"A political attack machine motivated by an insatiable drive to win for herself at any cost"

[Miles Archer]

Hey Hillary, Here's Why People Don't Trust You

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cody-cain/hey-hillary-heres-why-peo_b_9206424.html

If Hillary is going to confront and address this issue, she must look within herself. Time and again, she does not appear to be motivated by the truth, but instead, she behaves like a political attack machine motivated by an insatiable drive to win for herself at any cost.

This aspect of Hillary was on full display in the recent outburst over which of the two Democratic candidates is more "progressive." The truth is obvious. Of course Bernie is more progressive. This has been his political posture for his entire career, even being a Socialist for goodness sake.

But Hillary pulled her switchblade and began fighting. In this political climate, she wants to be viewed as the progressive regardless of the truth. So she cherry-picked a few of Bernie's past votes in the Senate and tried to paint him as not being progressive.

Hillary's motivation here was not truth, but politics. She is all too willing to manipulate, distort, and deceive to try to score political points for herself.

[HooptieWagon]

1. Nixon 2.0

[Betty Karlson]

5. No offense, but on certain matters she is to the right of Nixon.

For instance: Nixon instituted EPA, Clinton sold fracking to the world.

[HooptieWagon]

7. Absolutely to the right of Richard Nixon.

But the blind ambition, sense of entitlement, lying, enemies list, secrecy, and other paranoia, is all reminiscent of Nixon to this Boomer.

[Lizzie Poppet]

56. Not to mention, Nixon was actually _competent_ at foreign policy.

Hillary? Not so much...

[dflprincess]

57. And, depending on the day of the week,

she supports the TPP which will undermine environmental protections.

I noticed her latest "weasel words" statement on this is that she wouldn't support anything that would hurt American workers. Which gives her room to support it then claim she was "misled" (again).

[KittyWampus]

8. There's one campaign that's been caught cheating and engaging in unethical behavior

and it isn't Hillary Clinton.

Just because Sanders decided to sue the DNC doesn't mean his campaign didn't steal data.

Which is probably how he managed to get so close in Iowa.

And that isn't even mentioning all the recurrent problems Sanders has with illegal overseas donations.

[HooptieWagon]

12. Like millions donated to a 'Foundation' in exchange for a Saudi Arms deal?

I'm sure if Sanders did that you'd be cheering for an FBI indictment to come down.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

42. i'm smiling so big cause

I just got a big ol wiff of fear 😀

[grasswire]

50. heh

I'm seeing an awful lot of it.

And the sad part is that if Hillary implodes, it won't just be a simple dropping out of the race. It will be a full-blown train run off the tracks, with boilers exploding and a great cloud of steam and smoke.

[Politicalboi]

59. Visiting the polls on election day IS cheating

It's against the law too, but the Clinton's don't respect the law. And since they need to cheat to win, they ain't getting my vote.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

30. The contrast between Hillary and Bernie really drives home the point!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!

[Odin2005]

63. Watch out, I got a post hidden by her supporters for calling her that.

[UglyGreed]

2. Kick for the truth

[rhett o rick]

3. This is so obvious that one might wonder why she has so many fans.

In my opinion it's all about authoritarianism.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/127710250

Thanks for the post.

[KittyWampus]

10. Know what's obvious? A campaign that harasses an opponent for "speech transcripts"

as a pathetic attempt to malign their character is a losing campaign.

Also, since you mention authoritarians: DU'ers who participate on Juries and MIRT and simply use their position to censor those they don't agree rather than judging actual content are the real "authoritarians", wouldn't you agree?

Congratulations on your post though. I didn't see the word "oligarch" in it! It seems like a breakthrough!

[ljm2002]

19. So you think that wanting to know what was said...

...to the bankers at $225,000 a pop, is "a pathetic attempt to malign their (her) character? You think us Little People have no right to know just what we are voting for?

You should go back to reading maps, that's something you're good at. (well maybe not)

[KittyWampus]

24. #1.Jimmy Carter and Robert Reich get $150,000+ for their speeches.

So your stating how much she makes as some kind of evil thing is STUPID.

#2. Her speeches are her intellectual property.

#3. She's made speeches to all kinds of groups which Sanders and your ilk never ask about. Curious, that.

#4. Why are you bringing up maps? It's got nothing to do with the topic. Unless you want to refer to MOCK me for a mistake I made years ago. In that case, you lose for simply having to resort to a personal attack.

Someone once asked my why I didn't delete that map. I answered "because I don't care what a bunch of assh*le bullies on the internet say".

[ljm2002]

28. Are either of them running for President?

Nope, didn't think so.

I do like to know what I'm voting for. The fact that she chooses not to share her valuable thoughts with us Little People -- you know, voters -- speaks volumes.

Since her speeches are her intellectual property then she has full control over whether or not they are released. Way to support my position. Thanks!

Yes, oddly enough, some of us have a particular interest in what Hillary had to say to the large financial institutions who were responsible for crashing the world's economy.

I'm bringing up maps because it amuses me to do so. And let's face it, it was an epic fail.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

29. Jimmy Carter and Robert Reich aren't running for president.

There is a strong appearance of impropriety, to use a term of art, where a likely presidential candidate is making high-buck speeches to the very corporations she might be in a position to regulate. Why not release the transcripts and show the world that the speeches were nothing but a bunch of noncontroversial platitudes? Then the controversy will be over and everyone will be happy. Although some of us might wonder why anyone would pay $250,000 for an hour of noncontroversial platitudes - but I guess we know the answer to that anyhow. It was never about the speeches; it's all about the access.

[rhett o rick]

34. Jimmy Carter isn't about to support legislation or executive decisions that will

affect those giving him money. When bankers give her money it taints the process. At worst it's graft.

I think she tells Goldman-Sachs one thing and tells us peons the opposite.

[ljm2002]

39. Oh and by the way...

...I must point out your use of the phrase: "Sanders and your ilk" -- typical Hillary supporter, just dripping with contempt for Sanders supporters here.

And then people like you -- i.e., Clinton and your ilk -- wring your collective hands and wonder why we Sanders supporters just won't clap our hands and hop aboard the Clinton train.

The sad thing is, I don't think Clinton and your ilk will even try and mend fences. You don't even think you need to.

It's going to be brutal when November rolls around.

[bahrbearian]

69. And we can read their transcripts .

[riversedge]

32. Yes, Sanders fans ARE Harassing Hillary to the point of being abusive. Also

they have no problems with using the double standard against her. Shameful

[cherokeeprogressive]

43. WTF? How many "Sanders fans" have asked Hillary Clinton a single fucking question about transcripts?

Or did Hillary Clinton, or even one of her STAFFERS send you a PM at DU to tell you DUers were harrassing her to the point of abuse?

Man oh man some of you ascribe WAAAAY more importance and influence to this tiny little corner of the internet known as DU than it is actually capable of exerting.

[Waiting For Everyman]

62. She's being abused by us Berners but she can handle Trump?

Oh, are we picking on poor Hillary by asking for those pesky transcripts?

Well then maybe SHE should not have brought them up. Oops.

If she wins, I can't wait for her to tell Trump to stop harassing and abusing her during a debate.

[rhett o rick]

20. I think the reason she doesn't want us to see her transcripts is that she tells her

sponsors the truth and she thinks we can't handle the truth.

As far as the word "oligarch" is concerned, it's sad that some form a comfortable bubble to hide from the truth. A recent Princeton study confirmed what the progressives have known for some time. When we let Goldman-Sachs and the billionaires buy our politicians, we no longer have a democracy. Voting isn't the only measure. Russia and other non-democracies let their citizens vote. We have allowed the 1% to drain most of our resources for the last 30 years. And because the safety nets are dependent on support from the 99% (the 1% pay nothing) those among us in need are suffering. One has to ignore this to rationalize supporting the candidate of the 1%. Progressives wonder why the non-progressives would embrace a culture that brings us poverty, environmental damage, racism, sexism, and war, war, war. Maybe you have an answer. My answer is authoritarianism. The blind devotion to leaders that promise toughness.

The hubris of the Ruling Class will be their downfall.

[amborin]

25. great analysis;

[Marr]

48. Defending a millionaire's right to take money from Wall Street and keep her real positions secret

Last edited Fri Mar 18, 2016, 12:09 AM - Edit history (1)

*from you* while running for president is classic 'authoritarian follower', yes.

[rhett o rick]

61. Exactly. I picture her followers with closed eyes, fingers in their ears chanting, "we don't care

what she did, we don't care where she stands, we will always follow. Remember she is tough."

[Politicalboi]

60. We ALL want to see them

She's not going to show them because they show who she really is.

[grasswire]

51. well, many of her supporters here were rabid authoritarians in the ..

...Snowden matter.

[Ghost Dog]

67. One suspects that might be their position with regards to the...

wikileaks matter, too.

[Onlooker]

4. Both sides manipulate. That's politics.

There are threads here suggesting Hillary is a neocon, homophobic, anti-union, and so on. It's just politics. Your post is just politics. Bernie lied about the Minutemen and gun control, and hasn't talked much about his support for the stealth bomber. But, I don't blame him. That's politics.

[tk2kewl]

11. where are threads that explain why she's not a neocon?

or what she has done for unions?

[Onlooker]

16. I have no idea what threads have been posted and not posted

But, why call her a neocon? Why call her anti-union? She has plenty of union support, and I presume that just like blacks, Latinos, gays, and women, other groups that back her have good intelligent reason for doing so. I certainly understand why millennials back Bernie. Many of his goals directly affect them. Just because Hillary supported students and progressive groups in the ME during the Arab Spring doesn't make her a neocon. Just because she supports the relatively liberal puppet governments we put in place in Afghanistan doesn't make her a neocon. Just because she was from New York, where the experience of 9/11 was so traumatic that even the NYT supported the Iraq War, doesn't make her a war hawk, anymore than Sanders support for the stealth bomber makes him a militarist. The fact is her reign as SoS was really quite peaceful, and she even made progress in calming tensions with countries like Iran and North Korea.

As far as unions go, Hillary represented a state that is 24% unionized, while Bernie represented a state that is 12% unionized, so he might talk the talk, but as with other issues he hasn't walked the walk in 50 years. He chose to represent a white, liberal state, where he had to make few compromises and take few risks. I don't fault him for that at all, but to compare his stands to Hillary's ought to take into account their constituencies.

[tk2kewl]

21. Necon is not name calling

The Next Act of the Neocons
Are Neocons Getting Ready to Ally With Hillary Clinton?
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/06/opinion/sunday/are-neocons-getting-ready-to-ally-with-hillary-clinton.html?_r=0

Do Feminists Support Coups? Honduran Women on Hillary Clinton
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/2/29/1493493/-Do-Feminists-Support-Coups-Honduran-Women-on-Hillary-Clinton

Sanders the ‘Realist’; Hillary the ‘Neocon’
https://consortiumnews.com/2016/02/24/sanders-the-realist-hillary-the-neocon/

Neocon Kagan Endorses Hillary Clinton
https://consortiumnews.com/2016/02/25/neocon-kagan-endorses-hillary-clinton/

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

as for unions, what has she done other than support union killing trade deals and sit on the board of Walmart while they fought unionization

Unions Say a Majority of Their Members Support Hillary Clinton
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/02/22/unions-say-theres-no-split-they-support-hillary-clinton/

Hilary Clinton’s Years on the Board of Walmart
https://noorslist.wordpress.com/2008/02/05/hilary-clintons-years-on-the-board-of-walmart/

Hillary Clinton’s labor problem
http://www.salon.com/2007/06/16/hillary_and_mark_penn/

[amborin]

27. not just politiics; the facts: she is a neo con hawk who implemented regime change in Libya w/ d

disastrous results; evidence from emails and testimony show she promises voters one thing, does the opposite; her voting record is anti-progressive

[rhett o rick]

35. That's the worn out, "Her misrepresentations are justified because everyone does it." She lied

about the need to invade Iraq, and millions of lives were ruined. If Sanders lied about supporting the bomber (I haven't seen the proof) it doesn't compare to Iraq. She tells her sponsors in private, the truth, how she truly believes and then turns around and tells us "misspeaks". She forgot she was in public when she told the truth how she supported the Reagans position on AIDS and HIV and had to quickly backtrack. IMO to her the ends justify the means.

[Onlooker]

44. Nice job towing the Bernie line

Perhaps it's all you read, so perhaps you're really convinced of what you are saying. I support Bernie, but I can creae as many true arguments about him as you can about Hillary. I mean, it's true that Bernie has failed to win the support of the largest gay rights group and the majority of blacks. It's true that if you want to talk about Bernie's civil rights activism you have to go back at least 50 years. It's true that he chose to represent a state that is white liberal, rather than to engage in the complexities of a state like New York. It's true that he chose to compromise his views with guns rights, the stealth bomber, and, oddly, the Minutemen. It's true that his wife is associate with some scandals (that we can blow up out of proportion if we want). My point is not that Bernie is some sort of corrupt right wing nut, but merely that if we cherrypick appropriately we can frame anyone in a negative light. You are focused only on the things that Hillary did were wrong, and you choose to blow way out of proportion her comment about Nancy Reagan, made with the attention of paying polite tribute to someone who just died. Bernie too had a very nice statement about how wonderful Nancy Reagan was. Both Hillary and Bernie were absurd, though Hillary more so. But, frankly, my guess is that the Human Rights Campaign knows a lot more about the Clintons and gay rights than you do, just as the black population knows a lot more about the Clintons and civil rights than a white person probably would.

[rhett o rick]

46. Put that all together and it doesn't compare to lying to Congress to help Bush, of all people,

sell the war that decimated Iraq and our lower classes. She made out ok.

[alcibiades_mystery]

6. Cherry-picking votes and statements?

Egads, who would have thought that such a thing could happen in an election?

Good God.

[randome]

9. Sorry, but this is starting to sound somewhat misogynistic.

(And no, you don't have to use the word 'misogynistic' to actually be misogynistic.)

Clinton and Sanders are competing for the same job. Of course they are opponents. Of course each wants to win. I suppose it's up to the woman to 'play nice'. Forget about hardball tactics, that's unseemly coming from a female candidate.

And if Sanders can't win on the issues and he can't win against Clinton's tactics, then he wouldn't be much good to us against the GOP, would he?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]

[Lizzie Poppet]

13. Not to me, it doesn't.

Nothing whatsoever in the OP links the objections to Clinton's tactics to her gender or implies a double-standard.

[randome]

18. And there's not a shred of racism directed to Obama from the GOP, is there?

They just disrespect him during his SOTU speech, refuse to confirm his nominations and act behind his back to subvert his foreign policy. With such an immense change in how they treat any non-black President, I think racism is a strong contender for why they behave that way.

Racism doesn't need to be explicit to exist. And neither does misogyny. Clinton's hardball tactics are just something her opponents need to deal with instead of complaining about.

(I am not female so I'll refrain from making any further remarks on this. This is just my opinion.)
[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]

[Lizzie Poppet]

22. Non-sequitur.

I think you're trying way, way too hard to see something that just isn't there in the OP.

But whatever. If I've learned anything from my poor decision to un-Trash D: P, it's to recognize much more quickly when a conversation is never going to be productive or insightful. Take care...

[rhett o rick]

38. We know all about the dirty tricks of the Republicons. That is a distraction from this

discussion. You are trying to justify that "the ends justify the means". The reason that Sanders is so popular is because they recognize his honesty and are tired of the corrupt culture of Citizens United that Clinton embraces.

Sadly some see Clinton's win at all costs as a sign of strength. I see it just the opposite.

[HooptieWagon]

14. A substantial number of Sanders supporters will vote for Jill Stein in Nov.

Quite obvious to any reasonable person the problem isn't a woman candidate, but a corrupt neo-conservative candidate.

[randome]

36. Yes but Jill Stein is a virtual unknown and therefore powerless. Easier for some to support.

And the GOP had a black man and a woman among their leading candidates. Is the GOP still racist and sexist? I'd say so.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]

[Avalux]

15. Our society is so messed up.

We could end up with two candidates in the GE who aren't trustworthy, and will do and say anything to win. It will be an incredibly negative, ugly race and the American people will suffer the consequences. Count me out.

[WillyT]

17. K & R !!!

[JoePhilly]

23. An attack piece against Hillary ... calling her out for "attacking".

Hilarious.

And did this dimwit say "But Hillary pulled her switchblade and began fighting" ... that is probably one of the dumbest lines I've seen from any pundit anywhere.

[leftofcool]

26. Oh FFS! Different day, same anti-Hillary bullshit!

[Kip Humphrey]

31. all too willing to manipulate, distort, and deceive to try to score political points

And the answer is: "How would you describe Donald Trump politically?".

[Faux pas]

33. K N R-ed

[johnnyrocket]

37. Sure Clinton is ambitious...but Trump is a epic disaster anywhere near the levers of power.

....the choices will be stark.

[Miles Archer]

41. Completely true.

I remember when McCain was running...good God, do the freepers hate him. One of their nicknames for him is "Juan McCain," due to his immigration efforts. But when it got to the point where he was all they had left, they started posting about the "Straight Talk Express," and there seemed to be no true commitment under the surface-level enthusiasm, a lingering resentment that he was the "best" they got.

I have no doubt that we will rally around Ms. Clinton if the only other option is Trump. I just don't see a "Feel The Bern" catch phrase, a universal show of support and enthusiasm, in her future. She could surprise everyone...life is full of surprises. Or, the next four years might be spent constructing something better for the next election. I don't know.

The real issue isn't the ambition...it's what she'd attempt to do with it if she got handed the keys to the kingdom. Comparing her to Trump doesn't fill me with hope for the future. Yeah, I'd feel like we dodged a bullet, but that's about it.

[840high]

40. Big K/R for truth.

[treestar]

45. It's called politics

and when men do it, it is not questioned. Ambition is apparently only bad in females.

[BainsBane]

47. Like this?

They are not talking about super-delegates
Bernie Sanders’ campaign believes it can win the nomination by persuading delegates pledged to Hillary Clinton to defect.

In a call with journalists just now, Senior Strategist Tad Devine suggested that a string of victories from his candidate in the second half of the race would put “enormous” pressure on Clinton delegates.

. . .

Here are Devine’s comments in full, made in a briefing call that we were on this afternoon.

“My point is that a front-runner in a process like this needs to continue to win if you want to keep hold of delegates. The delegates we have on the Democratic side fall into two categories. Un-pledged delegates – who are free to vote for whoever they want – and pledged delegates, who usually and traditionally have voted for candidates for whom they have been elected, but who under our rules are not bound to do so. The standard of pledged delegates is the standard of fair reflection that is embodied in the rules of the delegate selection process and also in the call for the convention. So if a front-runner wants to keep those delegates in place I believe you need to continue to win. And if you don’t win, you know, you are then going to be under pressure from your own people and your own delegates. And I think the pressure is going to build in the weeks and months ahead, particularly if Bernie Sanders has the kind of winning streak that I believe he can get on.”

http://thetab.com/us/2016/03/16/bernies-campaign-thinks-can-get-hillarys-pledged-delegates-defect-2690

The irony of your OP is that Bernie has built his campaign around attacks on Clinton whereas she was quite late to engage in any.
Despite those attacks and greatly outspending her in advertising, he has been unable to approach her in the popular vote or delegates. As a result, the newest strategy is to engage in activity in violation of Democratic Party rules and seek to overturn the results of contests already determined by flipping earned delegates. It's not going to happen, but it does show a determine to win at any cost, as well as complete disregard for the democratic will of the majority of voters.

[Miles Archer]

49. The post isn't about Sanders, and it changes nothing in regard to Clinton.

Whatever Sanders has or has not done...and I have no intention of debating that with you...is 100% irrelevant when it comes to the content of my original post.

I've never accepted the logic that "Person "A" did this, but person "B" did something just as bad or worse, so that means person "A" should not be criticized for what person "B" is doing too.

The post, like it or not, is about why some people do not trust Hillary Clinton.

If you don't trust Bernie Sanders, that's your right. This is not a "Pro-Bernie" post, and...as I'm sure you've gathered...not a "Pro-Hillary" post either.

It's a post that you're free to agree with, or disagree with.

Life is not always an easily played game of tit-for-tat. Making one person "wrong" never makes another person "right."

[jfern]

52. Hilary cares only about Hillary

She doesn't give a fuck about the good of the country.

[grasswire]

53. she forgets that she is interviewing for a job working for us.

And because that is so, we may ask any question of her that is lawful, and expect her to answer fully. If she doesn't want to answer, she can end the interview at any time, and find work somewhere else.

[AzDar]

55. ^ This.

[Waiting For Everyman]

64. Completely agree with this.

Of course she is too entitled to comprehend that, but it's nonetheless true.

[grasswire]

65. She seems to think she's doing us a favor. nt

[leveymg]

54. She brings a switch blade to a gun fight.

There will be blood, and I am not following her into that alley.

[Politicalboi]

58. Another reason not to cave to the Queen

They hold up voting at polling places and lie about Bernie. So if they succeed, are we supposed to ignore that they cheated us. NO!

[Gman]

66. That's exactly the kind of president I want

[Waiting For Everyman]

68. The OP subject quote reminds me of a shark.

...she behaves like a political attack machine motivated by an insatiable drive to win for herself at any cost.

I've often described bankssters as sharks, she epitomizes Wall Street.