Hillary in Bosnia: lone gunman?

[MannyGoldstein]

Lone sniper, or conspiracy?

And can Elizabeth Warren account for her whereabouts that day?

There are no coincidences, people.

Regards,

Ready-for-Hillary Manny

[NYC_SKP]

1. Screw Bosnia. We need someone with Walmart Board of Directors experience, Manny!

Anyone come to mind?

[AgingAmerican]

27. What's next? A thread about the Clintons xmas card list?

nt

[msanthrope]

59. Rose Law Firm Billings. nt

[AgingAmerican]

78. Vincent Foster

...and a million other RW fantasy crimes.

[msanthrope]

131. Travel Office! nt

[AgingAmerican]

149. The Clinton body count!

nt

[msanthrope]

174. Mena Airport!!! nt

[joshcryer]

168. Don't forget, crony mass pardons.

[msanthrope]

175. We need to have First Way Benghazi hearings. nt

[arely staircase]

179. naughty x-mas tree ornaments nt

[msanthrope]

180. Oh--that's right....there was a RW meme about cockrings on the White House Xmas Tree.

I think we should hold First Way Hearings on the matter.


**To the jury....not making this up...

http://msgboard.snopes.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=96;t=000830;p=0

[Whisp]

72. and someone who remains cool and collected under pressure!

Always ready for any surprise question!

[NYC_SKP]

147. Clinton v Warren....

Not even a fair fight. But I'd pay $2,600 to see it.

Proceeds to the winner's election campaign fund.

[dlwickham]

2. it's not even 2014 and the Hillary haters are out in force

maybe Warren was smoking a peace pipe on the rez

[fadedrose]

3. Please give a definition of the expression "Hillary haters" nt

[Beacool]

19. Simple, look at yourself in the mirror.

[fadedrose]

39. Not allowed to call names, somebody might alert

Do you have a link that shows that I am a Hillary-hater. Your definition isn't so great because in my mirror, I see a pleasant lady who doesn't hate anyone.

[Beacool]

43. Then you obviously are not reading what you write.

Check your previous posts and what you have written about Hillary. I don't see anything "pleasant" in them.

[SidDithers]

46. Apparently, hating on Hillary is OK at DU...

as long as it's hating "from the left".

Sid

[Beacool]

49. Yes, apparently so.

I have never read such vile posts on this site as those written against both Clintons. Funny how two such "hated" Democrats happen to be the most popular politicians in the nation. Maybe the rest of the country opines differently?

[Whisp]

73. ha!

Surely you jest.

[Beacool]

82. Well, look what the Canadian artic winds brought in.

The one who was missing from this thread.............

[Whisp]

104. You can Blame Canada when Hillary loses the primary. :)

I have wide shoulders, I can take it.

[Beacool]

119. I would only "blame" you if you could legally vote in the US.

[fadedrose]

115. Some things I wrote are opinion, some are facts.

Never did I say I hated her because I don't. She is known as a moderate, and I am not a moderate, I am a progressive. Big difference.

I really do not like to be called a Clinton-hater or a Hillary-hater. Critic, maybe, but never hate. What that poor woman went thru in the 90's, very gracefully I might add, is something I pitied her for. But she is still a moderate and is one of the drivers of the TPP agreement, and you know how a lot of us feel about that.

Find something else to call me. I don't even hate John Boehner. I wish I still smoked and was 30 years younger, because I think I'd enjoy a drink with him. Same thing, no hate, just differences in opinion.

And if you want to help your candidate, tell us what she will do if she wins, and be explicit regarding health care, Israel, the TPP, the oil pipeline, nuclear power, global warming, unions, minimum wage,etc., not how smart she is or what positions she held. I don't feel that being "for women" is quite enough reason to vote for her. There are people in jail with good credentials as well. And NO, I am not saying that, don't even think it....

The progressives are more "persecuted" than the moderates by the DNC and the DLC, because we are not as pro-business as the moderates. We feel that the top 1% gets too many breaks and the Mrs. Clinton will be sympathetic to their getting even more. Tell us we're wrong. Links..

[libdem4life]

162. This is true to my understanding, but I'm not seeing/hearing/reading anything that espouses these

political realities on the current chit-chat. And I'm really trying to find them...at the level where someone is a politically potential reality.

I get it and I'm a woman and a way Leftie before there were Progressives. And EW is not viable for many reasons. Therefore, if not HRC, as I take a deep breath, then who? That, to me, is the issue.

If the Opposing Hillary is Death/Rebirth to Democrats folk can't find a viable candidate...which will likely never happen with the Evil Corporate Donations Prohibition obsession...then, duh. Get on the imperfect Democratic train and be quiet, or get off the train and do same. Just don't talk the lesser informed into a Republican vote or just to stay at home.

[Scuba]

172. "... EW is not viable for many reasons."

Please list a few.

[libdem4life]

187. I love her. She can right now do what no other politician has cared to do, let alone has the

ability to do and elegantly take her colleagues to task in the press. They don't particularly care to mess with their funders.

And she's getting national press, has a passion, is in the enviable position of being able to represent every American citizen in righting our badly lilting economic ship ... she's after the Robber Barons and they are terrified of her.

Far and away beyond what she could do as a President. I want her to proceed. Progressives are all about anti-corporation and that is what she's doing. Don't stop her. She doesn't need to be going to G-8 meetings or having the Republicans rip her a new one or struggling with the Middle East when some idiot assassinates someone and the mess starts up again...on a daily basis. I link to a url that is fascinating about the Presidency and respond positively to another post ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4088530

[MannyGoldstein]

5. Has Warren claimed to "smoke a peace pipe on the rez"?

Both sides don't do it.

[MADem]

9. Did you sleep through the Senate campaign? That business got VERY ugly. nt

[MannyGoldstein]

22. I remember the ugly accusations. But not any ugly realities.

Did I miss something?

[MADem]

29. The ugly accusations had to do with EW's belief that she had NA ancestry.

The ugly reality is that this wasn't accurate. Her mother was, apparently, completely mistaken.

She was caught in the middle because she believed what she was told.

She never received any "preference" for her belief about her ancestry, though Harvard did use her as proof that they were more diverse than they actually were, but that hasn't made the issue go away in the minds of the GOP. They continue to revisit it, even a year after that election.

I won't link to it, but if you want proof that the GOP aren't done with her--go to YOUTUBE and do a search/have a look at the "I'm an Indian Too" video that mocks her. It's pure hate.

I'm sure you remember this shit:

[Beacool]

32. The RW is still harping on that one.

Although you don't see anyone on this site being crass enough to bring it up. I wish that they would confer on Hillary the same graciousness they give to Warren.

Maybe that's too much to ask............

[MannyGoldstein]

38. Do you see any difference between Warren's claim

Which her siblings agreed that they all had grown up being told, IIRC, and Hillary's claims of being under sniper fire, being named after Sir Edmund Hillary, being told by NASA that she couldn't be an astronaut because she was female, and all the rest?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

57. Elizabeth doesn't need to lie. Why she's gonna be the first female president.

[Beacool]

83. In the Left's dreams.................

[sabrina 1]

91. You're not part of the 'left'? Did you know that is a left forum?

[sufrommich]

98. This is a forum for democrats,at least it used to be.

Hillary Clinton is a democrat.

[sabrina 1]

105. Democrats = left. Unless you're saying that the 'new democrats' = right. There is only the

'left and the right' in US politics right now. That Third Way nonsense, = 'right' also.

I wanted to know why someone who mocks the 'left' is on a 'left' forum. If this is no longer a left forum, but a right forum, I haven't seen any such announcement from the admins. If there were such an announcement, 90% of the membership would not be here.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

108. Technically yes, she is. But Elizabeth is an example of a true blue Democrat who deserves serious consideration for the 2016 nomination.

[Whisp]

74. omg lol. Let's forgive Hillary all her massive foibles because Warren's mom

may have been wrong on the family ancestry!

holy

[MADem]

93. They're praying that EW will run--it chafes them every time she repeats that she isn't going to.

They've prepared a lot of smear stuff--nasty videos, mostly mocking stuff--in hopes that she will change her mind. A lot of it has been crafted after she won that senate seat. I won't link to it, it's garbage. It's up on YT if you have a strong stomach.

I don't have a problem at ALL with EW believing what she was told. Hell, to hear my relatives talk, we're all descended from KINGS, I tell you, KINGS!

I do have a problem with people who pretend this wasn't an issue, that there wasn't a "documentation" problem with her heritage claim, who don't understand that EW did have a tough time getting past it (some of the pundits were "sure" it would sink her candidacy) and who fail to note that EW, quite sensibly, has dropped any NA claims and doesn't list that heritage in the Senate roster.

And, like you, I find it funny how some people can play a deniability card with one candidate, and then grind on, incessantly, about others--HRC and POTUS, most particularly, and then expect me to believe that this kind of shit is coming from a place where the motivation is to "make the party stronger." Yeah, right--calling the Obama administration a "flaming pile of manure" is a "positive" post? With friends like that, who needs enemies?

I was born at night, but not last night...and I spent years on a farm, so I'm familiar with the smell of bullshit.

[sabrina 1]

111. I don't care who runs so long as it is a Progressive Dem who isn't beholden to Corporate Funding.

That has become the issue now. Those who take huge amounts from Corporations are going to have to pay it back if they win. That makes it unlikely the people will be the first consideration of anyone whose major funding comes from Corporations.

I have to admit I never considered this during the Bush years, as far as Dems were concerned. But now it is a huge issue for voters.

We have plenty of good Progressive Dems who could run unless Corporate influences try to make it impossible for them by pouring money into their favorite candidates.

Voters are going to be watching that funding this time. Should have been doing it long ago.

[MADem]

114. Voters don't care about funding as much as they should, if THEIR candidate is being outspent.

And plenty of that corporate money is funneled through PACS and then distributed, so their origins are less clear than they might have been.

Many candidates rely on "big union" donations, too, and those don't come without expectations--to include votes on projects that will keep the membership working, even if the product is something the nation doesn't want or need.

I'd prefer to see federally funded elections, myself--take the lobbyists and players out of the picture entirely.

[fadedrose]

112. Checking for hate - none here +++

[MannyGoldstein]

33. "Her mother was, apparently, completely mistaken."

Pleas provide a link, thanks.

[MADem]

52. For someone who avers so much expertise, you are conveniently devoid of information when

it suits you. I guess you didn't follow the Warren campaign at all? Not even a little?

I can't understand how anyone residing in the Bay State--and certainly in the greater Boston area-- could not have seen/heard all that shitflinging. Was your television broken? It was a round-the-clock issue, it made the race much closer than it should have been. The Brown campaign went VERY negative with this issue, and even after they "officially" backed off, their acolytes continued to prosecute the theme. In fact, the GOP continues--to this day--to bring this up everytime EW says something they don't like.

Here's a primer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Warren

In April 2012, the Boston Herald drew attention to Warren's law directory entries from 1986 to 1995 in which she had self-identified as a Native American, and that Harvard Law School had publicized in response to criticisms about a lack of faculty diversity.[47] According to Warren and her three siblings, Native American ancestry was a part of their family folklore.[48] However the New England Historical Genealogical Society could not find documentary proof of Native American lineage.[49] Colleagues and supervisors, including Charles Fried a Harvard Law professor involved in Warren's hiring, say she received no preferential treatment as a result of her claimed ancestry.[48][50]

Willful naivete is not attractive on you. It's starting to wear very thin, in fact. Just saying. For someone who is constantly bashing Clinton and holding up Warren (two Democratic women who have me as their fan), as you do, rather incessantly of late, you'd think you'd know a bit more about the latter than you apparently do.


Do you need MORE detail? You seriously don't remember the ad she put on TV where she said she never asked her mother for details? (What kid would?) Here you go:

While all this was unfolding, geneologists and members of the tribes in question were weighing in, and saying that what EW thought she knew wasn't accurate.



Probably the most detailed article on the imbroglio, and here's the money quote:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/is-elizabeth-warren-native-american-or-what/257415/

But a lack of Native ancestry despite the family stories she's heard all her life would also be consistent with one of the most common genealogical myths in the United States.

"Many more Americans believe they have Native ancestry than actually do (we always suspected this, but can now confirm it through genetic testing)," said Smolenyak in an email. "In fact, in terms of wide-spread ancestral myths, this is one of the top two (the other being those who think their names were changed at Ellis Island). And someone who hails from Oklahoma would be even more prone to accept a tale of Native heritage than most."

She added: "There's also a tendency to accept what our relatives (especially our elders) tell us."

As for Warren, "I can't confirm or refute Cherokee heritage without extensive research," she said. "All I can say is that Ms. Warren's scenario is a wildly common one -- minus the public scrutiny, of course."

Senator Warren has been disabused of a bit of family lore that she has believed all her life. She hasn't listed herself as NA in the Senate rolls.


http://www.usatoday.com/story/onpolitics/2013/01/08/elizabeth-warren-native-american-senate-directory/1818059/



She now knows that her mother made a mistake. I would not be at all surprised if she's already run her DNA and gotten the bad news.

Skip Gates, her colleague at Harvard who is quoted in that Atlantic link, said on his genealogy show that this sort of thing isn't uncommon, and particularly so with African Americans researching their ancestry--the idea being it is far preferable to have NA heritage than caucasian heritage, owing to the brutal heritage of slavery and the reality that women who were slaves didn't have much in the way of choice when it came to their persons.

I should imagine that people from Oklahoma regard it as both not uncommon, and a point of pride, to "fit in" to that culture with claims of native heritage. If a story is handed down over the years, people do tend to believe it.

[MannyGoldstein]

53. Which part of that disproves what her mother told her?

There's no proof that it's true, but no proof that it's untrue, either.

[MADem]

62. Since you didn't read any of the links, I will leave you to read them again.

I am not saying that her mother didn't tell her she was NA. That's not the point (that escaped you, I see). Her mother did say that, and her mother was not accurate. To be clear, since you are having trouble: I'm saying that her mother told her a story that isn't true.

Genealogists went through the records and all they found was white people. The one record--a supposed marriage license, referenced in a "family newsletter" that was said to have been issued before marriage licenses even existed in that area-- that the claim was hung upon turned out to be "folklore." There was no record of this document, and the Boston Globe (seriously, you are playing like you are unaware of all this? Mind-boggling that you know so little about the person you tout as a Presidential candidate--a Bay Stater who didn't even follow the larger details of this campaign?) retracted their story about that one "hearsay" record after a genealogical society's investigation revealed that the claim was not valid.

You might also want to look at the video again, where she says she was told this by her mother and didn't ask for proof about it.


She is not a Cherokee. She is not a Delaware. Ask those folks--they'll tell you.

She isn't listing herself as NA in the Senate rolls, either--which is appropriate. She did list herself as such in her academic assignments, but since this kerfluffle, she's not doing that anymore.

That's the bottom line.

And if you think she hasn't quietly done a DNA swab, I've got a bridge for sale. That would have been THE way to say "Ah HA---STFU!!!!"

She got suckered by a family story. It happens. Many people think they have an Indian--usually a chief, or someone famous and cool--in their background. Most times that turns out to be bullshit. Amusingly, as Skip Gates has pointed out, white people down the years have substituted "Indian" for "African" when they are coughing up an exotic family line, and people of African heritage substitute "Indian" for white ancestry--facts be damned.

You know, some people can think they are swirly, or even BE a bit swirly, but not be sufficiently so to qualify for preferential treatment, don't you? You do know that Harvard called her a minority for years, touted her in their diversity statistics, and Fordham referenced her as Harvard's "first woman of color" on their faculty? That's what lit this shit off. It's all outlined here:

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/articles/2012/05/25/federal_documents_indicate_harvard_repeatedly_reported_elizabeth_warren_as_native_american/?page=full

And if you think the GOP are ever going to let it go, I'll show you my Kenyan birth certificate.

EW is earning her way in the Senate. She will be a formidable opponent to anyone trying to challenge her for reelection in 2018 because she is becoming a known quality to people within the state--that's because she doesn't stint on the constituent visits and she delivers in her job. But don't--for a second--think her last Senate campaign was easy; it was hellish, difficult, fraught with Scott Brown's smears and negativity, and some pundits thought she was going to lose.

[MannyGoldstein]

69. Well, what does your alleged source *actually* say?

"Lack of proof" ain't "disproof". Before repeating claims by the right wing, I'd suggest that you check source documents.

NEHGS Statement on Elizabeth Warren Ancestry

Boston, MA - May 15, 2012 - With reference to the recent media coverage regarding Elizabeth Warren’s ancestry, New England Historic Genealogical Society (NEHGS) wishes to make the following statement:

Following several requests from the media, NEHGS conducted some initial genealogical research on Elizabeth Warren’s ancestry.

NEHGS has not expressed a position on whether Mrs. Warren has Native American ancestry, nor do we possess any primary sources to prove that she is. We have no proof that Elizabeth Warren’s great-great-great-grandmother O.C. Sarah Smith either is or is not of Cherokee descent. Our initial research indicated that various members of Ms. Warren’s extended family made references to being Cherokee, citing secondary sources, but we advised that additional research on the subject was needed. NEHGS is currently not conducting that research, though records and resources for this research are publicly and widely available. The nature of genealogical research is such that it can take many months or years, and conclusions can change based on evidence that emerges over time.

[MADem]

79. Give it up, Manny.

What you are proudly posting as "lack of proof" ain't "disproof" is a WALK BACK by the NEHGS. See: http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_politics/2012/05/genealogical_society_no_proof_warren%E2%80%99s_cherokee_heritage_found

When the Senator HERSELF has dropped the "Native American" designation (she is not listed as NA in Senate records) that dog just ain't hunting.

If she were able to prove the designation, she'd be listing herself as NA in the Senate rolls, and she's not doing that. Wisely.

It's not her fault she believed her mother's stories, it's not her mother's fault that she believed her parents' stories, either; it's only problematic, to my mind, if she keeps insisting that the stories are true, and claiming minority status, after she has learned that they are not true.

She's not doing that--- though you are.

[MannyGoldstein]

84. My parents told me I was born a Jew

Do I have proof? No.

Does that make me non-Jewish? No.

By your standards, am I non-Jewish and my parents were wrong to tell me what they did? Apparently.

[MADem]

90. Can you get hiring preference for being Jewish?

Would your employer proudly tout you as a "person of heritage" to meet federal guidelines for diversity as a consequence of your ethnic/religious heritage?

And, let me shoot a few holes in your weak "straw Manny-ish" example, if I might.

--If you practice the Jewish faith and went through a bar/bat mitzvah, you're Jewish.

--Sammy Davis, Jr. was Jewish. He wasn't born that way, though.

--I have a cousin who is Jewish because she converted.

You can't "convert" to Native American heritage. You either are, or you are not, and the "deciders" are the tribes who keep the records. She's not on the rolls and she has no documents that prove that any of her ancestors had native heritage.

It's not the Senator's fault that she believed what she was told, what's salient is that she's not listing herself as NA on the Senate roster, precisely because she can't prove it, and without being able to prove it, even though she never used it to gain hiring preference (though her employers did to satisfy diversity requirements), she doesn't qualify for any sort of affirmative action or other considerations.

[Laelth]

116. Is it possible that EW did not, in fact, have the quiet DNA test you suspect she had?

btw, I appreciate your engaging Manny on this subject. I learned a great deal, but, thinking as a politician, I don't think I'd actually want to know the result of that test. I see where you're coming from--she could argue STFU during the campaign. I get that, but I wonder whether then the validity of the test would be called into question. I wonder if that wouldn't actually exacerbate the problem. It might.

You would know better than I how the press and the populace in MA might react to her production of some test results like that. I have no clue, but I will say this. I am glad she is not listing NA heritage any longer. She wants this story to just go away. If she runs for President, however, as you rightly note, it will come roaring back.

That said, this issue is the only political "baggage" that EW carries, to my knowledge, other than her being a Republican prior to 1995. What else did her opponent pull out of her closet?

Forearmed is forewarned. Thanks in advance!



-Laelth

[MADem]

136. Anything is possible.

It's enormously unlikely, though. If she didn't do it, someone in her line did, I'll wager.

A quiet DNA test would have been the way to present a fait accompli and get out of a nasty, ugly situation that almost cost her the Senate race. Let me repeat that--that almost cost her the Senate race. Pundits were ready to give Scotty his victory lap before EW cleaned his clock in the 2nd debate.

If she didn't do the swab and send it in, most certainly under an assumed name, or have one of her siblings do the honors, she's an idiot. And she is not an idiot. If the results came back showing some Cherokee or Delaware, she could resubmit under her own name and have something to present to the media--she could have shut Scott Brown UP. Scott would have been branded as the bully he is, and EW could have declared that she was vindicated instead of enduring MONTHS of "Faux-a-hontas" and "Pow Wow the Indian Girl" jokes.

Those genealogy DNA tests are not called into question. They are quite accurate because they are based upon large samples and specific markers. Skip Gates, her Harvard colleague, uses them all the time--that test is how Oprah found out she wasn't a Zulu (which is what she imagined she was--who doesn't want to be a Zulu? They're gutsy, strong, powerful enduring...instead, her line took her back to some peaceful little agrarian mud-hut village that never did anything dramatic); the tests are sufficiently accurate that they can take you back to the very villages and sub-tribal units where your ancestors were captured as slaves--and they have done just that. They have taken samples from around the world, and can tell you if your people came from northern or southern Japan, northern or southern China, northern or southern Iran, northern or southern...ANYWHERE--and even more specific than that in many cases. It's not experimental anymore--hasn't been for a long, long time. See this link and click on the links on the page--fascinating stuff: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/finding-your-roots/

Scott Brown got a lot of flak for the "Woo woo/tomahawk chop" shit he pulled, so he stopped going negative. He only started doing it because his numbers kept dipping and hers kept rising. That said, he caused EW a LOT of pain, and cost her a fair sum with her "pushback" commercial (when she should have been talking about other stuff), and it was only that his mean, shitty campaign staffers just HAD to be assholes--she has them to thank for the tipping point being reached in time for her to recover and surge.

As far as nasty campaign crap the GOP has pulled, just look to the recent past. Swiftboating? John McCain has an illegitimate """"blaaaaaack OMG OMG OMG!!!1!!!" love child--during the SC primary, no less? Jimmy Carter's stolen briefing book? Mike Dukakis and Willie Horton....oh, and his wife is a drunkard? Go to YT and plug in EW's name and Native American or Indian, and just look at the hate from the GOP. They go to depths that are lower than a snake's belly.

[Laelth]

169. Thank you for the thoughtful response.

I come to DU to learn, primarily, and I appreciate the effort you have put into educating me on this.



-Laelth

[fadedrose]

113. It is very touching

that the mother and the girls were happy to have the Native American heritage they "wrongly" thought they had. It shows a high regard for Native Americans, and I bet Native Americans are a bit flattered by being claimed by them.

Besides, the absence of proof is not proof. People screwing around and getting pregnant don't always put it in the papers, no matter what ancestry.

[msanthrope]

58. You'd think that such a supporter of Elizabeth Warren would have these facts and figures at hand..nt

[MADem]

63. Yeah....

I think everyone up in here needs to check the bottom of their shoes, because something smells a bit off.

[MannyGoldstein]

77. You mean the facts that don't support MADem's contention?

No, I don't have non-facts at the ready; I'm a Liberal.

[MADem]

94. You're a liberal? Could have fooled me.

The way you tear down our former SECSTATE and POTUS, I'd be inclined to call you something else entirely.

[MannyGoldstein]

100. They tear themselves down

Because they're not Liberals.

Liberals do not work to cut Social Security.

Liberals do not start pointless wars.

Liberals do not bail out the bankers while leaving the 99% to rot on the vine.

[MADem]

107. Who has cut social security? What did I miss? When did that happen?

Everyone--tell granny that check she gets every month is no good!

Who -- aside from a guy named Bush -- who isn't a liberal (or is he, to you?) -- started pointless wars?

And who bailed out those bankers? Wasn't it a guy named GEORGE, in 2008?

Wow, Manny, you're really hanging it out for all of us to see, today, aren't you?

Do you need a piece of string to hold that mask up?

[MannyGoldstein]

124. Lack of success equals lack of intent?

I'm assuming that since the President has called for Social Security cuts, offered Social Security cuts, and put them in his budgets, that he wants them. He even didn't dissolve the Simpson-Bowles commission that Bush created, designed to produce a bipartisan recommendation to slash Social Security. Oh wait... You say that it wasn't *Bush* who created the thing? Wow.

Hillary voted to go to war against Iraq. Most Democrats voted against going to war. Obama prolonged the Afghanistan War by more years than it took to completely fight and win WWII.

TARP was a joint effort of Bush and Obama. But it was small compared to the $1 trillion per year bailout "quantitative easing" that we've been giving the bankers for the past few years. A trillion bucks a year. For bankers. A trillion.

In any case, one of us seems to be allergic to facts. Let's agree on that.

[MADem]

125. Saying things happened when they didn't; shit-stirring?

You don't even know recent history--so why should anyone listen to you? And yes, you are, indeed, allergic to facts--given that you made up three--boom, boom, boom--and then you try to get all snide and suggestive (yet again) when your blazing inaccuracies are pointed out.

This thread has revealed you so compellingly.

Sure you don't want to go get a piece of string? Your mask has slipped.

[MannyGoldstein]

128. Allright. We'll call it a draw.

[MADem]

137. I've got all my limbs.

You just need to stop doing this divisive foolishness. Pitting Democrats against Democrats is what Republicans try to do. It's not funny and it smells trolly as hell. As you can see by the comments on this thread, I'm not the only one here who thinks you stepped way over the line with this latest snarky OP.

If that's not your intent, then you need to check yourself before you wreck yourself. You are calling the wrong kind of attention to yourself.

[Beacool]

88. The only thing they have is a very nasty streak.

They keep pushing forward someone who has even less experience in politics than Obama had and someone who has repeatedly said that she has no interest in running. A decision also confirmed by her money people, who have told prospective donors that she's not going to run. I think that Liz Warren will have a great career in the Senate or in a cabinet position, but she's smart enough to realize that's she's not ready to be president.

[MADem]

95. The GOP wants her to run, and they think they can "briar patch" us into putting her forward.

She's not stupid, though--and neither are we.

[Laelth]

117. That's a strong claim.

Is there any evidence for it? There might be, for all I know. Genuinely curious.



-Laelth

[MADem]

133. No, it isn't really--the nation is far less genteel than the commonwealth when it comes to beating

attack politics--and Warren barely survived the Pow Wow/tomahawk onslaught from Scott Brown. They perceive her as an inexperienced lamb to the slaughter. She hasn't been vetted at the national level, anything can be a scandal (Oooooh, ex-husband!!1!1! Ooooh, youthful marriage!!!1!1!) and there are more wagging tongues than there are brains on the GOP side to spread lies and disinformation.

And she is probably the smartest senator in the US Senate for many reasons--one of which is that she knows her interests and limitations.

Here--this scenario has her losing to Ted Cruz: http://www.salon.com/2013/10/25/ted_cruz_will_be_president_if_democrats_listen_to_elizabeth_warren_warns_republican/

In this terrifyingly real scenario, the U.S. tips back into recession, Republicans win huge in 2014 and Democrats respond by getting more aggressively populist on economic and financial issues. These Democrats revolt against Hillary Clinton, and Obama’s moderation, and embrace, instead, Elizabeth Warren. Warren, slightly oddly, decides to run against Clinton, and the bruising primary fight divides and weakens the party.

Cruz, meanwhile, capitalizes on the shutdown and his general reputation for being a huge dick all the time and handily wins the nomination. Then he moves to the center, sort of!

Ted Cruz, however, could offer the vice presidency to Chris Christie — and the Democrats’ post-2014 leftward veer frightened Republican donors enough that they pressed Christie to accept. Unlike Romney in 2012, Cruz’s conservative allegiance could not be questioned, freeing him to write the vaguest platform and conduct the most issue-free campaign of any Republican since George H.W. Bush in 1988. Cruz delivered half his convention speech in Spanish and used the other half to rededicate the party to “the compassion of conservatism,” a subtle variant of an old phrase that delighted convention delegates.

Want more? http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/15/elizabeth-warren-hillary-clinton-democrats-2016

Elizabeth Warren won't save the Democrats in 2016
Warren's populist message could defeat Hillary in the primaries. But her proposed policies won't win over the general electorate

...Many voters will have a problem with Warren's proposed clampdown on the consumer credit industry. To the extent that they even understand what she's proposing, it's going to sound like she wants to cut off their access to credit cards, auto loans and mortgages. As irresponsible as the consumer credit industry has been, voters will legitimately want to know how Warren proposes to supply them with a car to get to work when they don't have the money to pay for one and groceries when a meager paycheck has been spent.

Which brings us to the real issue that American workers care about – about which neither Warren nor her Republican opponent will have anything credible to say: how do we create high-paying jobs for American workers?

The real solution is unfortunately beyond the imagination of almost any Democrat or Republican. The real solution is a massive mobilization of labor and capital to redevelop the US economy – something that the US and every industrialized country has done before.

If you look around at some of the RW hate sites, I'll bet you could find plenty of anticipatory glee--I am not motivated to look over in those open sewers.

But it doesn't matter--she's not fundraising, she's not making the rounds, and she's not running. See:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/rubycramer/elizabeth-warren-financial-backer-tells-donors-no-chance-on?bftw=

[Laelth]

170. Wow. Thank you.

I'll skip the sewers. I hadn't seen the Pareene piece on Frum. That was quite interesting, nor had I seen Exley's piece (He's not an (R) from what I can tell), but it's sad he believes the American people won't trust or elect a populist because of the complexity of the argument for populist economics. I very much hope he's wrong about that.

Thank you for the thorough and thoughtful response.

-Laelth

[dlwickham]

11. i said maybe she was

I didn't say that she said anything

[randome]

4. Thanks for promoting yet another right-wing talking point.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[MannyGoldstein]

6. Does Hillary bear any culpability here? nt

[randome]

12. Probably. I don't know.

I don't believe in 'Thou shalt not speak evil of Democrats' but there seems little point in raising this issue back from the dead. It's like borrowing a weapon from your enemy and then using it against your allies.

I don't like Hillary. I don't want her to be President.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[Beacool]

15. No, she doesn't!!!!

Furthermore, if this is how you think that Democrats should behave, then you are a disgrace to the party.

The only things I see you post are hateful stuff.

[MannyGoldstein]

24. I've posted a bunch of pro-Elizabeth Warren stuff

Warren is honest, smart, and a fighter for the 99%. Also positive stuff on Krugman, Dean, Occupy, and the rest of the "under the bus" crowd. Also about CandidateObama.

I've posted a lot of stuff on why Social Security shouldn't be cut.

And many other things that many people would consider to be positive.

[Beacool]

25. You can post positive stuff without a need to continually offend many other Democrats.

I sincerely doubt that Warren will run for president, but if she does, she would need all the votes that she could get and your divisive threads are not helpful. It makes some of us start to dislike someone who is probably a nice woman.

[MADem]

70. No, you haven't. This post is characteristic of your handiwork, and you're playing a weak,

divide-and-conquer game.

I've never seen a single post of yours that doesn't include some sort of tear down. Clinton is your favorite target, but not your only one.

It's your MO and people are starting to notice. You no longer have the capacity to amuse--your stuff is all the same. It's obvious.

Good.

[MannyGoldstein]

75. Bullshit. I actually was the original petitioner for an Elizabeth Warren group.

And many other positive posts.

I defy you to find an instance where I've posted a right-wing lie as fact, as you did elsewhere in this thread.

[MADem]

87. You "build up" Elizabeth Warren by tearing others down--and we are noticing.

And there's no damn need for that.

Why do you link, direly, to YOUR OWN post, while you falsely accuse me of posting a "right wing lie?" You posted that NEHGS link like it was "proof" of something, when what it actually was--and every paper in town carried this story --was a RETRACTION of an initial assertion by someone at NEHGS that documentary proof of EW's claims existed. All your link says is "Ooops, there's no source document like we initially asserted and we aren't digging into this shit any further."

Your first "positive" link is a long haul--you had to go all the way back to JANUARY 2013 to find a "positive post" about a politician without any slams?

Your second example is the big huge pat-yourself-on-the-back "I'm not homeless" thread....which had nothing to do with any politicians.

Your third example says "I used to like Obama, but now I think he sucks." You call that "positive?" Please.

Thanks so much for proving my assertion for me, Manny--saves me having to look up the links.

How does it feel, up in the air, there, hoisted on your own petard? It's only the ride down that's painful, so I understand.

[Bobbie Jo]

142. .

[joshcryer]

156. CandidateObama = PresidentObama

And every time you are outraged about something Obama said he'd do as a candidate, and doing it, I have to laugh.

[Whisp]

126. It was Hillary on the Grassy Gnome in Tuzla.

shooting her own feet.

[joshcryer]

153. She apologized for the statement.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/todays_blogs/2008/03/hillarylies_and_videotape.html

Are you going to judge her for something the admits she did wrong?

[Demo_Chris]

165. I will. Lying about being in combat or under fire is a pretty big deal. nt

[joshcryer]

167. She told the story without sniper fire 99% of the time.

It was literally 3-4 times she mentioned snipers and when it was fact checked she immediately apologized.

She did go to war torn Bosnia. There was a high risk of danger. She was not shot at and 99% of the time she talked about going to Bosnia she didn't say she was shot at.

"I won more states" was far more damaging, imo. It directly lead to the PUMAs (little known fact but Jane Hamsher was a big Hillary shill).

I do not think one should judge someone for apologizing for their mistakes, I think you should respect their apology, especially when said faux pas happened when the two big men in the room were belittling her for foreign policy and war experience. The Constitutional Scholar vs the Prisoner of War vs the "Shrill Liar."

[JoePhilly]

7. Slow day at the manufactured outrage factory?

Today's outrage widget doesn't really measure up to your normal standards.

Is it a Beta version of new improved outrage widget that you are working on for Christmas?

[SidDithers]

8. +1...nt

Sid

[MADem]

10. This is more than a bit of a stretch, I concur.

Divisive for the sake of being divisive, nothing more. Not well done at all.

The problem is, I guess, that once the paradigm is identifiable, the outrage has to ratchet up to a higher level to produce the same effect. It's like Miley Cyrus-level attention seeking--the goofy clothes, the odd bit of drug use, the bizarre hairstyles, and that coated tongue flopping everywhere weren't enough...so she had to up the ante to foam finger follies, twerking, and swinging nekkid on a wrecking ball.

After a time, though, it's "ho hum" no matter what. When a shtick is past its sell-by date, it is past its sell-by date, and that's that.

[JoePhilly]

42. Very true ... except ... Miley is making a ton of money off her shtick.

This particular OP reminds me more of the GOP flipping out about Obama putting mustard on a burger, or not wearing a flag pin.

Maybe the holidays have Manny down.

That happens to some people.

[msanthrope]

45. You're right--at this rate, the outrage will be at "Vince Foster was Murdered" in a month or two and

then where are you gonna go?? Is Third-Way Manny gonna hold his own Benghazi Hearings?

[joshcryer]

150. Yeah, I hope that gets put into CT and we start banning those dinguses.

The Vince Foster murder conspiracy is 100% something the Republicans created to discredit the Clintons and paint Hillary as an evil person.

[msanthrope]

176. I think a First Way Benghazi Hearing Forum is an inevitability. nt

[msanthrope]

31. You Better Believe It! nt

[Pretzel_Warrior]

134. nicely done

[joshcryer]

157. What's weird is that he should hold back the ammo.

For when Hillary announces.

If he repeats the same garbage we'll all remember and just point and laugh, really.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

181. I'm sure he's counting on frightening Hillary out of running.

With his sharp, biting wit, Manny will induce Hillary's handlers into panic as they rush to convince Hillary that running for president is a fool's errand. Once you've lost Manny.....

[Beacool]

13. What the heck is the matter with you????????????

Is this how you are going to be promoting your candidate of choice for the next foreseeable future?

If you don't like Hillary, and if she does run in 2016, then vote for someone else; but these posts of yours are beneath a Democratic site.

Go post this crap on Free Republic, Hot Air, etc. Lord knows there's plenty of RW sites.

[treestar]

18. Democrat vs. Democrat as usual

And neither are running as we know so far. But gotta try to divide Democrats and pit them against each other.

[Beacool]

20. The only thing this is doing is making people start to dislike whoever he's supporting.

They can keep up with the bullshit, but they can't force anyone to vote.

[arely staircase]

23. You have to ask yourself Why would anyone deliberately try to divide a group?

to defeat them?

who would want to defeat democrats?

[Beacool]

26. Exactly!!

Why can't these people realize that posting thread after thread bashing Hillary is not only divisive, it's foolish. Let's say that Warren ends up running after all, do you think that the kind of nasty crap I see on this site day after day is going to make me want to go out and help her to get elected? Hell, no.

Someone posted a positive article from the L.A. Times about the new breed of Democratic senators, including a nice write-up on Warren. I'm not about to go there and piss on it. Why would I? If a similar article praised Hillary and someone posted it here, there would be several who would almost break a finger in their rush to go to their keyboard to trash her. Don't these fools realize the damage they're doing? It's going to be hard enough to keep the WH in 2016, there's no need to make it even more difficult by dividing the party. In the real world there are millions of Clinton supporters, it's not smart to piss us off if they expect our vote.

[IrishAyes]

55. Actually, I do think the habitual pot stirrers know exactly what they're doing

and it makes me seriously question their motives and origins.

[Whisp]

141. oh yes, exactly! hahah

I really like listening to you say these things now, Bea.
I think I missed you saying that in the last 6 years or so about the President.

But better late than never!

hehehe.

a convert. sure.

[Beacool]

143. Yawn............

[Whisp]

144. but of course, what else could you possibly have to say....

lol.

get in a tight spot, just go to sleep.

[MADem]

96. Gee, who WOULD want to divide and defeat Democrats?

I'm trying to think who would do such a thing....

You can be sure that once I figure it out, I'll tell you...and you'd better believe it when I do!

[arely staircase]

103. you have

and I do

[MADem]

30. The pattern is starting to become apparent.

It's a rather ugly pattern, too.

IMO.

[SidDithers]

47. Better believe it...nt

Sid

[MADem]

99. Yes, indeed. nt

[KG]

14. i see all the 'serious people' are taking this seriously

hilarious.

or should say 'hillary-arious'?

[FatBuddy]

28. it is the sensible thing to do

[Dash87]

16. Was the "sniper fire" comment ever meant to be taken literally?

At face value, the comment seems to imply she was being shot at by snipers, but it could also be taken to mean there were snipers in the area.

I'm not spinning, btw. I don't even like Hillary Clinton.

[joshcryer]

154. Three or four times she implied she was under direct fire.

The rest of the instances (before and after the faux pas) she said that she was in a zone where snipers could be (obviously a helicopter flying over enemy territory is going to be at risk of being shot at).

The media, and Obama's campaign at the time, and DUers at the time, all made fun of her for it.

She immediately apologized (within an hour or two of it breaking that it didn't happen that way).

[treestar]

17. She's traveled so much I think she could easily end up

forgetting what was what.

I don't see how EW would be behind that conspiracy. It would more likely be Newt Gringich.

[Beacool]

21. She wouldn't be.

Both women get along fine, but the Hillary haters are in full force. I have yet to read a post from a Hillary supporter virulently bashing Warren. These divisive threads are just crazy.

[MADem]

34. I like HRC, and I like Warren, too.

I have voted for both of them!

I do notice that it's people who "claim" to be on the "Warren team" who do the vicious bashing of HRC--and I don't think Warren would care for that one bit.

No one seems to be able to reconcile the fact that Warren signed the Boxer letter. They gloss over that like it's nothing. They also think this brilliant woman doesn't know her own mind--that she has said, forcefully, that she's not running at least ten times in the past few months, but I guess despite being such a smart person, she's somehow "confused" according to those pushing her to run, and she thinks no means yes. The poor addled professor! Smart enough to teach at Harvard and become one of the most formidable opponents of "business as usual" banking--but too stupid to know the difference between a negative and an affirmative comment...?

[Beacool]

41. I agree.

I don't think that Warren would approve if she knew that her supporters were trying to bolster her by posting negative threads about Hillary. My understanding is that they get along well and have respect for each other.

Regarding your last comment, I think that they know deep down that she won't run. What they are hoping for is to build enough enthusiasm for her that they can convince her to change her mind.

[MADem]

54. EW is cutting them off at the pass pretty decisively.

She's refusing interviews, even ducking away from "ambush" interviews in the Halls of Congress, avoiding NH even when she does constituent visits close to the border, she turned down an invite to the Harkin Steak Fry Beauty Contest, and has said "RELAX--I'm NOT running" at a large public forum, in response to a direct query by David Axelrod (and that was probably the tenth time she's said a rather forceful NO when asked).

If she has made up her mind, and I think she has, she won't be swayed. People who weren't here in MA think that she "cruised to victory on a wave of popular support." It didn't work like that--she got the SHIT kicked out of her. Brown got snide in the debates (calling her "Perfesser" like a Loony Tunes cartoon character) and he got dirty by flinging the "Pow Wow" comments and snark at her (a campaign that continues to this day by other GOP operatives). She was beaten up. The fact that Brown is an idiot and couldn't debate for shit (she cleaned his clock in the 2nd debate) was what did it for her--but anyone who thinks she sailed into the job on waves of mad cheers and applause, like Ralphie's fantasy about getting an A+++ on his theme in A Christmas Story is smoking some of Mayor Ford's crack!

Tis the season, soon enough....and this applies!

[Laelth]

118. I know she has said this several times, but I didn't see her say it to Axelrod.

What strange, strange phrasing, don't you think?

"RELAX--I'm NOT running." As if EW running would be cause for concern among the powers that be in the Democratic Party. Very strange. Doesn't give me any warm fuzzies.

-Laelth

[MADem]

123. You don't have to take my word--believe your own eyes!

You also will see that the "relax" was in context/direct response to the question, so the phrasing isn't strange at all:

She has said NO, and I'm not interested and I do not want to run and Five words--No, no, no, no, no--and those are just snippets I recall off the top of my head--there are others as well.

If she were running, she would have gone to Harkin's Steak Fry. You don't run for POTUS on "popular demand," or even on love and pale moonlight; you need money and LOTS of it. She would have to network, line up PACS, create an exploratory PAC of her own, go to NH, test the waters, start giving interviews on the Sunday talkers on issues ranging from her own areas of expertise to stuff she knows nothing about, early and often, avail herself of the opportunity to go off the record and develop a rapport with reporters, and in short, Get Out There.

She's doing the opposite--she's hunkering down, avoiding hallway/OTR opportunities, doing her job (and doing it very well indeed), and acting like a Senator who wants to earn her paycheck by doing what we asked her to do.

I give her an A+ thus far.

[Laelth]

171. Oh, I know she said it ... several times.

I trusted you the first time--when you posted it above.

Here's what I want to know in regards to this strange phrasing. Why would it make Axelrod "relax" to know that EW is not running, and what does it say that her reassurance on this point is cause for relaxation? Why is EW's not running relaxing? That's not what I want to hear prominent Democrats saying, as you can imagine.



-Laelth

[MADem]

178. Well, it's no secret who Axelrod would back.

He wanted to know if there would be any issues of divided loyalties.

EW is a smart woman with wonderful ideas, but she has no "base" within the operational frame of the party. She has no "fifty state stragegians," she doesn't have connections with state party leadership/operatives, she doesn't have any PACs or connections to people with PACs, and she would -- quite obviously-- have to GET all this shit in order to think about running.

Resources are finite. Democrats who are giving to Primary Candidate A are not giving to Primary Candidate B. It is "relaxing" for someone who is likely to be supporting one candidate to not have to worry about an assault on their access to resources, be they personnel or cash, from another candidate.

Don't read into it more than it is. There's nothing nefarious here. It's all about the Benjamins. As I have said, time and time again here, candidates are not elected on "love and pale moonlight." It takes money, it takes people--not people gushing "Oh, isn't he/she just DREAMY??"--but people who get off their asses and network and find sources of income, find endorsements, badger reporters to carry stories that increase the candidate's profile, people who drive voters to the polls, people who call voters to remind them to vote, people who leaflet and talk up the candidate, people, people, people--and a lot of these people (if you want good ones) who are organizing volunteers need to be PAID. They are known quantities, and there are only so many of them.

In that context--the context of a political operative--there is nothing strange about the phrasing at all.

[Laelth]

183. Indeed, and well-said.

Elizabeth Warren does not have a base within the framework of the Democratic Party. That's quite true, and, I hope you can understand this is why liberals like me who would like to see her create that base have to encourage her to run for the Presidency now, as it takes time to build that institutional framework.

Of course, I have every reason to believe that Mr. Axelrod would and should support Hillary Clinton. That's not nefarious in any way, but it doesn't give those of us on the left much hope when we hear about party insiders who seem bound and determined to insure that no liberal, ever will get a shot at the Presidency and that it is cause for alarm when there's a chance that a liberal might actually run.

If that's what the Democratic Party is about ... (not sure what to say here) ... I am not pleased.

-Laelth

[MADem]

184. She's not going to run.She has enormous skills, and she's using them where she can do the most good.

She is a very passionate person and she doesn't always "work and play well with others." However, it is my view that her passion is VERY specific--she is interested in the economic end, the banking end, and how that impacts people day-to-day. That's her focus and her goal. I think she's less interested in dealing with, say, nuclear or conventional forces treaties, law of the sea disputes, negotiating through a pissing contest in the House, dealing with this cultural issue or that, or other stuff that a POTUS has to concern him or herself with.

I don't think she would make a good President, and that's not because she isn't smart, driven, and good at what she does, but because she does not have the temperament to deal with these other issues (which will take her away from her principal interest) or to schmooze. And, like it or not, schmoozing is a big part of the job.

Further, for every person she inspires, there's one on the right that hates her viscerally. More importantly, her story hasn't resonated on a national level beyond the "progressive left" and I suspect it never will. She will have a tough slog to reach those people in flyover country, even if she advocates issues that will improve their life--they are known to vote vehemently against their best interests. She's a "divorcee who married far too young," and there are people in this country who will still hold that against her. She is too new to the Hill, and the learning curve is steep as hell. I also don't think her spouse would click into the supportive role too well, so she'd be on her own, doing double duty (the "twice as hard to be regarded as half as good" paradigm) or having to rely on one of her children to do that outreach/humanizing stuff.

Look at how much help POTUS has gotten from very experienced souls (Biden/Clinton, most specifically) and STILL he's had some tough sledding. EW is known to step on toes (which is a fine trait for someone on the Banking Committee, less of a positive when you're trying to get a recalcitrant Congress to do your bidding) and the toes she steps on are the ones that organize the PACS and do the hard, shitty, unglamorous work that keeps the DNC running. That doesn't make these people "bad," it's just that one hand washes the other and both wash the face. If you want the money, you have to put in the time and you don't need to be crapping on the people who are writing the checks.

If you really value EW and want her to maximize her impact, you should hope that she is appointed Fed Chair or Treasury Secretary--that's where she could do the most good. She is not going to be President, because--and people don't realize this--the work to get there has to start VERY early. She's not motivated, she has said so, she knows her weaknesses on the campaign trail (which were forgiven in MA but she'd be crucified in a national campaign) and I suspect she doesn't want to endure that nasty bullshit again, and who can blame her? She got trashed--and she WON, but that win exacted a cost--it was a bruising campaign. She just wouldn't win if she ran for President. Chris Christie (who is further ahead of her in terms of marijuana laws) would clean her clock, even as he took that clock and turned it back WRT other cultural issues. I don't want a President "Bigmouth" Christie. Her running would guarantee a cakewalk for him.

Old school liberals like Ted Kennedy have always known how to compromise. You make the best deal you can, and you live to fight another day. New school liberals REALLY need to work on that, because, frankly, way too many are simply intransigent and that is not a good quality if you want to make progress. The perfect, as many have said down the years, over and over again, should not be the enemy of the good; Rome was not built in a day, etc. So long as the trajectory is in the right direction, the strident "My way or the highway" bullshit is about as useful as the very same "My way or the highway" bullshit we hear from the right.

If liberals want more liberals in high office, they need to vote for them. They need to give them large amounts of money. They need to volunteer for their campaigns and support them. They need to GOTV and precinct walk and smile-and-dial and do all the things that get a candidate elected. That's the bottom line--but often, there's a lot of talk (to include vociferous and rather negative complaining--which never sells the product; people should take a page from LBJ's VP HHH--"Happy Warrior" beats whiney scold any day) and not much follow-through.

Also, a lot of this "false divison" stuff --which is shopped by many who play the liberal but seem more interested in shitting on Democrats and touting those who can't win (Yaaaaay Kucinich....PLEASE! As Bender says, Bite my shiny metal ass, Dennis! Fauxsnooze tool! Talked a good fight, but didn't get along with any of his colleagues, never passed any bills, rarely co-sponsored anything, didn't do any House administrative work--just a lazy jerk who played to the camera like a starlet and played those who supported him for YEARS; Anthony Weiner was the same way---talk, talk, talk, and no legislative action) --needs to just cease.

You know who helped Bernie Sanders in his election bid for the Senate? HILLPAC. That's Hillary Clinton's old PAC, from when she was in the Senate. She was VERY generous in helping both Senate and House Dems (as well as "I" Bernie) in their bids. This is a matter of public record, too. And like it or not, the "system" isn't going to be changed in the near term (though I would like federally financed elections, it ain't happening). Money is the engine that drives politics. Communication, compromises, and alliances are the way the skids are greased. That IS the way things are done and eschewing those accommodations in service to "high minded and rigid ideals" is a one-way ticket to Loserville. We spent eight years there under Bush, and I don't wanna go there again.

[joshcryer]

160. She was competing with a POW and a strong man.

She had to push cred so she exaggerated throughout that campaign. The Bosnia thing was actually the least of her worries.

The "I won more states" thing was probably a lot worse for her image. Since she failed at the caucuses badly, and she needed superdelegates to side with her. You don't do that in politics if the numbers game don't fit.

She's going to have to run the most honest campaign possible because women are seen as liars by the media. Obama got caught in plenty of lies but they never gained traction.

[madinmaryland]

35. I think Elizabeth Warren was only 11 or 12 when JFK was assassinated.

She was probably sitting in a 5th or 6th grade class learning the three r's.

[MannyGoldstein]

36. But what about on that terrible day in Bosnia?

Where was she?

[msanthrope]

37. This is Ratfucking. Ratfucking, as defined by Watergate figure Donald Segretti, is rightwing attacks

on Democratic candidates from the "Left." Not the real, actual, Progressives--but those who post divisive commentary as opposed to meaningful debate because their agenda is to take down the Democratic Party.


Enough is enough. This is a rightwing bullshit smear on par with accusing Hilary Clinton of the murder of Vince Foster.

Why would ANY Democrat post this divisive shit before the 2014 elections? YEARS before any sort of primary? WHY???

And does ANYONE who is an ACTUAL supporter of Elizabeth Warren think that she would support this nonsense????

WHO BENEFITS from trying to foment dissent between two strong women and their supporters???? It's not the women, and it's not their supporters.



TO THE JURY--you might be told that "ratfucking" is some sort of homophobic slur--per Skinner, below, it is not.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12593382

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratfucking

"Ratfucking" was coined during Nixon's time for the dirty tricks that Donald Segretti and others did to take out Muskie and kill McGovern's electoral chances.

[SidDithers]

48. Nailed it...

Sid

[msanthrope]

50. I hope somebody posts the jury results--I want to see them. Seriously, what actual Warren supporter

would post this?

[MannyGoldstein]

51. The Third Way has run our party for 20+ years

How do you think it's been working out?

Some of us think it's been a total disaster for the 99%, in the US and elsewhere, and we want the disaster to stop. We want the Third Way to go away. Far, far away.

We are now in a situation where important people, such as Chuck "Senator from Wall Street Schumer" say that Hillary is unstoppable and that nobody else should run so that there won't be a messy primary.

Fuck that.

Given the highly-orchestrated campaign by the Third Way to stifle opposition to more a Third Way candidate, it is incumbant upon those of us who want government of, by, and for the people to do we what can to stop this train. If we don't, then history has shown us what will happen.

If Hillary wins the primaries I will STFU on DU. Until then, I don't see how pointing out a candidate's proclivity to prevaricate is any less germane than Warren supporters pointing out that her lack of experience in office.

Regards,

First Way Manny

[msanthrope]

56. I wondered what your response to the nuclear option would be. Back to the Clintons, are we?

Let me know when you start your own First-Way Benghazi Hearings.

[MannyGoldstein]

76. Not exactly a "nuclear option"

More like a hand grenade thrown a bit too softly. Knocked out some enemies, but we'll be getting shrapnel in our buts because of the way it was done.

Will post more later.

[msanthrope]

121. You sound VERY concerned about the fact that Reid used the nuclear option. VERY concerned. nt

[MannyGoldstein]

130. One of us has a reading comprehension problem.

I'm very concerned he didn't use it ENOUGH.

It should be fully brought back to what it was in the 1970s. This half-measure is too little.

[msanthrope]

182. Not satisfied with the nuclear option, hating on Hillary Clinton....the deal with Iran must

have really ticked you off.

[MADem]

102. Give it time....

This approach is getting short shrift, so I expect the next tactic to be to go for a "concerned" approach--"Whatever will we do, the mean old GOP are saying xxxxxxx, and this could spell DOOOOOOOOOM, I tell you, DOOOOOOOOM for us in the upcoming election!!!!"

[msanthrope]

122. OOOooo....I expect someone's gonna unearth Dan Burton's old melon-shooting tapes soon.

Burton, for those who don't recall, is the lawmaker who was so determined to prove Vince Foster was murdered that he reenacted the crime he imagined, with a gun in his backyard and a cantaloupe standing in for Foster's head. And this is where we'd like to correct the historical record once and for all.

Many accounts of the incident say Burton used a pumpkin; others say it was a watermelon. But a former aide to the congressman assures the Sleuth that Burton used a cantaloupe to try to disprove Foster's suicide, which makes sense, since the melon is much closer to the size of a human head than either a watermelon or a pumpkin.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/sleuth/2009/06/_rep_dan_burton_r-ind.html

[MADem]

66. I have to agree with your analysis.

It's not even subtle anymore.

The phrase "Too clever by half" comes to mind.

[MannyGoldstein]

71. Yet it is you who parrots right wing lies:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024081084#post69

Interesting.

[MADem]

92. This is the 2nd time you have lamely linked to your OWN POST while falsely accusing me.

How many times are you gonna keep this up, Manny?

You know full well that the press release you cite in your post was a response to a fuck up by a NEHGS employee, who FALSELY averred that there was proof that EW had NA heritage. That press release was a walk-back of that initial claim, and it was carried in all the papers as a retraction by NEHGS.

Big fail, there.

Interesting, indeed, that you would try to flip the script like that. Anyone following the thread isn't fooled, though.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

40. Well, she learned how to duck....responsibility.

[Motown_Johnny]

44. Dear Ready For Hillary To Lose Manny,

You do understand that there is a "Commander In Chief" test to be passed for Presidential nominees, right?


Given Mrs. Clinton's record on things like the Iraq war and Sniper-gate (and even the bullshit issue of Benghazi) it is very unlikely that Mrs. Clinton will be able to pass that test. Perhaps you are more knowledgeable than I, but I can think of no example of her making a correct choice when it comes to use of our military. None at all.


I am glad that you are ready for her to lose. Many here will be taken by surprise.


The video posted below is a news report that has never been questioned. It is not an attack ad, but if she wins the nomination, it will be.

Sincerely Yours,

Motown Johnny

[MADem]

68. Well, that's "asked and answered" and the "corporate media" doesn't replow old fields.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/25/us/politics/25clinton.html

Mrs. Clinton said she had been told “that we had to land a certain way and move quickly because of the threat of sniper fire,” not that actual shots were being fired.

Darn--they'll just have to try another method of "attack" because that dog won't hunt.

[Beacool]

81. Hillary has more than passed the CIC test.

Keep trolling the RW meme on Benghazi. I'm sure that will go down well among Democrats.

[Laelth]

173. No doubt. There is a CIC test.

No doubt Hillary Clinton has already passed it.

That said, Chris Christie and Scott Walker have no foreign policy experience, and neither did Bill Clinton when he was elected in 1992. W didn't have any, either, when he was (s)elected in 2000.

This doesn't really seem to be a big problem in Presidential politics.

-Laelth

[SidDithers]

60. I'm gonna DU Rec this thread...

to give your crap thread as much exposure as possible. Sunshine is the best disinfectant.

Sid

[BainsBane]

64. I was one of only two jurors who voted to hide

I don't get it.

[SidDithers]

65. Yeah, I hear you..

How is what Manny does any different from the behaviour of the "mocking trolls" that MIRT deals with almost daily?



Sid

[MADem]

110. +1,000 nt

[joshcryer]

155. Good point. The right wing talking points are already starting.

Shit, it's like 2011-2012 all over again. Except then the sitting incumbent was being trashed.

[Laelth]

61. Funny (in a malicious kind of way). k&r

Where was Elizabeth Warren?



-Laelth

[Beacool]

80. She was busy being a Republican because they were better for business.

See? Two can play that childish game.

[Laelth]

85. Hmm. Interesting theory.

Warren switched to (D) in 1995. Clinton's trip to Bosnia happened in 1996. Maybe that's why Warren switched. Perhaps she was trying to get close to Hillary in order to make her planned, but failed, assassination attempt.







-Laelth

[Beacool]

89. Give it up, Laelth.

The continuous drumming up Warren by at the same time bringing down Hillary is counterproductive. If by some miracle she runs and Hillary doesn't, you are going to need our votes. Do you think that these kind of attacks are helpful?

[Laelth]

101. Sorry. I was being playful.

That, in fact, is the spirit in which I took the OP. Only later did I realize that many people were not amused.

I will desist.

-Laelth

[Beacool]

120. OK, fair enough.

Although he didn't mean as a joke. it's one of his many insulting threads and it's becoming tiresome.

[Oilwellian]

67. LOL nt

[sufrommich]

86. This is no different than the freepers faux

outrage over Benghazi and just as idiotic.

[MADem]

97. Almost like a cut-n-paste... nt

[Cali_Democrat]

106. Why can't you discuss the actual issues?

instead of posting this bullshit?

[msanthrope]

132. That OP was priceless. Priceless. nt

[geek tragedy]

109. 2016 is gonna be fun for those of us on the sidelines. nt

[randome]

129. Here you go, Manny. Kerry just eclipsed Clinton by a landslide.

Whether one believes she laid the groundwork or not, Kerry will look to the public at large like 'The One'.

So, you see, you really don't need to post snarky diatribes against Clinton. Just let world events seep in of their own accord. Save your ammo until it's needed three years from now.

Regards,
Correct-Way Randome.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[Beacool]

138. I didn't realize that it was a competition.

Keep it up guys, we won't forget the insults either.

[NBachers]

135. Susan McDougal will take the fall for her.

[Beacool]

139. Ken Starr, is that you?

It helps at times to realize that the Left can be as nasty as the Right.

[NBachers]

145. No, it's just a silly response to a silly thread; ridiculing the original intent of the thread.

I don't hate Hillary; if she chooses to run in '16, I'll contribute and support her. My intent was to use some off-kilter humor to defuse the intent of the original post.

[Beacool]

146. Sorry, I misunderstood.

[Major Hogwash]

140. In the meantime, Jeb Bush is busy, warming up in the corner.

You hoped it would come and now it is here!!!
ALMOST!!

Your wait for the ULTIMATE fight -- it's Bush vs Clinton II!!!

From the same lame middle-of-the-road producers who brought you Bush vs Clinton I, Douchebag Productions presents:

Bush vs Clinton II!!!

Coming in almost 3 whole years!!!!

Jeb Bush, who recently shed 1.2 pounds, and has his cell phone handy, ready to hand off to Harris any minute
VERSUS
Hillary, the pant suited Clinton, whose husband is busy ordering pizza while smoking a cigar while giving a speech while curing hepatitis!!

Be there!!!
It's bigger!
It's better!!
It's badder!!!

IT'S THE ULTIMATE FIGHT TO END ALL FIGHTS!!!

Be there!!!
November 8th, 2016.
8 PM EST.
Downtown Civic Center.
Cleveland, Ohio.

Be there!!!
You'll never live to see it happen again!
Tickets on sale now!

Be there!!!

No refunds will be offered, named participants may not appear and may be substituted, ticket stubs required for refund, customers from outside of the Cleveland area are not eligible for refunds, participants reserve the right to a rematch in 2020, customers from outside of the Ohio area are not eligible for refunds, date is tentatively scheduled and may change, recounts are likely, participants are not allowed to advertise in Florida, no refunds will be allowed, there is no limit to the amount of popcorn a customer may eat before entering the arena, participants are limited to the amount of asparagus they may bring to the fight to cast at their opponent, no refunds will be given to customers from outside of the United States, Douchebag Productions reserves the right to substitute likenesses of participants in advertisements used on the internet, television, or freeway billboards located outside of the state of Ohio, no refunds will be allowed without a ticket stub, Douchebag Productions is not responsible for the content of this message, no refunds will be allowed.

Be there!!!

[libdem4life]

148. What is it Democrats have about enabling/electing Bushes..and whoever the freak

is this Manny person...why do people on this board even respond? He's nuts.

(BTW, you forgot that Jeb is the "smart one"...very, very, very important "detail".)

Thank you Major Hogwash and MADdem and BeaCool and others...No how no way...20 years of Bushes...not on my watch. No more SCOTUS who take a poopoo on the people. I don't Ignore or Trash threads because I'm interested in all viewpoints. But the crap on this thread..I read it, I weep, then I ignore it, or call it out for the trash pickup on Wednesday.

JMHO.

[MADem]

152. I'm tired of these divisive and negative efforts--they have as a goal disruption.

This is a board whose purpose is to elect more Dems to all levels of political office.

Threads like this one, that bash, trash, mock and insult Democrats like HRC (who has donated tens of thousands in PAC money that she went out and raised, to all sorts of "D" candidates (and Bernie Sanders, too) do nothing towards achieving that goal.

I'd rather support the woman who actually has done something for this country and our party, as opposed to some loudmouth who is good at criticizing and not much, if anything, else.

People who are buying into this noise, knowingly or unknowingly, are enabling the GOP and helping the Cruz-Christie-Rand Paul crew in their quest for power.

[libdem4life]

158. Hell, yeah. No More Bushes...yet, the Republicans love them for their higher royalness. LOL.

No to two decades of Bush Royalty. At least Hillary is a Rodham...before the Victorians demanded she be a Clinton. She has a purty damn smart little head on her own little lady shoulders without the approval of her spouse.

They are terrified...sobeit.

[joshcryer]

151. Hey, Obama already used the Harry and Louise ad.

It worked then!

[libdem4life]

159. No kidding? If not, LOL.

[joshcryer]

161. I tease.

The OP is bringing up a dead and rotten horse from the 2008 primaries.

The OP likes Warren.

If the OP wants to get rid of Hillary all he has to do is keep trotting out Obama's 2008 campaign smears.

[libdem4life]

163. I stand currently educated. Thanks.

[joshcryer]

164. The "Harry and Louise" ads were to shoot down health care in the 90s.

This is a good overview and it also mentions how Obama used the same kind of ads to bash Hillary's plan (though their plans were virtually identical, Hillary's just had a mandate for everyone, Obama's didn't). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_and_Louise

edit: and here's where Obama's campaign used them: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/01/obama-does-harry-and-louise-again/?_r=0

[libdem4life]

166. Sadly, I remember them. Nothing new under the sun still describes our culture.

[Beacool]

177. Well, he got his wish and now it's his headache.

Funny how life works out..........

[bvar22]

185. All you need to know about Hillary:

If you're in the top 6%, She's "your gal".

If you're in the lower 94% that have to Work for a Living,
...not so much.

[Major Hogwash]

186. Hahahaha!!!

You senior citizens is rich!!