Hillary Is NOT A Progressive! - Hillary Clinton Says Her Beliefs Are NOT Democrat or Liberal

[Segami]

Hillary: "...I went to Wellesley,....STILL a Republican,....but a different kind of attitude and a different sort of inquiry of what it was I believed....."

.

[brooklynite]

1. I guess people never change...

Liberal favorite Elizabeth Warren admits she was a Republican

Elizabeth Warren, a favorite of the left, admitted that she was once a Republican.

In an interview with The Daily Beast released on Tuesday, Warren, 62, who recently began a bid to unseat Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) admitted that up into her early 40s she was a Republican.

"I was a Republican because I thought that those were the people who best supported markets. I think that is not true anymore," Warren said. "I was a Republican at a time when I felt like there was a problem that the markets were under a lot more strain. It worried me whether or not the government played too activist a role."

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/189657--liberal-favorite-elizabeth-warren-admits-she-was-a-republican

[Armstead]

6. The difference...

Warren had a clear position and changed her mind, and states why.

The Clintons/DLC hijacked liberalism and turned it into an amorphous nothing ("centrism&quot that was -- and is -- merely a cover for a kinder gentler form of corporate conservatism.

[Buzz Clik]

20. And if Warren were running for Prez against St. Bernie, she'd be getting the same treatment.

[Segami]

23. So, you would give Elizabeth Warren "the same treatment"

if she were running for Prez against Hillary?

[tazkcmo]

30. For sure!

Sen Warren would be under the bus as anyone who dared challenge the Anointed One would be.

[Buzz Clik]

46. I would support her just as I support Sanders -- unconditionally.

You cannot say the same.

[Bubzer]

71. I will never support any candidate unconditionally... ever. More importantly, neither do you.

No one supports any candidate unconditionally... hillary supporters like her for reasons that escape me. Bernie supporters like him for the change from the establishment that he represents. The simple fact that we're all planning on voting for a democrat because we refuse to vote for crazy (a republican) constitutes a condition.

My point being you're not presenting a reasonable argument by claiming unconditional support.
It's a fine point, I know, but considering the context of the discussion, it's also a pertinent one.

[Buzz Clik]

79. Sanders supporters are in love with their concept of who they want him to be.

He is narrow in his experience and limited in the issues he understands. But, as with Warren, I will support him if he is nominated. Warts and all.

[tex-wyo-dem]

92. I wholly disagree with you that ...

Sanders "is narrow in his experience and limited in the issues he understands" in that his record and experience totally contradicts your assertion.

I also agree with Bubzer above that no one should unconditionally support any candidate or political establishment. This belies free-thinking and rational thought. I support the Democratic Party because they (usually) more align with my position on issues, but they continue to test my support by their continued and constant shift to the right. I support Sanders in a big way because, more than any other candidate in my lifetime, he represents the positions I've held ever since I can remember. If it came out tomorrow that he is a fraud (highly unlikely), then he would lose my support.

My point is that loyalty oaths are for non-thinking republican types.

[Bubzer]

98. hillary is your first choice, yes?

I presume some of your reasons would be "He is narrow in his experience and limited in the issues he understands".
Sure, you'd vote for him under the... condition... that she did not receive the nomination.
As I suggested, your support is absolutely conditional.

His "narrow experience" is dramatically less checkered that Hillary's. Her experience is rather dubious... she doesn't exactly have a wonderful track record on judgment. Sander does have "limited understanding", he doesn't understand why giving big banks and corporations more tax dollars is acceptable and why allowing the rigged system to continue is acceptable. He doesn't understand why supporting the TPP 45 different times is okay, nor why voting in full favor of the Iraq War is somehow permissible. He has limited understanding in the realm of corruption, backroom deals and corporatist philosophy. Hillary certainly has experience there.

Lastly, your premise works for hillary supporters too... take a look:
hillary supporters are in love with their concept of who they want her to be.
It works just the same... let's not pretend that reasons for support are any less valid just because it's not your candidate.

[Buzz Clik]

101. LOL! Yes, my comment is saying that I will vote the for Dem nominee.

I would not write in anyone.

I notice that you said she "supported TPP 45 times." Are you suggesting she voted for it?

Your second paragraph is just a projection.

[tazkcmo]

33. I'd probably vote Warren over Sanders.

Basically the same policy positions and generally people focused but younger, more over all Democratic appeal and she could have Sanders as her running mate.

[Mbrow]

41. If she had run

I don't think Bernie would have felt like he had to run.

[Paka]

43. That's it in a nutshell.

He is running simply because there is a need for him to run, not because of an avidity to be President. He is doing this for
'we the people" because the country needs a revolution.

[pangaia]

50. Agreed 100% ++

I don't like it when people say --
"I've said this before and I'll say it again." BUT.
I have said exactly this before and I'll say it again,

Bernie is running because he feels, SOMEBODY has to, and because he is a servant of human beings, NOT because he wants to be president. THAT is the difference between Bernie and almost every other presidential candidate in my life time, including Clinton... BOTH of them.

[GoneFishin]

110. +1

[tazkcmo]

63. I agree.

He didn't want to but felt he had to because no others stepped up and there's a real need.

[thesquanderer]

59. Sanders vs. Warren is a tough call

I prefer either to HRC. I think I would have taken Warren, because I think she'd have a better chance of getting the nomination, which is very much a long shot for Sanders. That said, I think Sanders might make the better president.

Sanders has the negatives of having called himself a socialist, of having been an independent rather than a Dem (though honestly, I think that's minor... I think anyone making an issue of that isn't someone who was going to vote for him anyway), of being Jewish, of being 75 (by inauguration day), and, this year, I'd even say the negative of not being a woman (because I think that many women could be okay with either Sanders or Clinton, but Clinton's gender is a factor that tips the scales in her direction).

OTOH... Warren's resume is thin. Sanders has way more experience than Warren. In fact, he has more experience than Obama, Bill Clinton, or Jimmy Carter did when they took office. We haven't had such an experienced Dem in the White House since LBJ. And although ultimately taken down by Vietnam, I think LBJ was overall a more effective president than Obama, Clinton, or Carter. Essentially, while I think Warren would have an easier time getting the nomination compared to Sanders, I think Sanders might be the more effective president. Admittedly, that's moot if he can't even get the nomination.

[DhhD]

73. Warren lacks the many years of experience that Sanders has (and Clinton has).

Warren being a professor understands learning. I believe that she is in a learning process that she wants to be in. So she sends out letters saying something like, it is your turn to run. (Not, it is your turn to be President, as that is decided by the American people.)

She probably sent out Holiday cards to many, meaning: This is America. Enjoy your traditions, rights and freedom to run for President.

[Armstead]

37. It probably wouldn't happen, but if it did, she would NOT get the same treatment

1) Neither Bernie nor Warren have a burning desire to be President just for the sake of being President. They are in it to influence the course of the country. Sure they're politicians and enjoy the "game,", but they are not in it primarily for personal ambition to be President. Bernie only stepped in when it was clear there would otherwise be a lack of competition to Clintonism.

2) You are making the common mistake of seeing this in totally personal terms. It is not that millions of people are supporting Sanders simply because they are enamored of him. It is what he stands for, his values and message and goals..... A lot of people are opposed to Clinton not because they think she is an awful person-- they do not like the type of elitistist status quo politics and governing she stands for and the interests she represents.

Feel free to disagree. But it would be helpful if you do not misrepresent the motives or beliefs of Sanders supporters.

[PatrickforO]

52. No. I think that if Warren were running, Bernie wouldn't be.

I think Bernie's doing it because he thinks someone needs to be advocating these positions on behalf of the American people because we've gone pretty darned far down the path to oligarchy/corporate government, and because of corporate propaganda are in danger of going even further - through TPP and increasing Republican fascism.

[daleanime]

64. I don't think "St. Bernie" would have run if Warren had....

If you remember one of the things he waited on before announcing his candidacy was her.

And I like that you admit that Bernie's too good you.

[thesquanderer]

65. Many Sanders supporters moved to him when Warren didn't run

Sanders supporters are often big Warren fans. Not so much big Hillary fans. So no, I don't think she'd be getting the same treatment, as a rule.

Also please see my post #59.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

24. Maybe there's a Fourth Way... or a Fifth Way. If there is, surely Hillary will find it.

Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!

[Ken Burch]

111. "Where There's A Hil, There's A 'Way'"?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

120. lol... good one!

[kath]

29. " The Clintons/DLC hijacked liberalism and turned it into an amorphous nothing ("centrism") that was

-- and is -- merely a cover for a kinder gentler form of corporate conservatism."

TRUTH. That so many here refuse to admit.

[tazkcmo]

34. Most don't

Most don't change weekly.

[raindaddy]

39. Warren's transformation went beyond social change.....

Warren wants to break up and regulate banks that have become so big and powerful they control congress and can take down our economy. Protecting the public from predator banks and deregulated corporations was once a hallmark of the Democratic party. And she's proven herself over and over again....

We need more than 3rd way lip service... Can't imagine Warren trying to sell the voters "cut it out" as a policy to deal with fraudulent banks...

[daybranch]

62. Hillary is still a third way- free market capitalist

as is her rich oligarchy of donors. Why do you think she always tries to dampen enthusiasm for an significant progressive measure? You want $15, she says 12 is enough. You want family leave, she says too much of a tax increase. You want Medicare for all, she says too expensive and wants to retain health insurance profit paying in system. You want free public college paid for by Wall Street taxes, she wants , like Christie, you to work 10 or more hours a week at the school. She is already working for her rich donors.

[CoffeeCat]

74. I'd be careful comparing Clinton to Elizabeth Warren

Warren has evolved into an outspoken champion for the middle class who has bravely rallied against Wall Street abuses and corporate corruption.

Clinton, on the other hand takes money from these powerful Wall Street interests. They've invested heavily in Hillary, knowing damn well that she'll allow them to continue destroying the middle class.

Hillary Clinton has also gone full neocon.

Elizabeth Warren fights against Wall Street, very publicly and with tears in her eyes.

You should be ashamed to compare these two women. Elizabeth Warren makes Hillary look like a chump.

[ish of the hammer]

84. "evolve" ?

[Loudestlib]

89. Paid Hillary troll

Always trying to get that first post on anything about Hillary or Sanders.

[randome]

99. What an ignorant thing to say.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

[brooklynite]

114. But as a 1%er, I thought I didn't need to be paid...

I assume that the insult is because you couldn't think of an actual response to my point?

[Hekate]

117. Fascinating, is it not?

I've asked the jurors to clarify whether this kind of discourse is now truly acceptable here. I eagerly await their response.

Update: Apparently this is appropriate discourse, but I was called out for being "rude" myself, so I guess I better be careful.

[Ferd Berfel]

113. Warren has loudly rejected the right wing policies and principles. Hillary is endorsing most of them

[Hekate]

118. Links to credible sources please.

RT and WND are not credible.

[Armstead]

2. The Democrat Centrist Mantra for 30 years -- "We're not liberal"

The GOP are consistently "proud conservatives."

That requires a clear opposition.

"Well, we're not really liberal. We can't really define what we are."

No wonder the country was steadily pushed right for three decades under this kind of simpering crap.

[HereSince1628]

3. we can't really define what we are = nonsense

They new very well how their politics lay... dissembling is a key component of the politics of pragmatism.

[Gregorian]

4. She has ambition. Bernie does not have that. He is not doing this for Bernie, unilke Clinton.

For the Clintons, this is about them (to some degree, any of which is too much). For Bernie, this is about fixing a broken system.

Hillary wants to win. Bernie wants a better economy.

All of this stuff is conjecture. We can argue all day if we want. For some of us this is academic and transparent. Hillary is no Trump, but she's also no Bernie.

[Buzz Clik]

7. Oh, yeah. People with zero ambition run for president all the time ... are career politicians.

[Gregorian]

45. Sorry. I couldn't help myself.

This will all be over soon.

[Live and Learn]

15. +1000 nt

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

28. Bernie is in it for all of US (and the U.S.)... what more does one need to know?

Go Bernie!!!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!

[pangaia]

53. Perfect !!!

TRUTH !!

[Gregorian]

106. Then why do I feel guilty. Haha.

I don't know what will happen if either is elected.

Bernie is shouting loud and clear, to me anyways, that he's serious about a job that's crucially important.

I think the problem is that we don't live in a world of Dems. There's a large part of our society who are just on a rampage of stupidity and destruction. So who is going to be better at getting things done with the Dingbats and their lighters, burning up every idea we try to pass through Congress.

So I feel odd about my certainty. I could go on, but I'm not even sure this post was even needed. Cheers.

[Buzz Clik]

5. Here's a word I like: context.

Do you the meaning of "context"?

[Armstead]

8. Context

"Conservatives are winning. Liberalism is having a difficult time. So let's throw liberalism under the bus, court the same Big Money crowd as the GOP and the same anti-liberal biases the GOP and corporate America created in the public zeitgiest and win."

[Buzz Clik]

11. That isn't context. Sorry. That fits one of two other words:

"Rationalization" and/or "bullshit"

But, thanks for playing.

[JonLeibowitz]

81. Yes, a rationalization to avoid the principles of the democratic party

[Buzz Clik]

85. It was a non sequitur.

Have the last word... rant... whatever.

[kath]

32. YES. Once again, you nail it, Armstead.

[Segami]

10. Do you know how to write?

"...Do you the meaning of "context"?.."

[Buzz Clik]

12. Heh heh heh. Your video has no context, irrespective of your juvenile attempt to turn this around.

[Segami]

13. If you want juvenile, see post #5

for starters...........

[Buzz Clik]

17. This is what you bring: "I know you are, but what am I?"

I really, really like Bernie Sanders. But, that is despite the hideous, childish, boorish behavior of his fans on DU.

[YOHABLO]

22. I think you left out the word "know''

[BillZBubb]

36. He took it out of context

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

31. Here's a word i like: Bernie!!! ... here's another: authentic.

[riversedge]

9. I think you look very desperate and foolish posting an old quote without context

[NurseJackie]

16. What else have they got?

[Buzz Clik]

19. Childish behavior, name calling, divisiveness.

Beyond that ... not much.

[NurseJackie]

21. ... and HA Goodman.

[betsuni]

26. Uh, that should be NOT much.

Because capitalizing NOT seems very important here. For what reason I do NOT know.

[pangaia]

56. We have Bernie Sanders.

[Buzz Clik]

18. +1

[thesquanderer]

47. It's a mix, in terms of context.

The new-ish video clip at the end is somewhat out of context. The particular quote the OP included under the video is also somewhat out of context, not entirely accurate (the transcription there is not verbatim), and editorialized (by capitalizing the word "still&quot .

BUT... there is plenty of context in the video itself, in terms of the main clip. It's not damning, but it does basically describe why many liberals do not see Clinton as one of their own.

And then gradually, over time, in college and law school, I evolved my own political beliefs, which frankly, are in some ways, neither easily defined.... they're not dogmatically republican, dogmatically democrat, easily defined as liberal or conservative.

There's a little verbal stumble there... she presumably was either going for "not easily defined" or "neither liberal nor conservative" -- but her meaning is plain.

Getting back to the newer clip, here it is in context, where I think it is not quite as bad:

though what I think is really funny about that clip is what she says afterwards:

you try to figure out, how do you bring people together to get someting done, instead of just standing on the opposite sides yelling at each other

...which is very much what Sanders was saying when she essentially accused him of being sexist.

[fasttense]

51. She comes across like a moderate RepubliCON much like Obama does today.

The difference is that Obama sounded like a real liberal when he ran for office. She sounds like a moderate RepubliCON now.

What will she sound like once she's in office? They seem to morph into more conservative NOT more liberal. So, she will end up being more RepubliCON then Obama.

[pangaia]

57. The context is perfectly clear to me.

[Live and Learn]

14. K&R nt

[YOHABLO]

25. Jim Hightower: There's Nothing in the Middle of the Road but Yellow Stripes and Dead Armadillos

[randome]

27. Burn her!

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

[tazkcmo]

35. Hyperbole.

See your fellow Hillary supporter's comment about childish and boorish behavior, Kettle.

[randome]

44. I'm not interested in syncing my posts with anyone else's.

And my hyperbole is only a rebound to the OP's hyperbole. No context and an old quote.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

[Thinkingabout]

38. Using Sanders excuse about his atricle on women's sexual fantasy

He was young, a thirty year old young, if that works then Hillary was young when she said she was a Republican, a young twenty year old. You can choose to excuse both for their youthful decisions or choose to excuse neither.

[AuntPatsy]

54. Point taken, and I agree with your post, some of these attacks are defeating IMPO

[pangaia]

60. Apples and oranges.

Or maybe more like... jiaozi and uni to ika no temaki.

---two totally different things.

[Thinkingabout]

66. Yes, quiet different subjects, you may have missed the point, Sanders said he was young,

Hillary was younger by ten years, if the excuse of "young" is acceptable, then it is in both cases.

[pangaia]

67. It has nothing to do with young old...

I guess the context is between the lines.. in what is not directly stated in the OP.. in the silence...

[Thinkingabout]

76. Got it, then Sanders excuse of being young is not acceptable, then so be it.

His article is offensive.

[Enthusiast]

42. Kicked and recommended! Thanks, Segami.

The terms centrist, liberal and even conservative have lost much of their meaning.

I sure don't want anyone representing my party that promotes themselves as a centrist.

When we examine where we are as a nation, we don't need no stinkin' centrists. We are in desperate need of a reformer. We need someone that will put an end to Wall Street rule in no uncertain muddy terms.

[Phlem]

48. K&R!!!!

[whereisjustice]

49. Hillary is so out of touch. Why would anyone vote for her when we have much better choices?

[Art_from_Ark]

119. I agree. Why settle for less?

It's like we get to choose from among three doors, like on Let's Make A Deal.

Behind Door Bernie is a new car.
Behind Door Hillary is a goat.
Behind Door Republican is a festering heap of garbage.

So there is one grand prize, and 2 zonk prizes. Of course, one of the zonk prizes is much better than the other one.
But I'd much rather have the grand prize.

[Cary]

55. "Not Democrat"

Hmmmm.

[SunSeeker]

94. Yes, that was jarring. Sometime it's like listening to Rush around here.

You would think people who post here would know the name of our party is the Democratic Party, not the "Democrat Party."

[firebrand80]

58. Good. I don't want an ideologue as President.

This is the same thing that appealed to me about Obama.

[NCTraveler]

61. I am a Clinton Democrat.

I get that labels are the most important thing to you.

We will see who the people side with very soon. The voice of the people is what matters. I have a feeling they aren't as concerned with labels as you either. We will know the truth soon. Very soon. I'm beyond excited.

[vi5]

68. They aren't Democrat, Liberal, or Conservative...

They are whatever you want them to be. Seriously what is it you want, support, or like right now? Because you can rely on the fact that whatever it is that most of you support, that's what she is for. Just let her know, and if they change then no biggie she can change too. That's what's great about her. She's so willing to work with us.

[Cary]

88. Total nonsense

Do you want another George W. Bush?

How about someone even worse?

[vi5]

104. Huh?

No, I want someone with the strength of their convictions and commitment to core principals of the Democratic party. Not someone who tells people what they want to hear and votes whichever way the political winds are at the time.

[Cary]

109. You will have two choices.

And while I don't agree with your judgment, you will most likely have to choose between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Granted, it could be Cruz or Rubio and an outside chance of someone else who is either like George W. Bush, or worse.

Of course you can try to spin Hillary Clinton to be as bad as "conservatives" want you to believe her to be but then you're really aiding and abetting those "conservatives." And I've heard how that aiding and abetting is spun here at DU. You're just aiding and abetting.

Those are the facts of life. Sorry.

[vi5]

112. Ah....fear mongering.....

Sorry, didn't work when Hillary supporters tried it in 2008 and it's not going to work now.

Wasn't "You're either with us or against us" one of W's big tactics?

[Cary]

115. What a load of crap

Can you refute what I said?

No, of course not.

Feh.

[MineralMan]

69. Once again, you offer a glimpse of times past and

conflate that with this year's election. To what end, Segami? What is your goal?

[Cassiopeia]

70. She didn't mean any of that!

She a progressive. Fuck, she's even a socialist! Don't listen to the words that come out of her mouth, just trust me, HRH is the mostest progressiveist politician evvvvvvaaaaaa!!

[George II]

72. Is it really necessary to dig back decades to find stuff like this to attack Clinton? Interesting..

...that this is "good" but old stuff about Sanders is hidden.

Also interesting to see you say in your title, "her beliefs are not democrat", not "democratIC". That's what republicans do. Comment?

[NurseJackie]

75. I noticed that too.

[ucrdem]

77. No word about Bernie either.

Not the first time I've noticed that.

[Cary]

78. "her beliefs are not democrat."

Indeed. That is very, very telling.

I noticed it (see above). <spits>

[Buzz Clik]

80. +1

A lot of the rhetorical style is being borrowed from groups for whom I have no respect.

[Armstead]

82. Problem is she still spouts this stuff

[George II]

86. Not really. Example?

[Cary]

87. The problem is that we have too much at stake

Do I have to spell it out for you?

[Armstead]

91. We do have too much at stake to keep repeating the same old stuff that got us into this mess

[Cary]

96. I've seen your "same old stuff" many times

[JTFrog]

93. What better way to contribute to DU than bash and trash Democratic candidates?

I mean, c'mon, this poster is just "vetting" our candidate for us. Not spreading right wing propaganda. Not undermining a Democratic candidate during election season... it's just "vetting".

*cough*bullshit*cough*

You Better Believe It!

[Cary]

97. "Democrat Party"

[ish of the hammer]

83. Clinton is a progmoderate! and don't you forget it!

[JTFrog]

90. YOU BETTER BELIEVE IT! n/t

[SunSeeker]

95. LOL nt

[Ino]

100. "I evolved my own political beliefs...

which, frankly, are in some ways, neither easily defined. They're not dogmatically Republican, dogmatically Democrat, easily defined as liberal or conservative."

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

102. Hillary is whatever she thinks is convenient at the moment.

Now, the man on the stand he wants my vote,
He's a-runnin' for office on the ballot note.
He's out there preachin' in front of the steeple,
Tellin' me he loves all kinds-a people.
(He's eatin' bagels
He's eatin' pizza
He's eatin' chitlins
He's eatin' bullshit!

Bob Dylan

[Doctor_J]

103. her supporters don't WANT a liberal president

Most of them, at least ar du, want republican solutions to problems. So while it's true that she is a conservative, that's what the dlc wants.

[Lil Missy]

105. OMG!!! Armageddon!!!

[Orsino]

107. Well, America isn't very progressive, either.

I think the many abuses of Wall Street and the military-industrial complex might tip the race to Sanders, who fearlessly addresses these issues, but Clinton aligns nicely with our hawkishness, and her name recognition made her look inevitable. It will come dow, I think, to a question of whose promises we think we can believe.

[Babel_17]

108. Glad to see quoting a candidate doesn't violate the TOS

This is what the primaries are for, in part, to help us make an informed choice. Whoever you choose, we don't want there to be buyers remorse down the road. When the primaries aren't a purifying forge, you get a weaker candidate than otherwise. Look at Romney. He got a pass on lots of silly reasoning and then once their nominee he got tripped up just by expressing some of the nonsense he thought was common sense.

You won't see Clinton, O'Malley, or Sanders, likely to make such unforced errors as we're a too sharp eared and sharp eyed bunch of consumers of politics. We put our candidates through a process that determines what's what.

Should a campaign be unwilling to participate in that, there's likely to be negative consequences. Trying to rig the system to preempt this process will also likely have negative consequences. Sometimes the blowback is immediate and obvious, other times it takes longer for the consequences to be felt. (Gary Hart comes to mind, and so does John Edwards, when it comes to the truth finding its way out)

Maintaining the Democratic party as we know it depends on this kind of process. If we are instead evolving into a different kind of party, one that has "turns" for their nominees, and one that has a commandment about critiquing our aspirants to the Presidency, we'll risk having candidates who, like Bob Dole, and Mitt Romney, can't seal the deal with the American public.

That our party is likely to be facing a doomed from the start Republican opponent is no reason to abandon sensible practices for conducting our nominating process.

[Hekate]

116. MISLEADING and out of context thread title. BUT you KNEW that ALREADY.

Ow, my finger hurts from hitting the caps lock.

[Sheepshank]

121. The epitome of desperately searching for a zinger on Hillary

While every Bernie supporter is all over Warren as their bestest best friend and hopeful nominee for Bernie's running mate...they don't even realize they have thrown Warren under the bus already. Let's not forget, Hillary never actually voted Republican....just how many dozens of Republicans got Elizabeth Warren's vote before her conversion?

[postatomic]

122. Next up: Home Movies of Hillary's 5th Birthday Party

Thanks for posting this. I'm a hopeless Nostalgic Romantic.