The timing and coordination of the attack on Bernie right before SC stink of dirty, Rovian tactics. The man was ARRESTED for being a student leader in the civil rights movement and Hillary spreads this filth to manipulate the AA vote just before SC. Don't cry to me about attacks on Hillary, they are on her record and positions. Bernie doesn't play dirty.

Is this the type of person you want as President, someone who will lie to manipulate Americans into doing something to benefit her. We've had this before, Bush/Rove, and yes, Bill "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" Clinton!

Other than tin foil hat speculation, there is no.. NO evidence that even supports that she was at all connected in any way.

There is a swiftboat going on, but it is the hyperbolic speculative lies and libel being committed against Clinton.

So can I.

Bernie and I are both adults.

It is a matter of coming DOWN to her. While she has experience following orders, I agree, but she has NO vision for where and how she wants to lead this country going forward.

Bernie has the vision and the outline of how it can be accomplished.

recognition at the WORLD level. The WHOLE world knows WHO she is but, have we ever really known WHAT she is?

She IS malleable, pliable, open to an exchange of ideas. She can form a coalition but, she is NOT a visionary.

Bless her. She just isn't.

eom

There's a reason for that.

Hillary and Bill want our vote, but do not care what we want, need or think. "Get in line and follow me" is their mantra. Need proof? Correct me if I am wrong but didn't Rahm Emanuel, Bill's WH Chief of Staff, make it clear they do not care what we think. He said "Where else are they going to go?" The arrogance and sense of entitlement is nauseating.

Which is one of my biggest knocks against Obama, whom I supported since the 2008 primaries.

Thank you. I knew there was a reason I said, "correct me if I am wrong."

RBInMaine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-20-08 09:14 PM
Response to Original message

230. Hillary will say ANYTHING and do ANYTHING to win. STINKING ROTTEN !!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5168167

You can feel it.

Hillary has been on every side of almost every progressive issue for 30 years.

It is way too late to remake herself -- she is now just what she is.

It was evident eight years ago, as noted above, and it is even more so now.

... they make the most sense!

in wallstreet's back pocket

too interested in lining her pocket or pumping money into the family 'charity'

don't like her, can't trust her

we need a new direction and it sure as hell isn't Hillary Clinton

eom

Which is why she has no convictions and cannot be trusted.

If your trying to encourage open-mindedness toward both candidates.

One day her detractors will come to their senses and admit this also.

She is very untrustworthy. Why would anyone want to vote FOR her? If she is the nominee, she'll lose, especially if there is a moderate Republican. And, if it should happen to be Donald Trump, she will definitely lose. Dems may hold their nose and vote for her, at least some will, but indies will not. She will get almost zero cross over from the repubs.

People are fed up with politics as usual, and if you haven't seen that, you are in a bubble.

Z

Unfortunately, there will be so many hold outs, particularly among the ranks of independents that we'll be seeing a Republican president should she be the nominee.

She has no moral compass or ethics. I require both in anyone I support.

...except for actual Progressives.

And most of us are on to it.

Clinton is no progressive.she is neocon warhark who is friends with kissinger.and who is puppet of top 1%.she won't swear not to cut SS.

It is also fair to call a campaign out for playing dirty pool as campaigns are a reflection of the candidate.

Painting candidates with grandiose claims obscures honest discussion of the candidates, the issues, and the campaigns they run.

Hillary is a brilliant lawyer.

She is a Third way democrat who is becoming threatened by the true progressive, Bernie Sanders.

I had no intention of voting in the NY Primary for her.

Now, after the Kissinger comments, I would say she has lost even more primary votes.
And that was AFTER her BFF's Gloria and Madeline "helped" her campaign.

Tone deaf, living in the 70's.

I know I'm a broken record here and I keep repeating the same thing over and over again, but until I get banned from this forum I'll keep posting it.

To support her means I would have to forgive her and until I see she suffers on a daily basis as a result of her role in war on Iraq I doubt the authenticity of her apology for the war and what it has done to thousands of American soldiers like me, their spouses, and their children - and not to begin to realize the untold millions of Iraqis who have been adversely impacted by the war perpetrated against them. It took her more than a decade to realize that was a mistake. What sort of lapse in judgement is that?

As far as the insane thing goes, I got that in the bag. I typically spend about 1/3rd of the year in a psych ward as my PTSD symptoms become too intense for me and my family to manage. For me its the right person for the office or it is nobody.

To quote a Marilyn Manson song from the 90s "Killing is killing whether it is done for duty, profit, or fun". I'll go on to add no matter what the reason, when you kill someone you feel like shit for the rest of your life - and I have way more than the blood of one Iraqi directly on my hand. My service in Iraq is filled with all sorts of feelings of guilt and shame as a result.

For those who doubt what I say when I say that I was in Iraq, I'll add the following scan of a military award I received.


[IMG][/IMG]

I am so very sorry for what you've suffered. I believe that those who want war should lead the charge and their children should have to fight as well.

Gen. Eisenhower said he hated war as only someone who'd fought in war could. JFK felt likewise. He'd served and lost his older brother in WWII. After him, however, we have had nothing but chickenhawks in, or aspiring to be in, the White House. John Kerry was an exception but sold his soul when he too voted for Bush's IWR. It was political calculation and moral cowardice.

And now candidate weathervane, the BFF of Wall Street and pro-MIC corporatist who never saw a war she didn't like wants to be POTUS. Well, I completely agree with you. I cannot and will not ever vote for her.

did it because their president and his cronies made everyone believe they should vote for it. You even blame John Kerry for the war. You know as well as I do that a reckless impulsive band of Republicans caused that war. Dick Cheney was president, not Bush, and he started the war. Blaming Hillary Clinton for every thing bad that has happed to us is really quite stupid. I am a Democrat from way back. I see that Bernie Sanders is a good contestant and if he is the one nominated I will vote for him. I also will vote for Hillary Clinton if she is the one. I will get a slew of posts for saying anything good about Hillary Clinton and I will manage to understand that bashing Hillary has become more important than learning we just might have a new Republican as president. We need to be united Democrats, not storytelling. If a Republican becomes our next president, God forbid, we can only blame ourselves. I may be whistleing in the wind but going back to another age in order to "get back" at someone who is running for president reveals who we are. I am really going to get the smart ass posts from this but I have taken on that for quite some time.

I read it. I blame her. I also blame the others.

talking to you, I was talking to someone who paid the price and suffered for Bush's war which HRC, Biden, Dodd, Edwards and Kerry voted for because they were politically calculating and had their eyes on the WH. They gave W bipartisan cover when they should have known better. The IWR was rolled out for a vote just before the 2002 midterm elections, clearly a political ploy. Plus, Iraq was a PNAC target and many Dems like HRC knew it!

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, not a single hijacker was from Iraq. Iraq had been under horrific US pushed/UN enforced sanctions since the first Bush war in 1991, and weapons inspectors had found no WMDs... So, how was Iraq an imminent threat???

If HRC or any of those other cowardly Democrats truly believed that Iraq posed a threat, if they believed the tools who stole the WH in 2000, then they were, and are, not fit for squat. We, the people who marched and protested and certainly those of us here on DU were not fooled or misled. Why were they?

They weren't! And watching Kerry's contortions and speechifying to justify his vote in the 2004 campaign proved it. HRC's speech when she cast her vote is worthy. And it should haunt her forever.

That war, that invasion, that occupation has wrought death, destruction, debt, destabilization and more.

So, YES, I will hold Hillary responsible along with all of those like her who vote for war, especially unnecessary and unwarranted war. Actions matter and a politician's vote is a form of action and evidence of judgment. So if HRC wants to tout her record and her experience, you bet I will hold her accountable for this colossal failure!

I'm so sorry you had to go through this and are continuing to go through this.

I, thankfully, did not, but I completely agree with you regarding Hillary's judgment. There was no reason you - and thousands of other soldiers, marines, airmen and seamen - should have been there. My husband is an Army vet, but thankfully was out before Iraq started.

And to your point: her judgment is either very poor or she simply does not care and neither of those are qualities I want in a president.

Progressives do not direct or support regime change. The world is worse off today as a result of her so-called advising of Obama as SoS.

She's in bed with the MIC, and every other money scheme known to the human species.

She is progressive on social issues, now. She has been pushed into more progressive stance on economic issues, but those positions cannot be relied on as unchanging convictions.

She's a hawk and far from progressive on foreign policy.

On top of that there are serious trust issues and a Clinton administration would be bogged down with scandals and investigations for its entirety. It would be such a distraction nothing would get done.

If she wins a majority of the pledged delegates, I will vote for her, but not with great expectations. It would be a vote against the republican as anything else.

If she does not win a majority of the pledged delegates, by secures the nomination through super delegates (a highly unlikely scenario) I will vote AGAINST the Democrsic party.

But it's her judgement, dishonesty and inconsistency that's a redflag.

like a department chair I once worked under. On paper, she looked really good, very impressive resume. In reality, however, she was vindictive, petty, deceitful and importantly not as qualified as her resume suggested. Seems she had failed upward, been promoted to other positions to get RID of her. And everything she touched went from sugar to shit.

She now enriches herself writing books about her experiences breaking the glass ceiling and some women fall for her crap. 'Course they never knew or worked with her.

As a female myself, women like her and HRC boil my blood using their gender for any means necessary.

having her on a national stage is divisive and counter-productive to the concept of progress.

Foundation will collapse this year!

are her own supports. It's not her talent or experience that are questionable, it's her judgement, goals, and yes, her electability. But we either agree or we don't. So have a great day DU.

Thanks for sharing it.

on economic issues, a neoconservative on foreign policy, and an opportunistic "moderate" on social issues.

of What Bern has accomplished that makes him worthy of being PRez. Seems he really has not done much all these years in Congress, except hang out!

I knew there was something up when the state he came from was rejecting SP

... he's trying to win with the coalition Clinton lost with in 08

Corporate Crime Accountability (February 1995): A Sanders amendment to the Victims Justice Act of 1995 required “offenders who are convicted of fraud and other white-collar crimes to give notice to victims and other persons in cases where there are multiple victims eligible to receive restitution.”

Saving Money, for Colleges and Taxpayers (April 1998): In an amendment to H.R. 6, the Higher Education Amendments of 1998, Sanders made a change to the law that allowed the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education to make competitive grants available to colleges and universities that cooperated to reduce costs through joint purchases of goods and services.

Holding IRS Accountable, Protecting Pensions (July 2002): Sanders' amendment to the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 2003 stopped the IRS from being able to use funds that “violate current pension age discrimination laws.” Although he faced stiff GOP opposition, his amendment still succeeded along a 308 to 121 vote.

Expanding Free Health Care (November 2001): You wouldn't think Republicans would agree to an expansion of funds for community health centers, which provide some free services. But Sanders was able to win a $100 million increase in funding with an amendment.

Getting Tough On Child Labor (July 2001): A Sanders amendment to the general appropriations bill prohibited the importation of goods made with child labor.

Increasing Funding for Heating for the Poor (September 2004): Sanders won a $22 million increase for the low-income home energy assistance program and related weatherization assistance program.

Fighting Corporate Welfare and Protecting Against Nuclear Disasters (June 2005): A Sanders amendment brought together a bipartisan coalition that outnumbered a bipartisan coalition on the other side to successfully prohibit the Export-Import Bank from providing loans for nuclear projects in China.

Once Sanders made it to the Senate in 2006, his ability to use amendments to advance a progressive agenda was empowered. Here are some of the amendments he passed in the Senate:

Greening the U.S. Government (June 2007): A Sanders amendment made a change to the law so at least 30 percent of the hot water demand in newer federal buildings is provided through solar water heaters.

Protecting Our Troops (October 2007): Sanders used an amendment to win $10 million for operation and maintenance of the Army National Guard, which had been stretched thin and overextended by the war in Iraq.

Restricting the Bailout to Protect U.S. Workers (Feburary 2009): A Sanders amendment required the banking bailout to utilize stricter H-1B hiring standards to ensure bailout funds weren't used to displace American workers.

Helping Veterans' Kids (July 2009): A Sanders amendment required the Comptroller General to put together comprehensive reporting on financial assistance for child care available to parents in the Armed Forces.

Exposing Corruption in the Military-Industrial Complex (November 2012): A Sanders amendment required “public availability of the database of senior Department officials seeking employment with defense contractors” – an important step toward transparency that revealed the corruption of the revolving door in action.

Support for Treating Autism in Military Health Care: Sanders worked with Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) to pass an amendment by a vote of 66-29 ensuring that the military's TRICARE system would be able to treat autism.

She is a distant second to Sanders, IMO.

IMO (and the opinion of a significant number of Dems) she is devious, unethical , arrogant, condescending, unlikable and untrustworthy.

if she manages to worm her way into the nomination she will not get my vote. I don't see her as a viable alternative to the republican.

insane is doing the same old shit again and again and expecting diffferent results....no thanks

go sell crazy someplace else. We're all full up here.

There's so much baggage there, not to mention dirty laundry, that whatever qualities she may possess are lost beneath them.

Her constituents, the ones that matter to her anyway, are the ones who fill her coffers. Case closed.

Sorry, but I have a hard time finding the differentiation between Hillary and G.W. Bush.

"We came, we saw, he died" is a monsterous thing to brag about.

And the IWR votes of hers and most of her colleagues in the Senate was bona-fide "Profiles in Cowardice"

The rush to war, any war, after 9-11, was simply exploiting the 9-11 tragedy to pursue the PNAC agenda, pure and simple.

Our "War on dandruff, I mean, TERROR" has utterly failed and needs to be dismantled. I feel that MIC Hillary is a big fan of perpetual war cuz her backers can make big money from it!

I'm almost 62 and I'm more idealistic than I was as a early teen in the sixties. We can have a better, more just society if we employ our Democracy better and vote for Bernie and all Dems on the ticket. Hillary is corrupt business as usual.

-90% Jimmy

Democratic nominee, has no gravitas, poor communication skills, promises the world with no rational way of accomplishing his promises. He simply cannot provide all he has promised to all he has promised it to.

to dynasty. America isn't a monarchy.

[link:

of dollars donated to Clintons were given as part of a quid pro quo arrangement. Yes, that is an assumption on my part. But, it would be naive to assume that the large donations were meant for any other purpose than political favors.

"She is progressive and has good plans to move us toward all the goals Bernie has but with more specifics and in a more realistic way." Really? In what way is that? The same way President Obama said "I got this" before hiring Rahm and throwing the Left under the bus?
Yes, I suspect that is what you mean.........

I don't trust her judgment and that goes to her qualifications.

And I certainly don't find her progressive on economic and foreign policy.

Hillary Clinton is not progressive. Do you honestly think she'd be talking about any of the progressive topics she's recently begun parroting if Bernie Sanders weren't beside her on the stage?

She's been in politics for... what? Decades? And in the last 10 days, she suddenly starts mentioning the possibility of breaking up the big banks.* You think that's genuine? If so, I have a bridge in Brooklyn you might want to invest in.

-----

THE HILLARY CLINTON FINE PRINT
*Of course, she hedges her remarks about breaking up the big banks with the caveat, "If we find that's the right thing to do"--preparing, already, for her reversal, should she be elected. "If we find that's the right thing to do"--as if there's a possibility that the big banks might somehow get smaller by themselves or as if there's a chance that we might discover that banks that are too big are actually a good thing. Puh-leez. If, in fact, you believe the big banks are too big, you call for them to be broken up--plainly, and without using a politician's weasely words. You know, like Bernie Sanders has been doing for years.

No one will pay attention to you. They always use ALL CAPS, words like "wow", and give anecdotes about how many bumpers stickers they saw at the mall for the other guy and that their cousin who used to be a skinhead anarchist is going to vote for the other guy. That is their usual style of communication.

for 20 years during which she should have been thinking about the day she'd ask for my vote.

no - not progressive

... much less a campaign.

She is NOT progressive on issues beyond what she says, but does not back up on women's issues. Same for PoC.

You are pointing the hyperbole in the wrong direction. Low Blows... That's her latest method of trying to win.

Low blow, mis-truths, deception, and directing John Lewis to lie about his knowledge of Bernie Sanders early years as a civil rights activist is NO WAY TO HEAD TOWARDS THE PRESIDENCY OF THE UNITED STATES.

More people understand this every day.

Both are imperfect candidates because frankly, no one is perfect. But they both are Democratic candidates and deserve our support regardless of who wins.

But the status quo has become untenable. Hence Clinton is operating on an unrealistic platform. I'd say that lack of reality disqualifies her a bit.

Sanders is the most qualified candidate, by a mile. He is not a follower of common wisdom, but a leader of the common (wo)men.