Update: Hillary favorables tumble in new AP-GfK poll. For those of us who do not like taking Hillary2016 and Hillary Clinton to task (especially those in the Big Pink comment section) for the miserable campaign strategy of appealing to the Obama cult that hates her and for the resultant mush coming from her mouth it is time for us and Hillary to realize we are in the majority:
Just 39 percent of all Americans have a favorable view of Clinton, compared to nearly half who say they have a negative opinion of her. That’s an eight-point increase in her unfavorable rating from an AP-GfK poll conducted at the end of April.
The drop in Clinton’s numbers extends into the Democratic Party. Seven in 10 Democrats gave Clinton positive marks, an 11-point drop from the April survey. Nearly a quarter of Democrats now say they see Clinton in an unfavorable light.
“I used to like her, but I don’t trust her,” said Donald Walters of Louisville, Kentucky. “Ever since she’s announced her candidacy for the presidency I just haven’t liked the way she’s handled things. She doesn’t answer questions directly.”
Hillary appears insincere because she is being insincere. It shows. We’ve written before that Hillary is lying and why and warned her to stop. Maybe it is Obama email blackmail or the total infestation of Obama henchmen into Hillary2016. Whatever it is it has to stop.
The Hillary campaign in 2015 is in much wore shape than in 2007 when we began to publish. We began to publish in April 2007 because we had to warn the Hillary campaign of the inadequate response to the flim-flam con man from Chicago. It is much worse now.
The mush mouth has got to stop. Either say nothing (our preference) or say something in clear precise English. The Billions from Barack to the Persian Empire of Terror is too serious an issue for Hillary not to speak with the clarity of “obliteration” she once understood as necessary The clear English is absolutely necessary so that the theocratic Persian Empire of Terror mullahs could not possibly mistake American commitment and intentions.
Barack Obama has decided to give the Persian Empire of Terror $150 billion and nuclear bombs. The $150 billion will come from sanctions relief. Thereafter Iran will make about $100 million a day from oil sales. Guess where that money will go.
Iran will not spend it’s massive bonanza of billions to build washing machines and suburban housing tracts. Iran will not spend billions from Barack to encourage ice cream parlors and kebab eateries. Iran will not be constructing gardens of peace.
Iran will use the billions from Barack to build the Persian Empire of Terror:
WASHINGTON — A $150 billion windfall Iran would get after a deal to curb its nuclear program is raising new alarms in Congress that it will use the money to boost terrorist funding across the Middle East. [snip]
James Clapper, Obama’s director of national intelligence, calls Iran the world’s “foremost state sponsor of terrorism,” citing Iran’s support for Hezbollah in Lebanon, Bashar Assad’s regime in Syria and Houthi insurgents in Yemen. [snip]
The White House has estimated the value of Iran’s foreign accounts frozen by nuclear sanctions at $150 billion. The lifting of other sanctions would allow Iran to boost its oil production from 2.9 million barrels a day to 4.2 million barrels a day by 2020, according to a report by Washington-based energy analyst Sara Vakhshouri of SVB Energy International. Iran’s oil production is worth about $60 billion a year on the world market. [snip]
Sens. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., and Mark Kirk, R-Ill., have proposed legislation that would require the United States to confirm that Iranian-backed terrorist organizations “aren’t the beneficiaries of newly accessed Iranian funds.”
In addition to freeing Iran’s cash, primarily in Japanese and South Korean bank accounts since 2012, an accord would allow Iran to freely sell its oil on the world market and attract foreign investment to boost its production capacity.
Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran analyst at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said a nuclear deal is unlikely to change Iran’s policy of challenging U.S. dominance in the Middle East, its refusal to accept the state of Israel and its rivalry with U.S.-ally Saudi Arabia.
“If they had more money, they’ll continue to spend it in the same way,” he said.
Persian Iran, has built an empire of terror even as economic sanctions have kept investments in the terror empire at a modest level. Now with billions from Barack the Persian Empire of Terror has the billions it needs to invade and capture whole countries in the middle east.
Sen. Mark Kirk On Iran Deal: Obama “Wants To Get Nukes To Iran,” Predicts Nuclear War In Middle East
“…tens of thousands of people in the Middle East are gonna lose their lives because of this decision by Barack Hussein Obama.” [snip]
“This agreement condemns the next generation to cleaning up a nuclear war in the Persian Gulf,” Kirk said. “It condemns our Israel allies to further conflict with Iran.”
Kirk added that he thought the agreement will yield “more nukes, and more terrorists, and more irresponsibility by the Iranians,” saying he thought Iran will now increase their influence in Iraq and Yemen.
“This is the greatest appeasement since Chamberlain gave Czechoslovakia to Hitler,” Kirk continued, saying he believed Obama only went through with the deal because he has a poor understanding of history and did not realize appeasement made war more likely. Kirk said he thought the deal meant that Israel would now have to take “military action against Iran.”
Kirk added that he believed the president would make this a “viciously partisan issue,” making it hard to get the votes to stop the deal from going forward.
“The president will make this a viciously partisan issue, leading most Democrats to standing with the Iranians and hopefully losing the next election on this point,” Kirk said. “He will ask the Democrats all to stand with Iran and make sure that we can’t get two-thirds majorities in the House and Senate.”
The Persian Empire of Terror and the billions from Barack are now a key issue for 2016. From Hillary Clinton and Hillary2016 we got mush. This is typical.
What cannot be disputed with Hillary2016 is that (1) Hillary makes a statement on some issue; (2) the Hillary statement appears to say something; (3) pundits immediately report that Hillary said such and such; (4) then the statement is read; (5) the statement is then seen to be a bowl of mush with some modifier thrown in that leaves the “clear” statement not so clear; (6) the once clear statement leads to scratched heads; (7) Hillary goes off to issue more mush.
That series of events has played itself out again. Earlier this week there was a bowl of mush served up by Hillary on what was billed as a major economic policy speech. There was a lot of “shoulda, coulda, woulda” mush which at the end was nothing more than mush gruel.
As the Iran treachery was announced by Barack Obama, there was more mush from Hillary on this very important national security issue. Hillary once threatened Iran with “obliteration” now Hillary threatens us all with mush.
First came the Hillary statement applauding Obama and Kerry for their “efforts”. Then congressional Dimocrats emerged from private meetings with Hillary to declare that Hillary was firmly on board and supports the Obama treachery on the Persian Empire of Terror. Then, the sequence of events again played out:
Hillary’s Team Has No Idea If She Supports the Iran Deal
The ex-secretary of state vaguely applauded today’s “efforts,” but even her advisers don’t know where she stands on the substance.
Hillary Clinton may have helmed American diplomacy as Secretary of State, but that doesn’t mean she is in any hurry to bless the deal her successor just hammered out with Iranian negotiators about that nation’s nuclear program.
The frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination, who was on Capitol Hill today to meet with Democratic lawmakers about her economic plan, gave no clear answers on the Iran deal announced early Tuesday morning. Instead, she chose to take the cagey position of applauding the “effort” but not the substance of the agreement.
Following a closed-door meeting with House Democrats, Clinton, flanked by Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, addressed a scrum of reporters for a few moments and talked a bit about the deal.
“Iran did obviously come up,” she said. “This is a very important moment.”
She said Obama called her late last night to tell her negotiators had made a deal.
“I applaud him and both Secretary Kerry and Secretary Moniz for their extraordinary efforts in bringing about this conclusion,” she continued. “Based on what I know now, and I will be being briefed as soon as I finish addressing you, this is an important step in putting the lid on Iran’s nuclear program.”
But, she said, a number of issues still needed addressing, including enforcement of the deal—“this agreement will have to be enforced vigorously, relentlessly.”
She noted that Iran is still “the largest state sponsor of terrorism,” that it undermines other regional governments, unfairly incarcerates Americans, and “poses an existential threat to Israel.” [snip]
“I believed, based on what I know now, this is an important step,” she said, before exiting the stage, leaving the horde of question-shouting reporters in her wake.
“Do you support the deal?” cried one reporter. “Does it embolden Iran?”
No word on that front.
So does Clinton actually support the Iran deal?
The rest of the painful tale is mush upon mush. Hillary’s well paid staff ain’t talking. Hillary is mushing “based on what I know now.”
“We’re not totally clear if Secretary Clinton supports the Iran deal as it’s written,” I said. “Is it right that she supports the deal, or enforcement of the deal?”
More mush. More evasion.
We warned specifically against this type of “too cute by half” responses that in the age of Youtube will hurt in the general election – and should hurt Hillary in the general election:
Word games and ill considered support for policies that are going to blow up are not smart.
Instead what is being delivered are balanced statements which Big Media and Obama sycophants outside Big Media blare as all out endorsements. Usually the “all out endorsements” are less than advertised and loaded with double messages.
The Hillary Haters at MSNBC have tasted the mush and are laughing out loud at Hillary:
Hah!… MSNBC LAUGHS OUT LOUD at Hillary Clinton’s Bizarre Robotic Response to Question on Iran Deal (VIDEO)
Even the folks at MSNBC are amused by Hillary Clinton’s odd robotic delivery and plastic smile.
The MSNBC hosts laughed out loud at Hillary’s bizarre response to a question by Kristen Welker on Iran.
MSNBC Host Thomas Roberts: Hah, hmf, Oh Kristen! Hah, hah, hah, hah, hah…
Kristen Welker: I got no answer…
Roberts: Yeah, just keep walking. Keep smiling.
Welker: Exactly. I got a similar response when I asked her if she actually supports the deal. I asked her that question several times.
This is supposedly Hillary’s area of expertise. This is an issue Hillary denounced Obama over in 2008. Now? Mush.
What Hillary denounced as “irresponsible and frankly naive” is now… well something about “efforts” applauded and mush diluted with even thinner mush.
What does this mean? It means the Persian Empire of Terror is a big issue for the 2016 elections:
How a Republican president could kill the Iran deal
GOP candidates who oppose the new nuclear agreement can unwind it if they win the White House.
If the next president hates the nuclear deal with Iran, he (or she) can undo it after taking office.
The dilemma: Use blunt force? Or go for a soft kill? [snip]
That means that the presidential candidates who have threatened to cancel the deal — so far all of them Republicans — can keep their promise by using the presidency’s executive authority to reimpose suspended U.S. sanctions on Iran and withdrawing from panels involved in implementing the accord.
The same is true on ObamaTrade, ObamaCare, all Obama Executive Orders, and every stinking vestige of the Obama abominations. On all these issues Hillary2016 is firmly on the side of mush.
In times of trouble a leader leads or gets out of the way. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu leads the way against the Persian Empire of Terror.
Israel is an American ally of long standing. The Persian Empire of Terror is an American enemy of long standing. Barack Obama is on the side of the Persian Empire of Terror.