Do you think she will support HRC?

In the fall, probably, but that's different.

Not trying to dodge the question, just don't have more of an answer than that.

Lets say Elizabeth warren jumps in...Then i doubt HRC gets much support from her. But that is just my guess.

I won't support Hillary if Elizabeth runs. Just saying.

I like Hillary but she scares me for two reasons...I don't think I trust her as she finds it too easy to lie about things she really does not have to lie about so I can only imagine what she lies about when it comes to really important matters. And the other less important but important to the Democratice Party is the fact that she LIES during campaigns & gets caught which could easily derail a campaign & FUCK US ALL!!!

Let me know if you dont support the Dem. Primary winner so I can limit my discussions with Democrats...thanks in advance

At this stage, there's no reason to assume that.

THATS why

Don't assume that's a sure thing.

Arent you?

Go ahead & put me "SkyDaddy7" on whatever little list it is that lets you feel empowered...No need in telling me about your personal problems.

Grow up!!

I was not looking to upset you about Hillary by mentioning (you know who)...I really like Hillary but I worry about her. She seems to have done good in her latest interviews unlike the first round. Maybe she is just knocking the cobwebs off.

Regardless of how my message before last might have sounded I plan to support Hillary 100% out of the box...But she has to be honest & genuine & no sniper stories or "we were broke" stories.

Later.

There is no one who has reported on "the Family" more than Jeff Sharlet, who spent months living at their DC house and who wrote a book, The Family. Any reporting from Maddow and everyone else ultimately is thanks to Sharlet breaking the story in the first place.

http://jeffsharlet.com/

Second, people should decide how they will vote based on their own conscience and perception. Maddow is an employee of a commercial TV network owned jointly by Microsoft and the Comcast corporation (the main culprit behind the push to end net neutrality). Despite this, she manages to be one of many good reporters and commentators in the world. She is allowed this because MS-NBC in part caters to a "liberal" market. Maddow is not therefore god, a guru or a dictator. Her possible endorsements in American elections should compel no one's decision.

if i am not mistaken RM had him on her show.....and are you going to say RM wont support HRC?

This is utter ideology

HRC hasn't been any better about things RM cares about than any other possible Dem candidate-and has no inherently greater claim to electability.

You're going to have to accept that HRC isn't the only game in town.

That's the point.

at least until one person is clearly going to be the nominee.

This ignorant talk about a connection to "the Family" is ridiculous

She is sure to start trashing them at some point anyway. That's what sells in the media.

Do you understand that most Democrats here think for themselves and respect those who are principled representatives of the people, and that if they demonstrate they no longer have those principles, thinking people no longer respect them?

Why did you think that it would influence people to act against their principles because Rachel Maddow might do so?

Think Hillary will have the common sense to repudiate the Family?

Her default move always seems to be to try to tough it out. I think she would see repudiating "The Family" as a sign of weakness. She may also think it would hurt her in swing states in the fall-she may believe identification with "the Family" somehow insulates her against attacks by the "Religious" Right.

This will put an end to Hillary's advancement, if there's a God of justice and retribution...

Running for and getting elected as a progressive anti-corporate Democrat is a total repudiation of that, by deed, which matters more than anything else.

Can you point to an equivalent repudiation-by-deed of support for the Iraq War OR "The Family" on the part of the person I assume you're defending and/or supporting?

Warren was a Southern Strategy Republican, part of the most murderously anti gay and racist version of that Party to exist in my lifetime. Warren was with them while they did great evil. Her Reagan sat in the Oval and refused to so much as mention AIDS while the death toll rose endlessly. Republicans at that time were discussing 'camps' for gay people. She remained in that Party. She remained in that Party which was also stridently anti choice, actively and definitively anti choice and anti gay. And racist, seriously racist.

She has never bothered to discuss any of that. I have never heard her state she favors equality. When asked why she left the GOP, Warren says she disagreed about 'markets'. Not about the camps, the right to life, the anti gay ignorance, the free hand given to the health crisis of our time, the years wasted by those bigoted Republicans in charge.

She and Hillary both have things to address. I was literally in the streets protesting the Party that Warren was part of. Voting for that is going to requires much work on her part, much honesty and discussion of the horrors her favored policies caused.
When Bill was elected, it was in fact a huge relief. It was hope coming to town, it was a change of course. And Hillary was part of that.

So while I do not trust Hillary and the Family, that does not mean I trust a Republican convert that hesitates to criticize Republican social policy of the era in which she promoted and supported that vicious, terrible set of policies.

They want to be President, this is not some game. It is very serious business.

My theory is that she hasn't addressed that because she's focused on economic issues. But there may be other things at play.

I don't believe it makes people who back Warren and oppose HRC hypocrites, though.

Tax laws have stolen money from us for being gay for my entire life. Those of you who like to pretend that 'economic issues' are not tied to issues of prejudice and social injustice are not correct and it gets insulting. Many do the same thing with the Pope, they excuse his venomous bigotry and his opposition to choice and contraception because he says 'I think of the poor'. The claim that a few words about money excuse horrific hate toward others is shameful, The notion that birth control and tax law and access to proper health care are not issues that effect a person's economy is a short sighted view, perhaps it is the one set of opinions that prevent real people from taking up a 'more left' stance.
When I see folks praising a man who says I am demonically influenced, I do not care if they praise him for something else, they are endorsing that ignorant bigotry as well. 'I like him because the trains run on time.' That's what it is.
Warren, if she wants to be President, best quickly find the time to speak about what she did back then, her Party was a raging monster.
I think anyone 'backing' either of these candidates at this time are doing the wrong thing. This is the time for vetting them. Questioning them. Why is that so upsetting to 'backers' of both of these potential candidates?

But this thread never had anything to do with Elizabeth Warren.

about The Family and Ms Clinton, there are some DUers working mightily to deflect, deflect, deflect. It's really anti-DU to not want to face and discuss a worrisome association of a possible Democratic presidential nominee.

These attempts at pretended misunderstanding of what we are saying and cries of 'religion bashing' are uncharacteristic of people who truly want discussion (on an effing discussion board, no less!), so who knows who these people really are. What I do know is that no rational examination of the facts is possible with them.

and there has been (and will be) mighty efforts made to distract from it. YOU have phrased the issue well and I applaud you for it.

every chance she gets.

to write glowing words in her own autobiography. It was a well directed dog whistle to a very specific group inside and outside the betlway. That group has money.

The family was a what is that? Now... well Sharlet went and exposed them and like the David and Charles Koch they are a tad toxic, among her presumed base.

to appease you?

To be on the wrong side of history

Face it, she's just another candidate, no more electable than any other Dem and not anymore inherently qualified than any other . And stop acting like you don't support her when you sound like you think she's not only unchallengeable for the nomination but entitled to receive it by acclimation right now.

any titles or phrases that contain 'FAITH, FAMILY, FREEDOM or FOX, you can bet your bippy that it's a teapubliKKKan trap.

eom

In her adulthood.

So I'd prefer a candidate who didn't have a voting record supporting the right-wing PARTY.

Btw, wasn't Hillary a Goldwater Girl?

And Hillary was a Goldwater Girl when she was young.

BTW, I posted during last primaries about Hillary being in the Family and did again not long ago.

I don't want her for POTUS.

But I'm not going to pretend it's some huge black mark while those doing the loudest denunciations right now think Elizabeth Warren shits rainbows.

with the Family? And you criticize Warren while you do it? Interesting.

This place needs a good laugh.

about her involvement in light of the extremism of that group.

For me, "Elizabeth Warren" is a placeholder for "Candidate who will actually do something about the economic and environmental plight in which we find ourselves."

It's not about a cult of personality or about being a Warren groupie. It's about seeing her speaking out with passion against the great wealth and income disparities rather than kowtowing to Wall Street; it's about seeing someone expressing outrage against what we're doing to college students, etc.

There are probably a lot of things I don't like about Warren's full belief set; I don't know her full belief set, so I can't speak to that. However, on some of the most important issues we are facing, she is a dynamo; she is the face of the demand for change. In fact, I stand to the left of her on most issues, but I recognize that she's about as far left as we're going to get.

I also recognize that Liz probably won't run; I could well see her sitting it out in favor of Hillary; she's a team player, as I said before.

In fact, I more fully agree with Bernie Sanders than Liz and will probably vote for him in the Primary if he runs and Liz doesn't. The only reason I would support Liz over Bernie is that Bernie is totally unelectable, where I could see a Liz Warren campaign actually pulling it off.

Some DUers are clearly uncomfortable at the fact that Hillary Clinton claims religion - whether it's because they think she's fibbing like a politician does or because they think she might actually have religious feelings.

The story that kicked this off wasn't one about the Family, it was one about her claiming the Bible as the most important book to influence her thinking.

Bryant

them. So when she starts in on her faith, we know she's talking about her mentor and her Prayer Group, she has talked about and praised them in the past.
So while those of you 'of faith' seem very hot and quick to announce that you know the minds of others, I notice you never ask any questions of those others, you simply 'see' what they 'really think' and then you report your visions back to the community. In the faith I was raised in that is called 'bearing false witness'.

So why don't you speak YOUR mind and let others speak their own? Is that allowed in your 'faith tradition'? Or does it compel you to spew fiction and ascribe it to others.

If you don't, I can start talking speaking for you as you speak for others. Turn about it fair play. Don't you think?

You might have been aware of her relationship with the family, but that doesn't mean that everybody was. If you read their comments they clearly were reacting to the bible comment rather than the family situation.

Bryant

Why do you think you have the right to speak for anyone who is not you? Why start preaching about other people's flaws? Are you without flaws? Jesus said only those without stain get to judge others. Is that you?
I get amused by the 'religious' people who do not follow any of the teachings of their religions, and instead do as their ego wishes, all day, every day.
So you were saying something about the specks you see in other people's eyes. Please continue.

Hillary's comments on the Bible engendered a lot of comments from people who responded to that comment, without mentioning the Family Connection. Some people were aware of it, but many found Bible Comment sufficient to weigh in on its own.

I'm not preaching about anybody's flaws - except you of course, because I pointed out that you were distorting my position. Which you are still doing.

I also find it interesting that you apparently believe that religious folk like myself "do not follow any of the teachings of their religions." Are you really suggesting that I don't live up to a single teaching of my faith?

I get that you hate religion - and in fairness, I understand where you are coming from - but I don't think its healthy to go as far as you do.

Bryant

the narrative. It's the oldest, most tired trick there is. If your argument is untenable, change the premise of the argument. Easy peasy. It happens here 400 times a day. Hillary hanging out with The Family is turned into people hate Methodists. At this point it's become comical.

things, no? Especially since every president since Eisenhower has spoken at a prayer breakfast associated with The Family.

i know Mother Jones, Rachel Maddow, ABC and other major publications are not, How about her own words? They were presumably written by her, not a ghost writer.

sorry if that is inconvenient.

sorry if nuance is missing.

But somebody who attends regularly for 15 years IS a member.

presidents since Eisenhower have joined a prayer breakfast associated with them. However, the claim that she is or was a member of The Family seems to be inaccurate.

sorry, no dice.

Her words are quite glowing about Coe. It is HER WORDS, you can go argue with them. Here it will not go too far.

I admit, when she wrote them in 2008, before Sharlet wrote his book, it was a good dog whistle for the money crowd, who in a Venn Diagram at times cross over both in ideology and belief, if you get my meaning. In 2016 that will come up, like her membership in the Walmart board, and for that we have agendas listing officers.

For the moment, IF SHE DECLARES, she has not, like none of the possibles have, this will percolate since we now KNOW who the family is.

Now I really need to finish writing a couple articles about my own City Hall, lots of sound to go though to find the quotes too.

words about them, or that she attended a prayer group associated with them, just say that. It’s disingenuous to attack someone for being a member of a group and then, when asked for evidence of membership, fall back to “well, they said nice things about the leader of the group.”

are telling of who your fellow travelers are. As well as who else she has chosen to associate herself with outside of the political world, as well as inside.

She is a member of the DLC, I am sure you will question this too.

I am sorry this concept is alien to you, but it is not to fans of social justice. For the record, this will not help her in the primaries with those who are well informed. I will say it right now, IF SHE RUNS. I am not sure she will, nor are you, I will NOT vote for her in the primaries. IF she happens to be the candidate and I am willing to lay zero odds at this point, fracking too early, I will HOLD MY NOSE in the general But I do not expect a transformational presidency from her. I expect at best, a status quo presidency.

It is just that the other side is running openly fascist candidates.

question something that no one has been able to provide any evidence for (being a member of The Family)? That's some bizarre logic. You won't vote for her in the primaries; great. I'm not sure why that means we should accept inaccurate statements about her.

Her writings are there for all to see. I will take her words at this point, if you do not mind.

like." Can't say I agree...

her praise is in her book. Or was that the ghost writer?

that issue, I guess we can say we agree?

I will NOT VOTE FOR HER IN THE PRIMARY. And that is one of the reasons, among many.

And you will get this answer from many here who know her.

Why people invest this much energy in a presumptive candidate who has YET TO DECLARE is a mystery to me, but do carry on.

Her words to me, and her participation in far more than just a prayer breakfast held once a year is pretty damming, given what I know of the Family, as well the DLC, her participation in Wal-Mart as a Director. I could go on. She is not a President I want.

to share it with the rest of us.

of praise

http://www.amazon.com/Living-History-Hillary-Rodham-Clinton/dp/0743222253

It must have been a ghost writer.

and even if they did, it wouldn't change the visuals nor the secret funding possibilities nor the "scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" potential.

The Family is EVIL, the same way W and Cheney and Rumsfeld and Condi are EVIL. By your works, you shall know them.

You want another president who cavorts with EVIL? Seriously?

The President (especially the potential first woman president) should be CLEAN.

and the sky hasn't fallen. It doesn't make me happy, but it also isn't the end of the world.

. . . you just deflected it.

somebody who attends for 15 years has to agree at a core level with what is being said Bigtree, and in anybody's mind WAS a member.

Of course, that is something quite inconvenient.

The other thing that is inconvenient is her well documented membership in the Walmart Board of Directors. She is not currently a member of that board. By your logic her past membership does not count.

And all that crap will percolate IF she declares. Which I will remind you, she has not done yet. None of them have.

She didn't just a attend prayer breakfast.

time I'll ask for an excerpt before being sent on a wild goose chase.

Methodist Churches, to criticize the Family or the pogroms in Uganda is an insult to all Methodists. They got very snotty and rude about it too. If you mention the hunting of LGBT in Uganda, they sneer 'you hate us'. They do not address in any detail what they are doing to stop their peer group from mass murder of LGBT in Uganda, they wail that criticism of those murders is criticism of their faith.
It is hugely telling. Horrible, deadly people who must not be trusted. I mean the Family. But those who claim ties to that hate group can also kiss my Equal Gay Ass.

and some toxic expression of it, such as an organization like the Family.

My problem with religion in general is that at some level religion does say: If you do not believe this you are wrong. Or: If you do not believe this you are damned forever. Or: If you do not believe this I am perfectly justified in killing you, raping your women, and enslaving your children.

Another issue that I think has never really been addressed is that while reading the Bible in and of itself is not at all a bad thing, there is simply no sustained narrative there, and anyone who constantly falls back on it for advice of any kind, never ever deals with complex thinking. The inclination to quote some verse or another as if that perfectly covers every aspect of some problem or issue is (in my very humble opinion) at the heart of such things as climate denial. If everything that matters can be stated in 25 words or less, then you have absolutely no way of understanding or evaluating anything of even minimal complexity.

And so I come to religion in general. With all sincere due respect to believers -- of whom there are many here on DU -- there is still the short-attention span holy book and the inclination to simplify all issues and problems. One solution fixes all problems: believe and the deity will make it all well.

Few things make me crazier than reading something -- and it shows up here all too often -- asking us either to pray for someone or to thank god that someone survived some catastrophe. Good medical help is what an ill or wounded person needs. And for everyone who survives some catastrophe there are others who don't. So the god is a sadistic brute who revels in creating misery and destruction, whimsically sparing a few. Not what I want to align myself with.

such as 'do you think people of other faiths are going to Hell?' and 'why do you think you are superior to LGBT people'.
They need to specify what they mean by 'my faith'. With Hillary, she spent many years opposing basic human rights for gay people and she clearly said each time her religion teaches her to oppose our rights. Does she think we are all doomed to the Hell her faith dictates?

If they refuse to be specific, they should be rejected as vague and possibly dangerously bigoted people, with toxic philosophy unsuited to representative democracy. Hillary should talk about The Family, about her hanging on to bigotry, about her religious views on other people, the people she says she can represent but also thinks are doomed to hellfire or something.
Warren needs to do this too, she was a Republican during the darkest days of Republican anti gay bigotry. She was part of a group that did irreparable harm to others, and they did so out of 'faith' and ignorance. She has never spoken of this. She needs to, with great specificity. Both of them do.

I am not comfortable with politicians who hold bigotries against those they want votes from. The fact that others are comfortable with that is frightening.

With big RW power house with big money, then criticize Elizabeth Warren for being a member of the Republican party, a RW power house with big money. This theory of trying to influence anyone with this weakest of the weakest arguments and think many of us are not going to see EW association with the GOP being the same thing.

It's not an either-or.

Has Hillary repudiated the Family? If so, then good for her. Every thinking person should and HAS repudiated that vile organization.

Fixed that for you.


That said, if she's the candidate, I'm down. I'm not jumping ship. None of this rises to the level of throwing an election to spite a particular candidate. As much as I detest the whole ball of wax.

Super-astute there. Totally got me.

I mean, we're a beloved group, more popular than ice cream, really. No wonder politicians are falling over themselves to proclaim their lack of belief in a deity.

How do you influence them otherwise? It doesn't mean you believe in their ideas.

I don't get how this refusal to have anything to do with people convinces them. It makes them more likely to dig in their heels.

Please, it's about the daily trashing of Hillary. Why all of a sudden so many posts about The Family? Oh yeah, because Hillary attended prayer meetings and Bible study.

Big freaking whoop!!!

one I presume you own. Re-read it.

. . .on the face of it, it's ludicrous to think that the rabid right wing has been in league with the same woman they've spent millions of dollars and the bulk of their time since 1993 savagely attacking.

Anyone who lived through that time can see just how looney the claim is that she was part of some right-wing cabal at the same time conservatives were savaging her in the media, in their organizing, and in their cottage industry of hate which reaped the billions of dollars from ignorant Americans gullible enough to fall for their bullshit.

Only a weak and impressionable mind could possibly believe that she aligned with the very people who worked overtime to destroy her and her family. You have to be just thick as a brick to believe that.

. . . you believe there's evidence of a link between the Clinton's support of Arkansas originated Walmart and the prayer group?

No, you didn't find evidence of a link. This type of 'reporting' of yours is called a smear and a hit job. In this case, you drop a link to an unrelated subject that you differ with Clinton on and hope folks draw whatever conclusion you're leading to.

Responsible and credible reporting involves actual facts to make its case. In this effort of yours, you've failed to show ANY evidential linkage between Hillary's public prayers and a quote of hers from 1993 with anything involving Walmart.

I can't believe you call yourself a reporter with this standard of proof you've employed here. I'll assume it's just political cravenness and leave the question of whether you actually know this is a sleazy tactic hanging.

learn to read, I did not say what you accuse me of doing.

But your personal attacks are hilarious.

You refuse to acknowledge her own praise for Coe in her own autobiography. It was the ghost writer, has to be, and now you attack me for pointing out that she was a member of the Wal-Mart board of directors.

This is funny shit indeed. Keep the personal attacks coming. Oh don't worry, I will not go to the juries, they are useless. But at this point, I will point and laugh at you.

. . . or, maybe you're just a lousy reporter.

Don't bring that guilt by association crap here and expect everyone to eat it up with a spoon. I find your accusations weak, uncorroborated by ANY verifiable fact, and leading. I think that's the mark of a lousy reporter. Deal with it.

the personal attack.

I have no idea why you invest so much time, or energy, on any candidate, or in this case potential candidate. They are just people, with lives, with interests, with agendas. They actually have clay feet. There are a few pols who rise above the din, and even those have warts and all. But most politicians do not deserve the investment you put into them.

You would do good to attend a few city hall meetings, read a few budgets, watch them in action. If you are close to a state capital, do so, go to the Capitol, If you are close to DC, go to Congress. But you really need to learn just how much these people are indeed regular people.

And like all of them, HRC has warts and all. Her praise of Coe is one of them, it is in her own bloody words, speak about integrity to deny that... her participation in the Wal-Mart is another one. Her policy positions regarding labor is a huge one. You will continue to get pushback.

I expect though, you will not disappoint, that you will take the route you have chosen and personally attack and demean and diminish those that don't agree with you and will push back.

But at this point, I will continue to do this, because that is what you deserve. You have chosen that route.