Clinton: Benghazi probes 'more of a reason to run'
Source: AP
WASHINGTON (AP) Hillary Rodham Clinton said in an interview Monday that she feels emboldened to run for president because of Republican criticism of her handling of the deadly 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya.
In an interview with ABC News, Clinton said the Benghazi inquiry from Republicans gives her a greater incentive to run for president because she considers the multiple investigations into the attacks "minor league ball" for a country of the United States' stature. But she said she's still undecided.
"It's more of a reason to run, because I do not believe our great country should be playing minor league ball. We ought to be in the majors," Clinton said emphatically. "I view this as really apart from even a diversion from the hard work that the Congress should be doing about the problems facing our country and the world."
The interview publicizing her new book, "Hard Choices," highlighted some of the key lines of criticism Clinton could face if she runs for president in two years: Her record as President Barack Obama's top diplomat and charges by Republicans that she has been insulated from the everyday problems of Americans after more than two decades in public life.
Read more: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/clinton-kicking-high-profile-book-tour
More excerpts from the interview aired Monday night: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-interview-21-revealing-quotes/story?id=24064953&singlePage=true
Clips:
On her relationship with Obama
Running for president
And the ABC World News 4-minute highlight reel:
Iliyah
(25,111 posts)A few here at DU will join in the hatred as well.
My vote, HRC
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)and I just don't understand what the "anti-corporate" wing of the party hopes to achieve. Hillary is not perfect, but she is not the devil incarnate and she does have a good chance to win against the far worse Republican she would run against.
If she runs, she's got my vote.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)She is competent, but Elizabeth Warren is inspiring. Elizabeth Warren gets things done and doesn't stop fighting until she does.
Hillary -- what has she really fought for and won?
Hillary is not focused on the issues that will lift up middle-class Americans.
Elizabeth Warren is.
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)have a hard time choosing. Both have good points and some questionable ones, but I would happily vote for either of them in the general.
The Republicans have nothing close.
WhoWoodaKnew
(847 posts)I love many of her stances on various issues but I think the republicans would beat her (and gain the presidency along with the house and possibly the senate). Of course, I've been wrong before.
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)when picking a candidate, it's not just the positions, but the "winnability" you have to deal with. Republicans would savage either of them, but in different ways and Hillary might have the better edge at fighting them off.
But, we'll see how it goes.
truthisfreedom
(23,146 posts)Stuckinthebush
(10,845 posts)But there are those on DU who think that wishing it hard enough will make it happen.
Is Clinton the best progressive? No. Is Clinton the candidate who can win and who will advance a majority of progressive issues. Yes.
Honestly, I think that to worry about the 2016 race when the 2014 race is staring us in the face is preposterous. Let's worry about the Senate. Hillary and everyone can wait.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Please do. It's great. I haven't talked to anyone yet who read the book and didn't like it as well as her. In the middle of the book it gets a bit slow, but the beginning and ending are terrific.
Stuckinthebush
(10,845 posts)I will read it.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Beacool
(30,247 posts)Bandit
(21,475 posts)every single American household has heard of her. I doubt if even ten percent of American households have heard of Elizabeth Warren. Name recognition is huge in a country that shows very little interest in civic responsibility. Hillary is going to be our next President.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)Beacool
(30,247 posts)They keep waving red flags in front of her. Don't they know by now that pushing Hillary against the wall is the one way to get her to push back? The more they go on with their insanity (the endless Benghazi investigations, questioning her mental health, etc.), the more ticked off she'll get and the more inclined she'll be to run.
Response to alp227 (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Bandit
(21,475 posts)numerous times in the more than thirteen hearings on the subject and the more than twenty five thousand pages written about the events. There have been more hearings on Benghazi than 9-11 and Katrina combined. If there was something there, someone would have found it by now. Republicans have been searching harder than anything they have ever done in their entire life and yet....zero. So just what questions would you like answered?
Response to Bandit (Reply #15)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Bandit
(21,475 posts)Don't you recall the big huff when she exploded and asked "What difference does it make?" whether they were terrorists or ordinary people that were riled up over a video. The end results were that there were four dead Americans.
alp227
(32,020 posts)She has never testified.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=822611
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
YOUR COMMENTS
Blatant right wing smear against Hillary Clinton - she did testify at a January 2013 Benghazi hearing.
User registered yesterday http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=315082
and is concern trolling. See also post 13.
JURY RESULTS
A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Tue Jun 10, 2014, 12:38 PM, and voted 6-1 to HIDE IT.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Hide this dumb ass troll.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Don't let the facts get in the way of a right wig smear job.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Have to support the poster of this alert....right wing smear and false to boot.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Yeah, this post is a little too Freeperville-ish for my taste. Plus it's just flat out false.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: *nods* Clinton did testify.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Obvious troll.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It's not my job, or your's, to pratrol new members. That's why we have MIRT. Dispute them in the thread, ffs!! This alerting on post that are not OTT is getting ridic!
Thank you.
The last juror's comment is particularly annoying. Do they not know that juries influence MIRT? Too many jurors would rather beat around the bush than make a solid decision.
The Second Stone
(2,900 posts)Republicans have been ruining the country with bullshit, and she wants to fight that and knows how.
I'm open to other nominees, but we need Hillary. In my opinion.