What is Hillary angry about?

[XemaSab]

"But Bernie's angry, too! It's totally sexist to point out that Hillary's angry while ignoring Bernie's anger!"

Yes, Bernie's angry, too, but he's angry about the corruption of our political system by big banking, the Military-Industrial Complex, and other moneyed interests.

Hillary's anger... what's it about? Who is she pissed off at?

[DanTex]

1. About Bernie's dishonest smears and dirty campaigning.

[XemaSab]

6. Clinton tells Obama: 'Shame on you'; Obama fires back

A visibly angry Sen. Hillary Clinton lashed out Saturday at Sen. Barack Obama over campaign literature that she said he knows is "blatantly false," while Obama called her outburst "tactical."

Clinton jabbed the air with her hands as she told a crowd in Cincinnati, Ohio, that two Obama mailings spread lies about her positions on universal health care and the North American Free Trade Agreement.

"Shame on you, Barack Obama," she said.

Polls show Clinton and Obama are in statistical dead heats in delegate-rich Ohio and Texas, which both hold votes March 4.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/23/clinton.mailings/

[DanTex]

11. Obama was a great president. As will Hillary be. Do you think Bernie will ask for her

to be primaried in 4 years like he did to Obama?

[XemaSab]

13. My point is that she was angry in 2008

So blaming Bernie for that is silly.

[DanTex]

15. I don't see what 2008 has to do with it. I'm sure she was angry at some point more recent than that

also...

[redstateblues]

39. He didn't have the balls to do it himself

He was happy being a back bencher

[aikoaiko]

60. HRC isn't making the same promises as Obama did and no expects her to be progressive

once in office. So no, I don't think anyone in the left will primary her.

[basselope]

17. LMAO!

I love when telling the truth becomes "dishonest smears" and "dirty campaigning".

[DanTex]

21. Meh, it's been thoroughly fact-checked by now. Corporations don't donate to campaigns.

Three Pinocchios.

[basselope]

22. They donate to Super Pacs you silly goose.

4 Pinocchios for you

[DanTex]

23. Not in this case. All the donations that were itemized as part of the smear were individual.

[basselope]

40. Nope.

[DanTex]

42. LOL. Now there's a fact-based reply!

[basselope]

44. Your statement was false.

That's really all that needs to be said.

[DanTex]

47. My statement was true. It was individual money, not corporate money.

Can you name a single fossil fuel corporation that has donated to her?

[basselope]

53. Yes.

[Armstead]

34. LOL -- Perfect

[jeff47]

26. Funny....that wasn't the actual claim. So odd the fact checkers checked something

that wasn't actually claimed.

See, the actual claim included SuperPACs. Yet those completely unbiased and thorough fact-checkers didn't manage to include that in their fact check.

[DanTex]

28. The claim was the fossil fuel industry. That's a lie.

The donations came from individuals, not from corporations.

[JonLeibowitz]

30. An industry is more than individuals. It is corporations, industry leaders, lobbyists, trade orgs...

[DanTex]

33. Industry money obviously implies money from companies.

Including money from individuals employed in an industry as "industry money" is dishonest. The distinction between corporations and people is something that progressives used to be clear about.

[JonLeibowitz]

36. Yes, individuals. But when you get to bundlers it gets more fuzzy,

[DanTex]

41. Bundlers bundle money that comes from other individuals.

There is very clear and important distinction between corporate and individual money. Corporations spend money for the express purpose of making profit. Individuals spend their money however they want, and for whatever reason they want. Individuals and their employers have different interests.

This is the essential fact that Mitt Romney's "corporations are people" statement missed.

[basselope]

56. AND corporations when going into Pacs and Super Pacs.

[DanTex]

59. Nope, it's individual money. That's why you can't name a single corporation.

[basselope]

66. Sure I can.

[jeff47]

31. The donations TO THE CAMPAIGN. Again, the claim included SuperPACs.

As usual, the WaPo fact-checking department has done a terrible job.

[DanTex]

35. The donations to the SuperPAC that were itemized also came from individuals.

Moreover, Clinton has no control of what any SuperPAC does.

[JonLeibowitz]

45. "donations to the superPAC that were itemized also came from individuals"

Maybe I don't know how to read opensecrets data, but this appears false:

https://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/contrib.php?cmte=C00495861&cycle=2016

Granted, most of those organizations look harmless.

[DanTex]

50. I was referring to the oil money that Greenpeace/Bernie were talking about.

I read through the Greenpeace accusation, and didn't see any corporate donations. It was all executives and lobbyists and other individuals "associated with" the industry.

The organizational money you see there on that chart almost all came from unions. The largest actual corporate donation seems to be from "Suffolk Construction", whatever that is, for $200K.

[JonLeibowitz]

52. Greenpeace brought it up, not Bernie. Bernie got involved due to the accusation by Clinton.

I side with Obama on donations by lobbyists. If that means I side against Clinton, well,

[DanTex]

57. From Bernie's website:

If you include money given to super PACs backing Clinton, the fossil fuel industry has given more than $4.5 million in support of Clinton’s bid.

That's a lie.

https://berniesanders.com/press-release/sanders-statement-clinton-accusations/

[JonLeibowitz]

63. Greenpeace has an excellent page detailing where that number comes from:

All told, the campaign to elect Hillary Clinton for president in 2016 has received more than $4.5 million from lobbyists, bundlers, and large donors connected the fossil fuel industry.

Number of oil, gas and coal industry lobbyists that have made direct contributions to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign: 58

58 registered oil, coal and gas lobbyists have personally given $138,400 to the Clinton campaign.
Of those 58, 11 are bundlers.
11 lobbyists have bundled $1,327,210 in contributions to the Clinton campaign.
43 lobbyists have contributed the maximum allowed ($2,700).
This includes:

Lobbyists who have reported lobbying for the oil and gas industry – both in-house company lobbyists and hired lobbyists from “K-Street firms.”
This does not include:

Industry executives who are not registered as lobbyists.
Other employees of the oil and gas industry.
Board members.
Corporate PAC contributions.
Contributions by major investors.
Donations to Super PACS or non-profit groups.
Contributions made by trade associations to Super PACs.
As of March 21, Clinton has taken more from lobbyists in general than any other candidate besides Jeb Bush — a total of $919,477.

Total amount bundled from oil and gas lobbyists: $1,327,210

Much more @ http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaign-updates/hillary-clintons-connection-oil-gas-industry/

They include possible motivations for these bundlers.

[DanTex]

64. And it's all from individuals. But that's just the beginning of the dishonesty.

Lobbyists are hired guns, the fact that they have at one time represented an energy company doesn't make them part of the industry. And, of course, including the SuperPAC that Hillary has no control over is also dishonest.

[JonLeibowitz]

68. uh huh. Again, I disagree that all individual donations are equally pure, when coming from lobbyists

That's why Obama made the pledge not to accept lobbyists $$ (yes, individuals) and changed the DNC rules. If you think all individual donations are pure as the driven snow (I don't dispute they are legal) then I don't see how we can continue this conversation productively.

[DanTex]

73. Individual money is still not "industry money". Particularly when it comes from

lobbyists who have multiple client, which is most lobbyists. You can have whatever opinion you want about which individuals you approve of and which you don't, it doesn't make Bernie's statement about "industry" money any less dishonest.

No, I don't believe anything in politics is pure as driven snow. Certainly not Bernie's campaign.

Regardless, this idea that because a tiny fraction of Hillary's funds came from individuals "associated with" the oil industry somehow she's in their pocket is a dishonest smear. And here's the other thing. You and I understand that none of this money came from corporations, but if you read here a bit, you'll see that a lot of Bernie supporters actually believe it was direct corporate cash. This is exactly the impression that Bernie was hoping people would get -- he intentionally misled people, and it worked.

[AzDar]

62. Sorry... NO.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/05/12/how-a-super-pac-plans-to-coordinate-directly-with-hillary-clintons-campaign/

[DanTex]

65. Different SuperPAC. And the coordination is in online messaging, not fundraising.

[DanTex]

58. And also to the SuperPAC. Can you name a single energy corporation that has

written a check to a SuperPAC that supports Hillary?

If you include money given to super PACs backing Clinton, the fossil fuel industry has given more than $4.5 million in support of Clinton’s bid.

https://berniesanders.com/press-release/sanders-statement-clinton-accusations/
That's a flat-out lie.

[basselope]

54. Still false.

[CorporatistNation]

46. That Is The MOST Important Point...

TRUTH HURTS Hillary..., EVERY TIME!

[tymorial]

49. People of both parties have been doing this for years

Rather than accept due criticism, people redirect and call it dirty or a conspiracy.

[B2G]

2. She's not angry, she's actually terrified

FBI investigations can do that to a person.

[awake]

10. Good point that may also explain why the Bernie hate is heating up on this site

[senz]

70. Then the Bernie hate is going to get a whole lot worse.

I hope Bernie's ready for it -- and we should be, too.

[hopeforchange2008]

32. I think her constant spinning to appeal to everyone must be exhausting

Its gotta be challenging to remember who you're in front of and what position you're supposed to be taking or denying.

[grasswire]

3. this is her last chance, and it ain't a cakewalk. nt

[boobooday]

4. Anyone who would deny her

That to which she feels entitled.

But that's just my impression.

[Attorney in Texas]

5. IT'S HER GODDAMN TURN!!! STOP POINTING OUT HER WEAK DISHWATER CENTRIST PLATFORM!!!

[awake]

7. Hillary thought that this was "Her party and she can cry if she wants to"

Hillary seem really pissed that Bernie has not gone away she is worried that the people want to take back the Demorcratic Party form the power brokers that the Cliton's have sold them selves to.

[YOHABLO]

43. No Bernie needs to be as much of a thorn in her side as can be. Keep her honest.

[ibegurpard]

8. things aren't going as planned

https://m.

[geek tragedy]

9. maybe Bernie's angry because he got suckered into believing he was going to win? nt

[YOHABLO]

51. You don't know Bernie .. no wonder you call yourself a tragedy.

[TheBlackAdder]

72. That's a person who tears apart a toaster to see how it works, only forgetting to unplug it first!

[amborin]

12. she thought she'd win, but her campaign is imploding and her untrustworthy numbers keep rising

[dana_b]

14. she's angry that anyone dare to question her

or confront her. Also having a FBI investigation looming over her head must put her on edge a bit. Finally she didn't think that this campaign would take this long to wrap up. But that pesky Senator from Vermont keeps taking away all of her votes!!

She better check that blood pressure!!

[onecaliberal]

75. ^^This sums it up nicely^^

[HereSince1628]

16. People have ignored that the old white guy was angry? REALLY?

I'd have sworn that was the path of the early attacks.

[TDale313]

19. This was never supposed to be a race.

They let the relatively unknown 74 yr old Democratic Socialist run for the Dem nom cause, hey, let's throw the lefties a bone. He'll never win. We've cleared the decks of anyone who might be a real threat.

We're now well into the primary process and he's actually giving her a real fight. Yeah, she's still the frontrunner- would you expect anything else given the systemic advantages she had? But this is no longer a foregone conclusion, she's lost that sense of control, and she and her supporters are furious about that. We're crashing "their" party, and they despise us for it.

[killbotfactory]

20. Bernie wasn't supposed to be doing so well.

Odds are still in her favor, but Bernie is punching above his weight.

Win or lose, he's going to use his clout to push the democratic party left.

And it scares the shit out of centrist (essentially republicans without the bigotry) democrats.

[PowerToThePeople]

27. They are republicans

Obama is on film admitting that fact.

[Fast Walker 52]

80. Does Hillary and her campaign really not get that

Most Democrats prefer the more liberal policies that Bernie promotes. And isn't it a good thing he is moving the party more left?

[morningfog]

24. Her internal polling in WI and NY.

[TheCowsCameHome]

25. Having her path to the nomination obstructed

by some kindly old Jewish guy from Brooklyn.

[Faux pas]

29. That we haven't

had her coronation yet?

[hopeforchange2008]

37. She's pissed off that people actually are accurately portraying her.

She reminds me of Paul Lepage in Maine who is always calling out the media for misrepresenting him because they publish his exact words.

[JoePhilly]

38. Only men are allowed to get angry ... shows they are strong.

[senz]

67. Elizabeth Warren can be quite angry, and it's part of her strength.

[Tarc]

48. Yep, Bernie's anger is ok, but Hillary's has to be questioned and picked apart

Thanks for the mansplain.

[senz]

69. "Tone it down" means "don't fight back." See how that works?

[XemaSab]

83. Last time I checked

I wasn't a man.

[frylock]

55. Having to work for the nomination.

This was supposed to be a walk in the cake.

[senz]

61. Very insightful observation.

She was the same with Obama -- only her tactics are more sophisticated this time around.

[lunamagica]

71. You'd be angry too if your were subject to such smears

look a this:

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/4/2/1509392/-Rachel-Maddow-Show-Analyzes-Bernie-s-Claim-That-HILLARY-Is-In-The-Pocket-Of-Big-Oil-It-s-FALSE

Interesting analysis from the Rachel Maddow Show in an article titled “Money From Big Oil Isn’t Always What It Appears To Be”. The information presented ran VERY CONTRARY to the information Bernie, his campaign, his surrogates, and his supporters are perpetuating. I find this source very credible, as Steve Benen is an Emmy Nominated political writer for The Rachel Maddow Show and an extremely respected political journalist. Some of the highlights:

www.msnbc.com/...
_____________________________________________________________________________________
For its part, the Sanders campaign highlighted the encounter and insisted that Clinton “has relied heavily on funds from lobbyists working for the oil, gas and coal industry.” This morning, the senator himself repeated the charge, arguing, “The fact of the matter is Secretary Clinton has taken significant money from the fossil fuel industry.”
The point of the criticisms is hardly subtle: Sanders and his supporters want Democrats to see Clinton as someone who may not follow through on her energy and environmental commitments because of the money she’s received from Big Oil.
So, is that fair? Let’s unwrap this a bit.
The Washington Post published a report today, relying on data from the Center for Responsive Politics, which drew an important distinction that sometimes gets lost in the shuffle: technically, both Clinton and Sanders have received money from “the oil and gas industry.”

The total for Clinton’s campaign is about $308,000; for Sanders’s, it’s about $54,000. As Clinton noted in the moment, the Center for Responsive Politics mostly aggregates contributions by employer.

If a guy who runs the commissary at Chevron in California gives $27 to Bernie Sanders, that’s counted as “oil and gas industry” money.

It would be ridiculous, of course, to suggest the Sanders has been corrupted because that guy, “feeling the Bern,” chipped in $27. But because of the way contributions are categorized, money from an oil company CEO and a donation from a gas-station janitor are both counted the exact same way: it’s technically money from the “oil and gas industry.”
MSNBC’s report noted that Clinton has not “taken any money from PACs tied to the oil and gas industry, or companies themselves.” Lobbyists with at least some connection to the industry have made contributions, but the bulk of that money has gone to super PACs that Clinton cannot legally control.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

So my question is… Why, if there is so little air between Hillary and Sanders, is his campaign pushing a weak, if not completely untrue narrative about Hillary? Desperation? Swinging maliciously to tear down the front runner? It seems to me if this is untruthful… Bernie is damaging Hillary and creating a false narrative that is unfairly damaging her standing with voters who hold the environment as one of their top issues. Maybe it would be more honest to look at Hillary’s positions and voting record on this very important issue.

So let’s unpack Hillary’s VOTING record on oil and gas:

Ratify Kyoto; more mass transit. (Sep 2000)
Voted YES on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jun 2007)
Voted YES on making oil-producing and exporting cartels illegal. (Jun 2007)
Voted YES on factoring global warming into federal project planning. (May 2007)
Voted YES on disallowing an oil leasing program in Alaska's ANWR. (Nov 2005)
Voted YES on $3.1B for emergency oil assistance for hurricane-hit areas. (Oct 2005)
Voted YES on reducing oil usage by 40% by 2025 (instead of 5%). (Jun 2005)
Voted YES on banning drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (Mar 2005)
Voted NO on Bush Administration Energy Policy. (Jul 2003)
Voted YES on targeting 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2010. (Jun 2003)
Voted YES on removing consideration of drilling ANWR from budget bill. (Mar 2003)
Voted NO on drilling ANWR on national security grounds. (Apr 2002)
Voted NO on terminating CAFE standards within 15 months. (Mar 2002)
Supports tradable emissions permits for greenhouse gases. (Aug 2000)
Keep efficient air conditioner rule to conserve energy. (Mar 2004)
Establish greenhouse gas tradeable allowances. (Feb 2005)
Require public notification when nuclear releases occur. (Mar 2006)
Rated 100% by the CAF, indicating support for energy independence. (Dec 2006)
Designate sensitive ANWR area as protected wilderness. (Nov 2007)
Set goal of 25% renewable energy by 2025. (Jan 2007)
Let states define stricter-than-federal emission standards. (Jan 2008)
Gas tax holiday for the summer. (Apr 2008)

And let's unpack her positions on oil and gas:

We need a bridge from coal to natural gas to clean energy. (Mar 2016)
Half a billion solar panels in first 4 years. (Feb 2016)
Opposes Keystone, Withheld opinion at first. (Oct 2015)
Get tough with energy speculators and with OPEC cartel. (May 2008)
Gas tax holiday, paid for by windfall oil tax. (May 2008)
GovWatch: Gas tax holiday saves $8B; but that’s 64 cents/day. (May 2008)
Investigate gas price manipulation; add windfall profits tax. (Apr 2008)
FactCheck: Yes, FTC is investigating gas price manipulation. (Apr 2008)
$650 for help with energy bills to those who can’t afford it. (Jan 2008)
FactCheck: Oil & gas giveaways stripped from final 2005 Bill. (Jan 2008)
Investigate & move toward energy efficiency and conservation. (Oct 2007)
Opposes Yucca Mountain; earthquake fault goes under it. (Sep 2007)
Invest in alternative energy; jobs that won’t be outsourced. (Aug 2007)
End Big Oil tax break; $50 billion for strategic energy fund. (Jul 2007)
Agnostic about nuclear power until waste & cost issue solved. (Jul 2007)
Energy Independence 2020: $50B for Strategic Energy Fund. (Jun 2007)
Extensive funding into alternative energy. (Jun 2007)
Will make big oil fund alternative energy research. (Feb 2007)
$50B strategic energy fund from taxing oil companies. (Oct 2006)
Remove energy dependence on countries who would harm us. (Jun 2006)
Need to move toward energy efficiency and conservation. (Jan 2006)
Supports oil reserve release & fund conservation. (Oct 2000)

www.ontheissues.org/...

These are not the positions, actions and votes of a person who has been “bought” by the oil and gas industry and to further that notion is deceptive at best and an outright lie at worst. It’s time for people to stop pushing this false narrative. As my grandpa used to say, “You might as well leave Rover at home, because that dog just won’t hunt!"
RSS
REBLOGGED BY

Hot list


Interesting analysis from the Rachel Maddow Show in an article titled “Money From Big Oil Isn’t Always What It Appears To Be”. The information presented ran VERY CONTRARY to the information Bernie, his campaign, his surrogates, and his supporters are perpetuating. I find this source very credible, as Steve Benen is an Emmy Nominated political writer for The Rachel Maddow Show and an extremely respected political journalist. Some of the highlights:

www.msnbc.com/...
_____________________________________________________________________________________
For its part, the Sanders campaign highlighted the encounter and insisted that Clinton “has relied heavily on funds from lobbyists working for the oil, gas and coal industry.” This morning, the senator himself repeated the charge, arguing, “The fact of the matter is Secretary Clinton has taken significant money from the fossil fuel industry.”
The point of the criticisms is hardly subtle: Sanders and his supporters want Democrats to see Clinton as someone who may not follow through on her energy and environmental commitments because of the money she’s received from Big Oil.
So, is that fair? Let’s unwrap this a bit.
The Washington Post published a report today, relying on data from the Center for Responsive Politics, which drew an important distinction that sometimes gets lost in the shuffle: technically, both Clinton and Sanders have received money from “the oil and gas industry.”

The total for Clinton’s campaign is about $308,000; for Sanders’s, it’s about $54,000. As Clinton noted in the moment, the Center for Responsive Politics mostly aggregates contributions by employer.

If a guy who runs the commissary at Chevron in California gives $27 to Bernie Sanders, that’s counted as “oil and gas industry” money.

It would be ridiculous, of course, to suggest the Sanders has been corrupted because that guy, “feeling the Bern,” chipped in $27. But because of the way contributions are categorized, money from an oil company CEO and a donation from a gas-station janitor are both counted the exact same way: it’s technically money from the “oil and gas industry.”
MSNBC’s report noted that Clinton has not “taken any money from PACs tied to the oil and gas industry, or companies themselves.” Lobbyists with at least some connection to the industry have made contributions, but the bulk of that money has gone to super PACs that Clinton cannot legally control.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

So my question is… Why, if there is so little air between Hillary and Sanders, is his campaign pushing a weak, if not completely untrue narrative about Hillary? Desperation? Swinging maliciously to tear down the front runner? It seems to me if this is untruthful… Bernie is damaging Hillary and creating a false narrative that is unfairly damaging her standing with voters who hold the environment as one of their top issues. Maybe it would be more honest to look at Hillary’s positions and voting record on this very important issue.

So let’s unpack Hillary’s VOTING record on oil and gas:

Ratify Kyoto; more mass transit. (Sep 2000)
Voted YES on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jun 2007)
Voted YES on making oil-producing and exporting cartels illegal. (Jun 2007)
Voted YES on factoring global warming into federal project planning. (May 2007)
Voted YES on disallowing an oil leasing program in Alaska's ANWR. (Nov 2005)
Voted YES on $3.1B for emergency oil assistance for hurricane-hit areas. (Oct 2005)
Voted YES on reducing oil usage by 40% by 2025 (instead of 5%). (Jun 2005)
Voted YES on banning drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (Mar 2005)
Voted NO on Bush Administration Energy Policy. (Jul 2003)
Voted YES on targeting 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2010. (Jun 2003)
Voted YES on removing consideration of drilling ANWR from budget bill. (Mar 2003)
Voted NO on drilling ANWR on national security grounds. (Apr 2002)
Voted NO on terminating CAFE standards within 15 months. (Mar 2002)
Supports tradable emissions permits for greenhouse gases. (Aug 2000)
Keep efficient air conditioner rule to conserve energy. (Mar 2004)
Establish greenhouse gas tradeable allowances. (Feb 2005)
Require public notification when nuclear releases occur. (Mar 2006)
Rated 100% by the CAF, indicating support for energy independence. (Dec 2006)
Designate sensitive ANWR area as protected wilderness. (Nov 2007)
Set goal of 25% renewable energy by 2025. (Jan 2007)
Let states define stricter-than-federal emission standards. (Jan 2008)
Gas tax holiday for the summer. (Apr 2008)

And let's unpack her positions on oil and gas:

We need a bridge from coal to natural gas to clean energy. (Mar 2016)
Half a billion solar panels in first 4 years. (Feb 2016)
Opposes Keystone, Withheld opinion at first. (Oct 2015)
Get tough with energy speculators and with OPEC cartel. (May 2008)
Gas tax holiday, paid for by windfall oil tax. (May 2008)
GovWatch: Gas tax holiday saves $8B; but that’s 64 cents/day. (May 2008)
Investigate gas price manipulation; add windfall profits tax. (Apr 2008)
FactCheck: Yes, FTC is investigating gas price manipulation. (Apr 2008)
$650 for help with energy bills to those who can’t afford it. (Jan 2008)
FactCheck: Oil & gas giveaways stripped from final 2005 Bill. (Jan 2008)
Investigate & move toward energy efficiency and conservation. (Oct 2007)
Opposes Yucca Mountain; earthquake fault goes under it. (Sep 2007)
Invest in alternative energy; jobs that won’t be outsourced. (Aug 2007)
End Big Oil tax break; $50 billion for strategic energy fund. (Jul 2007)
Agnostic about nuclear power until waste & cost issue solved. (Jul 2007)
Energy Independence 2020: $50B for Strategic Energy Fund. (Jun 2007)
Extensive funding into alternative energy. (Jun 2007)
Will make big oil fund alternative energy research. (Feb 2007)
$50B strategic energy fund from taxing oil companies. (Oct 2006)
Remove energy dependence on countries who would harm us. (Jun 2006)
Need to move toward energy efficiency and conservation. (Jan 2006)
Supports oil reserve release & fund conservation. (Oct 2000)

www.ontheissues.org/...

These are not the positions, actions and votes of a person who has been “bought” by the oil and gas industry and to further that notion is deceptive at best and an outright lie at worst. It’s time for people to stop pushing this false narrative. As my grandpa used to say, “You might as well leave Rover at home, because that dog just won’t hunt!"

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

74. Her head is cold for lack of the crown.

[EndElectoral]

76. She gets angry when exposed for what she's done or said. It's a sure tell.

[karynnj]

77. If you think about it, there has long been a very angry edge to Hillary Clinton

Consider that in the two moments from 1992 that I remember are both a bit tinged with anger. One is the famous comments on not sitting home baking cookies, the other that she is not Tammy Wynette standing by her man. I both cases, the points are not the problem, it is the overt anger with which they were expressed that in retrospect make me wonder whether she is just someone who can not hide anger when she feels it.

This election, I would bet that she thought that by February or March, all her competitors would have dropped out. I assume she thought the nomination fight would be like the one Gore waged, where he ran the table. Early on Clinton allies questioned whether O'Malley could even win Maryland or Bernie win Vermont. I think they were shocked by the Iowa result .. and more by the NH result. What is clear is that while it is likely she wins the nomination, it will be no earlier than June. Not unusual - Bill Clinton did not become the de facto nominee until then, but given that HRC was essentially the heir apparent, it is a tough run.

I wonder if the anger could be that she personally sees it as her turn because she (and Bill) did join in 2008 to help Obama get elected and then that she diligently worked as his Secretary of State - a tough job, that you may have to love for it not to be a gigantic burden. After all that, she may have considered that the people who voted for her in 2008 were hers and the ones who voted for Obama "owed" her for what she did. Together, shouldn't that be almost all Democrats?

[Raster]

78. And speaking of the Military Industrial Complex...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016150471

[Depaysement]

79. The carpet wasn't red enough?

Tumbling poll numbers?

Not having this guy's crown?

Her staff? (not sure I'd blame her for that one)

Being seriously challenged?

[BeyondGeography]

81. Good question

She kind of leaves the answer blank herself so I won't attempt to fill it in. I will say it's hard to get comfortable with people who aren't at ease with themselves, or who at least come across that way in public, which she does.

[NCjack]

82. HRC is pissed at Bernie for spoiling her so-well planned coronation.

If Bernie continues gaining on her in NY at the current rate, he will totally own her in the 2 weeks before the primary. Déjà vu Barack. How embarrassing it will be.