Paul questions John Kerry about past war protests and asks if he still holds those views.

 

Rand basically insinuates he would of fired her for the ineptness and thanks her for taking responsibility.

 

Regardless of what you think of him, you gotta realize he is setting himself up wonderfully for a 2016 run.

I thought Paul was tough but fair. And it seemed Kerry did a good job of responding.

 

Not a Kerry fan, but at least he is a seasoned political pro.

Rand Paul vs. Hillary Clinton, clash of titans - CNN.com

 

And what an unusually satisfying choice Clinton vs. Paul would be.

 

It would be a genuine contest between big government liberalism and small government conservatism: Clinton's internationalism and support for welfare programs vs. Paul's anti-interventionism and opposition to pork.

 

The question of who could win such an unusual contest is difficult to answer. The Paul family has a tradition of winning votes from Democrats, but Clinton's new respectability could also pull votes away from the Republicans. One Kentucky poll found that in a head-to-head contest, she'd even beat Rand in his home state of Kentucky.

I thought Paul was tough but fair. And it seemed Kerry did a good job of responding.

 

Not a Kerry fan, but at least he is a seasoned political pro.

 

Agreed.

^^I absolutely love how Rand Paul approached this. What gets me is how the media (no shock here) just automatically takes up for Hillary, and acting as though Rand Paul just belittled her. However, if that had been Rand Paul or any other right ringer for that matter, and it was the Dems doing the criticism; this would have been celebrated on the majority of our media outlets.

 

Did anybody else sense this or is it just me? For the record, I'm a moderate.

Edited January 25, 201313 yr by Harry Doyle

I don't see Hillary ever having a shot at winning Kentucky over Paul if there were a national election but thats just me.

Rand Paul has the luxury of being able to take his absolutist positions because all he can do is talk. If he was in a position to do anything he would either move off of his absolutist positions or he would be a disaster. Congress passed the war powers act as an means to reign in Presidential war making power. When a CIC takes action in keeping with the war powers act he is not outside the constitution. Much like his father (though far less likable), Rand Paul can sit out there as a gadfly and make interesting arguments, but in the end, he is just playing with himself, with the same results.

^^I absolutely love how Rand Paul approached this. What gets me is how the media (no shock here) just automatically takes up for Hillary, and acting as though Rand Paul just belittled her. However, if that had been Rand Paul or any other right ringer for that matter, and it was the Dems doing the criticism; this would have been celebrated on the majority of our media outlets.

 

Did anybody else sense this or is it just me? For the record, I'm a moderate.

Must be just you and Henry

If Rand Paul runs for President in 2016, another Democrat will win the election.

If Rand Paul runs for President in 2016, another Democrat will win the election.

 

Correct. It would not be close.

^^I absolutely love how Rand Paul approached this. What gets me is how the media (no shock here) just automatically takes up for Hillary, and acting as though Rand Paul just belittled her. However, if that had been Rand Paul or any other right ringer for that matter, and it was the Dems doing the criticism; this would have been celebrated on the majority of our media outlets.

 

Did anybody else sense this or is it just me? For the record, I'm a moderate.

 

Not those who don't want to see it.

Rand Paul makes more sense on his worst day when he is trying to be measured than John Kerry does on his best day. The difference is telling, and the telling is in the truth.

If Rand Paul runs for President in 2016, another Democrat will win the election.

 

Correct. It would not be close.

 

Either of you care to actually explain why he won't win?