This message was self-deleted by its author

[bigtree]

This message was self-deleted by its author (bigtree) on Mon Jun 16, 2014, 06:46 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[ScreamingMeemie]

1. This one did it...in goes Hillary Clinton to my trashed words until November 2014 is over.

See you all then.

[bigtree]

2. not ready?

[ScreamingMeemie]

3. Working for Wendy. Too soon for 2016.

[bigtree]

6. Wendy

who?

btw, I'm just venting off a particular poster. I'll probably stop. Had two fine articles written on Iraq sink like soggy newspaper...then you encounter pure garbage elevated by a bubble of what can only be viewed as hate...hell, folks had a chance to keep me occupied on Iraq, now I'm obsessing on bullshitters.

would like to know who Wendy is, tho

[madfloridian]

9. Well, you weren't too happy with my post about her statements pre-Iraq...

though I quoted her exactly.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025100656

[bigtree]

11. I agreed with half of what you posted

. . . in fact I agreed that it was perfectly legitimate to criticize her hawkish reasoning for her vote and knock her hawkish explanation afterward. I said it made me want to eat chalk.

[Bongo Prophet]

46. Poster is referring to Wendy Davis, running for Gov in Tx

Just to clarify, since I noticed you got no answer.
I interpret the point as being the poster is too focused on 2014 to get into the DU blah blah about 2016 matters.

Hope that helps.

[bigtree]

58. I was thinking Texas

. . . but her profile listed two other states.

Thanks, Bongo Prophet.

[WhiteTara]

113. Wendy Davis

running for governor of Texas.

[enlightenment]

12. Trashing words?

How do you do that? Please tell!

[bigtree]

15. click on

My Account

Trash Can

look under: Auto Trash by Keyword

[enlightenment]

32. Thank you.

There are some things that get very silly and clutter up the Latest Page - this might be a good option.

[TreasonousBastard]

4. How much you wanna bet they can't...

because it's just another group the conspiracy nuts who can't get an invite to claim are secretly running the world.

Took 'em a while, but they finally gave Rosicrucians and Masons a pass. They might catch up to the latest on the Templars.

[TreasonousBastard]

4. How much you wanna bet they can't...

because it's just another group the conspiracy nuts who can't get an invite to claim are secretly running the world.

Took 'em a while, but they finally gave Rosicrucians and Masons a pass. They might catch up to the latest on the Templars.

[joshcryer]

7. I spent two days on this. Everything points to tactical association.

And I mean everything. She went to the weekly Senate Prayer Breakfasts (as did Obama) and cosponsored legislation drafted by them with John Kerry.

There is no evidence she now associates with them or that she ever held their same views. In fact, as Methodist who believes in gay marriage (which the Methodist Church is struggling over, just google it), it's clear she's so far beyond that organization that she'd be a pariah to them at this point. Granted, she's a pariah to a huge chunk of idiots as it is... but they are irrelevant. She's mostly loved by the American people.

Clinton, as a woman, has chosen and chosen again and again to associate with those who could help her gain recognition and power politically. As a woman that was her only way to rise. The men, they could do it without having to make those associations, but Clinton was forced, as a woman, to choose some really distinct paths, which she may not have in fact wanted. She freaking worked for a communist for crying out loud! And then she's a right wing hawk years later? It's absurd.

[piratefish08]

22. so we shouldn't believe what a potential nominee says but instead try to interpret what they

mean by pretending to understand their secret strategies.

seems legit.

[treestar]

61. Who was the communist she worked for?

I'm sure the righties will be on top of that!

[Hekate]

76. Thank you for doing the research, josh. Research: Who'da thunk it?

Words fail me at this point.

[muriel_volestrangler]

141. You think she's that cynical?

Palling around with right wingers for power? It says a lot, all bad, about her character.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2007/09/hillarys-prayer-hillary-clintons-religion-and-politics

[madfloridian]

8. I have several reputable sources that tie them together.

There seems to be some agreement but not completely that her relation with Doug Coe was quite comfortable.

But I am not going to post them without giving it lots of thought, though they have often been posted here before. Apparently juries are not aware of previous discussions here, and I am not taking the chance.

My stats tell me I have never had a post hidden on DU3, and I want to keep it that way.

The video in which Coe refers to Chairman Mao's despicable tactics as being what God wants of us, and in which he refers to Hitler....has been posted here before.

I have the links, but I can already see the emerging battle for 2016, and I am not sure it is worth being hidden.

[bigtree]

10. well, we can see all the references to Coe, but there's not a thing specific to Hillary

. . .and him except for a one-sentence remark she made about him as organizer of the National Prayer Breakfasts which several Presidents have attended and participated.

The articles play around with Hilliary Clinton's name and place it beside the worst of whatever they're reporting on some of the other participants, but have absolutely nothing about anything which is supposed to have come out of Clinton's weakly reported association with the prayer group.

The most they can claim is that she joined the group as a freshman senator and prayed with them a few times.

Let's assume that's true. What was she supposed to have done with that relationship outside of prayer? Most of the folks who are furthering this story (I can't say 'reporting' it because there's only one article with any substance at all, and it only mentions Clinton's association in the most general of terms) haven't bothered to show where that association has produced anything remotely related to all of the sinister talk about something shadowy behind 'secret' prayer meetings.

This is just one of those unproven conspiracy tales which originated from one Mother Jones article which referenced Hillary Clinton along with all of the other figures and their own transgressions.

Where is the evidence or even a solid accusation of something Hillary Clinton was supposed to have leveraged from this relationship - illegal, improper, or even proving that she did more than pray with these folks? Not innuendo and uncorroborated internet gossip. Proof.

[delrem]

13. They aren't the kind of people that I'd go out of my way to "pray" with.

But what the hey, if "prayer" with creeps like those is a "political tactic" that "everyone is doing"... then hell, why not? Can't be worse than a $200K a pop "prayer" with Goldman Sachs.

[joshcryer]

17. Obama did the weekly Senate Prayer meeting.

[delrem]

18. Good for him. Does that give you a thrill?

[madfloridian]

14. There's a 2007 Mother Jones article that is a little more specific.

But there is no way to prove a person's depth of belief in a religious system.

[Maedhros]

83. "...prayed with them a few times." ?

Her relationship with The Family goes deeper than that - as of 2007, she had been involved with the group for 15 years:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2007/09/hillarys-prayer-hillary-clintons-religion-and-politics

When Clinton first came to Washington in 1993, one of her first steps was to join a Bible study group. For the next eight years, she regularly met with a Christian "cell" whose members included Susan Baker, wife of Bush consigliere James Baker; Joanne Kemp, wife of conservative icon Jack Kemp; Eileen Bakke, wife of Dennis Bakke, a leader in the anti-union Christian management movement; and Grace Nelson, the wife of Senator Bill Nelson, a conservative Florida Democrat.

Clinton's prayer group was part of the Fellowship (or "the Family&quot , a network of sex-segregated cells of political, business, and military leaders dedicated to "spiritual war" on behalf of Christ, many of them recruited at the Fellowship's only public event, the annual National Prayer Breakfast. (Aside from the breakfast, the group has "made a fetish of being invisible," former Republican Senator William Armstrong has said.) The Fellowship believes that the elite win power by the will of God, who uses them for his purposes. Its mission is to help the powerful understand their role in God's plan.

This group was formed specifically for the rich and powerful - one doesn't just walk in and join without understanding the group's goals and ideology. Hillary is apparently very comfortable with this ideology, which makes me very uncomfortable about Hillary.

[bigtree]

87. uh, uh

. . . that report has been around since 2007 and NOTHING has corroborated it except for a plethora of breathless accounts leading back to the same un-sourced, unverified article.

Prove that Hillary Clinton is 'very comfortable' with their ideology, or admit you just made that up.

[Maedhros]

88. I certainly wouldn't remain a part of an organization for 15+ years

without being comfortable with its ideology - in fact, I left the Catholic Church for specifically that reason.. I imagine Hillary is at least as capable as I am in determining with what ideologies she does and does not agree.

[bigtree]

94. I'm almost certain that she hasn't 'remained part of that org' for 15 years

. . . but perhaps you could provide us some proof of that claim?

[Maedhros]

109. Here's what I have:

First, a link to an OP discussing The Family in larger context:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025106628

Of course, the Mother Jones article:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2007/09/hillarys-prayer-hillary-clintons-religion-and-politics

An article containing an excerpt from Hillary's own memoirs:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/25/obama-the-family-and-uganda-s-anti-gay-christian-mafia.html

Hillary Clinton has been active with Family prayer groups since she was First Lady. In her memoir, Living History, Clinton described The Family leader Doug Coe as “a unique presence in Washington: a genuinely loving spiritual mentor and guide to anyone, regardless of party or faith, who wants to deepen his or her relationship with God.”

But you've seen all these before. I'd say her statement on the "genuine, loving spiritual mentor" Doug Coe is most damning.

[bigtree]

111. so what you have is her statement. Check.

. . . but then you include a post that outlines the worst of some of the prayer participant's behavior and statements.

What you're not showing is a provable link between Hillary Clinton and ANY of the transgressions of the people who are being objected to. Where is the proof of those nefarious associations beyond that statement and the public senate prayers?

[Maedhros]

115. She praises Coe. With his track record, that praise makes me uncomfortable with her

as a Presidential candidate.

Add that to her own track record as a politician, and any vote for her is incompatible with my principles.

[bigtree]

120. sounds fair for you to make your own judgement

. . . but it's not anywhere near to the challenge I posed in the op.

[Maedhros]

131. To be honest, it's not really a fair question.

Proving that one's actions are the result of one's spiritual influences is nigh impossible for anyone.

Maybe Hillary's vote in favor of the IWR was a direct result of discussions with Coe or a sermon she observed at one of The Family's services. There is no way to know.

However, we can make inferences as to the character of someone who knowingly chooses to associate with an organization such as The Family. Just like we can make inferences as to the character of someone who joins the Tea Party.

[bigtree]

133. if it's not a fair question, then it's not a fair to make the conclusions based on it

. . . that she approved of or is in any substantive way involved with Coe beyond that statement and the praying.

You realize the only 'association' that's evident is her participation in the deliberately bipartisan Senate Prayer Breakfast?

[Maedhros]

134. Other than what she wrote in her memoir?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/25/obama-the-family-and-uganda-s-anti-gay-christian-mafia.html

Hillary Clinton has been active with Family prayer groups since she was First Lady. In her memoir, Living History, Clinton described The Family leader Doug Coe as “a unique presence in Washington: a genuinely loving spiritual mentor and guide to anyone, regardless of party or faith, who wants to deepen his or her relationship with God.”

Either she made that statement with no knowledge of his agenda, which would make her exceedingly unwise, or she knows of his agenda and made the statement anyway.

[bigtree]

136. but, you have absolutely no proof that she approved of his 'agenda'

. . .that statement doesn't pass that test.

[Maedhros]

137. I would think that if she disapproved, she wouldn't single him out for praise

and she wouldn't have remained associated with the group.

[wyldwolf]

129. yeah, the motherjones piece is just a better organized version of DU smears.

Lacking any substance, nothing more than hearsay.

[joshcryer]

16. Hope to see it eventually.

I suspect it's grandiose innuendo. I do not believe for a second Clinton is in that group and when she had meager associations, it was tactical. Because, as a woman, she had to associate with those with power.

[msanthrope]

19. If you have evidence, post it. Otherwise...can you address your debunked comments

in the railstrike thread in LBN????

[Waiting For Everyman]

20. How about an excerpt from her own book?

I don't know this reporter, but it's on the Daily Beast, and it's from February of this year.

...

Hillary Clinton has been active with Family prayer groups since she was First Lady. In her memoir, Living History, Clinton described The Family leader Doug Coe as “a unique presence in Washington: a genuinely loving spiritual mentor and guide to anyone, regardless of party or faith, who wants to deepen his or her relationship with God.”

When the anti-gay legislation was first introduced in Uganda, the New York Times wrote, “You can’t preach hate and not accept responsibility for the way that hate is manifested.”
... American political figures who have proudly associated with The Family and with Rick Warren are culpable as well. They cannot feign ignorance at the end of a journey that was ugly all along.

Uganda’s anti-gay law is not just an international disgrace. It is an American disgrace. And the American religious and political figures who played a role in spreading vicious homophobia in Uganda, whether actively or by turning a blind eye, should do more than just denounce the country’s law. They should denounce their own role in facilitating it.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/25/obama-the-family-and-uganda-s-anti-gay-christian-mafia.html

Frankly, I didn't know before this that she had written the words above in her memoir, but I find it sickening. The Family is gross enough that even without Coe and his disgusting agenda against gays, just her associating with them at all (and yes, that goes for Obama too, and any others) makes me The Family was that rotten and insidious in my book BEFORE the public notoriety with Coe. I knew who the Family was, and what they were all about way before her book was published in 2003, and so did she, and I wouldn't spit on that bunch if they were on fire, much less pray with them. Ewww.

There is NO acceptable reason for that. None. Zero. They are the folks that a person with character stands against. Instead of that, schmoozing up to them tells me exactly who those doing it really are. (My term for anyone who is sell-out enough to do that is "pond scum". YMMV: your mileage may vary.)

[Enthusiast]

138. The Family is rotten and insidious!

I cannot vote for Hillary in any capacity.

[sufrommich]

21. Any politician who has ever attended the National

Prayer Breakfast(which is most of them) has an association with this group as they are they group that hosts it.

[Oilwellian]

24. Hillary described Coe as a "mentor"

That goes a little deeper than just attending a Prayer Breakfast. It's time for some fresh leadership in the Democratic party.

[grasswire]

60. Coe was a mentor for Chuck Colson, too.

See this thread from DU2 by madfloridian.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6651982

Coe is the one who got Colson out of prison after only seven months, and who was his religious example.

[cali]

140. it's about degree. Hillary was involved with this group weekly, not yearly

[Bluenorthwest]

23. She constantly stated her opposition to equal rights for some minorities

and helped block progress for those minorities. She did this for the Family, which sponsors horrible things in Uganda and Nigeria. She was one of the very last Democratic holdouts, and her opposition has always bothered me greatly, she and Bill clearly never followed their precious Scriptures, which tell women to be silent and married people to be monogamous, and yet she and Bill both yammered against equality for far too long. If she's religious, I'm an electric toothbrush.

After the whole Rick Warren debacle, it is disgusting to see the 'it's just one little prayer' excuse make the rounds again. Hanging out with bigots and haters is not excusable. But the OP sees it as acceptable. I wonder if the OP feels the same about racist groups?

[bigtree]

26. many presidents have attended those prayer breakfasts, some attendees have questionable pasts

. . .pointing out that her presence there doesn't make her responsible or in agreement with the worst of their transgressions isn't fair grounds at all for you to smear me as well with innuendo.

You post on a board that regularly allows bigots and racists to post the most hateful things. Does that make you a racist or responsible for their actions or everything said? By your own standard, you should refuse to participate here.

[Waiting For Everyman]

28. She didn't just attend the prayer breakfasts.

It goes a lot further and deeper than that.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025105220#post22

And the Family is the apex of the worst of the Religious Right. I know them going back to the 1980's. There's nothing acceptable about them -- and I say that as a Christian myself. They are a CULT, and a bad one.

[bigtree]

31. you've gone back to that smear of a Mother Jones article

. . . which states a lot of things but doesn't back it's accusations about Hillary up with any verifiable sources. That article isn't corroborated by anything more than a dozen or so articles that just reference back to it for anything they have to say about Hillary . . . much like you've done here.

Just because you say something's so, doesn't make it fact. That goes for the writer who produced the MJ article, as well.

[Waiting For Everyman]

33. It's credible in my book.

You hold out if you want. I'm done with her.

[bigtree]

34. I don't believe you were ever with her

. . . these are old, old, charges associating Clinton with the worst of that group or something shadowy or secret, and they've yet to be corroborated beyond that one article; often repeated, but unverified as truth.

That should matter, but I'm not surprised to find belief for such lousy reporting on a site that regularly throws around invective and rumor like it was gospel.

[Waiting For Everyman]

37. I was neutral on her before, but not now.

Her own words say that she approves in a big way of The Family's Doug Coe, calling him a "spiritual MENTOR and GUIDE".

I'm curious as to how you write off her self-admitted connection to him, in this piece about her, Coe, and the Ugandan atrocities...

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/25/obama-the-family-and-uganda-s-anti-gay-christian-mafia.html

Nobody has to prove anything, bigtree, she admits her endorsement of him. SHE. ADMITS. IT. HERSELF.

I know what The Family is, and anybody who is that cozy with it, I don't want anywhere near the levers of power.

[bigtree]

40. one sentence of indecipherable praise uttered ages ago about an organizer of the prayer breakfasts??

. . . that's the stuff for weaker and more impressionable minds than my own.

You, of course, are free to interpret the worst from that remark; not that it's going to make ANY of the charges true that she's made any more out of that gathering than the public praying just because you believe it.

[Waiting For Everyman]

47. What she said was not vague at all.

And I know what those prayer cells are, and I know for a fact, that amounts to her most intimate circle. (And btw, in one of the articles I read today, I did see a quote where she confirms that too, but I didn't save it because it was not a point of contention to me.)

This info may mean nothing to you, if you have no experience with it, it means a hell of a lot to me. I get the picture, very clearly. As I said in another post, I am absolutely shocked by it. And that is no exaggeration.

She needs to address this and believably deny it, and until she does that, as far as I'm concerned it's true.

She has known that these books have been out there since 2009. Where has she denied it?

[bigtree]

50. indeed it is, and nothing about Hillary since confirms the worst you've gleaned from that comment

. . . and it's all you have!

NO proof at all about something nefarious or improper that was supposed to manifest itself in something Hillary has done. there is no actual partnership or any meaningful association between the two outside of these public prayers. But, for you, innuendo and your own bias against Clinton lead you to conclude that the worst is true; that there's something beyond those words which proves some untoward relationship that doesn't involve the Senate prayer breakfast.

You haven't provided any proof of any of that beyond the statement. You're entitled to your opinion, but not going to just make shit up and have it all of the sudden transform into fact just because you believe it

[Waiting For Everyman]

59. So she has never denied it.

[bigtree]

64. she never denied killing Vince Foster either

[Waiting For Everyman]

78. I think that's letting her off a little too easily in this case.

That's not going to cut it. A major credible author has published two books about this subject, if it isn't true, she's going to need to deny it. I don't think I'm alone on that.

Seriously, I'd really like to see some credible interviewer like Rachel Maddow get Hillary's in-depth statement on this. We shouldn't have to wonder why she praised Coe or what she thinks of him now, or how deep her involvement is or was in The Family. She should tell us. That issue is relevant to the decision the public has to make about her.

Until she does tell us differently, the record as it stands says that she was in that prayer group.

[bigtree]

82. you've stretched those accounts to include Hillary in the worst of it

. . . with no proof at all.

It's not credible to wave the books around, put Hillary's name in the mix, and claim she's a part of anything beyond the public prayers. It's sleazy journalism. Here at DU, it's sleazy politics.

[Waiting For Everyman]

95. She could deny it, why doesn't she?

[Savannahmann]

25. It might explain her long time position on Gay Marriage.

[bigtree]

27. or, she just held a wrong view

. . . why stretch to make anyone else responsible for that?

[Savannahmann]

29. Curious.

When people believe things, for example religion, it's because someone told them, usually at a young age, that something is true. Faith requires that you believe in things that are unproven, and unable to be proven. It's the old conundrum. I can not prove God exists, nor can I prove God does not exist. I can only tell you what I believe. I may not remember the person who planted the seed of faith or doubt, but that seed grew to my current belief.

The thing about Religion is that those who are your friends in it become the forces that strengthen that faith in times of doubt. When you face your crisis of faith, someone is there to help you regain it.

So when you are considering issues of social import, say Gay Marriage, then your view is based upon your beliefs. For those of us who hold the Constitution as the (forgive the term) sacred document. The question is simple. All of us are equal before the law, and all of us are entitled to equal protection under the principles of that founding document. For those of faith, their religious texts are higher in the grand scheme than the Constitution. God comes before Country if you understand my meaning. You can not do something for Country, if it is against God.

Secretary Clinton's exposure to Religious ideals by her own words put her at opposition to that faith, or the Constitution. In order to oppose Gay Marriage, she had to hold something higher than the Constitutional principle of equal protection under the law. Now, the motivations are few to take such a position. Bigotry, in other words she found Homosexuals intolerably insulting. Faith, she believed that God frowned on such behavior even if she did not find it personally offensive. The worst possible answer is the last one. Political acceptability. She was opposed to Gay Marriage because many powerful people were and she did not wish to go against them.

If she overcame the Bigotry, then that is admirable. Often times we have such bigotry without even considering it. When we recognize that we are in fact bigoted, then we can consider, and address it within ourselves. We can improve as individuals, and through that our treatment of our fellow citizens.

If it was because of Faith, then what changed her mind to support it now? Has some Deity spoken to her and told her that God doesn't mind Homosexuality anymore? Did the Angel Ismael descend in a ball of light and step out saying "Hillary you schmuck, you're wrong and here's three reasons why"? If she merely consulted her conscience, and then decided that the Bible is written by humans, and therefore can be trusted as a general guide of loving our neighbors and fellow beings and in doing so we are serving God, that is also interesting. I say it is interesting because the Bible talks about charity, and caring for your fellow beings, and showing mercy. Those are principles that I can certainly get behind. It is the standing in judgement of people and their choices that harm not me, nor anyone else that I have a moral issue with.

Finally we come to the worst possible answer. Political positioning to be acceptable. If this is the reason, then we have a consummate politician who believes in nothing but achieving power. They will say anything, believe whatever is desired by the masses, to get support and get elected. Her positions are not core principles, but calculated to garner support. No one can ever know what such a person truly believes, because they don't believe in anything but getting to the desired office. We can have no idea what such a person would do with that power, because their core beliefs are hidden behind statements designed to make us believe one thing about them.

I just changed my mind is not an answer to why. I have changed my mind over the years, but I know why I did so. I know what words, or thoughts, or principles came into conflict with what I thought was right. I've said before, I like debating people who disagree with me because it forces me to examine my own principles and ideals and see if they are right. When I find one of them is not, I examine the issue in this light to see what changes I should make.

Growth and evolution are normal parts of life. But most of us can point to the thing that got us thinking about the changes that came along in our lives. Just Because is the lamest of all reasons Parents give, and should never be acceptable in one who hopes to be our leader one day.

[bigtree]

30. I think she's the only one that can really speak to what she believes and why

. . . it's always going to be inaccurate and subjective to our own 'belief' to try and judge or gauge the extent or substance of her religiosity. How can we correctly judge whether her expressions of faith are sincere? That's mind-reading.

It's a shame that folks can't just accept what she's said and form their criticisms on that. How can we possibly know what influences in her life led to objectionable or wrong beliefs? How can we accurately judge or determine what influences led her to change her mind?

It's amazing to me that anyone could even consider that they could speak her mind on any of that.

[Savannahmann]

38. I don't believe I have done so.

Nor have I alluded to that in any of my posts. I offered a possibility, a possible explanation, and listed it as a possibility.

I took the effort to outline the three reasons that I could see that caused her to change her mind. Secretary Clinton has not said which it was. But that does not make the question irrelevant. If anything, it leaves us to fill in the blanks. By taking more than one statement, we attempt to get to know a person, to judge if they are worthy of our entrusting them with the most powerful office in the world.

The reason this is being discussed is not because Hillary is formerly Secretary of State Clinton living out her years in retirement. But because we expect her to run for that highest of all offices. What kind of a person will we entrust that office to is a question that many of us have. We know what happens when we choose the wrong person. Both Bush's, Reagan, Nixon, and let's not forget LBJ. We know what happens when we entrust the office to a person with Morals and a sense of right and wrong. Carter, Clinton, JFK, Truman, and I could go on and on.

So what kind of a person is Secretary Clinton? What are her motivating factors? Does she want the office for the power? Or does she want it to serve the people, or a higher ideal? What motivates her.

I have posted before about one of the most unappreciated but in my mind the most moral of Presidents in the form of Jimmy Carter. During the energy crisis, he responded as he advised us to. He led by example, turning the heat down, putting a sweater on, to save energy. He got rid of the perks and the gold trimmed coffee cups and plates on Air Force One. Unwilling to surround himself with luxury while the nation suffered the Recession. Only Jimmy Carter could have gone to Three Mile Island, and he did. He walked to the doorway of a demon and stood there announcing that the demon was contained. We were safe, because he said so. That is moral strength, and that is the definition of leadership. Of never asking someone to do something you are unwilling to do. Jimmy Carter led by example, and should go down as a damn fine President because of it. Sadly he won't be remembered by History that way, but he should be.

I'm not sure where President Obama will fall as judged by History. I'd like to think he would be remembered as a good one. But time and the release of documents to give us a glimpse into the workings of his mind will need to come first.

So we return to the original question, and why it is important. What kind of President would Secretary Clinton be? To get an idea, we need to know as much as we can, so we can make the decision to support her over another candidate, or to offer our support to another. We all evolve, we all grow on issues. The weakest of all reasons is because everyone else believes this way so I do too. If that is all that is motivating Secretary Clinton, then my support will be as shallow as her beliefs are. I want to believe the best about her motivations, about her principles. But in the end, I'll cast my primary support behind the candidate that I believe will make the best choices, not because they are popular, but because they honestly believe that the choice is the right one to make. In the end, I want the principled leader to be the Democratic Nominee, and the next President.

[Whisp]

35. would you say the same if she associated with the KKK for all those years she did with The Fam?

did she have to burn crosses for all to see or just the fact that she is tied in some kind of strange bond to a despicable group should be enough to throw some questions and criticisms her way?

Bizarre! Why would any decent person want to be associated with those evil fucks?

Here is Rachel Maddow with the author of The Family: Are y'all going to call Rachel a conspiracy nutbar?

[bigtree]

36. where's your proof that she 'associated' with the 'Family'?

. . . in that un-sourced MJ article? Don't expect rational people to sign on to an uncorroborated tale that hasn't been verified in all of the years since the accusation first surfaced in 2007.

You're still vibing all of that innuendo and smear off of a 2007 article which hasn't been verified or been backed up by anything corroborating the charges against Clinton.

People correctly point to the transgressions of some participants in the public prayer sessions, but there's NOTHING more about Clinton's supposed involvement with the group outside of the public prayers which has surfaced to back up the claims about her own involvement.

NOTHING since 2007. That's a pretty damning stretch of time. Surely someone would find something other than the claims of a MJ reporter to prove she's involved in something nefarious, secret, or destructive.

[Whisp]

39. It's your choice to believe it or not.

I happen to believe thatClinton is capable of belonging to a group such as this and believing what they preach. I do not consider her an honest or forthright person but one who is full of secrets and a lot of disdain for us serfs, contrary to the pretty speeches she makes for favour.

and there is post #20 where it seems that Hillary admits it in one of her books... How would you explain that away?

==

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barbara-ehrenreich/hillarys-nasty-pastorate_b_92361.html

Clinton fell in with the Family in 1993, when she joined a Bible study group composed of wives of conservative leaders like Jack Kemp and James Baker. When she ascended to the senate, she was promoted to what Sharlet calls the Family's "most elite cell," the weekly Senate Prayer Breakfast, which included, until his downfall, Virginia's notoriously racist Senator George Allen. This has not been a casual connection for Clinton. She has written of Doug Coe, the Family's publicity-averse leader, that he is "a unique presence in Washington: a genuinely loving spiritual mentor and guide to anyone, regardless of party or faith, who wants to deepen his or her relationship with God."

Furthermore, the Family takes credit for some of Clinton's rightward legislative tendencies, including her support for a law guaranteeing "religious freedom" in the workplace, such as for pharmacists who refuse to fill birth control prescriptions and police officers who refuse to guard abortion clinics.

What drew Clinton into the sinister heart of the international right? Maybe it was just a phase in her tormented search for identity, marked by ever-changing hairstyles and names: Hillary Rodham, Mrs. Bill Clinton, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and now Hillary Clinton. She reached out to many potential spiritual mentors during her White House days, including new age guru Marianne Williamson and the liberal Rabbi Michael Lerner. But it was the Family association that stuck.

Sharlet generously attributes Clinton's involvement to the underappreciated depth of her religiosity, but he himself struggles to define the Family's theological underpinnings. The Family avoids the word Christian but worship Jesus, though not the Jesus who promised the earth to the "meek." They believe that, in mass societies, it's only the elites who matter, the political leaders who can build God's "dominion" on earth. Insofar as the Family has a consistent philosophy, it's all about power -- cultivating it, building it, and networking it together into ever-stronger units, or "cells." "We work with power where we can," Doug Coe has said, and "build new power where we can't."

Obama has given a beautiful speech on race and his affiliation with the Trinity Unity Church of Christ. Now it's up to Clinton to explain -- or, better yet, renounce -- her longstanding connection with the fascist-leaning Family.

[bigtree]

41. another lousy piece of reporting

. . . it shouldn't even be regarded as even that. it's another spawn of the MJ article which does nothing more to prove the associations than cite that one sentence of praise for Coe and make all sorts of unproven and exaggerated assumptions off of her participation in the Prayer Breakfasts. It's not even pretending to be verifiable reporting. It's just another hit piece which shouldn't be cited by anyone concerned with accuracy in reporting.

The very public Senate Prayer Breakfasts are not some conspiracy. They involve nothing more than public prayer. The rest that folks are attaching to them is the stuff of conspiracy kooks and nutjobs.

[Whisp]

42. try googling Doug Coe, you might find some youtube speeches of his

and get back to me on who the nutjobs really are.

I have not read or owned any of the Clinton's books.

Are you saying that post #20 is not accurate, that Hillary did not write that in her book? Or are you saying it was misinterpreted or she misspoke again?

Here is Rachel on The Family, with the author of the book. Are you calling Rachel Maddow a nutjob too? This group pretty shady and anyone who would be involved needs some hard questions thrown at them, and not be called a nutjob for doing that. How dissapointing.

[bigtree]

43. old statement that amounted to nothing

. . . nothing more than internet chatter and innuendo about her involvement with that group - much the same type of smear that you;re perpetrating here. It's amazing to me that you think your effort has any integrity at all. I can't even imagine it. I have to believe that you are either ignorant of what constitutes fact, or just unconcerned with the accuracy of what you're insinuating from that comment of hers.

[Whisp]

44. Hopefully you will never see how very wrong you are, bigtree. n/t

[bigtree]

45. let's see. 2007 to 2014

. . . and still no proof of anything regarding Clinton and that group that amounts to anything more than one pat sentence praising the event's organizer.

I'm not wrong about that.

[Whisp]

48. and it's not wrong to know that Hillary thinks Very Highly of a sick person.

She didn't have to write that in her book, there was no pressure like a surprise question out of the blue and sometimes things are said without time to think about it.

She had time to think about it and she chose adoration for a sick fuck.

over and out.

[bigtree]

49. how do you know what she really thinks of him from that one statement?

. . . it's just sophistry to draw the worst of what you believe about that association from that one statement. It just not credible. It's the worst kind of internet reasoning.

I understand, though, how apt it might seem among the plethora of innuendo, half-truths, and outright lies that are presented as fact around here.

[Whisp]

51. excuse me?

“a unique presence in Washington: a genuinely loving spiritual mentor and guide to anyone, regardless of party or faith, who wants to deepen his or her relationship with God.”

Is what she really thinks, apparently. Is there a decoder ring that has been passed around and I missed out on? Or is this another one of those 'mispeaks' of hers where you can't take her at her word as is on record if it comes back to her as an embarassment, and then assign other meanings to what she actually said?

[Bluenorthwest]

52. How much praise of an active bigot is acceptable to you, bigtree?

Your posts on this tread really surprise me and they serve as demonstration as to why we must not support those who excuse hate mongers, those who heap praise onto bigots.
You seem to be defending her by saying she's lying about her praise of this bigot. Would you support a bit of praise for an open racist? I have to assume you would, you are endorsing praise for an anti gay activist involved in the Ugandan genocides.

[bigtree]

56. you really don't mind lying to make your accusations against me do you?

I don't think her statement constitutes the worst of what's been reported about her association. You have her supporting genocide in Uganda because of that statement. It's just ridiculous and insulting.

Not ONCE have I excused any hatemongers. It's a despicable lie. I don't support Hillary's words of praise for that man, but I'm not going to be bullied into accepting that those words make her responsible for ANY of the man's transgressions, or even supportive of them. It's sophistry and lazy logic to make that connection.

You believe what you want about that statement, but it's not PROOF of ANY support from Hillary for ANY of that man's transgressions - no more than my pointing all that out makes me any kind of the bigot you're pretending I am. It's a good argument for weak and impressionable minds, not for anyone actually concerned with facts.

[Bluenorthwest]

67. Excuse me? The Family is involved in the Ugandan pogroms, Hillary praises the leader of the Family

That's what I said. She said what she said in praise of him by choice in a published book. You are excusing her praise of that genocide supporting bigot, that does not mean that you or Hillary support the genocide, just that you are both comfortable with praise of those who do support that genocide.
Hillary is more than free to clarify her comments about Coe and about her faith and her support of equality. She needs to do so directly, swiftly and without hesitation.

Putting words into my mouth is a cheap tactic. Calling me a liar is revolting and uncalled for. Nothing I said was untrue. Hillary praises a man who helped make the Ugandan anti gay laws, you defend her praise of him. If you can not own up to your words, don't bother to type them.

[bigtree]

72. she didn't praise him for any of that and you know it

. . . and I don't think that the one sentence 'heaped' praise on him, certainly not for anything you describe here. That's not credible to describe that statement as support for ANYTHING outside of prayer.

You don't know what she meant by it and you're not free to create things out of thin air about what she believes and associate her with the worst you can dig up about the man. It's a tactic for weak and impressionable minds. It's slippery politics and an anathema to truth.

You've failed to provide what I asked for in the op. You settled for innuendo, instead. That's not a standard that anyone should embrace or emulate.

[Waiting For Everyman]

80. Iow, Coe is a cool spiritual guy, even though his actions suck.

That must be what she meant, huh?

[bigtree]

84. still stretching

. . . without giving me a shred of evidence associating her with the worst of what you believe he's done or said.

You've failed here. Repeating the same thing, over and over, won't make it any more credible.

[Waiting For Everyman]

93. No, she praised him. You can't deny that.

It's in print, in her own book, fer cryin' out loud. If you're arguing that what she said doesn't endorse his actions, I can accept that as a somewhat meaningless technicality, but she still praised him as "a spiritual mentor and guide".

That phrase is not vague at all. In fact, it actually implies but doesn't explicitly and overtly state, that Coe is her spiritual mentor and guide. Otherwise, on what would she base that statement?

Hillary has a lot of explaining to do. I doubt that she can, but it will be interesting to see her try. If she tries to just ignore it, that will make it worse.

[bigtree]

100. yeah, she praised him in that one sentence.

. . .drawing all of the rest of the alleged association from that one remark reported back in 2007 isn't proof that she supports or is associated with whatever the man has said or done wrong.

Hillary isn't going to be asked by any serious journalist to disprove un-sourced, uncorroborated, and unproven accusations based on that statement. it would be ridiculous. Only on DU . . .

[Waiting For Everyman]

107. Fine by me.

But that won't get the votes back that she'll lose over this.

[Whisp]

106. I find it really odd that saying nice things about an awful man is so easily accepted...

What if Senator XXXX says: Jimmy Jones was a cool guy, he was the best cribbage player in the country and always good for a laugh.

What if Congresswomen XXXX said: You know, George W isn't so bad after all, I know there are ugly rumours of him starting these awful illegal wars, but I find him absolutely adorable and cuddly and sweet.

What if Newscaster XXXX said: Henry Kissinger feeds ducks at the public park. He is careful about what he feeds these ducks as their digestive systems can't really cope with foods such as popcorn and junk food us humans consider delicious. Henry Kissinger is a wonderful man, forget about Allende and Cambodia and all the rest of that nonsense.

[mike_c]

53. the fact that she associates and prays with them is enough for me, frankly....

Sorry, but I have no use at all for those who seek to mix political power and evangelical christianity. None.

[nadinbrzezinski]

54. It is not just her

corporatists are pushing things like H1B vistas, lowering of the standard of living. (Some would love to get rid of the minimum wage altogether) and the Family is a cripto fascist organization. You should read, just for starters, Sharlet's book and educate yourself.

[bigtree]

63. so Hillary wants to lower the standard of living and get rid of the minimum wage?

. . .the book will tell me that?

[nadinbrzezinski]

65. The book will tell you who the family is

And how deep their influence is.

You should read it, at the very least to be me informed. A lot of our politics, on both parties, is not being done in the open. This is not, before you say it, about Hilary Rotham Clinton, but a broken political system.

Oh and she was in the Walmart board, that speaks volumes

[bigtree]

68. does the book provide proof of Hillary's involvement with the participant's transgressions?

. . .simple question - the subject of the op.

[nadinbrzezinski]

71. She is mentioned as one of the people who have been part of it

and the prayers they hold. So you know, this is how deep their influence goes, who do you think organizes the prayer breakfast every year?

And second important question, why do you think our media every year ignores this little factoid? You think it is accidental?

This is not about her, but a broken system

the question is whether you are going to be big enough, no pun, and read about it and get informed, or keep hiding your head in the sand?

It is a simple choice, and the kindle edition is extremely portable by the way.

[bigtree]

73. well, I'm not going to repeat all of this for your benefit

. . . attendance at a prayer breakfast that includes bad characters doesn't make her responsible or supportive of ANY of their transgressions. It surprises me that you're able to hold a position as a reporter and use this nebulous and practically nonexistent link between the public praying Hillary does with the group at the Senate Prayer Breakfasts with the worst behavior of some of the participants. It's so bush-league that it's really surprising to find someone who calls themselves a reporter spreading the garbage.

[nadinbrzezinski]

74. But attendance at the house does

[nadinbrzezinski]

77. Oh and working at the Walmart board, who are close allies of Coe

does as well.

Look, I get it, you think she deserves to become President. You cannot understand why some of us will fight her (or any other corporatist) because the path the US is taking is a Right Wing, fascist bent. It is not about her... it is the system.

So stop pretending that it is about her. I personally do not give a hoot what she does in her personal life, except when those alliances are dark and secret and part of a national trend to a form of fascism that will be a nightmare for most of us. But I care about those alliances as well when it comes to my local congressman, first termer, and quite the right wing tool with a D behind his name.

Oh and for god sakes, I forgot that one, SHE MENTIONED DOUG COE BY NAME in her own autobiography.

[Bluenorthwest]

55. Link to a sermon about the Family from a Unitarian Minister.

For those who only listen to preachers, here's a preacher:
The Family: America’s Taliban
“The Family: America’s Taliban” is a sermon delivered to the Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Tuscaloosa, AL on 10 January 2010 © by Rev. Fred L Hammond

Sinclair Lewis’s novel, It Can’t Happen Here published in 1935 tells the story of an American President who systematically strips the constitution of its democratic powers and becomes a fascist dictator. The belief that it can’t happen here is as much an icon of American mythology as the American Dream.

But there is another icon that is also steeped in the American mythos and is actively at work to ensure that it can indeed happen here even while proclaiming that it cannot. Jeff Sharlet, author of the controversial book: The Family: the Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power tells of a religious cult that is at once all American and also a dangerous religious movement that will, if allowed to prosper, dismantle what we have called American Democracy and replace it with a theocracy more powerful and perhaps even more regressive than the Taliban, the repressive Islamic cult that has ruled in Afghanistan.


http://serenityhome.wordpress.com/tag/doug-coe/

[bigtree]

57. I didn't see Hillary anywhere in there

. . .nothing about whether she supports or agrees with anything said.

This is spam which does nothing to prove Hillary's agreement with any of that.

[Bluenorthwest]

62. It is background on the group whose leader Hillary praises

The group whose bigotry you are attempting to downplay. This routine of barking at every post made to you is not impressive.
I was raised to believe that association and praise for bigots is improper. You do not see it as improper to heap praise on anti minority bigots. Not sure what to say to that.
Your posts make me very sad for you and for the state of equality in our Party.

[bigtree]

66. you mean 'praised' in one statement

. . . I don't see where she's 'heaped' praise on anyone for bigoted behavior.

The innuendo and lashing out at me in your threads is sad.

[Bluenorthwest]

70. So one lavish praise of an active bigot is acceptable to you? 'It's just one set of compliments to a

bigoted activist' is a worthy excuse for you? She heaped lavish praise on a very bigoted man, an active promoter of hate. She did so by choice, in a book she wrote and published widely.
There is no lashing out at you, you are simply being questioned for the position you are taking and that makes you uncomfortable. It should make you uncomfortable. You are in the wrong, as is Hillary. Both of you are too good to taint yourselves with Doug Coe defenses.
It is really sad to see how little the straight community has changed since the days of Bush. Same old song, years later.

[bigtree]

79. Nowhere do I say it's 'acceptable' that's just another lie about me from you

. . . I'm a bit tired with this.

The op asks for proof that any of that manifested itself in ANYTHING Clinton did. Proof, not smears and innuendo from that one statement.

If you'll forgive me, I'll break off from this diversion of yours from the op to stage this pathetic attack on MY character and return to what I asked in the op: PROOF that there's anything nefarious, immoral, illegal, improper, beyond that one statement, beyond the public prayers along with the other participants in the Prayer Breakfasts.

Where's the proof that Hillary Clinton approved of or was a participant in or associated in any meaningful way with any of the transgressions of the 'Family, or the 'Fellowship'?

Where's the proof of that association beyond that one statement of praise for the organizer and her praying?

[tritsofme]

69. These people are in Jeremiah Wright territory

Pretty pathetic.

[Hekate]

75. The current spew is beyond belief -- straight-up ratfucking.

They've got nothing credible.

[Zorra]

81. A potential Democratic POTUS candidate hanging out with a dangerous RW extremist group fully

warrants investigation by Democratic voters.

It is legitimate for Democrats to be suspicious of this type of activity.

Better the questions be explored now, so we don't make a serious mistake in who we nominate.

[bigtree]

85. the only 'hanging out' that's been verified is at the Senate Prayer Breakfasts

. . . suspicious of a room full of legislators and others engaged in very public prayer? Really?

[nadinbrzezinski]

86. You might want to read this

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2007/09/hillarys-prayer-hillary-clintons-religion-and-politics

[bigtree]

89. that article reminds me of what you apparently think constitutes 'reporting'

. . .it's a 2007 article which provides no verifiable proof of their claims. For seven years, all anyone is able to do when accusing Clinton of being aligned with that group is reference that report.

You're a reporter? Show me where she met with the group outside of the prayer Breakfasts. Don't just show me where someone claims that. Show me where they prove that to be the case. Show me where their statements about Clinton's alignment with the group are supported by provable fact.

Don't just flake on this and give me more fragments of that 2007 tale, show me what you think constitutes provable fact.

[nadinbrzezinski]

90. Actually you are calling mother jones what I think you are...

don't bother reading sharlet, or looking for ABC news reporting on this either. We are done.

Firmly put your head in the sand. By the way, I think you are willfully ignorant and truly believe HRC is owed the WH. That is an un-American attitude and anti democratic. You will keep getting pushback. And rightly so.



This applies, in spades. You can only show people the water, you cannot make them drink...

[bigtree]

92. I'm referring to one article

. . .you reporters aren't infallible. That's a weak and unsupported piece of trash from MJ. It's not unheard of.

I'm asking for more proof (any proof) because the article didn't provide any. That's the opposite of sticking my head in the sand. In fact, rebuffing calls for proof would seem more of a head-sand deal.

[nadinbrzezinski]

99. You snould also add into your avoid reading list

her own words in her autobiography that CONFIRMS Mother Jones reporting.

Don't read any of that, please.

And a cute personal attack, expected.

[bigtree]

102. confirmed the remark, not the rest of the accusations. Are you really a reporter?

. . . because your selective use of the facts in this story more resemble a media prevaricator.

[nadinbrzezinski]

105. Ah more personal attacks. Lovely

yes, yes I am, just putting away the media credentials before going downtown. And I know that in this case we have five independent sources that confirm her involvement. One of them is the person herself. Even the BBC would say that is good enough confirmation. Hell, the top journalism schools usually speak of two... we have five.

And as a historian, her writings are considered primary sources.

Avoid all of that, please do. But all this, if she decides to run, will come back. Or at least it should

So expect all this to continue to percolate as they say. I am sure she is sorry she wrote the words she wrote though. In 2008 they were very understandable. Precious few people knew who the Family was. in 2016 those will be a liability. You know who else participated in those prayers? The President himself, and I do not mean the prayer breakfast.

[bigtree]

108. post the sources

. . . I call bullshit on that.

You can't see how reckless your words have been here? The standard of reporting evident from your responses is pathetic.

[nadinbrzezinski]

112. Yuo call bullshit

ABC news video

Sharlet's book

Mother Jones

There was also an article in the lovely and wonderful Nation Magazine

And the most important, for your bullshit detector, Hillary Rotham Clinton in her own autobiography when she went into that.

If I add the coverage from the Rachel Maddow Show that is number six. Her coverage was extensive.

I am sure I am missing the small ones though, like CBS.. when Sharlet came out, that nexus of politics and religion received full press in the Betlway media. You know who did not cover it though... Fox National news. I find that curious, don't you? But then again, Murdoch is also a friend of the Family. And that would be inconvenient, doncha think?

[bigtree]

118. this is a joke. You've fragmented all of this because you can't actually show a link between Clinton

. . . and the group outside of the public praying and that statement of praise.

Links to the bulk of innuendo and personal claims doesn't come anywhere near to providing proof on these pages, in this thread. You're deliberately obfuscating from the lack of ANYTHING that actually PROVES Clinton approved of or was in ANY way associated with the transgressions of some of the participants in those links.

You apparently think presenting links to all of the jabber constitutes actual proof. I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry.

[nadinbrzezinski]

121. You are even discounting her own

Writing in the subject. You are correct though, I do not know whether to laugh or cry. You asked, you received and all you are left with are lovely personal attacks.

There is a book that comes to mind written over 50 years ago, no not 1984, that comes to mind here. You would do wellin reading it. It's about true believers. It remains a classic.

[bigtree]

122. she didn't refer to anything more than the paragraph you posted

. . . with the statement about Coe and stating that she's been a part of the Prayer breakfasts.

What's the point in trying to inflate that into her associating herself with something nefarious beyond prayer? There's NO proof of any association beyond the prayers. You certainly haven't shown any.

[nadinbrzezinski]

124. You have not read her

Admiration for Coe. That is obvious. You must own the book. Re-read it

[bigtree]

126. not read it? It's one sentence and you've spammed this thread with it

. . . that statement isn't proof of anything, outside of the fact that she praised Coe in that one sentence.

I think you're being deliberately obtuse. If not, you're representing that statement as approval for whatever Coe's been accused of saying or doing. That's such a low standard of reporting that I'm inclined to believe you're just being obtuse, instead of concluding that you have no idea what constitutes fact.

[Zorra]

96. In that case, Mrs. Clinton may want to consider a libel suit against the author of this piece:

Through all of her years in Washington, Clinton has been an active participant in conservative Bible study and prayer circles that are part of a secretive Capitol Hill group known as the Fellowship. Her collaborations with right-wingers such as Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) and former Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) grow in part from that connection. "A lot of evangelicals would see that as just cynical exploitation," says the Reverend Rob Schenck, a former leader of the militant anti-abortion group Operation Rescue who now ministers to decision makers in Washington. "I don't....there is a real good that is infected in people when they are around Jesus talk, and open Bibles, and prayer."

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2007/09/hillarys-prayer-hillary-clintons-religion-and-politics

Because it appears to be contrary to what you are telling me.

[bigtree]

103. you know that's a non-starter for these public figures

. . . or, do you? You seem awfully unschooled in actual reporting.

[Zorra]

110. I knew, without any doubt whatsoever, that you'd come back at me with a personal attack. nt

[bigtree]

116. are you schooled in reporting?

. . . I don't think reporters can be held liable for stories like this. Am I wrong?

[nadinbrzezinski]

123. News services

Have both fact checkers and insurance.

Given her writing in her autobiography three years later...good luck proving it

[bigtree]

125. what she wrote isn't proof of an association with anything improper

. . . it's not even proof of any association beyond prayer.

You're spamming this thread with a paragraph from her book that doesn't show she approves of ANYTHING improper that Coe might have been involved in. It's pathetic that you keep throwing that up as proof.

Are you able to comprehend what I'm asking for in the op?

Everyone can see that she praised Coe. What's NOT evident is any association with him beyond the Senate Prayer Breakfasts. There's nothing in her book which proves she approved of, supported, or participated in any of Coe's transgressions.

Repeating that over and over, doesn't rise to the challenge in the op.

[Zorra]

128. The author/reporter/publication can be successfully sued for libel/defamation

by a public figure if actual malice standard of fault can be met.

Whether I'm schooled in journalism or not, is, with all due respect, none of your business.

[bigtree]

130. harm to the plaintiff

. . . it's a huge hurdle and her decision not to sue isn't indicative of anything more than that; her decision.

[nadinbrzezinski]

91. Taking the trash out...

[cali]

97. so you wouldn't have a problem with someone praying with David Duke, for instance?

No fucking difference. And that story in mother jones and other sources is from 2007.

[bigtree]

127. never claimed to not have a problem with the praise, so that Dave Duke crap

. . . is a despicable distortion and smear you've employed to make your impossible case.

2007 article echoed by critics of Clinton, but still uncorroborated as to her involvement with the participants outside of the public prayers and that one statement of praise. You'd think that after seven years someone would provide more than innuendo and loose associations to prove Clinton did more than pray with the group.

But, you know that.

[Beacool]

98. Bigtree, ignore the bitters.

I don't give a crap about that article from Mother Jones that they keep pasting. Hillary is NOT a member of The Family. Yes, she's deeply religious and she finds comfort in her faith, but she never joined that cult. Did she attend breakfast prayers meetings as first lady and as senator? Yes, she did. Those meetings are free of politics, they are bipartisan and politics stays outside the room.

It doesn't matter. They have made up their narrow little minds and nothing will assuage them.

[nadinbrzezinski]

101. Also ignore her autobiography while you are at it

where she speaks glowingly of the top members of the Family.

Please do ignore that too.

[bigtree]

104. I took a great deal of time trying to discuss issues of substance over the past week

. . . and was roundly ignored in favor of crap like this. It's cathartic for me to answer these folks here.

[Beacool]

117. Let them have it, then.

As far as I'm concerned, this place has ceased to be a site for serious political discourse. It's just a venue for a mob of haters to lynch someone who they despise.

In other words, I don't respect their opinions. They are as objective as Limbaugh, Hannity, etc.

[Chan790]

114. "any influence on Hillary Clinton at all beyond her faith."

Some people would consider that alone damning and disqualifying of the Democratic nomination in itself.

We're all free to choose any criterion we want to determine to not support a candidate.

[bigtree]

119. her faith is damning?

. . .or the fact that she participated in the Senate Prayer Breakfasts which are sometimes broadcast on cspan?

[TheKentuckian]

139. If her faith is in line with this fucked up prosperity cult then it is damning

though it is tough to tell where "The Family" ends and just plain old putrid Turd Way ideology starts but it seems a pretty close mesh on where the power and resource control goes.

[bigtree]

142. fair statement

. . .not a reflection on your post, but I'm shutting this thing down while we try and focus on Iraq. Thanks for your response.


original post:

View profile
Hillary and the 'Fellowship' or 'Family'- Show ANYTHING improper that came out of that relationship
. . . produce the evidence that Hillary Clinton produced or leveraged anything improper, illegal, immoral, or otherwise harmful out of that reported and often cited relationship.

Provide proof that she did more than pray with these people. In fact, provide more proof than one reporter's word that she even does that. All of the references go off on a tangent about the organization, but provide nothing more than their word (insinuations) that Hillary Clinton has leveraged something sinister from that reported association.

Get it out of your system. Prove it, or admit this is nothing more than a whispering campaign with no evidence that it had any influence on Hillary Clinton at all beyond her faith.

delete thread . . . .

[wyldwolf]

132. bigtree, thanks for taking this on - mostly on your own

The 'evidence' presented is very little more than hearsay. Unfortunately DU has a primary history of seizing upon the weakest arguments and elevating them to hysteria.

If/When it's revealed their candidate of choice did/does the same thing, they'll parse the words into something acceptable. Eh!

[Vattel]

135. Smearing the Clintons is a national past time.

I don't like a lot of her politics, and her praise for Coe makes me vomit, but I agree with you that trying to pin the crimes of the Fellowship on her is just guilt by association.