That was 14 years ago. To think that she's tailored that point to make it sound better as a Presidential Candidate is a conclusion one should easily deduce.
I’m not sure what was objectionable to begin with. I think everyone agrees there should be fencing at the border. The only part she would catch flak for is suggesting that employers face stiffer prosecution for hiring illegals. If that’s the worst thing she said then it’s a non-story
The first 30 seconds (of a 52 second clip) discusses fencing, getting resources to the border and that "its not right" that people are entering illegally and that we need "order at the border" and wraps up that segment talking about punishing companies that hire illegals. She then spends the last 22 seconds discussing a pathway to citizenship. Contrary to your assertion, 22 seconds of a 52 second clip is not the bulk.
Further mischaracterization. The talk about illegals hoarded at the border was intertwined with talk about legally qualified persons being stuck there as well. To assert that she’s taking some type of conservative or Trumpian stand here is patently misleading
Wait - what is the issue? Most Democrats support fencing and moves to stop illegal immigration. Obama funded tons of fencing along with technology and other resources for border control and deported tons of people. The problem with Trump's wall policy is that he uses it symbolically to demonize illegal immigrants and turn people against them - most people agree simply building a wall is not effective as an actual policy, especially in places where fencing already exists. Your view of Democrats seems to be shaped by GOP talking points as opposed to reality.
If that's the dirt people can dig on her, then put her forth. Lol She's a pretty good candidate, to be honest.
Nailed it. I always hear Trump supporters talk about Democrats as if they want to just do away with border checkpoints and passports and let people enter and exit as they please. It's honestly ignorant.
It is a very fair question to ask what Klobuchar's position is on immigration and how that reconciles with a previously held position . That said what she is talking about in that video is not close to what Trump is proposing and doing. There are no Democrats running who has positions that are close to what Trump is proposing. Remember Trump himself said he wasn't building a fence but a wall.
Yep, I think I'm on the Amy-train now. I was interested in her at the beginning when rumors were coming out that she might run, but she sort of botched her announcement and kind of struggled getting out of the gate. However, she's been killing it at the debates for awhile now and folks are starting to notice. That article @Os Trigonum posted from the The Week made a good case for Klobuchar, and you mentioned it above, it'll be hard to go after her and she won't rile up the Republican base as much as other candidates. Add that into the fact that she'll do well in the states that cost Hillary last time, and the Never-Trump former Republicans would have no problem voting for her, and she probably has enough to pull it off. Now, she needs Biden to drop out (and possibly endorse her), Bloomberg to throw his weight and money behind her, and possibly Warren to drop out as well. I think she'll pick up a lot of voters if those three things happen and then she needs to just keep doing what she's been doing.
If those three things happen, she's THE ticket. Problem is, I don't see Bloomberg dropping out. He's the best chance besides Klobuchar to beat Trump, but he's got some past skeletons. I think Bloomberg just may get the nod.
I don't see Amy winning this outright, but I can absolutely see her ultimately being the compromise candidate in a contested convention assuming she continues to do well the next several months. In a "moderate lane" of Pete, Amy, Bloomberg, and a hanging-on Biden, I don't see her cobbling together any kind of majority. But between being a woman and not being really hated by anyone, I could see her building a coalition of delegates by offering Sanders and Pete something or other. Bloomberg really just wants to beat Trump, so I could see him being cool with it if he sees her as viable.
I think Klobachar is Hillary lite she just does not have any charisma. With that said I have not paid much attention to her but will pay more attention.
I can see where policy-wise and possibly accomplishment wise she is Hillary lite. I don't think baggage-wise she is anywhere close to Hillary. I don't think her elite connections and establishment resources she even rises to the 'lite' part of Hillary lite. She has her connections but it isn't the same as Hillary's. Hillary's were global and at the top level. Amy's are primarily local and second-tier at best. Also because she's less widely known she can sneak up on people in a good way. All Hillary could do was give people some positive to add to the huge platter of negative people already had with her.
Agreed, but Dems should make their primary decision based off of lack of perceived baggage. Just vote for the best candidate who speaks to your values. If Amy Khlo did get the nomination, I have no doubt that you would see a blitzkrieg of disinformation and oppo dumped that convinced every anti-Hillary Trumper that Amy Khlo is just as bad if not worse. I would bet my life savings on that fact.
That's going to happen no matter who the nominee is. Same with the socialist label. But that's also irrelevant - the only question is will voters believe it? The socialist label didn't stick on Obama and Hillary because people knew better. It would stick on Bernie because he openly admits it. Corruption stuck on Hillary because it fit with what people already perceived about her. If people tried to label Obama as corrupt, it wouldn't work because it didn't fit people's perceptions of him. Dirt only matters if it makes sense. Amy hasn't been attacked yet, so we don't know what's out there, but just throwing a bunch of stuff on the wall isn't really a functional strategy.
That was 15 years ago. Also, outside of the primary "got you" moments really won't matter against based on who the current President. For every "got you moment" the President tried to smear her with, she can pull out of a seriously bottomless well of them from the President.
It really won't matter though. President Trump has tremendous strengths and tremendous weaknesses...... one of those weaknesses is Trump has almost said everything possible...... his personal attacks will be a lot less successful this time. It is going to come down to the Electoral College..... If I am a Republican I want the ideologue Sanders to be the Democrat nominee.
