Shows JUST how desperate

Poster took one for Democrats.

Sid

The article and/or author

Maybe you misunderstood

I'm not familiar with it

The OP makes a reasonable point though. Hillary can expect a lot of flack from the media. She's been around a long time, whereas Obama was virtually unknown

Keep barking

Keep on truckin cali, you are on a roll. Be careful you don't roll over a cliff.

(I am not and was not from MA, but I thought some of the issues were of controversial cases from the long past.)

I do think that Clinton will be less vulnerable because many people have known her as well as a public figure is known. One point that could easily be made is that this does not fit with most of the things we know.

It does help Democrats to know that is out there, because being able to speak of the bulk of the work she did being for children and women. Here, it says this was someone who needed a public attorney. The law guarantees him that. Can a young, inexperienced, not particularly connected to power lawyer turn down a case because the client was repugnant without consequence?

and threatened to use them on Coakley.

At least they just did war whoops and tomahawk chops during the race against Warren.

What was that about?

A guy raped a baby girl with a curling iron.

And Coakley declined to prosecute or something.

But yeah, all of these men showed up with curling irons and would shriek to do the same to Coakley.

World English Dictionary
obsession (əbˈsɛʃən)

— n
1. psychiatry a persistent idea or impulse that continually forces its way into consciousness, often associated with anxiety and mental illness
2. a persistent preoccupation, idea, or feeling
3. the act of obsessing or the state of being obsessed

Me? I've worked in the garden for a couple of hours, written an essay about being called a girly-girl and posted it in the writing forum, made a curried rice salad for a potluck and exercised. I have a full afternoon too. Hardly devoting all my time to this. (one of the good things about only sleeping 3-4 hours a night is you get a lot done).

I can't always spot that, but yup, this is that. Why?

and anyone who thinks that the repubs won't pull out all the stops with her or that it's all old news, is fooling themselves.

but then again, I have a pretty low opinion of all of them.

However, as you say in your OP, this is what we will see in the general election campaign if she secures the nomination. Playing ostrich seems to indicate a lack of ability to adequately defend against the image portrayed. If Hillary's defenders cannot contend with this issue on a partisan political forum we're left to wonder how well they'll fare against an adversarial press and opposition campaign.

The lack of strategic foresight is breathtaking to behold.

Why aren't you working to get a frontrunner Democratic candidate for POTUS instead of concentrating on Clinton? We are quite aware you are determined to undermine Clinton's candidacy. Your time could be better spent on telling us your reasons for supporting a possible candidate of your choice.

and pay attention at the same time.

input for the Democratic party by supporting your choice for president, if you have one.

I don't think so.

Look, I'm not deliriously happy about her myself. I'd like an honest-to-goodness liberal myself. Na ga happen. Probably na ga happen in the rest of my lifetime.

One thing I do know, she can stand up to it. They've put her through the ringer before. And she doesn't back down. She can take a lot of shit and she won't just be cowed. If—IF—she's the candidate, I'll enjoy watching the apoplexy on the right at the fact that she won't just curl up & die like most Democrats seem to do in the face of criticism. The woman is tough. It's a pleasure to see.

Given the Republicans can't run a true human she will win regardless. Count on the Republicans to run someone that makes even those Democrats who oppose her flock the voting booths.

If that's all they got, bring it.

And I'm I'm still waiting for that Michelle Obama "Whitey" tape.

. . .grouped with all of the rest of your attacks on Clinton.

You really think it's some sort of virtue to gloat over republican attacks on our former Democratic candidate? That's what this really is, ya know; another effort to knock Clinton down a peg - it's painfully transparent. Despicable that you'd leverage and promote this republican attack and act as if you're apart from it all. Your game is lame.

I think creative and imaginative implications regarding Vince Foster would appear much less peevish and sullen when we're flinging irrelevancies at the wall to see which one will stick most effectively whilst alleging it's simply concern for what happens to every candidate in every election...

Shame on her. That is as bad as McCain laughing about bombing Iran. Boom boom boom.

After all, the right wing will bring that up again, too. It will appear in print again, and someone will no doubt post whatever appears here on DU. What other things will opposition research bring back up from the past? Are you looking for them, so you can post them here?

It has all been made public again and again, and will be once more, if Hillary Clinton chooses to run. We'll all hear all the old stuff that can be dug up. We'll hear it from every right wing media source that exists. And you know what?

It won't make a damn bit of difference, if she is the candidate selected at the Democratic National Convention. It wouldn't have made any difference in 2008, and it won't make any difference in 2016.

But people will post whatever they can find here on DU if she runs. Some DUers will DU Rec those posts, too. It will become tiresome, as it did in 2008. If Hillary is the nominee, I predict she will win, and handily. Others may run in the primaries, and if they do, we'll see if they can do the unexpected and become the nominee.

But, in November of 2016, more than two years away, still, Democrats will go to the polls and vote for the Democratic nominee. Before that, they'll go to the polls at various times and vote in their states' primary elections. Who the Democratic candidate will be will be decided by the voters, not by people who post on DU or anywhere else.

If you have a candidate you'd prefer, then focusing on presenting that candidate in the most favorable possible light and encouraging others to do the same would be a far better idea than recycling old right wing opposition research more than two years before the 2016 election.

You will do as you please, I'm sure, and others will comment on whatever you post. I'll be among them, I promise.

You better believe it!

and if at all possible get them off or the best deal ?????

.... or EMTs...

... or firemen....

... who see horrible things every day and have to laugh or cry.

I'd say defending criminals creates similar moments.

No problem with me.

laugh you betcha....Heck even undertakers & coroners are known for gallows humor.

We already know there's a movement to divide the Democratic vote. It's hard to miss.

especially from someone who has already stated her intent not to vote for Hillary even if she is the Dem nominee.

We don't need the rw anymore.

Completely agree, cali. You post is absolutely 100% spot on. We need more posts like it two years out. Two years of old stories being brought up will cause them to played out completely when the time comes.

One good thing about Hillary?

I doubt that anyone's going to be able to drag up anything that hasn't already been discussed in RW circles for years and debunked or yawned over. Her skeletons are all out on the couch having tea, not shoved up in the closet.

that she is almost a shoe in, in 2016. The hysteria by the rightwing is not so much telling...as it is screaming out in desperation.

The GOP is desperate, so fucking desperate...and it shows!

Shoe in 2016...don't need tea leaves, just look at the way the rightwingers are acting out so early in the political process.

Oh and another thing...it would KIIIILLLLLL some of these older established white conservatives is Hillary wins in 2016...jus sayin.

But this is starting to get a little disturbing.

conspiracy theory junk and stories speculating that Hillary is actually a secret lesbian posted by DUers, we'll know their real intent. I fully expect to see such things posted here, once the right-wing media trots all that garbage out again. As desperation grows, postings will get more and more outrageous, until enough is finally enough and the people who post such stuff are shown the door.

Once the November election is over, and candidates start declaring their candidacies, it's bound to get ugly. Fortunately, DU's jury system and community standards may lead to exposed transparency pages and keep that RW stuff down to a dull roar. I hope so, anyhow.

And I think we ain't seen nuthin' yet. Desperation leads to strange things, and the more desperate, the more bizarre.

I mean after all, the RWers might....they might....they might..... be mean to her!

For fucks sake this thread is a new level of dumb.

Hillary Rodham Clinton often invoked her “35 years of experience making change” on the 2008 campaign trail, recounting her work in the 1970s on behalf of battered and neglected children and impoverished legal-aid clients.

But there is a little-known episode Clinton doesn’t mention in her standard campaign speech in which those two principles collided. In 1975, a 27-year-old Hillary Rodham, acting as a court-appointed attorney, attacked the credibility of a 12-year-old girl in mounting an aggressive defense for an indigent client accused of rape in Arkansas – using her child development background to help the defendant…

Clinton recounts how she took what remained of the (bloodied) underwear to a renowned forensics expert in New York to have him confirm that the remnants were unsuitable for confirmation testing. She tells the interviewer how she returned to Arkansas with a letter from the expert and a clip of his biography from “Who’s Who.”

“I handed it to [the prosecutor], and I said, ‘Well this guy’s ready to come up from New York to prevent this miscarriage of justice,” Clinton says with sarcastic laughter. “So we were gonna plea bargain.”

Facing an evidentiary disaster, and the prospect of defense testimony by a celebrity witness, the prosecutor caved. Instead of a hefty prison sentence, the accused rapist got off with time served – which Clinton recalled was about two months in the county jail.

see also, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2658801/I-never-trusted-polygraph-Hillary-Clinton-LAUGHS-recalls-helped-suspected-child-rapist-walk-free-prosecution-lost-crucial-evidence.html


Clinton’s job at the time was defending those accused of crimes who couldn’t afford to pay for their own defense; her client was a factory worker whom she believed to be guilty. I had classmates who worked for our county's public defender's office. Believe me, it was pulling teeth to get the budget to pay for a local expert witness. So how many other clients of the Arkansas public defender's office got short shrift for funding to develop evidence for their cases so HRC could fly into NY and hire an expert (we in the biz call them hired guns). Air fare, hotel, expert witness fee - that cost a pretty penny. If he was a "celebrity" expert witness, his fees would have been quite high, even back then.

When you hear her voice describing it, and the laughter, it's not hard to picture the air quotes around “miscarriage of justice”. It was never about justice if she believed her client was guilty, it was about going to extreme lengths to win.

You can still vote for her if you’d like. But don't justify her actions, either at the time she went to extraordinary lengths to get a guilty man a greatly reduced sentence, or years later in this interview when she violated the attorney's code of professional responsibility by making these comments about her client. It’s an insult to those who have been victims and it's an insult to lawyers who actually follow the rule of attorney-client confidentiality, and would never disclose to ANYONE the results of a client’s polygraph and guilt (since that is a violation of attorney-client privilege) let alone bragging to a reporter about getting rape charges dropped from a client they believed to be guilty.