synchronicity's picture


    Part 2:  Political Convenience.

    In the first democratic debate of 2015 Hillary Clinton Claimed ‘I have been very consistent over the course of my entire life ’ and that she has ‘always fought for the same values and principles’.  This is simply not true.  Hillary has a history of taking positions of political convenience.


    Many people believe Hillary Clinton Will Say Almost Anything To Get Elected which may be the reason that so many Americans don’t trust her.  In a recent Quinnpiac University National Poll over 60% of Americans consider Hillary Clinton ‘dishonest/not trustworthy’ and 99% of us KNOW who she is.

    Moderate to Progressive Mixed Message

    Let’s start with her recent pleading guilty to being a moderate & then insisting, she is progressive, in fact she ‘takes a back seat to know one in her progressive stance’.  I am sorry Hillary, but I think you are going to have to get in the back seat…


    Criminal Justice

    'Why Hillary Clinton Lacks Credibility On Criminal Justice Reform.'

    “As first lady in the 1990s, Clinton was a cheerleader for the “tough on crime” policies that produced the “era of mass incarceration” she now condemns.

     “We need more police,” she said in a 1994 speech. “We need more and tougher prison sentences for repeat offenders. The ‘three strikes and you’re out’ for violent offenders has to be part of the plan. We need more prisons to keep violent offenders for as long as it takes to keep them off the streets.” The Clinton administration gave us all that and more, bragging about building more prisons, locking up more people (including nonviolent offenders) for longer stretches, opposing parole, expanding the death penalty, putting more cops on the street, and implementing a “comprehensive anti-drug strategy.”

    Later: “Clinton was asked whether she regretted how “your husband’s crime bill…has affected the black community, or do you stand by that?” Both, apparently:  I think that the results not only at the federal level but at the state level have been an unacceptable increase in incarceration across the board, and now we have to address that….There were reasons why the Congress wanted to push through a certain set of penalties and increase prison construction, and there was a lot of support for that across a lot of communities because…the crime rate in the early ’90s was very high. And people were being victimized by crime in their homes, in their neighborhoods and their business. But we’ve got to take stock now of the consequences, so that’s why…I want to have a thorough review of all of the penalties.

    As Dara Lind notes at Vox, Clinton nevertheless attacked her rival Barack Obama as soft on crime because he thought some of those penalties were too harsh.  A month after Clinton decried “an unacceptable increase in incarceration,” her campaign tried to undermine Obama by citing his criticism of mandatory minimums.”

    Because some people took issue with this source I will include a few more without including text to prevent extended length.

    Private Prisons

    'Private Prison Lobbyists Are Top Fundraisers for Hillary Clinton.'

    “Lobbyists for two major prison companies—Corrections Corporation of America and the Geo Group—are serving as top fundraisers for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

    The implication is that laws governing crime and incarceration will deliver more inmates and profits to private prison companies if Clinton is elected.”

    “We were discussing Hillary Clinton’s recent vow to “end the era of mass incarceration,” a lofty promise that would mean undoing decades of criminal justice policy, including sweeping measures enacted by her husband, largely with her support. The groundwork for mass incarceration may have started years before, but “Clinton was the biggest prison builder in the country,” Simpson-Bey says.

    The AEDPA was not the first time Clinton had shown how punitive a Democrat could be. Two years earlier, Clinton had signed the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act (known as the 1994 Omnibus Crime Bill) — a grab bag of “tough on crime” legislation that poured billions of federal dollars into new prison construction and hundreds of millions in incentive grants for states to pass Truth-in-Sentencing laws. Then there was the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which made it more difficult for prisoners to challenge their conditions of confinement. Supporters said it would curb “frivolous lawsuits.” But Simpson-Bey, who was part of ahistoric class-action in Michigan demanding better psychiatric services and less time in segregation, knew it was about much more than that. “This was an era where they were building these prisons and, at the same time, making it harder for people to get out by denying access to courts,” Simpson-Bey explains.”

    After much pressure from Civil Rights and Immigrant Justice Groups & protesters interrupting her appearances Hillary decided to take the stance of refusing to accept money from the private prison industry.   This was recently in late October of 2015.

    Trade Agreements

    Hillary Clinton worked to get NAFTA passed but later lied that she had always advocated against it.



    ​Hillary would then later work to develop the Trans Pacific Partnership as Secretary of State.

    Running for president in 2015 she began trying to distance herself from the trade agreement as unions, environmental groups, and public health organizations voiced serious concerns about the trade deal.

    ““I did not work on TPP,” she said after a meeting with leaders of labor unions who oppose the pact. “I advocated for a multinational trade agreement that would ‘be the gold standard.’ But that was the responsibility of the United States Trade Representative.”

    The trouble, of course, is that Clinton’s declaration does not square with the facts.”

    Then during the week before the first presidential debate of 2015 Hillary announced that she is against the TPP.


    Memo to progressives: Hillary Clinton is lying to you: All politicians flip-flop. But Clinton's TPP opposition marks one of the more brazen U-turns in recent history

    After the debate she left the door open to supporting it in the future.



    She isn't going to fight it.  My opinion is that she was  never going to.  She took her position out of political convenience to gain votes.





    In 2008 after then candidate Barack Obama made an unfortunate statement, the focus of which was people ‘clinging to religion and guns’, Hillary became pro second amendment Hillary and attacked him on the issue.

    “The piece is particularly striking coming from Clinton, who has been seen for most of her career as a firm advocate of gun control, but more recently has emerged -- without dramatically shifting her stance on specific issues -- as a defender of the Second Amendment who fondly recalled being taught to shoot by her grandfather in Scranton.”

    Today she has positioned herself as far left as she can on gun issues perhaps because her only real democratic opponent, Bernie Sanders, already has a D- with the NRA.



    Hillary Clinton took credit for Bill Clinton’s veto of a big bankruptcy bill that would make it more difficult for working Americans to file bankruptcy,  but then later voted to pass the very same bankruptcy bill as senator.



    Wall Street

    'Wall Street isn't worried about Hillary Clinton's planHillary Clinton unveiled her big plan to curb the worst of Wall Street's excesses on Thursday. The reaction from the banking community was a shrug, if not relief.'

     “While Clinton proposes some harsher regulations, she stops far short of what more populist Democrats like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren want to do to Wall Street.

    Sanders and Warren think the big banks should be broken up. Clinton does not. It's a big divide in the Democratic party.

    "We continue to believe Clinton would be one of the better candidates for financial firms," wrote Jaret Seiberg of Guggenheim Partners in a note to clients analyzing her plan.

    Clinton's big push is for more accountability on Wall Street. But she does that by proposing a tweak to what is currently in place, not a major overhaul like Sanders.”

    Mrs.Clinton’s ties to big banks are well-known. Federal election records show that five of Wall Street’s biggest players are among Mrs. Clinton’s top 10 campaign contributors over her career: top-ranked Citigroup ($782,327), second-ranked Goldman Sachs ($711,490), JPMorgan Chase ($620,919), Morgan Stanley ($543,065) and Lehman Brothers ($362,853).

    Her ties to Wall Street came back to haunt her Thursday as Mrs.Clinton used Twitter to promote her $350 billion college-affordability proposal, which promised debt-free tuition at public schools. The campaign asked supporters to post up to three emojis to describe how they felt about Mrs.Clinton’s plan, but the solicitation sparked some sarcastic feedback.

    “How does it feel that your Donors are responsible for the crippling student debt? Tell us in 3 emojis or less,” responded Douglas Roemer, @neophyte.”

    The Environment:

    Keystone XL Pipeline

    Hillary Clinton was heavily involved with the Keystone XL Pipeline Approval Process.




    'Keystone XL: TransCanada plays chicken with the White House'

    “The journalist started the question something like this: "If Keystone XL is approved..."

    Tatarchuk interrupted. "When, not if," he said cheerfully.

    There was some awkward laughter; this was after Hillary Clinton had turned against the project, wasn't it a touch over-confident to still be taking the "no-brainer stance" on Keystone XL.”

    'How Hillary Clinton's State Department Sold Fracking to the World:  A trove of secret documents details the US government's global push for shale gas.'

    “Under her leadership, the State Department worked closely with energy companies to spread fracking around the globe—part of a broader push to fight climate change, boost global energy supply, and undercut the power of adversaries such as Russia that use their energy resources as a cudgel. But environmental groups fear that exporting fracking, which has been linked todrinking-water contamination and earthquakes at home, could wreak havoc in countries with scant environmental regulation.”

    'Message from New Yorkers to Hillary Clinton: Stop Touting the Big Oil & Gas Line on Extreme, Dirty Energy'

     “We are writing to you from upstate New York, a place you recently called “a land of treasures.” We write on behalf of New Yorkers Against Fracking, a coalition which includes more than 200 organizations, 1,000 business owners and 300 faith leaders from across this great state. We appreciate this “land of treasures” every day of our lives and we want you to know that turning our lands into an industrial wasteland from fracking has no place in our environmental or economic future.”

    Having been a heavy promoter of fracking, the following appears to be a position of political convenience.

    'Hillary Clinton Calls For Banning Fracking On Public Lands, With Some Conditions'

    “Hillary Clinton said on Thursday she would phase out extraction of fossil fuels on public lands if elected to the White House in 2016.

    Clinton said she would not stop the extraction right away, but would try to make the transition as quickly as possible.”

    'Meet the Fossil Fuel Lobbyists Raising Money for Hillary Clinton:  Many of Clinton's bundlers are linked to Big Oil, natural gas, and the Keystone pipeline.'

    “Clinton, the former secretary of state, has called climate change the most "consequential, urgent, sweeping collection of challenges we face as a nation and a world" and says it would be a major focus of her administration if she wins the White House. But having so many supporters who have sold their services to fossil fuel companies may complicate her emphasis on pro-environment policies.”

    In Defense of Children

    “She has spent the majority of her life working for poor families, poor children, fighting for the principles that Martin Luther King stood for.” –Minyon Moore, Clinton Campaign Advisor, as quoted in the January 11th New York Times



    “Granting Senator Clinton this fictional and reimagined personal history as a poor person’s advocate demeans those who actually have spent their lives working for the poor. It is particularly outrageous when federally funded legal service programs — upon whom the poor depend — were slashed to the bone during the Clinton presidency.

    One can debate Hillary Clinton’s commitment to “change” or her actual level of political experience, but her personal history is a matter of public record. And this history finds her pursuing a career representing and embracing corporate America, not “fighting for the principles that Martin Luther King stood for.”

    “Unlike thousands in her generation who sought to organize among the poor to fulfill Dr. King’s legacy, or who joined Cesar Chavez working for economic justice for farm workers, or who worked to unionize low-income women, or who worked for legal services or in civil rights law firms, Hillary Clinton pursued a corporate path.

    That was certainly her right. But having taken that path, Senator Clinton has no right to sell an imaginary version of herself as having dedicated her life toward working for poor people.

    For Hillary Clinton, that was the road not taken.”

     “Later in the debate — amid her hawkish rhetoric — Clinton twice more mentioned her work with Children’s Defense Fund, wielding it as an example of her purportedly progressive policies.

    The problem with Clinton’s claims, however, is that she betrayed children as First Lady. Under the guise of welfare reform, the Clinton administration worked with Republicans to gut social services, ignoring their own senior officials’ warnings that, by doing so, they would be plunging over a million children into poverty.”

    The idea that Hillary has fought her entire life to help working and poor families & children is not expressed in her actions. 

    Go Ahead, Back Hillary Clinton and Forget All About Her Record

    “Go ahead and support Hillary Clinton, those of you for whom having the first female president is the top priority. She is by far preferable to Carly Fiorina, though of course no match for likely Green Party candidate Jill Stein (I know: You want to win). Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a principled and electable person, is not available, and political integrity be damned.

    Just admit that you will be voting for someone to be president of the world’s most powerful nation who has not only been profoundly wrong on the two most pressing issues of our time—economic injustice and the ravages of unbridled militarism—but, what is more significant, seems hopelessly incapable of learning from her dangerous errors in judgment.”


    In an Election that is The People Vs Rule By Corporations & Billionaires/Oligarchy Hillary Clinton cannot be trusted to fight on the side of The People.  What we have come to expect from Hillary are positions of political convenience.  While every effort is being made by her big money supporters and establishment connections to get us all to settle on their candidate, Hillary Clinton, many of the American people refuse to support her or the status quo.


    Sync, I try to be moderate here, but this irritates me.

    I stopped at your CNN clip. How anyone in this community could seriously put up a piece of crap CNN panel discussion like that as evidence of their position is simply beyond my imagination. Speaking of disingenuousness---which is your point--- I can't think of any better example than the lady in green, whoever she was (and was that Hugh Hewitt---I'd really be interested in his view point), who lied through her teeth that she cried into a pillow over Joe Biden---a ploy so damned obvious that I can't even comprehend your " takeaway" from the clip. Pardon me, but you're scraping the bottom of the barrel.  

    Sorry, I'm tired of this litany against Clinton. I think your intent is fair, but frankly the laundry list approach, now for the second go around, is a turn-off and I don't think you are doing your candidate any good whatsoever.

    I'd much rather hear your views, since you live there, on fhe Jeffco elections---which to my mind would be a much better context to discuss why you think Bernie is a better candidate than Hillary---if you happen to have a thought on that?  

    Thanks Synchronicity.  As Clinton's critics do, you have demonstrated comprehensively that Hillary's record is pro-corporate/anti-people/anti-environment. You have also recounted accurately her history of militarism, pandering, triangulation, and hypocrisy.  In return, expect the Hillary supporters here to practice their usual tactics of deflection, distraction, denial, and fear-mongering.  Oh, and they'll bring up how great she was at the Benghazi hearing.

    No fear mongering from Hal..! No wait a minute... Hal's Obama's Arctic Hypocrisy:

    The problem is Obama's deeds are antithetical to his words.  He declined to thwart Shell's plan to drill for oil in the Chuckchi Sea.  Audubon Alaska calls this remote corner of the Arctic...Bottom line, if there's a spill lots of wildlife, including endangered megafauna, will die and it will take a long time and huge expenses to attempt remediation.  Of course, even if there's no spill, the petroleum dredged from under the sea will do its damage to our planet's ecosystem when it's consumed.

    Turns out the Obama administration had put so many restrictions on Shell that they abandoned the operation and will not drill the well. When I put the link on the Obama administration restrictions Hal complained:

    Your quote comes from the Houston Chronicle's which is described by as "an energy industry website".

    Hal - sometimes you have to take all the facts and all the opinions before you spread the fear and disinformation.......about Obama....or Hillary.

    In the Shell case, I happened to know that oil experts on oil websites would know more about the impact of the Obama restrictions on Shell's operation than you or any person or site with an anti-Obama bias.

    NCD - Which word do you think most accurately describes your response to my comment on a blog that documents Hillary Clinton's various failings as a candidate?

    A. Distraction

    B. Deflection

    Hal, which part of the blog's "documentation" did you find particularly compelling?


    All of it.  Really.  Oxy - you wrote that you don't like Sync's laundry list technique.  Why not?  Don't you think a holistic approach is best? 

    C. Bias

    D. Distortion

    E. Delusion


    Those are fair answers to my question as well.  I think you might want to read it again.

    David 'Uprising' Sirota again?


    Her State Dept. fulfilled its role in TPP meetings at the direction and for the President....ergo...?

    Gun baloney? How about How the NRA Elected Bernie Sanders.

    And....DRUM ROLL.... a Synchronicity favorite, linkled above from Forbes Magazine...


    on Why Hillary Clinton Lacks Credibility On Criminal Justice Reform.

    How about Why Jacob Sullum Lacks Credibility ?

    Jacob Sullum

    Like for his 1999 book, on public health 'tyranny' and smoking:

    For Your Own Good: The Anti-Smoking Crusade and the Tyranny of Public Health

    Amazon page reviews:

    Sullum attempts to "demolish" the argument that second-hand smoke is dangerous. Unfortunately, he must have been too lazy to take a ten minute look at medline and the abstracts from over twenty papers that have been published over the past five years

    Buyers, readers should be aware than Jacob Sullum is an editor of Reason magazine, published by the Reason foundation, which is supported by the tobacco industry.

    Yes the wackjob title included "The Tyranny of Public Health".

    Who is supporting this guy's anti-Hillary screeds now? Wanna guess?

    Firstly, to all those who followed Synchronicity's link to this site - welcome to Dagblog! It's a great place, and I hope you'll look around.

    Secondly, your dedication to Bernie is clear, Synch. I'd love to read a post from you focusing on his strengths, his very long record and why he's the best candidate for the presidency. How you believe, as someone who supports and works for him, he will make his ideas for changing this country reality. That might be worth due and sincere consideration.

    Thanks, Sync, I can see you put a lot of work into this, and I'll look more carefully at it all tomorrow, but I, too, have a hard time getting through such a long laundry list of accusations against Hillary, as if that is all there is to her.  There is so much more, and, while some of what you've put up here is an uncomfortable truth, it needs to be tempered with at least some of what she's done right.  Nobody on earth could be as bad as you've painted her.  

    You've grabbed every link and video you could find that would prove what you believe is true about her--and with all that's on the internet, that's not hard to do.

    I, too, wish you had left out the clearly biased CNN panel discussion with Hugh Hewitt and Ana Navarro.  (Navarro's CNN bio:  Ana Navarro, a Republican strategist and commentator, was national Hispanic campaign chairwoman for John McCain in 2008, national Hispanic co-chair for Jon Huntsman's 2012 campaign and is supporting Jeb Bush's candidacy for 2016.) I watched that live and it was, as Navarro might say (often), "ridiculous".

    I've seen Bill Moyers' interview with Elizabeth Warren before and there is good reason to question Hillary's vote on the bankruptcy bill.  It was a good interview and Warren handled it fairly.

    The screed from Robert Scheer was something else again.  I wouldn't have expected anything less from him.  It's who he is, but I wonder why I should care what he thinks of Hillary?  He isn't exactly known for his fair assessment of anything that smacks of U.S. government, and he's a Clinton hater from way back.  I'm always suspicious of those who paint the Clintons in all black with no shades of grey. It's been done and done and done.

    Anyway, I know you're passionate about exposing Hillary and you've put a lot of effort into this.  It's late and I'll look at it again tomorrow.  I don't want what you've done here to go unnoticed, but so far I haven't changed my mind.


    It's interesting that the folks who were happy about little fighting between Hillary & Bernie when Bernie's numbers were climbing are now happily pushing these hatchet jobs going back to 1992 or even to Hillary's stint as a Republican organizer at 8 years old. I'm a bit worried to see what the world would look like if Bernie's squad were actually haters - or maybe it's just that Bernie himself doesn't attack, but for the rest of his crew it's open season?

    Anyway, I don't have anything bad to say about Bernie except observing that a campaign overtly labeled as based on socialism is a touch sell in America, and he's quite old for a culture that favors youth. Good luck, y'all - may the best .mensch win

    (though how that's defined is still open to interpretation - as Gregory Bateson noted, survival of the fittest is a tautology - you look at who survived and then label their traits as the most fit for that environment. Doesn't work somewhere else? blame it on the environment)

    This was posted 3 days ago and has gone viral and your comment about Bernie's age made me think of it. Bernie has it covered.  I know you have a sense of humor so enjoy and so does Sanders. 


    Latest Comments