Hillary Rodham Clinton: 2016 Democratic Presidential Nominee

[UYI]

On 10/20/2016 at 11:15 AM, starri said:

There's a Destiny's Child song called "Nasty Girl."  Doesn't quite work.

Don't forget about the song by Vanity 6! (Sorry, I'm late; someone may have already mentioned it.)

[NewDigs]

28 minutes ago, Kitty Redstone said:

Don't worry!  These people would have existed regardless.  Sure, they'll grumble and complain but that's ok - they'll go back to their lives soon enough and may even come to realize that Donald ramped up their fears (about voting, about Hillary) in order to stroke his own ego. 

Took response to the Donald thread.

[UYI]

On 10/20/2016 at 11:43 PM, BookWoman56 said:

That was one of the issues that drew me to her initially. I kept my own name after I married (both times) and am damn glad I did, so I didn't have to change my name back on ID and so forth after getting divorced. But I sympathized with her because I also got a ton of flak about not changing my name, from my first set of in-laws all the way to the county clerks when I went to file for homestead exemption, who could not understand the concept of a married woman who did not use her husband's last name. To this day, I am horrified that I had to include in the divorce petitions a request to restore my maiden name, when I had never stopped using it or ever used either husband's last name. I understood all too well Hillary's desire to keep her own name, while recognizing that she agreed to the change because she knew it was costing votes to retain it.

One thing I love is that Bill has always said that whatever last name she used didn't mean a thing to him. And I completely believe that, too. :)

[pivot]

On 10/21/2016 at 3:06 PM, Grommet said:

^^Word. I'll also add that "Hillarycare" was blocked by a bunch of white guys who were clearly annoyed at having to deal with the First Lady as an equal.

 Hillary's poor leadership and secrecy is what doomed the bill. She couldn't even get it out of a Dem-led committee. There have been many behind-the-scenes books written about her failure at healthcare reform. It was an epic disaster. And Hillary wasn't their equal. She was unelected with no mandate from the people and showed up to Congress with a completed bill and tried to dictate to elected officials on legislation. There's a reason Obama took the exact opposite approach with Obamacare and managed to finally get health care reform passed.

As for CHIP, Hillary was a minor player on the bill. It was led by Ted Kennedy with Orin Hatch doing the outreach to Republicans. Hillary was called out in her first presidential run by Kennedy, Hatch, Rockafeller and others for exaggerating her role in CHIP. She also got called out for other exaggerations in that run. Her Beijing speech was nice but it didn't lead to any actual changes in women's rights in China. I just think it is sad that she has done so little in her decades of service in DC. 

2 hours ago, NewDigs said:

I sometimes wonder what would have happened in 2008 if TedK hadn't gotten sick and later died. I thought Hillary was on a pretty clear path then but, imho, when TK basically threw his support to Obama because Obama promised to shepherd TK's affordable-med-insurance-for-all plan through Congress it was over.

My memory ain't 100% but I remember thinking at that time that Hillary was toast.

And frankly, I thought her path would be less fraught this time around. Live and learn. More years, more baggage.

Kennedy backed Obama because he hadn't seen a politician inspire young people like Obama did since JFK and he was appalled by the racebaiting campaign of the Clintons. I am sure Hillary trying to take credit for Kennedy's work with CHIP and other things didn't help matters.

[pivot]

20 hours ago, HumblePi said:

In my opinion, the country wasn't ready for a Madam President in 1992, so Bill Clinton stood in her place because he was a man and more acceptable. But it was Hillary Clinton all along that should have served his two terms in office, not Bill.  It should have been her ticket all the way, but the mentality of the nation both men and women, were not ready to accept a hard working, intelligent, worldly and knowledgeable female.  And now, finally in 2016, we're very ready.

Hillary had no qualifications to run in 1992. She was a former first lady of Arkansas and a run of the mill attorney. Plus, she doesn't have any of the political skills or charisma of even Dukakis, let alone Bill Clinton. She wouldn't have made it out of New Hampshire. Bill Clinton was a Governor with years of government executive experience. There is no comparison between the two of them in 1992. It has nothing to do with her sex but her complete lack of qualifications back in 1992.

[Darian]

5 minutes ago, pivot said:

As for CHIP, Hillary was a minor player on the bill. It was led by Ted Kennedy with Orin Hatch doing the outreach to Republicans. Hillary was called out in her first presidential run by Kennedy, Hatch, Rockafeller and others for exaggerating her role in CHIP. She also got called out for other exaggerations in that run.

I'll address just that one:

 

Quote

In that same story, The AP’s Beth Fouhy concluded, "While Kennedy is widely viewed as the driving force behind the program, by all accounts the former first lady’s pressure was crucial." She quoted Nick Littlefield, who had been a senior health adviser to Kennedy, as saying, "we relied on her, worked with her and she was pivotal in encouraging the White House to do it."

The AP’s assessment is backed up by others we consulted. Adam Clymer, former chief Washington correspondent for the New York Times, covered the legislative maneuvering and also wrote about it in a 1999 book, "Edward M. Kennedy: A Biography." Clymer wrote that Kennedy "worked with" Hillary Clinton to get White House support for a Senate measure to grant $24 billion for the new program, rather than the $16 billion approved by the House. "With strong administration support, the $24 billion stayed in," he wrote. Then, when the bill finally passed, Kennedy "credited the President, the First Lady, [Senate Democratic Leader Tom] Daschle, Marian Wright Edelman, head of the Children’s Defense Fun, and Hatch.

There's a lot more support at the link. Hatch claimed Clinton got too much credit. Shocker. Ample evidence contradicts him. 

Politifact took a look at this, too:

Quote

"The children's health program wouldn't be in existence today if we didn't have Hillary pushing for it from the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue," Kennedy said.

Nick Littlefield, a senior health adviser to Kennedy at the time, agreed.

  Again, plenty of support at the link. 

[Kromm]

8 minutes ago, pivot said:

 Hillary's poor leadership and secrecy is what doomed the bill. She couldn't even get it out of a Dem-led committee. There have been many behind-the-scenes books written about her failure at healthcare reform. It was an epic disaster. And Hillary wasn't their equal. She was unelected with no mandate from the people and showed up to Congress with a completed bill and tried to dictate to elected officials on legislation. There's a reason Obama took the exact opposite approach with Obamacare and managed to finally get health care reform passed.

As for CHIP, Hillary was a minor player on the bill. It was led by Ted Kennedy with Orin Hatch doing the outreach to Republicans. Hillary was called out in her first presidential run by Kennedy, Hatch, Rockafeller and others for exaggerating her role in CHIP. She also got called out for other exaggerations in that run. Her Beijing speech was nice but it didn't lead to any actual changes in women's rights in China. I just think it is sad that she has done so little in her decades of service in DC. 

Kennedy backed Obama because he hadn't seen a politician inspire young people like Obama did since JFK and he was appalled by the racebaiting campaign of the Clintons. I am sure Hillary trying to take credit for Kennedy's work with CHIP and other things didn't help matters.

Even if those were unbiased books and every last thing you were saying is true, I wonder how you think Trump could negotiate anything through congress any better. Literally 90% of Congress, spread between both parties, hates his guts now.  Some would fall into place after the election and go back to him just because he won, but it wouldn't be long before he'd start putting people back on his enemies list, and tweet or makes speeches degrading his own supposed allies, or anyone in fact who defies him in any way.

So I'd like to know the grand plan here. Not the barbs you can toss at Hillary Clinton, but what Donald Trump would actually do dealing with a body who's job is formed around consensus and compromise. What Bigly actions would he take to deal with Congress?

[BoogieBurns]

My body can't take it. I have actually run a fever over 101 during all three debates. I'm not sick. My body is just rejecting this election cycle. It's been too long. Everything hurts. Half of my friends are gone forever. 

[LoneHaranguer]

On 10/21/2016 at 9:06 PM, BoogieBurns said:

Yeah, we are talking about a woman running who may actually win. Not a 1% vote getter. There is a two party system in this country, several other parties exist, however, only one of two parties is in the running to win the presidency.

One of the two parties used to be the Whigs; the Republicans took their place with an anti-slavery message. Ross Perot talked about the financial state of the country and got 19% of the popular vote, despite the fact that he spent the last few weeks of the campaign telling people not to vote for him. The third parties really had no chance against Obama, but really blew it this year not capitalizing on the poor offerings of the major parties.

[biakbiak]

13 minutes ago, LoneHaranguer said:

One of the two parties used to be the Whigs; the Republicans took their place with an anti-slavery message. Ross Perot talked about the financial state of the country and got 19% of the popular vote, despite the fact that he spent the last few weeks of the campaign telling people not to vote for him. The third parties really had no chance against Obama, but really blew it this year not capitalizing on the poor offerings of the major parties.

19% of the polar vote but 0% of the electoral college which are the only votes that matter and why third party candidates aren't going to become President even after W. lost the popular vote there has never been a sustained movement to abolish it.

Edited October 23, 2016 by biakbiak

[pivot]

6 hours ago, Kromm said:

Even if those were unbiased books and every last thing you were saying is true, I wonder how you think Trump could negotiate anything through congress any better. Literally 90% of Congress, spread between both parties, hates his guts now.  Some would fall into place after the election and go back to him just because he won, but it wouldn't be long before he'd start putting people back on his enemies list, and tweet or makes speeches degrading his own supposed allies, or anyone in fact who defies him in any way.

So I'd like to know the grand plan here. Not the barbs you can toss at Hillary Clinton, but what Donald Trump would actually do dealing with a body who's job is formed around consensus and compromise. What Bigly actions would he take to deal with Congress?

I've already said repeatedly I am voting for Hillary. Have no interest in Trump. He's a lunatic who is going to lose in a landslide. But, I'll continue to push back on the inflation of her achievements and those who are already trying to minimize Obama to build Hillary up. IMO, Hillary has never exhibited the leadership to be president. She's fine as a supporting player as she has been with CHIP. But, unlike Obama, she never led on anything successful in her political career prior to her becoming president. As a woman, I find it depressing she is going to be the first woman president. I'd like someone I could be proud of. 

3 hours ago, BoogieBurns said:

Reminder that Pivot said this on page 1: 

Only 2.5 weeks left, you guys. We can go back to worrying about celeb gossip and colorblind casting in just 2.5 weeks.

Thank you. 

[maraleia]

Something purely fun ... check out the pinned tweet

https://twitter.com/NickMerrill

Fly the W

[HumblePi]

37 minutes ago, pivot said:

I've already said repeatedly I am voting for Hillary. Have no interest in Trump. He's a lunatic who is going to lose in a landslide. But, I'll continue to push back on the inflation of her achievements and those who are already trying to minimize Obama to build Hillary up. IMO, Hillary has never exhibited the leadership to be president. She's fine as a supporting player as she has been with CHIP. But, unlike Obama, she never led on anything successful in her political career prior to her becoming president. As a woman, I find it depressing she is going to be the first woman president. I'd like someone I could be proud of. 

Thank you. 

Perhaps you can tell us what Barack Obama's experiences in politics were prior to launching his first campaign for political office in 1996? I voted for Barack Obama both terms and have been generally satisfied with how he has handled this country's foreign affairs. All I'm saying is that Hillary Clinton had at least 30 years of experience in public service prior to becoming a U.S. Senator.

Edited October 23, 2016 by HumblePi

[Keepitmoving]

Quote

I've already said repeatedly I am voting for Hillary. Have no interest in Trump. He's a lunatic who is going to lose in a landslide. But, I'll continue to push back on the inflation of her achievements and those who are already trying to minimize Obama to build Hillary up. IMO, Hillary has never exhibited the leadership to be president. She's fine as a supporting player as she has been with CHIP. But, unlike Obama, she never led on anything successful in her political career prior to her becoming president. As a woman, I find it depressing she is going to be the first woman president. I'd like someone I could be proud of. 

What were Obama's signature accomplishments as a junior senator from Illinois? If you're referring to his years before getting an official position in the senate then I'd say he's got nothing on Hillary. They both went to Ivy Leagues took on leadership roles during those years at their universities. Then spent the early years of their careers not drawing a huge pay check and working with for under served  populations.  Heck, I'm choosing to believe what has been reported, that  Hillary has been working with under served populations from as far back as the age of twelve.  

But I don't know, maybe I missed Obama's impressive resume as a junior senator. What did he do during his senate years that showed stand out leadership? What bills did he put forward? Or did he like Hillary place his name on bills that he supported just like most of the senators have done? 

I think Hillary just like Obama is a born leader and always has been. She doesn't have a great gift for oratory, to move people like her husband and President Obama, but no way does she not exude leadership qualities. I think she's a team builder. 

Who's trying to put down Obama besides the folks on the right to build up Hillary? Are folks on the left doing it? Because if not, I'm use to the slimy, full of shit Joe Scarboroughs of the political world shitting all over Obama and sewing seeds of division between the Obamas and the Clintons by implying that Hillary really thinks this "shitty" thing or another about Obama and we republicans agree.  Actually, they aren't really trying to sew division between Obama and Clinton, they are trying to piss off the supporters. So if you're not so keen on voting for Hillary,  but love Obama then here you go, look at this email and what people in the Hillary camp said about Obama, give me a break. I have my eyes on the prize and Obama isn't my damn husband nor family member. I'm not going to get that butt hurt at shit talk from fellow democrats that I sit home this coming Thursday and not show up to early vote. Hell to the no. And of course Trump continues to try and do this as well along with his boyfriend Putin  by releasing private emails with democrats talking shit about one another. 

This is the same shit they pulled in 2014 and folks fell for it. Whining constantly about democrats distancing themselves from Obama. They were trying to get elected in places like freaking Kentucky to get rid of the likes of Mitch McConnell for crying out loud. They couldn't stand too close and Obama told them do do whatever they needed to do to get elected.  But no, people were all butt hurt about democrats running for office not singing Obama's praises and the republicans ended up sweeping more seats in congress. Obama is a tough guy, he's played Chicago politics he was definitely the man for the job of being the first president of African descent in a pit of utterly racist obstructionists. So other than people questioning his citizenship or calling him a weak leader, I'm good with the rest of the criticism as all presidents and their policies are criticized, he shouldn't get a pass. I'm fine with democrats not always agreeing with him.

I'm also very proud to have Hillary become the first woman president. Had Obama not come along specifically with Michelle on his arm I might add, I wanted Clinton in 2008 but...Obama came along. She's playing in a pit of vipers, and as far as I'm concerned she has to be one too and I'm fine with it. As long as she doesn't poison my water; I'm cool with the some of the back handed, under the table shit she's probably done to survive in the pit and reach this point in her career. I'm very impressed. I think she's cut throat, and I love it, that's what some of those emails convey to me. 

Edited October 23, 2016 by Keepitmoving

[ruby24]

1 hour ago, pivot said:

I've already said repeatedly I am voting for Hillary. Have no interest in Trump. He's a lunatic who is going to lose in a landslide. But, I'll continue to push back on the inflation of her achievements and those who are already trying to minimize Obama to build Hillary up. IMO, Hillary has never exhibited the leadership to be president. She's fine as a supporting player as she has been with CHIP. But, unlike Obama, she never led on anything successful in her political career prior to her becoming president. As a woman, I find it depressing she is going to be the first woman president. I'd like someone I could be proud of. 

Thank you. 

Okay, so this sentence right here really, really struck me. She's fine as a supporting player, but not in the ultimate position of power? Huh.

[pivot]

1 hour ago, HumblePi said:

Perhaps you can tell us what Barack Obama's experiences in politics were prior to launching his first campaign for political office in 1996? I voted for Barack Obama both terms and have been generally satisfied with how he has handled this country's foreign affairs. All I'm saying is that Hillary Clinton had at least 30 years of experience in public service prior to becoming a U.S. Senator.

But I don't know, maybe I missed Obama's impressive resume as a junior senator. What did he do during his senate years that showed stand out leadership? What bills did he put forward? Or did he like Hillary place his name on bills that he supported just like most of the senators have done.

There is a huge difference between running for a first time politician for a state rep/senate seat and running for US president with no elected experience. Hillary had experience in public service before becoming a US Senator. I just don't think it was particularly remarkable nor is it enough for her in 1992 to run for the presidency. People mistake being near power for holding power. Hillary was a first lady who got involved in policy but she didn't drive the policy, lead the policy or have to answer to voters for that policy. There is a huge difference between being FLOTUS or first lady of Arkansas and being president or governor of Arkansas.

Obama was one of the most effective freshman Senators in recent memory. He accomplished significantly more than Hillary in the Senate in less time which was one of the main reasons I supported him against Hillary. 3 bills bare his name - Obama-Lugar which focused on nuclear non-proliferation which has been a focus of Obama's since grad school. Obama-Coburn Transparency Act and the Open Government bill with Feingold. Plus, he got a bill on the Congo passed as well. Hillary led on passage of 3 ceremonial bills. 

1 hour ago, ruby24 said:

Okay, so this sentence right here really, really struck me. She's fine as a supporting player, but not in the ultimate position of power? Huh.

I do not see any evidence that she is capable of being a successful president because she has spent most of her career being a supporting player or failing at leading on legislation. She failed at leading on Hillarycare miserably. She was a successful supporting player on CHIP. She failed at getting a climate deal done as SOS during Obama's first term whereas Kerry led and got it done as SOS. She got the Gaza ceasefire almost done but needed Obama to get on the phone with Bibi and close the deal. She was successful in supporting work on the Iran sanctions along with Obama but couldn't get the Iran nuclear deal done. Kerry was praised for being an incredible leader during the Iran nuclear talks. I don't see leadership ability with her. And that is not as a woman. There are plenty of successful female leaders in politics - Elizabeth Warren, Kristin Gillibrand who got the 9/11 healthcare bill done after Hillary failed to do so, etc. I just don't think Hillary is one. I do think that the Senate is going to be a lot easier for Hillary to deal with than they were for Obama since Lieberman and Ben Nelson is gone. If they actually nuke the filibuster and take the House, Hillary may get something done as president. I doubt she'll get as much done as Obama and it likely won't be 1/4 as progressive as Obama since she is not a risk taker. But, I'd be thrilled to be proven wrong.

Edited October 23, 2016 by pivot

[backformore]

1 hour ago, pivot said:

I doubt she'll get as much done as Obama and it likely won't be 1/4 as progressive as Obama since she is not a risk taker. But, I'd be thrilled to be proven wrong.

Maybe it would be better to judge her on her own record, then, instead of in comparison to Obama.  It's a pretty high bar, and I think that it's possible to be a good president without being as good as, or better than, Obama. 

[film noire]

Quote

Had Kristin Gillibrand, Claire McCaskill, Amy Klobuchar, or Elizabeth Warren run instead of Hillary, none of them would have the worst trustworthy #s in history or the 2nd worst approval numbers of all time. 

If those women had spent the last thirty years being subjected to the biggest political hate machine in modern history, they'd also be seen as untrustworthy  -- for kicks and giggles, let's just Scaife the hell out of McCaskill and see what happens:  she failed to pay 287 K in taxes on her private plane, she spent over 70 K  from her Senate budget on trips on her private plane, businesses associated with her husband received $40 million in fed subsidies for low-income housing developments, her husband has been accused of being a slumlord,  and allegations of sexual harassment were filed against his company.

Not him, not at all, not exactly -- but maybe sorta -- anyway, the  bitch is corrupt and low and dirty and the American people have a right to know.  In 2005, her first husband was murdered, so she's got her own hit list to worry about (just like Bill and his 99 bodies and beer on the wall). Just give me thirty years and I'll Scaife the shit out of McCaskill's record and life and make you hate her as much as you hate Hillary -- or how about we start with Kristin Gillebrand, that corrupt monster, who worked her ass off defending Big Tobacco when she was a lawyer? She defended a killing machine, a corporation that caused cancer in goddamn teenagers -- just like that run of the mill lawyer HRC with Walmart, it's clearly all about the benjamins with these morally polluted bitches -- no woman could be proud of them! And don't get me started on Warren lying about being NA, lying about being the first nursing mother to take the bar -- don't get me started because I won't stop for three decades, won't stop until I've spent tens of millions of dollars to destroy one woman, won't stop until people are spreading lies I seeded years ago,  won't stop until that poisoned fruit I planted finally comes to harvest.  

Any female political figure you can name would look shabby and disgraced and untrustworthy,  if given the HRC Red Plate special -- anyone -- the number to marvel at is not how many people don't trust her,  but that so many people do.

Edited October 23, 2016 by film noire

[HumblePi]

6 hours ago, pivot said:

There is a huge difference between running for a first time politician for a state rep/senate seat and running for US president with no elected experience. Hillary had experience in public service before becoming a US Senator. I just don't think it was particularly remarkable nor is it enough for her in 1992 to run for the presidency. People mistake being near power for holding power. Hillary was a first lady who got involved in policy but she didn't drive the policy, lead the policy or have to answer to voters for that policy. There is a huge difference between being FLOTUS or first lady of Arkansas and being president or governor of Arkansas.

Obama was one of the most effective freshman Senators in recent memory. He accomplished significantly more than Hillary in the Senate in less time which was one of the main reasons I supported him against Hillary. 3 bills bare his name - Obama-Lugar which focused on nuclear non-proliferation which has been a focus of Obama's since grad school. Obama-Coburn Transparency Act and the Open Government bill with Feingold. Plus, he got a bill on the Congo passed as well. Hillary led on passage of 3 ceremonial bills. 

I do not see any evidence that she is capable of being a successful president because she has spent most of her career being a supporting player or failing at leading on legislation. She failed at leading on Hillarycare miserably. She was a successful supporting player on CHIP. She failed at getting a climate deal done as SOS during Obama's first term whereas Kerry led and got it done as SOS. She got the Gaza ceasefire almost done but needed Obama to get on the phone with Bibi and close the deal. She was successful in supporting work on the Iran sanctions along with Obama but couldn't get the Iran nuclear deal done. Kerry was praised for being an incredible leader during the Iran nuclear talks. I don't see leadership ability with her. And that is not as a woman. There are plenty of successful female leaders in politics - Elizabeth Warren, Kristin Gillibrand who got the 9/11 healthcare bill done after Hillary failed to do so, etc. I just don't think Hillary is one. I do think that the Senate is going to be a lot easier for Hillary to deal with than they were for Obama since Lieberman and Ben Nelson is gone. If they actually nuke the filibuster and take the House, Hillary may get something done as president. I doubt she'll get as much done as Obama and it likely won't be 1/4 as progressive as Obama since she is not a risk taker. But, I'd be thrilled to be proven wrong.

Just read her biography and substitute the word 'she' for 'he' in it and you just might see a different person. There were three bills that have her name on it that were uncontroversial but have her name on it.  In addition to those three bills, there are other ways that Senators can influence legislation even if they don’t end up as the sponsor of the final version. There were 74 bills that became law that Clinton co-sponsored. She put forward amendments that influenced laws sponsored by others. She sponsored three amendments on a bill for security and disaster funding. The amendments passed in 2007 and the bill passed in 2008.  We have to look look at the three sponsored bills and the 74 co-sponsored ones that passed. Also, congressional experts warn that legislative influence goes beyond having your name as a sponsor or co-sponsor. Senators weigh in with amendments, debate and negotiations.

Edited October 23, 2016 by HumblePi

[Darian]

8 hours ago, pivot said:

. But, unlike Obama, she never led on anything successful in her political career prior to her becoming president.

That is simply untrue. Ridiculously untrue. I put up links about CHIP, but as far back as college, Hillary was leading, working with others and accomplishing things that helped many people. And as for only her "political career, if we can decide where that truly ends and begins, she has a long list of accomplishments. I know, I know, you're voting for her, so this really isn't for you. But when you say something like that, that you may believe but is, to put it mildly, untrue, I will counter it, in my case with support (just a few links, no quoting, could post a lot more if I wanted):

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/08/hillary-clinton-2016-wellesley-president-214188

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/feed/seven-hillary-clintons-biggest-accomplishments/

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/09/carly-fiorina-debate-hillary-clintons-greatest-accomplishment-213157

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/9/17/1422403/-Hillary-Clinton-s-Record-of-Accomplishments

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/04/07/hillary-clinton-was-a-more-effective-lawmaker-than-bernie-sanders/

And that last one is important, imo, because it's something my Bernie Sanders friends and I discussed quite a bit. Early on, they scolded me for supporting Hillary, especially as I have always been what some people derisively call a Social Justice Warrior, a name I only wish I deserved. They told me he was going to win the vast majority of votes from blacks and women and Latinos and LGBTQ people and I said he wouldn't. I explained why I thought that, and when Sanders, who touted himself as so strong on civil rights, feel so short in not only votes but also endorsements from the activists and organizations that have to know who has done more, has better plans, and will do more. They don't fall for "I marched." They've been watching and working and lobbying and paying attention to who has done what. They've been there all along and with few exceptions lined up behind Hillary Clinton. If you read some of the endorsement, like from Human Rights Commission and Planned Parenthood, they gave detailed, thorough explanations for why they chose her. And it was always that she had been more pro-active, accomplished more, and had better plans for moving forward. 

Again, this isn't aimed at you. I don't expect to change your mind or even that you will read anything I post. It's aimed at a comment I know is not true and chose to address. 

[thewhiteowl]

Secretary Clinton is not running against President Obama so comparing their accomplishments does nothing for me. 

[UYI]

I give you Park Ridge, Illinois native Hillary Clinton last night:

[atomationage]

Rodham Corner in Park Ridge:

[Lisin]

Hey everyone! Lets all take a deep breath and look at this basket of adorables!

And for those cat people out there

[Darian]

The New Yorker endorses Hillary Clinton. 

It's long, but worth the time, and I wanted to quote so much of it but I chose this, because it includes a deserved tribute to President Obama. 

Quote

Hillary Clinton is neither saint nor prophet; she is a pragmatist of deep experience and purpose. But her toughness, her guile, and her experience—qualities that helped her patiently decimate Trump in their three debates—will be assets in future political battles. In “Leaves from the Notebook of a Tamed Cynic,” Reinhold Niebuhr wrote that there was no reason “to believe that Abraham Lincoln, the statesman and opportunist, was morally inferior to William Lloyd Garrison, the prophet. The moral achievement of statesmen must be judged in terms which take account of the limitations of human society which the statesman must, and the prophet need not, consider.” In this populist moment, the attractions of continuity hold little romance. And yet Clinton not only promises to be a vastly better President than her opponent; she has every chance of building on the successes and insights of a predecessor who will leave office with a remarkable record of progressive change and, in an often ugly time, as an exemplar of Presidential temper and dignity.

[Kromm]

3 hours ago, Lisin said:

Hey everyone! Lets all take a deep breath and look at this basket of adorables!

So that's the opposite of "deplorables"?

[film noire]

4 hours ago, Lisin said:

 

 

Raw feed of forum posters tumbling out of The Basket -- all worrying they will be the reason we can't have Nice Things & left to desperately roam the wilds of the internet in search of pol-talk that isn't rebutting "Hey you friggin' dickmouthed asswipe, Hillary DID NOT KILL Vince Foster!" :)

Edited October 23, 2016 by film noire

[Keepitmoving]

Quote

n “Leaves from the Notebook of a Tamed Cynic,” Reinhold Niebuhr wrote that there was no reason “to believe that Abraham Lincoln, the statesman and opportunist, was morally inferior to William Lloyd Garrison, the prophet. The moral achievement of statesmen must be judged in terms which take account of the limitations of human society which the statesman must, and the prophet need not, consider.” In this populist moment, the attractions of continuity hold little romance

Amen, to this and it's because I view politicians through this lens including as "transparent" as you can get Obama, which to me is not all that transparent either, he's had to play the game just like the rest. You can't reach his success in politics without doing so, sorry, you just can't. So with this understanding, I go forth continuing to admire Hillary and I can't wait to vote for her. 

The above quote is exactly where she was coming from when she referred to Lincoln in her speech, while the Donald Trumps on the right as well as the far left, rolled their eyes because of course, there she goes again bullshitting. No, she was telling you the damn truth of how shit works. 

Edited October 23, 2016 by Keepitmoving

[atomationage]

Is Drumpf being compared to William Lloyd Garrison?  Because, Just.  NO.

[Keepitmoving]

I'm sick of constantly having to see interviews on MSNBC of Trump supporters, where are the interviews with Hillary supporters Kristen Walker, Cassie Hunt? Andrea freaking Bitchell? They cover her events yet I never see them interviewing her supporters, NEVER. I want them to find supporters who I hear call in on C-Span radio and say they don't care what they say about her,  and they don't care what comes out in her emails, they're voting for her. 

Edited October 23, 2016 by Keepitmoving

[33kaitykaity]

5 minutes ago, atomationage said:

Is Drumpf being compared to William Lloyd Garrison?  Because, Just.  NO.

Um, why?  (I could look at the wiki, but I'm lazy today.)  

[atomationage]

2 minutes ago, 33kaitykaity said:

Um, why?  (I could look at the wiki, but I'm lazy today.)  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8GT2yNPJQ8

[Macbeth]

Quote

Had Kristin Gillibrand, Claire McCaskill, Amy Klobuchar, or Elizabeth Warren run instead of Hillary, none of them would have the worst trustworthy #s in history or the 2nd worst approval numbers of all time. 

Quote

 

If those women had spent the last thirty years being subjected to the biggest political hate machine in modern history, they'd also be seen as untrustworthy 

Any female political figure you can name would look shabby and disgraced and untrustworthy,  if given the HRC Red Plate special -- anyone -- the number to marvel at is not how many people don't trust her,  but that so many people do.

 

I go back and forth on this issue.  I live in Massachusetts, adore Warren, and it was very painful how the local media roasted her over her Native American claim.  The local media was surprised that Warren avoided them like a plague when she first got into office,  Really?  Local media owned by businesses are naturally going to go after the consumer advocate.  Look to your own house reporters.

However there was a special vitriol that the Republicans had/have for Hillary that is beyond standard misogyny.  I couldn't understand why they went after Hillary the way they did.  I wasn't paying that much attention to the ranting against her at the time - just a lot of misogyny bs to me.  Whitewater - really?  Someone in the political field gets a large unearned return on an investment - not exactly news at 11:00.  SOP.  But after reviewing and understanding a couple of things I didn't know at the time.  There are a couple of things to keep in mind.

1.  She worked on the impeachment inquiry staff on the House Committee investigating Watergate.  Doesn't matter how small her position was - she worked on the committee that brought down a Republican President.  She was going to be toast as far as the Republicans were concerned - their hatred for her on that fact alone had a stronger power than a supernova.  Once they took over the house in 1994 - she was going down.  And to get back at her and the Democrats - they were determined to impeach Clinton - and the House did vote to impeach him.   Before Clinton, the only Democratic President since Nixon was Carter.  Carter was a choir boy who was not an astute politician and was voted out after his first time.  No need to impeach him.

And because of that - no Republican is going to work with her now.  McCain is already stating that no nomination of hers for Supreme Court will get through.

2.  Hillary's health care plan of 1993.   Closed door meetings on healthcare -  a topic that had been a nuclear football for at least 2 decades before that.   Really??  It was a Democratic congress and she couldn't get the Democrats behind her.  Just one aspect of her failure - Ted Kennedy.  I would still vote for him if he was alive, but the massive ego on that SOB cannot be underestimated.  You don't bring him in - you have no hope of success.  Nixon had a health care plan that Kennedy worked against as it was not comprehensive enough.  Carter has written that with a Democratic Congress he managed to get a national healthcare plan that would pass, but Kennedy was running against him in 1980, worked against it and so it died.  Who was advising her that this approach was the way to go?  Or is she just so stubborn and so convinced that she is right that there was no talking to her.  I don't care that she finally learned that lesson.  National healthcare is too important an issue to leave to a political wannabe.  Her actions made it clear she was not ready to play in prime time in 1994.  But Clinton had to pay her back for sticking by him.

Her failure was one of the reasons the Democrats lost the Congress in 1994.   She then works to bring in Dick Morris to rescue Bill's Presidency.  He tries to appeal to the Republicans by signing welfare reform and DOMA, and the Republicans still work to impeach him. 

[UYI]

I found a story that said that Hillary has asked her campaign staff for time off to watch the Cubs in the World Series. You've earned it, Hill.

Edited October 23, 2016 by UYI

[Keepitmoving]

Quote

1.  She worked on the impeachment inquiry staff on the House Committee investigating Watergate.  Doesn't matter how small her position was - she worked on the committee that brought down a Republican President.  She was going to be toast as far as the Republicans were concerned - their hatred for her on that fact alone had a stronger power than a supernova.  Once they took over the house in 1994 - she was going down.  And to get back at her and the Democrats - they were determined to impeach Clinton - and the House did vote to impeach him.   Before Clinton, the only Democratic President since Nixon was Carter.  Carter was a choir boy who was not an astute politician and was voted out after his first time.  No need to impeach him.

Exactly, I can start and stop with your number one.  They were never ever really going after Bill Clinton it was and will remain always about taking down Hillary.

[BoogieBurns]

2 hours ago, Macbeth said:

McCain is already stating that no nomination of hers for Supreme Court will get through.

That's fun! 5 years with a 4/4 split on the Supreme Court? 80 year-old McCain may not live to see it, but this country deserves a Supreme Court that can break their own ties, and NOW.

He doesn't even have a solid chance for re-election, so I suggest he shuts his trap. Gridlock in Washington is the reason the Orange Cheeto is even representing the other party. Threatening to continue getting nothing done just makes my blood boil.

[car54]

This isn't good news.

[biakbiak]

23 minutes ago, car54 said:

This isn't good news.

Seems more like a headline grabber than anything else. 

[j5cochran]

7 hours ago, Keepitmoving said:

I'm sick of constantly having to see interviews on MSNBC of Trump supporters, where are the interviews with Hillary supporters Kristen Walker, Cassie Hunt? Andrea freaking Bitchell? They cover her events yet I never see them interviewing her supporters, NEVER. I want them to find supporters who I hear call in on C-Span radio and say they don't care what they say about her,  and they don't care what comes out in her emails, they're voting for her. 

Preach it!  A month or more ago, I saw Ana Marie Cox on CNN, being interviewed along with some Trump supporter.  When Cox was asked the first question, she responded by asking why she was there as a (more or less) neutral journalist to act as the voice of the Clinton campaign.  Why didn't CNN bring in an actual Clinton surrogate, she asked. The program host had no answer.

[biakbiak]

7 minutes ago, j5cochran said:

Preach it!  A month or more ago, I saw Ana Marie Cox on CNN, being interviewed along with some Trump supporter.  When Cox was asked the first question, she responded by asking why she was there as a (more or less) neutral journalist to act as the voice of the Clinton campaign.  Why didn't CNN bring in an actual Clinton surrogate, she asked. The program host had no answer.

Jeff Zucker.

[shok]

1 hour ago, car54 said:

This isn't good news.

When you're linking to something, please give us at least a headline or an outline about the story you're linking to. Internet sites get their revenue from the number of clicks they get and I don't want to reward any that are posting shit and lies by clicking on them to see what they're about. Thanks.

[j5cochran]

4 minutes ago, biakbiak said:

12 minutes ago, j5cochran said:

Preach it!  A month or more ago, I saw Ana Marie Cox on CNN, being interviewed along with some Trump supporter.  When Cox was asked the first question, she responded by asking why she was there as a (more or less) neutral journalist to act as the voice of the Clinton campaign.  Why didn't CNN bring in an actual Clinton surrogate, she asked. The program host had no answer.

Jeff Zucker.

Exactly! 

Which is why I snicker derisively when I hear someone refer to the Clinton News Network.

[biakbiak]

22 minutes ago, shok said:

When you're linking to something, please give us at least a headline or an outline about the story you're linking to. Internet sites get their revenue from the number of clicks they get and I don't want to reward any that are posting shit and lies by clicking on them to see what they're about. Thanks.

It's an article from the WSJ about Gov. Terry McAuliffe PAC gave money to the State Senate campaign of a woman who he and other Dems urged to run and who's husband is an FBI agent who after she lost, he was prompted to no. 2 person in the FBI and oversaw part of the investigation into Clinton's emails. 

His supervisors knew about his wife's campaign and because McAuliffe had nothing to do with ithe emails, deemed there was no conflict of interest.

From the article:

Quote

The FBI said in a statement that during his wife’s campaign Mr. McCabe “played no role, attended no events, and did not participate in fundraising or support of any kind. Months after the completion of her campaign, then-Associate Deputy Director McCabe was promoted to Deputy, where, in that position, he assumed for the first time, an oversight role in the investigation into Secretary Clinton’s emails.”

Edited October 24, 2016 by biakbiak

[DAngelus]

19 hours ago, film noire said:

[Gillibrand] defended a killing machine, a corporation that caused cancer in goddamn teenagers -- just like that run of the mill lawyer HRC with Walmart

Small difference being that when Gillibrand was representing the tobacco companies, her husband wasn't governor of the state where the lawsuits were being held.  Unlike Clinton who was First Lady of Arkansas while sitting on the board of Arkansas's largest corporation, and previously had been First Lady of the State while representing the state's supposedly public utility, Entergy (and don't get me started on what Entergy did overseas) and back when Bill was "only" Attorney General, Clinton made $100,000 in a year on $1000 investment in cattle futures, getting around the funding requirements with the help of an attorney for Tyson Foods, which as Arkansas's largest employer I'm sure had no interest in currying favor with Bill, and being "lucky" enough to not only go against the market and win big (inside information? Oh, never!) but not to have been subject to a margin call when she was temporarily $100,000 in the hole.  

Conflicts of interest around the block, buried because the crazier loons on the right-wing tried to claim she murdered Vince Foster or that Bill was having trains in Arkansas run over people, or whatever.  But unlike testimony standards, "falsus in unum, falsus in omnes" doesn't apply here.  Clinton can be corrupt as hell without every accusation against her having to have been true.  

But I suppose she sold arms to Saudi Arabia at a rate 80% above that hippie peacenik, Condileeza Rice, just because the Saudis were in such danger from…um…um…well, somebody!  And not because of any "donations" to her "Foundation" that might account for her and Bill's new-found wealth or anything like that.

[film noire]

27 minutes ago, DAngelus said:

Small difference being that when Gillibrand was representing the tobacco companies, her husband wasn't governor of the state where the lawsuits were being held.

Oh, that won't make any difference when I Scaife Kristin (in fact, not having a mate is a plus -- maybe she was gay at the time, when she was helping Big Tobacco kill children born of "normal" mothers.  Yeah, that's what Scaife would do; paint her as the "odd" single woman who helped kill teenagers born of God fearing Moms. And thanks for posting your own Scaife takedown -- AKA the most right wing interpretation of events presented as fact -- see how easy it is?  ; )

Edited October 24, 2016 by film noire

[33kaitykaity]

1 hour ago, DAngelus said:

Small difference being that when Gillibrand was representing the tobacco companies, her husband wasn't governor of the state where the lawsuits were being held.  Unlike Clinton who was First Lady of Arkansas while sitting on the board of Arkansas's largest corporation, and previously had been First Lady of the State while representing the state's supposedly public utility, Entergy (and don't get me started on what Entergy did overseas) and back when Bill was "only" Attorney General, Clinton made $100,000 in a year on $1000 investment in cattle futures, getting around the funding requirements with the help of an attorney for Tyson Foods, which as Arkansas's largest employer I'm sure had no interest in currying favor with Bill, and being "lucky" enough to not only go against the market and win big (inside information? Oh, never!) but not to have been subject to a margin call when she was temporarily $100,000 in the hole.  

Conflicts of interest around the block, buried because the crazier loons on the right-wing tried to claim she murdered Vince Foster or that Bill was having trains in Arkansas run over people, or whatever.  But unlike testimony standards, "falsus in unum, falsus in omnes" doesn't apply here.  Clinton can be corrupt as hell without every accusation against her having to have been true.  

But I suppose she sold arms to Saudi Arabia at a rate 80% above that hippie peacenik, Condileeza Rice, just because the Saudis were in such danger from…um…um…well, somebody!  And not because of any "donations" to her "Foundation" that might account for her and Bill's new-found wealth or anything like that.

Here is a fairly recent (after both had clinched/pre-convention), fairly comprehensive, fairly accurate, fairly neutral/objective recap of Bill/Hill scandals and how Drumpf could possibly use those scandals to his advantage. 

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/06/clinton-scandals-donald-trump

Before the Ms. Universe thing happened and Drumpf Tweeted away the credibility of his candidacy, what the Drumpf campiagn had been doing had actuaaly been working.  The polls had been closing with Hillary in danger of forfeiting from some of her leads in the closer battleground states.

What the author (and everyone else) didn't see coming was Donald's terrifyingly bad debate performances in conjunction with Drumpf's Lost Week of Publicly Fat-Shaming a former Ms. Universe, then the Access Hollywood tapes of him admitting he gets a thrill out of sexually-assaulting women, then 11 women coming forward saying yes, he did that to me.  It doesn't help that the later accusers are, in fact, stunning, women he considers worthy of his God-like affections.  

Donald is a self-admitted sexual predator.  None of the "hey, look over here" hand-waving at our collective scandal-ridden pasts with the Clintons can make that horrible fact about Drumpf less present in the collective brain of this campaign.  

Unfortunately for Drumpf, he has much bigger problems ahead of him other than almost certainly losing this election to a girl.  There is Trump University, the rape trial, the trading with Cuba under the embargo, how intricate are his Russian dealings and have they all been within the law, and losing his brand and his ability to continue to go deeper and deeper in debt.  It could get real ugly for him really fast.  

ETA:  Ruth Marcus of the WashPost hit an interesting possibility -- that because Drumpf's accusers are all private citizens, the rules for getting an award for slander/libel/ defamation aren't quite as tight.  

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/taking-trump-to-court-the-evidence-against-a-nasty-man/2016/10/21/13b9f0c8-97b3-11e6-bb29-bf2701dbe0a3_story.html?utm_term=.f74c87bdfcd5

Quote

The evidence in Trump’s favor? The butler says he didn’t do it. That is, nothing seemed amiss when he walked in on Trump and Stoynoff. This would be the butler who posted on Facebook that President Obama “should have been taken out by our military and shot as an enemy agent” and said it was astonishing that “a common murder[er] is even allowed to run (killery clinton).” 

Mr. Trump, your witness.

Imagining this evidence assessed in court isn’t just instructive — it’s tempting. Because while the time has long passed for filing charges over the underlying behavior, Trump’s description of Stoynoff as “a liar” and “the dishonest writer from People magazine” opens the door to a defamation suit.

1 hour ago, DAngelus said:

oop

Edited October 24, 2016 by 33kaitykaity

[DAngelus]

Well, Trump's scandals hardly make Clinton any the better.  Except from a horse-race p.o.v., of course.  But I've despised the Clintons since they knifed the New Deal in the back in '94, so I admit I'm hardly capable of dispassionate handicapping here.

And I refuse to play with the "Drumpf" juvenile nonsense.  Who cares that his ancestors changed the family name centuries ago?  That's about as relevant as Clinton's being distant cousins with Madonna, Angelina Jolie, Alanis Morrisette, Celine Dion and (sigh) Justin Bieber through their various French-Canadian relatives.

The media spin against Trump has been ridiculous, it's true.  But the decay of public policy to the point where Trump's big wrap-up for debate #1 was to talk about his policies and Clinton's was "he fat-shamed a woman 20 years ago…and she's voting for me!" and the media somehow thought that was the "issue" worth covering, that says more about the media than it does about the merits of the candidates, IMO.

As for Clinton timing the release of the P*ssyTape to smother the WikiLeaks disclosures, it's good politics, but it hardly makes me any more of a fan of hers.  I know, she's so shocked by what Trump said that she held on to the tape for months (as she said in debate #1, she's been calling Trump "unfit" since June…I assume that's when the Bushes sold her the tape) before having her anti-Sanders hatchet man Jeff Bezos and his Washington Post (which once ran 16 anti-Sanders articles in 16 hours) "leak" it at the single most beneficial moment for the Clinton campaign, and she's paying for ads that shove it down the viewers' throats…but she's offended, honest!  

And then there are all those women "suddenly" deciding to "come forward", not one of whom ever thought of filing suit against a billionaire who was especially vulnerable because his company depends on his personal "brand" before this.  They're all motivated by the goodness of their hearts, no doubt.  They never dared to share their secret shame until Clinton and Billy Bush (who just happened to be present when there was a live mic and completely wasn't egging Trump on at all and who reportedly knew about the release for months in advance) and Jeff Bezos (who would have to pay billions of dollars in unpaid taxes on the profits Amazon has stashed overseas, unless he can get a favor from a grateful administration…) gave them the courage to speak out…at the moment when Clinton needed them the most.  What luck!

(I particularly enjoy Summer Zervos, who was actually campaigning for her family to support Trump during the primaries, as she was hoping for a second run on The Apprentice.  Her u-turn is completely coincidental, I'm sure.)

The dead cat in the room (British political saying, that you throw a dead cat on the table when you want to distract people) is IMO the lurid tales the Clinton/Bush alliance are spreading, so that we don't focus on mere minor disclosures such as the Clinton campaign's illegal collusion with David Brock and Correct the Record, in violation of the Super PAC laws.  Or the DNC leaking debate questions to Clinton in advance.  Or her racist dismissal of "the minority base" which is neatly balanced by her classist contempt for the "bucket of losers" who aren't "dominated by the Democratic messaging" and so might cause trouble.  Or confirmation that she did in fact destroy the emails. Or the $12,000,000 the Moroccans donated to the Clinton Foundation to get access to Clinton.  Or the plans by the campaign to plant a "harmless" Clinton Wall Street speech in the media so that the issue would go away.  Or her plans to bomb Iran, despite the fact that even Lloyd Blankfein thinks that occupations never work.  Or…

Because until she and her campaign started throwing around the smut, all they had to respond on those issues was "Eeek! Russia!" and she's in (theoretically) the wrong party for such Red-baiting to have much success.  

Not that today's "Democratic" party bears any resemblance to the one she and Bill and Al From and all their loathsome DLC pals helped destroy, it's true.

Quote

Q:  What is a "New Democrat"?

A:  A Republican

—Herblock, 1993  

(RIP, Herb.  Miss you.)

Edited October 24, 2016 by DAngelus

[33kaitykaity]

10 minutes ago, DAngelus said:

Well, Trump's scandals hardly make Clinton any the better.  Except from a horse-race p.o.v., of course.  But I've despised the Clintons since they knifed the New Deal in the back in '94, so I admit I'm hardly capable of dispassionate handicapping here.

And I refuse to play with the "Drumpf" juvenile nonsense.  Who cares that his ancestors changed the family name centuries ago?  That's about as relevant as Clinton's being distant cousins with Madonna, Angelina Jolie, Alanis Morrisette, Celine Dion and (sigh) Justin Bieber through their various French-Canadian relatives.

The media spin against Trump has been ridiculous, it's true.  But the decay of public policy to the point where Trump's big wrap-up for debate #1 was to talk about his policies and Clinton's was "he fat-shamed a woman 20 years ago…and she's voting for me!" and the media somehow thought that was the "issue" worth covering, that says more about the media than it does about the merits of the candidates, IMO.

As for Clinton timing the release of the P*ssyTape to smother the WikiLeaks disclosures, it's good politics, but it hardly makes me any more of a fan of hers.  I know, she's so shocked by what Trump said that she held on to the tape for months (as she said in debate #1, she's been calling Trump "unfit" since June…I assume that's when the Bushes sold her the tape) before having her anti-Sanders hatchet man Jeff Bezos and his Washington Post (which once ran 16 anti-Sanders articles in 16 hours) "leak" it at the single most beneficial moment for the Clinton campaign, and she's paying for ads that shove it down the viewers' throats…but she's offended, honest!  And then there are all those women "suddenly" deciding to "come forward", not one of whom ever thought of filing suit against a billionaire who was especially vulnerable because his company depends on his personal "brand" before this.  They're all motivated by the goodness of their hearts, no doubt.

(I particularly enjoy Summer Zervos, who was actually campaigning to her family to support Trump during the primaries, as she was hoping for a second run on The Apprentice.  Her u-turn is completely coincidental, I'm sure.)

The dead cat in the room (British political saying, that you throw a dead cat on the table when you want to distract people) is IMO the lurid tales the Clinton/Bush alliance are spreading, so that we don't focus on mere minor disclosures such as the Clinton campaign's illegal collusion with David Brock and Correct the Record, in violation of the Super PAC laws.  Or the DNC leaking debate questions to Clinton in advance.  Or her racist dismissal of "the minority base" which is neatly balanced by her classist contempt for the "bucket of losers" who aren't "dominated by the Democratic messaging" and so might cause trouble.  Or confirmation that she did in fact destroy the emails. Or the $12,000,000 the Moroccans donated to the Clinton Foundation to get access to Clinton.  Or the plans by the campaign to plant a "harmless" Clinton Wall Street speech in the media so that the issue would go away.  Or her plans to bomb Iran, despite the fact that even Lloyd Blankfein thinks that occupations never work.  Or…

Because until she and her campaign started throwing around the smut, all they had to respond on those issues was "Eeek! Russia!" and she's in (theoretically) the wrong party for such Red-baiting to have much success.  

Not that today's "Democratic" party bears any resemblance to the one she and Bill and Al From and all their loathsome DLC pals helped destroy, it's true.

(RIP, Herb.  Miss you.)

I prefer Will Rogers -- "I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat."

She has my vote.   We have to choose one or the other.  I wish with all my heart that my choice was Bernie, but it's not, so Hillary it is.  And Bernie is full-throttle on the trail doing everything in his power to help her win.  That is all I need to know.  Everything else can be litigated once this interminable campaign is finally over.

[film noire]

1 hour ago, DAngelus said:

Oh, really?  And what was so inaccurate, pray tell?  

Let’s start with one inaccuracy, a big one, imo: You linked to Wiki, which says: “In 1978 and 1979, lawyer and First Lady of Arkansas Hillary Rodham engaged in a series of trades of cattle futures contracts. Her initial $1,000 investment had generated nearly $100,000 when she stopped trading after ten months.”

You said: Clinton made $100,000 in a year on $1000 investment in cattle futures.

Here's the actual data, as reported in the Seattle Times, 1994:

"WASHINGTON - The disclosure that Hillary Rodham Clinton parlayed $1,000 into nearly $100,000 through highly speculative commodities trading may create political embarrassment for the Clintons, who have sharply criticized a national culture of greed during the Reagan and Bush years in the White House.

But the information released yesterday by the White House covering investments in 1978 and 1979 also appears to support the couple's contention that they had done nothing illegal or unethical in the trades.....Mrs. Clinton initially invested $1,000 in cash on Oct. 1, 1978, in an account at the Springdale, Ark., office of the Ray E. Friedman & Co. commodities brokerage of Chicago. By Oct. 12, she made $5,300 and reinvested the $6,300 in several transactions. In a series of trades through the rest of 1978, she accumulated profits of $49,069, offset by losses of $22,548. The White House calculated her net gain at $26,521 in 1978.

In 1979, Mrs. Clinton continued trading in this account with profits of about $109,600, offset by losses of about $36,600. Her net gain for 1979 was $72,996. Mrs. Clinton stopped trading in that account in July 1979 after she became pregnant with Chelsea. "She couldn't stomach it anymore," an administration official said. "It was too nerve-racking."

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19940330&slug=1902853

That's what I mean by going Scaife on the facts; it’s a lot less dazzling when the breakdown shows all the losses, over the actual (longer) time span. Add in that her trading was done during one of the greatest cattle future markets ever -- a bull's bull market -- when people were becoming millionaires overnight, and it's even less "OMG, must be something hinky there!". Add in the NY Times misreporting the story back in the day in such a big way, it created a long term sense favors had been exchanged, even when Times "corrected" the story:

"The NY Times Later Corrected Its Misleading Report. The original Times article reported that Tyson Foods had received "$9 million in government loans" during Bill Clinton's tenure as governor of Arkansas, and suggested that the loans were somehow linked to commodities investment advice Hillary Clinton received from one of Tyson's top lawyers. The following month, the Times issued a correction, noting that Tyson had not received $9 million in state loans:

The lengthy article suggested that Tyson Foods may have been the beneficiary of these purported "state actions" because a top lawyer for the company had reportedly advised Hillary Clinton on lucrative investments. On April 20, 1994, the paper issued a correction asserting that the article "misstated benefits that the Tyson Foods company received from the state of Arkansas" and noting that "Tyson did not receive $9 million in loans from the state." [Media Matters, 5/30/07]"

http://mediamatters.org/research/2013/07/30/fox-turns-to-20-year-old-debunked-conspiracy-th/195136

Edited October 24, 2016 by film noire

[DAngelus]

7 minutes ago, 33kaitykaity said:

She has my vote.   We have to choose one or the other.

The hell we do.  One vote is NEVER the difference.  And I'm in a "solid" state, as I've always been.  (Not always the same one.)  I've never been "in play" in my lifetime, except barring 1988, when it wouldn't have made a difference anyways.  (Forgotten fact:  various networks wrongly called New York, Illinois AND California for Dukakis at various points in the evening.  But he would have lost even if he'd taken all three of those big prizes. Myself, I was so busy watching the early returns I didn't make it to the polls in time.  Ah, irony.)

No, I am completely free to vote my conscience, as everyone should always do, IMO.  I think I once ranked my preferences thusly:

1)  Jill Stein, because getting her to 5% would actually do some practical good, help break up the duopoly where we pretend there's any substantive difference between the two parties.

2) Emidio "Mimi" Solystik or one of the other minor Socialist candidates, as the purest expression of my views.

3) Sanders or some other whimsical write-in.  But it wouldn't be counted anyhow, and Sanders betrayed so many of his supporters as I predicted he would when he pre-emptively endorsed Clinton in August 2015, before the campaign had even begun.  Another "Sheepdog" candidate, just there to get the lefties excited and then drag them into the pen for the general election.  "Oh, you don't want the Scary Scary Republican™ to Win!  Let's unite behind this year's Corporate Shill! He's (sort of) black/she's a woman, doesn't that make you feel better? Incremental progress, baby! Non-change you'd have to be stupid to believe in!"

4) Just stay home.  No blood on my hands, this time.  (As opposed to when I fell for Obama in '08, because I even though I knew his calculated copy-catting of Clinton's positions in the primaries marked him as bad news, I believed the "events will drag him to the left" nonsense.  I even raised [quite a bit of] money for him.  Which turned out to make me an accessory to murder and war crimes.  Not particularly good for the old psyche.)

5) Trump, just to have the satisfaction of (metaphorically) laughing in Clinton's face if the impossible happens.  I would so enjoy her being thwarted in Her Royal Coronation yet again.  Plus it might be darkly humorous to lose my Republican "virginity" (I've never voted for any Republican for any office…and the "1980s moderate Republicans" that Obama likes to classify himself as at least merited consideration) by voting for the one who's making everyone clutch their pearls.  Probably won't happen, but it does appeal to my morbid side.

6) Johnson, if somebody puts a gun to my head and insists on it.

7) Letting myself be shot in the head, if the person with the gun wants me to vote Clinton.

8/Never) Clinton.  One Clinton vote (Bill in '92…no, I don't know WHAT I was thinking…maybe I was drunk?) is enough for a million lifetimes.

But JMO.