I Was One of the Most Ardent Hillary Haters on the Planet…Until I Read Her Emails

[BootinUp]

Editor’s note: This piece was originally published in January under the pseudonym Anna Whitlock. It is among the most shared pieces of content about Hillary Clinton of the entire 2016 election. The writer has now come forward publicly: It is Karoli Kuns, managing editor of Crooks and Liars.

Karoli @Karoli

Not only did I write this…I asked if she would sign a copy of it for me when I was at the rally 2 wks ago. http://bluenationreview.com/i-was-a-hillary-hater-until-i-read-her-emails/

I have a confession to make: In 2008, I was one of the most ardent Hillary Clinton haters on the planet. I was ferocious about how much I didn’t want her to win the primaries, and I rejoiced the day she gave her concession speech.

I believed with all of my heart in Barack Obama in 2008, and saw Hillary Clinton as the one single impediment to his election and a soaring presidency. I believed in the “fierce urgency of now.”

I was impressed but unmoved by Hillary’s concession speech, still not ready to forgive the anger and harsh rhetoric which became so much of the 2008 primary campaign.

-------snip--------

Her tenure as Secretary of State, of course, led to the bogus email scandal, which in turn led to the slow-drip release of the emails on her home server. I decided I was going to read them.

In those emails, I discovered a Hillary Clinton I didn’t even know existed.

I found a woman who cared about employees who lost loved ones. I found a woman who, without exception, took time to write notes of condolence and notes of congratulations, no matter how busy she was. I found a woman who could be a tough negotiator and firm in her expectations, but still had a moment to write a friend with encouragement in tough times. She worried over people she didn’t know, and she worried over those she did.

http://bluenationreview.com/i-was-a-hillary-hater-until-i-read-her-emails/

[anoNY42]

1. I thought Hillary did not release any "personal" emails...

[MaeScott]

2. C and R went the way of DK (and DU it seems) a while back Follow the money.

[anigbrowl]

27. I thought you'd be able to tell the difference

As Secretary of State, any communications between her and her subordinates are official business, even if that communication consists of emotional reassurance following the death of the State Dept. employee;s family member or somesuch. 'Personal' emails are ones with no direct connection to her work.

[choie]

3. Sure she was a Hillary hater..

From Bluenationreview aka propaganda from David Brock...

[Pisces]

21. There were many of that were hardcore Obama fans in '08 who now support

Hillary. I was one.

[choie]

22. Did you change because you found out

she wrote thank you notes?

[Pisces]

24. You're a fool

[choie]

25. At least I'm not being fooled...

One born every day.

[Hortensis]

60. Tripe article. Never trust anyone who hates easily and

indulgently. It's not something people turn off and on, it's something inside some people that gets directed and redirected as it suits them. Like lying or telling the truth depending on what feels good at the moment.

[Scootaloo]

29. Nah, they sway according to who's in the lead

[B Calm]

49. Bwahaha... +1

[MariaThinks]

26. me too

[anigbrowl]

28. Yep, me too. I was impressed by her tenure as SoS. .nt

[athena]

32. I was one, too. (eom)

[Raine1967]

33. I know her. She was not an HRC fan.

But please, proceed...

[Beowulf]

4. bluenationreview.com

[choie]

5. Nuff said

[NWCorona]

7. Yup!

[choie]

9. I used to hate Clinton,

But then I learned she gives money to the homeless on the street, brings cookies to older adults in nursing homes and adopts stray cats and dogs...

[treestar]

48. making fun of that kind of stuff

is reminiscent of right wingers. I argue with them a lot, and they tend to do this.

[choie]

56. Then they're smarter than I thought

[NWCorona]

6. Bluenation huh

[Uben]

8. Looking beyond the hate

Some people get so caught up in primary season, they forget that a lot of what they read is nothing more than hate spewed by vindictive people. To believe it, they have to want it to be true, so they repeat it, over and over, until they see it as truth instead of the hate it actually is. I've seen it a million times on this very board. I have even been guilty of it myself in the past. I quit bashing candidates in the primaries (except repukes) and started looking for truth......not half-truth, not rumor or innuendo, but actual fact.
That eliminates about 90% of all things written about the candidates during primary season. Thus my cessation of bashing.

We had two very good candidates this go-around, and that's two more than the republicans produced. I really didn't care which one won, as long as the result was a republican defeat in November. I'm a liberal democrat and have been my entire adult life. Since I'm a 61 yr old white male and lifelong resident of Texas, I guess I'm an exception, but I vote my conscience, and nothing the republicans ever offer is worthy of my support. I live among these people...I see the racism, the hate they're filled with and the ignorance they project. I don't want to be seen like that...EVER!

[glennward]

51. I'll second that! Nice post. nt

[handmade34]

52. thanks!

[TheBlackAdder]

12. Over at C&L, Karoli posts balanced pieces. So the anti-Sanders slant does not wash.

[Segami]

13. BLUENATIONREVIEW = DAVID BROCK = PROPAGANDA

[BootinUp]

14. Peter Daou is the main guy at BNR, and Brock

has never been mentioned as part of it.

[choie]

15. Daou is bad enough..

[BootinUp]

16. In what way? Apparently he has prior experience

working for Kerry's Presidential campaign as well as for Clinton.

[choie]

17. worked for Clinton as well...

exactly - that's why nothing in bluenationreview.org can be believed.

[BootinUp]

18. Do you apply the same standard to Bernie's surrogates?

[choie]

19. Which one of them publish a news site or blog?

[BootinUp]

20. That's just avoidance. There are plenty of one sided sources of

commentary for Bernie on the tubes.

I don't want to drag this out. Truth checkers have rated Clinton's campaign as good or better than Sanders. And much of BNR's material is taken from cues by the campaign. If you have a particular problem with some of their material you should feel free to identify it specifically.

[choie]

23. You're the one who dodged my question..

I will not waste my breath trying to give a Clinton supporter a reality check - if you don't know that certain outlets are propaganda arms of the Clinton machine, there's no point...this has been well documented.

[Kentonio]

53. Daou is the CEO of True Blue Media, but it was setup by Brock who owns apparently 80%.

[2cannan]

66. This wikipedia article says BNR is OWNED by David Brock. You can't more get involved than that...

Blue Nation Review
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Nation_Review

Blue Nation Review was formerly owned by Moko Social Media Limited, a multi-media platform developer. Blue Nation Review was sold to Media Matters for America founder David Brock on November 25, 2015.[1][2] After Blue Nation Review's sale, almost all of its staff were terminated.[3] After its acquisition by David Brock, the website's content has been largely critical of Bernie Sanders and supportive of Hillary Clinton.[4][5] Blue Nation Review endorsed Clinton in January 2016.[5]

[BootinUp]

67. Quick, Stop reading the OP it might hurt your brain!

[2cannan]

68. Huh? Just because I read and do research to find out the truth? Ok...nt

[99Forever]

30. I spread this kind of stuff on my veggie garden.

[Chathamization]

31. Looking at the author's posts before the e-mail was released, this seems to be untrue.

Last edited Sat Jun 18, 2016, 12:41 AM - Edit history (2)

In 2014, for instance, she praised Clinton's statement on Ferguson and called Clinton's letter to Alinsky sweet. Doesn't really seem like a big Hillary hater.

Edit: Since some people seem to be confused by post, "this" is referring to the title of the OP: "I Was One of the Most Ardent Hillary Haters on the Planet…Until I Read Her Emails."

[athena]

34. Did you bother to read the actual text, or just the headline?

She was anti-Hillary during the 2008 campaign. She started to warm up to Hillary after she became Secretary of State.

It's interesting that Bernie supporters tend to jump to conclusions based on the headline without bothering to read the article. Some of us -- those of us who actually read articles -- know that the headline is often written by an editor and frequently has little to do with the actual content of the article.

[Chathamization]

35. Could have been written by an editor. It doesn't make the headline any less untrue.

If the headline is indeed not representative of the article, all the more reason to point that out, no?

[athena]

36. It's not a reason not to read the article. And the title is misleading.

Apparently, Bernie supporters can't seem to understand this. This is now the second time I've seen a Bernie supporter get completely hung up on the headline of an article they had obviously not read.

ETA: if you had read the article, you would have known the following:

It was not until President Obama nominated Hillary Clinton as his Secretary of State that my attitude began to soften, and it’s here I want to begin.

She was a great Secretary of State. Secretary John Kerry may be basking in the credit for closing the deals, but he walked through the doors Secretary Clinton opened for him.

Her tenure as Secretary of State, of course, led to the bogus email scandal, which in turn led to the slow-drip release of the emails on her home server. I decided I was going to read them.

In those emails, I discovered a Hillary Clinton I didn’t even know existed.

So, as a matter of fact, the title is misleading. Once again, not a reason to jump to conclusions and spread false information without reading the article.

[Chathamization]

37. I tend to view false headlines (and OP titles) as a good reason to avoid articles myself. I suppose

different people have different filters. But there's a ton of media out there, and I generally start reading a piece until I come to a point where I reach a falsehood. There are enough pieces that don't contain falsehoods, that I'm not going to waste my time with those that do.

[athena]

38. Once again, a Bernie supporter who can't get past the title

because the actual content of the article is inconsistent with what they want to believe.

Sorry, but you're just clutching at straws to justify intellectual laziness. It's your loss, though. You're free to miss out on great articles because you don't want to have your beliefs challenged. We all make choices in life, and those choices affect us more than anyone else.

[Chathamization]

41. So we shouldn't filter out articles based on their titles?

If I see an article with the title, "Obama Shows How Stupid He Is Once Again," it's not OK for me to skip it? Would that be "just clutching at straws to justify intellectual laziness"?

Different people have different filters, sure. But I don't understand how "avoiding articles with false info in the headlines" is an offensive filter.

[athena]

43. As long as you don't make false claims about an article you haven't read.

If you choose not to read an article, don't go around claiming that the writer lied. That's intellectual dishonesty at its worst.

[athena]

39. Also, there is no excuse for spreading misinformation.

The title was misleading, but your post was out and out false. I note that you still have not acknowledged this.

[Chathamization]

40. Where was the information? We both seem to agree that the title/OP was untrue.

Title/OP: "I Was One of the Most Ardent Hillary Haters on the Planet…Until I Read Her Emails"

Me: "Looking at the author's posts before the e-mail was released, this seems to be untrue."

You: "So, as a matter of fact, the title is misleading."

You (later): "The title was misleading, but your post was out and out false."

So the title is misleading but it's out and out false to call it untrue?

[athena]

42. Please stop twisting this into a pretzel.

It's a typical Bernie-supporter tactic, I know, but it's getting old.

You claimed that the writer of the article was lying because she supported Hillary before the e-mails were released.

I pointed out that the article actually says she started supporting Hillary after Hillary became Secretary of State, and that you must not have read the content of the article before making your claim that the writer was lying.

Then you went off on a tangent about how you don't bother to read articles when you can jump to conclusions based on the title. (Let's not even go into the intellectual laziness you revealed here. It's one thing to decide not to read an article based on title; it's quite another to assume you know what the article says, having read only the title, and then to falsely accuse the writer of the article of lying.)

And for the last time: the title of the article was truthful but a little misleading. (She had started to warm up to Hillary in 2009, but the e-mails are what made her into an ardent supporter.) Your claim, on the other hand, is not only misleading; it is false.

It's a serious thing to accuse someone of lying. If you're an honest person, you should edit your previous message accusing the writer of lying.

[Chathamization]

44. Where did I say they were lying? My exact words: "Looking at the author's posts before the e-mail

was released, this seems to be untrue." in response to the OP: "I Was One of the Most Ardent Hillary Haters on the Planet…Until I Read Her Emails"

And you seem to agree that it was untrue, since you said that was misleading. But since you're concerned about people being confused by this, I'll go back to edit my post and make it clear I'm referring to the ""I Was One of the Most Ardent Hillary Haters on the Planet…Until I Read Her Emails" part.

[athena]

45. Thank you.

[MrScorpio]

46. I'm trying to understand here why some people think that Hillary isn't compassionate and considerate

It's like that some of her detractors believe that she's not even a human fucking being.

[baldguy]

47. They've been seduced by the VRWC.

Analytical thought takes more effort than they're willing to expend & they're happy to have been taken in by the Republican image of her.

[Fumesucker]

50. We contain multitudes, very few people are all good or all bad

After you've been used as a rung on the ladder of success a few times by unscrupulous and overly ambitious human beings it's easy to fall into a negative stereotype of the ambitious, you see their flaws and are blind to any positive qualities.

Negative stereotypes seek reinforcing information, research shows that empathy is inversely proportional to income, the higher the income the lower the empathy.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

[grossproffit]

54. Yep. She offends some by breathing.

[Kentonio]

55. I'm more confused by why you need her to be compassionate and caring.

She's a hugely ambitious lawyer and politician who has a long track record of putting politics ahead of everything. She's certainly not alone in that, most politicians are the same, but trying to paint her as some kind hearted compassionate is just not in line with reality.

Politicians are pretty much unanimously egotistical and ambitious. Why do people find that so difficult to understand?

[choie]

57. "We came, we saw, he died"

"Ha ha ha ha ha"

[Armstead]

58. It's not about whether she is a nice person or not

One can be personal thoughtful, and still stand for the wrong things and be part of a bad system.

[BootinUp]

59. Her life mission in a nutshell has been for families,

children, especially those that are disadvantaged. You need to stop with the bogus talking points spread by marginal voices looking to make a buck off of her name. She has been a strong liberal for decades and she is the nominee.

[Armstead]

61. If you think the Concentration of Wealth and Power that has occurred is unimportant....

then you can't be convinced that there is much more at stake than personalities and niceness on certain levels.

Clinton is not a bad person. But she represents and is an active member of an elite who are destroying Amercan democracy and middle class economy.

Charity is good. I love children too. But it's important important to go after the SYSTEMIC NEED for charity that has been caused by the systemic corruption of the system, and the suppressing of liberal values on issues related to Wealth and Power.

Something is amiss when a candidate is backed by people like the Waltons who are worth about $150 BILLION among a handful of siblings, while the people who work for them have to go on food stamps. And whose company pushes US manufacturers to outsource jobs to China....The Waltons set up a very nice art museum, but so what if they are helping to hollow out the American economy and standard of living.

[BootinUp]

62. You just don't get politics in general. There ARE people who fit your

description. And they are the people who do everything possible to beat the Democratic Party down to keep control of Congress and the WH. In 90% of the cases where you have a disagreement with a liberal politician like Clinton, it can be boiled down to making choices from limited options and no great option. The rest is making choices on complex issues where reasonable educated and informed people disagree. One thing we have learned from this primary is that while Bernie had talking points that are popular, he didn't have a very good grasp of how to actually go about making changes. He had this idea, that just getting people all riled up was going to enough. Its not. The economy and international issues are far more complex than he or his supporters have ever acknowledged. Being right about something in hindsight from 20 years ago, that had no political possibility of happening doesn't impress people who understand politics.

There are many many instances when the D party would have loved to be able to pass more liberal policy in this country. But they were unable to because they didn't have the power/votes necessary. By aiming your fire at the liberal party YOU are adding to the obstacles.

[Armstead]

63. I've been keeping track of politics for 45 years. I can see the big picture, including the nuances

Don't hand me that crap that everyone who disagrees with how the corporate centrist faction of the Democratic Party has been handling things doesn't "get it."

In theory I agree totally with what Obama has often expressed in his speeches, about the need for string core values balanced with the need for compromise, working together, etc.

But what has been occurring is not "compromise" or "pragmatic" choices. It has been a combination of of systemic corruption and unnecessary surrender and abandoning of core principles for reasons that were not the usual give and take between liberal and conservative.


I could offer many specifics, but I don't have the time or inclination to engage in circular arguments right now.....But in short, I don't care if you disagree with that perspective. But don't use those condescending and phony memes.

[BootinUp]

64. The whole underlying argument for your faction was just laid waste

in this primary. The notion that the reason the D party doesn't have higher turnout and win more elections because they are too centrist is bullshit plain and simple.

[Armstead]

65. A circular argument...I think this primary showed the opposite