synchronicity's picture

    The Dark Side Of Hillary Clinton Section 1 - Lies & Political Convenience

    Part 1: HILLARY LIES

    I have not identified every lie significant to the public, but cover some that are recent or others that have been more public avoiding meaningless republican attacks because it's just not necessary to make the point. 

    1. Sniper Fire – She didn’t have to tell this lie.  Supposedly it was to try to give her some ‘battle’ experience in her run for president in 2007.  It made her look foolish.  Her daughter was there with her!  


    2. Time Warner/CNN Connection & Drug Companies Are My Enemy - During the First     Presidential Debate on CNN in October, the unspoken lie, or non-disclosure was that one of Hillary’s big donors is Time Warner the owner of CNN.  If she had disclosed this perhaps the public would have taken into account there may be some bias in their coverage toward her.

    The spoken lie was that ‘drug companies' are her enemies.  Many articles came out shortly after and there is this one in particular  that declares that in fact she is the recipient of the largest amount of campaign contributions from drug companies of all the candidates running for president in 2016

    3. Dark Money - I nearly had smoke coming out of my ears when Hillary Clinton stated in her speech at the Jefferson Jackson Iowa Democratic Party Dinner October 24, that she was going to go after Dark Money. 

    I had just recently read about the dark money going into her Super Pac.

    ​Update - new link added

    Hillary Clinton Denounces Corporate Crime While Accepting Cash From Blackstone, Firm Sanctioned By SEC.

    And there was also her ‘word salad’ answer when she was asked whether she did any favors connected to donations to the Clinton Foundation for donations from foreign donors.  The Clinton Foundation had failed to report, and by failed, I mean reported $0 dollars in donations, of over $10,000,000 in donations received from foreign entities. 


    4. Plays Victim to Attack Bernie Sanders As Sexist?! – Hillary Clinton is not an ignorant woman.  I am sure she is aware that Bernie talks about the shouting on both sides of the gun issues because he believes coming from a state of hunters with few gun laws he is in the unique position to bridge the divide and get some movement forward on sensible gun legislation.  But Hillary’s campaign decided she should play victim and wage a senseless attack against Bernie Sanders as ‘sexist’.

    Having watched many speeches of Bernie Sanders on common sense gun solutions, I know that he speaks of the 'shouting' or 'yelling' o both sides of the issue.  Given that the sexist remarks claim was more than a week after the debate.. I feel very confident that the Clinton campaign knew this too.



    I find her false sexism attacks sickening and a disgrace to all women.

    My response was this: Hillary's false and twisted attack on Bernie is potentially very damaging to the progress women work so hard for.

    Bernie supporters that have watched many of his speeches know he talks about the 'shouting' on both sides of the gun issues all of the time. There was nothing misogynist about it. Hillary was not smart to make this move because she has too much for people to bring up that ARE facts re her back and forth regarding issues, Big Money ties including pharma she claimed as her enemy, and lying which earned her the 'untrustworthy' numbers she already has.

    In fact, the extreme restraint and deference I was affording Hillary Clinton for Bernie's sake disappeared after this outrageous and ridiculous attack on Senator Sanders.

    5. DOMA – Again There was NO need for her to lie.   It makes me wonder if she believes she can’t win without lying.  Based on her behavior it seems she is comfortable with it.  Friday night, October 23rd on the Rachel Maddow Show, Hillary said the following 

    It was a LIE.  Of course Hillary held a position against gay marriage for a long time and only recently has shifted her position.  I assume she ‘chose’ to tell this LIE, because Senator Sanders has always supported gay rights and she wanted to look/sound better to voters so she made this up.  Her lie was called out by one of her very own gay activist friends among many other activists.

    6. Overturning Citizens United & Ending Corruption In Our Election System – I already knew that at least one officer of the DNC did fundraising for Hillary Clinton during the primary season which was against the rules.

    I already knew that DNC Chair, Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz had been the head of Hillary’s campaign in 2007.  I already knew that the debate schedule beginning October 13th, started after the deadline in NY for registering as a Dem to vote in the following year’s primary HAD PASSED!! The debate schedule was rigged in favor of Hillary Clinton.  In fact, the first debate was scheduled to be on CNN which we already established is owned by Time Warner, one of her BIG contributors. I already knew that there were ONLY 6 debates scheduled late in the primary season, one right before the holidays assumed unlikely to get much attention, instead of anything close the number of 26 debates held in 2007-2008 . And it was publicized that the DNC had made a new rule for all democratic presidential candidates that they could NOT participate in ANY non DNC sanctioned debate without losing their right to participate in the DNC sanctioned debates.

    And yes, right after the debate Bernie Sanders won all of the online polls by large margins and he also won in EVERY FOCUS GROUP.   But CNN, the rest of  corporate media & establishment declared Hillary the winner.  CNN even went so far as to take down their own online poll.  They also shut down Bernie2016TV a volunteer youtube channel where many who could not go to a debate party could connect and watch the debate.  Yes they have intellectual property rights BUT CNN has in previous years put out clear documents stating that debate feed should be free and available to ‘all of the public’, and they did not shut down everyone who streamed their free debate feed.  (They have also let Berne TV stream other live feed in the past with permission because Bernie2016TV is strictly volunteer and not making money off of any of its efforts.)  They immediately chopped up the debate feed and as you will have seen the part about Bernie saying enough about the emails left out the attack on the media for not focusing on substance which was the entire point of his statement.  CNN put together clips of the 'best of Clinton' and none of the other candidates.

    Yes.  I already knew all of this. And then I learned that the Dems had changed their rules to allow for corporate funding of the democratic party which amounts to this:  Not only can billionaires & corporations ‘buy’ our candidates, they can ‘buy’ the democratic party.  Huge amounts of money are flowing from Hillary's victory fund through to the Democratic Party…



    Which begs the question ‘Has Hillary Purchased the Democratic Party & Nomination?’ And the follow up questions ‘Are the corporations & billionaires running our country right now only going to allow us to ‘go through the motions of democracy’ and Hillary will be the only possible result, chosen by them? Is our democracy a ‘complete’ pretense?  Or if enough people act, will we be able to change the balance of power and the direction of our country? AND Why Don't Hillary supporters CARE about this?

    Bernie Sanders is rallying a political and cultural revolution.  The answer to these questions is something that only time will tell in this election but it is quite clear to many of the people, if not the oligarchy in power, that the revolution won’t stop with the election WIN or LOSE.  Instead the country is likely to see a far more organized public waking up to corporate/Big Money rule and figuring out how they will respond without elections as a real and viable tool.

    7. The little TPP lie: Why on earth bother lying about this?  She was coming out in support of the TPP and in order to justify it she made up a lie.  The lie was basically that it had been ‘publicly released' now and there were things she didn’t like about it now, so she would not support it.  Her position more recently is that she might still support it if it changed.

    For  me personally, Hillary is absolutely not believable or trustworthy on this issue.

    I could go on. There are more lies and deceptions to talk about with Hillary but isn’t this enough to think about? And isn't this enough to understand why much of the public won't vote for her 'even' if she is the nominee.  Maybe even enough to help Hillary supporters understand why those of us that consider Hillary untrustworthy and unelectable don't understand why they are supporting her?

    Just a bit about Bill:

    (15 Ways Bill Clinton’s WH Failed America & Many don't associate Clinton with his dark legacy.

    Remember when Bill Clinton told us ‘I did not have sexual relations with that woman’ and ‘it depends on what the definition of ‘is’ is.’  Personally, I honestly do not care about the entire Monica Lewinsky thing.  The point is he lied and he did not ‘have’ to LIE.  Some might say the lying made it worse.  Let us NOT forget that Bill Clinton was impeached for LYING and electing Hillary would put him back in the White House too.  AND the republicans would, I am sure, love to impeach Hillary for lying if she gives them the opportunity.

    Remember this.  They did not HAVE TO ‘LIE’.  They chose to. 

    This is the end of Part 1 HILLARY LIES


    This post has gotten 2800 hits in the first 5 hours. That in itself says plenty about where the interest in her happens to be. I know she will be a corporate Democrat if she wins the election.  I also know the House Republicans will go after her in every way they can. The Clintons are polarizing and her nomination will drive up Republican turn out just to vote against her.  We will have 4 years of House investigations and not much more. 

    They're going to do Planned Parenthood and ACORN and Fast & Furious and Terry Schizo and Benghazi and "science" investigations anyway, and challenge Obamacare and Roe v Wade and a dozen other settled law cases. The GOP is polarizing. Hillary is a polarizee, but better one who can defend herself. Susan Rice was the 1St victim of Benghazi - they cut off the 2nd part of her statement that first day and pretended she never said it. The press played along. Trump is Birther #1 and now he's leading the pack. I'd give them Hillary just to torment the hell out of them, though a socialist would be delicious if it worked. A Hispanic gay socialist that doesn't wear a USA pin would be even better.

    A Jewish though "not particularly religious" Socialist might be good enough. Unfortunately, they'd chew him up and spit him out before the popcorn was ready.

    I completely disagree.  I believe Bernie Sanders gives us a much better chance for progress however hard fought it will be.

    That's one of the things I question about Sanders - is he the fighter we'll need against Republicans to get anything accomplished? I just haven't seen it.

    I have seen it.  Just look at his record in Congress. He has gotten quite a lot done while he was in the House and Senate. What went on is political theater. Money talks loud and clear in Washington DC. If she decides that she wants to stay 8 years as president, then we will see her drag her feet on doing anything that will cut into their profit after she is elected. This is were the trust issue comes in.  Who will she work the hardest for and do all that hard nose fighting for?  

    Bernie set the tone and defined the issues in this election cycle.  Hillary didn't.  She is copying him most of the time. I knew she would that is why I am glad he is running.  He has pulled her leftward.  But you will see her move right back to center on economical issues if she is in the Whitehouse. 

    Strategically I don't think she will have enough coat tails to help other candidates.  When you have to give up work or pay out extra transportation money to go and vote,  you won't bother if the media tells that this is race is all over. This will happen in the general if she is the nominated.  Right now Bernie supporters have the most enthusiasm and many of them are the ones that tend to sit out elections because they want someone more progressive.  Their enthusiasm will get them to the polls for the primary but not so much for the general if he loses.   

    Hillary's job right now is to win the election, not to "set the tone" or some other arbitrary marker people keep foisting on her. She did lots of stupid things last election, and laying all her cards on the table first isn't good race tactics. But Bernie didn't invent mustard on rye, and I think Hillary fixed a sandwich before. She's talked about poverty and Wall Street and other issues before. I think it's pretty questionable how far "left" Bernie's moved her on social issues - but as one article made clear, even if riffing on the Wall Street / 1% issue, she's doing her best not to demonize them. What possible good will come from that? There will not be a workers' paradise rise up in our midst, and #OWS failed pretty miserably, so finding away to bring along part of Wall Street & others without giving away the store or cutting unacceptable backroom deals (vs acceptable ones) is poor strategy. I thought Biden's performance these last months was quite crappy and mean-spirited, but she held her opinion on that as well and played nice. For all the talk about her being divisive, she's not being that divisive.

    Re: coattails, I wouldn't sweat it. She's the one pushing for a 50-state Democratic strategy, her and Bill have done well supporting other candidates before, and for whatever bored progressive votes are lost, I'd guess a lot more say female enthusiasm will pop up if she's heading the Democratic ticket, which is something like 51% of the population - expect 1 or 2 Republican women to cross over and secretly vote for her as well.

    Bernie has two "weak" spots when it comes to Republican attack:

    1) He's a democratic socialist. And he has 5 months left to educate the public what that means. He just needs to get the word out, with our help of course.

    2) His age. He just turned 74 last month. Well, Trump turned 69 in June, so not that big of a gap if Trump were nominated. If it's Carson, he is an easy target with the baloney he puts out.

    Beyond that, Bernie is SLICK.

    Hillary on the other hand is not - far from it. They will have her for breakfast, lunch and dinner on a million issues she has in her past/records.


    Logically, Bernie is the more likely to win against a GOP challenger in the general election. If it's trump, an Avocado could win LOL.

    And if Biden were old is Biden?

    And, yes, Bernie holds up better against the GOP in polls for the GE.  As I pointed out last week.



    With the clown bus of Republicans who are seeking the GOP nomination, it is clear that they have absolutely no vision for America other than to rob us blind on behalf of the Corporate/GOP Alliance, so unless America is completely out of its mind, any Democrat should be able to beat them.  But I must admit, I'm completely biased against Hillary - I neither trust, nor like the woman.  While I think it would be nice to have a woman in the White House, not this woman.  I don't even think of her as a woman; I think of her as a sexless political machine who will do anything to win, and whose very last thought is what's in the best interest of the American people.  She's an ambition-driven aristocrat - period. She's a charter member of the 1%ers, which makes her the enemy. 

    We must not forget that Bill walked around grinning, playing saxophone, and acting like a liberal, but he couldn't be trusted, and many of his policies cut our throats.  Bill and Hillary Clinton are fiscal conservatives in drag. 

    Hillary is more likely to put together a $1 billion campaign chest, and nothing decides elections more than money. That's how real life works - gladhandling and persuasion and mass marketing, along with follow-the-crowd (or friends) fashion, not "logic". People buy narratives, not equations.

    The GOP would demonize Sanders or O'Malley. The Republicans are clear in that they only believe Republicans should be in charge. The GOP will go after anything any Democrat proposes. Hillary's performance at the Benghazi hearings convinced me that she can handle pressure. Corporate Democrat is not a slur when contrasted with the word Republican, 

    Do you see the Republicans becoming more rational if Sanders were President? I think all we would hear from the GOP is that there is a Communist in the White House.

    No.  I don't see the Republicans becoming more rational.  I do see us having a leader that is not bought and paid for, one that is NOT a liar and will give them far less ammunition to work with.  AND I believe Bernie will keep the people engaged.  I honestly feel this is a chance to see 'if' there is any democracy left.  Hillary has been chosen by the 1% & Establishment... will the people have a real say or is it 'just for show'.  

    Am I 1% and Establishment? Am I unable to make up my own mind? Believe your way or I'm a corporate drone bought and paid for, deluded by the elite?

    I can vouch for Peracles veracity, he is not an Establishment 1%.

    As to 'ammunition' for Republicans, although most here love Bernie, all the GOP needs is his self declared 'I am a socialist' to give enough 'scary commie pinko raise your taxes tax and spend hates America loves commie Denmark conscientiously objected too chicken to defend our freedoms' ammunition for a GOP electoral vote landslide.

    And if Hillary is bought and paid for by the establishment, why have they spent decades and hundreds of millions to discredit and attack her and her husband, hoping to send both packing for good?

    I am not suggesting that everyone who supports Hillary is part of the 1%.  But I still contend that She has the support of the oligarchy.  That much is clear.  Whether or not our democracy is 'just for show' remains to be seen.  It's not that Bernie would have to win but that the election be fair, for example no super delegates throwing their weight against the vote of people, etc. We'll see.  It's already skewed in Hillary's favor as it is.


    I don't think the socialist smear is going to work at all.  Bernie already attracts support across party lines.  

    I will believe Bernie is a 'threat' in a run against the Republicans when and if the GOP ever mounts their usual full court smear campaign against his candidacy. Right now they are pulling for him to succeed.

    That's not the impression I get right now.  But time will tell.

    If millennials decided the elections we'd not only have a democratic senate and house they'd be much more liberal. But they don't tend to vote in the mid terms and aren't a large enough block to out vote the seniors in the presidential elections.

    Gallup polled this question and found people were more likely to vote for a gay, muslim, or atheist than a socialist. And I think that poll was overly optimistic.

    Actually that poll showed over 40% responded positively about voting for a socialist.  And that's without any context and that was a few months ago.  It's changing.

    There are many that have not tuned into the election yet. As they do, more will become familiar with what a Democratic Socialist is.  Us old farts see him as a New Deal Democrat which was very socialist. 

    Millennials vote at under 20% eligibles and they don't show up for midterms.

    Maybe if we change that, by voting for a real progressive, that would change!

    Go figure!!


    As to 'ammunition' for Republicans, although most here love Bernie, all the GOP needs is his self declared 'I am a socialist' to give enough 'scary commie pinko raise your taxes tax and spend hates America loves commie Denmark conscientiously objected too chicken to defend our freedoms' ammunition for a GOP electoral vote landslide.

    But putting Hillary Rodham Clinton in the race isn't ammunition??



    You obviously missed the last month's news. In short, no.

    This is amazing.

    Do you realize what you have done to this blog?

    Yo ur post and mine just put us on the map.

    Sync our blog was sunk.



    But I have told you this before

    We need you here.

    Thank you.

    I love you to DD :)  I am trying to put this together very thoughtfully.  There is more to come.  

    People here are like family <3

    This is amazing.


    We at this blog were doing nothing,'

    But you just ended up saving us.


    Anyway, we did it, mostly because of you,

    This was because of you.

    Out of nowhere!

    But with both of us,  the blog thrived.


    This is happy time.


    Jeepers Richard,  I had to scroll back up to see the numbers.  Wow.  I am not convinced that Hillary has this all sewn up?  

    People are worn out from the last 20 years.  At least the lower middle class and the poor are tired and want the country to really move left.

    There is a reluctance because she is where the party has been but not where the party is moving towards and that is where Sanders sits. 

    1) TPP changed and Obama refused to let even Congress see details - this was long after Hillary's involvement. It's reasonable to change opinion about a shifting secretive deal.

    2) I flew into Sarajevo on military transport after the war, the first one to carry civilians, 6 months after Hillary was there. We were told (I believe) that there were still pockets of resistance and people on the ground taking potshots at planes so they were still careful. In the middle of a war going into a warzone I imagine there are a lot of stories and it's easy to get your own stories conflated with other (of course I dud tons of travel with heavy drinking and the idea was to take bits and pieces to make the most interesting "war stories" and jokes when I got home, factual or pseudo-bullshit). I imagine she thought she remembered correctly, and doubt she would lie if so easily debunked - though it's not like challenging the records of the Texas Air National Guard.

    3) Citizens United was a ruling challenging the FEC's preventing a private group from airing an attack movie on Hillary outside campaign limits. She lost. She's the poster child for a victim of sleaze in politics, and you think she should nobly refrain from the billion dollars floodgates of corrupt money they opened up in her dishonor? Get real, she's not that stupid or I'd have no respect for her. What do you want, her to wear a sign saying "kick me please!"?

    4) DOMA - yes, the Republicans were going to ram through something worse, and the same thing happened around 2004 or 2006 for which she voted for or sponsored a less draconian alternative, still not right but at least toothless. Don't Ask Don't Tell was relatively perfect for the time - nothing better was to be forthcoming, and Colin Powell stabbed Clinton in the back RE acceptance and implementation - preparing for his future role in stabbing Americans in the back on Iraq, and reprising his role in covering up My Lai. What a guy, truly admirable.

    5) Bill lied about a few blowjobs. JFK had a boat parked in the Potomac where he'd bang dozens of girls, similar to Malibu beach houses stories when I lived there -no impeachment, no press stories. Bush lied about his military record and WMDs - no problem, a nice guy to have a beer with. Meanwhile, Bill Clinton does a lot for charity and campaigning for Democratic candidates to build up the parry while Obama doesn't do dick. I don't care if Bill parks a brothel in the White House as long as he keeps up the good work - kidding of course, but surely you're fucking kidding as well to bring up such a goddam pathetically stupid "point" - are we still 12 years old? Are you best friends with Maureen Dowd?

    Etc, etc. Whatever.

    Peracles I suggest you read my post much more carefully.  I didn't say it wasn't reasonable to evolve on an issue did I? No.  Hillary told a LIE about it.  It was completely unnecessary.  I am trying to tastefully point out what could be pointed out in much uglier ways.  I can't read your entire comment because I have to get some sleep first but I ask you respectfully to read what I actually wrote.  Thanks.

    No, I won't re-read your post more carefully - you're throwing in kitchen sink kind of bullshit, including pulling in the "Bill as Horn Dog" horror. Look, men have dicks and fuck around - JFK, MLK, RFK, LBJ, etc. yet they kicked ass on ideas and legislation we needed. I don't rightly give a fuck what they do in private, and I frankly don't give a shit if they pad their income $1 million a year - it's an underpaid job, whatever - I care about how universal health care looks, how the jobs situation looks, about keeping our asses out of wars and not snooping on either Americans or foreigners, closing Gitmo, stopping tasering people, new energy to fix global warming, and a million other things before I give a shit who gave a packet of money in Washington or elsewhere, and our beloved corrupt Supreme Court just made this behavior unavoidable, so I care even less.

    You show me where the Clinton Foundation is doing something horrible rather than promoting a lot of good causes. Will it make Hillary rich? Fuck that - she could be just doing her foundation and giving speeches at $300K and doesn't need the money, but instead she's running for President and having a lot of weirdos take potshots at her for whatever she says, or looks like or "cackles". Remember the supposed Uranium scandal the NY Times rolled out & rolled back in quickly last summer? Just before they said she was under criminal investigation and then backed out of that? Every day is free day on a Clinton, no revelation there.

    The US regularly backs companies like Boeing abroad - it doesn't matter whether Boeing gives a couple mill to the Shanghai Expo - they have open door at every embassy in the world under Bush or Clinton or Obama or whoever. Getting all excited about some Boeing sale to Saudi Arabia (who also has an open door) and surprise-surprise Israel is upset, wake me when you're through, and don't ever use a David Sirota article with me again if you care about my opinion - he's a royal prickly douche. [Make that double for T-Bogg if you ever mistakenly think he's a good source]

    What else - Hillary's big lie about TPP saying it was just released a week ago when it's not released yet?  Okay, someone fed her inside info - more the reason to oppose it. Obama's been a shit about providing details, wants a vote "for" without any examination. So yeah, under those stinking terms, it's not surprising to change a Yea to a Nay. Did you catch Hillary in something important? Hardly.

    You trot out the bit about Sarajevo - well Obama lied about the FISA vote, he told Canada during the campaign not to worry about his NAFTA lie, he lied/conveniently gave up on closing GItmo, he did a back room deal with Big Pharma on health care, and he sent Joe Fucking Great Guy Biden behind Harry Reid's back to strike a deal with Republicans raising the permanent tax cut from $250K incomes to $450K - how many trillions did that cost us? Speaking of Authentic Joe Biden, Maureen Dowd floated a real stinker of a story about his son begging on his death bed/death breakfast table while "losing his nouns" for Joe to step in and fight for the American way and against those anti-American Clintons, and it apparently took Joe 3 months of hemming-hawing & deciding whether to run for President to debunk Modo's version as too Hollywood - gee, Joe - what character, took only 3 months to step up to the plate. What would a Biden presidency have looked like? A great deal for insurance companies, obviously, but somehow I'm supposed to prefer that over ties to Wall Street or ties to big pharma or ties to anything else. Sorry, I live in the real world and observe the heavy corruption at every step, and these selective outrages - especially when they pushed Hillary away 8 years ago for supposedly the same reasons and instead we got economic-meltdown / bailout sludge and more surges and the faux awful bi-partisanship Hillary had railed against and Joe Biden promotes as a good idea - just gives me a gagging situation. I heard bastards say Al Gore was about the same as George Bush so we put that 2nd motherfucker in office to fuck things up beyond belief.  I'll take my politics straight - dirty, polluted, a bit fecal and straight down the hatch - no glossing over the pig for me, thanks, don't need a fainting couch over every little lie from a politician. I must admit I got a bit hopeful about Arab Spring, but I'm over that now - back to Pragmatics 101. No I don't care about Sarajevo or whether Biden plagiarized or Fantasy Football as Christie noted - there's real stuff to worry about.

    Paracles, In my view you are way off.  You are the one sounding immature here.  Love you But thi is real and my point is serious and valid.  I don't think you are getting my point at allt because your taking it as a 'meaningless smear' when it is NOT that at all.  I stand by this post and the importance of what I have brought up here.  Thank you.

    Well take a step back then and tell me which of the points are actually important.

    From the way the media wrote the script in 2000, Al Gore was the world's biggest liar - said he invented the Internet! said he farmed in Tennessee when he lived in the Washington DC Ritz!!!

    Let's go through your "Dark Side" 1-by-1:

    1) Sarajevo - irrelevant, likely faulty memory, no one died. A dumb error. It ended up masking all the travel she'd done for women's rights, poverty initiatives in Africa, and support-the-troops calls in a war zone while Obama was snug at home in Chicago. But hey, he spent 4 years as a kid in Indonesia!!!

    2) Time Warner: do you really think Time Warner is sending out memos to anchors Fox News-style to spin the debates Hillary's way? Of course you're conflating donors to Hillary's campaign with donors to the Clinton Foundation charity - no, money for Haiti can't be used to buy presidential TV ads - is that your lie? Time Warner donated $50K-$100K, which is 1/10000th-1/5000th of the $500 million Hillary raised in 2008.

    3) The Supreme Court made dark money legal - until it's illegal, I expect every Democratic candidate to raise as much dark money as needed to win, otherwise  they're shmucks. Obama stepped out of campaign matching in 2008 so he could raise a billion dollars - would you prefer he did matching & lose to McCain? It was pretty close, only 7 points difference. But yes, it should be changed, and when changed Democrats should follow the law.

    4) "Sexist" comment re: Bernie - already discussed, stupid. Yes, people dismiss women as shouting etc. all the time, and whether it was unwarranted, this ain't touch football - grow a skin. Very minor.

    5) Andrew Sullivan, noted gay blogger & publisher, has noted that before some of his pieces on gay marriage, even gays didn't think marriage worth pursuing. Get over it, everyone evolved on this. And DOMA was a preventive measure - I was there as well. You think Bill just up-and--said one morning "hey, let's pass a measure on the sanctity of marriage"? Not pretty, but dealing with Republican majorities seldom is.

    6) Debates, conspiracies and not enough, oh my.  Tell me what Bernie is going to get across in 12 debates that he shouldn't manage in 6? Another manufactured outrage.

    7) TPP - Hillary worked for State until Jan 2013; the details for TPP have been hidden by Obama since. What exactly do you expect from her - to stay the same opinion on details Obama won't even divulge?

    Bonus: Perjury is lying under oath to something germane to the prosecution. The question about Bill's consensual sexual activities had nothing to do with the charges. Thus it was not perjury. In any case, Bush & Cheney wouldn't testify under oath about 9/11 - a little more important for US concerns. Wanna talk Fantasy Football now?

    Okay, I've said the same thing about 3 times now, forget it - your "Dark Side" is awfully light and laughable, more like the Far Side.

    As I already said, I stand by my post and clearly you don't want to hear or believe what I am saying.  I  mean every part of it and I did this as tastefully as possible.  There is WAY more than this say but every point here is valid, most especially regarding Hillary LYING.  And the made up sexist attack is extremely PATHETIC.

    I heard and believe you think it's meaningful. Me, not so much. 

    You can stand behind your blog as much as you want, but you should be aware that most of it is opinion not fact. Other people can have legitimate disagreements with your opinions and stand behind them as well.


    You can make an issue out of the Clinton Foundation but it's been long praised for it's humanitarian work and I see no evidence of wrong doing. The one big issue over a uranium deal  detailed in the NYT has been totally debunked. Nine government departments, not just the State Department, had to approve the deal and the State Department official tasked with reviewing the deal stated Hillary never spoke to him about hew views on approval.

    Who knows why the ultra rich contributed to the Clinton Foundation or any philanthropic organization. Perhaps just to rub elbows with the powerful. Perhaps for positive public relations ads. Perhaps they actuallly care about humaitarian relief. Most may be greedy and self centered but they aren't monsters, spawn of Satan doing only evil in the world. Perhaps they wanted and expected something for the cash. But I have yet to see any evidence of that, in fact the evidence contradicts any pay to play. Until I see evidence I support the Clinton Foundation for it's record of good work.

    You see the money flowing into Hillary's pacs as evidence that she is bought and Sander's refusal to accept such cash as evidence of independence. We both see a problem with too much money in politics and with the Citizens United decision. But I see the question as one of how to fight this problem. Republicans are not going to refuse the super pac money. Is making a symbolic gesture and unilaterally disarming the best way to deal with the problem? I don't think it is. Symbolic gestures are meaningless imo and may cost democrats the election. The system is what it is and until we can change the rules I want democrats to do what they have to to have the money to compete with the republican's money.

    You know sync, I don't have to research DOMA, I lived through it and I remember Views on gay marriage have changed so fast it's easy to forget where we came from. Even among gays there was disagreement over how to deal with DOMA. It was clear at the time it was going to easily pass. Different factions of gays fought over whether to fight against it or support it in order to have influence in moderating it. We can argue over which path would have been more productive but the history is clear not just among politicians but among gay groups. There were significant numbers that supported it to forestall something worse.

    You claim, "Bernie Sanders is rallying a political and cultural revolution." No. No he is not. He is attempting to rally a revolution and failing at the task. It may be good that he's trying. It might even be possible he'll succeed, though I doubt it. But the evidence so far is pretty clear that he's not rallying a political and cultural revolution. If he was succeeding Sander's supporters wouldn't have to make desperate attempts to tear down Hillary in an attempt to make it so. They wouldn't have to rail on about shit like on line polls and focus groups that everyone knows are worthless and meaningless. That is just one more indication of how desperate Sander's supporters have become. They are too smart not to know on line polls and focus groups are worthless but when faced with losing they're willing to grasp at any asinine straw to claim a "win."


    I would disagree that 'most' is opinion not fact.  

    You may not see the cultural and political awakening going on around Bernie Sanders candidacy but it is most definitely real.  He is the first non republican presidential candidate to speak at Liberty University.  Did you happen to watch that talk?  There are recordings from a graduate of Liberty University talking about why he supports Bernie Sanders even though he is a conservative.  If you listen to the Q & A at Bernie's alma mater, you will hear him talk about a cultural revolution.  I see it because I pay a lot of attention to what is going on with Bernie and his supporters.  He talked about shifting from a culture of 'every man for himself' to a culture caring about each other.  

    And this is NOT at ALL a 'desperate' attempt to tear down Hilary.  This is an attempt to tastefully cover REAL, not 'over-dramatized' concerns about Hillary. I think the republicans provide too much cover for realities about HiIlary and Bill with all of their theatrics.  

    Honestly it's fine for us to disagree. I hold that most of this is fact mixed with 'some' of my opinion.



    I would disagree that 'most' is opinion not fact.  

    Of course, but that too is a difference of opinion.

    You may not see the cultural and political awakening going on around Bernie Sanders candidacy but it is most definitely real.  

    I see it quite clearly, he is losing by a fairly large amount in most polls but he does have a significant minority of voters. That may change or it might not. But that's how it stands today.


    Bernie is doing as well or better than Barack Obama was at this point in 2007 so, yes, we'll see.  

    And honestly it really upsets me that the corruption behind what is going on in this electoin to promote Hillary is okay with people that support her for president.  

    I have explained in this and other threads why I disagree with that opinion. I haven't seen you or others make a convincing case why I should change my opinion. You could start by explaining the constant ranting I see from Sanders supporters about the on line polls and focus groups. Exactly why are they meaningful? Why are they statistically significant? Why should anyone give a shit about them?

    There are only two ways that Sanders can win the nomination. He can make that rallying cry and people can respond to it. Or he can tear down Hillary until she is so weakened that he wins by default as the last person standing. The first path isn't working so I understand why Sanders supporters have begun to take the second.

    We have only had ONE debate, so far.  Why in hell should any of us already crown Mrs. Clinton??

    It's not just Sanders' online polls and the focus groups that are telling.  It's not just the "trust factor", although, as Synch points out, that IS a factor.

    Everyone just wants to shut us up before we can even have a second debate.  Y'all don't want to hear anything but "Hillary has my vote!".

    We're not even allowed to question anything??  We're not even allowed to debate our candidates completely?? 

    And you call that Democratic?????? 


    Vote for Sanders, question everything, debate your candidates. Oceankat's just giving you the actual odds & indicators in non-delusional terms, as am I. Have your 6 debates - shame you couldn't have more. But at the end, what do you expect will shift the balance? Bernie isn't Obama, and one of Obama's gifts was being all things to all people - Bernie's pigeon-holed.

    And Hillary isn't?

    Not particularly - first of all, she's establishing she can move on issues - I hope e.g. she starts to see Eric Snowden as a whistle-blower and not just a criminal/security menace.

    Second, there's a lot more room to maneuver as the lefty-moderate than Bernie's Democratic Socialist position.

    I'm actually farther to the left policy wise than Sanders but my worry at this point is that Hillary will move too far left in the primary to be competitive in the general.

    What might shift the balance?  Sanders supporters, for one.  No PAC's, for two.  No changing as the wind blows, for three.  Standing for the people and not the polls, for four.  Being an outsider, for five. 


    That's not true Lis. I've made fairly long explanations as to why I disagree with sync's analysis on the Clinton Foundation, super pac money, and DOMA. I could have continued on to his other complaints but I think I addressed his main points. I never told anyone to shut up nor did I imply it. I simply argued my opinions and attempted to rebut his opinions. Isn't that what we do here?

    Yes.  Yes, that's what we do here.  Allowing Sanders supporters to speak their mind is also allowed.  For that, I'm grateful.


    Of course Sanders supporters are allowed to speak their mind here. No one is trying to stop them. Having a different opinion and debating it is not the equivalent of silencing someone or chasing people away.

    Sorry, o-k, but you almost sound kinda Carson, saying that.  ;)

    Yeah, some of us have a different opinion and we try to debate, and y'all pile up on us.  You do.  There's, what, three of us actively commenting for Sanders here?  Me, Synch and Momoe.  Maybe one or two more, but for the most part, Dag Blog has become Hillary Blog. 

    Well, you said we can't be chased away, we stay.  Thanks :)


    Well maybe, if you're referring to Johnny Carson. Though I've always thought I was more like Letterman.



    I'm sure you've noticed several other vocal supporters of Sanders here, as well. This particular thread doesn't do his support among Daggers justice: Hal Ginsberg, Michael Maiello, Michael Wolraich, kyle flynn, aaron carine (and perhaps others I've overlooked) have all stated their preference for Bernie. Are they all as intense? No. But to say that Dag is "Hillary Blog" at this early stage isn't correct.

    No, I hadn't been noticing, lately.  But I'm not here every day.

    This particular thread does the truth justice, though.  Give it that.  While Sync's writing style is "intense" (I'd call it fervent, but that's me), it's certainly more truthful than most Hillary supporters would care to admit.

    "But to say that Dag is {Hillary Blog}, at this early stage, isn't correct"...

    But to admonish all of Bernie Sanders' supporters at this early stage, isn't correct either.


    I honestly don't see the "admonishing" that you and others obviously do. Yes, it's fair to say that as a Clinton supporter I wouldn't see that, though I ask that you consider that I supported Obama in '08 against her. But that's just me.

    I feel Bernie supporters being defensive to an unnecessary and extreme degree, finding it somehow more advantageous to attack Hillary than to promote Sanders. Why? If he can win, lead and battle with Republicans successfully, then expressing how he could do that should be worth more than simply saying Clinton can't/won't/shouldn't. It's never an effective strategy to say your candidate should win because the other should lose.

    I have yet to see a blog or comment here - or any other thread - beating up on Sanders. Obviously that's debatable depending on your point of view, but the vitriol against Hillary Clinton has been notable.

    I see your point, but I have to point at Ramona's two latest blog posts in order to explain my own point.  I also have been watching comments at HuffPo and other sites wherein the majority of Clinton supporters tend to beat up on Sanders' supporters to the point where we are told to shut up and not LOSE this, this time around.

    And I have to wonder, why do you all think Clinton can win this, and what will her win gain us? 

    And why can't we consider Bernie in the equation more often?


    And I have to wonder, why do you all think Clinton can win this, and what will her win gain us? And why can't we consider Bernie in the equation more often?
    I'll answer the last question first - we should, and for the most part, we do. Putting your reference to Ramona aside, since you weren't specific, I have to point out that this isn't HuffPo.

    Do you want to get into the weeds? Because that's what's needed to seriously explain why Clinton is better situated to win this than Sanders. Like it or not, she is. And that's the way we win - including the dollars necessary to flow down ballot. Hate her ability to raise corporate money for the DNC and beyond? Ask the candidates for state offices if they care.

    Can Sanders bring in the party dollars and organization, with the hard-line donors in tow? Her win will gain us the kind of power necessary to put Democrats in office from the ground up. If you think Obama's been lacking in that respect, you're right. But it's in her wheelhouse.

    Do you want to get into the weeds?

    If we are determined to stay so high above the weeds that all we see is a pretty pastoral scene, complete with ponies, can we still expect to get change for the better if we keep voting for the status quo? I know, it always seems dangerous to break away. It is scary. That is because it is dangerous, it is taking a chance on losing because you have come to believe that something is worth taking a chance in order to win. 

    I love ponies, Lulu. But I grew away from them when I realized what it took to actually take care of them. It's hard work; not nearly as easy as my fantasies led me to believe.

    Taking a risk is tough when your life depends on it, but taking a chance when your country depends on it means a larger consideration. Certainly worth it - but it should require a clear understanding of the alternatives and a full knowledge of what's at stake. More importantly, there has to be a leader who convinces you that the chance is worth taking. Is that Bernie Sanders?

     More importantly, there has to be a leader who convinces you that the chance is worth taking. Is that Bernie Sanders?

    I think it may be for me. The answer is an individual choice but if you require certainty then you are not willing to take a chance regardless the need, regardless the payoff when you win, and regardless the loss if you lose.

    "This particular thread does the truth justice, though." - oh bloody hell - if you put up a post about  "Hillary's Lies", you're not debating Sanders' merits, you're trashing Hillary, and less reasonably than Sync pretends he's doing it. What would you expect from this thread? It was red meat to get the feeding frenzy up.

    It's irrelevant what Obama was doing in October 2007 (though is important that his fundraising started much earlier than Bernie's - $20m in 1Q2007). Hillary's popularity fell in Nov 2007, while Obama and Edwards' rose, and then other issues came into play such as Oprah's successful campaigning. At this point, Hillary's popularity is rising - not good for the challenger who's hoping she fades again, as Sanders has flat-lined at 25% nationally - his peak numbers were early September though only slightly higher than now.

    Then a reality reminder yet again. In 2008, Florida and Michigan were disqualified, taking away some big Hillary wins and leaving her with harder caucus states that Obama organized better in (even in New Hampshire Obama won equal delegates despite losing the popular vote). That's not happening in 2016. Then there was heavily black South Carolina, where Obama trounced her - this time Bernie hardly stands a chance. And on & on.

    Superdelegates, delegates, endorsements, etc. - it's not polls that win the election, it's not votes that win the election, it's delegates and superdelegates. It's rather strange to hear that Hillary's too tied into the Democratic establishment when it's largely that establishment that determines who wins. Superdelegates make up 20% of the real votes. Hillary already has endorsements from 2/3 of Senate, House & governor colleagues - estimate that at 160+ superdelegates already. Even quite liberal Sherrod Brown's supporting Hillary. She's got far more endorsements than any recent candidate except George W Bush in 2000 - more than Gore and 6 times what she had when considered "inevitable" in 2008.

    It's hard to see how the Sanders campaign plays out without something really drastic hitting or a huge fade for some unexpected reason. Considering she's been down this road once, it's hard to see what that will be.

    I agree with your assessment.  Things COULD change if enough of the party establishment were to try for Sanders, and I'm not yet ruling that out (although, I'm a realist).  I just want to give him time, and a chance, to push his agenda for as long as he can.  It can't hurt us, as a party...can it?


    I don't see it as any damage - I want Hillary to become less security state, though I don't know how hard Bernie's pushing that point. I don't worry that Hillary will come out with some LBJ-scale plan that will scare off the electorate. Refining issues surrounding Wall Street corruption/unfair advantage, corporations paying their fair share of taxes, the state of the prospering 1% vs the stagnant worker wage, #BlackLivesMatter or various other aspects of economic & social opportunity vs inequality, etc., etc. can all be fleshed out.

    The HMO approach to health care was considered advanced in 1993, but not ideal in retrospect. So it's good for specific details of programs to be challenged & hopefully evolve into a better model, though I'm not sure that always happens - I'd have rather Obamacare as a universal single-payer program were rammed through through reconciliation rather than picked apart & watered down over 2 years while looking for some kind of GOP validation that never came. Oddly, just moving everyone to Medicaid would have likely avoided most any Supreme Court challenge, while the more complicated exchanges left new ground to attack.

    Great post. Looking forward to your next installment. I like the way you are unwrapping the pretty package that has been presented to the public that is Hillary's campaign. Thanks. 

    Wow...beat up on Sanders and Synch night worked very well for this here DAG BLOG, didn't it?

    I'm with Sanders and Synch. all already know that ;)

    As for your arguments to Synch about Bernie's chances?  A "Jewish Socialist" (thanks, Barefooted) has bigger chances of getting things done once in office than Hillary will ever have.  The Right will hunker down and fight Hillary Clinton tooth and nail just to keep her from having any progressive anything ever happen during her term.  They would fight her more, trust me.

    I stand corrected - Jewish Democratic-Socialist.

    Oh cry me a river - a blog that's all about Hillary's lies, the "Dark Side of Hillary"? Sorry to be so uncivil with such a promising start - and that grand finale bringing in Monicagate!!! Who woulda thunk it? Yay progressives!!! 

    The Right's going to fight everyone tooth and nail - didn't you get the memo? And the takeaway from the Benghazi hearings is that she'll be quite able to fend them off. Brilliant campaign ad for her - thanks guys, that $4.5million was well spent. Next time though would be better to have her in a booth where they could come by and wag their finger at her.

    You wanna cry me a river when Hillary gets elected and goes even further RIGHT than Obama did?


    If that happens, I will. I'm willing to wager it doesn't. She's not the one who exalts compromise with the GOP - that's Barack & Joe's side of the street.

    And...not for nothing, but..and I don't know if you've ever been cheated on, PP, but...

    Someone, upstream in comments, you maybe, I'm not sure...but someone wrote a whole tirade about how Bill Clinton wasn't the only philanderer in office.  JFK did it first, yada yada. 

    Jefferson did too, but that's beside the point.

    Someone said they wouldn't care if Bill had built a whole brothel on the White House lawn so long as he was able to make progressive policies.

    But, progressive WAS he?  And, at least JFK had the decency not to do it in the goddamn Oval Office bathroom.

    Every time Hillary has to use the restroom, you don't think she's gonna think about Monica?  Speaking as a woman, I know it would bother the crap outa me.  (Insert toilet humor here...).

    Seriously...can't we have CHANGE as a party??  Can't we try to progress further LEFT instead of right back to the right?


    So JFK banged girls on his presidential yacht rather than in the Oval Office bathroom? I'm sure Jackie appreciated his "decency". Really, I have no sympathy for these finely split hairs of decorum. And no, I don't think Hillary gives a fuck about Monica or will pay more than a passing thought about her in months - she'd be busy as all hell doing more important things than reliving something 20 years ago. And besides, she's the world's biggest lesbian apparently so will be focused on doing those lezzie things.

    I heard all this Hope and Change crap in 2008 - aka Smoke and Mirrors. But more important, all the indicators at this point say it's very hard for Sanders to get a majority of Democratic delegates, much less compete against the Republican money machine. So, we'll see.

    We have time.  And "smoke and mirrors" apparently applies to Obama...?  Funny, but that's how I've always seen Clinton.

    Yes, we heard all this shit before, and we slugged it out before.  And where did it get us...but here.

    I voted for Obama twice, and now I can vote for another Dem this year.  And, thanks to my previous votes, we had a Dem in the White House twice.  So take all your hope and change crap and tell me what you can do with it except denounce it while enjoying the benefits of it.

    How quickly you all forget.


    Or am I being taken to task for not voting Kucinich back in the day?

    I thought Obama's promises were mostly crap, and largely this was borne out.

    I don't see any heavy benefits from it - he's been pretty lukewarm even defending blacks from street brutality, trillions were given away to Wall Street while people mired in a very long no-wage-bump recovery, and of course we've had our security state and foreign wars extend into regime change & nation building and permanent missions overseas. Sure, McCain probably would have been worse. But it's funny to still hear the "Hillary would have been worse", as if this were the outcome that Obama supporters were expecting. Hope and Not Much Change is more like it. Hopefully can salvage Obamacare and eventually turn it into a real universal coverage program - as it is, the Republicans have kept what, 30 million people out of the program? Wanna call that success or the best we can do?

    So I think Hillary will be more organized & effective and better at working for the good of the party rather than Obama's accruing all the power & influence to himself & shutting down the grass roots movements that Howard Dean & others built up. I think she'll also be much more pro-labor than Obama's been, and would never tolerate a Rahm Emmanuel shitting on a union effort in Arkansas say as "flushing your money down the toilet". And I think she'll be much more likely to get out of Washington and step into a foray like in Wisconsin, rather than taking the lofty tone that "I'm President of all the People" - yeah, she'll be president of all the people, but her job is to spread the values supported by the people who elected her, which is why we have winners and losers.

    Sanders' values are fine - I just don't see the path where they get accepted and turned into legislation, and once budget talks start for them, the Republicans will have a field day with all the FUD they can promote. Obamacare was much more straight-forward and justfiable, and look at the contuinued attacks there - and the nutcakes have gotten much more emboldened the last 8 year.

    Have a look at the Clinton Foundation page under Our Work to get an idea what could be Hillary priorities. At this point Hillary has a ton more executive experience than Bernie in the White House, several foundations and with her 2nd campaign - that kind of experience is valuable in foreseeing problems, figuring out alternative paths, not taking things too optimistically. She won't hit the White House & spend the first months learning from scratch.

    I have been cheated on and I have friends who were cheated on. I'm very introverted and don't talk a lot so friends often confide in me. Sometimes it broke the relationship other times they worked through it and stayed together.

    Adultery is more common than many will admit. If anyone doesn't know that it's likely you're too judgmental on this subject for your friends to confide in you.

    I just hate to think of the jokes at our country's expense, and hate to think of the White House as a "brothel".  Bernie Sanders is an upstanding man who has not wavered from his stance in decades.

    Can I not admire him without ridicule?  Can I not support him without members of my own party telling me I'm wasting my time and effort??

    I was accused all the time of being "lock step" former Republican when I backed Barack.  Now my party is going all "lock step" for Hillary and I'm being told my vote for Bernie Sanders is silly.

    WTF, Dems, WTF???


    And can I just add one more thing?  Do you all REALLY want Clinton in the White House even knowing that she's hawkish and pretty neo-Con?  Why not go for the real progressive??  I just don't get it.

    Hillary Clinton changes her stance on DOMA, Iraq, NAFTA, TTP, and just about anything else more times than I change my fucking underwear.  And I change my underwear every day.


    First paragraph: Excellent point for debate. What is Bernie's foreign policy, exactly?

    Second paragraph: TMI

    1.  Bernie knows when NOT to use force, and he voted against war in Iraq.

    2.  Bill's affairs aren't?


    The world is far more complicated today than even when that vote was cast, Lis, and our country is up to our neck in it. Voters need and deserve more than that as an answer for where we go from here.

    Using Bill's indiscretions against Hillary will accomplish nothing more than to drive women to the polls.

    WTF does your first paragraph even mean, Barefooted?  As to the second, no comment.

    His Iraq vote isn't a foreign policy. We need to know how he wants to lead this country as Commander-In-Chief.

    Ever read "War and Peace"?

    Read the BS links on this post? Some funky sites. Some editorializing. Some BS.

    I looked at one under #3 Dark Money - from the post- Hillary did: "favors connected to donations to the Clinton Foundation for donations from foreign donors"

    The 'proof'? 

    At the post link ...that page the writer, David Sirota claims:

    At a press conference in Washington to announce the department’s approval, an assistant secretary of state, Andrew Shapiro, declared that the deal had been “a top priority” for Clinton personally.

    If you follow the 'declared' link there is no mention of Secretary Clinton, her priorities, or whether she was even involved in the decision,

    The session held by the State Department Bureau of Political-Military Affairs in 2011.

    The 2011 press conference spokesman does say the arms deal with the Saudi's:

    advance(s) the President’s commitment to create jobs by increasing exports

    The guy, Sirota, who wrote the article for ibitimes has two books at Amazon:

    The Uprising: An Unauthorized Tour of the Populist Revolt Scaring Wall Street and Washington

    Hostile Takeover: How Big Money and Corruption Conquered Our Government--And How We Take It Back

    So he might have an agenda or priorities of his own, an axe to grind on Hillary which involves putting words into people's mouths......selling his books and his anti-Clinton screed.


    Okay, so Sirota is a shitty reporter.  I could've told you that.

    What is Hillary's winning gonna do for us, after we win?  Answer me that.


    Impressive research.

    Thanks barefoot.

    To summarize, the slimeball attack is it's 'the US sells the Saudi's billions in weapons a few years after an economic collapse, which the US and Britain have done for 60 years, but it's Hillary fault and her big priority to arm the Saudis, cuz it forced the Saudi's to later give the Clinton Foundation some money to do good in the world.....thereby slightly diminishing the Saudi war chest for supporting radical Sunni Jihadis etc etc......that is really really bad and shows Hillary can't be trusted....And everyone attacking her can be trusted...

    No, I don't think so


    I dealt with Sirota at TalkLeft or OpenLeft, no need to give me a 2nd opinion. I think the way he writes is highly twisted to get the result he wants, cherry-picking details with a combine. This is not a "weak" argument - if it were a straight-up news analysis, that's one thing, but he's always working from an op-ed angle.

    And you do realize the Moyers piece is heavily embellished with all sorts of Wall Street flourish that isn't actually factual reporting - how a campaign event in Central Park must have been also designed to highlight Wall Street way the fuck in the distance? Seriously? no, only metaphorically. And that's the problem with confusing news reporting & the stylized half op-ed/half we-are-such-Gonzo-journalists of the self-righteous bunch.

    Matt Taibbi spears Hillary and rather detests her, but he sticks to the point, writes colorfully but about real relevant issues that build his story. I don't think he'd launch into a laundry list of bought politicians without naming who and how much, instead of Moyers' weaselly "among the" construction that can mean $1 or $70 million. (I saw the same crap with Chick-Fil-A where people couldn't differentiate a $2000 donation from $100,000). And yeah, Moyers can reference William Pitt Rivers who can reference someone else, and you get a pseudo-fact free circle jerk if you're not careful. Moyers is talking about  Wall Street and then starts throwing in tech sector speeches, and then it's all corporations? Stick with folks like Taibbi who really have their shit together and don't just package innuendo and guilt-by-association/proximiity as "fact", slinging out grab-bags of snippets to hopeful snag some outrage somewhere in the bunch.

    Hillary is not "untouchable"  - there's just not a big complaint that I care about aside from her being too hawkish on security & military matters that I hope she "evolves" on. We have a whole political establishment excusing torture from Gitmo to Abu Ghraib to dark sites like Baghram and in Kyrgyzstan, and Goldman Sachs smugly self-confidently helping Greece run a second-set of books leading to meltdown with no repercussions. Unless I see some scandal around her big enough to lead to obnoxious behavior like this, I really don't care. 

    When I see a litany of "scandals" that I see as irrelevant, smear-as-usual, half-truths, & maybe a slight bit of substance, my lizard brain takes over, the transparent eye lens moves up and I go to sleep. "Hey, she ran a red light". OMG.

    "Real and thoughtful" could have skipped Sarajevo as the least relevant lie  - and miniscule compared to the mountains of lies told about her - and Monicagate as having nothing to do with Hillary and playing  straight back into disgusting political dredging of the 90's - a Whitewater investigation that turned into a Paula Jones & Gennifer Flowers "investigation" / tell-all-make-up-all including Hillary's assassination list, which turned into a perjury trial over consensual blowjobs - not even taking clothes off and having a good shag - even as Hustler's owner exposed a number of the self-righteous inquisitors as having their own immoral trysts. Really, that was the best you could do? Where's your ability to self-critique?

    Peracles, I took the trouble to read the Heiderman article referenced by Sirota and I must say my admiration for Hillary increased. She went against Airbus and won, managed to get some corporate dough for the kids in ravaged Haiti, and rescued a hapless Expo in Asia. This woman knows how to get things done. And it was essentially done in the open---she shamelessly promoted Boeing's products---I love that, and helped increase America's exports, an agenda item which helps workers in America.

    And of course Boeing's Expo $2 M money was "largesse" where the corporations which gave $5 million aren't described---maybe.... "even topping the largesse of Boeing was the larger largesse of corporations who gave $5 M." 


    Ha, thanks for pointing that out. Who does that woman think she is?

    Who does that woman think she is?

    That's the big question and it seems damned hard to answer. The country's electorate is divided in their opinions. A significant part believe she is a liar and a crook and another part believes she is just a very good politician playing the game the way necessary to win. There is also a great many who think she is both. There are also very many who are like sports fans who root for their team and do not care what sort of person wears the uniform as long as they are winners.

    So, is Hillary a liar and a crook? When what many believe to be evidence proving she is was piling up I was more like the typical sports fan than I am now.  I rooted for her and gave her the benefit of any doubt about close calls. Today I am more like the jaded sports fan who only really cares about the outcome because he has money riding on the game. It's third and long on our own five, put in OJ, he can get us a first down and move us a bit closer to a score. 

     The point I am working towards is that a great part of those who have a strong opinion about the charges against Hillary were just kids when she was first establishing her reputation.  Here are some of the charges against her from her earlier career days. They were argued about bitterly back in the day when many of her present day defenders were just kids and I am sure they will be again today but some of the specifics might as well at least be known.  

    "The Clinton Files: Is Hillary a Crook?"

    Between the title and this as a lead-in, it's clearly a fair, balanced and impartial compilation:

    From 1993 to 2001, Alexander Cockburn and I wrote dozens of articles on the political corruption of Bill and Hillary Clinton and their cronies in DC and Arkansas. In many ways, those years represented the golden age of political journalism, with a fresh scandal ripening each month. As Hillary cruises toward the Democratic nomination, if not the White House, it’s time to dig into the Clinton Files and resurrect the stories of sleaze, malfeasance and transgression from that feculent decade. —JSC

    Well that settles it. Ken Starr must be one stupid fuck lawyer if with all that criminal sleaze over a decade he could only find a lie about an irrelevant blowjob to prosecute. Fortunately we have Counterspinach to try it in the newspapers one more time. Fair and Balanced 2.0 I'm sure. Everyone don their Michael J Fox-era hairstyles and step in the wayback machine.

    That just shows how slick the Clintons are. In spite of their numerous crimes and all the people they had murdered they got away with it all. While the greatest president the world has ever seen, Reagan, had dozens of innocent officials jailed or fined for criminal behavior. The criminal justice system is so unfair to conservatives.

    Excellent points and another excellent rant by PP.

    You should write an expose' to show everyone the wonderful things the Clintons and their Foundation have done for the poor kids in Haiti.  First Bill helped their families by relieving them of their backbreaking farm work by destroying their agriculture sector and sending them to Port-au-Prince to sell mud pies for a living.

    Their latest charity is a new Marriott resort and new South Korean $3 a day sweat shops for the people still living in shacks five years after the earthquake.

    So Clinton's policies in Haiti backfired. I guess I missed that. I'm sorry about that. So is Bill Clinton, who publicly apologized and admitted a mistake. It looks to me like he's trying to make amends.

    I can't think of anything to do with the information.  

    Barefooted, It became unreadabl on my computer so I am repeating here. 

     More importantly, there has to be a leader who convinces you that the chance is worth taking. Is that Bernie Sanders?

    I think Sanders may be worth taking a chance on for me. The answer is an individual choice but if you require certainty then you are not willing to take a chance anyway, regardless the need, regardless the payoff when you win, and regardless the loss if you lose.

    Thanks for reposting this. I could not read it either. 

    Me, I have nothing to lose if I vote for Sanders. It is not ponies but survival. There is a real need for $15 an hour minimum wage not $10 or $12 but $15. Inflation of consumer goods dictates that. There is a real need for infrastructure jobs and a big investment in good free education. The list is long and a important one. I know what I am getting with Sanders.  

    If he doesn't make the nomination, I want him to take all the support he has from the voters and turn it into power in the Senate and become a Bigger Bull then Ted Kennedy.  

    I find it hard to think of Bernie in the same vein as Ted Kennedy - for both better and worse. But in general, Sanders has never come close to being a "lion of the Senate". I do sincerely hope, and believe, that if he remains there he will have more support than he's ever had among the public who heretofore had no clue who he was. Yet it's important to remember that comparisons can be hard to live up to in the real world.

    I think he has not had to suck up to the K street pandering in order to raise campaign money so he has been left out of the backroom deals.  But his success running and his very large donor list has to had an effect on his contemporaries opinion of him.  This is something that Warren brought with her into the Senate her support from across the country.  It gave her power. Kennedy brought his national support back into the senate after his failed run for President as well as being the brother of 2 assignated politicians. It was really his run for the presidency that gave him the boost. 

    Putting Ted aside, I agree with you for the most part. Sanders has without a doubt increased his level of attention not only with the public, but the establishment. As much as he distains it, he and his supporters may need to accept that it will help him to move legislation forward. That's what you're saying -- he'll be more of a "shaker" -- after all.

    I have been saying this since he made his announcement that it is a win, win, for him.  He has already won because he is where the majority of the country is headed to. He defined the issues in this cycle and set the non negative tone. He shows the country how to run a campaign without big donors and that Citizens United is not needed but a corruption of the process. He is doing this outside of the media's strangle hold on picking winners. He is "what you see is what you get." He is not Madison Ave. polished up to the point that the voter is disappointed after the real person starts to govern differently then what was presented. This has been the experience since the 1990's for many voters. They haven't gotten what they thought they were voting for in either party.  

    He has already shook things up.  He is telling people this government is theirs and it is time to make it work for them. He is proving he works for the people by not missing any work in the Senate as he runs his campaign. He is asking them to him help him do it, not just vote for him, but to be partners with him. 

    At this point I am not sure Clinton has this won? I am from the Jack Germond political school of thought. It is too early to call any race won. Crap happens. 

    In basic training the instructor  would start to  set up a situation: " Assume the enemy is coming through that gap in the hills; they have ten tanks ,there's a machine gun nest in that church steeple and......"

    Trainee; "But sarge you couldn;t maneuver a tank through that gap"


    Instructor: "Don't fight the problem".

    If Hillary's the candidate I'm going to vote for her. Or if not , for whomever else is the nominee. 

    Aren't we all? It doesn't take 20,494 dagbloggers to answer that question. Or even 20,493 fewer than that.

    Don't fight the problem.


    No.  After watching the most corrupt collusion of the DNC, Establishment Dems, and Corporate Media (I quit watching Maddow last fall) I WILL NEVER USE MY VOTE TO GIVE THIS CORRUPT SYSTEM THE 'PRETENSE OF OLIGARCHY!!! 

    Hilary Clinton is NOT qualified to be President based on her character, actions & results:

    I am not just a Bernie Supporter.  I am fighting To Reclaim Democracy.  Right now we are trying very hard to use a broken democratic system to 'democratically' elect someone while knowing it will take extraordinary efforts and we might fail.  If CORRUPTION WINS, NO, Many of US WILL Try To Find Another Way But It Most Definietly Will NO Be Hilary & Bill back in the white house. So much corruption surrounds them it is sickening!

    Hilarious. Please explain how it's not democracy when they people clearly vote for the candidate you don't like. I mean really, I was very unhappy when Reagan was elected but that's what happens in a democracy sometimes. You could attempt to make a case that the people are too stupid for democracy. You could advocate a different system. But get a grip on reality dude. Your guy didn't get the most votes in a democratic election. If you don't accept that you're not fighting to reclaim democracy. You're trying to subvert it.

    Look, vote for Hillary or don't. Just stop pretending you're doing something noble. What you're doing is losing an election, that's all.

    No.  After watching the most corrupt collusion of the DNC, Establishment Dems, and Corporate Media (I quit watching Maddow last fall) I WILL NEVER USE MY VOTE TO GIVE THIS CORRUPT SYSTEM THE 'PRETETNSE OF OLIGARCHY!!! 

    Hilary Clinton is NOT qualified to be President based on her character, actions & results:

    I am not just a Bernie Supporter.  I am fighting To Reclaim Democracy.  Right now we are trying very hard to use a broken democratic system to 'democratically' elect someone while knowing it will take extraordinary efforts and we might fail.  If CORRUPTION WINS, NO, Many of US WILL Try To Find Another Way But It Most Definietly Will NOT Be Hilary & Bill back in the white house. So much corruption surrounds them it is sickening!

    Now you can shout out she killed the Kennedys (Jr).

    It's taken forever, but we finally got there.

    Bernie does not think that creating a Congressional structure to combat the corruption is worthwhile, therefore he will fail. The revolution will not be televised. Bernie cannot explain how he would realistically accomplish his goals. He is in the pocket of gun manufacturers.Sanders voted against rational drug laws and voted in favor of militarizing police.

    Sanders is just another opportunistic politician.

    Latest Comments