Oh you mean like Hilary losing sight of the American People and instead setting her gaze on her appealing wealthy puppet masters?
You're correct that there is irrational hatred targeting most presidential candidates. I'm not disagreeing with that but just pointing out what is particular to Hillary Clinton. Beyond just sexism as many posts in this thread show there is are many who harbor an extreme hostility to the Clintons from both the left and the right.
One of my all time favorite persons (RIP, he's no longer with us) did not find hilary appealing. <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/qE8PG2mpo58" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> RJ, Yes many people from all walks of life have extreme hostility towards the Clintons but it's deserved based on their own actions. Perhaps, if so many have extreme hostility towards hilary, maybe it's her not us?
Column that sums up my feelings almost perfectly about why Clinton is the logical choice. http://www.atlredline.com/i-m-with-her-i-guess-1769742021 Central bit, after listing her main warts (hawkishness, chief among them): "Hillary Clinton is not a secret Republican. She’s not a witch. She’s not going to jail. She’s a hawkish left-of-center policy wonk. She believes in incremental change and compromise. She’d rather pass a crappy law that has some positive outcomes than watch a great law die in committee. She believes in government, she thinks it does work and can work. That’s not particularly inspiring. Bernie is sitting there telling us that if we clap really hard, Tinkerbell will live. Hillary is like, “That b**** is dead, I shot her. It’s time to grow up.” One of the reasons our politics is broken right now is that we have completely lost the ability to compromise. We have let the perfect become the enemy of the good. And I think it’s telling that the frontrunners in both parties are the ones who seem most likely to make a deal (with the devil, no doubt), while the challengers are the “true believers” who want the center of the country to submit because they know what’s best. A majority of Americans are telling us that obstinance is not a political virtue. The ideologues are losing on both sides of the aisle. Liberals need to accept that just as much as conservatives. Hillary Clinton is not why we progressives can’t have nice things. The entrenched views of conservatives, racists, homophobes, xenophobes, climate deniers, zealots from all religions, and the gun lobby are why we can’t have nice things. Hillary Clinton is the only candidate with a reasonable plan for dealing with those forces. And that uninspiring, incremental, realist “plan” is why I’ll be voting for her. I guess. Until something practically better comes along." -------------- Admittedly, "Clinton shot tinkerbell. Grow up" will not make a good campaign slogan, but that's pretty much the sum of her case against Bernie and all his charges against her. OMG you are fundraising with slimy people! Yes, grow up. You have compromised your principles! Yes, I get things done. That used to be how government functioned in this country, starting circa 1777. You are really a Republican! (rolls eyes) O RLY? Have you looked at Republicans lately?
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/PBU6ug3TLX4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Haven't watched video, but one person's "flip flops" are another person's steps in working within the constraints of harsh reality. Give me someone who has never changed his mind, and you have given me a truly scary (or truly stupid) person.
If you had watched the video, then you would know that it points out a pattern of behavior from Clinton that shows she is not "taking steps while working within the constrains of a harsh reality", but is instead merely basing her opinions ('principles') on polls and/or the directives of those 'slimy people' cutting her checks. This is behavior I am quite tired of sponsoring and tolerating from Democrats, especially high ranking ones.
I like Paul Craig Roberts though bit over the top per Counterpunch. I'd vote for her over a Republican, but my patience is wearing thin with the Dems. President Killary: Would the World Survive Hillary Clinton? Hillary Clinton is proving to be the “teflon candidate.” In her campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination, she has escaped damage from major scandals, any one of which would destroy a politician. Hillary has accepted massive bribes in the form of speaking fees from financial organizations and corporations. She is under investigation for misuse of classified data, an offense for which a number of whistleblowers are in prison. Hillary has survived the bombing of Libya, her creation of a failed Libyan state that is today a major source of terrorist jihadists, and the Benghazi controversy. She has survived charges that as Secretary of State she arranged favors for foreign interests in exchange for donations to the Clintons’ foundation. And, of course, there is a long list of previous scandals: Whitewater, Travelgate, Filegate. Diana Johnstone’s book, Queen of Chaos, describes Hillary Clinton as “the top salesperson for the ruling oligarchy.” Hillary Clinton is a bought-and-paid-for representative of the big banks, the military-security complex, and the Israel Lobby. She will represent these interests, not those of the American people or America’s European allies. The Clintons’ purchase by interest groups is public knowledge. For example, CNN reports that between February 2001 and May 2015 Bill and Hillary Clinton were paid $153 million in speaking fees for 729 speeches, an average price of $210,000. As it became evident that Hillary Clinton would emerge as the likely Democratic presidential candidate, she was paid more. Deutsche Bank paid her $485,000 for one speech, and Goldman Sachs paid her $675,000 for three speeches. Bank of American Morgan Stanley, UBS, and Fidelity Investments each paid $225,000. Despite Hillary’s blatent willingness to be bribed in public, her opponent, Bernie Sanders, has not succeeded in making an issue of Hillary’s shamelessness. Both of the main establishment newspapers, the Washington Post and the New York Times have come to Hillary’s defense. Hillary is a war-monger. She pushed the Obama regime into the destruction of a stable and largely cooperative government in Libya where the “Arab Spring” was a CIA-backed group of jihadists who were used to dislodge China from its oil investments in eastern Libya. She urged her husband to bomb Yugoslavia. She has pushed for “regime change” in Syria. She oversaw the coup that overthrew the democratically elected president of Honduras. She brought neoconservative Victoria Nuland, who arranged the coup that overthrew the democratically elected president of Ukraine, into the State Department. Hillary has called President Vladimir Putin of Russia the “new Hitler.” Hillary as president guarantees war and more war. In the United States government has been privatized. Office holders use their positions in order to make themselves wealthy, not in order to serve the public interest. Bill and Hillary Clinton epitomize the use of public office in behalf of the office holder’s interest. For the Clintons government means using public office to be rewarded for doing favors for private interests. The Wall Street Journal reported that “at least 60 companies that lobbied the State Department during her [Hillary Clinton’s] tenure as Secretary of State donated a total of more than $26 million to the Clinton Foundation.” According to washingtonsblog.com, “All told, the Clinton Foundation and its affiliates have collected donations and pledges from all souces of more than $1.6 billion, accoring to their tax returns.” According to rootsactionteam.com, multi-million dollar donars to the Clinton Foundation include Saudi Arabia, Ukrainian oligarch Victor Pinchuk, Kuwait, ExxonMobil, Friends of Saudi Arabia, James Murdoch, Qatar, Boeing, Dow, Goldman Sachs, Walmart, and the United Arab Emirates. According to the International Business Times, “Under Hillary Clinton, the State Department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments had given millions to the Clinton Foundation.” Hillary Clinton has escaped unharmed from so many crimes and scandals that she would likely be the most reckless president in American history. With the arms race renewed, with Russia declared “an existential threat to the United States,” and with Hillary’s declaration of President Putin as the new Hitler, Hillary’s arrogant self-confidence is likely to result in over-reach that ends in conflict between NATO and Russia. Considering the extraordinary destructive force of nuclear weapons, Hillary as president could mean the end of life on earth.
Is that the Amazing Atheist? He looks like the sleazy mechanic from National Lampoon's Vacation, who Clark said he would call the sheriff on.
hilary is the most contrived presidential candidate i can remember in recent memory. a full blown opportunist with her own interests behind every decision and/or position she takes.
She's playing her tune to middle America and has been since she took the NY Senator seat. NY Senators are among the greasiest when it comes to Wall Street money, and that should be good enough reason not to vote for her just on that...except the Republicans are just as bad and openly flaunt it. Except for the bankruptcy bill (which voters don't care until they declare it while being thrice over debt), those four issues are pillars to her being the candidate old white and black democrats vote for. The problem with voters our age is that we don't give a **** during off presidential election years. Governorships, House and Senate seats are lost. Districting lines are redrawn every decade, or in Tom Delay's case, overridden with state legislature authority. That all happens in off years were people couldn't vote for Obama to save the nation. As for Obama, who knows why he's backing her and will put it on full throttle when she's officially nominated. Hillary's target voters do vote in off years, and she'll take that calculated risk of bringing back progressives, non-lazy youth and disenfranchised minorities once Bernie is out.
I've never said the Clinton's are blameless. Infact I've called Hillary Clinton slimy and didn't even vote for Bill Clinton in 1996. As I've said before in my lifetime there has never been a candidate I agree with 100% but these are the candidates who are running and the decision to support or not support a candidate has to be weighed with the context of the particular election. That said I will stand by that the hate towards the Clinton is for the most part irrational driving by accusation with very little proof. In the last Dem. debate Sanders was asked by the moderators if he could name one area where Clinton has been corrupted by her fundraising he couldn't.
This ties into my post above. Hillary Clinton has been one of the most investigated figures, most often by political opponents who have admitted that some of these were politically driven. From all of those there has yet to be anything illegal actually proven. People like to throw out terms like "bribe" and "bought and sold" to make it seem like what she has done is actually illegal when it isn't. As noted again even Sanders couldn't cite a specific example of corruption when asked about it in a public debate. I think we can all agree that there are some deep problems with the system and the Clintons have exploited those. Unless actually proof can be found of actual malfeasance and / or quid pro quo, the most that can be said is that the Clintons have worked the system to their advantage. That can be criticized but isn't illegal. Seriously? Clinton is going to be the end of life on earth.
The Clinton's have been around a long time, and have been consistent targets for Republicans and Democrats that do not believe they are liberal enough for nearly 25 years. I suppose it shouldn't be shocking that it has been somewhat effective in influencing young voters and those that feel marginalized. What I do find odd is the narrative that Clinton does not get support from minorities. I haven't seen any valid evidence to support this position.
I think he has an agreement with Warren to keep quiet on the Bankruptcy legislation. His campaign has sent out info making this claim but he has never used this example in a debate and he's had several chances. I think he badly wants to but you can tell he's holding it back. I have to believe it's Warren asking him to not bring her into a public primary fight. Regardless, even without examples it doesn't change the fact that she accepts millions. Would anyone continue to make investments that have no ZERO returns?!?! I think now, yet these Wall Street donors continue to do so. Also, she won't release her speech transcripts. She says it because it's not the standard, not practice to do so but if everyone else (Trump) did she would too. Do you actually believe her excuse? Of course not, it's a crap excuse. The real answer is that if she did, it would END her candidacy immediately. Not because there is some bombshell in the speech but instead because she's sympathetic to Wall Street in those speeches. Why?, because everything about her is 100% contrived including her speeches. She says exactly whatever her audience wants to hear depending of the audience. 100% contrived since the beginning, no real principals to stand on. That's her fault, not mine, bernie's, or anyone else's. She should be forced to deal with it.
So in other words Hillary got to Warren. But wait maybe Hillary has gotten to Sanders too through Warren. Maybe Sanders is secretly bought and sold to the Clintons already! How deep does this rabbit hole go! Seriously though have you considered the more likely possibility that he can't actually prove it and knows that fact checkers will eat him alive if he makes a specific claim? True those speeches probably do look very sympathetic Wall Street and I agree it's not something that helps her. And yet Sanders is losing to her in both pledged delegates and actual votes. If polling is to be accepted Trump would also lose to her badly.
No conspiracy or secrecy here. Warren has publicly made it clear she will not endorse or engage in primary politics. She has had equal praise for both bernie and hilary. It's not a leap to suggest that she asked bernie not to reference her on live television so as to not associate her with his campaign. bernie very politely and respectfully has obliged. it's the only thing that makes sense when you consider he has attacked hilary on everything yet he won't invoke Warren when hilary tees it up for him. Nothing left to prove, Warren already has. Yea he's barely losing to an incumbent candidate with deep pocket donors that was selected as the chosen one by the party. She had/has every advantage and isn't covering the point spread. With Citizens United and the political game in general bernie shouldn't even have made it this far. She also built up a HUGE early lead which may be the difference. bernie needs her to release the speech transcripts before tuesday (won't happen) and the fbi to speed up their investigation (maybe happen?) for bernie to take it. That said, I never claimed bernie was winning so not sure why you felt compelled to post that almost as if to say SCOREBOARD instead of address her lack of appeal. That said I will admit, she is a bit more appealing than she was earlier in large part because she is now parroting bernie and some of his ideas.
So basically the same disease that struck 55-75 year old white people believing in false right wing chain letter and completely false Facebook re-posts from the Tea Party has filtered into 18-40 year old white people supporting Sanders? Never thought the same ignorance would strike the extreme left, but that was my hubris. No now there is non-sense about Hilary masterfully controlling Warren and in turn controlling SANDERS? Better yet, there was some babbling serious idea proposed about Hilary destroying society as we know it, with Putin tossed in? ............ all of this on top of the other usual crap.
