The Right Baits the Left to Turn Against Hillary Clinton

[dlwickham]

A Twitter post recently caught the eye of Bill McKibben, the environmental advocate and godfather of the Keystone XL pipeline protests. It included an image from “The Simpsons” showing Homer and his family basking in mountains of cash in their living room, followed by a report on Hillary Rodham Clinton’s appearing at a fund-raiser with a lobbyist from the Keystone fight.

Mr. McKibben’s environmental organization, 350.org, has been trying to raise awareness about the ties it sees between lobbyists for the oil pipeline and former aides to Mrs. Clinton. He promptly shared the post with his 150,000 Twitter followers, and the reaction was immediate.

“You expect different from a Clinton?” one person responded on Twitter. And from another: “Did you need another reason not to vote for Hillary Clinton?” Lost in the response was the source of the offending tweet. It was not another environmental organization or even a liberal challenger to Mrs. Clinton. Instead, it was a conservative group called America Rising PAC, which is trying, with laserlike focus, to weaken the woman who almost everyone believes will be the Democratic Party’s candidate for president in 2016.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/17/us/politics/the-right-aims-at-democrats-on-social-media-to-hit-clinton.html

[leftofcool]

1. Anti-Hillary folks don't care where the source comes from as long as it bashes Hillary.

That is evidenced by all the right wing links posted right here on DU.

[ronnykmarshall]

76. Word!

[treestar]

80. +1

[upaloopa]

2. We will still win the nomination and the

White House.
We'll talk about this year and next like we talk about 2007 and 2008. It was the mean season.

[DonCoquixote]

22. it was mean

when the Hillary supporters let Bill,blow all his race whistles and demonized anyone that did not march in lockstep behind them.

[Trajan]

3. Oh hogwash ...

You guys gotta pushing this utter nonsense ...

'Don't support anybody but Hillary, or you are a republican surrogate '

Bullshit

[hay rick]

6. If you don't support Hillary you're being duped.

LOL.

[pscot]

14. That's ok.We're used to it.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. She should avoid giving the right and left ammunition.

She's a Centrist and should expect criticism of her policies and stances from those opposed to Centrism.

[AzDar]

8. ^ This

[edgineered]

5. That is a narrow perspective

I prefer to think of it this way.

The birds outside do not care who fills the feeder, or even if the person filling it hates birds. The seed exists and they will eat them. Hell, they don't care if the seed is in the feeder, in the dirt, on the grass, or on the concrete. The seed exists and the birds will eat it.

In the case of Clinton, it is her attitudes and actions, not the people exposing them.

[frylock]

7. This "the left is stupid and gullible" crap was played out a couple weeks ago..

try and keep up, mkay?

[winstars]

9. YOU ARE CORRECT SIR, look at the date of this article.... Not exactly LBN, and I know it GD but...

[Aerows]

23. We are all too feeble-minded to support Hillary Clinton

and whatever reason we have for not supporting her is because we are wise Republicans.

It has to be the silliest idea yet posited by the "Hillary" wing of the Democratic Party.

I don't vote for strategy - I vote for the candidate that I believe in. If anybody has trouble uniting behind Hillary Clinton, take it up with Hillary Clinton - it isn't the fault of voters.

They don't want a Republican, either.

[sabrina 1]

47. This must be a talking point, I've seen it several times now, the 'left' is so stupid they

don't know anything about their candidates and if they oppose one of them it's only because some rightwinger made them do it.

I am not supporting Hillary because of her record on major issues, which I doubt most rightwingers are even familiar with.

I think this talking point is only going to make people angry, it is actually very insulting to the 'left'.

Maybe it comes from a right winger? Lol!

[DURHAM D]

10. Seems to me that both the left and the right

are doing everything they can to get her to conduct their proxy war against Obama.

[RobertEarl]

11. Hillary is against Keystone

She crushed it when she had the chance as SoS.

No. Wait. She didn't. Damn, that's messed up, eh? Why didn't she just say NO?

[Trajan]

12. +1,000,000 ....

Occasional bouts of sanity in DU

[delrem]

13. I think the problem is that the Clintons took in $25million cash last year,

amazingly that's take-home for just this most recent year, for "speaking", and that creates an impression of a possible quid pro quo.
In fact I think most people would consider it absurd to suppose there is NOT a quid pro quo when that much money is involved, and to NOT examine the earlier history.

That history is a fact on the ground upon which people base judgement.

It's an essential fact that can't be done away with, and when that fact is added to Hillary Clinton's strange silence on every issue of importance, I don't think you can claim that the cause of her problem is that "The Right" is baiting "The Left" w.r.t. her standing on the issues. In fact I don't even think that "quid pro quo" politics is a right-vs-left issue. I've seen "the left" go down far too often for the most asinine and venal political payoffs.

This is just a portent of things to come, the fallout from the DLC/Third-Way politics exemplified by the Clintons, by both of them equally. It will be talked about, analyzed -- and not all the laughter about how HRC expects $2.5billion in campaign funds, and $billions$ are needed to win and HRC is the only Dem candidate that can do it, so HRC is a shoe-in, will stop it.

[NanceGreggs]

31. I suppose it is of no consequence to you ...

... that Hillary's speaking fees are donated to charity - which hardly constitutes "take home" pay.

But let's not let facts get in the way ...

[delrem]

32. Is that correct? If so, I apologize!

Can you show me a link that explains how her speaking fees from GS, etc., 100% go to charity?

Honestly, if this is true then she's a saint.

OK, I see:
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/hillary-clinton-public-speaking-fees-108581.html

She donates what she gets for speaking fees
*at colleges and universities*
to the Clinton Foundation.

No doubt as a tax writeoff.

That isn't all of her speaking fees, though. Is it?

[NanceGreggs]

33. Oh, please ...

... I wouldn't want you to take my word for it.

Google is your friend - try it!

[delrem]

34. Yes, I updated my post. Respond please.

[NanceGreggs]

39. Do you have any links ...

... to instances where speaking fees weren't donated?

I have tried, but haven't found any such info. That's not to say it doesn't exist - just that I can't locate it.

Of course, it's neither here nor there. You characterized all of HRC's speaking fees as "take home", which they obviously weren't. You also failed to mention that ANY of her fees were donated to charity - which seems a rather pertinent fact.

[delrem]

46. Why do you require that I provide all the links, and you provide none?

Yet you're the one claiming that the Clinton $25million, in one year, haul from speaking fees, went to charity?

I updated with my understanding, WITH A LINK, that shows that the Clinton's make a *specific point* that, I quote the Clinton specificity:
She donates what she gets for speaking fees
*at colleges and universities*
to the Clinton Foundation.

So less those moneys, which she donates to *The Clinton Foundation*, a charity run by her, CEO'ed by her daughter, she rakes in the rest of the $25million.

Not to speak of other years.

So you got me there, Nance, I didn't count on Hillary Clinton's charitable impulses, toward the Clinton Foundation.

[sabrina 1]

48. 'at colleges and universities'. What about other speeches? Do colleges and universities pay

that much for someone speak? Maybe they do, maybe that's why there isn't enough money for students.

[delrem]

56. I'm fascinated by the absurd claim that the Clintons gave their entire income to charity!

Nothing I read suggests such a thing.
On the contrary, this WSJ article
http://www.wsj.com/articles/more-clinton-fees-to-be-disclosed-1431993044
flatly states the exact opposite:
"On Friday, Mrs. Clinton’s campaign released her personal financial disclosure form for 2014 through the present, which reported that she and her husband had earned $25 million delivering paid speeches. Not included on that disclosure were payments for at least five speeches that Mrs. Clinton directed to her family’s foundation."

So that gives the lie to ng's claim.
A small range of fees went directly to the Clinton Foundation, but those fees *weren't listed* in the $25million of personal income.

Here's an amazing number from another article that went back more than a year in time
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/may/16/hillary-and-bill-clinton-earn-more-than-25m-for-giving-100-speeches
"A recent Associated Press review of the Clintons’ disclosures and State Department records found that Bill Clinton had been paid at least $50m for his appearances between 2009 and 2012, the four years that Hillary Clinton served as the nation’s top diplomat."

Holy crap! What an amazing country, where that kind of blatant political bribery is legal!

Then in this article
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/may/16/hillary-and-bill-clinton-earn-more-than-25m-for-giving-100-speeches
"Earlier this month, Bill Clinton told NBC News that he would continue giving paid speeches during his wife's presidential run because he has "got to pay our bills." The comment was widely panned."

Charity, eh? hehehe, the stuff people just make up! Then they say, prove my lie wrong! But nothing counts as proof, of course, even though it all pops to the front of simple google searches, since it's so incredibly controversial, and audacious! And everybody knows! Has any political family ever been so up front about it before, AND got away with it?

How can someone defend that, by just making up a line that it all went to charity, when it's declared as *personal income*, distinct from the "charitable" Clinton Foundation created for that specific purpose?

[sabrina 1]

61. Actually they didn't according to what I read. The amount they gave to charity

was not listed because it wasn't subject to taxes. So the $25 million is what they kept, because it was taxable income.

[NanceGreggs]

63. You declare ALL of your income.

You can then lower your taxes owed by deducting your charitable donations.

The $25 million WAS taxable income, not because that's "what they kept", but because ALL income is taxable.

Have you never filed a tax return? If you earned $10,000 and donated $1,000 to charity, you have to declare the full $10,000 as taxable income. The $1,000 donation is then deducted from the taxes you owe on the $10,000. You do NOT declare your "income" as $9,000 because you "didn't keep" a thousand of it.

[sabrina 1]

65. For ordinary people that is true. But if we had a Charitable Foundation and the 'income' went

directly there instead of into our personal account before being donated, it would not be counted as part of our taxable income.

[aka-chmeee]

62. Awfully free with unsubstantiated charges......

Perhaps if you had something to say that people would pay to hear, you could show us all the proper way to handle that good fortune!

[sabrina 1]

66. 'People' are not paying for these speeches. People don't have between $190,000 - $250,000

to pay for someone to speak.

The very wealthy are paying these fees..

See the difference when it is 'people' who are paying re Bernie Sanders eg. He made only a little over $1,000 which he donated to charity.

There is no way some of those paying Hillary and Bill Clinton those enormous amounts of money would consider doing that for someone like Sanders.

Why is that, do you think?

[delrem]

72. I'm glad Sanders isn't bought.

There are a LOT of politicians who aren't totally bought.
Any politician COULD BE bought - for some politicians being bought is the whole deal from day one.
Those that aren't bought should be supported, if they have good intentions and good ideas. Those that are bought are a plague on democracy and should be ousted ASAP.

I'm dismayed that so many Dems are perfectly fine with graft and corruption on that scale.
Wow, Dems have a problem!
And it won't be fixed by electing the locus of that problem - even if that politician, in an outrageous move, promises to "take money out of politics". wow wow wow, it just can't get any lower than that and IMO the Democratic party will be effectively finished if people like that prevail.

I'm so hoping the US doesn't continue sleepwalking into this.

eta: I notice in several other threads that several are pretending to support Bernie, as preface for attacking "Bernie supporters" for criticizing the Clintons. WOW! Talk about mirroring a candidate!

[sabrina 1]

96. I noticed that tactic too. It must been in one of the memos that go out. Not a good idea all have

been spotted pretty quickly. That's a lame and deceptive tactic, and doesn't speak well of their candidate. As someone stated the other day TO Bernie supporters 'remember you are not just representing yourself, you are representing your candidate'. Pretty childish, but very deceptive thing to do. Makes you wonder how people could be so underhanded.

As for the promise to take money out of politics, while taking over $2 billion IN politics, you have to scratch your head sometimes and wonder, are they aware of the fact that people are not stupid, or when they get to DC does something happen to their cognitive skills?

I would like to know WHEN this is going to happen. She could refuse all that Corporate money and then challenge Republicans to do the same. That would make the rot that is the corrosive effect of that money a primary issue in the campaign. But then you have to mean what you say.

[delrem]

75. So you also claim that the Clintons give all payments from speaking fees to charity?

Prove your ridiculous assertion!

[aka-chmeee]

116. I made no assertions at all other than to suggest

that you were employing innuendo in place of supportable claims

[delrem]

117. It is "innuendo" to say that personal income isn't the same thing as "charity"?

I have to say, Hillary Clinton's supporters never cease to amaze me.
A very fundamentalist bunch that stoops very low, to suggest suggest a thing.

[aka-chmeee]

119. I am forced to believe that you have completely lost

track of all the ridiculous statements you have made. I NEVER even used the word charity in any post and you can't seem to get even that straight. If you read your own post 56, yes, the innuendo is there after each one of the links. But whatever, You are Obviously correct in every facet of this thread. Your grasp of all things political and otherwise is unmatched, etc ad infinitum.
I have an active existence outside of this board and you have already wasted more of my time than I wish to waste. So make your snarky reply (which will not be answered) and LMTFA.

[NanceGreggs]

64. Who claimed that the Clintons ...

... gave their entire income to charity?

No one claimed any such thing!

I asked if you had any links showing that HRC's speaking fees were not donated. The links you've provided do not make your case.

ALL income is taxable and must be declared. Deductions are then made to the TAXES OWING on that income by virtue of charitable donations.

If an organization hosted an HRC speaking event and agreed to make a donation to the Foundation directly in lieu of paying HRC a speaking fee, she wouldn't have "earned" the money, would not declare it as income, and would not owe taxes on it.

And again - NO ONE said that the Clintons gave their entire income to charity. So you're really not in a good position to talk about "the stuff people make up".

[delrem]

71. NanceGreggs: "Hillary's speaking fees are donated to charity"

[NanceGreggs]

77. And who said that HRC's speaking fees ...

... constitute the Clintons' "entire income"?

What do you think they live on, if they give their "entire income" to charity? Do you think they don't have bills to pay - food, home maintenance, clothing, cars, property taxes. etc.? Seriously?

The Clintons also still derive income from book royalties, and I've no doubt they have made financial investments over the years on which they earn profits.

And yes, it is my understanding that Hillary has donated all of her speaking fees to charity. I told you up front that I stand to be corrected on that, and asked you for any links that showed otherwise.

I take it you didn't find any - so instead of just saying so, you keep changing the subject while making ridiculous claims that ANYONE (other than yourself, of course) ever claimed that the Clintons donate their entire income.

[delrem]

78. NanceGreggs: "yes, it is my understanding that Hillary has donated all of her speaking fees to char

"yes, it is my understanding that Hillary has donated all of her speaking fees to charity"

What a whopper! Your assertion is ridiculous.

ETA: I'm going to add, if you can show that what you say is true, that the Clintons have donated all their speaking fees to charity - and that's well over $100million dollars (Bill made over $3/4million in ONE speech).... then you can single handedly ensure that Hillary Clinton is elected president in 2016. I can guarantee it. Your demonstration of this fact will be so sensational, it will so controvert the negatives associated with political graft and turn them into a charitable positive, that HRC will go down as a saint. There will be no stopping her - not on the left, not on the right.

So do it, NanceGreggs. Prove it, and make history.

[NanceGreggs]

89. READ our entire exchange.

No, actually READ IT.

I said it was my understanding that HRC donates her speaking fees to charity. You're the one who changed the subject to "the Clintons" jointly. I never said that Bill donates anything - because that's NOT what we were discussing.

So where did I say "the Clintons" donate all their speaking fees? Oh, that's right - I didn't say that, did I?

Why don't you try staying on topic (which was Hillary's speaking fees, NOT Bill's or anyone else's)?

I never said the Clintons donate ALL of their income to charity - you did.

I never said Bill donated his speaking fees - you did.

If you think you can win an argument by attributing statements to me that I never made, you obviously have a problem with (a) keeping your facts straight, or (b) have a problem with reading comprehension.

I am not about to try to prove a negative. If you have evidence that Hillary did NOT donate her speaking fees, post it.

You DO realize that people here can read this entire discussion, don't you? Do you not understand how obvious it is that you have been in attributing statements to me that I never made?

[delrem]

98. I've read our exchange, NanceGreggs. After all, it was you who responded to me.

Now I want to know what you're saying. OK?

I said:
"I think the problem is that the Clintons took in $25million cash last year,
amazingly that's take-home for just this most recent year, for "speaking", and that creates an impression of a possible quid pro quo. "

You replied:
"I suppose it is of no consequence to you ...
... that Hillary's speaking fees are donated to charity - which hardly constitutes "take home" pay.
But let's not let facts get in the way ..."

However, I addressed the facts in every case.
There is every indication that fees for Hillary's speaking to some *colleges and univerities* went to the Clinton Foundation, the Clinton family... charitable foundation that pays Chelsea... just a shitload more than I make in a year. But that wasn't declared in Hillary Clinton's financial disclosure, because it wasn't personal income.

What your saying is that what Hillary Clinton disclosed as being personal income, is not, and is in fact "charity".

And yet you expect me to prove you wrong?

[NanceGreggs]

104. You're just blabbering at this point ...

I have absolutely NO idea what it is you're trying to say.

You have "addressed the facts" by attributing statements to me that I never said. You lost the argument the minute you found it necessary to do so.

If HRC hadn't declared her payment for speaking fees as income (for which she was then given tax deductions for donating those monies to charity), the IRS would be all over her ass and it would be front-page news.

Maybe you should contact the IRS and share your vast knowledge of how income is taxed and how charitable donations work. I've no doubt they will be fascinated.

[delrem]

106. That's right. Her speaking fees were private income. Not "charity", as you claimed.

Nice meeting you.
Bye.

[NanceGreggs]

108. FFS!

Have you never filed a tax return?

There is no such thing as "private income". ALL income must be declared and is taxable. You can then reduce your taxes owing by claiming credits for charitable donations.

"Private income" ...

No wonder you've been all over the map in this discussion - you don't even know the basics.

[delrem]

111. FFS! Have you never heard of the Clinton Foundation!

That's their charity!
Read the links I provided! You asked for links, I provided the bloody things, and you ignored them!

Hillary Clinton SPECIFICALLY directed ONLY those fees from COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES to the CLINTON FOUNDATION, for purposes of CHARITY. The rest is declared as PRIVATE INCOME. Specifically *NOT CHARITY*.

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE, ANYWHERE, THAT HILLARY CLINTON DONATED ALL HER INCOME FROM SPEAKING FEES TO CHARITY.
If she had, THE FIRST THING SHE'D DO IS PROVE IT!
And you'd be writing an OP with the proof!!!
That's a no-brainer.

SO YOU JUST MADE THAT UP!
AND YOU WASTE EVERYONE'S TIME ON YOUR INCREDIBLE INVENTIONS!

I see you do this in other threads, too!

NOW BYE! BYE! BYE!

[NanceGreggs]

112. You have already proven ...

... that you don't know how income taxes are filed, and how charitable donations are credited.

"If she had, THE FIRST THING SHE'D DO IS PROVE IT!"

Apparently she has already PROVEN IT to the IRS. If she hadn't, she'd be all over the news for being charged with tax evasion.

Now, if YOU think she hasn't proven it sufficiently, or that she's lying about donating her speaking fees, I suggest you contact the media IMMEDIATELY! This is just the kind of story that the MSM scoops up with a spoon, and you could be lauded as a national hero for breaking the story!

And maybe you should contact the IRS as well - so you can explain your "private income" theory to them.

Just give it up. You so obviously have NO idea how charitable donations are assessed and credited - but for some reason you insist on making yourself look like an idiot.

[delrem]

114. The IRS doesn't "go after" people who don't donate ALL their income from fees to charity!

I demand that you prove your assertion in an OP.

Go to the Hillary Clinton group and ask for help. Gather your facts.
Prove that Hillary Clinton donated ALL HER INCOME FROM SPEAKING FEES TO CHARITY!

Or be called a liar!

[NanceGreggs]

115. Why are you wasting precious time here?

Why aren't you on the phone with CNN, NBC, FOX, etc.?

Does the IRS have you on 'hold' while they get an uber-supervisor to listen to your explanation of "private income" versus "charitable income"?

This "discussion" started with me asking you to produce links to evidence that HRC did not donate her speaking fees to charity.

Despite the fact that if that oft-repeated statement was a lie, such links would be plentiful, you have been unable to produce a single one.

Forget the MSM - forget the IRS - what you need to do is peddle your "Hillary is lying!" story to the highest bidder. I'd suggest FOX-News right off the bat. If you act now, I'm sure they'll move heaven and earth to schedule you on one of their Sunday morning shows tomorrow - hell, I'm sure they'd cancel every guest they have lined-up and put you on for the entire day!

Oh, and word to the wise -- don't forget to declare whatever money you make as "private income" on what I assume will be your very first tax return!



P.S. Put down the shovel and stop digging.

[NanceGreggs]

49. In other words ...

... you couldn't find a single link proving that HRC pockets the money from her speaking fees, and doesn't donate the money to charity.

LOUD and CLEAR, my friend. Loud and clear.

YOU are the one who claimed her speaking fees were "take-home" income - so where are YOUR links?

Apparently, you don't have any.

[delrem]

57. see my reply #56. nt

[cali]

35. nope. she also does for profit speeches.

[NanceGreggs]

36. Link, please?

I've Googled, and can't find anything about that.

I certainly stand to be corrected, if you have the info.

[delrem]

37. It seems to be a tax thing.

Like the Gates Foundation is a wonderful system for pushing Gates' ideas under the guise of "charity", is a wonderful tax write-off, and equates to "Bill Gates, philanthropist". I can't blame these guys for being so clever.

[NanceGreggs]

44. So ...

... first it was HRC's speaking fees are take-home pay which she pockets.

And then it was so, okay, yeah, I 'forgot' to mention that the money goes to charity.

And now it's just a tax write-off ...........

..... oh, and forget that my original gripe was about something else completely and I was proven wrong about it. What I REALLY meant to say was that HRC donates money to charity strictly for the tax write-off.

Yeah, that's the ticket!

[treestar]

84. They do?

Oh good grief! What a greedy corporatist Wall Street suck up!!!! Oh, wait.

[treestar]

83. Oh I don't know

You think people are just naturally that corrupt?

They will be spending huge amounts too. And not on yachts for themselves.

Quid pro quo might come in job offers and such. But I don't know that everyone giving money to a campaign or to hear someone speak really expects a government job. The higher offices like the Cabinet are public enough that they have pressure to pick a person good for the job. Hillary didn't get SOS because she gave Obama money.

Money can corrupt, but not everyone makes poor use of it.

[delrem]

86. jeez, people don't pay the Clintons that much to speak, just to "get a gov't job"

It's called graft, treestar. Trading on one's political position.
As in getting paid $750,000 for one speech.
That isn't "everybody giving to a campaign", that it can be compared to mr. average giving $100 and you suggesting (somewhat ridiculously) "expecting a gov't job" in return.
Payment for those speeches wasn't to "a campaign", it was directly to the speakers, the Clintons. It was their personal income.
Well over $100million. $25million just in the last year.

No, not everybody is corrupt. But corruption exists, and it grows exponentially when APPROVED OF.

You think it doesn't matter, doesn't have an impact? Really?

[treestar]

92. Getting paid for these speeches is not a direct bribe

The word graft applies to much more serious things. If a bunch of people buy tickets to hear Hillary speak, that's not bribing her to do anything.

Even if the big corporation gives money in huge amounts, they can't demand any particular thing for it. Once the person is in office they can't get them out because they did not vote or veto/sign on some bill that the corporation wanted.

Bribery and graft are real things, but they do not include making campaign donations. Too many on DU go on as if it's the same thing. People give their money to Hillary or whoever because they want them to have the office, because they think generally Hillary will do more of what they'd like that not. But that's not bribing her with money. And I don't think Hillary Clinton is out there just to make more and more money. If that were the case, she'd have stuck with being a lawyer or corporate board member. Then she could enjoy her yacht after work in peace.

[delrem]

95. I see. It isn't "direct", even tho' it goes straight into the politician's personal cash.

This isn't about "a bunch of people buy(ing) tickets to hear Hillary speak".
You know that.
These are speeches to Goldman Sachs. Or to investment finance interests wishing "free trade" with Columbia.
They don't pay unless they're fairly certain of a payoff.

That dynamic exists - not just w.r.t. the Clintons but all over in politics - and it is the citizen's duty to root it out.
The eagerness of Clinton supporters to deny that it exists doesn't bode well.


You pretend that people paying to listen to Bill and Hillary speak are similar to you and me, paying to go to a concert or whatever. I've had some laughingly tell me that I'd do it too, if I could command $500,000 for one two-hour speech and schmoozing session, so I'm just jealous. I'm just not as SMART as the Clintons, who are obviously worth the money.

[treestar]

107. I just am not that cynical

I think Hillary wants to do good for the country, even where I do not agree with her. She is good at raising money, which is needed to run for office in the world today. Goldman Sachs may think she will do things that keep their company healthy and they have a lot of employees so that is not Evil Itself. In fact it's odd that such a company would support anyone other than Republicans. Maybe they are not so Evil?

If she simply wanted to get richer and richer, she would not run for office. In fact no one with that desire would. Even the Tea Partiers, I will give them that, because they are rabid true believers about their ridiculous stances on the issues.

[0rganism]

97. if she were a republican, that would be seen as "the solution"

not "the problem".

republicans think themselves highly virtuous (in a randian way) for snorting up campaign cash like cocaine going into a vacuum cleaner, and then turn around immediately to criticize Democrats should they do the same or do so much as hold a fundraiser.

republicans have the advantage of looking at government as inherently corrupt, wasteful, and lazy. then, when they get elected, and they behave in a corrupt, wasteful, lazy manner, they (and the media) regard it as reinforcement of their core belief system.

but if a Democrat should do something remotely similar, hell's bells, they get called on it immediately.

[delrem]

99. Look, I'm not interested in defending Dems who act like Republicans.

That seems to be your bag.

[0rganism]

100. no defense, just speculation and observation

they'll all do what they think they have to do to get elected and maybe rich in the process, no question about that.

the only difference is whether those actions and their results become fuel for a hypocrisy bonfire, which in turn seems to be a highly partisan prospect.

[delrem]

102. You identify all politicians as the same,

as all being venal wretches.

You're very cynical.

[0rganism]

103. not exactly

as i said, they'll do what they think they need to do to get elected. that varies considerably from district to district and state to state. no question that Sen. Sanders' constituents respond to a different approach than, say, Sen. Graham.

[Scuba]

15. Yeah, right.

[marmar]

16. Recycled bullshit is still bullshit.

Surely the Hillary psyops effort can do better.

[H2O Man]

17. Gosh!

Those silly left-wing puppets!

[2banon]

19. I know. We're just sooooo gullible! Never seen that kind of thing before

What to do, What to do?!

[SidDithers]

18. The right hates Hillary. The fringe left hates Hillary...

Sometimes it's hard to tell which is which.

Sid

[Jumpin Jack Flash]

28. I'd like to point out that the "fringe left" you call is actually mainstream Democrats

who are tired of the right-wing bullshit that they have been forcefed since 1980.

Remember that.

[Egnever]

38. Based on what exactly?

Your gut instinct?


So far the polls show her with overwhelming support from Democrats. That is certainly subject to change but as it stands now it makes your claim look like nothing more than wishful thinking.

[SidDithers]

52. Welcome to DU...

Sid

[Lil Missy]

67. On what planet?

Mainstream Democrats overwhelmingly support HRC.

[Jumpin Jack Flash]

68. Ever heard of the quote "Support a mile wide, but an inch deep"

Clinton has only soft support.

Bernie has hard support, and I'm happy to be among his supporters because I believe in Bernie.

[Lil Missy]

69. You're making shit up oout of whole cloth. n/t

[Jumpin Jack Flash]

70. Lessons of 2008. Rinse. Repeat.

Clinton should just home, forget about her candidacy and enjoy Charlotte.

[PowerToThePeople]

74. Welcome to DU

You will see that we have our own right wing contingency that has been allowed to flourish here on DU. Be safe while you are low post count.

[treestar]

85. How many polls have shown Democrats support Hillary?

Mainstream Democrats support her.

[whatchamacallit]

94. Never have to wonder about the center

It's nestled between two glutes.

diS

[hrmjustin]

20. Yes the right is trolling social media and internet boards.

[Aerows]

24. It isn't trolling

when it is genuine pushback right here on DU, right now.

I realize that many support Hillary Clinton, but I would far rather see O'Malley or Sanders as President than Hillary Clinton.

I don't like her stances on many issues - TPP, H1B visas, and many other issues.

Now, I've stated 2 explicit issues where I disagree with her. I'll wait to hear how I don't support her because I want Republicans to win, instead of the fact that she doesn't support the issues that I think are crucial to the country.

[hrmjustin]

25. Criticism of a policy position is perfectly legit.

Some posters here tend to go to far imho.

But debate is what this site is for.

[Egnever]

40. DU does not reflect the general population in just about anything

[Aerows]

45. And ...

I'm commenting on DU, about DU ... on DU.

Nevertheless, I really could care less who this nebulous "everyone" is. Supporters that attempt to marginalize my vote (and anyone else's) by implying I'm too stupid to pick a candidate for myself are pointing one finger at me, and four right back at themselves.

I suspect a LOT of folks feel that way, and persisting with that line of mockery is going to be a derailed train that goes nowhere, but causes a lot of damage.

[eridani]

58. No, it doesn't. Isn't it just peachy keen WONDERFUL that most people don't care about politics?

Just the coolest thing--wouldn't want to change that at all.

[hatrack]

42. No!

.

[hrmjustin]

43. No?

[gollygee]

21. Every time one liberal sees another liberal with a different opinion

they're sure the right is behind it. At least it sometimes seems that way reading posts on a variety of subjects at DU. Sometimes people just have different opinions. Even liberals can have different opinions.

[merrily]

53. Exactly what Hillary does. Associates every criticism, true or false, with the right.

When Matt Lauer asked her, on the Today Show, about the Monica Lewinsky rumors, her reply was that Bill had said, "You'll never guess what they are saying about me now." When Matt Lauer asked her who "they" were, Hillary replied, "The vast right wing conspiracy."

During this campaign, every time media ask about something negative that has been attributed to Hillary, her response often begins, "The right...."

I guess the idea is that I'm supposed to hear something like that and say to myself, "OMG, I believe that, too. I sure don't want to be like the right, though. Guess I'll disregard all the proof and stop believing that."

[MADem]

26. Indeeeeeeeeeeeeeed !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

https://m.

[Thinkingabout]

27. Why do we need to lend assistance to the RW? It is some of the same talking points.

As a Hillary supporter I have come to expect the same talking points over and over and they are without truth many times. It is the cognitive dissonance, did not work on me the first thirty times it was said and I doubt it will work on me the last thirty times it is told.

[Maedhros]

29. I don't need Republicans to turn me against Hillary.

She did a good job of that all on her own.

[Aerows]

30. You are in the same place that I am.

I supported her in 2008, but she isn't standing up for a damn thing that is important in 2015.

TPP and H1B visas for starters.

Not a good candidate for our future if she can't make a definitive statement (other than being coy with the press in 2015, but wholeheartedly supporting both in 2013) about where she stands.

The American people have been sold out enough, and pretending that you don't know where you stand doesn't cut it.

[Maedhros]

50. I can't get past "We came, we saw, he died."

We turned Libya into a living hell. Jingoistic gloating is the wrong response.

[Art_from_Ark]

55. That was truly a WTF moment

[deutsey]

60. That's what I believe as well n/t

[cali]

41. Hillary has turned the left against her all by herself.

[Alittleliberal]

51. I wonder how many more times we are going to see this

[merrily]

54. It's sure what Hillary would like the left to think.

[eridani]

59. The left gives a shit about Benghazi?

Please post links substantiating that.

[PowerToThePeople]

73. No one needs to "bait" any left leaner to turn against Hillary

We have been against her for a long time.

Hillary Clinton: No regret on Iraq vote

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said she is not sorry she voted for a resolution authorizing President Bush to take military action in Iraq despite the recent problems there but she does regret "the way the president used the authority."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/21/iraq.hillary/

Hillary Clinton Defends 2002 Iraq War Vote On Meet The Press



Moderator Tim Russert pointed out that the title of the resolution was the "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002." Clinton responded saying, "We can have this Jesuitical argument about what exactly was meant. But when Chuck Hagel, who helped to draft the resolution said, 'It was not a vote for war,' What I was told directly by the White House in response to my question, 'If you are given this authority, will you put the inspectors in and permit them to finish their job,' I was told that's exactly what we intended to do. "



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/13/hillary-clinton-defends-2_n_81261.html

Hillary Clinton backs using drones in Pakistan

ISTANBUL: United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Thursday implicitly defended Washington’s use of drone strikes to kill suspected militants, days after an aircraft reportedly killed al-Qaeda’s Libyan-born Abu Yahya al-Libbi in Pakistan.

http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-13-15210-Hillary-Clinton-backs-using-drones-in-Pakistan

Hillary Clinton's Business Legacy at the State Department (leading part in drafting TPP)

She’s pressed the case for U.S. business in Cambodia, Singapore, Vietnam, Indonesia, and other countries in China’s shadow. She’s also taken a leading part in drafting the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the free-trade pact that would give U.S. companies a leg up on their Chinese competitors.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1016&pid=67554

[AtomicKitten]

82. +1

[dlwickham]

87. keep on posting lies PLEASE

makes your candidate look all the worse

After days of Republican presidential candidates wrestling with questions on the Iraq war, Hillary Clinton weighed in Tuesday, telling reporters that her vote in favor of the war in 2002 was a “mistake.”

“I made it very clear that I made a mistake, plain and simple. And I have written about it in my book, I have talked about it in the past,” Clinton told reporters at an event in Cedar Falls, Iowa, adding that “what we now see is a very different and very dangerous situation.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/hillary-clinton-iraq-war-vote-mistake-iowa-118109.html#ixzz3ctj4B626

[PowerToThePeople]

88. There are no lies in my post

They are Hillary's statements and actions, all documented.

[dlwickham]

90. she has apologized for her vote

posting 2004 stories is misleading at best

[PowerToThePeople]

91. No it is not.

How many lives did her apology bring back?

http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4512996/rep-bernard-bernie-sanders-opposes-iraq-war

[treestar]

79. Republican dirty tricks

I wonder if the left ever does this to them. I think not because to do it, I'd have to go to Freeperville and complain the Rmoney or the like are not right wing enough, and I cannot bring myself to type the sort of things you'd have to in order to attempt to divide the freepers that way.

[99Forever]

81. We had a name for this sort statement when I was a teenager.

We called it A Sack of Happy Horseshit.

Thanks for bringing back that 50 year old memory.

[whatchamacallit]

93. Are they doing it through telepathy?

I'm don't watch network news (especially fox), I don't have a desire to read the editorials of conservative pundits... so... thanks for the inane bullshit!

[Nye Bevan]

109. Hypothetically, they could sign up to post on internet message boards,

and stridently attack Hillary while pretending to support another Democrat.

I'm not saying that's happening, just that it's a possibility.

[whatchamacallit]

110. Possible, but tell me

What happens when you encounter OPs or posts critical of your candidate?
1) They have little or no effect on your opinion
2) They inspire you to determine if the claim or criticism is valid
3) They automatically erode your support

My guess for you, and the vast majority of people on this board it's 1 or 2

The funny thing is, if you ask someone who believes FUD works if it works on them, they invariably say no.

[CanadaexPat]

101. They are trying to push Clinton left.

They think that makes her more beatable in the general. It's kind of lame.

[BlindTiresias]

113. yawn

[Betty Karlson]

118. This is so reductionist

The left is painted as a bunch of disloyal and impressionable individuals who don't have critical thinking skills.

Maybe it is time for the Clintonistas to take the left's concerns serious? Because those concerns do NOT come from the right, those concerns ARE about the right, and how close Clinton is to the right.