I'm glad she is finally speaking up, but she has said many times that doesn't usually bother because it takes her away from getting on with what needs to be done.

How is whining about bringing up her DOCUMENTED history "defending herself?"

Defending herself would involve actually giving legitimate reasons for doing what she has done that are acceptable to We the People, not whining about it being "unfair" to ask.

If she's that easily thrown off her game, she has zero business in the most powerful job on the planet.

triple down on her.

She very clearly explained exactly why she made a vote that has been used in the argument the she is someone how beholden to banks.

I lost a lot of the respect that I had for Sanders when he compared her foreign policy experience to Cheney to deflect from his inexperience. He is being shady af and I'm glad she is speaking up.

Yes she did but a majority of the interview was indeed whining on how mean him and his supporters are. Not only mention, she said screw the voters, until everyone who has ever given a paid speech releases the transcripts, she will not. What is she afraid of?

Warren tells the story just fine in her video

"I was deluged by women's groups and children's advocates groups to do everything I could to make sure that child support and women's precarious financial situation in case of divorce or not being able to get the kind of funding they needed from a partner or a spouse in bankruptcy would not be endangered. And it was. The current -- that bill was making it a very low priority.

So I did go to work on behalf of all these women's groups and children's groups because they needed a champion. And I got that bill changed."

It has to do with that person's lips being in movement. And for me, it certainly describes Mrs Clinton.

Since 2008. And she doesn't seem to get any closer!

Of course, it could be that this is her own fault: No matter how many tricks a politician employs, people usually can smell out a rat, and avoid voting for them.

Bernie is the clean candidate has so far has successfully reached to a point where he's viable, and legitimate.

a state he should have won.

Bernie Sanders has not conceded the Iowa caucuses, and with good reason.

Newly updated totals released by the Iowa Democratic Party today show Sanders continues to gain om Hillary Clinton.

From The Hill:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/2/7/1481418/-Iowa-is-not-over-Sanders-gains-on-Clinton-in-revised-precinct-caucus-results



Seems you haven't been paying attention...

From Real Clear Politics....



NBC News/Marist 7/14 - 7/21 320 RV 5.5 49 25 3 Clinton +24
KBUR/WAA 6/27 - 6/29 1000 LV 3.1 63 20 5 Clinton +43
Quinnipiac 6/20 - 6/29 761 LV 3.6 52 33 3 Clinton +19
Bloomberg 6/19 - 6/22 401 LV 4.9 50 24 2 Clinton +26
Morning Consult 5/31 - 6/8 322 RV 6.0 54 12 1 Clinton +42
Des Moines Register 5/25 - 5/29 437 LV 4.7 57 16 2 Clinton +41
Gravis Marketing 5/28 - 5/29 434 RV 5.0 59 15 3 Clinton +44
Quinnipiac 4/25 - 5/4 692 LV 3.7 60 15 3 Clinton +45
PPP (D) 4/23 - 4/26 466 LV 4.5 62 14 6 Clinton +48
Loras College 4/21 - 4/23 491 LV 4.4 57 2 2 Clinton +42
Quinnipiac 2/16 - 2/23 619 LV 3.9 61 5 0 Clinton +42

Seems even with dirty tricks,
Hillary could only 'win' Iowa by a hair.

Of course, maybe no one with a national audience has ever done that to you, but just suppose. Whatcha gonna do?

Telling the truth is not "whining."

If you think Bernie would be exempt in the GE you are underestimating the GOP.

Her explanation did not come across as an affirmative justification for her vote. She sounded defensive. It is an unfortunate tendency that will probably not serve her well.

as he has been "whining" and being "angry" all along.

Hillary's is all about Hillary.

TRUTHFUL!

A quality the Clintons have not been familiar with for decades.

But if Hillary raises her voice for any reason, she needs to be reminded of decorum and how unladylike it is to make your voice heard.

There's no double standard at all.

That perfectly describes Hillary.
Just give her the damn crown and she'll stop complaining.

M

vengeance awaits this benighted land, absent some serious repentance and massive reparations.

always talking about Hillary's ties, yes she has ties but he forgets about his ties to Wall Street companies, he raises funding with Goldman Sachs, he doesn't talk about this, he attends lobbyists meetings and he should be fair and talk about these meetings. If he can handle these facts then he will not be able to handle the ones he will be getting as the campaign goes further. After all, he has not yet been vetted, and of course he has not had twenty five years of vetting by the GOP and most of them not factual.

reminds me of another DUer (tombstoned) who also used a Texas icon for their avatar.

You post is shamefully false.

I'm sure Hillary will win, I'm just glad she is having to fight for it. Should make her stronger in the general election.

Let me know when there is evidence of him enriching himself to the tune of $150m like the Clintons.

This is so ironic, after the attacks last month, that Bernie was seemingly NOT interested in raising money for the Democratic party (not to mention all the attacks that he's not a "real" Democrat).

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251968425

(with the flip side of it discussed at http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251968487 )

Any links, or just bluster?

That's your proof?
Goldman Sachs donated to the DSCC, so Bernie's in the pocket of Wall Street?

Goldman Sachs because of their ties, then the same with Goldman Sachs. Now does it sound reasonable Hillary and Sanders both have ties with Goldman Sachs and if the claim they have to listen to Goldman Sachs then both have to listen to Goldman Sachs. It is a ridiculous claim, time to give this one up. Sanders set the rules of establishment by people taking money from the likes of Goldman Sachs, then his find raising puts him in the establishment. It was a silly rule since he is a part of the fund raising.

How about Sanders talking about issues and leave his rules elsewhere since he fails his rules.

Goldman Sachs donating to the DSCC isn't the same as Goldman Sachs slipping million$ into HRC's pocket.

If we go by the votes Sanders made on gun issues after $18,000 was donated to help defeat Sanders opponent when he was elected to the House, then Sanders has a problem. One if the years Sanders was involved in the fund raising was 2006, the year he ran for the Senate. If Sanders is running in a pattern to his past behavior he will vote how Goldman Sachs wants just as he voted five times against the Brady Bill.

...is not quite the same as being personally paid to speak at Goldman Sachs at their request.

I guess Bernie should have said, "I'm glad to speak to this room full of donors, but I must ask everyone from Goldman Sachs to leave."

Her complaints about Sanders "picking on" her betray her long-held belief in her own
"inevitability"; such that any and every thing that stands in the way of that, or somehow
runs counter to that belief is castigated as "unfair" or "a smear".

It is so transparently self-serving and bogus it's painful to watch.

Perhaps she believes that this gets her sympathy
votes,and may be it does.

I for one would prefer her talking to the issues,
and would never would vote for someone due
to feeling pity for that person.

I never felt pity for Obama, because he handled
his attackers with great humor and intelligence.
She should have learned that from him.

Pounds mightily until she hits upon a resolute argument, and thereby shatters into a million shards of victim invectives.

same grueling gauntlet that got thrown at Hillary for hour after hour during the hearings. And by the way, at which she triumphed.

I am sure you guys think Bernie could have done just as well, but the reality is he couldn't.

Even though she is a woman, she is allowed to call out what she sees as crappy practices by her opponent. Just like you guys do here all the livelong day.

Watching this thread to see who is the first to complain about her voice quality.

"If she can't handle criticism..."

You kids are hilarious!

handled the Benghasi nitwits just fine. Actually, they would never have invited him to an open microphone in the first place.

You know, there is a reason why immigrant kids from Brooklyn have a reputation for being tough. Its cause they are.

Instead of releasing her speeches and just owning up to the Wall Street money, she says things like "maybe we'll look into it" or "well they are part of New York, so...." (please excuse the lack of accurate quotes - those are what I HEARD her say, not what she actually said). OWN it! You take WS money? Ok - own it, tell us why and move on. Instead, she beats around the book and doesn't want to talk about it. Then she complains when people still go on about it. There are NO innuendos, Ms. Clinton, there are facts and your record speaks for itself.

Why doesn't she just brush away the dirt?

How will she deal with that in the general election?

Well, she used tears in 2008

It seems that neither the "poor poor pitiful me" nor the tears worked.

Maybe this time.

"How will she ..."

I was agreeing that those tactics didn't get her to the general last time.

Musing that she's trying it again.

strategy of her campaign's behalf. Save the innuendo charges for the general election or they'll look contrived and stale.

.....and I was deluged by women's groups and children's advocates groups to do everything I could to make sure that child support and women's precarious financial situation in case of divorce or not being able to get the kind of funding they needed from a partner or a spouse in bankruptcy would not be endangered. And it was. The current -- that bill was making it a very low priority.

So I did go to work on behalf of all these women's groups and children's groups because they needed a champion. And I got that bill changed. And in return, it had nothing to do with any money whatsoever -- and I resent deeply any effort by the Sanders campaign to so imply...



She's dodging the point that both Warren and Sanders are making, that she shouldnt have voted to pass that shitty legislation in the first place.

It has hurt countless numbers of people since it was enacted.

Corporations loved it.

So did bankruptcy attorneys.