...because I believe this to be truth...

[handmade34]

http://bluenationreview.com/hillary-clinton-is-one-of-the-most-ethical-and-most-lied-about-political-leaders-in-america/



"...the fact is this: no one has ever produced an iota of evidence that Hillary has behaved improperly because of a campaign contribution. No one has produced a scintilla of proof that there is a quid pro quo when it comes to her speaking fees. From Whitewater to Benghazi to her emails, nobody can point to a single instance of corruption or purposeful wrongdoing on Hillary Clinton’s part.

None. Zero. Ever... ...Hillary’s voting record is as liberal as Elizabeth Warren’s, yet somehow Hillary is the only one portrayed by critics as a sell-out, a closet Republican, a traitor to progressives... ...To disagree vehemently on issues is one thing, but to accuse someone of lacking dignity, honesty and integrity, and to do so without any proof, is to stoop very low..."

[Kittycat]

1. BNR = David Browck eom

[revbones]

2. Her bankruptcy vote is pretty clear

As just one example. She was steadfastly against it. She got donor money, then voted for it.

Note that I provided an example, before shooting the messenger - Peter Daou is also a complete fraud and shill. Blue Nation Review is now owned by David Brock et al and only acts as a propaganda outfit for Hillary.

[djean111]

3. Former adviser to Hillary Clinton.

True Blue Media - All Hillary. All the Time. Might as well be written by Brock.

[Karma13612]

4. well, at least the article didn't lie about the bias, as long as readers

read the author's creds.

Interesting.

[orpupilofnature57]

5. It's courage to do the right thing historically, Before and not After, Always .

[Cassiopeia]

6. I didn't know standing up and giving an impassioned speech on the IWR

was a liberal thing to do.

I didn't know that DADT and DOMA were liberal things to support.

I didn't know that lobbying for fracking was part of the liberal platform.

I had no idea that cluster bombs were something liberals supported.

Clearly I just don't know what liberal means anymore.

[merrily]

15. Clearly you do, but the OP seems to have lost his or her way.

One would assume that a Vermonter would understand the difference between center right and liberal but apparently not.

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

7. Obviously not

Because, other than a signed statement by her that reads "I will support this bill in return for $x", there would be no way to prove this.

My question is, why support the candidate who may or may not have voted in return for speaking fees or Super PAC contributions instead of the one for whom there is no question of his motivations?

[Kip Humphrey]

8. I wish I lived in a fairy castle filled with flying unicorns farting rainbows too.

But I don't. So, I will vote for the candidate whose integrity, honesty, and authenticity I will never have to question. At least I'll get a good night's sleep if not a fairy castle or unicorn (a pony would be nice though!).

[RDANGELO]

9. As long as Hillary is taking the big money, there is a chance that she could be compromised.

You don't have to take that chance; you can vote for Bernie. I don't believe that she is going to make the changes in trade policy that need to be made to have any big affect on income inequality.

[merrily]

13. She doesn't need to be compromised. The Clintons already believe what Wall Street needs them to

believe. Now, it's just a matter of trying to help her get elected.

[tblue]

10. Written by paid character assassin David Brock

He's the last person I trust about anything. Just ask Anita Hill. That HC includes him in her camp is very, very troubling. If you're not familiar with him, google him. Make no mistake: Blue Nation Review is David Brock and is an arm of the SuperPAC he runs for her.

[Gwhittey]

11. So you don't think GOP is bought and paid for too?

bb

[merrily]

12. The "quid pro quo" standard is bs.

There are thousands of ways to reward a legislator that do not consist of saying outright, "I am giving X so you will vote No on that bill. And voting records in the conservative Senate don't make anyone a liberal. Warren and Hillary vote with the Democratic Caucus rather than with Republicans. That doesn't make either of them liberal. Additionally comparing their Senate votes is impossible anyway given that they weren't in the Senate at the same time. Moreover, Hillary has never even claimed to be a liberal, nor has she ever been liberal.

Come on, handmade34. You've been here since 2008. You should know that just posting anything at all doesn't convince anyone of anything.

[pdsimdars]

14. Is Cindrella coming to your tea party this afternoon?

No one has produced any evidence THAT YOU WOULD LOOK AT.
The clearest one for me is that story Elizabeth Warren tells about the bankruptcy bill.
But I've seen some other great ones as well.

YOU just choose to ignore it all, and that is NOT the same thing as not existing.

Like that great quote says -- someone often has trouble understanding something they are paid NOT to understand.

[marew]

17. Exactly!

See my response below...

[marew]

16. The list is endless...

If Hillary is the nominee, we will end up being stuck, in the general election, with a nominee who will be extremely vulnerable to the Republican Party's exposure of that person's corrupt record, during the general-election campaign.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/why-hillary-clinton-shoul_b_4293469.html

http://www.usapoliticstoday.com/watchdog-names-clinton-most-corrupt-politician-of-2015/

http://nypost.com/2016/01/18/hillary-clintons-caymans-tax-dodge-hypocrisy/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/zephyr-teachout/clintons-corruption-probl_b_8547556.html

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/10/hillary-clintons-favors-to-foundation-donors-stret/?page=all

http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187

http://www.salon.com/2015/05/31/the_cash_donations_hillary_simply_has_no_answer_for_partner/

http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clintons-complex-corporate-ties-1424403002

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/20/us/politics/new-book-clinton-cash-questions-foreign-donations-to-foundation.html?_r=0

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/05/hillary-clinton-foundation-state-arms-deals

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/02/debbie_wasserman_schultz_asked_to_explain_how_hillary_lost_nh_primary_by_22_but_came_away_with_same_number_of_delegates_.html