Rove's latest: http://www.americancrossroads.org/

If you look at your links, it says American Crossroads is planning to to run against her and I am sure it will be a negative. They are testing various attacks now.

However, that iss different than what Hillary claimed which was the Republicans are running Ads now and the claim was that they are running these ads to manipulate the primaries because they do not want to run against Hillary. However, it does not prove this at all. It does not even suggest it or hint at this. All it proves is that everyone has and still does think Hillary will be the candidate and the republican machine is gearing up for who they think will be the ultimate nominee..

Is any group (including american crossroads) running current ads to somehow influence the primaries or are they just stretching the truth about republicans preparing for the general?

The NYT article is from July. Hillary discusses the Iowa ads on ABC here:

I actually read all of the Times Article you linked to. All it said is they are preparing dirt and attack lines for the General because Hillary was going to be the Nominee.

It says the Democratic Party would do the same thing but it was more difficult because there were more candidates so they didnt know who to prepare for.

Just read your own cited article. It does not say what either you or Hillary said. It says like we all know that they were running to weaken Hillary in the General. Not that they were running to weaken Hillary so that she would not be the Democratic Party nominee. No one expected that.

Just read your own cited New York Times Article.

In other words they'll make sure you see them if they decide they want you to.

You posted a video of a Sunday Talk Show using video of an online site. The online site did not air the Ad. It is just an anti democratic website which as tons of negative stuff about democrats. It was NOT aired by the Republicans. It was used by Stephanopolous as an intro to a question of Clinton.

This is standard fair for the media. They introduce a video or an issue and try to get the candidate to respond. It is not proving that they are airing ads against her because she would be harder to beat unless they are actually AIRING ads.

Knock knock on your head. Democrats have similar sites which air hits on Republican Candidates. It does not mean that we are trying to influence the primary. I say and hear amazing things about how bad Ted Cruz would be if elected and have cited to video of some of his past. This does not mean I think he is the Republicans best candidate in the General Election. It means I am disgusted by him.

Republicans have the same disgust against Hillary and have had that for 25 years. Its not proof or evidence or a hint that they consider her the most dangerous candidate. It does mean that she is the most likely candidate that they are testing various attack lines against Hillary. That is what the Times article said. As Bernie looks more viable, I would expect them to start doing negative research on Bernie and testing various attack lines against him.

However, I still have the question open. Are the republcans actually running primary ads against Hillary now anywhere in the country or ads in favor of Bernie in an attempt to influence the primaries?

Yes, they are spending millions, and they started more than a year ago:

There is questioning every day on DU, but if HRC falls out on the wrong side of those questions time after time this isn't caused by Republicans and a right wing smear machine.

If she isn't trusted on several issues it is because of her history. Contradiction breeds distrust - and quite rightly so! What is posted on DU questioning her fitness to lead a liberal/progressive/left wing political party is mostly fact. Especially fact in the form of videos of HRC stating her case, where outright contradictions are so prolific as to be all that can be seen. With the exception that she's pro-choice. That's solid. No contradiction there. But in regard so many other very important issues the contradictions are prolific. Again, contradiction breeds distrust. People don't like being lied to. It's human nature.

The point of this article is that the Republicans are testing various attacks against Hillary because SEE BELOW QUOTE she was in July a prohibitive favorite. It is not related to any decision that she was the BEST candidate against republicans (the elect ability argument she is making and which is the question of this OP).

If Bernie beats her, the republicans will spend the same millions attacking him because he will be the nominee. Everyone knows that Hillary has been attacked for years although you will notice that she was NOT attacked when she was not running for president. However, when she started running for the 2016 presidency (even though rejected in 2008) she was assumed by every pundit and person in this country to be a prohibitive favorite. There was no reason to attack O'Malley or Bernie. They were considered afterthoughts kind of like the fact that the democratic strategists have not been spending money to develop strategies against Rand Paul because he was thought to have no chance.

Now the quote.

"Democratic political groups, of course, will undertake their own offensive to attack a Republican nominee or front-runner, much as they did with Mr. Romney. But their task has been made more difficult by the large and uncertain Republican field.

Both sides agree that the work undertaken long before the election, often in the year before it, creates the foundation for the most damaging attacks."

With respect to your assumption that it is only republican attacks that have shaped her unfavorables in the democratic left. The article does not say that. It says they are trying to attack her on what is her weaknesses. They did not create her image as dishonest. Hillary did. Of course the republicans attack on her honesty. It does not mean that Democrats who see this dishonesty are being misled. AND THE ARTICLE DOES NOT SAY WHAT YOU ARE SAYING.

"But many, essentially, struck the same theme, depicting Mrs. Clinton as untrustworthy, an image that even Democrats supporting the Clinton campaign acknowledge is a weakness. About 57 percent of Americans do not believe Mrs. Clinton is honest and trustworthy, according to a CNN poll released June 2.

“She’s got an open wound, and part of our job is to pour salt in it,” said Glen Bolger, a co-founder of Public Opinion Strategies, the Republican polling firm that conducted the focus groups.

Mrs. Clinton’s allies point to relatively low trust numbers for Mr. Clinton in the 1992 and 1996 elections and his ability to win voters despite his personal failings."

" The republicans have a contested primary and I can not believe they would waste money this far ahead of the general running ads against Hillary. "

and

"So I really am asking a question as to whether any republicans or super pacs are actually running any ads against Hillary now or was that just an empty claim and false campaigning. "

I saw Hillary trying out a new argument yesterday. I think she has used it but I saw it on Rachel Maddow. The argument is that Republicans are running ads against her because they know that she would make the best candidate.

I know that Republicans attack her like the attack all democratic politicians and I know that they will attack her in the general election if she comes out of the primaries as the candidate and I know that they are testing lines of attack now in preparation for the general election.

My question is are they running Ads now in New Hampshire or anywhere in the country now on Television in and attempt to influence the primary so they will not have to run against Hillary. That is the basis of her claim that they are currently running ads to prevent her being the candidate.

Its only a yes or no question. Either she is making up the current ads against her or the republicans are running ads. Digital question. I would just like a digital answer.

Where's the beef?

the republicans are running ads. Of course they are.

has to be suspect?

Your answer "of course" is not very authoritative. She made a specific claim of an active ad campaign to prevent her from becoming the Democratic Nominee. This is a different argument from an argument that Republicans have attacked her for 25 years.

She is making a claim about current ads being run against her currently with the argument being that it is an attempt to influence the Democratic primaries so they can run against Bernie.

This could be true. It has happened in California politics. Over the years you see this claim made occasionally but its also a suspect claim because its early in the primaries and the Republicans are running hard against each other.

I am asking for a link to evidence that any republican group is running ads against her specifically rather than Bernie against her or Republicans against each other.