Hillary Clinton
Related: About this forumLooks like "substance" is the catch-word of the day.
As in, "Yes it was a cute video but it didn't have any ?wait for it? "substance."
She has no "substance" in her roll-out video.
How can I vote for a candidate who has no . . . "substance?"
Any other frequent catch-words that were bandied about today?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I guess they are just pissed she is going to win.
NBachers
(17,149 posts)It's all about slings and arrows.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)House of Roberts
(5,189 posts)Arrest them!
NBachers
(17,149 posts)okasha
(11,573 posts)Support for equal marriage
Support for better education
Support for working mothers and their children
Support for a racially, culturally and linguistically diverse society
Support for small/family business
Support for comfortable retirement
Pretty good substance for just a couple minutes.
NBachers
(17,149 posts)I guess the "no substance" crowd didn't bother to look too deeply into it, did they?
okasha
(11,573 posts)knew they'd hate it before they even saw it. They have special powers that way.
NanceGreggs
(27,820 posts)... her campaign logo.
Apparently it is too simple, too complex, too corporate, too insincere, too pandering, too red/blue, too blue/red, too bold, too timid, too obscure, and way too obvious - and yet, it is simultaneously fraught with secretive and nefarious symbols that represent all that is unholy.
And yet the people who engage in such intense armchair psychoanalysis (of a logo, fer chri'ssake!) wonder why they are viewed as having nothing of "substance" to add to serious political discussion.
OKNancy
(41,832 posts)leftofcool
(19,460 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)which claim to want someone else, I don't think Hillary is the "anointed" one, but she is so very qualified. Do you think it is a little jealously because I have not seen another candidate with her qualifications? Maybe.