Day 5 visiting Free Republic. ugly...very ugly.

[Jim Lane]

95. I also check in at FR and I see NOTHING like what you claim to have seen.

At first I thought the alert on your post was ridiculous. Having done some research, however, I agree with the alert.

I read or skimmed several FR threads about Clinton, and did what I could using their primitive search capability. Your statement:

Freepers were yelling...what about the emails...what about her vote on Iraq....what about her close ties to Wall Street....

is, as far as I can tell, two-thirds false.

They're certainly obsessing over the email thing. There was thread after thread after thread about it.

I saw absolutely nothing about Iraq. That assertion doesn't even pass the smell test. Why would the Freepers criticize her Iraq vote, which I'm sure they all agreed with?

As for Wall Street, I saw no criticism of her "ties to Wall Street" as indicating that she's too conservative. (To the contrary, the Freepers still consider her a socialist or a Communist.) There were some threads castigating Wall Street for its ties to Clinton. For example, in this thread on FR, from last April, there was discussion of this article in Politico, which stated:

The darkest secret in the big money world of the Republican coastal elite is that the most palatable alternative to a nominee such as Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas or Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky would be Clinton, a familiar face on Wall Street following her tenure as a New York senator with relatively moderate views on taxation and financial regulation.

“If it turns out to be Jeb versus Hillary we would love that and either outcome would be fine,” one top Republican-leaning Wall Street lawyer said over lunch in midtown Manhattan last week. “We could live with either one. Jeb versus Joe Biden would also be fine. It’s Rand Paul or Ted Cruz versus someone like Elizabeth Warren that would be everybody’s worst nightmare.”

The Freeper who started the thread commented, "And we think we always have to help Wall Street because they are on our side They Are not." This thread, almost a year old, doesn't support your assertion.

There was also this entertaining thread from November, based on this article in the New York Post, contending that unnamed "Clinton campaign strategists" were reaching out to their "Wall Street allies" to get covert funding for a third-party conservative run by the likes of Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, or Herman Cain. So, yes, there's a two-month-old reference to her "Wall Street allies" (and she undeniably has Wall Street allies), but nothing current and not in the context you imply -- an assertion that her "Wall Street ties" are an argument against her being a good President.

If you'd actually looked at the numerous threads about the email controversy, you would have seen Freepers taking the occasion to dredge up some of their old favorites, like the Rose Law Firm and removal of White House property when Bill left office and, of course, Benghazi. As to threads in which they make ideological arguments similar to those of Clinton's progressive critics on DU, however, I think you're reporting what you wanted to see rather than what's actually there.