How did that ever happen to HRC and Co?

or something.

tossing flowers and singing with the birds.

Our angel of purity.

Will HE?

That one's been around for thousands of years. I'm sure the GOPukes are ready and anxious to go with that. "Socialist" doesn't have the impact it had when I was growing up but "Christ Killer", that's a classic.

And, of course, he could also suffer from ageism. So far I've seen no evidence of either.

Of course, non-Democrats can sign up at DU and (provide they hold their tongue a bit) survive.

...to scream racism, sexism and other intolerable "isms," and yet have no problem on this board AND ESPECIALLY OTHER AREAS OF THE INTERNET making some of the most anti-Semitic comments heard today. And yes, some of those persons are AGAIN on yet another "time-out," "separation" or whatever you want to call it... in fact, some of those persons have had MULTIPLE disciplinary actions against them.

Bernie, hoping hope against hope that they can run against him instead of Hillary. But, should he become our nominee I fully expect to see ads (particularly in the South) that make Protocols of the Elders of Zion look like a comic book. Can'r you see them now " LiberalSocialistCommie Jew wants to raise your taxes", "Jew President would ban Christian churches", etc, Believe it, the ads and sound bytes are already written.

I think his stance on Israel neutralizes that.

It does a disservice to all women when the claim of misogyny is used in such a disingenuous way, as Hillary fans have done. There are plenty of things to dislike about her that have nothing to do with her gender. Many of the same people who loathe Hillary would vote for Elizabeth Warren in a heartbeat. That's not the same thing as misogyny. It's simply dislike for Hillary the person and lack of confidence that she has any interest in changing things for the better.

She has always apologized.

I have no reason to think so.

let the peasants eat cake, or dirt, or their fingernails. Oh, and they're progressive too.

When the GOP beats the long roll, will the Democrats be prepared to take them on?

who is a Democratic nominee for President.

Oddly enough, it's not the Republicans who are attacking Hillary Clinton right now. Too bad for all of us.

... do NOT see Hillary Clinton as the best our party has to offer. In fact, some of us are down-right insulted that the pant-suited half of "The Arkansas Travelers" is being so recklessly foisted upon us. And further MANY OF US find the "untouchable and inevitable Hillary" memes vulgar and piles of condescending horseshit. And frankly, there is NOTHING ODD about Hillary Clinton being attacked on a Democratic-themed message board: She is more Republican Lite than a Democrat from where many of us are looking any day of the week.

Hillary Clinton may be your choice for candidate, but that is certainly not the consensus. And to be more to the point, had this primary been run fairly, with none of the outright advantages handed to Clinton (DWS/DNC/DLC) and the passive-aggressive electoral "shenanigans" of the Clinton Foundation/Machine exposed for what they truly were, she would have been kicked to the curb months ago.

There's a lot hidden between those lines.

In a word, NO!

He's not even been touched by the Repub smear machine. Not one scratch.

other hand, has been burning the midnight oil to come up with something to attack him with.

What are the GOPukes going to hit him with? We've already seen the gun story and all its permutations. Nothing for the GOPukes there. Okay, he didn't support the Iraq War but that's already been done to death. There is no there there when it comes to oppo research. If there was we'd have heard all about it.

Worried about GOPuke lies? Did they try to discredit what he did on Civil Rights? Is he anti-war? None of the GOPukes is a veteran, well except for Trumps time in military school. Do you think WAPO and the Times and the News are going to trip over each other to spread GOPuke storylines when there is so much rich fodder over in Trump/Cruz land?

And Hillary? I really don't think any of her supporters understand how much she is hated by people we most likely wouldn't like to see in our house. Hate is a powerful word, most especially if it isn't deserved.

Nobody hates Sanders. He's the Wilford Brimley of modern politics. People love him (which I think is stupid but there it is). It is no accident that he has the most favorable ratings of anyone running for office right now.

Think hammer and sickles, quotes of dubious support for various socialist and communist dictators, rape fantasy rhetoric, ad infinitum.

When the GOPers get through with him, he'll resemble a pile of chopped liver.

The people who respond to the Commie Bogeyman are mostly people who also consider Clinton to be an ultra-liberal socialist too.

His "support for dictators" is likewise...Anyone who is not a reflexive right winger wold understand the concepts he was REALLY talking about....And Obama just returned from a trip to Cuba.

His "rape fantasy" is embarassing, but not out of line with what overall discourse was at the time....Compared to the Clinton's, er, unorthodox marital history, it's nothing.

He also has a son born out of wedlock....but who stands next to him on stage.

Compare his baggage to the endless intrigues and complex and murky networks and behavior of the Clinton,s the GOP has very little fodder from Sanders.

Neither candidate has run for President against the Republicans. So there is no precedent for how they would do.

She has a lot of baggage and ammo for the GOP.

He's also got his share of baggage and ammo for the GOP.

It's a gamble which baggage would do the most damage to chances of keeping the WH.

Personally, I much prefer Bernie, and I think his baggage is much lighter and his pluses much stronger. So I support him and I think he has a better chance to win.

But ultimately either candidate is a roll of the dice.

Bernie is a backwoods neophyte in comparison.
In his 30+ years in Congress, he's barely even made the GOP radar, except as a sort of court jester.

Where have you been?

is of the same order of magnitude and reach as the Repub-paid MSM onslaught that will be coming Sanders' way if, by some miracle, he actually makes it to the GE?

Where have you been?

Obviously, not in a Poli. Sci 101 course.

spent all of her capital
the negative stories were just air cover for all the truly negative stories that could be told.

First, we're approaching 15 years since the IWR. The issue only resonates with the left wing of the party. The electorate as a whole has moved on from it.

Then there's Honduras - a topic which over 99% of the electorate has absolutely no knowledge of whatsoever, let alone enough knowledge to care. Most Americans could not find Honduras on a map, provided they even recognized it as a country name.

Only Libya - and more specifically Benghazi - matters to the electorate; and after Clinton's Benghazi hearing appearance late last year, even that issue matters to only a few people who are not Republicans.

IWR is universally reviled by American citizens.
NOTHING bears comparison to that crime against humanity.

it is. go find someone who supports it now.

Almost all Americans have far more important issues than that piece of American history from 15 years ago when her vote had absolutely no impact on its passage. Nobody is saying it was the right thing to do thanks to hindsight's 20-20 vision. However, people want to discuss issues that impact their lives in the present day and the IWR is not it, regardless of how angry you are about it. That is definitely the honest truth.

The vast majority of Americans have moved on. The IWR will have no impact on the GE if Hillary becomes the nominee. It is practically ancient American history. When the vast majority of Millennials have no recollection of the IWR and only know of it via internet history, then you know the issue is old news.

you underestimate the memory and conscience of my fellow Americans.
dont be so divided.

The issue is only alive in the anti-war segment of the Dem race and it is not even much of an issue. It is not regularly in the news. It's not a debate subject. The media is not discussing it. Most of America has moved on.

I'm not arguing the morality of the issue. I'm saying it is not an issue most Americans care about because it is proverbial ancient history. Most Americans do not wish to dredge up this past. Regardless, the issue fades away no later than the Philadelphia convention. Either Sanders wins and the issue is immediately dropped as irrelevant or Hillary wins and the Dem voters will have deemed it to be not important.

Be angry all you want. The rest of America is angry about issues impacting their lives today, not issues from almost 15 years ago.

...have no impact on Americans' lives today?

Three trillion dollars down the toilet at the expense of the good that could have been accomplished with those trillions...thousands killed and tens of thousands more injured, which impacts many, many more thousands of their relatives and friends...the Middle East completely destabilized, the rise of isis and the ongoing fear-mongering caused by the threat of terror attacks...the national security state on steroids...how do these things not impact us all today, tomorrow, and for years to come?

but there's no there there, as Hillary has found. So what?

There's plenty to criticize about her though, and they've not brought out the big guns yet. That will happen if/when she clinches the nomination... when we are STUCK with her.

It's not all OLD conspiracies and old tales, as she would have you believe. There's so much more to choose from now, a plethora of legitimate criticisms. They don't need to trot out Vince Foster, LOL.

She was well-liked by whom? Hillary has not been well-liked by me since I saw how she voted as a Senator... and not by plenty other Dems either.

Republicans still speak well of her! -- Cheney, Bush, Kissinger, and that ilk. A Clinton nomination is a win-win for their side. If their nominee can't beat her, the Repuke elite will gladly accept her.

I supported her in 2008 - but then - I started to look stuff up. Simple as that. Won't support her again. Issues and deeds. No RW stuff necessary.

anti-American socialism, contrary to all ideals that Americans hold dear, not a "Democrat", etc...

they could never make Kerry look like a draft dodging dilitante, no wait they did. They could never make Gore look like a serial liar, no wait they did. Do I really need to go on.

also-ran candidates get the halo treatment,

protected. All of the first two decades of his adult life, living in a shack, on a dirt floor, not finding employment or doing it poorly, stealing others electricity, not paying child support, not voting until for himself, not contributing in the system, then.... when he is contributing? Paying 13% taxes, significantly lower than the rest as he wants to raise our taxes.

Not to mention, just SOOOOOoooooo much more. I know you like the guy, but to have people tell us we should not vote for Clinton because of her favoribility number, after all the attacks from both sides, while Sanders is coddled is insulting. And honestly? It is insulting to me as a woman.

Were you even alive when he lived in your state? What did Bernie do to make you glad he left your state?

Though the republicans are moving away from it, the norm was that you could find "good" things said by ANY Democrat or Republican for nearly any member on the other side. There was an effort to be seen as "cordial". Some genuine, where many members would praise those things they could about someone on the other side. Some for show.

Also "like" or "dislike" is not what is really happening on the Republican side. The two parties are very polarized on issues now - more than in the 80s and 90s. Hillary could be the nicest, sweetest, most pleasant person on earth AND they would still have a problem with her now. Consider whether you "like" any of the 17 or so Republicans who ran. I personally could not write a sentence saying I actually like ___ . Personally, I don't even know if genuinely being someone you would call "nice" is that much of an advantage on the other side. When people are asked now, it is in the context of them running for President.

On the DEMOCRATIC side, it also polarized. In Clinton's case, she has been around for decades and many people have opinions on her - opinions that may well have evolved over time. Like any politician you could name, neither Clinton was ever in danger of being considered for sainthood - even though the NYT magazine once went there in HRC's case ( This may interest HRC supportors and is from 1993 - http://www.nytimes.com/1993/05/23/magazine/saint-hillary.html?pagewanted=all ) One advantage of being known that long, is that it is harder for anyone to craft a false narrative and have it believed. The other side is that millions of things are known and if you cherry pick the ones that make her look most dishonest, cold, and unlikable, you can - using real clips and real stories - make a case that she is not a nice person. (Note that in past elections decades ago, when the candidate could control image better, the opposite led to a hyped up positive version. )

What is true of both Clintons or Sanders for that matter is that they are complex human beings who have lived long complicated lives. In addition, all candidates end up on the campaign trail for as many as 16 hours a day, with someone covering them that whole time. Any sign of annoyance or any really poorly said comment that can be spun -- will be out there for as long as it takes to trend on twitter and then be ignored. No one can always be perfect and even the most even tempered, disciplined candidate - something none of these three are - will say or do something that people WANTING to see something they hate will use as justification for hating them.

I think this is why ALL the candidates have such high unfavorables -- with Kaisch and Sanders being seen as less disliked even though they have numbers that are worse than major candidates had a few decades ago. To me, what it says is that we have a media that to get viewers wants controversial coverage -- and they do not care that this now means that more people answer these questions as if they are angry and hateful.

HRC was a serial disaster as SOS, a fact that didn't dawn on a lot of us here until after she left office. She was in negatives in 2008, as well. She's been disliked by many progressives for a long, long time, and increasingly so as she runs another negative campaign. She will probably manage to do something not Repubican could - break up the Democratic Party.

Hillary wasn't well liked by all when she was SoS-if she was well liked she would would have been the candidate rather than having to play let's make a deal I'm being polite in order for her and hubby to support the candidate that Democrats did like - Barack Obama, in order to be SoS in the first place

as a Senator-she wasn't my Senator so that's up to the people of New York to own , but my guess would be she was coming off of being FLOTUS and do to a horrific smear campaign against a young woman who was almost her daughters age who had an affair with her nearly blameless or who'd blame him depending, according to the public husband had sympathy she won in a very blue state

as to Bernie I'd like to see what the republicans can pull out of the hat that Hillary's campaign has not-red baiting - Jew baiting- Israel baiting-rape fantasy baiting calling his wife "slutty and nutty" in echo of David Brock's slander against Anita Hill-racist baiting-misogynist baiting - accusations of criminal behavior- Pope baiting -really she's given Bernie's supporters a very very good practice run

Most of the negative attention has to do with her past record as both a Senator and as SoS

He hasn't even been CLOSE to vetted. It would be a bloodbath. I'm willing to bet many even here on DU didn't know who he was before this primary season. Hillary's been in the public eye for over THREE DECADES.

The media needs a story, all the time, 24/7. If they recycle the same old RW talking points against Hillary, that's another story they can feed into the frenzied maw of the insatiable media machine. Bernie is not yet a story, but when/if he becomes one, they will rip him to shreds.

With Clinton, there is plenty.

The republicans will go after Sanders because he is a Socialist/Communits and an extreme liberal who will raise taxes through the roof. That's all they'll have to work with. Since they attack every Democrat that way, the impact will be limited.

The media is very happy to run stories that have only a passing resemblance to the truth. Just look at all the vile lies they've printed about Hillary.

Is or is not the FBI investigating what was going on with that server?

Did or did not Hillary accept HUGE speaking fees for talking to big businesses which as president she would be responsible to regulate?

Did or did not the Clinton Foundation get large contributions from entities that received favorable decisions from the State Department under Clinton?

Did or did not Clinton vote yes on the IWR?

The lie is that every attack on Clinton is based on the right wing or media lies. She's corrupt.

Not bothered about her putting emails on a private server. I believe her when she says the emails were not classified when she sent/received them. This is a non-issue for me.

I am proud that one of the most well-respected and well-liked women in the world can command such high speaking fees. I have absolutely no problem with anyone getting paid to give speeches based on their expertise, their life experiences, or their popularity. There is no evidence that any of her political decisions have been influenced by giving those speeches and receiving those fees. None.

The Clinton Foundation gets large contributions from a lot of organisations because they do amazing, life saving work around the world. It's a remarkable organisation.

Clinton votes yes to allow the president to take action, not to go to war. Along with Kerry and loads of other Dems. They lied to Congress. Powell lied to the UN. As far as everyone was concerned, there was credible evidence of WMDs. She regrets the vote and has said so, but hindsight is 20/20.

None of that is corruption; you've given no evidence of corruption. These are all character issues. If you hate her and want to paint every single thing she does and says in the worst possible light, then what you come up with is the same things the RW has been smearing her with for decades. NONE of it based in the truth.

I think she's a wonderful, qualified candidate and I'm proud to be voting for her. Can't wait to see the New York results!

Maybe people who didn't pay attention liked her. The IWR vote sealed it for me. Or how about her slimy 2008 campaign against Obama?

As a Senator, or as SOS, she didn't get the scrutiny that a presidential candidate deserves.

Hillary has created plenty of negative stories on her own. They just don't come to the light of day when she's in a less examined position.

If she is the nominee, just wait until the republicans go after the Clinton Foundation. You ain't seen nothing yet.

You can find plenty of real info on how good she can be, how much she cares, then just as easy find evidence of corruption and ineptitude.

It is't all about sex.

Sorry to disappoint you.

"Even Republicans spoke well of her." And you use that as your lead?

If RepubliCONS were speaking well of her you can bet your bottom dollar it wasn't because she was supporting liberal values.

I am unimpressed with her decision-making skills. She has always come across to me as condescending and elitist, grasping for power. She touts being First Lady, but she made it clear when she became First Lady that she considered it a waste of her talents.

And she makes zero attempts to reach out to Bernie supporters, so I'm, surely, not inclined to help her in the general either. I won't lie for her. I won't lie for any candidate.

And with Bernie, I tell the whole and complete truth as best as I can.

I can't do that for Hillary and help her.

I feel your pain...

And at what rate that change can realistically happen...

She's a chicken-hawk just like them...