Ed Klein is a nasty bit of work.

What a load of crap. I'd say more but it would get me in trouble.

I believe the point was quite obvious.

might be using right wing material to further an agenda, and therefore take offense to the word "children".

Cause the word children is in direct relation to those who do such things.

consider absolutely anything that is even a wee bit critical of your candidate, to be right wing, I see your admonishment as quite humerous. I have been informed by Hillary devotees that John Cassidy of The New Yorker, Doyle McManus of the L.A. Times, Zephyr Teachout, former N.Y. State candidate for governor, and many more liberals are right wing or that they're spewing right wing tropes for nefarious reasons.

It's like the little boy who cried wolf. Of course there are lots of actual wingnuts and Klein is a particularly virulent piece of crap, but the conflation of criticism of Hillary from the left with right wing bullshit, has made your indignation look a trifle contrived.

Shoot, I have no problem discussing where I disagree with Bernie. There are a couple of places, but they're flooded-over with all the points where we are in lock step.

Hillary supporters usually seem unwilling to do that.

candidate, not only doesn't belong in LBN, but makes one question the motives

The facts are, that Bernie has said long ago he would NOT run as a third party candidate, which would certainly provide a path to the white house for the republicans, and he would NOT do that.

Bernie is a person of integrity, and would NOT make such a statement if he didn't intend to honor it. He also realizes that a third party candidacy would cause a republican victory. Bernie is making a formidable challenge through the Democratic party, and will either win or lose the nomination through that process, just as Hillary or any other Democratic candidate

Sort of explains camp Hillary's "outreach" to Millennials, or total lack thereof.

Criticism

Klein has been criticized for his biography of Hillary Clinton, titled, The Truth About Hillary: What She Knew, When She Knew It, and How Far She'll Go to Become President, which was released on June 21, 2005. Politico criticized the book for "serious factual errors, truncated and distorted quotes and overall themes [that] don't gibe with any other serious accounts of Clinton's life."[9] The book was attacked not only by liberals, but by conservatives as well. John Podhoretz wrote in the New York Post, "Thirty pages into it, I wanted to take a shower. Sixty pages into it, I wanted to be decontaminated. And 200 pages into it, I wanted someone to drive stakes through my eyes so I wouldn't have to suffer through another word."[10] In National Review James Geraghty wrote, “Folks, there are plenty of arguments against Hillary Clinton, her policies, her views, her proposals, and her philosophies. This stuff ain’t it. Nobody on the right, left, or center ought to stoop to this level.”[11]

Kathryn Jean Lopez of National Review asked Klein in a June 20, 2005 interview, "Why on earth would you put such a terrible story in your book...that looks to be flimsily sourced at that?," regarding his suggestion that Chelsea Clinton was conceived in an act of marital rape.[12] Facing criticism from both the left and right for making the claim, Klein eventually backed away from the insinuation in an interview with radio host Jim Bohannon on June 23, 2005[13]

The British newspaper The Guardian pointed out a number of verifiable factual errors in Klein's 2014 book "Blood Feud".[14]

Questions of credibility of sources in work

Klein has also come under fire for his use of anonymous quotes, purported to be from the subjects of his books, which he claims he received from anonymous insiders. The credibility of such quotes has been questioned by writers such as Joe Conason,[15] Salon's Simon Malloy [16] and conservative commentators Rush Limbaugh[17] and Peggy Noonan.[18] "Some of the quotes strike me as odd, in the sense that I don't know people who speak this way," Limbaugh said of Klein's work, describing the sources as "grade school chatter."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Klein

didn't even bother to finish it.

there is a valid leftist critique of the Democratic Party establishment. Not all criticism of Hillary is from the right. And probably very little (if any) you hear from DU posters is from a right-wing perspective.

Clinton supporters keep insinuating that all criticism of her is from the right, and that needs to stop.

And not in a point and laugh way?

Sanders supporters see very little (if any) attacks on Clinton coming from the right. Clinton supporters see almost all attacks on Clinton coming from the right.

People who chose to be objective see most attacks on Clinton coming from the right, with many of them echoed from Sanders supporters. They also see very few (if any) attacks on Sanders... Sanders supporters will say that is because there isn't anything to attack him on, while Clinton supporters will say that is because everyone is ignoring him.

Oddly, both Clinton and Sanders have been loath to speak negatively of each other. All the negative back and forth has been from their supporters, ignoring the example of the person they claim to support and follow. This seemingly gleeful attacks are really turning me off as I do not like hypocrisy. Now the shit that thrown around here is not at Westboro Baptist level, but it is hypocritical shit, none the less.

The above article has already been posted to slam the Clinton Foundation for taking money from rich people to help people in poor countries.

It is not as big or global but it does charitable work. I don't know anything about Condi and charitable work. I may not like Blair but I will give credit where it is due on charities.

If you want to slam the Clintons using right wing resources, please feel free to start your own OP. There are a couple of groups who would welcome it.

Last edited Wed Aug 26, 2015, 04:46 PM - Edit history (1)

Nobody is denying that. Again, the right wing attacks are absurd (fake scandals, "she's a liberal extremist" and crap like that). But there is a valid leftist critique of Clinton and mainstream Democrats, which constitutes the bulk of the critique being offered up by Sanders supporters and DU posters in general.

Pick the worst example and set it up to attack...then suggest that any criticism is also like it.
The next step is banning all criticism.

The vast majority of DU opposition to Corporate Democrats is coming from a leftist perspective. But Clinton supporters like to point to the exceptions, which prove the rule.

would run as a third party candidate, in spite of pledging he wouldn't?

I have never heard of anything that he point blank lied about. He is very trusted - even by Vermonters who disagree with him.

Klein has zero credibility. That's my assessment. His article was posted by a Clinton supporter as "an example of why linking to right wing sites" is a problem--the implication being that Sanders supporters on DU keep doing just that, but I'm not seeing that. What I see from DU posters, for the most part, is a valid leftist critique. There are always going to be exceptions to every rule, but the meme that all opposition to Clinton is from the right needs to stop. It won't, of course...because that's a very convenient meme.

Not that all of those making such claims are doing so maliciously. Some do know better, but quite a few are clearly ignorant. Whether it's neoliberalism and triangulation or libertarianism, a lot of folks seem pretty clueless. My god, one poster actually thinks Sanders and right wing libertarians express the same message--and I'm pretty sure that poster is being genuine. Clueless but genuine.

support

An aviator of Bill Clinton does not mean sqwat.

Someone can use any aviator, and it may be a form of deception

And leftofcool was implying that Sanders supporters are frequently posting anti-Clinton material from a right wing perspective, as opposed to recognizing the reality that most of the DU opposition to Clinton is from a valid left wing perspective (the kind of critique made by Chomsky and the late Howard Zinn, from Cornell West, from sites like Truth Out, and so on).

poo was taken down. I agree with you, leftofcool. The person calling him/herself big_dog, with a photo of bill, and an article written by a Clinton critic smells of infiltration or ignorance.

Don't click on the link would be my advise.

“Bernie’s polling has shown that he has a tidal wave of support among people across the country who have never or seldom voted. They’ll come out for him and pull the Independent Party lever.”

Left unsaid by these sources is why Sanders doesn’t see the folly of his thinking, which will inevitably lead to handing over the White House to a Republican whom he dislikes even more than Hillary.

Though critics couch it in oblique phrases, anyone with the brains of a potted plant knows that Klein is a pathological liar desperate for attention. I can't believe he even manages to get published. Everything he says is bullshit.

How can you even think that about Naomi Klein?

What? Not Noami?

Nevermind.

... I should have been more precise in my condemnation!

Bernie is running as a Democrat, against the Republican and Third Way parties

It has been my understanding that he stated he would never do that, but okay.

Klein said he had it on good information that Bernie would run as a 3rd Party candidate ie Independent.

He knows that would put an R in the White House. I believe him, on both counts

anyone on DU would post something on DU from a right wing hack?

Statement of Purpose, not for its content. It wasn't news, it wasn't from a major source, and it was really an opinion piece. All three of those things are prohibited in LBN. Had it been posted in another forum, it might have been left. Items from all sorts of sources are left on DU, rather than locked or hidden. I don't always agree, but that's how DU works.

posts like that getting reported as LBN, when in fact they should be put into General Forums : Primaries.

I have seen for the last couple of weeks at least some posts of a rumor or innuendo posted in LBN, simply for the purposes of flamebait, not because it is LBN

That's becoming a regular cultural past-time for Hillary supporters around here of late.

And those left wing reasons constitute a vast majority of DU opposition to Clinton. In spite of what Clinton supporters desperately want folks to believe.

Senator Sanders has made it clear he would not run as a Third Party candidate. I'd be very pissed if he did. It could guarantee a Republican in the White House.

Would I be surprised if he did? No. Just very pissed.

Just out of curiosity, why do you say him running as a third party candidate wouldn't surprise you?