To DU members who oppose Hillary Clinton

[DemocratSinceBirth]

That is your right and I will defend it to my last breath...If you believe she is not progressive enough or her progressivism is feigned it is your inalienable right to hold and express those views. That's what D U is for.

What cause some of us grief is when right wing lines of attack are used to attack her. If Hillary wasn't the presumptive candidate the Republicants and their lackeys in the main stream press would be attacking your preferred candidates. To than end I offer you this:


In 1988 they turned Mike Dukakis into a milquetoast mental patient who deliberately let rapists out on furlough while his wife burned the American flag.

In 1992 they crucified Bill Clinton over a land deal where he lost money and that he had a girlfriend.

In 1996 see above.

In 2000 they turned Al Gore into a serial exaggerator who said he invented the internet, discovered Love Canal, and was the basis with his wife for the movie "Love Story",

In 2004 in the most audacious attack of all they turned a war hero (John Kerry) who was awarded two Purple Hearts and a Bronze Star into a malfeasant officer who shot himself and a teenager who was running away in the back.

In 2008 they turned our president into an illegal alien and a crypto-Muslim "who palled around with terrorists".

In 2012, see above...


Let's attacks our candidates on the issues and leave the character attacks to the Republicans and their lackeys in the main stream press...




With love
DemocratSinceBirth

[NYC_SKP]

1. OK, Issues it shall be. With credit to another DUer:

Someone said it earlier, and better than I could have:

The vast majority of people on DU who are opposed to Hillary don't think there's no difference between her and a Republican.

The vast majority of people on DU who are opposed to Hillary DO think...

- That we need to solve the problems of wage inequality, and Hillary can't be trusted to lead on that;
- That we need to re-regulate the banks, and Hillary can't be trusted to lead on that;
- That we need to raise taxes on the wealth, on capital gains, and on corporations, and Hillary can't be trusted to lead on that;
- That we need to build, strengthen, and spread labor unions, and Hillary can't be trusted to lead on that;
- That we need to stop treating military action as our go-to foreign policy solution, and Hillary can't be trusted to lead on that;
- That we need to cut the military budget, and Hillary can't be trusted to lead on that;
- That we need to expand Social Security, not hamstring it via Catfood Commission recommendations, and Hillary can't be trusted to lead on that;

etc.

No one doubts that she'll govern as a centrist Democrat, just like her husband -- and that's why the GOP is gunning for her. But centrists Democrats are a less-representative part of the party than ever before.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=404659

[DemocratSinceBirth]

2. That's legitimate criticism and the criticism you levy deserves to be vigorously debated./NT

[JaneyVee]

34. How is that legit criticism?

She supports higher wages, supports protecting social security, supports higher taxes on the rich, supports unions, etc? That criticism is based on feelies.

[NYC_SKP]

89. Her record shall be her demise. She changes statements to suit her audience.

When Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton flew to New Delhi to meet with Indian business leaders in 2005, she offered a blunt assessment of the loss of American jobs across the Pacific. "There is no way to legislate against reality," she declared. "Outsourcing will continue. . . . We are not against all outsourcing; we are not in favor of putting up fences."

Two years later, as a Democratic presidential hopeful, Clinton struck a different tone when she told students in New Hampshire that she hated "seeing U.S. telemarketing jobs done in remote locations far, far from our shores."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/07/AR2007090702780.html

Three days after Hillary Clinton said businesses don’t create jobs, she cleaned up the remark, part of a critique of trickle-down economics, explaining she had “shorthanded this point the other day.”

Friday at a campaign rally for Massachusetts Democratic gubernatorial candidate Martha Coakley, the former secretary of state told the crowd, “Don’t let anybody tell you that it’s corporations and businesses that create jobs,” going on to say trickle-down economics “has failed rather spectacularly.”

http://whotv.com/2014/10/27/hillary-clinton-backpedals-on-claim-that-businesses-dont-create-jobs/

That's just a little taste on a single subject.

She wants it so bad, she'll say anything and later change her statement to suit the situation.

Taken collectively, it doesn't seem that she's passionate about any particular issue.

[Katashi_itto]

114. +1000

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

154. Exactly right. Hillary's record shows she's always late to the party or a no-show altogether when it comes to progressive isues.

[Buzz cook]

166. Looks like quote mining.

"There is no way to legislate against reality," she declared. "Outsourcing will continue. . . . We are not against all outsourcing; we are not in favor of putting up fences."

That statement is not in conflict with this one.

she told students in New Hampshire that she hated "seeing U.S. telemarketing jobs done in remote locations far, far from our shores."

And this statement-

“Don’t let anybody tell you that it’s corporations and businesses that create jobs,” going on to say trickle-down economics “has failed rather spectacularly.”

Is not in conflict with this.

“Let me be absolutely clear about what I’ve been saying for a couple of decades: Our economy grows when businesses and entrepreneurs create good-paying jobs here in an America where workers and families are empowered to build from the bottom up and the middle out — not when we hand out tax breaks for corporations that outsource jobs or stash their profits overseas.”

In the former one can accept the inevitability of out sourcing, without liking it and work against the practice without resorting to protectionism.

In the later saying that trickle down has failed it obviously true and saying entrepreneurs create jobs is also non-controversial. The difference is trickle down states that business create jobs by magic and in the real world business creates jobs when demand is up.

In a lot of this I am reminded of Bill Bradley vs Al Gore. In that case the media told us that Bradley (the centrist democrat) was the real liberal, while Gore (the centrist democrat) was the big government sell out. There was no factual basis in the claims, but supporters of Bradley ran with them.
This also reminds me of 2008, when the media made a negative claim about Clinton, Obama supporters ran with it without fact checking.

In the first case listening to the main stream media might have cost us the 2000 election.

[Telcontar]

180. Businesses and corporations dont create jobs?

Then who the fuck have I been working for? Pretty sure corporations are signing my check.

[Buzz cook]

188. Semantics

It may be your boss that writes the check, but you are paid by the customers. Boss' are often just the middleman between the customer and the worker.

Demand creates the need for a product or service. In some few cases entrepreneurs find an unexploited area of demand and ...well exploit it.

While business may "create" a job to meet demand it is the demand itself that initiates that creation.

This isn't higher math.

[el_bryanto]

6. Well said. Thanks for posting. nt

[procon]

38. Her 2016 platform hasn't even been released.

This is idle conjecture. I'd like to see more than just speculation, or the supposition that she's a clone of Bill. If you're asserting that she's too stupid to develop balanced policies in keeping with today's progressive POV, AND still be electable in the general election, I'll wait until I read her platform

[merrily]

66. I will not be weighing campaign rhetoric very heavily.

The fact that she hired over 200 advisors to help her sound more populist doesn't inspire me to do that, but I would not have done it anyway. It's not as though she just appeared in the public eye. In 2008, I discounted a lot of what was said about Obama and I was wrong to do that. I will not be making that same mistake again.

[procon]

76. Do you expect her to have policies that don't appeal to the voters?

I recall that Republicans used the same argument when they lambasted Obama over having too many "czars". Yes, Clinton has 200 policy experts, just as every other presidential candidate has always hired as many advisors as they can afford.

Until she actually has some policies that we can critique, surely there must be a more reasoned opposition than this.

[tazkcmo]

84. Yes.

"Do you expect her to have policies that don't appeal to the voters?"

I do expect her and every politician to have at least one policy that does not appeal to me. That includes Bernie Sanders. When that happens, I hope they'll be open and frank about it but expect them to lie, spin or avoid it. Sometimes I'm pleasantly surprised but most often I'm not.

Then there's this: "Until she actually has some policies that we can critique, surely there must be a more reasoned opposition than this."
To suggest she has no policies after 25 years in national politics is to be purposely obtuse. She has a record on many issues.

[procon]

94. Certainly she has a long political history.

But Hillary as the governor's wife, or the first lady, a senator, or even Secretary of State, her POV will be markedly different than Hillary as a presidential candidate. I hope she can meet that challenge and not remain stubbornly fixated on the same things she supported in the past... we saw how well that inflexibility worked for GWB.

With so much at stake, she's not only going to have to present policies in keeping with today's issues, but do it better than any other potential challenger. That's a hard sell for any politician.

[merrily]

98. Her campaign rhetoric will be in keeping with today's issues, but I don't expect a change in

policies.

Here's a perfect example of her saying something people today really want to hear--if they don't think about it very much.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12776799

[merrily]

95. +1 And, she was in the public eye (and on the board of WalMart) even before that.

Not to mention her 2008 Presidential campaign. Pretending to be waiting breathlessly to see what she's all about is a better political joke than George Carlin could have pulled off.

[merrily]

92. Apparently, you did not understand my post.

[procon]

96. Anything is possible. nt

[NYC_SKP]

131. Trust me. Hillary Clinton will make Obama look like a socialist.

Obama had a very rough row to hoe, an economy on the brink and, over time, more and more obstructionism.

He created a climate of economic recovery that is remarkable. There are more public works projects than I remember ever seeing, highways and bridges being build, all of these mean jobs.

The Dow recovered and we have seen a great many advancements in equal rights, all after taking over a train wreck.

Now if we let a corporatist who was the TPP's biggest fan take office while things are running smoothly, you can be sure that more of the farm will be given away.

Look for austerity programs of mass scale, while pandering to just a handful of interest groups just for the appearance of being enlightened.

To to war-hawk foreign policy, fix it later environmental policies, and look the other way on toppling the 1%.

You're right, campaign rhetoric is cheap. The record is more revealing.

[NYC_SKP]

80. Not too stupid to mesh with progressive, just not interested in us, she's a corporatist.

She goes with the flow, she likes war, she believes in trickle down, she supports globalism and trade deals.

She's a chief supporter of the TPP, for crying out loud.

[procon]

88. Simple solution: just find another candidate who's more electable.

For crying out loud, we can either be ideologically pure and be the minority party for the next 8 years, or we can be logical and back the best candidate who can actually win the election... whoever that might be.

[NYC_SKP]

90. That's exactly what we are doing. nt

[procon]

101. Who is more electable?

You've seen the poll numbers. If not now, then who might win the primary later and then still appeal to Independents and crossover voters to beat the Republican in the general election?

[NYC_SKP]

115. Too soon to tell. Carter looked very electable running against Reagan:

Not the primary, but just an indicator of how much things can change.

And, really, there were not any great reasons for Carter to lose, he was a good man but not very tough sounding, the RW worked with the media and smeared him.

I think other forces were at play, too.

[procon]

120. It's not too soon.

It's all about the money. I've seen projections that the top presidential candidates will need between, $1 and $2 BILLION to run a successful campaign. The front runners already have sizable war chests on hand, and the promise of huge PACs waiting in the wings, but they have declared their candidacies as early as possible to begin raising money as a candidate.

As obscene as that is, that's what the SCOTUS and Congress has forced upon us, and that's what we must deal with now. Warren and Sanders are doing a lot of talking, but neither of them has filed to make anything official. They have no money, they haven't even built up any organization to even start a ground game to promote themselves as legitimate candidates.

If there is going to be a primary, any I hope there will be, whoever it is must throw their hat in the ring to even hope to be competitive.

[NYC_SKP]

121. Someone like Warren would do well with less money, appeal to a very broad demographic.

She might not run, I get that, but I think she'd have the best chance.

Sanders might also do well in appealing to the masses.

And if someone else comes along with half the passion and integrity that Warren has, it will still be twice what Hillary Clinton has, or more.

[procon]

125. They really don't have that much recognition.

Unfortunately Warren doesn't appeal to a very broad demographic, but remains largely unknown in recent polls, placing only in the lower teens compared to Clinton who is consistently in the high 50 and upward. Sanders fares even worse. Regardless of their impassioned speechifying, there's just no getting around such an insurmountable gap.

[NYC_SKP]

127. Appeal as measured among people who know her. Different from name recognition.

Clinton has that, name recognition.

Those numbers are among average americans, most of whom know nothing about Warren, so of course the numbers are low.

Every year it's the same thing, this is why we have primaries.

Unknowns become more well known and then all of a sudden a black dude named "Barack Hussein Obama" who most never heard of, beats out the much more well known Hillary Clinton.

There's nothing to prevent this from happening again IF we get a few challengers in there.

[procon]

130. Anything is possible; best of luck then. nt

[bvar22]

174. Everybody in Iowa knows WHO Sanders and Warren are,

and could probably give a getter run down of "The Issues" than most DUers, especially Canadians.

Hillary came in 3rd in Iowa last time, and I don't think her campaign ever recovered after being beat by Obama AND Edwards.

[I hate liars]

93. There are more than two choices...

Hillary versus ideological purity is a false choice.

It's absolutely valid to criticize Hillary and anyone else who says something at odds with their past positions and actions. That's not ideological purity, it's credibility.

If Obama's presidency has taught us anything, it's that talk is cheap.

[NYC_SKP]

116. Hillary versus a Fighter for the Middle Class. FMC would trounce her. nt

[yurbud]

152. if you take politicians at their word, they will take you.

the most reliable indicators of what a politician will do in office is their track record and who gives them money.

The rest is bullshit.

[jonno99]

161. +1000

[840high]

168. Yes.

[bvar22]

173. NOT "Idle conjecture"

It is History.
The words were said and recorded.

Now what IS "Idle Conjecture" is whether Hillary actually intends to keep any of the Pie-in-the-Sky promises she is making.

Obama didn't.

[imthevicar]

43. Well Spotted!

[SoapBox]

48. NYC SKP

Good points.

[zentrum]

52. What s/he said.^^^^

[joshcryer]

72. Such shallow criticism.

All the stuff you list are party planks, if she is the nominee, then obviously she would prove herself trusted enough to lead on those issues.

The president is the leader of the party.

[bvar22]

184. Are these "Party Planks"?

That doesn't look "shallow" to me.
IN fact, THAT is the deep end of the pool.

[demwing]

74. And "trust" is a character trait

this idea that you can separate character from issues, as if they were oil and water is a bit naive.

[bvar22]

79. Thank You.

That is a fair compilation of some of the reasons I oppose Hillary for President.
There are other reasons, but I don't want to pile on.

[hootinholler]

123. I was going to ask how sad it is that off the top of my head I can add issues to the list

Then I saw your post.

[world wide wally]

156. Anybody who still thinks there is no difference between Hilary (or any other Democrat) and a

Republican is either naive or never learned squat from Ralph Nader when he said the same thing about Al Gore and Bush.
I hope you all get a grip before election day 2016

[bvar22]

175. Can you please document with links those DUers who say:

"there is no difference between Hilary (or any other Democrat)"
I would love to see the links and screen names.....

...or are you just sparring with figments of your imagination?

[world wide wally]

181. Apparently you didn't read the first reply to this OP

[monmouth4]

3. As with other DUers, we do know how the attacks from their side works and we do know how to ignore

them. Please do not assume because I don't care for Hillary that I hate her. I don't. I just don't think she's Democratic presidential material and to be honest, I resent you Hillary lovers trying to shove her down my throat. Not. going. to. happen....

[William769]

5. Thank's for helping to make the OP's point.

Your help is greatly appreciated.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

54. Hmm, he said SHOVING down throat...OK< so a republican who WILL win if we dont vote for our

candidate, whoever that is, is preferable I guess.

that is the ONLY logical conclusion for me and I will keep making it daily

since this is life and death, I figure I dont want to fuck around anymore

[William769]

62. The hatred shown was my point also the point of the OP.

Nothing to do with policy, just pure hared.

[demwing]

82. Their was no hatred shown

that you thought you saw it does not make it a fact.

[1monster]

110. How to express my reaction to the hyperbole of your post w/o getting into trouble?

[840high]

169. I did not see hatred.

[bvar22]

176. I saw no "hatred".

Maybe you should look inside.

[hrmjustin]

126. No one is trying to shove her down your throat.

[cwydro]

4. Excellent OP.

Recced.

[libdem4life]

7. We don't need "character attacks to the Republicans" We just need to shout out their records

and sins and what they've done and write a book and get on the MSM. Nothing wrong with that. Remind me if we (Democrats) have ever fought back and given them some of their own medicine?

How about we stop with Hillary attacks...the Republicans will do just fine with that...let the others jump in who want to And Focus On The Republicans We Need To Defeat.

I don't start threads, but if I did, it would be one for identifying the baggage of every Republican running. We make a list...do our research...get it in writing...stop complaining and voicing our woeful outrage, spend our time doing that rather than fighting each other or wringing our hands.

One thread per serious R Candidate...maybe get it pinned or something...and turn us all loose to find actual facts that could be compiled by some real writer herein and focus our energy on a winning strategy for DEMOCRATS and a losing strategy for our opponents the REPUBLICANS. This is political war. Women...the first SCOTUS decision will be on women's rights. Then, our poor and minorities...continue attacks on Voter's Right. We all know the drill.

I wish us all victory.

[Iliyah]

59. Fact based - GOPs especially on their anti-American

record. Corporate media, hate radio and RW social media will cry "victim", prosecution, religious freedumbs, 2nd amendment, 1st and 4th amendments, the government is out to get you , too much government, yada yada yada.

Can't depend on Corporate media. Word by mouth, gatherings, social media, et al.

[sheshe2]

8. KnR

Thank you.

[MannyGoldstein]

56. What, in your opinion, are

a few criticisms of Clinton that are fair to discuss?

[99th_Monkey]

9. When GOP's Broken Clock tells the correct time twice a day

It's both inaccurate & foolish to insist that it's "incorrect", just because it comes from the GOP.

[Sheepshank]

12. motive is as important as the facts

Because of Republican motivation, any rhetoric they have to offer is of no good worth.

[zeemike]

85. And if they attack her on policies it invalidates that for us.

It means we have to be for it.
That is the false dichotomy of us and them.

[99th_Monkey]

105. That's my point exactly.

Thank you for saying it in another (hopefully more comprehensible) manner.

Just because Mitch McConnell likes pizza, does not mean I'm obliged, as a loyal Democrat, to hate pizza.

[Maedhros]

10. I limit my criticisms to policy issues.

I urge others to do so as well.

[jwirr]

11. Agreed - they are already attacking her so this is not going to be an easy win.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

14. Look what they did to Kerry and Obama.

Gore is lucky i guess... They just turned him into a joke and not a "bad" guy,

[Iliyah]

40. If HRC wins the Democratic Primary I wonder how the GOP/RW/Libertarian

are gonna equate her to Greeks? I mean remember Gore v Bush? Bush was the Alpha male and Gore wasn't.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

46. What is worse ? Turning your opponent into a joke or a miscreant?

[Doctor_J]

22. on the contrary, I think it will be a comfortable win. which is why she should be pushed to

The left. The president has done a lot of damage to the party by governing as a republican for six years, after gaining a huge mandate by pretending to be a populist. Hopefully Hillary will not repeat that mistake.

[jwirr]

26. On that I also agree with you. What I was referring to was the so called scandals that the Rs are

already manufacturing.

[BainsBane]

29. It's unrealistic to expect a comfortable win in today's political landscape

I do believe we should all be free to advance issues we care about and exert pressure on candidates to follow through with them. When you say "push her to the left," that doesn't say much. What left means varies for different people.

I think you vastly overestimate the power of the presidency. Many here seem to, while they pay scant attention to the role congress plays. You could have Bernie Sanders as president, and without cooperation from congress he would be severely limited in his capacity to enact change. There is only so much that can be done by executive order. If people want to see real change in America, they need to work to get candidates who support their concerns elected from their local house districts as well. That also means getting Democrats elected at the state level, since it is state legislatures that control redistricting.

Ultimately, money is the wrench in the whole system. I believe that without public financing, there is little possibility of what many here would consider real change.

[Vincardog]

111. I have been hearing "Your Slow steady message" for 50 years. In that time the "Leadership"of the

Democratic Party have reversed direction on key policies and constituencies.

It is time for our political betters to return to bedrock FDR policies or run as GOP.

[BainsBane]

119. What slow, steady message?

What are you even talking about? Is this all because you think a single president can transform the world, without any of us having to do anything to change campaign finance or politics at the local level?

What exactly is it in my post you object to? Do you not want to get money out of politics? Do you not want to work for change at the local level? Or do you just think you shouldn't have to do a thing?

People have lost their fucking minds around here. Why don't you just upload a list of acceptable posts at the top of the page so that I know what I'm allowed to write without being declared a heretic because clearly no body is reading anything I write.

[Vincardog]

134. I want the Democratic Party Platform to include: 1 Federal financing of all Federal Elections.

2 The Right to Vote in a TRANSPARENT election with every step verifiable.
3 Guarantee every working person the right to form or join a union.
4 A guaranteed minimum income for every American.
5 Eliminating the CAP on SSI income, Lowering the retirement age to 50 and at least a doubling of SSI Benefits.
6 Increase the max income tax rate to at least 90%.
7 Increasing the estate tax to at least 75% on estates over $25,000,000.
8 Breaking up TBTF financial parasites.


Sorry if I offended.

[BainsBane]

136. Great

I agree with most of those. Do you live in a caucus state? You can propose those planks are your local precinct caucus if you do. If you live in a primary state you have to go through the local party committees.

[Vincardog]

138. IA is a caucus state, I have already started the Discussion with my local Democratic party

[merrily]

13. I tend to be issue oriented, but I am damned tired of being told what to post and what not to post.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

16. i believe it was a request.

Let's attacks our candidates on the issues and leave the character attacks to the Republicans and their lackeys in the main stream press...

I can't make someone over the internet do anything.

[merrily]

18. Potayto, pohtahto.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

20. I am sad./NT

[merrily]

24. I as well.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

28. Why?/NT

[yurbud]

15. I haven't seen DU threads calling her a lesbian, witch, or murderer

Last edited Thu Apr 23, 2015, 05:52 PM - Edit history (1)

Mostly just stuff on her record of corporate toadying, which is highly relevant to the core issues.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

19. I have seen her called a witch here

One of the posters who called her a witch did get a hide. I will send you the poster's name via private e-mail to prove my veracity but I won't post it here because it's a violation of the TOS.

[merrily]

25. Not fer nuttin, but the TOS apply to pm's as well.

And I'm going on record as NOT being the poster who called anyone a witch. Not even being a poster who saw the post

[DemocratSinceBirth]

32. I didn't even come close to suggesting you were the poster who called her a witch...

But private messages are just that, unless they are threatening or in violation of the law. We can discuss anything we want in PMS as long as they aren't threatening or in violation of the law.

[merrily]

35. The disclaimer was not for your benefit. Obviously, you know I was not the poster involved.

However, I am pretty there are some posters who would assume, incorrectly, that I was the guilty one, esp. if I made that remark about pms.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

37. I swear on a stack of Bibles it wasn't you.

I also swear I wasn't one of the alerters on the guy who called here a witch.

[merrily]

39. I totally believe you that I didn't post that!

The larger point is, it was one post and it got hidden. And, IMO, nothing was wrong with alerting on it, either, whoever did so. I am not a frequent alerter, but that was alert worthy about any female, IMO.

[merrily]

44. PS About pm's, They are not private. They are subject to perusal.

Even if they've been deleted. Or so I have been told.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

49. Wow, TY

But it stands to reason the admins can see anything...

My buddy runs a sports board. I am going to ask him if he can see pms...

[merrily]

63. I imagine you can ask Skinner in Ask the Admins.

He's usually forthcoming, although he was not my source.

[BainsBane]

36. There has been some very ugly stuff

and some are on forced leave because of it, while others have gotten away with it.

There is also a lot of use of RW-funded stories (e.g. Clinton Cash) and controversies ginned up by the GOP. I would prefer people focus on the issues and candidates they want to promote, but obviously they will continue to post what they most care about. I just happen to think it's unfortunate the priority is on defeating a Democrat. Negative advertising sells, I guess, and DU reflects that ethos.

[Iliyah]

45. GOPers got a smoking gun on Benghazi, seriously.

They are waiting on the right time to bring it forward.

[BainsBane]

47. I often can't tell if people are serious around here anymore

and it disturbs me. Even seeing your use of the word "seriously," I hold out hope that it's a joke because the alternative is just too awful.

[Iliyah]

65. Its not a joke.

[BainsBane]

69. Well, I am sorry then

I clearly had no idea it was possible to be so far gone simply because one didn't like a particular political candidate. Clearly people have vastly underestimated Clinton derangement syndrome.

On a positive note, you did provide first-hand evidence of the OP's point.

[yurbud]

151. I can't think of what that would be apart from stuff that would tar both parties

like deciding to destabilize Libya in the first place.

The rest are just natural consequences of that policy.

[karynnj]

64. Clinton cash is coming from a right wing source, but the bigger question is what is the truth?

Did she violate the letter or spirit of her agreement with Obama? That agreement really bound both Bill and Hillary - just as similar agreements meant that John Kerry's wife agreed to divest from certain types of stock (even though their finances are separate.)

I KNOW the agreement is not legally binding, but if it were violated -- and the tax forms contained errors that just happen to hide that, it goes to character. Character IS, in and of itself, an issue. What I want in a candidate is someone whose values I mostly agree with, who I respect as intelligent and who I think has integrity. I know with any candidate, if he/she becomes President, there will be times I disagree, but if all these three things are met, the President will still be someone I can defend and respect.

Part of the problem with this particular claim is that it echoes past problems with the Clintons skirting on the edge of what is acceptable.

[BainsBane]

67. How is that a big question?

To whom? Bigger questions are not the machinations of relationships among various members of the political elite.
The bigger question is the role of money in politics, which we need to resolve through a constitutional amendment requiring public financing.

[karynnj]

73. I agree completely that the best answer is getting all money out of politics

However, this was not about money in politics and had nothing to do with public financing. It was allowing the appearance of using the SoS's power to help get money for the Foundation.

In 2009, HRC had a very unique problem. She was the wife of a former President, with a foundation that does a lot of good work around the world. The concern was that foreign countries were paying Bill Clinton to speak (money that goes to their combined bank account) and gave donations to the foundation and the Clinton Library.

In order to deal with the POTENTIAL conflict of interest (or appearance of such), a special agreement was reached that restricted what donations could be accepted. This was needed to protect Obama and because it was an issue with many Senators -- and she needed to be confirmed.

At this point, the whole story -- or maybe even the real story - is likely not out there yet, but it is premature to say that it's not important.

[BainsBane]

75. Okay

That's a better explanation that at least suggests a reason I should pay attention to it.

[bvar22]

83. ....and maybe some of us just resent the Vote that killed a MILLION Iraqis.

Her GO along to get along vote.
Shocking lack of judgement.

[BainsBane]

107. A legitimate concern

And something that doesn't require an array of sexist comments and photos to oppose. Yet for some reason some can't resist, evidently because that's just who they are.

I was a member of DU back in 2004, and I don't recall people here using swiftboating arguments to oppose Kerry and his war vote as they turn to Benghazi, Bill's blow jobs, Murdoch stories and sexism to oppose Clinton. Or why they don't express the same kind of disgust toward other Democrats who voted for Iraq. Then there is the fact that some who claim to oppose war and thereby Clinton work quite diligently to justify Russian war in the Ukraine. Lots of contradictions there. I struggle to understand how "principles" can vary so wildly when discussing one individual or context to another.

Mostly, I can't understand why people can't just vote for whomever they want without feeling compelled to rip one other to shreds to bend them to their own will. It's almost as though they care more about marking out ordinary Democratic voters as the enemy than the outcome of the election or the country.

[joshcryer]

78. "Stepford wife" is my favorite.

[leveymg]

17. We need to be aware of the objective basis for some of the negatives the GOP is putting out

Last edited Thu Apr 23, 2015, 06:06 PM - Edit history (2)

about her. At the root of every disinformation campaign is a little truth that makes the smear credible.

At DU, there are already many who automatically shut down or turn off anything that is even peripherally involves "Benghazi." That is understandable because the GOP spun that event into a fanciful accusation that Hillary and Obama somehow abandoned or set up Ambassador Stevens. The truth is more nuanced, but the fact remains that US role in Libya and the spread of Libyan arms and Jihadi fighters to Syria turned out to be a foreign policy disaster, and that policy was largely driven by the Secretary of State Clinton and CIA Director Petraeus. Nobody should be denying that, because it's a matter of record. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/06/world/africa/weapons-sent-to-libyan-rebels-with-us-approval-fell-into-islamist-hands.html?_r=0

Same thing with the fact that the Bill and Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation has accepted tens of millions of dollars over the years from Oman, Qatar and the Emirates (and a bunch of other unsavories), and that those contributions reportedly continued while Hillary was Secretary of State. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/foreign-governments-gave-millions-to-foundation-while-clinton-was-at-state-dept/2015/02/25/31937c1e-bc3f-11e4-8668-4e7ba8439ca6_story.html While that may have been technically legal, it gives many Americans the impression of a conflict of interest and poor judgement by the Clintons in allowing that.

Again, we should not be shutting our ears and dismissing this issue out of hand, as it makes Democrats look too partisan to be honest about something - Hillary is a seriously flawed candidate with some serious stains on her record, including her vote and role in passing the IWR. The worst thing we can do is to go into denial and censorship mode here at DU. We need to be honest with ourselves, at least.

[Buzz cook]

167. If there is a basis in right wing criticism of Clinton, it is not in either Benghaaaazi or in...

Arab contributions to the Clinton foundation.

Clinton and the Obama administration were cleared of wrong doing in Benghazi by several investigations made by the Republican controlled house. That has of course not made the Republicans back off of their claims or stop new investigations.

And of course the Clinton Foundation is a charitable organization and as such its financial records are open to public scrutiny. If there is wrongdoing the it should be easily revealed.
On top of that the Clinton Foundation has returned donations from Arab countries, wrongly in my opinion.

Doesn't anyone remember Whitewater in which a baseless accusation led to the appointment of an out of control Independent Counsel?
If the right wing makes an accusation, we should make them prove it.

[mmonk]

21. I don't ride that way (personal attacks).

I make my case for those I support or why I might oppose some policies of another candidate. Personal attacks cheapen discussion.

[cali]

23. agreed

[Politicalboi]

30. I don't believe the GOP attacks for the most part

It's the lying that gets me. We still have a lot of time before the big day. I'm still voting for her if she is our only choice. But I loathe liars. Bill lied about sex, not so bad, lying about events in your life, terrible. Is Hillary a Topper?

[Baitball Blogger]

31. Your fight is not with us.

Last edited Thu Apr 23, 2015, 06:58 PM - Edit history (1)

It is with the newspaper editors who do not encourage a fair vetting of the candidates. And it is also with Democratic candidates who need to do a better job of side-stepping the stupid, small-minded attacks that are now customary.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

42. It was a request and not a fight.

BTW, the MSM needs to go after their candidates with the same relish they go after ours.

[orpupilofnature57]

33. I posed the question on DU in 2007 is Obama a ploy to take HILLARY OUT ?

I would never stoop to the attacks ass-heads make of the lady, I criticize her as Democrat for acting like a Republican, calling Edward Snowden a traitor, using casuistries whenever she's culpable for an array of variances in her Jobs through the years .

[hrmjustin]

41. I just hope that people question every attack made against Hillary.

Like this cash book that is from a Bush partisan hack.

Just don't believe everything negative said about her.

Question her of course but show respect as well.

[procon]

61. The Ed Show just did a whole segment based on "Clinton Cash"

He argued that the points in the book would hurt Clinton, James Carville repeatedly shut him down, but Ed kept on attacking her.

Why doesn't he know the backstory on that book?

[hrmjustin]

68. I don't watch him so I don't know if he is a fan or not of Hillary but he should know better.

[karynnj]

77. He very likely does - but that does NOT mean there is no issue there

What it means is there will very likely be many things that when examined are easily explained and not a problem.

Here, the fact that they DID refile the tax forms is a story. It is possible that they will have a good explanation - but

"he's rw", "He's like a SBVT" -- especially said rather than ANSWERING the accusation does not work.

[procon]

81. Carville's response was spot on.

Watch the video later on if you can.

More importantly, if Democrats are going to criticize other Democrats maybe we shouldn't be using Republican oppo research smears as the basis for our complaints. Just sayin'...

[karynnj]

87. If it is a smear, NO -- if it is something that really is poor judgment or worse, then it needs to

be addressed. If it is real, it will no go away. (I did not see the video - because my connection here is slow.)

[bvar22]

91. In his spare time,

Carville hires out to help overthrow Democratically Elected Governments in Latin America.

[procon]

102. Oh my, how very Reaganesque of him. nt

[Oktober]

50. Issues are issues...

... and if they are valid then they she should be taken to task for them.

Policy wise she is so so for me but it is her character that is most offensive. Manipulative, fake and willing to say whatever it takes to get what she wants.

She is the best example of why folks who desire power should never have it.

[karynnj]

51. I agree with you that Republicans will do what they can to stop any Democrat

However, at this point, HRC is not the nominee and some here - and more disturbing near her - want to call any negative comment a smear. One example is the ridiculous list put out of words they declared were sexist if applied to Hillary. Almost all those words were words that could and would be used speaking of a male who did the same thing. (This was idiotic - because it almost begged for someone to simply argue that HRC was really all of those things.)

There are two recent issues - the email and the Clinton Foundation funds - that are valid issues to look at. It is not a smear to say on the email, while she broke no laws, she certainly did not act in a spirit of transparency. The real problem is that because she retained sole control AND then wiped the server, she opens herself to speculation that there could have been something that she hid - especially if it is true that top aides were on her server too.

As to the Clinton Foundation, more explanation is needed before we can say for sure if she complied with her agreement with Obama. Note: I don't think this is a legal issue, but it is a character issue - and if she broke that agreement, what does it say about whether others should trust her to keep her word.

Now, look back at your list:

Obama DID provide his birth certificate and the campaign pointed to a Honolulu newspaper announcement FROM THE HOSPITAL on his birth.

John Kerry had hundreds of pages of the official Navy record on his website in 2004. (All the fitness reports were there, were glowing and if you looked at the dates, there were no gaps. Some were even written by the SBVT! Had the media bothered to read them, they showed an extraordinary, mature, principled, compassionate young man.

The Gore charges were not that significant and had little to do with the election being close. Gore might even have been hurt more because Bush, a drunk until he was 40, was able to run on restoring morality to the WH! Not to mention, remember the Buddhist temple incident that did hurt Gore -- that was from 1996 and the Clintons' loose standards on foreign support that stung other democrats as well.

Then there were the Clinton charges:

Bill Clinton really did have a problem which his own aide referred to as having "bimbo eruptions". Even in the primary, we KNEW he had this problem and knew that he would lie and blame others when caught on things. We elected him anyway.

On Whitewater, one problem was that - maybe out of embarrassment - they refused to just put everything out on the deal early on. (In fact, Sid Blumenthal (still a HRC aide) spoke in his book on the Clinton years of a group of Senators coming to the WH and advising just that - and having HRC go ballistic after they left.


The difference is that on some issues with the Clintons, there was something actually there -- and on others they worked so hard to preserve secrecy that they made it look like there could be something there.

I will defend Clinton on anything WHERE I KNOW THE FACTS AND THEY SUPPORT HER. If that is not the case, I won't.

[Lil Missy]

53. There are members right here on DU that post nothing but relentless hit pieces on HRC.

The sky is ALWAYS falling! I tend not to take the one-sided 100% of the time people seriously. In fact, it's time to put a few of them on ignore.

The same with Obama. An outsider spending a couple hours on DU would come away convinced Obama's the anti-Christ.

[SheilaT]

55. What I have a big problem with here on DU

is the canonization of Hillary, and how those of us who have serious doubts about her suitability to be President, keep on being told that She's Inevitable, and we need to just sit down and shut the fuck up.

I do NOT think she's indistinguishable from whoever the Republican candidate will end up being, but she is much too right of center to make me happy. Right now she's sort of saying all the right things to make her look like a Progressive, or a real candidate of the people, but I am not convinced she is either of those things.

And most of all I do NOT want a coronation. I want a genuine primary season, with at least three or four other good candidates. If she survives that to get the nomination, I'll stop complaining about her. And while I won't vote for the Republican candidate, I will not vote for her with any enthusiasm.

I also happen to live in a very blue state, so I could simply choose not to vote the Presidential line on the ballot. One of the reasons I so hate the Electoral College crap.

[carolinayellowdog]

103. brings back bad memories of 2007-08

Nobody likes being scolded and bullied, but hundreds, thousands, maybe millions of people love to go online to scold and bully others. I voted for Obama in the primary back then, mostly because of the positives I perceived in him rather than the negatives I perceived in Hillary. Those negatives were related mainly to the behavior of her surrogates and supporters, although one scornful tirade she herself directed at Obama still rankles. So bitter and mean-spirited. I trust that Hillary is smart enough to learn from past mistakes and not repeat them. I can only hope that her supporters online would do the same.

[NRaleighLiberal]

104. +1.

[Art_from_Ark]

109. I have a similar problem

That is, I'm registered in a very red state, so my vote almost never comes close to making any difference, either. I think the Electoral College is one reason why turnout is so low in presidential elections. And that Electoral College crap is one reason why Bush was able to slither into the White House.

[hrmjustin]

113. People have told you to sit down and be quiet?

[SheilaT]

158. Basically, yes.

Hillary is going to be the nominee this year, she's inevitable, they say. I'm not putting it all in caps but that's how it feels. She's inevitable, exactly as she was in 2008. Which begs the question, why are we not in the last two years of her second term? If she was so inevitable. On another thread someone pointed out she almost won. No, she lost.

I am very opposed to Hillary Clinton as our nominee. What I most want to see is a real primary season, with several good candidates. If she's crowned without any sort of opposition, it's very hard for me to see her winning a general election.

What far too many of her supporters here don't get is how very deep and wide the dislike of her is outside of the Democratic Party. Outside a relative minority of the Democratic Party that is. Don't be fooled by the polls that mainly show name recognition. Don't be fooled that because she faced a lot of crap the last time around, that crap and more won't surface this time around. Do understand that there are plenty of those out there who think women don't belong in electoral politics at all, much less at the top of the ticket. Don't think for one minute that there is a vast yearning for a woman President and that millions of Republican women will happily cross party lines to vote for Hillary. Governor Wendy Davis? Senator Allison Lundgren Grimes? Do those names ring a bell? Gosh, why not?

If Hillary Clinton makes it through a strong primary season, she may well win the general election, but that will still not be guaranteed. Every single person who blithely says she'll sail to the nomination and win the election in a cake walk is delusional.

[hrmjustin]

160. We advocate for her just like you advocate against her.

Thats debate.

[SheilaT]

164. My concern is that those advocating for her

are completely blind to her genuine deficits, as I outlined above. Plus, I'm heartily sick of being told She's Inevitable. Just as we were told She's Inevitable in 2008. Remind me again who won that year? Not Hillary? And what is so very different this time around? Other than Obama isn't running?

I so very much hope Elizabeth Warren decides to run. She is the true champion of the working and middle classes. (As is Bernie Sanders, but he really is a long shot.) She would actually bring up the issues that need bringing up.

[hrmjustin]

165. I am concerned that some are blinded by their dislike of her.

Warren is not going to run. If she did she would be formidable in a primary.

[Laser102]

57. AMEN!!!

[BainsBane]

58. We have at least two Benghazi comments in this thread

and in this alternate universe that is DU, DINO is used for people who support the Democratic Party. while those that trump GOP propaganda and conspiracy theories call themselves true Democrats.

Alice, you've gone through the looking glass.

[JDPriestly]

60. So why nominate a candidate when we already know that Republicans

have published books telling bogus tales that excite voters about nonsense and distract from the issues?

We are the stupid ones if we ask for this stuff.

We need a candidate whose loyalties and concerns are immediately and compellingly known to be not about him or her self, but about the issues that concern the American people.

We need a candidate whose heart wins the American people over so that Americans are not so easily distracted by the predictable Republican tricks.

Hillary Clinton, perhaps unfairly, has been the target of Republican chicanery for years. She does not have the personality to ward it off. Obama did. That's a fact we have to live with.

I am volunteering for Bernie Sanders. I also support Elizabeth Warren.

Both of the candidates I am supporting are known to be totally on the side of ordinary Americans. Neither has a history that lends itself to a lot of gossip. (Although Bernie less than Warren on that account.)

[ChiciB1]

97. I'm On The Same Page... AND

it IS too bad that far too many decided we should HAVE HILLARY. It's made it almost impossible, if not totally impossible for another candidate to get the nomination. Those of us here at DU follow politics, issues, people and a plethora of information much more closely than millions and millions of people in this country. Far too many can barely answer who the Vice-President is, so to think that people who call themselves Democrats won't vote for her is silly. Unless there's some super calamity we don't know about that will completely upset the apple cart I tend to think she'll be the nominee.

As I already said, like it or not, unhappy or not... gotta do what I gotta do. I'm NOT supportive, don't like it and won't be out stumping for her... BUT watta ya gonna do??

There ARE some Democrats who WILL fight for us. Granted, the Presidency doesn't control everything that the Congress is required by law to do, but their ability to LEAD and FIGHT for the issues "we the people" want can be pretty influential in many ways. Obama came into office thinking he should compromise and didn't want to look back at the criminal acts of the past administration. He has accomplished a lot given how much the other side has obstructed him, but I do think had he come in by trying to take the bull by the horns, he could have sent a very strong message.

And as someone here has said, Obama's personality and abilities as a candidate were probably what led him to win in the first place. I said a very long time ago, I've always worried about Hillary's campaign abilities. Some things come naturally to people, and one thing's for sure... I don't find Hillary exciting in many ways.

JMHO

[demwing]

70. What if "character" IS an issue?

Does that not warrant conversation?

[ChiciB1]

71. I Think I'm Missing Your Point...

What the Repukes have done to other candidates in the past is WHAT THEY ALWAYS DO! How does this make Hillary more Progressive? I think almost everyone here know and understand how they operate, it's SOP for them. I'm sure they have files and files of information that they've been amassing for years. If one doesn't fly or do enough damage all they do is pull out another regardless if it's relevant or not.

I've NEVER been a Hillary supporter, but when push comes to shove most of us know what we have to do. The alternative is just not an option given what the other side is offering. They've done tremendous damage WITHOUT the Presidency I'm not ignorant enough to hand the office over to them given just one issue. The Supreme Court! Winning the Presidency may only do one thing, let them strut around like a peacock! As long as they have billionaires and millionaires they already have too much influence.

I don't like my own Democratic Senator Bill Nelson and truly wish Florida can find someone much more Progressive and not a DINO to run against him. I've called him enough to make my point clear to him. All of my close family lives here and I've made sure they're all registered to vote. I'm the political activist who follows the issues and they come to me for my opinion. But it doesn't stop there, I have many friends I connect with too.

Sure I'm on the left but voted for Obama 2 times even though I knew he was much more moderate. I certainly am very unhappy with what he's pushing right now with Fast Track & TPP, really makes me SICK! BTW, Obama wasn't my first choice either.

Not trying to attack you, you're post was gracious enough and I see you want to have everyone on board for her. Still, the grief you're feeling doesn't mean we don't feel grief about our lack of options.

[Warren DeMontague]

86. 7 elections, 4 of which we won.

"They" are going to do these things regardless.

One of the arguments for Hillary Clinton- and I think it's a good one- is that she can weather the attacks of the RW noise machine.

But if that's true, she should also be able to survive a vigorous primary process.

That said, I don't think "Benghazi", comments about her hair or appearance, calling her "shrill", or dredging up ancient Clenis panic, belongs on DU.

In fact, I think anyone promoting those sorts of memes is probably overdue for a banning.

[zeemike]

99. In all the reading of DU I have yet to see the post some claim are rampant here.

I guess I must not hang out in the same places as them.
And I had no idea what clenis even was until I looked it up...why you used that I have no clue.

It seems the OP is trying to tell us what we cannot say, and as is the usual case the definitions of what is ban worthy is progressive and defined by a few.
Already benghazi is taboo even though it is something she was involved in, but because the right has blown it up it is now off the table for us...it seems the right can control what we talk about.

Will this lead to a new witch hunt?...we will see.

[Warren DeMontague]

100. "it is something she was involved in"

please, elaborate.

[zeemike]

106. She was SOS...

That means it was her responsibility...she as the head of the state department makes it so no matter what the facts are...any good leader does not deny responsibility for what happens under their leadership.
A poor leader accepts the glory and blames the problems on someone else.

[Warren DeMontague]

122. Oh bull.

"Benghazi" has been "investigated" into the ground.

As head of the State Dept. she was responsible for a terrorist attack? I don't think so.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

128. It was tragic...

I realize there are Marine guards at our embassies but they are token forces and the ultimate security of an embassy is to a large part the responsibility of the host government. A token Marine force isn't going to stop a determined terrorist attack. It's absurd.

[zeemike]

135. That is not what she is responsible for.

She is responsible for sending the ambassador in...nothing else.

[Warren DeMontague]

137. ambassadors ambassadate. That's their job.

And yes, I know that's not a word.

I have no doubt that if Hillary has any culpability, the people who have been desperately trying to turn this deal into a scandal for 2 and a half years will get to the bottom of it.

[zeemike]

143. She has no culpability...only responsibility.

It was her decision and she is only responsible for that...if it had turned out well she should get credit, if not then she is still responsible.

[hrmjustin]

139. He knew the risk.

[zeemike]

141. I am sure he did.

So what does that mean?...

[hrmjustin]

142. It means that he took the risk and unfortunately he died.

[zeemike]

144. And she made the decision...and is responsible for that only.

[hrmjustin]

145. And that means?

[zeemike]

147. Just what it says...it is not that hard to understand.

[hrmjustin]

148. And does this disqualify her in your view?

Should her opponents use this?

[zeemike]

149. Not at all.

It has nothing at all to do with it...and I have no say as to what her opponents use against her and don't wish to censor them from saying it.
Let the facts speak for themselves...trying to censor them is a show of weakness IMO.

[hrmjustin]

150. No one is censoring anything.

[bvar22]

177. Benghazi was a backwater embassy, far from the Capital Embassy in Tripoli.

It was also a base for the CIA who were active in trying to foment dissent in the AL Qaeda elements on the region. Benghazi was ALL "black flag" at the time.

What happened in Benghazi was blow back from the CIA operations being run from that Embassy.

The USA has HUNDREDS of Embassies like this all over the World.
I don't expect Hillary, or ANY SoS to know what is happening to each individual embassy.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

118. There were several Republican led inquiries of Benghazi and they all clear her of any malfeasance.

At what point does another inquiry constitute harassment?

[zeemike]

140. Well of course it is harassment...what did you expect?

Politics is a dirty game...but you will get nowhere being a victim in the dirty game.

[hrmjustin]

124. You can always start an op on her and Benghazi if you want.

No one is stopping you,

[zeemike]

132. Well I don't want to...it is a non issue IMO

But thanks for permission.

[hrmjustin]

133. My pleasure.

[eridani]

108. Most of the "attacks" on Clinton are issue based

The remainder are opinions about how she is not a particularly good campaigner. (I'll withhold judgment on the last. If she hires Obama's campaign managers, this is a huge step forward over 2008).

I like what I have seen now and then of her real personality--nice sense of humor--but excessive scripting tends to hide it. I do NOT like TPP, Keystone XL, the Iraq war or being cuddly with banksters.

[project_bluebook]

112. I would not oppose any Dem or I who wants to run

and whom ever makes it past the primary will get my vote.

[marym625]

117. so nice to see this

I don't want her in the White House. But I have not once gone after anything but issues.

I would ask that those in favor of HC stop attacking those of us who are not. Way too many posts and replies that are nothing more than a "fuck you" or "you don't care about social issues" or "progressives are actually reactionaries that are racist, misogynists, bigots that don't believe minorities should have a voice. "

It's bullshit. It's rhetoric. It's harmful to democrats and it is no better than the right wing nut jobs, bots and ideologs.

[NYC_SKP]

153. I used to love checking Pollster polls to see Obama catching up to HRC's big lead

Good times!

[marym625]

155. ha!

I never thought she had a prayer in 08. I was working hard for Obama. Even got a picture with him. He was it in Chicago. And we were going to take on wall street and fight for equality. Don't know when we were told we have to choose between the two

[NYC_SKP]

157. Some people think that the candidate became official when she announced, that we should "lockdown".

"Please remind me when the 'lockdown' on trashing our nominee happens."

Look for this in the ATA forum.

The answer is simple, only after the primaries are done and the candidate is selected, then we'll have to watch out.

Vigorously contested primaries are critical to our Democracy.

[marym625]

159. ABSOLUTELY!

We can't possibly know as much as we need to without them. Nor can we tout their positives. Most importantly, we cannot defend the positions we need to against the right

So someone is actually trying to get anything we question out of DU? A democratic site? Holy moly.

[bvar22]

178. After Iowa where even Edwards beat her, I agreed.

She DID make a comeback in the racist states.

[marym625]

183. yep

Something that seems to be ignored

[bravenak]

171. Yes.

[marym625]

182. Thanks bravenak!

You know, my auto correct wants to make your name brave naked

[bravenak]

185. Oh yeah? I kinda like it.

[marym625]

186. lol!

I knew you would have a sense of humor about it, brave naked

[bravenak]

187. Always.

[workinclasszero]

129. The purists always attack Hillary with the latest right wing lie

As soon as the BS, discredited smear by Peter Schweizer, a former employee of Sarah Palin!, "Clinton Cash" book was hyped on right wing hate sites like Glenn Beck's The Blaze..........


http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/04/20/clinton-cash-author-peter-schweizers-long-histo/203209

Schweizer Worked For The Bush White House As A Speechwriting Consultant From 2008-2009. [PeterSchweizer.com, accessed 3/26/15]

Sarah Palin Hired Schweizer To Advise Her On Foreign Policy. Schweizer received $106,250 from Palin's Sarah PAC in 2011-2012, according to Federal Election Commission records. [New York Times, 5/25/11; FEC.gov, accessed 3/27/15]

Schweizer Helped Write Bobby Jindal's Autobiography. Jindal wrote on the acknowledgements page of his 2010 book that Schweizer was "crucial to this book." Jindal is a potential Clinton opponent as he is considering a run for the Republican presidential nomination. [Times-Picayune, 2/17/10; Leadership and Crisis, 2010; Politico, 3/24/15]

Schweizer Has Worked For Breitbart.com And The Conservative Hoover Institution. Breitbart.com states that Schweizer is a Breitbart News senior editor-at-large. He "was the William J. Casey Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution." [Media Matters, 11/13/11; Breitbart.com, 3/20/15; Hoover.org, accessed 4/9/15]


.....it was brought right over here and presented as truth by lots of people who apparently hate Hillary so much they are willing to do the dirty work of the fucking republican party and swiftboat the only democratic candidate that has any chance at all of winning the presidency in 2016!

[Hekate]

146. What you said, and good luck with that.

It's nuts here.

[Logical]

162. Well you're definitely promote Hillary, with almost every post! Nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

163. I comment on a veritable potpourri of topics but this topic is dear to my heart.

NT

[840high]

170. I've noticed.

[LWolf]

172. I oppose HRC

based on her neoliberalism. That's the foundation of my opposition, and it has nothing to do with anything the right wing says or does.

I opposed Obama for the same reason; not for the ridiculous trumped up reasons from the right and the racist.

I voted for Gore.

I voted for Kerry in '04, and went to bed thinking he'd won, only to be woken in the early hours to find the world different.

I voted for Bill Clinton...with a clothespin on my nose, but I voted for him.

I voted for Dukakis. My first presidential vote was for Jimmy Carter, one I've never regretted.

I don't need to rely on right-wing bullshit to oppose anyone.

[Jim Lane]

179. You're being unrealistic about the primary process.

In a battle for the nomination, it’s inevitable that Democrats will attack other Democrats; that the front-runner is especially likely to be attacked; and that some of the lines of attack will happen to overlap those being used or readied by Republicans.

Do you remember the 2008 campaign? As Obama moved into the lead, it was quite obvious that Republicans would be harping on his lack of experience, and using that to try to instill doubts about his reliability in a crisis. In that context, one of his opponents for the Democratic nomination ran the famous “3:00 a.m. phone call” ad, attacking him on precisely that basis.

It has happened before. It will happen again.