I'm glad a book covers all that was done to this noble woman, by the media, the right and the "left."

try to justify their bigotry because it's so damned easy to pick holes in it and make 'em red faced, snot slinging mad.

Mostly, they just make me tired.

The Democratic Party underestimated the power of this hatred, just like they underestimated the sheer hostility of the media, especially the broadcast media.

Clinton got such a raw deal it's amazing that she won the popular vote.

Except to say it's rank stupidity.

I am still amazed that so many people would elect a brainless, valueless twit. But here we are.

Rush Limbaugh has spent the last 25+ years spewing lies and hatred for Hillary on his daily radio show.
The man has been an absolutely unstoppable source of slander over her.

He also hated Bill Clinton, but even when Bill was being impeached, Limbaugh saved his worst insults for Hillary.
I don't believe regular people can hear the lies & garbage day-in and day-out and not be affected by it.
Americans were hypnotized (or brainwashed) by Limbaugh's hatred and yet he never gave any reasons for why he hated her.

I believe he was being paid by somebody, maybe the Koch Brothers, or Scaife, or I don't know who.
This was long before she was Obama's Secretary of State, when Putin decided he hated her too.

When WJC was impeached Hillary came on the Today show and talked about the "vast right-wing conspiracy" against them. It sounded a little fanciful at the time, back about 20 years ago.

But you know what? Hillary was right, there was a right-wing conspiracy against them, and it's still going to this day.
I'd like to be a fly on the wall in those secret boys-only meetings and find out what that conspiracy is all about.
I mean really, what are they afraid of?

Limbaugh isn't their strategist, he's just the mouthpiece. It's somebody else who's telling him what to say.
Hillary has been their target all these years, and for what?

If anybody knows, please speak up and share with the rest of us.

Because she is a strong, intelligent, independent woman.

They hated her with a blinding passion. She, at first, kept her family surname! She had a job! She had a brain! She is a feminist!

Misogyny, pure and simple.

And always did. Misogyny was definitely a huge part of the story, and maybe the primary thread, but certainly not the only one.

I well remember and the book review suggests that too.

Before 1992 the Republicans routinely painted Democratic candidates as soft on crime, soft on defense, beholden to special interests (by which they meant unions, feminists, and minorities), anti-business, etc. Add another layer of paint for anyone from Northeast or Midwest Democratic strongholds.

Using that playbook will look ridiculous against Bill Clinton, the pro-business, pro-death penalty, tough on crime, welfare-reforming governor of a Southern state. So what was the GHW Bush campaign's solution? Run against draft-dodging, dope-smoking, slick-talking, ultra-liberal Hippy Bill (and, psssst, did you hear he renounced his US citizenship in Russia?) and Harpy Hillary the Nightmare Feminist From Hell.

They made the Clintons the personification of everything they hated (or even were just irked by) about the 60s and 70s, the poster couple for every axe-grinder's dartboard.

When Bill won and Rush Limbaugh played national ward heeler to rally them into resistance against a guy who was only "technically president" because he won the Electoral College but didn't get a majority of the popular vote (yeah, notice how THAT line of argument disappeared), he and the other talk radio foamers kept it going and ramped it up... and they had no incentive to restrain themselves. Gingrich and his GOPAC did the same inside the Republican Party structure ("countercultural McGoverniks&quot .

After Clinton left office, they had every reason to keep up the Hillary-Hate because it was clear she was angling for her own political career.

This makes sense and I'm happy for the explanation.

I really believe Karl Rove and Dick Cheney were linked to this whole plan. They had access to huge amounts of money from Scaife and others. It's frightening and evil, and also sad that so much time and money was wasted.

I don't believe these folks were involved with Russia or Putin. They'd be appalled if they knew what Trump did, however I'm sure they were happy to use Trump and get their agenda into the White House and Congress.

Basically the right wing in this country (and those law enforcement agencies who see themselves as defenders of traditional white society) viewed Bill and Hill as hippies turned yuppies, who (unlike the "wimpy liberal" stereotype of the time) were ambitous and tough enough to push their modern values into the mainstream, and transform culture/society in the process.

Clinton/Gore ticket was elected at the height of the Reagan Revolution, thwarting a complete conservative takeover - many forget that. Bill put two liberals justices (Ginsberg, Breyer) on the Supreme Court.

So there's also the sense by conservatives that "their revolution was stolen" by Slick Willie.

They just don't get that many voters at that time were tired of conservative moralism, and alot of the support for Bill (the "slick talking womanizer" as he was portrayed by the right) was based upon backlash to that.

Clintonism is economically ambitious (centrist) and socially liberal, and thus was (and still is) perceived as a threat to traditional whites on both the right and left.

The Clintons had (genuine) PoC friends and close associates, his admin was the most diverse in history to that point and made it a priority to help advance historically oppressed groups, he was the first pro-choice president, he wanted to trade with PoC countries (NAFTA concerns were and still are about Mexico and Latin countries, not Canada), he viewed his wife as an equal partner ("two presidents for the price of one&quot who he put in charge of healthcare reform and other issues, he was an overall nice guy who liked every type of person.

Clintonism led to the election of the first PoC president, and was on its way to electing the first female president who was viewed as an extension/successor of that first PoC president.

Did you read my post above?

Rush Limbaugh has spent 25 years of his life slandering Hillary (and Bill) and no other women.
That's not misogyny, that's some kind of weird hateful plan to ruin her career and nobody else's.

There are many others who have slandered her over the years.

Also, I do not believe it is accurate to say that Limbaugh hasn't slandered other women. Sandra Fluke comes to mind.

It grew from there. It's been painful to watch.

I don't know if I will ever stop feeling angry about it.

David Brock wrote a book about his early days of being a part of contributing to the "slander Hillary" movement, and how he came to realize what an awful lying business it was against her. Haven't read it in a while, but don't remember if he ever got to the bottom of it, exactly who and why she has been so vilified. it is beyond reason.

I remember an early time in the Clinton public life when Parade magazine wrote an innocuous piece about her just as they always wrote fluff pieces about potential first ladies. Several weeks later, there was a note from the editor saying how shocked he was at all the hateful, negative reaction he received about the fact that the article appeared in the magazine. That stuck in my mind as being out of the ordinary, strange.

I'll never get over how this woman was treated. Our country is being set back a hundred years by the result of it.

This has a Pittsburgh connection so I'm aware of it. The Mellon bank fortune ended up in the hands of Richard Mellon Scaife (he's dead now) who spent billions trying to bury the liberal Democrats and advance the conservative agenda.

It's a very long story and I won't go into details here's more on Richard Mellon Scaife in Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Mellon_Scaife

Scaife had an extreme hatred of the Clintons and he paid reporters to dig up any dirt (or invent dirt) to print in his disgusting conservative newspaper. So David Brock worked for Scaife when he wrote that book. He later wrote another book and basically took it all back and renounced the entire project. It was all lies and he realized how horrible the conservative agenda is.

It's hard to give David Brock any credence since he's played on both sides of the fence. He's still a political columnist and analyst, and he claims to be sympathetic to the liberal cause now.

...back when merely fighting back is "evidence" that you're wrong.

Made-up attacks tend not to touch at all on real concerns about Clinton.

Thanks to the media, Trump ran against a poster of her that had a Hitler 'stache drawn on it. It was the only way that he could come close to winning.

But recognition of that fact, is a start.

Every day I hate the outcome of the election more and more.

I agree with some of her points, but she's wildly dishonest.

No interest in anything her name is attached to.

Slanders the word progressive, linking it to attempts at moral "cleansing".

She claims that Sanders and Clinton were exactly the same level of "establishment" while simultaneously claiming that all the things Clinton had achieved that Sanders hadn't (first wife, secretary of state) made her more qualified.

I can't say much more without getting this post deleted, but needless to say that she is the queen of 'everything is someone else's fault) and twists facts at almost every turn to justify that position.

She also lies through her teeth about Sanders supporters, at every opportunity.

Propaganda basically. No thanks.

You find that funny.

He is outside the establishment like Rush Limbaugh is a clone of Brad Pitt.

Bernie is seen as an outsider, period.

as does his biography.

The literal fact of Sanders' life is, he never held a steady job until he was 40 and managed to finally get himself elected.

That isn't made up. Not said to disparage him. It's his actual biographical record.

You don't support an expensive military boondoggle like the F-35 unless you're part of the Establishment.

as Hillary, correct? Please see this thread on DU about it https://www.democraticunderground.com/12511108173

Why are you repeating RW talking points about how Bernie didn't have a job until he was 40? And? That's reaching. Who cares?
Can you tell us please which policies of Bernie's you disagree with and we could maybe go from there?

Thanks.

Perception is not in fact, reality. It is however, effective commercial branding.

Period or comma. Or possibly ellipsis.

a dirty word.. but since their idea of "establishment" is John Lewis and Planned Parenthood.. I think the established civil rights icon and the established work that Planned Parenthood does speaks for itself.

I'll take them anytime over anyone throwing cheap pot shot insults at them.

but purity tests do exist on the progressive left. It was a feature of last year.

Witness before you the calls of "Bernie isn't a Democrat!" Heh.....

He did change his registration while he ran for president, and the day after the Democratic convention he changed it back to Independent, or Democratic Socialist, whatever it was.

and nothing but only to disparage and minimalism him. Quite frankly it comes from one camp too.

That's a real thing, you know. He might be able to lay claim to being democratic with a small d, but he can't be a big D Democrat if he's not a member of the party. And he doesn't want to be! Ergo, he's not a Democrat.

He wants to stand outside the party, fine. That's his choice, to be an outsider. It's what his fans love about him. That's fine too. But you can't have it both ways. And pointing that out is not a criticism, it is a fact.

Why the purity test for Bernie from a certain camp? he was elected as a indy by his constituents in VT and being an indy is a big draw and Democrats know this, it's a factor in his high numbers along with a host of other things. It aids to the whole "not an insider" thing and this only serves to strengthen us as a party.

You can have it both ways; he's the most popular politician in America today and has a leadership position within the party. Pointing that out is a fact.

If being an Independent was such a big draw, as evidenced by the overwhelmingly huge population of Vermont, lol, why didn't he run for president as an Independent? He needed to use the party structure, that's why. He wanted the game, so for awhile he took the name.

I don't blame him; it was tactical. I could see why he did it. But a party's strength comes from unity, and Bernie is too enamored of his outsider status to be counted on when it comes to showing a united front. The "leadership position" he has now is the Democratic Party using him. And that's tactical too. But Bernie will separate himself from the party if he sees there's an advantage for him to do that; it's his nature.

Have you forgotten?





We all know why Bernie chose to run as an Indy. He had >2% name recognition at the start. Think of that. Less than 2% to now being the most popular politician in America! That is a feat unto itself.

Bernie can't be counted on fighting on a united front? You have to be joking. Who is out there doing Town Halls? Who is out there all the time on Sunday morning talk shows? Who is marching with Nissan workers in Mississippi? Who is holding rallies with Elizabeth Warren? Who called for marches across the country over the GOP gutting the ACA and the people responded? Who is doing a tour with Tom Perez? Who is bringing in more young people into the political process?

Bernie.

Bernie.

He represents them first and foremost. Integrity. Why does it matter especially when he's out there doing so much?

as a Democrat. As I said, I understood that, that was pragmatic. And it didn't bother me. However, the speed with which he stopped being a Democrat bothered me a lot. If you say that says integrity to Vermonters, okay, I'll take your word for it. It doesn't say integrity to me. It says I'll switch back & forth to whatever benefits me at the time.

What he's doing now might dovetail with what benefits the Democratic party, but make no mistake, Bernie is mainly looking out for what benefits Bernie.

I don't believe Bernie is only looking out for Bernie either, if that's the case, he wouldn't be fighting so hard.
I'm unsure why so many view him as the bad guy when he isn't. He's really busting his ass and he's every where. Message is important, in fact it's vital if we are going to kick ass in the midterms.

I don't see him as a bad guy at all. He is calculating; that's the thing I see. It doesn't make him a bad guy, but if message is important—and I agree it is—the message of him leaving the Democratic party says "I'll stand with Democrats, but ju-u-st a little apart from them." And the subliminal message that sends is that there must be something ju-u-st a little wrong with the Democratic party.

I don't see that bringing young people to the party. I see it reinforcing the idea of being Independent. Once Bernie is gone from the scene, Democrats are right back where we started, having to woo Independents. If Bernie had sent the message that the Democratic party is the place to be, by staying a Democrat, oh how much stronger we might have been.

Nice chatting with you.

😑

25 years.

"Establishment" is just an insulting buzzword that means nothing.. It was thrown at John Lewis for tripe sake.

This was a big draw to him by many

There were still more people drawn to Hillary despite all the bullshit in the air.

Sexism and misogyny.

There just isn't much else to blame the Hillary hatred on. How does a white male who has been a career politician for almost four decades qualify as an outsider? While a woman who was the most qualified person to run for office in my lifetime gets called "establishment", "corrupt" and "unqualified" by said career politician?

There is a reason people fall for fake news and propaganda. The "optics" you speak of is called Cognitive Dissonance.

Planned Parenthood, too.

The Good Guys are the Establishment doing their work.

The others are just throwing cheap pot shots from the sidelines.

All they have are insults.

He's the most popular politician in America today & this HELPS our party

Which means Vermont, not America.

Google that.

if you live in Vermont.

live in denial are in for a rude awakening

have nothing but stupid cheap pot shots.

With all the HRC slams written by Goodman and published on Salon I see this as just another chapter of 'Hillary Hatred' though presented in a reverse way. They'll remind us of it all but use a cover of asking why.

The incoherence of Clinton hatred becomes more decipherable when Bordo cites polling data demonstrating that in 2015 Americans routinely ranked “least trustworthy” alongside Clinton, Carly Fiorina — an obscure Republican candidate with no prior experience in politics. A recent poll, not yet available when Bordo took to writing, has showed that any Democrat but Elizabeth Warren would currently defeat Donald Trump in an election. Can anyone guess what Clinton, Fiorina and Warren have in common?

You want us to say, "They're all women."

But were the poll questions all asked by men? Were the poll answers all given by men?
What's the context, because this poll was made only to prove misogyny and nothing else.

We all are asking the wrong questions here. Hillary didn't lose the election. It was stolen from her.
She was cheated out of the Presidency. There's a conspiracy against Hillary, and there's another conspiracy to get Trump in.

Every poll must be framed to start and end with that. Otherwise it's an invalid poll.

Men (namely Al Gore) have been cheated and nobody called it "misogyny."

Hillary was cheated. Just because she's a woman, don't call it misogyny.
Call it cheating.

Because it started so long ago, when much of society still frowned on women working outside the home. She didn't bake cookies, she took on a political role in the administration, she said she wasn't the "stand by your man" kind of wife. She was hated for it, particularly in the South and Bible Belt, by men and women alike. And that smoldered and even grew and spread over the decades.

I never thought it was a good idea for her to run for president, because of the high percentage of people who already despised her. If any other woman had run, they would have faced some degree of misogyny, but not on the level that Hillary Clinton did.

She was cheated. But if she had not been plagued with this mass of people who already hated her, rooted in that long-ago misogyny, and the media glee over the email "scandal", and hindered by the current-day mysogyny (being dubbed as shrill, for instance, and many other digs that would not apply to a man), she would have won easily.

I'm not convinced that misogyny was the only explanation.

Republicans knew that Hillary was ambitious, and she was cast as a villain for decades.

See, right there, is an unconscious attitude that people have. Put "ambitious" in front of a man's name and it doesn't trigger anything negative. But an ambitious woman, well, there's an instant implied question of why. WHY is she ambitious? What are her intentions? And that creates an undercurrent of "WE DON'T TRUST HER."

I'm just saying that she pretty much telegraphed her future goals, so it made her an obvious target many years ago from the right wingers.

I knew long ago that she would run for President someday (and it didn't bother me), and I'm sure many Republicans knew it too.

Obama, on the other hand, was news to me when he hit the national scene. That made him more of a "surprise attack" in 2008.

And before that, he was telegraphing his ambition locally with his runs for state office, and from there a run for US Senator. That keynote address was electrifying, and it signaled somebody with big ambitions. Obama didn't let any grass grow under his feet, in his political career.

...I personally didn't know about him until he announced that he was running for President.

I was enamored by him immediately and, to be honest, I was hoping that he would defeat Clinton in the primary because I knew Republicans had made her a villain to many Americans already.

She probably would've lost to McCain too. Late in the primaries, she was the only remaining candidate with an unfavorable rating above 50%. Polls around that same time also showed her losing to McCain in a hypothetical general election whereas Obama was comfortably ahead.

Here's an example of my naivete back then, though. I actually believed that someone like Obama, given that he was relatively "new" in comparison, could attract more bipartisanship than Clinton! LOL! Wow, was I wrong! Republicans started obstructing right from the start!

What I remember thinking in 2008 was Oh, great. We're putting up either a black guy or a woman, against a guy with a reputation as a war hero. In this country. We're screwn. Luckily the war hero screwed up one time too many, in the general, and Obama's steadiness (and charisma) won the day.

I don't put a lot of stock in hypotheticals, so I would never think of saying who "probably" would have lost or won in a hypothetical matchup. I leave that for fantasy baseball, which at least is based on observable stats.

It wasn't only Republicans—I assume you mean Republican politicians—who made Clinton a villain. It was the media. Look up the op-ed that William Safire wrote about her in 1996, during the Whitewater investigation, for example. It was VICIOUS. Filled with invective & innuendo. Safire had endorsed Bill Clinton in 92. It wasn't just Safire—the NYT has hated Clinton since the 90s and would publish anything that could undermine her. The AP's big "exposé" last summer of the Clinton Foundation was a perfect illustration of the media's Clinton Rules. When the media couldn't write about anything tangibly, objectively wrong in what the Clintons did, they talked about perceptions. It was a constant drumbeat.

One lesson I took from 2008 was that the country would take a black man before they would take a woman. The way that ambition is understood and admired in a man, and questioned in a woman.

... the repeated investigations of the Clintons by Republican politicians that were a waste of time and money.

You're correct that even the so-called liberal media was sometimes hard on Hillary Clinton.

Someone created a thread recently about Al Gore running again in 2020. UGH! I wouldn't want him to run for the same reason that I was leery of Hillary running! Both of them have a long history of right-wing (corporate media) propaganda against them.

The "Joe Six-Packs" of this country would know more about a South Park parody of Gore than his positions on particular issues.

the biggest reason being that the Iraq War and the economy fell apart and W was viewed as a disaster, therefore it was unlikely any Repub, including a maverick Repub like McCain, would've won, especially when he picked the doofus/tool like Palin, who would've served as the perfect contrast to the smart, independent, self-actualized woman like Hillary.

It's also likely Obama would've been the VP on the ticket, no way a Hillary/Obama ticket would've lost to anyone.

I often think that would've been the better way history should've played out, with Obama (who is younger than Hillary) running for president in 2016, and likely easily winning.

The polls that I previously mentioned weren't a good sign either.

I was actually cheering for Trump to win the GOP nomination because I assumed he was one of the few Republicans that would lose to her in the general election, and later (after she was President) more people would realize that she was a good, competent leader.

Running a candidate that hasn't been smeared by right-wing propagandists for years forces more voters to actually investigate the "newcomer" a little bit instead of having their minds closed right away.

It's over, and it's been over for a while now--as witnessed by all the current fuckery afoot in the Whitehouse. Analysis is a fine thing--it is how we all learn and grow after events are done. However, it does seem like the continued analysis is more hurtful than helpful.

I say this with love. Please, can we all just look ahead? Please?

You don't think misogyny in politics is worthy of any kind of analysis?

How is this analysis "hurtful" ?

It's about misogyny and the witch hunts of the puke party.

A valid topic indeed.

.. we will talk about what WE Want to.

the fear and loathing of intelligent, experienced, strong women in our culture, unless of course they "know their place" ( I.E. anyplace but a position of power that a man wants to hold)

Particular political differences aside...
The hate opened up Pandora's Box of fear and insecurity in men that has always been brewing beneath the barely civil surface of their behavior.
Quite often, but not exclusively, it's middle aged and older men. And certainly not all. The majority used their vote to talk. But enough to keep the paranoia flowing about a fiercely qualified woman in the face of her loyal, dedicated service and compassionate love for one's country and her people.

Women who spewed that hate were/are particularly foul in my mind. Their ugliness and embracing the Double standards and venom is a distinctly vile betrayal. I expect more from them because females live with that kind of victimization and bs daily.

We've enabled it in males. And while I have great hope and faith in the millions of open minded liberal and progressive men who fight strongly for women's equality, men have to overcome generations of cultural enabling. It is way beyond time to demand it.

But masses of them didn't even attempt to hide their misogyny and used Indefensible Stupidity to cover their fear.

Damnit to hell.
What could have been instead of this monstrously destructive Cretin.

I think sexism and bigotry had a lot to do with this election. A candidate made it acceptable to openly racist and sexist.

They also did not get upset at the fucked up things trump would say.

commenters descend on you like a pack of flying monkeys.

...or they're real people being paid by Putin to post anti-Hillary garbage.

Salon editors do not monitor the comment section so that's why the Russian bots take over.
They did it everywhere last fall, I'm sure you saw them.

They post the same stuff word-for-word, so you know they're copying it out of an archive somewhere.

Just sayin'

They are honest to goodness liberals who hate HRC. I've seem them out in the wild.

Amazing how people choose to be stupid

and requires no mental gymnastics to comprehend that politicians acquire enemies and animosity directed towards them accumulate as they acquire records that include decisions that are bad in retrospect, failed political calculations, and unintended consequences are revealed. When politicians are on the public stage for a long period of time the bad stuff adds up and is never forgotten.
Ted Kennedy was not viewed kindly when he primaried Carter. Chappaquiddick was resurrected and he ultimately went back to work. Doing what he did best and not pushing himself into the forefront for it to be rehashed and more dirt revealed.

at the vitriol against HC.

I guess being a Republican, she never paid attention or didn't believe it, but once she took a closer look from the other side, she saw the reality.

She was interviewed on Univision, and kept saying that she didn't understand the hatred, why, why was Hillary treated that way?

She was truly baffled, and said there was nothing in Hillary's history that warranted the hate.

as dumb as a box of rocks where it isn't complicit.

...won the primary and general election votes and is often picked as the most admired woman in America. I do feel the article has a worthy thesis - but it, hopefully, points out Hillary is not despised by the majority.

But you'd have to be an ostrich with it's head deep in the sand to ignore that the Democrat's candidate for president had some serious shortcomings of her own that factored heavily into the outcome - and helped allow Trump to be even competitive.

Did the Russians affect the outcome? I strongly suspect so.

Did Clinton's support suffer some from misogyny? No doubt. She's a woman and sadly, that remains a disadvantage just like being black had some disadvantages for Obama among the racists. (I do not care to quantify the differences). Being a woman candidate hurt her when it should not have.

etc. You can add to that list.

But there were other significant factors that affected the lack of success of her candidacy. I cannot go down that road again to spell them out or I'll just get another post locked. As a party, if you do not learn from your mistakes, you are more likely to repeat them.

The top article is duly noted but for me, falls quite short.

is that she never really controlled the narrative about who she is as a politician. Far too often, others were able to define her. With a lucrative anti-clinton cottage industry on the right, slanderous books and movies about Hillary gain traction. The Clintons themselves rarely respond to these attacks, which has been unfortunate.


Hubris afflicted Hillary's campaign and I personally wished her image were less manicured, less crafted, and I wanted to see her counter the narrative of the populists - both Sanders and Trump. At times she needed to get nasty, and maybe she should have chosen better ads - but none of this erases the basic distrust that had very little to do with facts and more to do with successful smears against her over the years. And I've done my fair bit of research on her, after being a skeptic.

Qualities and foibles which get the barest notice in male politicians are amplified in criticisms about Hillary. And the proof was immediately after the election loss when some were pining for Joe Biden - Joe Biden whose track record isn't perfect - how does Joe Biden get a pass, but Hillary doesn't?

Hillary's own tendency to adopt a "fuck the haters" attitude probably didn't help but the real question Americans should be asking is how a competent, hard working public servant was so successfully slandered that a buffoon ended up being President.

And the Russian influence is beyond the level of "suspicion" - Disinformation is effective, the propaganda was effective. Democrats need to understand this because those efforts will continue to harangue our politicians - Corey Booker got a taste of it earlier this year.

Time, after time after time, after time.

Their 1/3 is hopelessly brainwashed. So, they hate her just for being a D.

The "middle" 1/3 hears them going nuts and thinks SOMETHING must be wrong.

For hood measure, our 1/3 does not have their righteousness and bends too easily, does not stand behind our people like they do.

The only people I see still obsessing over her are her supporters and Trumpsters.

I just want her and her family to retire to a quiet life and enjoy the years that she and Bill have left.

She and Bill need to quietly fade away.

... and to support and lift-up the DEMOCRATIC PARTY. She's the perfect antidote to those who would attack and smear the DEMOCRATIC PARTY. Her strong presence serves to counteract those whose actions and words serve no purpose other than to DIVIDE and WEAKEN our great Democratic Party.

... Actual information.