Hillary Clinton follows up...

[brooklynite]

Link to tweet

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

3. Not bad for back-pedaling... I commend Hillary for that.

Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together & can't be bought!!
Jump on the Bernie Bandwagon & join the revolution!!

[BuffaloJackalope]

46. No, just the same old double standard which only seems to apply to HRC.

[ismnotwasm]

72. I see no backpedaling.

[LiberalLovinLug]

73. Sure sounds like backpeddling

Asked if she'd support the eventual winner, if it is Sanders: "I'm not going to go there yet."

She claimed that she had finally spoken the unvarnished truth. And chided those she said had criticized her in the past for not doing so. She still resents him, does not like the man, and will not commit to voting Democratic if he wins. (No matter that he endorsed and joined her in 39 rallies after the last DNC.)

The next day: "as I always have, I will do whatever I can to support our nominee."

The real question is, if the first one was the one she claimed was the "unvarnished truth", how can her follow up be that as well?

[ismnotwasm]

74. Hillary has a sophisticated and dry wit

That wasn’t backpedaling, especially given the context of the original statement. People crack me up.

[LiberalLovinLug]

75. I'm glad you find it funny

That our former Presidential candidate says that not committing to vote Democratic in November is the "unvarnished truth"

And that you find it humorous that some might be uncomfortable with that. Based on the fact that she still has a lot of sway with a lot of Democratic voters (and ex-voters if Sanders wins?). Even with her scrambled knee-jerk response after getting criticism from fellow Democrats.

[ehrnst]

76. False. She never stated that she would not commit to vote Democratic in the 2020 election.

Nor did she even state that she would not vote for Bernie, if that scenario should come to pass.

If you need to falsify what she said to make your point, then perhaps your point needs to be re-evaluated.

[LiberalLovinLug]

83. Look I'm not going to get into it with you

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/21/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-nobody-likes-him-hulu-documentary

Asked by the Hollywood Reporter if she would endorse Sanders should he win the primary this year, Clinton refused to commit, saying: “I’m not going to go there yet.”

In that scenario, voting for Sanders would be one and the same as voting Democratic.

How can you possibly read it any other way?

[ehrnst]

85. It's right there....

Last edited Sat Jan 25, 2020, 06:37 PM - Edit history (2)

Asked by the Hollywood Reporter if she would endorse Sanders should he win the primary this year, Clinton refused to commit, saying: “I’m not going to go there yet.”

Conveniently you choose to ignore this, which is the actual OP....:

But to be serious, the number one priority for our country and world is retiring Trump, and, as I always have, I will do whatever I can to support our nominee.

Confirmation bias does not evidence make. No matter how much you reeeallllly think it's true.

Pro tip: if one says 'Look, I'm not going to get into it with you" then proceeds to get into it, especially if one disproves one's own point, that doesn't bolster the credibility of one's posts. Also, starting a statement with "Look," in a discussion is a giveaway for being irritated.

[LiberalLovinLug]

87. I can admit when I've made a mistake.

She did not say "vote" she said "endorse".
But don't you think that if she refused to endorse the winner, it would have a depressing turnout for many Democrats? To suggest she is not committed to endorsing the winner, IF its the one she doesn't like, is fine? When you know that that question would not even be asked of her if Biden was soaring right now. And if it ever was asked, in that instance, she would rightly look at that reporter as a nutcase for even asking.

And saying she is not going to go there, not answer the question now, is appropriate because she added "yet"? "Yet" could also be interpreted as "I'm not going to answer that yet, until I know for sure who is the winner"

Your second statement is part of her reaction answer a few days later, after feeling the pressure for her unvarnished truthful answer. A few days too late, imo.

And another wrong I am admitting. (You are on a roll here ehrnst.) I should have said "Look, I don't WANT to get into it with you" I feel I must again now if only to admit my mistakes and clear the record. Another thing you're are right about; I was irritated. Unlike yourself, I don't find it all that funny.

[ehrnst]

89. She stated that she would endorse the winner. You are fixated on a misrepresentation of what

she said. "If she refused to support the candidate..."

A few days too late, imo.

How much time did it take for Bernie to 'clarify' after his own refusal to commit to supporting the winner if it wasn't him?

Months?



Unlike yourself, I understand the difference between expressing bemusement at someone twisting themselves into pretzels to avoid the facts that don't confirm their bias when confronted with those biases, and "finding something funny."

There are a limited number of DU smilies. If you find "chuckle" to be frivolous and offensive, perhaps you would prefer I used instead?

I'll keep that in mind for next time.

[Bev54]

82. I find it funny

That a Bernie supporter is lecturing others about supporting the eventual nominee. What bloody hypocrisy!

[ehrnst]

92. Starting "endorsements" with a recitation of how many pledged delegates he got...

Sure...

But... if Hillary was to start any endorsement of Sanders a hypothetical Sanders victory - which you have, in this very thread continued to discuss - with a recitation the number of pledged delegates that she got, and then continued to tell the press when asked about the nominee, "Well, we just can't have a Trump victory," would you consider that to be an enthusiastic endorsement?

Or would you be irritated?

Honestly, now.

[ehrnst]

77. There are those who are blinded by hate.

So those are going to hear whatever confirms that image for them, however false.

[ehrnst]

97. You mean like when Sanders waited months after he declared he would support the nominee months after

he refused to commit to it?

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/06/bernie-sanders-2016-rigged-wont-pledge-support-winner.html

[Cha]

98. NO it does NOT sound like

"back peddling" as you assert.

No Worries.. Hillary is a TEAM Player.

[lapucelle]

108. HRC never said "she will not commit to voting Democratic".

[Cha]

105. Wrong.

[brutus smith]

2. Someone needs to tell Hillary that she's no longer relevent.

Oh wait, I will. You're no longer relevant. You already lost 1 election for us we don't need you to lose another.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

4. Just wish Hillary hadn't said what she said... sure didn't help!!

Unfortunately, the genie is out of the bottle.


Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together & can't be bought!!
Jump on the Bernie Bandwagon & join the revolution!!

[StevieM]

78. There is no genie and there is no bottle.

She didn't say she might not support him if he is the nominee. And she has repeatedly made it clear that she will support whoever the nominee is.

[ehrnst]

94. You mean like when Bernie refused to commit to endorsing the Dem candidate if it wasn't him?

Sanders Claims 2016 Primary Was Rigged, Won’t Commit to Supporting Winner

That "genie was out of the bottle" last July!!!!!

[MrsCoffee]

5. Another attempt to legitimize TuRdump? She didn't lose. She won by over 3 million votes.

It took TREASON to keep her out of office.

And she will always be relevant. Much more so than Bernie.

[pazzyanne]

6. Thank you. You voiced my take on this post!

[brutus smith]

7. She did lose. Why is she spouting off now?

She should have directed her comments at trump. Taking aim at 1 Democratic candidate is not a good thing no matter who your choice is.

[MrsCoffee]

9. The fucker who was just impeached committed treason to keep her out of office.

He did not “win” shit.

And she should do whatever the fuck she wants. She has directed more words, comments, speeches and WARNINGS about Trump for the last five fucking years than anyone else has. She was right about all of it.

She is right to sound the bells again.

[Pacifist Patriot]

58. Thank you!

[ehrnst]

95. +1000.

[BannonsLiver]

11. Well boo hoo

[Hav]

12. "Why is she spouting off now?"

Because she voiced her opinion in the context of a documentary? Because it's relevant for current events? Because she doesn't need your permission to talk?
A certain other candidate takes plenty of aim against the other candidates. Why don't you tell him to direct his attacks at Trump and not against Democrats and the Democratic Party?

[onetexan]

63. +1 K&R

[ehrnst]

81. "Spouting off"

A term often used by men to describe a woman or child that is out of line, or not deferential enough.

See also: mouthy.

[SharonAnn]

21. She said what we know is true.

[still_one]

26. She lost because of people like David Sirota and Brianha Joy Gray who encouraged enough people NOT

to vote for the Democratic nominee, because there was no difference

In those critical swing states the Democratic nominee lost by less then 1%. Jill Stein received 1% of the vote in those states, and there is one campaign who has hired people who voted for Jill Stein

[thesquanderer]

40. You can't assume that every Jill Stein voter would have voted for HRC...

...rather than for someone else or even just staying home. There are lots of reason HRC lost, and the Susan Sarandons et al are among the less significant ones. Here are some contributing factors that had nothing to do with Sanders or Stein...

…russian hacking/interference in the campaign

…email scandal (where even though she was found to have done nothing illegal, it still got a lot of air time, and still ended up concluding that she had handled things poorly, playing into the “poor judgment” attack)

…comey bringing emails back to the forefront the week before the election

…uninspired VP choice (he may have well been an excellent VP, but I doubt he got her so much as a single additional state, and his lackluster debate performance didn't help)

…not spending enough time and resources in the rust belt (and/or Trump putting in more)

...people who would never vote for a woman (misogyny)

…people who would vote for a woman, but would never vote for Hillary (baggage/high negatives)

…she was an "establishment" candidate in a year where many people of both parties (or neither) were more drawn to outsiders

Sure, the Sanders campaign scored some hits. Every primary competitor does. Hillary scored some hits on Obama in 2008, too. That's the nature of primaries. If you can't stand the heat, you don't belong in the kitchen.

[brutus smith]

41. Agree

[still_one]

54. True, not every Jill Stein voter would have voted for Clinton, however, there were enough who were

duped by the likes of David Sirota, Nina Turner, Briahna Joy Gray, Cornel West, and other prominent people who dissuaded not to vote for the Democratic nominee by either voting third party or not voting

It absolutely contribute to what happened

The Democratic nominee was ahead by 5 points before Comey came out 11 days before the election, and the said that the email investigation was reopened. That was a LIE, but and the media gladly propagated it. Several days later that 5 point lead was completely erased to even.

It didn't take many in those critical swing states to "protest" their vote by either voting third party or NOT voting, and their wonderful actions also helped pave the way for the perfect storm.

Every Democratic Senator running in those critical swing states lost to the incumbent, establishment, republican, and those Democrats were progressive by any standard.

My point being is that every little bit helped elect trump.

What is sad is that one of the Democratic candidates has hired some of the same people who not only voted for Jill Stein, but spread lies and disinformation

[questionseverything]

91. compared to obama she lost 10 % of the black vote

Obama got 98% hc got 88%

that point gets missed repeatedly

[BlueWI]

106. THIS.

Winning a majority of black support among primary voters in Southern states gave the campaign a false confidence this reliably Democratic constituency was locked up for the GE. This is a lesson for Biden - don't take black voters for granted, anywhere in the country! The drop-off in support for the ticket in Michigan and Milwaukee hurt the party far more than the so-called Green defections.

[questionseverything]

118. in detroit 40,000 undervotes in the pres race

same ballots voted for dems in other races


people want to be courted

[ehrnst]

117. While Hillary won more white female voters than Obama both in 2008 and 2012, which also gets ignored

That point gets ignored repeatedly.

About white Obama voters switching to Trump...

A new study reveals the real reason Obama voters switched to Trump
Hint: It has to do with race.

One reason is that Obama’s second term featured a significant amount of racial conflict. The Black Lives Matter movement was founded in 2013. The 2014 killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson, and subsequent week of protest and unrest, kicked off a massive and racially polarizing national debate over police violence against African Americans.

A second reason is that Obama’s very presence in office was racially polarizing. Michael Tesler, a scholar at the University of California-Irvine, has documented in detail how Obama’s very presence in the White House polarized America along racial lines. It would make sense that this effect would grow stronger the longer Obama was in office, setting the stage for a major backlash in his final year.

Third, and arguably most importantly, the two candidates turned the election into a kind of referendum on American race relations. Trump kicked off his campaign by calling Mexican immigrants rapists and vowing to build a wall between the US and Mexico. He vowed to ban Muslims, and described black life in America as a hellscape of violence and poverty. Mitt Romney’s 2012 campaign was not nearly so overt, which means it was less likely to attract voters who held latent racist and anti-immigrant attitudes.

Clinton, for her part, positioned herself as a champion of racial justice. While Obama’s rhetoric on race was typically post-racial, positioning the country as more united than divided, Clinton got out front on issues like police violence and immigration. There are plenty of valid reasons for this — Clinton was more worried about failing to turn out minority voters, Obama was more worried about alienating skittish whites, and there was no way to respond to Trump’s campaign without tackling race head-on.

I hope that clarifies some things for you about comparing HRC and Obama's electoral results among whites.

[getagrip_already]

27. only backlash was from..

supporters of a certain candidate who didn't like the truth.

Truth can be hard to hear. But it usually needs to be said when there is a lot at stake.

[ehrnst]

33. She said this over a year ago. And she didn't say anything that hadn't been said for years.

She was being honest.

Not "taking aim" with false statements.

[ehrnst]

68. BS' book "Our Revolution" has a lot of 'spouting off,' about HRC, and he lost

by larger margin than Hillary won in the popular vote in the GE.

Or does the term "spouting off" only apply to female candidates?

[ehrnst]

86. Yes, Bernie directs his comments at the "Democratic establishment" instead of Trump

and gets cheers for speaking truth to power...

[rockfordfile]

103. You are being a troll. Clinton can say anything she wants . Russia and others are to blame

[lapucelle]

109. It's a quote from the documentary about HRC premiering at the Sundance Film Festival

this weekend.

The interview was filmed last year before the big BS announcement, so she neither "sprouted off" nor "took aim at" any candidate running as a Democrat in the presidential primary.

******************************************************************************************************



*******************************************************************************************************

The documentary will be shown in four parts on Hulu, so the "sprouting off" will continue.

Because the documentary will always be part of the record of the 2016 general election, historians will have the opportunity to hear HRC "sprout off" in the future.

And because scholars and researchers will also have access to the actual hard data, you can expect further "sprouting off" on their part.

Link to tweet

*******************************************************************************************************

[delisen]

8. There is a reason Putin hates her-America's human rights champion

who had the guts to promote democratic principles and the rights of women and girls all over our world.

Show me another political figure who understands that the real revolution is about equality - not leaning in to patriarchy.

I am so over the self-proclaimed revolutionaries with borrowed 19th century economic class-based classroom analyses.

In France they have limousine socialists, like that billionaire who sexually abused the hotel maid in New York. We have academic socialists - people who study socialism and preach socialism but don't seem to be able to lead socialist lives.

[RandiFan1290]

13. She lost to trump. nt

[MrsCoffee]

15. So you believe the impeached one was legitimately elected?

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

[BannonsLiver]

16. Moreover, they were likely tickled pink when it happened. Over the moon.

Another one from the Suzie Surandon blow it all up crowd.

[still_one]

30. It also ignores the FACT that 11 days before the GE Comey released the letter to the republicans in

Congress, and our illustrious media paraded every right wing politician across their outlets spewing the LIE that the email investigation had been reopened.

It also ignores the fact that enough self-identified progressives refused to vote for the Democratic nominee in those critical swing states, because they fell for the con propagated by various people on social media and other outlets that there was no difference between republicans and Democrats

In every critical swing state Hillary lost by less than 1%, while Jill Stein received 1% of the vote.

To make matters worse 47% didn't even bother to vote.

I believe your assessment is right on MrsCoffee, trump was NOT legitimately elected, and especially with the Comey fiasco, the election was definitely interfered with, and that doesn't even include the foreign interference

[RandiFan1290]

56. Yes, he won the election

Nancy and Chuck should make a major announcement if the opposite is true.

[lees1975]

22. Only because of Russian interference

There's something wrong in a system where you can get three million more votes in an election but still lose it. In this case, not only was it antiquated electoral college irrelevance but it got combined with figuring out how to cheat the system to get just enough votes in three states you desperately need to win.

Still, her remarks were off base. If her goal is to help see Trump retired, she needs to stay away from criticizing Democrats and focus her pointed remarks on the orange headed buffoon.

[NCProgressive]

50. Russian interference and Comey played a role

but look ... those are the three states where Jill Stein got the largest % of votes.

Guess who advocated and voted for Jill Stein? David Sirota, Brihana Joy Grey and Nina Turner. It is highly unlikely that they did it on their own without direction from the top.

[ehrnst]

23. Beating him by 3 million votes... more than any POTUS candidate not named Obama.

Last edited Wed Jan 22, 2020, 11:19 AM - Edit history (1)

The Oval Office was stolen from her with democratic voter suppression in three key states where she lost by a sliver, Comey's letter, and Russian interference.

Really losing is when you get 4 million votes less than the winner...

[NCProgressive]

48. Bros don't seem to get it

they're too busy high-fiving each other that they got BS a second chance to run

[ehrnst]

51. It serves a particular narrative to insist that she "did badly" or was a "weak candidate."

As if the clear majority of Democrats had no clue what a good candidate is.

[NCProgressive]

59. Well, we all know that Bernie is the only good candidate

He is flawless. Pristine. Pure as driven snow. Smarter than Einstein, blacker than Rev. MLK Jr., able to pass impossible legislation in a single bounce.

[ehrnst]

60. Because REASONS!!!

[NCProgressive]

47. ++++

[RandiFan1290]

10. Yep. nt

[Nanjeanne]

18. She would never listen.

[lark]

24. WRONG - Hillary didn't lose, she got 3 million more counted votes.

drumpf cheated with Russian and Russian repug help and stole the election. Way to blame the victim!

[MH1]

36. LOL, she's relevant enough that you commented on this post.

[brutus smith]

43. Not really.

[treestar]

62. Then how come someone is making a film about her life?

[ismnotwasm]

71. She is very relevant

Else she wouldn’t cause every bot and troll on every internet site or social media platform to scurry out of their dank spaces with the goddamn meltdown vapors every time she opens her mouth.



A number of factors went into her loss. She herself didn’t “lose 1 election for us” she worked her ass off to win.

And if you think she can “lose another” that further negates your statement that she is no longer relevant. Her works and works either matter, or they don’t.

[Cha]

79. Someone needs to tell you that Hillary is Most "Relevant".

[PufPuf23]

84. HRC is angling to be drafted at the convention as the Democratic Party candidate for POTUS

after the current contenders are bloodied in their competition.

Our current leading candidate, Joe Biden, is likely to be more damaged (not rightfully mind you) by the impeachment trial than Trump.

[Cha]

96. NO Hillary is NOT.

[PufPuf23]

100. You cannot say that for certain.

New documentary. Not that old of a book. Joining public discourse.

My opinion only.

Bet HRC would be open to running if asked and the Party offered support.

I am wishy washy now about the idea (there are times when would have disliked the idea) but have voted for Democratic candidate every election since McGovern and don't intend to change.

Edit to add: HRC has far more physical vitality now than Biden or Sanders (I'm a senior citizen so not being ageist but realistic).

[Cha]

101. you can't say it.

[PufPuf23]

102. All I am saying is HRC is positioned for it

and probably still has the ambition as well.

Plus many folks would be pleased.

I would go as far as to say it may be a good thing (which you may find surprising).

[StevieM]

80. Hillary kicked Trump's ass from one end of the country to the other.

She lost because of a bogus FBI investigation. And whoever the Democrats had nominated in 2016 was probably going to placed under FBI investigation. They made it impossible for the Democrat to win.

And there is nothing HRC can do to cause the 2020 Democratic candidate to win or lose. They will do so on their own merits.

[Hav]

17. Damn, there is so much salt in this thread

Hillary really has this ability to bring out the unhinged anger in people by doing nothing else than simply telling the truth. Whether it's from Trumpers or other bitter groups.

[brutus smith]

44. So what's your reasoning for her making her thoughts public?

[Hav]

52. My understanding is that this was part of a documentary

Her presidential campaign was only one part of an array of topics that was covered and she offered her insight. Who knows what the timeline is and when the comments were made as the plans to do it started like 2 years ago. People act like she decided to come out yesterday and look for a journalist to make this comment about Bernie when it's only one comment among 35 hours of interviews done since 2018. It's possible Bernie hadn't even made it public to run at the time of these comments.

[ehrnst]

66. She answered a question in an interview, and it is in a documentary being released. (nt)

[Malmsy]

19. That's not an apology, and Bernie deserves one from her. (eom)

[LongtimeAZDem]

20. She has nothing to apologize to him for

[lark]

25. LOL, him first!

[DURHAM D]

31. Ummh -

Приятного пребывания

Priyatnogo prebyvaniya

[MrsCoffee]

34. For saying she was unqualified? Hillary owes less than ZERO to Bernie.

He did her no favors and plenty of disservices.

[brutus smith]

45. With your reasoning it must be payback time?

[LongtimeAZDem]

49. Yes

[getagrip_already]

28. the bots are strong with this thread, they are n/t

[DURHAM D]

32. Ty prav (You are correct)

So glad that Google has an English to Russian translation app - it is fun.

[Eyeball_Kid]

29. Hillary is only a person with an opinion right now.

Her criticism of Sanders isn't that important. IMO, folks are making too much of her comments. I don't care whether she likes Sanders or not. BFD. There are far more important issues to consider in the election than what Hillary thinks or doesn't think about any candidate. Let's move on.

[MrsCoffee]

35. Only the most qualified person to ever run for President.

I care what she has to say. So do millions of Americans.

Time has shown that we should listen to her when she speaks out to warn Americans about our elections.

She will not go gentle into that good night.

[brutus smith]

39. So "warning Americans" is to trash Bernie?

If anything she should be trashing Joe for not doing anything before the election. The intelligence community warned the administration.

[ehrnst]

70. And why was it the VP's personal responsibility to prevent election interference?

Or even the POTUS's?

What is it that they were supposed to do that they did not?

[brutus smith]

110. Where does the "buck" stop?

Since Joe wants to be associated with the good things Obama did, he can be associated with the not so good.

[ehrnst]

111. You didn't answer the question. What was the specific responsibility of Obama and Biden

to have stopped what was going on with election interference?

You state that he and Obama didn't do something that you expected them to.

crickets

[brutus smith]

113. Since you're not capable of searching for that yourself

https://www.npr.org/2018/02/21/587614043/fact-check-why-didnt-obama-stop-russia-s-election-interference-in-2016

[ehrnst]

114. I suppose you didn't read the part that contradicts what you said about Biden?

Perhaps you're "not capable" of reading the article the article you found before posting it, so here it is.

Former Vice President Joe Biden also has complained that the White House wanted Republicans to join in a bipartisan statement announcing and condemning the interference campaign. In Biden's telling, however, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., wouldn't go along.

[brutus smith]

115. They didn't need a bipartisan statement.

Besides, I thought Joe could work with repubs. And pulling 1 sentence out of a whole article to try to prove your point is pretty right wing to me. But I'll let you have the last word, another right demand.

[ehrnst]

116. Folding when you have nothing in your hand is wise.

But pushing away from the table and saying that you had a straight flush, but your opponent is an 'untrustworthy RWer' while storming out doesn't fool anyone.

Not even a pair of dueces, eh?



But you know what's a real "pretty RW" talking point?

Fact-checking Trump's claims Obama 'did nothing' to stop Russian election interference

See also, accusing others of what one is doing oneself...



Don't let the screen door hit ya...

[questionseverything]

93. that is the part that gets me..it's like who was in charge when this theft was happening?

crickets

[ehrnst]

112. What gets me is why no one who is saying this has any answers

when you ask who was specifically responsible and how for Russian interference that was supposed to "be prevented" in 2016.

crickets

[pecosbob]

37. Won...lost...forty percent of the electorate didn't bother to show up to vote in 2016

Thirty years of swift-boating didn't help her popularity among voters. That's all water under the bridge. We would do well to choose a candidate that does not polarize our party.

[ehrnst]

67. It was a better turnout than 1996, 2000, and 2012.

That's a talking point that used in a way that's not really accurate concerning HRC's candidacy.

[Mike Nelson]

38. I like the new...

... Hillary! Free from running for office. Of course, I already knew what she said in this tweet... but, I guess it's good for the media.

[The Valley Below]

42. I stand with HRC and the Democratic Party.

Give 'em hell Hillary!

[onetexan]

64. Ditto! K&R

[comradebillyboy]

53. I absolutly love Hillary's authentic, unvarnished views!

[cwydro]

57. I love Hillary, long time supporter.

But I’ve been disappointed at this negativity toward those candidates.

I dislike both of those candidates, but I fail to see how her comments help in any way.

She seems bitter and angry (which is understandable), but I still was sorry to see this.

[comradebillyboy]

61. Democrats have been walking on eggshells around Bernie for the last

four years. He's been crapping on the Party all that time. It's about time somebody called him out on his bad behavior and lack of accomplishment.

[Blue_Tires]

55. +1

[NCProgressive]

65. Go Hillary go!!

Expose the nefarious tactics

[ehrnst]

69. Hillary has always been straight with us. No reason to doubt her now. (nt)

[aikoaiko]

88. Its OK Hillary. We always knew the real you.

[Cha]

99. YES, Hillary the TEAM PLAYER!

[lapucelle]

107. It's important to know the "real" person behind any candidate's

carefully crafted facade. That's why vetting is so important, including the first hand perspectives of responsible and respected experts.

https://apnews.com/345bbd1af529cfb1e41305fa3ab1e604