments to the Clinton Foundation and to Mr. Clinton through high speaking fees received favors from Mrs. Clinton’s State Department in return. “We will see a pattern of financial transactions involving the Clintons that occurred contemporaneous with favorable U.S. policy decisions benefiting those providing the funds,” Mr. Schweizer writes. His examples include a free-trade agreement in Colombia that benefited a major foundation donor’s natural resource investments in the South American nation, development projects in the aftermath of the Haitian earthquake in 2010, and more than $1 million in payments to Mr. Clinton by a Canadian bank and major shareholder in the Keystone XL oil pipeline around the time the project was being debated in the State Department.
