Oh, well...

It's going to be a long, tedious primary season, it seems.

As a Senator, helping companies in her own state expand their trade opportunities is pretty much SOP, I'd think. Now, how many people work for Corning in New York do you suppose?

I dont see much about the 25 clowns running for the criminal party, yet.

But tons about the Clinton's

If it's negative and it's about Hillary Clinton, it will show up here. It's not just the primaries, either. It's been going on for years. There's lots more about her on DU than about my favorite candidate, Bernie Sanders. He's getting some mentions, for sure, and we're hearing what he's saying. All of it's good news.

But Hillary? Well, she's evil incarnate, of course. Never mind that she's the odds-on most likely Democratic nominee. Senator Sanders won't be attacking her. He's made that clear. He likes and respects her. He has said so. If she's the nominee, Sanders will endorse her candidacy strongly, I have no doubt.

But, we're going to hear non-stop about every negative thing about Clinton, her husband, and anyone associated with her. Guaranteed.

I find it a lousy way to approach primary elections, to tell you the truth. But, there it is. We'll have to deal with it later, if she becomes the candidate. I wonder if it will continue non-stop, even then. I suspect so, until something happens to prevent it.

As just hate HRC nothingness...as if it makes no difference to people whether big money influences elections or not...as long at it is a D and not an R,
And it should continue until it stops...that is a moral principle that IS important.

... particularly from those who've turned that sound into a constant background noise on DU.

They should have spent the last 4 years working on developing better alternative candidates instead of endlessly attacking Obama during that same time period.

And anyone who wants our candidates to unilaterally disarm before Citizen's United is overturned, welcomes defeat in 2016.

There is nothing hyperbolic about the appearance of conflict she has...it is a matter of fact...nor about stating the obvious problems it will cause in the general election.
And you think of it as a constant background noise that you don't want to hear?...well then the problem is clear.

And it is a false notion that big money always wins...and we have to compete with big money ourselves in order to win. That is not the case at all.
Votes is what will win, and if we have a candidate that has a message that rings true the GOP can spend as many billions as they like and it will just be pissing it away.
Especially now when the voters are fed up with big money pushing us around, and if we have someone that they believe will deliver for them there will be a flood of voters to the polls that money cannot buy.

But give them a Clinton v Bush and they will stay home...and we all know it, but figure we can win without them...and that is a false assumption.

and these issues are serious. they aren't made up like Benghazi. They will be a big issue in the General election. This stuff is easy for the public to grasp. And it was all avoidable.

for the Republicans to use against her. Why on Earth would DU give help to the Republicans? Why not focus on Senator Sanders and why he should be the candidate? I'm sorry, but I see this endless bashing of the person who is likely to be the candidate of our party to be divisive and working against our best interests.

I'll continue to point that out as long as it goes on. I have a voice on DU, too, and I'll be using it.

or any other website to get ammunition to use. Secondly, you've argued on more than one occasion about how meaningless what's posted here is. And I have focused on Sanders.

You see it as bashing. Fine. I see it as legitimate criticism.

I'll continue to do that here.

If Hillary's record can't stand up to scrutiny with people who are prone to give Democrats the benefit of the doubt, that should be a major flashing red sign for the general election.

Republican grifters who are at least as corrupt will have no compunction about exploiting these weaknesses in Hillary's record - and character. Hypocrisy is no barrier to them or the voting public, in that regard.

At the very least, I'd like to see a major push to increase Bernie Sanders' profile as a serious candidate. Even if he doesn't win, we need to push Hillary as hard as we can to take public positions that benefit average Americans instead of her financial benefactors.

the net.

This is part of the vetting process for picking our nominee. If she can't withstand criticism from us, what makes her a good choice to send out against the repubs?

Also what concerns me is that all this negative media coverage we are discussing IS going to cause her to lose. It does not have to be true - the bull about Kerry was not true either. It just has to be believable - possible.

What I hear DU saying is that those of us who are worried about things like this should shut up. And most do not say it that nicely. But the primary is exactly the place these things need to be discussed. It is too late in the general. The infighting here on DU is worse than it was the last time. None of us have any manners anymore.

Then the voters made their choice. And she lost. I voted for BHO. I was determined to not have another triangulator representing my interests. And now it's deja vu. And I still don't intend on voting for a third way triangulator in the primary. It's not hate. It's my viewpoint.

attacked here as any rightwing board, minus overt sexism which gets you booted.

Bernie gets attacked as well with the "he cant win" and dismissive crap like that, but the Hillary attacks are all day everyday.

YES, I want the best candidate which is why you see him in my sig, but I refuse to trash Hillary ESPECIALLY considering that the math says she is likely to be the candidate.

I will do what I can to make it be Bernie, but we have to be prepared, and there is such a HUGE difference between them and us, even if the us IS Hillary.

I say follow Bernie's lead, criticize Hillary ONLY to the extent he does, and IF he is NOT the nominee, IF, ask him who he is voting for.

that they could get away with "cankles", or any other bits of wing nut bullshit, we would see it on this board.

The first choice for Democrats is the nominee. I really do not need to become well versed in the deficits the dozens of Republicans. Only one will win their nomination and only then will I spend the time to learn all of their negatives.


I realize that we have an almost certain winner on our side and I do want to know anything that could become an issue. Looking back at past du threads on the last two elections there was not this kind of arguing we need to rally around the candidate even after they were the de facto nominnee.

We do get lots of comments about the dirty two dozen republican candidates but most of us fixate on that which we can most have an effect on. All of the people here that support Clinton, Bernie, or one of the other candidates want to win against the republicans but what would be the point in picking a candidate from that side of the fence for anything but the occasional mockery.

Most of us are very passionate about the issues and the policies that will hopefully decide this race which is why there is so much angst and passion and yes frustration as well. We can feed that rage, we can roll our eyes at it, or we can rise above it and do what my candidate of choice does and challenge the medias question as an opportunity to discuss their policy.

Full disclosure, I am a big time Bernie supporter.

listened to him and Thom for many years.

But, as far apart as I believe he and Hillary are on some real important stuff, the alternative is UNACCEPTABLE to the human race.

All I care about is that we stop destroying one of our two candidates, either of them, and that we agree that we will form a united front behind whoever it is.

Anything less is suicide, not political suicide, actual suicide.

that she took a personal payday from Corning? And if this was a republican who benefited personally after having been lobbied and who had advanced the interests of a corporation, you wouldn't see the appearance of conflict either?

Oh, well. refusing to deal with reality we don't like is a human trait I guess.

And no, not everything about her... just a lot- because there is, in reality, a lot.

open new trade opportunities in China. As a Senator, that's part of her job. Did Corning have her come and speak? Why, yes, they did. Did they donate to her campaign? Why, yes, they did. Is there a conflict? Not really. Promoting US trade and assisting a business that hires many, many people in her own state is something she's expected to do. I'm betting that Bernie Sanders has done similar things for Vermont businesses, but I'm not going to go look for them.

at least to me.

their own states keep getting elected. Of course Sanders has helped businesses in Vermont, and I'm sure they appreciated that. To try to make that a negative is to ignore how this whole system works.

all of them do, it tells me exactly what is going on here and what the agenda is.

He barely got elected to his first term. He won easily in his second term. He's been helpful to voters and businesses here in Minnesota as much as he is able to. That's why he'll get re-elected again next time. Minnesotans like him. They like our other Senator, Amy Klobuchar, too. She helps people and considers doing that to be part of her job.

That's especially true when a Senator or Congressperson helps a company improve their international business. There are lots of roadblocks to doing business outside of the United States. Sometimes, someone in Congress can help open an new market or improve a company's ability to trade internationally. When that happens, more people get hired. Nothing wrong with that.

If Corning is able to sell more products to China, for example, it creates jobs in New York, improves the trade balance and generally makes a lot of things better. Of course the Senators and representatives try to help businesses in their own state in that way.

Business powers the economy, both small business and big business. When international trade is improved and businesses sell more goods and services outside of the U.S., everyone benefits. No brainer.

Conflict of interest? You can not just make vapid accusations.

I wont spend my time trying to find negatives about my two candidates, you and a few others around here are doing just fine with that.

I did not post that HRC had a conflict of interest. YOU posted Bernie did. THAT is pretty pathetic on your part. It certainly does not help HRC and to Bermontrrs, including this recent artival, it is just silly.

or retract


I said this

I am not sure what you speak of in terms of "conflict of interest." You seem to be making sort of Pox on all House and false equivalency arguments that I don't accept.

I have followed Bernie for years and he has been among the most honorable of Senators. He is advesarial to big money and the banks and has been standing up for all working Americans for as long as he has been in office.

I understand the desire to try to reduce animosity among democrats but I don't think the cause of helping people decide who they want to support is aided by shooing away differences between the candidates. At best it comes off as dismissive and at worst it makes people suspicious as to motive.

do the research

he votes for that which helps the people in his state get jobs

which is what he is supposed to do


http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/24583-bernie-sanders-doubles-down-on-f-35-support-days-after-runway-explosion


This next one is from 3 yrs ago

First you say that politicians are all the same and that they all have conflicts of interest because they are representing their districts by providing jobs and money to those districts. (never mind questioning your definition of 'conflict of interest')

Then you provide decent research stating Bernie's support for the F35 program. Research that I, as a supporter of Sanders, thank you for since we should know about these sorts of things in making our decisions.

And then you say that Hillary has no conflict of interest.

Never mind your selective capacity for research, I am wondering if you have the right banner up. Are you certain, given your lauding of Hillary's lack of conflicts of interest that you shouldn't have her banner up? Are you actually properly representing yourself as a Bernie supporter or is this a game to you?

YOU are the one who forced ME to do the research to show you this

I was FINE SUPPORTING BOTH OF OUR CANDIDATES


you

you you yOU

WERE NOT

YOU SEE I AM THE ONE CAPABLE OF SUPPORTING BOTH OF THEM, WHY NOT TRY IT SOME TIME

I have a preference for Bernie Sanders and will be loud and proud about it. I will vote for Hillary if I have to in the generals but I am going to put up a banner on my posts announcing that I support both of them when I clearly and honestly have a preference. And if I did support them both equally, I probably would put up both of their banners.

I am sorry if I enraged you, but I just didn't buy your argument. If I had known you would get so upset I would have coached it a bit more carefully so as not to offend you.

at the end of the day and in that case we have no argument.

The offense is in that so many here seem to be picking sides in adamant ways that leave no options for what happens if theirs lose, but as far as I am concerned you are on my team, we have the same goal.

Anger, channeled correctly, is action...Getting me angry sometimes is good for me

peace out

So many posts of nothing but RW talking points.

It is going to be a long, tedious primary season.

Are there any specific talking points that you would suggest are right wing? I don't see too many of them myself.

I've got only two possible explanations.

A. Not reading many posts.

B. Agreeing that parroting RW attack pieces are just peachy keen.


I see non stop herp derp.

Rather than implying I am stupid maybe you could help a guy out and tell me the content of these posts. If it is right wing propaganda then maybe it could be reported.

But if you can't spot the RW influence on talk about candidates, nothing I can say will convince you it exists.

And some of the people posting it with zeal are long time DU'ers.

Again, what is the content of these posts?

Are they merely posts that go after Bernie by using the term socialist as a negative?

Do they go after Hillary for being too liberal?

Do they mention Benghazi, Obamacare, or the gayz? Do these right wingers use sexism, racism, homophobia, classism, hippie punching, or fundamentalism?

Tell me where these right wing posts are?!

Yes to all of this? Seriously?

Where are these posts? Have you reported them? Could you link them so that I can report them?

Reporting them is useless. If you want to report something go find it yourself.

Look at any given discussion of the candidates, or people that are thinking of running and it is filled with things tearing them down, that you can find on RW sites. My feeling is that we can discuss Democratic candidates without resorting to RW tactics.

If you have a problem with my opinion, that's your problem.

You said talking points.

There is a distinction between those terms. No one likes to have critiques of their candidates positions and some people read any criticism as an attack, particularly during election seasons.

But there is a very wide gulf between tactics and talking points.

I am sadly beginning to question your statements.

Now shoot me, I don't give a rhetorical shit...

about HRC, don't vote for her. Practically, she is the strongest candidate. Perhaps Bernie can move her further left, but we cannot let a Republican win. Remember the Supreme Court needs a democratic president.

K&R

On edit, I just now notice that though my post is #15, I see only my post #15, Post #3 and #4. All other posts are by those on my ignore list, lol. It's vindicating for me, hehe.

Got anything fresher?
None if us are the person we were a decade ago!
Also I see what she is accused of is helping a business in her district. I'll bet Bernie does that too.
Try again

All of these witch hunts help her, not hurt her. Gowdy and his ilk are now going to scour every email she had. They are going to look for anything. It is a true witch hunt. Yesterday you posted that she supports the privatization of social security. You were quickly corrected. The quote you say you misread was blatantly obvious. As is the fact you had to want to read it in a certain way in order to come to your extremely flawed understanding of what was basic. You also refused to admit that Hillary questioned Blumenthals credulity. You also wouldn't answer to the fact he didn't get a contract. An assumption was clearly made. The list simply goes on.

I wish more politicians were like Carter and the Clintons. I wish more would go out and do such great work.

"most Clinton allies wish they had a button so they didn't have to go to the trouble of rolling their eyes at each new Clinton money story."

Everyone on the left is rolling their eyes at these Gowdy "scandals." We all know she gains in popularity with the left as righties do mental gymnastics in order to try to bring her down. These bogus attempts to Starr her are doing nothing but helping her. In the end, that turns into a positive for the lower and middle class in this country.

Smart cookie, he said if the Republicans keep talking about Hillary and Hillary keeps talking to the people they are going to lose.

... and the OP cited this as proof that Hillary is not corrupt.


Sadly, she's got an awful lot of well documented history that gives a major appearance of conflict-of-interest problems. Don't we deserve better than that from our party leaders?

Well said.

or relying on GOP votes and losing all but a handful of rotten Dems

I guess that is how we choose everything, what we worship.

Not to you, cali, but to those in this thread.

Everything Carter does is for the most needy folks, mostly here at home.

Every last thing the Clintons do rewards the Clintons; it enriches them and their family and/or builds relationships that later enrich them.

They might negotiate programs that might feed the hungry, while dining on lobster with gold place settings.

Every high paid speech they provide has a money/influence trail associated with it.

They make me nauseous.

For all his errors, he saved the economy and ACA saved my life, one million in medical last year and this, so far, all covered by ACA.

We still need plenty more Hope and Change, tho!

that bother me as much as the 'interests in CONFLICT' - Clinton is a hawk to put it in polite terms - in more impolite terms she's a war monger....reminds me of Margaret Thatcher.

Does anyone think the moneyed interests are going to let a Progressive, trust busting candidate get elected, someone who may radically increase their tax burden and force them to declare off shore accounts? Hillary will be progressive on social issues while the Republican candidate will not and that will be our choice.

a thousand times!

and its companies. So I don't have an issue with Corning. After the first Wikileaks release of State Department telegrams, I realized that the State Department's main mission seemed to be to promote U.S. corporations' and business' interests everywhere overseas. That was really disappointing.
Politicians are paid to speak just like movie stars are paid to act and the amount of money is dependent upon how popular and how in demand they are at and what the market will bear.
What I do have an issue with is that I think every candidate whether Democrat or Republican, has big conflicts of interest. Quite possibly Bernie is the only exception.

I'm voting for Hillary come hell or high water. Sometimes I just like someone and I happen to like Hillary.

I agree with Kingofalldems - the more they pounce, the more I dig in!

Money is speech. I know this because the SCOTUS told me so. So why are people surprised that "quid pro quo" is the new national motto?

A majority of donors to Barack Obama were small donors, but a majority of his money was from the FIRE sector of the economy. If all national and many state level campaigns depend on raising and spending massive amounts of money, the only way to counteract the money is with organization. Like unions.

because of what Clinton was doing within Wal-Mart and I believe she had a mea-culpa to some degree.

But her voting record really needs to be examined:

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/hillary_clinton/300022

And since I read and subscribe to Mother Jones, they are a very reliable source of information:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/05/hillary-clinton-goldman-sachs-private-equity-white-house-2016

FYI.

And he knows that shrill attacks are not the way to do that. He also knows that attacking the people who already support her will not win them over either.

The OP takes an alternative perspective. Attacking Hillary, as well as her supporters, will cause those supporters to magically switch to Bernie.

FACT is that you can not make a connection between the speaking fee and anything done for Corning because Corning has nothing done for them.
This is a crazy diary.

I literally have to bite my tongue, maintain the chasm between my real personae and my internet one, to stop myself from unleashing an endless stream of invective and expletives...

And I used to like some of the people doing the bashing...

It sucks to see somebody you genuinely like constantly shit on.

And starting with this election, this is how it's done. Even a noncorporate candidate wins, this trend isn't going away. People want a civilized society.