Important wives of important men!


edit:

Anonymous: If you are reading this LOL please, names, names

Quote -

He hates the Clintons. When did he start saying nice things about Hillary?

From Dec. 21, 2015 (perhaps this is the one that I most remember)

http://time.com/4156925/hillary-clinton-is-strong-on-fighting-isis-but-democrats-dont-seem-to-care-2/

Hillary Clinton held a town meeting in Salem, N.H., on the December evening after Donald Trump made nearly everybody crazy by proposing that Muslims be barred from entering the U.S. The event was well attended and enthusiastic. Grandmothers—at least, women of a grandmotherly age—stood on their chairs, cheered and took pictures of the candidate. At a moment when Republican pyrotechnics get almost all the media attention, it is important to remember that Clinton’s core constituency is as passionate as Trump’s. But very different.

After criticizing Trump briefly, with a stray shot at Marco Rubio, Clinton went straight to questions. Dozens were asked. But there was not a single one about radical Islamic terrorism, not a single one about the need to rethink national security in an era when the jihadis have switched tactics and are attacking low-security targets—theaters and restaurants in Paris, Christmas parties in San Bernardino.

What were the questions about? Genetically modified food. Climate change. Gun control. Whether ExxonMobil suppressed information about carbon pollution. Voting rights. Mental health. Student loans. Immigration (family preservation, not border control). Preserving Social Security and Medicare. Taking care of veterans (with the assumption that veterans are victims of the military-industrial complex).

Now, some of these are important issues. But the Democrats’ unwillingness to think, or ask, about the single most immediate threat to our country was stunning—or perhaps, all too predictable. There is as little nuanced thought about national security among left-liberal Democrats as there is about border control among Trump supporters.

Several times Clinton tried to steer her answers toward the topic, but the crowd resisted. And it occurred to me that Clinton might actually be taking a risk with the Democratic base when she talks about national security, which she has been doing quite a bit recently. She has given three meaty speeches since the Paris attacks—tough, detailed proposals for fighting ISIS, keeping the heat on Iran and protecting the homeland. In sum, they represent a more comprehensive effort to deal with these issues than attempted by all the Republican candidates combined, although Jeb Bush comes close and—he’ll hate me for saying this—his positions on these issues aren’t all that different from hers.

http://time.com/4084881/hillary-clinton-benghazi-hearing-farce/

(snip)

It was a classic drama about an endurance test, in some ways a torture session, and whether the main character, Hillary Clinton, would survive or be broken. She did, of course, survive—and it was a remarkable thing to behold. She survived with her humanity not only intact, but enhanced…by her laughter, coughing, patience, comprehensive knowledge without seeming robotic, and clear concern about the Benghazi tragedy.

I have some big differences with Clinton on matters of foreign policy—I thought the decision to go into Libya was wrong in the first place; I thought her desire to get involved in the Syria mess showed that she hadn’t learned enough from our Iraq and Libyan experiences. But she demonstrated a presidential level of preparation, endurance and grace under pressure in the face of the Committee’s shameless marathon.

As for the Republicans, it’s about time they learned their lesson: they have been obsessed with the Clintons for more than 20 years now. It’s a sick obsession. There has been a lascivious edge to it—from Paula Jones to Vince Foster to Monica Lewinsky to Alabama Congresswoman Martha Roby’s embarrassing question, late in the hearing, about whether Clinton “slept alone” when she went home from the office the night of the Benghazi attacks.

(snip)

And every last attempt by Republicans to show that (a) Clinton didn’t care about this tragedy or (b) that she participated in a politically-motivated coverup of the true nature of the Benghazi attack, fell disastrously flat for the Committee’s hapless prosecutors. On Point A, she attended a deputy’s level meeting—something a Cabinet officer rarely does—in the hours after the attack to make sure that State, Defense, CIA and other relevant agencies were doing all they could to respond. On point B, it seems clear that a local militia used the cover of regional protests against an anti-Islamic video to launch an attack on the compound. The initial assumption—by everyone, not just Clinton—that this was part of a regional pattern of violent demonstrations was understandable, not at all conspiratorial…and even if it was part of an Obama plan to low-ball the continuing threat of Al Qaeda, that is a matter of politics, and it pertains not at all to deaths in Benghazi.

Clinton laughed when the unfortunate Martha Roby asked her if she slept alone that night. Roby, stranded on planet wingnut, didn’t understand why the Secretary and more than a few others in the room were laughing. They were laughing at you, Ms. Roby, because the moment summed up the true nature and toxic intent of this witch hunt.

I don't know what a cheating spouse has to do with presidential qualifications - it has existed as long as we have had presidents - but that is an answer, if true, that would "knock your socks off"!

As would Bill. But that crap never worked with Democratic voters and still won't. Not to mention pot calling kettle black.

she likens them to unicorns

To talk about policy. Now seriously where does he stand on the issues? We don't know, it is time to send Trump and Cruz home.

Hillary on the other hand has given her position on the issues. Some may not like her but she is knowledgeable. She is not auditioning to replace Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity, she just wants to serve this nation as president.