Doubt he would take her call anyway.

She's fucking tone deaf and honestly, I don't think she cares about the appearance of being corrupt.

both probably still have some value... not much...

This is Hillary's fatal tie in three in-play states.

but let DWS get in the way of Hillary's quest for Camelot, and not only would Hillary sever a lung, she'd personally chew that lung from out her own chest.

Democrats during a general election cycle?

Um, no.

two anchors? Nope, the honesty and trustworthy ship sailed years ago. The hubris will be her campaign downfall.

Nobody outside of Chicago or DU cares about Rham anymore. Hillary will replace DWS in January.

Maybe a personal aide.

Thanks!

but RUN their sorry asses off. Right out the fucking door. both of them are giving us a black eye and a bad one at that. IMO

Show us where your loyalties lie, Hill.

K & R

A Clinton presidency would be a disaster for the country.

There will be no "winning side" for the party without Bernie supporters.

No matter the cost?

If it did, they wouldnt be constantly shitting on the left wing of the party.

Might makes right these days.

Please, explain how shit like voting to send sick people to prison for using medical marijuana is defensible.

It is still Barack Obama.

Only after she is nominated at the convention does she get the powers to fire anyone.

So, vote for her !!!!

I won't thank god. That is what C Street "The Family" Hillary Clinton would do.

But I choose to keep religion out of my politics and my government. Unlike Hillary Clinton.

My best to you.

And lost an entire southern section of the country whom he would need to win a presidency.
See how that works?

He needs the Clinton voters. Too.
Enjoy your day.

The electoral college is fifty winner take all state contests. The Southern states will never be in the Dem column.

But you are correct about one thing. We win by standing together. I can stand with you only if you are willing to reciprocate. I am willing to meet you somewhere betwixt and between. I hope you are as well. That is how politics works. Too many people forget that fact.

If we divide, we lose. It is really simple.

And I sincerely hope you enjoy your day as well.

Oh and North Carolina??

My goodness stop with the Southern Bashing around here.
We vote, too in the south and our votes count, too

first Clinton reign when she and her husband rarely met a donor to whom they wouldn’t try to auction a sleepover in the Lincoln Bedroom.

Big donors were definitely treated to perks like a sleepover in the Lincoln Bedroom. There was no "quid pro quo" so it was, in typical Clinton fashion, sleazy as hell but not illegal.

It was a typical made up scandal that the media fell head over heels to follow.

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh051605.shtml

It only looked like corruption and cronyism. There were so many other, non-big donor guests in that bedroom --

I kid. There weren't any that I heard about. It was just more inappropriate behavior by the Clintons in the White House.

Sigh. Swear to heaven I will find funds to invest in Maalox if she makes it back there. I'll make a fortune as her non-stop gaffes and the RW attacks become mainstream AGAIN. Even thinking about them back there makes me want to puke.

And less than any modern republican as far as donors staying over night.

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh051605.shtml

SPINNING THE LINCOLN: The story of the Lincoln Bedroom was a classic Clinton-era scandal—a story in which Washington’s “press corps” quickly got busy reinventing basic facts. For the record, here are a few of the ways those facts were reworked and improved. As usual, major scribes lied in your faces—and their colleagues kept quiet about the deceptions. Even the fiery liberals at your “liberal” publications seemed to know that they mustn’t speak up. But then, they ran and hid all through the years in which the press corps waged war against Clinton and Gore. Even today, they keep their mouths closed about what really happened. Here’s a bit of what occurred when the “press corps” chose to spin this sweet tale. Here are some of the basic facts about this consuming scandal:

How many overnight guests were involved? 831. Or 938, depending on how clownish a newspaper wanted to be. In March 1997, the White House produced a list of overnight guests for the Clintons’ four-plus years in the White House. 831 guests were listed. Beyond that, though, the White House noted that 35 family members had also stayed overnight, and that Chelsea Clinton—twelve to sixteen years old at the time—had hosted 72 additional guests (think: junior high slumber parties). Readers can probably guess what occurred. Wanting to make the scandal seem bigger, most news orgs took the relevant number (831), then added the 72 and the 35, producing a more pleasing total—938 overnight guests in all. There! That felt about twelve percent better! So when newspapers pimped the pleasing claim that the Clintons had hosted 938 guests, they were including 72 teen-aged friends of their daughter and 35 family members, although the papers almost never told readers that the numbers were being jacked up this way. In some ways, the Washington Post clowned most foolishly. On the first day of the story, the paper used the relevant number—831. After that, the paper switched to 938, apparently wanting to keep pace with its embellishing competitors. But as we’ve noted in the past, this is a standard practice in America’s “press corps.” Not uncommonly, news orgs which get a story right end up adjusting their accurate work to conform to conventional wisdom—to conventional tales which are wrong.

For the record, did all these guests stay in the Lincoln Bedroom? No. “Some guests stayed in the Lincoln Bedroom, but many stayed in other rooms,” the New York Times reported as the story broke. There are many bedrooms in the White House family quarters, and there was never any record of who stayed where. But so what? “Lincoln Bedroom” sounded better than “family quarters,” so accuracy was quickly abandoned, as is the norm in modern press culture. As we have endlessly noted, your “press corps” reports the story which sounds the best. Accuracy is abandoned to get it.

How many of the 831 guests actually donated to the Clintons? Many fewer than you might have thought. According to an op-ed column by Richard Cohen, “a Washington Post computer analysis showed that the White House raised [money] from about 291 overnight guests.” If this claim is accurate, of course, it means that about two-thirds of the ballyhooed guests gave the Clintons no money at all. But this central fact was rarely reported in the swirl of hyped-up claims. On Day One of the story, a Post news report did say this: “More than one in three White House guests gave money to the president or the Democratic National Committee during the past two years.” But the paper never explicitly noted the corollary: Two-thirds of the White House guests didn’t give any money at all. Instead, the Post published a string of flatly inaccurate accounts, as we will see below.

How many of the guests donated a significant amount of money? Many fewer than you might have thought. According to a list released by the New York Times, only 121 of the overnight guests donated to the DNC—the only way a person could give more than $1000 to the Clintons. In short, only about one in eight of the reported guests gave as much as $1000. Compare this to the baldly inaccurate press accounts reprinted below.

Because ONLY 121 "donated over a thousand dollars"?

How many people have stayed at your house in the last eight years?

No one with sense is questioning a slumber party - just "almost a thousand friends who couldn't afford hotels!"

Now, compare that number with similar numbers for the Obamas. Or even the previous administrations. It isn't SPIN when it's actually kind of SKEEVEY.

And you know how you STOP that kind of unnecessary distraction? The FIRST TIME it looks like you MIGHT BE GIVING THE APPEARANCE OF AN ETHICS VIOLATION, you tell your 831 friends to Get a Hotel like the rest of the Washington visitors do, and you leave the White House bedrooms for THE DIPLOMATS and HEROES BEING HONORED, and make the blasted place "non-partisan" instead of a damn prize to dangle for the "winning" side.

And by acting like a responsible ADULT, instead of one who likes to host sleepovers, you keep the focus of the media on IMPORTANT issues, like healthcare and civil rights and world peace....

Show me the numbers for Obama and Bush I and II.

You'll find the numbers much higher for the Bush' Don't know about Obama.

It is spin as my link shows. Sorry you're so comfortable with republican lies.

MIGHT BE GIVING THE APPEARANCE OF AN ETHICS VIOLATION,

But watchdogs and reformers are up in arms after the New York Times revealed that supporters who raise or donate $500,000 or more will score invites to quarterly meetings with Obama and other exclusive perks unavailable to run-of-the-mill Obama supporters.

Are you actually implying that the Right "likes" Obama more, which is why they "don't care" about the Lincoln bedroom?

Or is he just better at managing them?

Go look up the figures yourself - I really don't care because at the end of the day, the Clintons had and have enough dirt on them to actually BE DIRTY.

Let me GIVE you a clue: the reason we know that Bill liked to get blow jobs from interns who didn't swallow in the White House is because a lawsuit was started for him SEXUALLY HARRASSING a hotel worker BEFORE he was President. He whipped his dick out of his pants, and requested she perform oral sex.

He had no prior relationship with her. He treated her like ... I don't even know what to call it - like he was ENTITLED to receive sexual favors from strange women, and anyone who knows ANYTHING about life realizes that was most definitely NOT the first time he had done something like that because he had the patter all ready for the situation.

Now, because of his BAD JUDGMENT and sacred belief (proven false) that once he was President, she couldn't continue to pursue a lawsuit, his political opponents were able to use the opportunity to CRIPPLE his Presidency.

He whipped out his damn penis at a hotel worker - that wasn't SPIN - that was STUPID.

And we don't have a "Ken Starr" situation NOW because Obama DID NOT DO STUPID SHIT LIKE THAT.

Heaven help us all, but even Bush was able to keep his personal peccadilloes on the "down low".

I don't know and don't care why the "Clinton victims" can't keep away from rabid right wing media attacks, but at the end of the day, they start the whole thing by BEING STUPID. This email situation is yet ANOTHER example of colossal BAD JUDGMENT: use the damn desktop. "But I don't want to use a desktop - I like my blackberry!" "Use the desktop" says YOUR BOSS. "It's a security thing." So she sets up a hackable private server instead - WTF? Bad Judgment.

I don't want a VICTIM in the White House. I don't have time to try to figure out if the press is Making Shit Up when they tell me "SCANDAL!" You know how I *know* Bill Clinton did something wrong?

He was FUCKING IMPEACHED ON NATIONAL TELEVISION because he LIED UNDER OATH.

Do I understand why he lied? Yes. Should he have even been in that position? NO. His political enemies saw an opening to weaken his power and they took it - but he gave it to them when he displayed the bad judgment to make his sex life open game, and then LIED about it.

I don't have time for "I'm a victim - watch me cry WOLF!" because there comes a time when the Wolf is real - see millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation and the $$$ in the State Department budget, the Blumenthal emails, the non-stop dumb gaffes (Nancy the AIDS advocate - wtf?) and with millions of other QUALIFIED people in this country, I don't have time to watch the Clintons' collective asses, because that is what I require My President to do - watch mine!

And you know why I bring up the Clinton Sex Life issue? Because it makes them subject to blackmail. What will they sign or support - what will they give away, if this becomes an issue AGAIN?

As for the Lincoln bedroom, if you miss the point - that as soon as the press rumblings started, they should have backed off instead of doubling down because you need to show respect to the press and freaking MANAGE them so they can do their job appropriately - I can't help you.

I don't feel sorry for them. I feel sorry for the pain and embarrassment they put this country through. I don't want them near the White House again. I prefer someone with good judgment and unimpeachable character, and under those criteria, Hillary Clinton simply does not qualify.

Just in time to protect George Bush from it. Your trust in the republicans is touching if you think they wouldn't use it against Obama if it were available.

Once again I'm sorry you buy into the right wing media narrative.

because you need to show respect to the press and freaking MANAGE them so they can do their job appropriately

I don't feel sorry for them. I feel sorry for the pain and embarrassment they put this country through.

Waaaaaaah. Not fair!

Agree. Bernie needs to go home.

Who are you to say who should go or stay? Imperialism runs deep in some segments here.

Thanks

I mean, let's face it. America was founded by "crazy idealists" who left Europe on rickety boats, drowning many and horrendous experiences, if I recall American History.

Then the West was settled by even crazier people...you know, the covered wagon group going into where they knew not. Yes, many died. Then all the way to the Pacific Ocean and Eureka, found gold.

Someone had to think about those events long before they actually transpired. It was a confluence of energy that actually began the long treks. That's what brings Revolution. Someone who thinks and then sees ahead of the majority and then takes the first steps.

Americans are not known for their shrinking before seemingly long odds. Safe and comfy does not move forward. Bernie is neither...thus, as one who has often defied the "status quo", I support Bernie.

He won't quit because he doesn't see the Presidency as The Prize. He sees much further down the road than that. If elected he will take the necessary steps, if not, someone will succeed him with even more power to make the changes necessary to unslave us from our corporate (royal?) overlords.

The Establishment is in decline. Thus, a force surely will replace it.



Bernie supporter?

He just won't admit it because it goes against his stump speech.

someone is elected to office does not make them The Establishment, which, as specifically defined around here, is Corporate Sponsorship and promoting their interests. That is the rule for most elected officials, unfortunately, not just HRC, but Cruz, Rubio et al.

And no...he is attempting to bring this freefall of enormous funds to light and begin the difficult weaning of The Establishment from the Corporate Citizen's United money glut that can be funnelled into cooperating politicians PACs and SuperPacs.

That's an uninformed position...given the facts.

Good luck bernie.
Hey, how come no other campaign has the donation screw ups team bernie has?
Not like he's new to campaigning. He knows how it works.

The FEC's job is to follow the money. And that's just what they're doing.

Deadlines for the latest batch of questions are approaching.

Can't wait to have that problem resolved.

He didn't have 20 years to plan on being President.

Perhaps we'll have the FEC looking into Bernie and the FBI and NAS into HRC. I'm sure neither of us feels "our" candidate is in the wrong.

Got to admit, it's an interesting season...and that's even without Trump and a Republican possible brokered convention in the picture.

BTW, I don't think that an average of $47 per person with 5 million contributors is going to be a crime punishable by FEC law. But see, he doesn't have SuperPacs.

It's the 6-figure "speeches" and the recent re-visits to said generous and hopeful Boardrooms that have folks eyebrows raised.

Bernie, now..well I guess we'll have to see where the donor money leads.
Follow the money.
Bernie's got plenty of Wall St, oligarch pals in his well established life in politics to answer for.
Can't keep it hidden for long.

Good luck bernie

Just because your name lives under the radar for 25 yrs doesn't make one untainted.
NRA, MIC, IRAQ War Funding, and those summer big donor fundraisers he attended...and much more on the congressional voting record.

Its easy to find.
Not mentioning it doesn't make it go away.

who were already there. He voted AGAINST the war. Once they are committed with their butts in the line of fire, it would have been terrible politics, let alone humanity, not to support them.

Note his speeches back then. Everything he (and those of us in the anti-war 60s and 80s) said came true.

Now, the people are getting it...Regime Change by Force is Inhumane and against the Law of Humanity.

(I lived in a rural hunting state. Hunting rifles are only shocking to City folks.)

He should have had an A rating for all the times he sided with big old big $$$ Wall St, NRA.

The rating from the NRA itself does not absolve him of the deed he did for the NRA.

Puke

they know than you do.

Your last word says a whole lot.

Peace Out.

Nor can he erase his NRA "yes" votes.

Thanks for the thread, NWCorona.

if Wasserman Schults' constituents want her gone they can voter her out. As to the chair position, that should be up to our nominee, whomever that is. I have no idea if Emmanuel can be recalled or not. If he can, his constituents can do so and frankly should.

But I don't think it's that easy.

For example: If Debbie were to babble about the DNC having their thumb on the scales for Hillary - as an unnamed leak to the media telling where the juicy warm bodies are buried, that might not do so good in terms of winning Hillary more votes.

I've never had a bigger feeling than I do today that the DNC was an arm of the Clinton campaign. But I don't think Debbie is going anywhere.

She has job security with HRC. That's how it works in their world.

Last edited Wed Mar 23, 2016, 06:10 PM - Edit history (1)

"if Secretary Clinton really wants us to believe she’s no creature of the corporate and Wall Street money machine — despite more than $44 million in contributions from the financial industry since 2000 and her $675,000 in speaking fees from Goldman Sachs, not to mention several million more paid by other business interests for an hour or two of her time"

And if she fires a couple of people who have become damaged goods, we are supposed to pretend that she's not a creature of the corporate and Wall Street money machine?

Fat chance Bill. She is not going to do it and it would not change my opinion of her if she did. I would assume she had made the usual Clinton political calculation and decided their liabilities now outweighed their benefits. We've had 25 years to see what Hillary Clinton is, and nothing she says now is going to change that.

Until they are no longer needed.

Too funny.

That always helps win elections.