If the New Right parties had any legitimate stance or position on any issue or policy, they wouldn't need to use paid comments, paid media, paid science, paid supporters, psychological manipulation, and voting restrictions just to barely squeak out a win. And if they had any honor, ethics or moral standards of any kind, each time they barely win with 50.1% of allowed, accepted votes, they wouldn't immediately move to eliminate or block or defund anything ever supported by anyone who doesn't support them (which is actually only about 30% of the entire population), or even their own positions from just a few years ago.
11
It's naive to think Hillary's political opponents won't pound her weaknesses, but the fact that their attacks are being forwarded on with acclaim as opposed to being immediately discounted as basisless and scurrilous suggests that the core of the problem lies with Hillary. You can't polish a sneaker!
5
The Republicans are trying to fabricate opposition to Hillary similar to what Mitt Romney faced in the last presidential election. Only difference is that Romney's opposition was real. Hillary's task will be the same as every Democrat's has been for a couple of decades: expose the lies for what they are and push the truth into public view. And there's no guarantee that she'll succeed. Look at the swiftboating against Kerry. For me personally, I know from Hillary's record that she's a defender of the middle class and poor. That's the most important thing to me.
9
Nixon's dirty tricks, for the 21st century. Or swiftboating, again.
So I understand why regular people would be taken in.
What is the New York Times's and the rest of the mainstream media's excuse? Seriously?
Didn't a conservative author just wag your chains about his shoddy Clinton Foundation book, that he has had to repeatedly issue corrections for?
Look in the mirror, New York Times, please. PLEASE. Some of us remember this paper's prior shenanigans against the Clintons and Al Gore.
So I understand why regular people would be taken in.
What is the New York Times's and the rest of the mainstream media's excuse? Seriously?
Didn't a conservative author just wag your chains about his shoddy Clinton Foundation book, that he has had to repeatedly issue corrections for?
Look in the mirror, New York Times, please. PLEASE. Some of us remember this paper's prior shenanigans against the Clintons and Al Gore.
7
This tactic is further evidence that the right wing has run out of ideas, as if they ever had any to start with. The desperation is palpable. They know they are looking down the barrel of another 8 years of a Democrat in the White House. They are incapable of offering a platform that will appeal to a majority, so they have no choice but to try to split the Democrats. But it will not work. NOBODY will choose the Republican nominee over the Democratic nominee because the Democrat is not progressive enough. And the GOP knows it. But it's all they've got.
8
The concept of "free and fair elections"has gone by the wayside.
The candidate who personifies disregard for election laws hasn't yet formally announced his candidacy.
The candidate who personifies disregard for election laws hasn't yet formally announced his candidacy.
1
Democrats will remember 2000 and Florida and Ralph Nader and "hanging chads" ... for a long, long time.
Democrats will remember GWB ditto ... hey Republicans ... remember him? You don't want to, do you?
Democrats understand that losing the presidency would be a disaster given the gerrymandered Republican control of the house.
The Republican dream is to create another Nader.
It isn't going to happen.
Democrats will remember GWB ditto ... hey Republicans ... remember him? You don't want to, do you?
Democrats understand that losing the presidency would be a disaster given the gerrymandered Republican control of the house.
The Republican dream is to create another Nader.
It isn't going to happen.
3
What is Hillary Clinton's claim to fame in the eyes of the Democrats? What has she really accomplished? As a Senator would she compare favorably with Chuck Schumer in terms of the number of laws she sponsored or cosponsored. How has the state of the cold war, and the Middle East changed during her service? How do her accomplishments as Secretary of State compare to Henry Kissinger?
John
John
3
This could also be called, "The Hillary machine starts to guilt the liberals who dislike her pro war, pro corporate agenda into getting in line."
Sanders 2016
Sanders 2016
13
Even though I'm not a fan of Clinton I'm voting for her simply because I know it will destroy what's left of the right wing's sanity.
8
you have to laugh that this would offend the left. it amounts to using the left's own concerns about her as a person and candidate, but since it's their "enemy" saying it, it somehow turns into an outrageous attack. it's at the heart of why she's vulnerable in the general in fact, because the swing vote knows that even her most fervent supporter doesn't believe half of what they say on her behalf.
8
It just may work. I was once a supporter and now, the only way I'd vote for her is if she ran against a Republican.
16
A brief review of these comments suggests that your "average bear" citizen "likes" no one currently running for president. The comments also suggest that any number of the commentators have had enough of the failed, corrupt, bankrupt, and dead system of the democratic republic of American government. It is a long way until election day, 2016. What is needed is to take the bull by the horns and stop the present process dead in its tracks. The present American system is not an unstoppable or inevitable system. Almost 1,000 people have written right here, that they don't approve of our present system of government. We are the citizens, we are the people and we have the right to change the manner of our government at any moment. We must exercise this right immediately. ". . .it is the right of the people to alter or abolish. . . ." -- Constitution of the United States of America
6
Correction in my attribution: It is a quote from the Declaration of Independence
3
@Reggie: "... It is a quote from the Declaration of Independence"
You misquoted the Declaration and quoted it out of context[1], but, more importantly, the Declaration has no legal significance, so you are better off citing the US Constitution. In particular, see Article V, which sets out the rules for amending the US Constitution.[2]
There are numerous books on the US Constitution. See, for example, the books by Akhil Reed Amar.
[1] http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html
[2] http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
You misquoted the Declaration and quoted it out of context[1], but, more importantly, the Declaration has no legal significance, so you are better off citing the US Constitution. In particular, see Article V, which sets out the rules for amending the US Constitution.[2]
There are numerous books on the US Constitution. See, for example, the books by Akhil Reed Amar.
[1] http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html
[2] http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
Nobody can take away the liberal’s enthusiasm for the ‘Democratic agenda’ no matter who runs, and where is the enthusiasm for the GOP’s status-quo, anyway? What Democrats need is enthusiasm for the progressive agenda; such as with the Minimum Wage increase.
The Obama Administration ‘is’ taking some risk, politically and economically, in expecting smaller corporations and mid-size businesses to afford both a Minimum Wage increase and a health care cost increase at the same time, when requiring businesses with 50 or more employees to offer health care with the Employer Mandate.
Therefore, is the proposed $15 dollar an hour Minimum wage by Senator Bernie Sanders too much for all sizes of business to be able to afford? The larger corporations most definitely could afford it; so why not consider tri-level amounts of Minimum Wage which all sizes of businesses can afford? The nation could guide some of the money at the corporate top back down through the private sector and through the local, regional and nationwide business sector, as well.
Could small businesses pay $10 dollars an hour; mid-size businesses pay $12.50 and corporations pay $15 dollars an hour with their business size based on their tax records from the year before? Would it be tolerably fair for the government to require a receptionist at a small-business to make a minimum of $10 an hour, while a receptionist with the same experience at a corporation make a minimum of $15 an hour?
The Obama Administration ‘is’ taking some risk, politically and economically, in expecting smaller corporations and mid-size businesses to afford both a Minimum Wage increase and a health care cost increase at the same time, when requiring businesses with 50 or more employees to offer health care with the Employer Mandate.
Therefore, is the proposed $15 dollar an hour Minimum wage by Senator Bernie Sanders too much for all sizes of business to be able to afford? The larger corporations most definitely could afford it; so why not consider tri-level amounts of Minimum Wage which all sizes of businesses can afford? The nation could guide some of the money at the corporate top back down through the private sector and through the local, regional and nationwide business sector, as well.
Could small businesses pay $10 dollars an hour; mid-size businesses pay $12.50 and corporations pay $15 dollars an hour with their business size based on their tax records from the year before? Would it be tolerably fair for the government to require a receptionist at a small-business to make a minimum of $10 an hour, while a receptionist with the same experience at a corporation make a minimum of $15 an hour?
2
Hillary needs no help from GOP to turn the left against her. She is a republican, conservative and part of the 1%. If the dems cant see this there is no hope for them.
6
Maybe there is no hope for a Republican Congress, let alone a Republican Administration, when their leadership do not have any new ideas that the ‘whole’ nation could win on with any sort of compromise, and only keeps pushing their same ideas where half the nation always loses. (I mean, are Democrats missing the public enthusiasm from the Republican far right ‘never’ wanting their leaders to close any corporate loopholes while their pundits take stabs at Democratic Candidates having ’any’ connections with the 2%, candidates who are entitled to corporate contributions, too?)
2
The Democratic Party needs to do a better job of exposing these kinds of tactics constantly employed by right-leaning super pacs, cable networks, and strategists. This responsibility rests with Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who has proven time and time again she is not up to the task. It's past time for the Democratic party to appoint a need a new chair of the DNC.
3
Twitter is today’s junkie fix for gossip, innuendo and speculation. Anything can go viral if the link bait is juicy enough. It’s just another tool to disseminate information.
Just as kids were told not to play with fire, readers on these social networks should verify and question the source and legitimacy of these posts.
Progressives by nature don’t succumb to gossip or speculation. They are savvy enough to cross check and verify spurious claims.
Unfortunately, many people are lazy or all too willing to believe anything they say or hear which is why people constantly vote against their best interests. Politicians speak with forked tongues so pinning them down is inherently difficult.
If Mr. McKibben was smart, he should have targeted Independents. Democrats (Progressives) will coalesce in the end, but it’s always the fuzzy center that’s up for grabs…
Just as kids were told not to play with fire, readers on these social networks should verify and question the source and legitimacy of these posts.
Progressives by nature don’t succumb to gossip or speculation. They are savvy enough to cross check and verify spurious claims.
Unfortunately, many people are lazy or all too willing to believe anything they say or hear which is why people constantly vote against their best interests. Politicians speak with forked tongues so pinning them down is inherently difficult.
If Mr. McKibben was smart, he should have targeted Independents. Democrats (Progressives) will coalesce in the end, but it’s always the fuzzy center that’s up for grabs…
1
"Progressives by nature don’t succumb to gossip or speculation. They are savvy enough to cross check and verify spurious claims."
Junk Science, Pop Psychology, Gaia Religion, Anthropomorphization, and Dietary Hysteria are the very definition of spurious, they are also the domain of the Progressive.
Junk Science, Pop Psychology, Gaia Religion, Anthropomorphization, and Dietary Hysteria are the very definition of spurious, they are also the domain of the Progressive.
5
Many of us on "the left" are true conservatives. We agree with the founders of our democratic republic that there should not be an inherited aristocracy of wealth and power; that all power should reside in the people; that corporations should be granted only limited, restrictive charters and not take onto themselves any of the rights of free citizens ...
We also applaud the likelihood that our candidates are expected to debate and dispute the issues, not simply as an "I believe v. you believe" argument, but as a way to convince voters--and perhaps to refine their own views as well. That seems to be happening with Mrs. Clinton as she hears Sen. Warren and Sen. Sanders as well as others, and if those disagreements make the eventual winner of the nomination a better candidate for the general election, we all benefit. There could be no greater contrast than with the crowd on the right, each pandering to prove he or she is the farthest to the right of all--on economics, women's rights, religion, etc. depending on the day's audience.
What the GOP loathes about liberals is that we actually engage in debating ideas rather than kowtowing to the ideology of our "beloved leader" or "great leader" of the moment. Democrats--true 1st-Amendment patriots--don't forget how anyone who disagreed with Dubya and his Cheney-cabal was dubbed a traitor; Republicans can't forgive that most Democrats who disagree with Obama or Bill Clinton are still free to try to change those presidents' minds.
We also applaud the likelihood that our candidates are expected to debate and dispute the issues, not simply as an "I believe v. you believe" argument, but as a way to convince voters--and perhaps to refine their own views as well. That seems to be happening with Mrs. Clinton as she hears Sen. Warren and Sen. Sanders as well as others, and if those disagreements make the eventual winner of the nomination a better candidate for the general election, we all benefit. There could be no greater contrast than with the crowd on the right, each pandering to prove he or she is the farthest to the right of all--on economics, women's rights, religion, etc. depending on the day's audience.
What the GOP loathes about liberals is that we actually engage in debating ideas rather than kowtowing to the ideology of our "beloved leader" or "great leader" of the moment. Democrats--true 1st-Amendment patriots--don't forget how anyone who disagreed with Dubya and his Cheney-cabal was dubbed a traitor; Republicans can't forgive that most Democrats who disagree with Obama or Bill Clinton are still free to try to change those presidents' minds.
10
When you look at the intellectual giants vying for the Republican nomination, it would seem that the Democrats would have more to benefit from such underhand tactics. But that assumes that the Democrats have the gumption to turn them to their advantage, and that is a reach.
I have the gumption. How about certain conservatives saying Hillary Clinton is for Wall Street, inferring that their leaders are not for the larger of corporations, while Democratic leaders are campaigning to close corporate loopholes so that smaller businesses on Main Street and Business Avenue, have a chance to compete, too?
2
Yet another piece of evidence showing that the Republics know that they cannot win on the issues. They have to cheat, lie, misrepresent at every turn.
Cui bono? Who benefits? It's sure not the working class or middle class. If they benefit it is only incidental to the goals of the 1%.
Cui bono? Who benefits? It's sure not the working class or middle class. If they benefit it is only incidental to the goals of the 1%.
9
Right now we are stuck with the Constitution, the Supreme Court, the U.S. Two-Party system and the gerrymandered congressional districts which have left us with a fractured politics in the House of Representatives. Absent huge changes in the above, I and many on the left are hugely grateful for people like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders in the Senate, with, hopefully Russ Feingold returning in a couple years. I hope they stay there and keep fighting the good fight.
Hillary is not perfect but she is a far saner choice than a couple dozen R candidates and counting.
The US is falling behind in education, healthcare, infrastructure, protection for the environment, food-safety, voter protection, and a sense of community.
I hope we can get ourselves out of this hole we've dug ourselves into. But this thread, frankly, is a waste and should be shut down!
Hillary is not perfect but she is a far saner choice than a couple dozen R candidates and counting.
The US is falling behind in education, healthcare, infrastructure, protection for the environment, food-safety, voter protection, and a sense of community.
I hope we can get ourselves out of this hole we've dug ourselves into. But this thread, frankly, is a waste and should be shut down!
5
I think there is an underestimation of the effectiveness of propaganda. In the US, in ancient times, there was broad public support for the Vietnam War before it reversed. (Add in the phony Tonkin Gulf incident. What allowed that to pass muster?)
More recently, there was broad support for Iraq II under clearly dubious circumstances not all of which only came out later. Now, even my cat thinks that invasion was illegal, at least under international law.
Americans have demonstrated the capacity and interest for change and innovation time and time again. So, speaking from la la land for the moment, here's to an eventual political system that allows a vote for "none of the above" causing those $billions to be wasted and forcing a new election possibly with more palatable candidates put forth by grumpy fat cats. After getting a major haircut, they would necessarily seek to avoid the next treatment of getting skinned.
More recently, there was broad support for Iraq II under clearly dubious circumstances not all of which only came out later. Now, even my cat thinks that invasion was illegal, at least under international law.
Americans have demonstrated the capacity and interest for change and innovation time and time again. So, speaking from la la land for the moment, here's to an eventual political system that allows a vote for "none of the above" causing those $billions to be wasted and forcing a new election possibly with more palatable candidates put forth by grumpy fat cats. After getting a major haircut, they would necessarily seek to avoid the next treatment of getting skinned.
1
If Republicans want to publicize Hillary Clinton's long and not-always-flattering record, whose fault is that?
3
Karl Rove? Sounds like his M.O.
1
Hillary is a crooked unscrupulous centrist whose presidential ambitiions should be eroded out of existence. The Republicans are of the same stripe and are falling all over themselves to achieve what? We need Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren in the Oval Office!
5
Republican motto (from a 1980 sci fi novel):
"Oderint Dum Meturant" - Let them hate so long as they fear.
"Oderint Dum Meturant" - Let them hate so long as they fear.
5
Hypocrisy is hypocrisy. Right, left or in between. To parse who is pointing that out is disingenuous at best.
If the Democrats can't bring themselves to be the ones who expose the utter fatuousness & dishonesty of the Clinton campaign, then they have completely ceded whatever moral high ground they had left to stand on.
If the Democrats can't bring themselves to be the ones who expose the utter fatuousness & dishonesty of the Clinton campaign, then they have completely ceded whatever moral high ground they had left to stand on.
1
'Expose'?
You can't believe anything the Republicans have manufactured-----------except their desire to run for office.
You can't believe anything the Republicans have manufactured-----------except their desire to run for office.
2
I don't know where Nadar comes into this, while he did embaress the vehicle community to put in seat belts his influence has long gone unnoticed. The local and state police will tell you seatbelts are not the problem - distracted drivers talking on their smart phones are.
My how we move forward.
My how we move forward.
"[Bill Clinton] agreed, along with Chuck Schumer, that managers of Hedge funds would be taxed at the lower cap gains tax rate."
I'm amazed at how widespread the misunderstanding is on the tax treatment of hedge fund managers' "carried interest." It's taxed at the same rate that would apply to investors in the hedge fund. If it's ordinary income, it gets taxed at ordinary income rates. If it's short term gain, it's taxed at short term capital gains rates (which are the same as ordinary income rates). If it's long term gain, it's taxed at long-term capital gains rates.
If a hedge fund manager manages a fund that generates only ordinary income or short-term gains, he gets no tax break at all. Only if he manages a fund that generates long-term gains does he get a break.
That said, I oppose even the favorable tax treatment on long-term capital gains for hedge fund managers. They get that favorable treatment in exchange for performing services. If the hedge fund simply hired them as employees and paid them a salary, they'd pay ordinary income rates on that salary, even if the hedge fund generated nothing but long term capital gains. It shouldn't be different for other hedge fund managers who aren't hired as employees. They're all performing services, and they all should be taxed as service providers.
I'm amazed at how widespread the misunderstanding is on the tax treatment of hedge fund managers' "carried interest." It's taxed at the same rate that would apply to investors in the hedge fund. If it's ordinary income, it gets taxed at ordinary income rates. If it's short term gain, it's taxed at short term capital gains rates (which are the same as ordinary income rates). If it's long term gain, it's taxed at long-term capital gains rates.
If a hedge fund manager manages a fund that generates only ordinary income or short-term gains, he gets no tax break at all. Only if he manages a fund that generates long-term gains does he get a break.
That said, I oppose even the favorable tax treatment on long-term capital gains for hedge fund managers. They get that favorable treatment in exchange for performing services. If the hedge fund simply hired them as employees and paid them a salary, they'd pay ordinary income rates on that salary, even if the hedge fund generated nothing but long term capital gains. It shouldn't be different for other hedge fund managers who aren't hired as employees. They're all performing services, and they all should be taxed as service providers.
1
The Republican candidates are all running against Ms. Clinton. That is their entire message in this pre-primary period. They do this in a number of ways--the principal way being to stupidly attack President Obama who isn't running again. Somehow they hope that voters will see Hilary as a surrogate for President Obama. This is certainly the dumbest kind of rhetoric. These twitter attacks are cheap and easy, so I suppose that is why Republican strategists think: "why not do it?" The plan will backfire. The more Ms. Clinton is attacked, the more her supporters, angered at the lies, will redouble their efforts to elect her.
The GOP never learns, and it never runs out of dumb ideas.
The GOP never learns, and it never runs out of dumb ideas.
12
In the end, the millionaire I vote for will be the one who is pro-choice, at least pays lip service to the poor, and may try and get us out of perpetual war. Do I want Bernie or Elizabeth? Sure. But I want sanity more.
9
Everyone already knows everything there is to know about Hillary. The only people who have to make up their mind about anything are the ones who vote in Democratic primaries, and the Republicans aren't going to affect those.
The Republicans aren't fielding anyone who would tempt a centrist Democrat away from Hillary, and who else are they hoping to woo?
It sickens me that no one with a realistic chance of beating Hillary for the Democratic nomination is stepping up loudly and clearly. I hope someone does before all the PAC money is spoken for.
But I was already made a fool of twice, voting my hopes and dreams and faith in Americas future. Hillary has nothing to offer me but a queasy stomach, and Im not going to retch my way to the voting booth.
The Republicans aren't fielding anyone who would tempt a centrist Democrat away from Hillary, and who else are they hoping to woo?
It sickens me that no one with a realistic chance of beating Hillary for the Democratic nomination is stepping up loudly and clearly. I hope someone does before all the PAC money is spoken for.
But I was already made a fool of twice, voting my hopes and dreams and faith in Americas future. Hillary has nothing to offer me but a queasy stomach, and Im not going to retch my way to the voting booth.
1
You think Romney would have been an improvement on Obama? Think again.
3
This article shows why it is so tough to explain American politics outside of America. A self-avowed right-wing nut attacks a candidate, Hillary Clinton, who agrees with him on most things (market fundamentalism at home to endless war abroad) from the "Left" (in part by, ironically, exposing how much money is involved in modern political campaigning (!)), in order to promote another candidate, probably Jeb Bush, who has pretty much the same views, with ill-advised tax-cuts thrown in. Where to begin?
One might find some of H. Clinton's policies slightly less objectionable than those of others in the current Republican field (probably her "evolving" attitude to SSM), but let's not dignify the debate between her and (most likely) Jeb Bush with terms like "Right" and "Left". It will not even be between two shades of "pragmatists". The policies of the last forty years have left America the most unequal, socially immobile society in her history, burdened with a global empire that is at best unmanageable and unaffordable and always bloody at the edges. Neither candidate will be keen to change either fact. Both parties will also continue to be comfortable with voter participation rates that would imperil the legitimacy of nearly any other representative government, as this is the environment most sensitive to such subtle voter-manipulation tactics. This is the politics of Monday Night Football -- a my side-your side argument divorced from any interest in positive social change.
One might find some of H. Clinton's policies slightly less objectionable than those of others in the current Republican field (probably her "evolving" attitude to SSM), but let's not dignify the debate between her and (most likely) Jeb Bush with terms like "Right" and "Left". It will not even be between two shades of "pragmatists". The policies of the last forty years have left America the most unequal, socially immobile society in her history, burdened with a global empire that is at best unmanageable and unaffordable and always bloody at the edges. Neither candidate will be keen to change either fact. Both parties will also continue to be comfortable with voter participation rates that would imperil the legitimacy of nearly any other representative government, as this is the environment most sensitive to such subtle voter-manipulation tactics. This is the politics of Monday Night Football -- a my side-your side argument divorced from any interest in positive social change.
5
The only people that the Republican can dupe will be those that aren't bright enough to see through their tricks. Ultimately, evolution will dictate by survival of the fittest those who ascend to become full-fledged Democrats leaving the others behind to join the Republican party.
4
Right wing groups are pointing out Hillary's huge ties to corporate and conservative money-givers. And because the right is the source, that means it should be ignored by Democrats? If it is true, then it is true and the people highlighting it don't matter. She did it, then it is fair game. You gets what you pay for.
And btw, referring to Hillary Clinton as "leftist" or "left wing" is truly bizarre.
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
And btw, referring to Hillary Clinton as "leftist" or "left wing" is truly bizarre.
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
6
"[A Democrat who is] Republican-lite does not do well in the general election."
Have you perhaps lived on another planet for the past 50 years or so? Compare, say, Bill Clinton to George McGovern, or to Walter Mondale. Of course "Republican-lite" Democrats do well -- it's called "tacking to the center," and every Democratic candidate tries to do it. So do Republican candidates, though obviously they start from the opposite direction. Democrats thought of as "too liberal" (McGovern, Mondale) get crushed; Republicans thought of as "too conservative" (Goldwater) get crushed.
Have you perhaps lived on another planet for the past 50 years or so? Compare, say, Bill Clinton to George McGovern, or to Walter Mondale. Of course "Republican-lite" Democrats do well -- it's called "tacking to the center," and every Democratic candidate tries to do it. So do Republican candidates, though obviously they start from the opposite direction. Democrats thought of as "too liberal" (McGovern, Mondale) get crushed; Republicans thought of as "too conservative" (Goldwater) get crushed.
4
"...Joe Biden could only win an uncontested election..."
I'm not so sure he could win even then.
I'm not so sure he could win even then.
Last time we voted for Ralph Nadar. Never again! My money's on the only donkey that can get across the finish line.
38
With her baggage, Hillary is toast. It is Fiorina who will stand up to all, provide jobs and try to balance our monumental budget deficit.
5
Just like she did at HP. Oh, wait....
2
Right. A failed CEO who has never held public office. Her foreign policy experience is her last trip to the Riviera. Wishful thinking if anyone can see her as the next leader of the free world.
3
No Tom, Dick and Harry please!!!
This strategy of voting for the lesser-of-two-evils (Hillary) shows exactly how Republicans have been leading Democratic voters by the nose to the right for 20 years now. Because the more the GOP shift right the more liberals are willing to overcome their misgivings and vote for right-leaning candidates like Hillary just to keep the Republicans out.
Well, I'm not playing that game anymore. There is nothing the GOP has been tweeting or blogging to discredit her among liberals that isn't common knowledge among well-informed voters. Her deficiencies to lefties like me are overwhelming and the Democrats had better come up with a better candidate if they want my vote.
Well, I'm not playing that game anymore. There is nothing the GOP has been tweeting or blogging to discredit her among liberals that isn't common knowledge among well-informed voters. Her deficiencies to lefties like me are overwhelming and the Democrats had better come up with a better candidate if they want my vote.
3
So stay home on election day in November, 2016. By doing so, you will help ensure the election of a Republican to national office.
What is the point of your protest? If you don't vote, you lose your right to object to the results.
This is the equivalent of stamping your feet and refusing to eat your broccoli. Only with much more dire results.
What is the point of your protest? If you don't vote, you lose your right to object to the results.
This is the equivalent of stamping your feet and refusing to eat your broccoli. Only with much more dire results.
Don't be blinded by the smoke and mirror tactics of the GOP. They have an agenda.
Driving force behind the GOP (Government Operatives for Pay)
The Koch brothers didn't just inherit their father's fortune. They also inherited his politics. In 1958, Fred Koch was a founding member of the John Birch Society, the right-wing extremist group that opposed civil rights and claimed that both the Democratic and Republican Parties were infiltrated by the Communist Party. In his 1960 self-published book, A Business Man Looks at Communism, Fred Koch wrote that "The colored man looms large in the Communist plan to take over America," and that welfare was a secret plot to attract rural blacks and Puerto Ricans to Eastern cities to vote for Communist causes and "getting a vicious race war started." The John Birch Society helped fuel a wave of hysteria against unions, civil rights groups, intellectuals, public schools, liberal clergy and others whom they considered a threat to America.
Following in their father's footsteps, Charles and David Koch have for three decades been by far the biggest funders of right-wing politicians, causes, and organizations. Their political activities are primarily dedicated to eliminating government regulation of business and lowering taxes on the rich.
Essentially, the G"OPP" are being paid by Koch Brothers to work out their father’s war on communism. If you look at it, this is the Republicant platform.
Driving force behind the GOP (Government Operatives for Pay)
The Koch brothers didn't just inherit their father's fortune. They also inherited his politics. In 1958, Fred Koch was a founding member of the John Birch Society, the right-wing extremist group that opposed civil rights and claimed that both the Democratic and Republican Parties were infiltrated by the Communist Party. In his 1960 self-published book, A Business Man Looks at Communism, Fred Koch wrote that "The colored man looms large in the Communist plan to take over America," and that welfare was a secret plot to attract rural blacks and Puerto Ricans to Eastern cities to vote for Communist causes and "getting a vicious race war started." The John Birch Society helped fuel a wave of hysteria against unions, civil rights groups, intellectuals, public schools, liberal clergy and others whom they considered a threat to America.
Following in their father's footsteps, Charles and David Koch have for three decades been by far the biggest funders of right-wing politicians, causes, and organizations. Their political activities are primarily dedicated to eliminating government regulation of business and lowering taxes on the rich.
Essentially, the G"OPP" are being paid by Koch Brothers to work out their father’s war on communism. If you look at it, this is the Republicant platform.
13
Surprising how many don't know this is incorrect:
"Are you kidding. She is financed heavily by Goldman Sachs and Citigroup to name two."
Goldman Sachs doesn't finance Hillary, or any other candidate. Nor does Citigroup. Each says that its employees are free to donate their own money to whatever candidates they want to donate to, or to not donate any money to anyone. Reports that "Goldman Sachs donated $X to Candidate ABC" are technically all incorrect. What that really means is that GS employees donated their own money to Candidate ABC.
This was true before Citizens United. It's true today. It probably will be true tomorrow, since I can't even imagine Goldman Sachs or Citigroup would ever announce: "We're going to donate corporate money to Candidate ABC."
"Are you kidding. She is financed heavily by Goldman Sachs and Citigroup to name two."
Goldman Sachs doesn't finance Hillary, or any other candidate. Nor does Citigroup. Each says that its employees are free to donate their own money to whatever candidates they want to donate to, or to not donate any money to anyone. Reports that "Goldman Sachs donated $X to Candidate ABC" are technically all incorrect. What that really means is that GS employees donated their own money to Candidate ABC.
This was true before Citizens United. It's true today. It probably will be true tomorrow, since I can't even imagine Goldman Sachs or Citigroup would ever announce: "We're going to donate corporate money to Candidate ABC."
3
This article will make the Hillary gang very happy. It is trying to tell liberals (And many readers of the Times are liberals) that if they support Sanders they are dupes for Republicans.
However the Left has genuine disputes with Hillary and genuine suspicions. This is not stylistic, this is not trivial, this is central to the issue of income inequality.
1) She won't say where she stands on the TPP. She had supported it in the past but apparently wants to conceal her support of same to attract liberals who decry the jobs-destroying measure. This is EXACTLY how Bill Clinton handled Nafta in the 1992 campaign. He said he couldn't make a judgment until he saw the terms of the agreement which he was already aware of. (And after his election, he supported Nafta more than anything else) Hillary also lamely said that she can't judge the deal because she is unaware of same. Lies come as naturally to her as poison comes from a rattle snake's bite.
2) She is allied with Bill on all political matters, and he is responsible for accelerating the skewing of incomes, in favor of the super rich, started by Ronald Reagan:
a) He presided over the repeal of Glass-Steagal
b) He decided that derivatives would not be regulated; the seeds of the crash of 2008.
c) He agreed, along with Chuck Schumer, that managers of Hedge funds would be taxed at the lower cap gains tax rate.
3) Follow the Money. Big money paid for her fair and square.
However the Left has genuine disputes with Hillary and genuine suspicions. This is not stylistic, this is not trivial, this is central to the issue of income inequality.
1) She won't say where she stands on the TPP. She had supported it in the past but apparently wants to conceal her support of same to attract liberals who decry the jobs-destroying measure. This is EXACTLY how Bill Clinton handled Nafta in the 1992 campaign. He said he couldn't make a judgment until he saw the terms of the agreement which he was already aware of. (And after his election, he supported Nafta more than anything else) Hillary also lamely said that she can't judge the deal because she is unaware of same. Lies come as naturally to her as poison comes from a rattle snake's bite.
2) She is allied with Bill on all political matters, and he is responsible for accelerating the skewing of incomes, in favor of the super rich, started by Ronald Reagan:
a) He presided over the repeal of Glass-Steagal
b) He decided that derivatives would not be regulated; the seeds of the crash of 2008.
c) He agreed, along with Chuck Schumer, that managers of Hedge funds would be taxed at the lower cap gains tax rate.
3) Follow the Money. Big money paid for her fair and square.
4
And then there is always over thinking a situation. You have another year before the major election is coming. Most of the federal money is getting funneled toward election hopefuls while trains miss a turn.
Again read Vienna 1814. I guess it was just God's choice you were not on it. Give it time.
Again read Vienna 1814. I guess it was just God's choice you were not on it. Give it time.
1
Another Republican operative. No surprises there.
1
Anybody who is truly progressive does not need right wing groups to dissuade them from supporting Hillary. We never had any intention of voting for a woman who supported for so long Bushes invasion of Iraq.
However, if these groups help delusional Democrats realize what a poor choice she is, they are doing Democrats a tremendous favor. It is just possible they will help the Democratic Party select a candidate who is progressive and quite able of winning the presidency. To think that any of the clowns in the GOP has any chance at all to win in a presidential election is truly resorting to fantasy.
However, if these groups help delusional Democrats realize what a poor choice she is, they are doing Democrats a tremendous favor. It is just possible they will help the Democratic Party select a candidate who is progressive and quite able of winning the presidency. To think that any of the clowns in the GOP has any chance at all to win in a presidential election is truly resorting to fantasy.
3
The Republicans have a two pronged approach; energize their base with attack adds and start rumors of corruption; and, get as many as possible right wing candidates in the mix, all of which have a substantial following, and hope that the winner of the primary can take all. Those that remain loyal to Hillary will be met with the impact of redistricting, voter suppression and false hopes. Republicans are banking on the fact that see their vote as not worth much, and won't bother voting, or trying to vote. If independents (swing voters that could make a difference) see this as a circus and government as basically corrupt and unfixable, they will stay home and the Republicans will win. So the name of the game is to create an atmosphere of smoke and mirrors, like Bush did in 2000
5
I would love to see Elizabeth Warren run and I would support Bernie Sanders, but if Hillary is the Democratic candidate for president, she will have my vote. I suspect most others on the "left" will vote for her as well. While I am not thrilled with the baggage Hillary Clinton brings with her, there is not a suitcase big enough to hold the problems any or all of the GOP candidates represent. A party that disrespects women and their right to choose, opposes Obamacare, denies climate change and scientific research in general, disdains the poor, obstructs economic growth to prevent President Obama from taking any credit, and has brought a halt to the concept of loyal opposition will have no appeal to progressives.
13
People do note care who is the candidate, they vote for The Party.
That's how uninformed voters are, from all sides.
They vote for who they are told to vote for.
That's how uninformed voters are, from all sides.
They vote for who they are told to vote for.
1
t's truly amusing watching right-wingers invade the Times site to do exactly what the reporter says they do.
Some pretend they are Dems disgusted with Hillary; others claim that Hillary is just as bad as their roster of weirdos (Santorum, Carson, Huckabee — seller of snake oil); others pretend they are fervent Sanders fans … and on and on.
The same bunch show up whenever climate change is discussed, spreading Koch-brothers-generated disinformation.
Rather pathetic.
Some pretend they are Dems disgusted with Hillary; others claim that Hillary is just as bad as their roster of weirdos (Santorum, Carson, Huckabee — seller of snake oil); others pretend they are fervent Sanders fans … and on and on.
The same bunch show up whenever climate change is discussed, spreading Koch-brothers-generated disinformation.
Rather pathetic.
10
What nonsense. The left does not need any information from the right about Clinton's ties to corporate America; we already know about it. Nor do leftists need any prodding from the right to support Bernie Sanders instead of Hillary Clinton. And the left is most emphatically NOT Hillary's base; her base is establishment Democrats, and the center-right of the party that supported her husband. The only people on the left who could be considered her base are feminists, who now have a dilemma on whether to support a feminist, but otherwise centrist, woman or a feminist, leftist man. And we are quite capable of making up our minds without any information or prodding from the conservatives' PR machine. But if they want to waste their money trying to "inform" or persuade leftists to do what we are already doing, that's fine. They've got plenty of money to waste.
6
For me this election is about campaign finance reform. Since I know no Republican will be advocating campaign finance reform, I can already disregard all Republicans running for their nomination. So I'll be listening closely to what the Democratic nominees say about campaign finance reform. The candidate that convinces me that he or she will fight for serious campaign finance reform will be the candidate who gets my vote. Then, in the general election, I'll vote for Hillary and hope that enough Americans will start speaking out on this poignant issue. Nothing matters but ending corruption in our government.
2
But G., the current system is how Mr. Obama lowered the sea levels, taught polar bears to swim, and gave us all unicorn rides. There's no way he would have had a billion to run with under any reformed set-up, and you still salute the Bamster, right?
1
What? Your post makes no sense. Obama won because he was the best candidate for the job. Had we had campaign finance reform before 2008 Obama would have likely won anyway, unless a better candidate ran. He was the strongest candidate.
Yes, I realize how hard it is for some conservatives to swallow the notion that a black man is more qualified to be President than any available and willing white man. But it's true.
Two points: If we had had campaign finance reform before 2008, the chances of there being stronger candidates would have improved, as they would be improved for all future elections. That's a good thing and a major reason we need campaign finance reform. Secondly, a President Barack Obama would have better opportunities to actually do the work of the American people rather than always having to make sure powerful interests are placated. For example, in planning America's healthcare system the President and Congress could simply ask themselves, what would be the best healthcare system for the American people, rather than, how can we improve our healthcare system in a way that will be agreeable to the insurance, pharmaceutical, and healthcare industries? This is the main reason we need campaign finance reform. So that the American people can have a government that actually represents them and, therefore, makes governing decisions based on what is best for the American people. All the American people. Not just the rich ones.
Yes, I realize how hard it is for some conservatives to swallow the notion that a black man is more qualified to be President than any available and willing white man. But it's true.
Two points: If we had had campaign finance reform before 2008, the chances of there being stronger candidates would have improved, as they would be improved for all future elections. That's a good thing and a major reason we need campaign finance reform. Secondly, a President Barack Obama would have better opportunities to actually do the work of the American people rather than always having to make sure powerful interests are placated. For example, in planning America's healthcare system the President and Congress could simply ask themselves, what would be the best healthcare system for the American people, rather than, how can we improve our healthcare system in a way that will be agreeable to the insurance, pharmaceutical, and healthcare industries? This is the main reason we need campaign finance reform. So that the American people can have a government that actually represents them and, therefore, makes governing decisions based on what is best for the American people. All the American people. Not just the rich ones.
3
You definitely got through the hate training with flying colors! Your family and friends must smile every time they pass by your certificate.
Every American President had serious opposition. The Dems running Congress in 1989 swore to each other that they'd destroy Bush Sr. after they'd rolled him. And they did their best with the Dem Speaker from the Midwest at the fore.
Even Bill Clinton made deals with Gingrich as Reagan did with his Dem Senate. But you exempt the Chicago Amateur from having to demonstrate the first bit of leadership skills? Why?
I think you demonstrate the racist minimal expectations of the black man that Democrats always have going back to the Democrat Confederacy.
This is where the Democrat Jim Crow and KKK came from - a total disregard for the character and strength of black people.
I think this is why to this DAY all Democrats must STILL sign up to disarm the black family even though it is the first step in allowing the blacks of the inner city to defend themselves and their property.
................... Why are you so racist against black people?
Every American President had serious opposition. The Dems running Congress in 1989 swore to each other that they'd destroy Bush Sr. after they'd rolled him. And they did their best with the Dem Speaker from the Midwest at the fore.
Even Bill Clinton made deals with Gingrich as Reagan did with his Dem Senate. But you exempt the Chicago Amateur from having to demonstrate the first bit of leadership skills? Why?
I think you demonstrate the racist minimal expectations of the black man that Democrats always have going back to the Democrat Confederacy.
This is where the Democrat Jim Crow and KKK came from - a total disregard for the character and strength of black people.
I think this is why to this DAY all Democrats must STILL sign up to disarm the black family even though it is the first step in allowing the blacks of the inner city to defend themselves and their property.
................... Why are you so racist against black people?
Actually, what's turning people off to Mrs. Clinton are her ties to the same industries that have been running our country into the ground for quite a while now. Biotech apparently loves her support for turning us all into guinea pigs for a for-profit industry that could care less about health and humanity, but claims to care in order to increase profit and power. Until she divorces herself from the corporate scum of the planet, her support from many will be tepid at best.
4
There is no need for the Right to bait the Left. As soon as the woman who is worth between $100M and $200M tries to pull heart strings by bemoaning income inequality, she's finished.
3
That makes sense.
Someone on the left won't vote for someone who "is worth between $100M and $200M" and " tries to pull heart strings by bemoaning income inequality", but will vote for someone worth twice that much who tells the poor to suck it up and deal with it.
Yeah, that makes sense.
Someone on the left won't vote for someone who "is worth between $100M and $200M" and " tries to pull heart strings by bemoaning income inequality", but will vote for someone worth twice that much who tells the poor to suck it up and deal with it.
Yeah, that makes sense.
5
Which Republican candidate has this net worth? I really need to know.
It's convenient to forget this, but I remember it quite well:
In the weeks just before the 2000 election (Bush v. Gore), numerous articles commented on the common prediction that Bush could win the popular vote but lose the Electoral College vote (meaning Gore would win the presidency). Nearly all of those articles took the same position, which was:
"Well, many complain about our Electoral College system but, for better or for worse, that's our system, and George Bush will just have to accept that."
In fact, of course, it turned out the other way around: Gore won the US popular vote, but Bush won the Electoral College vote. I remember being amused at all the post-election articles complaining about that -- several of them written by the very same people who, just weeks earlier, had insisted that George Bush would just have to "suck it up" if that happened to him.
In the weeks just before the 2000 election (Bush v. Gore), numerous articles commented on the common prediction that Bush could win the popular vote but lose the Electoral College vote (meaning Gore would win the presidency). Nearly all of those articles took the same position, which was:
"Well, many complain about our Electoral College system but, for better or for worse, that's our system, and George Bush will just have to accept that."
In fact, of course, it turned out the other way around: Gore won the US popular vote, but Bush won the Electoral College vote. I remember being amused at all the post-election articles complaining about that -- several of them written by the very same people who, just weeks earlier, had insisted that George Bush would just have to "suck it up" if that happened to him.
2
George W. did NOT win Electoral College vote. That was fixed by the Master CIA ex-chief W. H. Bush via the King Maker James Baker. Baker is still in the "ring", watch out!
1
This sounds as though it could be effective except for the one issue that will probably make it more of a waste of time than anything else.
It doesn't change how Republicans select THEIR candidate. They are the ones who have consistently destroyed their party's chances because a determined wealthy group of right wing zealots would rather attack their candidates throughout the entire primary process to advance their selfish personal interests than focus on winning the White House. Their candidate ultimately has to grovel to them and their antiquated views on social issues such as same sex marriage, abortion, income inequality and immigration. The result is a weak candidate who has changed positions so often in order to get nominated that they have little, if any, credibility left with anyone by the end of the convention.
Bernie Saunders and Elizabeth Warren will effectively lead, and keep, Hilary to the left on some issues. But who is going to do that for the Republicans, lead them to the more reasonable center? No-one. They are already self-destructing months before the first primary and exposing yet another group of weak candidates eager to do and say anything for money. They form into a circle and start firing. It's a losing strategy but the one they are stuck with.
Hilary may not be completely in line with some traditional Democratic interests but, compared with the eventual Republican candidate, they'll vote for her anyway.
It doesn't change how Republicans select THEIR candidate. They are the ones who have consistently destroyed their party's chances because a determined wealthy group of right wing zealots would rather attack their candidates throughout the entire primary process to advance their selfish personal interests than focus on winning the White House. Their candidate ultimately has to grovel to them and their antiquated views on social issues such as same sex marriage, abortion, income inequality and immigration. The result is a weak candidate who has changed positions so often in order to get nominated that they have little, if any, credibility left with anyone by the end of the convention.
Bernie Saunders and Elizabeth Warren will effectively lead, and keep, Hilary to the left on some issues. But who is going to do that for the Republicans, lead them to the more reasonable center? No-one. They are already self-destructing months before the first primary and exposing yet another group of weak candidates eager to do and say anything for money. They form into a circle and start firing. It's a losing strategy but the one they are stuck with.
Hilary may not be completely in line with some traditional Democratic interests but, compared with the eventual Republican candidate, they'll vote for her anyway.
5
"compared with the eventual Republican candidate, they'll vote for her anyway."
I won't. Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil. I'm tired of playing that game.
The US is the only major democracy with only two parties in their national legislature and the US also has one of the lowest voter-turnouts in the democratic world. The two facts are related: If Hillary Clinton and some member of that clown-car the GOP is driving to 2016 are our only choices what's the point of voting?
I won't. Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil. I'm tired of playing that game.
The US is the only major democracy with only two parties in their national legislature and the US also has one of the lowest voter-turnouts in the democratic world. The two facts are related: If Hillary Clinton and some member of that clown-car the GOP is driving to 2016 are our only choices what's the point of voting?
1
No, Hillary is/ has been doing it to herself. Her record doesn't lie. She is a neocon lite. There is officially one Democrat running (and one or two who will be announcing) that are much more progressive than her in every area you can think of. If Democrats and liberals still decide to vote for her in the primaries even when there are better, more progressive choices, then they don't have a right to preach about "but she's the lesser of two evils" to liberals and progressives who will not be voting for her come 2016. You constantly have your chance, like you did with Ralph Nader, but you constantly blow it.
And NYT, "baiting" is done by everyone, Republicans and Democrats alike. Please stop pretending this is some unbelievable phenomenon. Any liberal or progressive who despises Hillary doesn't despise her because of the GOP's propaganda. They despise her because she is a neocon-lite, like most of today's Democrats. Her actions and words speak for themselves.
And NYT, "baiting" is done by everyone, Republicans and Democrats alike. Please stop pretending this is some unbelievable phenomenon. Any liberal or progressive who despises Hillary doesn't despise her because of the GOP's propaganda. They despise her because she is a neocon-lite, like most of today's Democrats. Her actions and words speak for themselves.
6
For heaven's sake, the election is in November 2016. It is May 2015. Why can't we get a life in between elections? Why are we spending a fortune promoting the never was and never will be? Why are we speeding into danger heedlessly, more concerned about cosmetics than reality?
5
Read Vienna 1814. Talk about a people disconnected from the general population. We are just repeating history.
It doesn't mean that Democrats won't vote for Clinton, it means they don't agree with her all the time. Big Deal.
That does not make a neophyte like Rubio magically qualified for anything. The GOP forgets that some Dems will have complained and griped through every single day of Obama's presidency. That will never end, no matter who is in office.
That does not make a neophyte like Rubio magically qualified for anything. The GOP forgets that some Dems will have complained and griped through every single day of Obama's presidency. That will never end, no matter who is in office.
5
This is why a low profile campaign makes sense. Let the national press cover her opponents and give the country a good look at her opponents. She will just grow stronger once the country realizes how little else is available. Does anybody really expect any Dem to overtake her? For now the Dems know the pecking order in their Party while the Republican Party finds itself in disarray. They just didn't send in the clowns. They sent an entire bus of them!
4
Not matter what conservatives or any republics say about Mrs. Clinton I would never ever vote for a republican. I am far left of Hillary and in the Berne Sanders camp. If we cannot vote for Mr. Sanders, and Hillary is the dem nominee I will gladly vote for her. we Democrats and leftist are smart enough not to vote against the econ.well being of the poor or middle class. We don't trust Republicans or conservatives. They are repulsive and a despicable lot. But I think I know one or two personally and he / she are nice people...on a personal basis....politically I believe they are someone I pity for their affliction.
4
Her foundation, email controversy and scandal ridden past will dethrone her. This is an undeniable reality.
2
Republican troll, again. No surprises there, as stated.
3
The only real criticism of HRC--from the left and the right--should be her lack of accessibility to our press corp. If she wants to be president she needs to sit down with Meet the Press or Fox News once a month and take on the naysayers. Just today, Marco Rubio sat through a thorough vetting with Chris Wallace conducting the interview. It grew contentious, but I have more respect for Rubio for taking it on. Clinton can't keep micro-managing her events, controlling the people who have access and questions.
2
Somehow I would not trust any of them with international affairs. From Vietnam to Iraq not a good track record.
1
Chris Wallace counts as press? Weak tea.
Rubio? Even weaker. Ugh.
Rubio? Even weaker. Ugh.
2
Kay, watch the interview, then tell me what you think. Wallace didn't handle Rubio all delicate like Hannity does. Weirdly, the most telling revelations about Jeb have come from Fox New questions. Wallace made Rubio squirm. I don't know? HRC is not even sitting down stephanopolous, or any other "lefty" journalist. I like HRC and want her to do well, but she needs to show some courage and sit down with someone real and answer some stuff.
2
The two presumptive frontrunners for the presidential nomination; Hillary Clinton for the Democrats and Governor Jeb Bush for the Republicans have a similar problem. Both candidates have albatrosses of political legacies hanging from their necks. Ms. Clinton's and Governor Bush's political liabilities speak volumes of the defects of our political system and its inability to provide candidates truly representative of the millions of Americans.
Ms. Clinton is an appealing candidate, however attacks from Republican SuperPacs aside, there are extremely troubling aspects to her Democratic candidacy, originating within the base, which may over time undermine her early lead.
A prime example was the recent debate on fast track authority on the TPP? As presidential Democratic frontrunner, former Secretary of State,former Senator of New York, trustee of a billion dollar worldwide charitable trust and first lady during the passage of NAFTA the total absence of any substantive comment from Ms. Clinton on fast track authority for TPP or generally was glaring and inexplicable.
TPP is the largest international trade agreement in our country's history and if passed, will have far reaching economic and geopolitical impacts during Ms. Clinton's potential presidency. Yet, Ms. Clinton was MIA during the debate. Certainly with her extensive CV and presidential aspirations, wasn't the TPP at least as worthy of Ms. Clinton's public comments as the local riots in Baltimore?
Ms. Clinton is an appealing candidate, however attacks from Republican SuperPacs aside, there are extremely troubling aspects to her Democratic candidacy, originating within the base, which may over time undermine her early lead.
A prime example was the recent debate on fast track authority on the TPP? As presidential Democratic frontrunner, former Secretary of State,former Senator of New York, trustee of a billion dollar worldwide charitable trust and first lady during the passage of NAFTA the total absence of any substantive comment from Ms. Clinton on fast track authority for TPP or generally was glaring and inexplicable.
TPP is the largest international trade agreement in our country's history and if passed, will have far reaching economic and geopolitical impacts during Ms. Clinton's potential presidency. Yet, Ms. Clinton was MIA during the debate. Certainly with her extensive CV and presidential aspirations, wasn't the TPP at least as worthy of Ms. Clinton's public comments as the local riots in Baltimore?
2
The political legacy of Clinton is a thousand times more favorable than the political legacy of the Bushes.
It's hard to imagine that one president could give us the equivalent of Vietnam and the Great Depression in a six year stretch, and yet he did it. And a third of the country views him favorably. That's crazy.
It's hard to imagine that one president could give us the equivalent of Vietnam and the Great Depression in a six year stretch, and yet he did it. And a third of the country views him favorably. That's crazy.
2
"the total absence of any substantive comment from Ms. Clinton on fast track authority for TPP or generally was glaring and inexplicable. "
How is she supposed to know what her opinion is until she gets back the numbers from her focus groups and polls? That stuff takes time.
How is she supposed to know what her opinion is until she gets back the numbers from her focus groups and polls? That stuff takes time.
Ms. Clinton is simply another corporatist at a time in our nation's and this world's histories that neither can sustain any more corporatists.
5
Donkey's, Elephants, mere pack animals carrying out the wishes of transnational capital. If you want to get my interest in a campaign, show me a labor party, representing living, breathing, wage workers, with a platform of full employment, renewable energy, no overseas empire, and ongoing truth commissions to expose the evils that have been on-going since 1945. Otherwise you're just kicking the can down the road for another four years hoping to avoid the inevitable economic collapse that presages martial law. Democracy or capitalism: time to choose.
7
Finally, at last, the conservatives are doing something that is good for our country. The Clintons are the epitome of corruption.
2
Well they could run a candidate instead of play games. But that would require something more than Karl Rove's high school mind dreaming up junior high level tricks. God I hate all this.
1
As if on cue, the America Rising operatives flock to articles like this like a fly does to honey. The problem is that, despite being a clever - albeit sleazy- group, none involved are creative enough to be able to make their many comments here distinguishable from one another. What we get is cookie cutter copies that, many times, are verbatim duplicates of the comments made by the 10 operatives that posted before them. Or, perhaps, they don't care to make the effort at being less obvious.
5
A lot of folks seem willing to hold their noses and vote for Hillary because they think her expected Supreme Court nominations will be more to their liking than would a Republican President's.
You do realize that it takes 60 Senators to confirm a SCOTUS appointee, and there is ZERO possibility that the Democrats will have that kind of majority?
No matter who Hillary might appoint, Republicans are going to be the gatekeepers who decides who is confirmed to the Supreme Court.
You do realize that it takes 60 Senators to confirm a SCOTUS appointee, and there is ZERO possibility that the Democrats will have that kind of majority?
No matter who Hillary might appoint, Republicans are going to be the gatekeepers who decides who is confirmed to the Supreme Court.
Then let's get rid of the GOP deadwood next election.
5
If the right was able to cobble together enough Democratic votes to jam through Scalia, Alito, and Thomas, and Obama was able to appoint Sotomayor and Kagan with little pushback; I'm sure Clinton will be able to nominate someone. They can't filibuster a nomination for 3 1/2 years - forget it.
1
True. But the alternative is for the Republicans to have both the nomination and the confirmation, i.e. a blank check.
1
It is more difficult to run after a two-term incumbent of the same party, than it is to be the opposition. Reagan was the last president to be followed by a member of his party. Republicans will do everything in their power to tear Hillary down and curtail the Democratic vote except field an acceptable candidate. This election, like most, is about much more than the candidates. The Republicans rightly fear that the majority of voters are satisfied with the status quo and do not want significant change after Obama. Clinton is the only realistic candidate by default. If the Republicans don't reverse that narrative, nothing they say about Clinton will matter.
1
A common theme here and frequently regarding Ms.Clinton is her supposed ties to Wall Street. It is spurious and none of these critics ever produce any evidence of such. I would say that particular rumor is a plant by the GOP and its minions.
As for her use of the personal email while Secretary of State, so what? What is it you think you need to know that would make any difference in her performance? Either she got the job done, or did not, that is all the evidence you need. then there is Benghazi, another GOP concoction of lies and distortions. Darrell Issa spending several $million just to prop up his profile among the true believers of the GOP, despite several investigations that show Clinton had nothing to do with it, and that the GOP budget cuts did.
We will see continuing spurious attacks, lies about her, and accusations, for the next two years. The method being tell these lies over and over, and get enough people to believe them. the GOP should be renamed the Goebbels Old Party.
As for her use of the personal email while Secretary of State, so what? What is it you think you need to know that would make any difference in her performance? Either she got the job done, or did not, that is all the evidence you need. then there is Benghazi, another GOP concoction of lies and distortions. Darrell Issa spending several $million just to prop up his profile among the true believers of the GOP, despite several investigations that show Clinton had nothing to do with it, and that the GOP budget cuts did.
We will see continuing spurious attacks, lies about her, and accusations, for the next two years. The method being tell these lies over and over, and get enough people to believe them. the GOP should be renamed the Goebbels Old Party.
4
Are you kidding. She is financed heavily by Goldman Sachs and Citigroup to name two.
2
"Either she got the job done, or did not, that is all the evidence you need. "
Do you think she got the job done at 'State? She supported Obama's surge in Afghanistan on 2009, and as a result we are STILL there and over 3/4 of all US causalities there have occurred with Obama as Commander-in-Chief. She supported the US/NATO powered overthrown of the Libyan government, thus turning the most prosperous nation in Africa in a Disneyland for warlords. She refused to speak out clearly about human-rights atrocities carried out against peaceful protesters by our "ally" Bahrain during the Arab Spring. What exactly did she accomplish as Sec'y of State that should give us confidence in her judgement or morals?
Do you think she got the job done at 'State? She supported Obama's surge in Afghanistan on 2009, and as a result we are STILL there and over 3/4 of all US causalities there have occurred with Obama as Commander-in-Chief. She supported the US/NATO powered overthrown of the Libyan government, thus turning the most prosperous nation in Africa in a Disneyland for warlords. She refused to speak out clearly about human-rights atrocities carried out against peaceful protesters by our "ally" Bahrain during the Arab Spring. What exactly did she accomplish as Sec'y of State that should give us confidence in her judgement or morals?
2
@Tullymd
Prove what you say. Show where she is financed by them.
What is your evidence?
Prove what you say. Show where she is financed by them.
What is your evidence?
Are there any candidates Democrat or Republican out there with Ivy League smarts and street smarts combined? That is what we need and it's the only language these tyrants around the world understand. The West got duped because we had leaders lacking street smarts. Is there anyone?
If the Right is baiting the Left , they learned the trick from the Left who uses the MSM to target, to divide and to character assassinate potential presidential candidates . An old campaign tactic of the Left.
I'd love specific examples.
1
And which candidates on the right had a character to assassinate. McCain? Seems to me it was the GOP that savaged hm during the run for the Republican nomination for 2000. The GOP also smeared war heroes John Kerry (Swiftboat) and Max Cleeland, a multiple amputee from the Vietnam war that the GOP called a coward. The same tactic was used on Tammy Duckworth, another war casualty.
So please. do not even bring up the matter of character assassination when your hands are so filthy.
So please. do not even bring up the matter of character assassination when your hands are so filthy.
3
WHAT! If someone shoots himself in the foot, do you call him a straight shooter? These candidates whoever they are, assassinated themselves - and the Left just put a spotlight on the wounds.
1
I can only hope, that as close to 100% of the voting eligible population (in spite of GOP poll taxes) not 36% as was the case in 2014, get out to vote in 2016. Just as vampires are afraid of the light, the GOP is afraid of the vote.
12
I can only hope, that as close to 100% of the voting eligible population ... get out to vote in 2016.
Hillary has so many negatives that independent voters will stay home in droves, even ones that would normally support the Democrats, like me. Also she's too stand-offish and controlled, which alienated lots of voters. And let's also be realistic about her age - not exactly a beacon of excitement to younger voters.
With Hillary on the ballot, voter turnout will be a huge problem, and this will hurt the Democrats running for the House and Senate, too.
Hillary has so many negatives that independent voters will stay home in droves, even ones that would normally support the Democrats, like me. Also she's too stand-offish and controlled, which alienated lots of voters. And let's also be realistic about her age - not exactly a beacon of excitement to younger voters.
With Hillary on the ballot, voter turnout will be a huge problem, and this will hurt the Democrats running for the House and Senate, too.
"“They view this as a means of weakening the Democratic Party and weakening the chance in a presidential election,” said Mr. Gombiner, 26. But “that’s the whole point of a democracy, that the arguments make you stronger.”"
Well, maybe.
Is Mr. Gombiner, 26, with his obiter dictum about the democratically tonic effects of intra-party disagreement, suggesting that the clown show we are about to see in the Republican primary debates will make the GOP candidate "stronger"?
As Gail Collins effectively said yesterday in her column:
http://www.nytimes.com/column/gail-collins?
As a liberals, in search of sheer rolling in the aisles laughs, we'd watch a Republican debate every night, even in preference to The Simpsons.
No script writer, no team of scriptwriters, could possibly be expected to suss out in advance the entertaining hyper battiness we are about to experience -- to our liberal delectation, and to the chagrin of David Brooks and Ross Douthat.
Maybe ask Mitt Romney what he thought about onstage disagreement among the Republican candidates, which forced him so far right he was having a Wile E. Coyote moment before he even realized it.
Well, maybe.
Is Mr. Gombiner, 26, with his obiter dictum about the democratically tonic effects of intra-party disagreement, suggesting that the clown show we are about to see in the Republican primary debates will make the GOP candidate "stronger"?
As Gail Collins effectively said yesterday in her column:
http://www.nytimes.com/column/gail-collins?
As a liberals, in search of sheer rolling in the aisles laughs, we'd watch a Republican debate every night, even in preference to The Simpsons.
No script writer, no team of scriptwriters, could possibly be expected to suss out in advance the entertaining hyper battiness we are about to experience -- to our liberal delectation, and to the chagrin of David Brooks and Ross Douthat.
Maybe ask Mitt Romney what he thought about onstage disagreement among the Republican candidates, which forced him so far right he was having a Wile E. Coyote moment before he even realized it.
3
Why not turn against Hillary?
Almost from the start, the left turned against President Obama, when it became apparent he wasn't the second coming of Eugene V. Debs, or Norman Thomas. So, he lost control of the House after only two years in office. And, eventually, control of the Senate. Even his own re-election was shadowed by no-show democrat voters.
What makes Hillary any different? She is bought and paid for by big money, just like any Republican. In fact, money is the one thing she is unambiguous about. That, and an independently verifiable e-mail trail.
But of course, once the money bags are full enough, Hillary will be on the campaign trail selling populism, feminism, environmentalism, and anything else that will get the voters emotionally involved in her candidacy. Sell, sell, sell.
Pay no attention to that pol behind the curtain.
And many won't.
Almost from the start, the left turned against President Obama, when it became apparent he wasn't the second coming of Eugene V. Debs, or Norman Thomas. So, he lost control of the House after only two years in office. And, eventually, control of the Senate. Even his own re-election was shadowed by no-show democrat voters.
What makes Hillary any different? She is bought and paid for by big money, just like any Republican. In fact, money is the one thing she is unambiguous about. That, and an independently verifiable e-mail trail.
But of course, once the money bags are full enough, Hillary will be on the campaign trail selling populism, feminism, environmentalism, and anything else that will get the voters emotionally involved in her candidacy. Sell, sell, sell.
Pay no attention to that pol behind the curtain.
And many won't.
2
Hillary has established herself as a steely leader, able to withstand every one of these withering hatchet jobs. We've seen this enough that it may actually have a counterintuitive effect, whereby attacking this deeply talented woman leads many of us to defend her.
Ultimately, who do you want to take the fall at 3am? Someone who's stood face to face with Putin, Netanyahu, Xi, and countless others, boosting our national image?
Or someone who rigged an election, someone who evisverated K-12 teachers (largely responsible for our future), someone who shut down a bridge out of bitterness, someone who plays the gender card while saying others can't play it, someone who uses his race to make slavery analogies, someone who wants a theocracy, someone who wants to destroy EPA DoE the other DoE IRS and kill all foreign aid?
I trust her.
Ultimately, who do you want to take the fall at 3am? Someone who's stood face to face with Putin, Netanyahu, Xi, and countless others, boosting our national image?
Or someone who rigged an election, someone who evisverated K-12 teachers (largely responsible for our future), someone who shut down a bridge out of bitterness, someone who plays the gender card while saying others can't play it, someone who uses his race to make slavery analogies, someone who wants a theocracy, someone who wants to destroy EPA DoE the other DoE IRS and kill all foreign aid?
I trust her.
4
This is the political version of basketball pick and roll play, eg, Democrat Gray Davis running for reelection as CA gov in 2002, takes out ads in Republican Primary blasting moderate businessman Richard Riordan for being pro choice, this fired up the right, Riordan ended up losing primary to pro lifer Bill Simon and Gray Davis got the opponent he wanted and won easily.
The basic premise of the article and the Republican's strategy is wrong.
If Hillary moves further to the left she will be a stronger candidate in the general election - not weaker. Time and time again we see Democrats win when they stake clear positions AWAY from the Republican positions. Republican-lite does not do well in the general election.
So I hope that America Rising increases it's efforts. It will guarantee an easy victory in the general election for who ever might be the Democratic candidate.
If Hillary moves further to the left she will be a stronger candidate in the general election - not weaker. Time and time again we see Democrats win when they stake clear positions AWAY from the Republican positions. Republican-lite does not do well in the general election.
So I hope that America Rising increases it's efforts. It will guarantee an easy victory in the general election for who ever might be the Democratic candidate.
4
Its a nice try, but we all know these 'protests' are just peeing in the wind. Hillary is locked in....but nice conservatives, it truly shows how bankrupt ideawise they are plus how desperate they are.
2
If Hillary Clinton feels misunderstood by "liberals" because of GOP Tweets, she can easily clarify any misunderstanding of her policy positions: she can state her policy positions.
Problem is, she hasn't stated any.
Q: Does HRC support TPAA and TPP (fast-track)? A: Blank.
Q: Does HRC support raising the federal minimum wage to $15 and indexing it to inflation? A: Blank.
Q: Does HRC support increasing Social Security benefits? A: Blank.
Q: Does HRC support progressive taxation? A: Blank.
Q: Does HRC support sunsetting the mass-surveillance provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act? A: Blank.
Q: Does HRC support reinstating Glass-Steagall? A: Blank.
Q: Does HRC support the enforcement of current usury laws? A: Blank.
Q: Does HRC support the taxation of overseas corporate profits? A: Blank.
Q: Does HRC support ending the current loopholes favoring the outsourcing of jobs overseas? A: Blank.
Problem is, she hasn't stated any.
Q: Does HRC support TPAA and TPP (fast-track)? A: Blank.
Q: Does HRC support raising the federal minimum wage to $15 and indexing it to inflation? A: Blank.
Q: Does HRC support increasing Social Security benefits? A: Blank.
Q: Does HRC support progressive taxation? A: Blank.
Q: Does HRC support sunsetting the mass-surveillance provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act? A: Blank.
Q: Does HRC support reinstating Glass-Steagall? A: Blank.
Q: Does HRC support the enforcement of current usury laws? A: Blank.
Q: Does HRC support the taxation of overseas corporate profits? A: Blank.
Q: Does HRC support ending the current loopholes favoring the outsourcing of jobs overseas? A: Blank.
8
Are you talking about the House Republicans of Congress?
Bob The Builder asks,
"Q: Does HRC support TPAA and TPP (fast-track)? A: Blank."
... etc...
Cut her some slack, Bob, she's still triangulating. All those straw polls and focus groups take time and then someone has to collate the spreadsheets and run the statistics and check with all her handlers. It's a lot of work for Hillary to find out where she stands on the issues.
"Q: Does HRC support TPAA and TPP (fast-track)? A: Blank."
... etc...
Cut her some slack, Bob, she's still triangulating. All those straw polls and focus groups take time and then someone has to collate the spreadsheets and run the statistics and check with all her handlers. It's a lot of work for Hillary to find out where she stands on the issues.
1
Since the MSM doesn't have the guts to press Clinton on issues; and since the MSM is totally partisan, aka George Stephanopoulous, NBC and CBS; or listening to the then Majority Leader lying about Romney's tax returns...then it's about time somebody, or something starts to point out the hypocrisy and shading dealings of Hillary and Bill.
This baiting technique aligns with the voter suppression efforts of the Republicans. Both are efforts to reduce the number of voters. Fewer voters increases Republican chances. Fewer voters means less democracy.
2
Fewer voters means less people will care when changes are made that favor the rich and powerful.
They are trying to get Bernie to be the candidate? Great. They think they can beat him?
4
I think we are thinking along the same lines. If Democrats don't nominate Clinton, it will be someone to her left. I think the press underestimate Sanders to their detriment. They were as wrong on Iraq as Jeb and W, and they didn't see Obama coming until he already had momentum. The majority of voters vote with who they agree with most. Big money and ads can change minds, but most voters know what they want to hear and what is important to them.
3
Bernie Sanders is running for president. In some ways, he is better than Warren. He has executive experience as Mayor of Burlington. He has been an independent for most of his political life. He represents a part of the country that has a high level of political sophistication. I think of it as pragmatic populism. He VOTED against the Iraq War from the beginning when it was difficult to do so in those heady times. He can appeal to minorities who appreciate straight talk and progestin policies. He can appeal to working class whites who are concerned about big money buying out the government, 2nd Amendment rights, and civil liberties issues. He is also Jewish, so perhaps he can revive our relationship and discourse on Israel in new, less heated, ways.
5
Sanders for President
3
I like Sanders but unfortunately is too far to the left. (he's also really old - he'll be 75 on election day) A presidential election with him on the ballot will make McGovern in '72 look close. (ditto for Warren).
On the other hand Hillary is basically a neocon Republican with a (D) after her name. No way I'm voting for her. The Democrats really need to find some better alternatives.
On the other hand Hillary is basically a neocon Republican with a (D) after her name. No way I'm voting for her. The Democrats really need to find some better alternatives.
It's not the right trying to turn the left against Hillary. It's the right pointing out the dismal record of Hillary. For example. what has she truly done for anyone but herself? where in her vast experience has she done anything for anyone else? It's not there. That is a point that should be pointed out and anyone who does vote for her then is voting for a snobbish person.
1
Thank God, I don't think I a person without snobbery could be President.
“The idea is to make her life difficult in the primary and challenge her from the left,” said Colin Reed, America Rising’s executive director. “We don’t want her to enter the general election not having been pushed from the left, so if we have opportunities — creative ways, especially online — to push her from the left, we’ll do it just to show those folks who she needs to turn out that she’s not in line with them.”
The fact is that she is more in line with them than any and all candidates the GOP puts forth.
Look people...these tactics are sleazy but sleazy is what you get from a group and ideology that is lacking in Rhodes Scholars. These weren't the smart kids in class. So let us not be as reactionary on the left or center as their base always is on the right. Think first.
The fact is that she is more in line with them than any and all candidates the GOP puts forth.
Look people...these tactics are sleazy but sleazy is what you get from a group and ideology that is lacking in Rhodes Scholars. These weren't the smart kids in class. So let us not be as reactionary on the left or center as their base always is on the right. Think first.
1
Who need a GOP candidate in the WH, when Hillary can outdo anyone of them? Its a sad when we can find a single person better than the Bushes and Clintons.
I find it disheartening that both political parties are acting like teenagers- I take that back- its more like grade school.
These people are supposed to create and enforce our laws and what are they engaged in? Playing games- and really that is where their efforts are concentrated. It's not about what direction the country needs to head, it's not about ensuring that future generations will have a standard of living that is fulfilling. It's about winning an election and after that it's about keeping campaign donors happy so they will have the financial arsenal to do it all again.
The right/left paradigm is a fraud. We have one party with two branches. Campaign financiers who back the right are the same as those who back the left. The agenda is the same for both parties- keep the money flowing. They use social issues to divide us but the issues that matter they are lockstep together on.
Aren't you tired of being played? Wouldn't you like critical thinkers governing for you instead of professional campaigners?
Put your Congressional Members contact info into your phone. With this information at your fingertips you can contact all three in 6-8 min. Call/email and DEMAND CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM every week.
The American government is captured and only the people have the key to free it. Marking ballots is no longer enough, we need to ensure there are critical thinkers on those ballots not just professional campaigners. YOU NEED TO DEMAND CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM.
These people are supposed to create and enforce our laws and what are they engaged in? Playing games- and really that is where their efforts are concentrated. It's not about what direction the country needs to head, it's not about ensuring that future generations will have a standard of living that is fulfilling. It's about winning an election and after that it's about keeping campaign donors happy so they will have the financial arsenal to do it all again.
The right/left paradigm is a fraud. We have one party with two branches. Campaign financiers who back the right are the same as those who back the left. The agenda is the same for both parties- keep the money flowing. They use social issues to divide us but the issues that matter they are lockstep together on.
Aren't you tired of being played? Wouldn't you like critical thinkers governing for you instead of professional campaigners?
Put your Congressional Members contact info into your phone. With this information at your fingertips you can contact all three in 6-8 min. Call/email and DEMAND CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM every week.
The American government is captured and only the people have the key to free it. Marking ballots is no longer enough, we need to ensure there are critical thinkers on those ballots not just professional campaigners. YOU NEED TO DEMAND CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM.
2
America Rising to its scummiest lows.
American Crossroads, shoving us down a putrid blind alley.
Are these gangs tax-advantaged in any way? If so, why?
It's disgusting enough to have these big-money election purchasers tossing their hundreds of millions wherever they feel like it. But it's enraging to think that the system would support them with your and my tax dollars.
American Crossroads, shoving us down a putrid blind alley.
Are these gangs tax-advantaged in any way? If so, why?
It's disgusting enough to have these big-money election purchasers tossing their hundreds of millions wherever they feel like it. But it's enraging to think that the system would support them with your and my tax dollars.
1
The jewel in our political box of democrat ticket candidates is Senator Bernie Sanders, yet many here choose cheap paste, mainstream mentality that we can't expect and don't deserve the quality gem. Senator Sanders will receive my contributions until the primaries. He receives no contributions from super pacs, must rely on donations from committed citizens, hopefully the majority of we ninety-nine percent, to get his message to the general public. Nothing lost as he isn't running third party. If he is the nominee, due to massive citizen support, he will receive my vote in the general election. If not, I will vote for the least of two evils. Commentators write that they wish for Senator Sanders, but seem to have given in to the least of two evils from the beginning. Contribute to Senator Sanders if you prefer his policies, and as you declare, want him to become the next presidential nominee. You can still vote for your least of two evils, the Clintons, in the general, if Senator Sanders loses the nomination.
7
Hillary Clinton supporter rationalization:
If Clinton were not the enemy of my enemy, she would be my enemy.
But she IS the enemy of my enemy, so she is now my friend.
If Clinton were not the enemy of my enemy, she would be my enemy.
But she IS the enemy of my enemy, so she is now my friend.
4
What is the difference between social media and Big Brother? Both are used to enforce an interpretation of the "truth" by stealth.
Clearly corroborate and corroborate some more must be the rule before one is clear to share "facts".
Clearly corroborate and corroborate some more must be the rule before one is clear to share "facts".
Bwaahahahahaa! So now even the extreme left knee-capping the not-so extreme left is all the fault of the GOP. Ridiculously laughable. These authors clearly have no idea that the left wing media controls the entire narrative in a democrat primary. 100% of it. The democrat primary voter isn't watching Fox. They don't tune in to Rush Limbaugh. Hillary is under fire for exactly 2 reasons: 1) she's a scoundrel and 2) people even more extreme than she is are trying to knee-cap her so that "their guy", whomever that is, can win the primary. It has NOTHING to do with the GOP, never has and never will. The Republicans, thanks to the media, don't even get to pick their OWN nominee, let alone the one for the democrat party.
I really don't care what the right does to discredit her I wasn't going to vote for her regardless... even if she won the nomination. She was pro-DOMA until at least 2008, her husband had the opportunity to peg the minimum wage to inflation but did not do so because he wanted to be able to keep it a political platform that democrats could run on. The only progressive policies she hasn't flip flopped on are pro-choice, and education.
She says she is a champion of the people when all she really is, is a champion of giving them a little more freedom for a lot more chains. She wrote in her book being against the TPP but has not publicly spoken out against it when it is up for a vote.
She is the worst kind of political opportunist she was a Republican in the 60s and would be a republican today if it hadn't been for Reagan moving the entire country so far to the right, it's like the tea party movement today in 10 years if they win all the moderate republicans will swell the ranks of the democratic party but their ideology won't have changed an iota.
She says she is a champion of the people when all she really is, is a champion of giving them a little more freedom for a lot more chains. She wrote in her book being against the TPP but has not publicly spoken out against it when it is up for a vote.
She is the worst kind of political opportunist she was a Republican in the 60s and would be a republican today if it hadn't been for Reagan moving the entire country so far to the right, it's like the tea party movement today in 10 years if they win all the moderate republicans will swell the ranks of the democratic party but their ideology won't have changed an iota.
2
Elizabeth Warren was a Republican, as well. Surely you are aware of that.
There are many reasons why I would vote for Ms. Clinton and more than a few why I would not do so. Her stance on issues and policy. But amongst the many reasons, one of my favorites is the apoplexy that Republicans everywhere would suffer when she wins the presidency. Lord knows, they deserve it.
3
Few commenters mention whether they're old or young, but at least one mentioned that he's 18 years old and feels no connection to Hillary Clinton.
Age could be a bigger issue than some Democrats acknowledge. If elected, Hillary would be only the third president over 65 when she takes office (she'd be 69, second only to Ronald Reagan). Of the other two, one was Reagan and the other was William Henry Harrison, who caught a bad cold shortly after taking office and died after only three weeks on the job.
Even if that doesn't happen to Hillary (though she has had health problems, including a collapse at home, reportedly from "exhaustion"), one must wonder whether young voters will flock to her the way they did to Obama in 2008. Obama was only 47 when he took office, after all, not 69.
Age could be a bigger issue than some Democrats acknowledge. If elected, Hillary would be only the third president over 65 when she takes office (she'd be 69, second only to Ronald Reagan). Of the other two, one was Reagan and the other was William Henry Harrison, who caught a bad cold shortly after taking office and died after only three weeks on the job.
Even if that doesn't happen to Hillary (though she has had health problems, including a collapse at home, reportedly from "exhaustion"), one must wonder whether young voters will flock to her the way they did to Obama in 2008. Obama was only 47 when he took office, after all, not 69.
This is quite typical. It is really little else than an act of desperation with their argument being, not how good we are, but how bad the other is; i.e. he/she is "worser" than I am. That is really little else than an admission of intellectual bankruptcy by any individual or group even considering using it.
Some of us are note deceived by that, as we do not make our decisions on the individual personally, but rather on what ideas and or proposals he/she brings forward for our consideration. So, if they expect to have any type of success with what it is we should believe about Ms. Clinton (or anyone else for that matter). or if they believe that "personal" like or dislike enters into our decision as to whom to support, they need to re-think their own thinking. Or, better yet, they need to begin thinking.
Some of us are note deceived by that, as we do not make our decisions on the individual personally, but rather on what ideas and or proposals he/she brings forward for our consideration. So, if they expect to have any type of success with what it is we should believe about Ms. Clinton (or anyone else for that matter). or if they believe that "personal" like or dislike enters into our decision as to whom to support, they need to re-think their own thinking. Or, better yet, they need to begin thinking.
Thanks be to the NYT for this timely article explaining the machinations of the anti-Clinton forces. They are a clever bunch -- the best that big money can buy, I suppose. I hope that my friend Bill McKibbon doesn't fall into their trap again by spreading their garbage. His reputation is hurt far worse that Hillary's.
The Republicans may be ridiculous, but the Clintons have always been their own worst enemies. Ethical fading is at the core of their present and future problems.
4
It's helpful to be willing and able to make the distinction between real and manufactured scandals.
1
A commenter mentions the Newtown massacre:
"23 young children are killed in Connecticut by a hateful younger man yet this becomes a boon for conservatives and the NRA and we can't even get a background check bill passed."
I'm strongly anti-gun, but I can't see that a "background check" would have made any difference at Newtown. The guns belonged to the killer's mother, who almost certainly would have passed any "background check."
"23 young children are killed in Connecticut by a hateful younger man yet this becomes a boon for conservatives and the NRA and we can't even get a background check bill passed."
I'm strongly anti-gun, but I can't see that a "background check" would have made any difference at Newtown. The guns belonged to the killer's mother, who almost certainly would have passed any "background check."
1
Let's see who the Republicans select out of all the occupants of the Clown Bus. If they pick the wrong clown (and I am ot sure any of them are the "right clown"), it won't matter what they try to say about Hillary (or any Democrat). Their candidate will be toxic.
Left? Right? Center? It's difficult to ascertain exactly where Mrs. Clinton stands these days since, after she announced her presidential candidacy (in Cyberspace, no less), she has spent most of her time Under, as in Underground.
Judging from the amount of public exposure he's getting of late, it appears that Bill Clinton is the one who's running. So is he going to be the frontman for Inevitability 2016? There are a lot of "everyday Americans" who would like to know.
Judging from the amount of public exposure he's getting of late, it appears that Bill Clinton is the one who's running. So is he going to be the frontman for Inevitability 2016? There are a lot of "everyday Americans" who would like to know.
2
First, that anyone thinks it unusual to use the internet and social media to engage in the machinations of campaigning is a bit odd given the times. Second, Hillary Clinton doesn't exercise any control over whom the media concentrates their focus on. It's not at all surprising to me that much focus is on Bill Clinton, given that he was our President for two consecutive terms. That fact alone adds a very unique twist to this election cycle. What should interest you more is that Clinton has announced and Jeb Bush has not yet, even though Jeb Bush has been far more active thus far. That he is circumventing campaign financing laws by playing a game in which he asserts that he is merely interested in running but not yet a declared candidate is something that should raise your eyebrows far more than however "underground" you believe Clinton to be at this very early stage in the (non) campaign season.
And when you refer to "everyday Americans", can you elaborate? You did put that in quotations for a reason, I presume and without more information, it reads as though you are staking out ground for what you consider to be "real Americans" (versus the "rest of us" chattel).
And when you refer to "everyday Americans", can you elaborate? You did put that in quotations for a reason, I presume and without more information, it reads as though you are staking out ground for what you consider to be "real Americans" (versus the "rest of us" chattel).
2
Of course America Rising has a much easier job of raising doubts about Hillary Clinton’s candidacy because Hillary herself has clearly become a political opportunist. She evidently has the money and the resources to intimidate and fight off potential challengers within the Democratic Party and has consequently left herself open for attack while at the same time undermining the democratic process. Meanwhile Bernie Sanders offers to implement the traditional policies of the Democratic Party while also realizing that he doesn't stand a chance at the nomination because of the power of big money in the race. At least he offers an alternative.
To her detriment sadly, Hillary has become so calculated and so far removed from the reality of real Americans that all she seems to offer at this point against the GOP is the lesser of two evils. That's not good enough. If that is the case, I will write in my vote for another Democratic candidate as a vote of conscience. The Republicans are a dangerous lot but Hillary is really no better. Not since Richard Nixon have we had as morally and ethically dubious a candidate running for the president as Hillary Clinton. She has only herself to blame.
To her detriment sadly, Hillary has become so calculated and so far removed from the reality of real Americans that all she seems to offer at this point against the GOP is the lesser of two evils. That's not good enough. If that is the case, I will write in my vote for another Democratic candidate as a vote of conscience. The Republicans are a dangerous lot but Hillary is really no better. Not since Richard Nixon have we had as morally and ethically dubious a candidate running for the president as Hillary Clinton. She has only herself to blame.
3
Well then you will be responsible for a hard right Supreme Court adjudicating life for America for the next 3 decades.
2
The extreme skewing of income and wealth is what has convinced me to shift to Sanders from Clinton not The Simpsons or even Beetle Bailey...lol
2
But, but, but the vast right-wing conspiracy was a myth, right, Righties?
2
This leftist will vote third party if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee.
4
"My policy is not to tweet or share a link unless it comes from a highly credible source like the NYT."
Good policy. But I don't think anyone's disputing the "facts" here. I gather the Keystone lobbyist IS a Clinton donor and WAS at the event he was reported to have been at. I'm confident Clinton's campaign would have jumped all over this if it were factually incorrect.
Frankly, though, I doubt Hillary knew this guy had donated $1,000 to her campaign, or even that he exists. A $1,000 donation hardly gets one on the radar screen of any candidate.
Good policy. But I don't think anyone's disputing the "facts" here. I gather the Keystone lobbyist IS a Clinton donor and WAS at the event he was reported to have been at. I'm confident Clinton's campaign would have jumped all over this if it were factually incorrect.
Frankly, though, I doubt Hillary knew this guy had donated $1,000 to her campaign, or even that he exists. A $1,000 donation hardly gets one on the radar screen of any candidate.
1
As a liberal, across the spectrum of issues I care about and values I deem most important, HRC is the most viable candidate I would support. Attacks from the far left or the radical right won't change that.
2
The worst version of Hillary Clinton is still better -- and certainly more left-leaning -- than anyone likely to emerge as nominee from the Republican Clown Car (now a double-decker Clown Bus). Tempting the Left with Elizabeth Warren does no good if Warren isn't running. And a lot of us are pragmatic enough to know that Bernie Sanders is just a dream candidate whose most likely contribution to the Election is to re-frame other candidates' campaigns. Even if Democratic base is not as jazzed about Hillary Clinton as we were about Barack Obama, the prospect of a retrograde, reactionary, rape-belittling, religionist, and generally risible Republic President WILL turn us out on Election Day.
2
Many will unite to fight the Hill machine. The Clintons have done more damage than good as politicians.
4
In what ways?
So Hilliary is not a lilberal. She is a moderate. We all know that. We haven't had a liberal Democrat run for President since before Bill Clinton. We all know that but we work to get the Dem candidate elected anyway. Nothing new.
1
The sad truth is that Hillary deserves no support from the left, as she is a 100 percent cynical, sold out, self-serving oligarch attempting to use the left as a vehicle to a party nomination that will let her operate the family business from the White House once again. In this vein, I wholeheartedly encourage the eeevvviiill Republcans to remind leftists nationwide of what we stand for, and all the myriad reasons we have to regard the Hillary candidacy as an affront and effectively the end of any relationship we have with the "Democratic Party".
-- lifelong Seattle leftist.
-- lifelong Seattle leftist.
5
If a commentator on Fox News announces that the sun sets in the west, it is still true. As long as the "bait" is factually correct, no one should have a problem with it. Ms Clinton, with her immernse campaign war chest, is more than capable of providing a larger context for the facts, if she and her advisors believe it is needed. And the news media and Internet will quickly expose any untruths.
The real concern among many posters here seems to be that others who are less educated, enlightened, nuanced, and discrimintating will be swayed by this bait. Given that the bait targets liberals, that concern reveals a low opinion by some Times readers of the intellectual capabilities of left. Who would have guessed?
The real concern among many posters here seems to be that others who are less educated, enlightened, nuanced, and discrimintating will be swayed by this bait. Given that the bait targets liberals, that concern reveals a low opinion by some Times readers of the intellectual capabilities of left. Who would have guessed?
1
If Hillary did indeed attend a fundraiser hosted by a KXL lobbyist, then shame on all hypocritical liberals who defend her shamelessly.
Hillary plans to raise and spend $2.5bn in this upcoming primaries and in the general. It would seem that money raised by Republicans by any means is a problem but Dems are free to rely on the same dirty money to win elections.
Silly.
Hillary plans to raise and spend $2.5bn in this upcoming primaries and in the general. It would seem that money raised by Republicans by any means is a problem but Dems are free to rely on the same dirty money to win elections.
Silly.
4
There seems to be a lot of criticism of Hillary here claiming that she gives the Republicans the excuses they need to bash her.
What planet have these criticizers been living on for the past five decades?
The Democrats nominated a series of wonderful liberal presidential candidates -- George McGovern (modest WWII hero and excellent liberal), Hubert Humphrey (wonderful liberal and very decent person), Walter Mondale (true liberal and excellent senator and vice-president), Al Gore (who would have been alert to terrorist threats and is a true liberal and environmentalist), John Kerry (liberal and decent man) BUT all of them were bashed and destroyed by the Republicans and lost their elections to vastly inferior Republicans.
If Jesus Christ were running as a Democrat, the Republicans would savage Him for taking bread and fishes from those who had them and re-distributing them to those who had come to hear Him but had neglected to bring food -- socialist at best and maybe even a communist!
Democratic candidates do not need to provide Republicans with any excuse to bash them; the Republicans will just invent stuff with which to bash them -- it's what right-wingers do!
What planet have these criticizers been living on for the past five decades?
The Democrats nominated a series of wonderful liberal presidential candidates -- George McGovern (modest WWII hero and excellent liberal), Hubert Humphrey (wonderful liberal and very decent person), Walter Mondale (true liberal and excellent senator and vice-president), Al Gore (who would have been alert to terrorist threats and is a true liberal and environmentalist), John Kerry (liberal and decent man) BUT all of them were bashed and destroyed by the Republicans and lost their elections to vastly inferior Republicans.
If Jesus Christ were running as a Democrat, the Republicans would savage Him for taking bread and fishes from those who had them and re-distributing them to those who had come to hear Him but had neglected to bring food -- socialist at best and maybe even a communist!
Democratic candidates do not need to provide Republicans with any excuse to bash them; the Republicans will just invent stuff with which to bash them -- it's what right-wingers do!
54
Lackluster fundraising?!
The Clinton Foundation and Bill's speaking fees can fund her entire campaign.
The Clinton Foundation and Bill's speaking fees can fund her entire campaign.
3
And the Koch bothers -- who are vastly wealthier than the Clintons -- are funding the worst candidates: candidates who commit to outlawing or at least de-funding research to discover affordable alternatives to the fossil fuels that so greatly enrich and empower the Koch bothers.
Blame the U.S. Supreme Court for unleashing the obscene amount of money in politics today; don't blame those who are just trying to stay in the contest.
Blame the U.S. Supreme Court for unleashing the obscene amount of money in politics today; don't blame those who are just trying to stay in the contest.
1
At the end of the day it's sad and pathetic that Hillary is the best you Dems can muster and you know it. Not saying that Bush v3 is a refreshing delight but at this point as a nation we should be questioning why these two reheated leftovers are the best we can do.
5
Oh right. The guy who ran the digital campaign for Mitt. HIRE HIM!
1
I don't need Karl Rove & Co. to remind me that Clinton is the wrong Demcratic candidate for 2016, or any election for that matter. She's really the strongest GOP candidate, to tell you the truth. From voting for the Iraq war to please a hurt bully nation in 2003 to anticipating amends with Jewish leaders as a potential White House boss in the wake of Obama's nuke deal with Iran in 2015, she's the farthest she can be from being a progressive contender no matter how many tacos she eats at Chipotle, and we're talking only foreign policy here. Let's not even get into her real vulnerability when the GOP funnyhouse starts referencing Bill's bathrobe or her invisible tenure as New York Senator. How in the world can the media, the polls or even the billionaires behind the Democratic party push Hillary Clinton in 2016 when her name is so stuck in the '90s? Between the GOP loonies and the Democrat geezers, America is in for a surprise, one that turns back the clocks at least 20 years on EVERYTHING. Go Biden, Webb and O'Malley
4
Sorry, right-wingers; it's not going to work. Whatever misgivings you try to evoke about Hillary in the minds of liberals are as nothing compared to the truly frightening specter of one of this year's crop of GOP bozos sitting in the Oval Office.
4
The real fight is not for Conservatives or Liberals. The real fight is for the Independents. Many of them uninformed and disinterested, misinformation may have a significant effect on them, especially if they can create an enduring image, real or false, around a candidate.
It seems to me there's a complacency from the Liberals feeling that Mrs. Clinton presidency is a done deal. Or a feeling that the left is strong enough to elect a more populist candidate we are not. The strongest feature from Mrs. Clinton is her pragmatism and we need to be pragmatic too. We need to actively support Mrs. Clinton, denounce the misinformation and clarify why we support her even when we don't agree with her all the time.
It seems to me there's a complacency from the Liberals feeling that Mrs. Clinton presidency is a done deal. Or a feeling that the left is strong enough to elect a more populist candidate we are not. The strongest feature from Mrs. Clinton is her pragmatism and we need to be pragmatic too. We need to actively support Mrs. Clinton, denounce the misinformation and clarify why we support her even when we don't agree with her all the time.
1
Why don't the Dems gives us all a break and dump Hillary and get Elizabeth Warren to run in her place? It's so obvious that Hillary is a re-tread from the 90's. Ms Warren on the other hand is the real progressive. She's not in the pockets of Wall Street. A true reformer. Not some pasteboard image like HC
2
All conservatives have to run on is throwing bombs and fear!
There only value is a Plutocracy with a small weak government.
No well built civilization for the masses.
There only value is a Plutocracy with a small weak government.
No well built civilization for the masses.
Liberals fret all you want. I see Secretary Clinton as being one of the weakest candidates for a general popular vote. The Democratic machine has blinded itself to the reality that the independant voters will find her ethics and new swing to the left a put off. It is only a few percentage points in independents will cost her the election.
Blind obedience will cost the democrats everything in this election. The Republicans will then control the house, senate and executive branches. With two or more supreme court justices to retire we will be able to control the reins of government for an entire generation. Thank God for Clinton.
Blind obedience will cost the democrats everything in this election. The Republicans will then control the house, senate and executive branches. With two or more supreme court justices to retire we will be able to control the reins of government for an entire generation. Thank God for Clinton.
2
Since there won't be much of a fight for the Democratic nomination, it's good to see someone force Hillary to define herself. How many days has it been, since she took any questions from reporters?
2
GOP Nightmare and doable IF all parties agree, (and they should). IF Hillary gets smart puts herself behind many of the issues Sanders and Warren are pushing -- a 2016 campaign with Hillary, Liz and Bernie working the country together and hammering home the message that the GOP has opposed EVERYTHING the Democrats stand for.....health care, equal pay, affordable education, minimum wage, equal rights, Wall Street reforms and climate change.
Democrats need to wise up and make sure that while campaigning against individual candidates they make sure to note that those candidates are part of an opposition party which has paralyzed the progress of this country and will do so in spades if they get hold of Congress, the Presidency AND the Supreme Court.
Democrats need to wise up and make sure that while campaigning against individual candidates they make sure to note that those candidates are part of an opposition party which has paralyzed the progress of this country and will do so in spades if they get hold of Congress, the Presidency AND the Supreme Court.
I saw a bumper sticker that seemed relevant to this article. It said "I already hate the next president!"
2
It's funny when R's feign outrage over anything which affects non-.001%ers. Perhaps funny isn't the right word.
The good ol' "divide and conquer" trick!
Democrats would be foolish to fall for that old trick. If you must hold your nose to vote, then do so but make sure to vote for Hillary Clinton. Not going to the polls, would be the same as...voting for the eventual GOP nominee! And that is all that this right-wing PAC is hoping to accomplish because they know that it would be much harder to switch you to support their candidate. But why try to switch you if they achieve the same result -- make you stay home on election day -- by turning you against Hillary? They would divide us and then conquer effortlessly.
So, get out and vote even if you have misgivings about Hillary because the alternative would be Jeb or Ted or Rand or Mario. Well, you get the point...
Democrats would be foolish to fall for that old trick. If you must hold your nose to vote, then do so but make sure to vote for Hillary Clinton. Not going to the polls, would be the same as...voting for the eventual GOP nominee! And that is all that this right-wing PAC is hoping to accomplish because they know that it would be much harder to switch you to support their candidate. But why try to switch you if they achieve the same result -- make you stay home on election day -- by turning you against Hillary? They would divide us and then conquer effortlessly.
So, get out and vote even if you have misgivings about Hillary because the alternative would be Jeb or Ted or Rand or Mario. Well, you get the point...
2
Sorry--but the race for President is really irrelevant.
The local and statewide races are absolutely crucial, though. Congress can roll over and play fetch for presidents, as too many Democrats did for GW Bush, or thwart them, as Republicans have done to Obama.
And I guess all these news stories are really meant to keep us from engraving that truth on our hearts.
I want my Congressional representatives to keep any president honest; to fight for my local and national interests and have the courage and wisdom to know that sometimes those are in conflict and rational compromises must be made.
I want my Congressional representatives to have the courage to go against party lines when integrity demands it. I want them to have the courage to work with colleagues of the other party, if the other party is trying to do something in our best interests, even if it usually does the opposite.
We should be pouring our little or not-so-little contributions into these races, and learning as much as possible about these candidates or potential candidates, and actively searching for good potential candidates, and let the Presidential field chew each others legs off if they want to.
The local and statewide races are absolutely crucial, though. Congress can roll over and play fetch for presidents, as too many Democrats did for GW Bush, or thwart them, as Republicans have done to Obama.
And I guess all these news stories are really meant to keep us from engraving that truth on our hearts.
I want my Congressional representatives to keep any president honest; to fight for my local and national interests and have the courage and wisdom to know that sometimes those are in conflict and rational compromises must be made.
I want my Congressional representatives to have the courage to go against party lines when integrity demands it. I want them to have the courage to work with colleagues of the other party, if the other party is trying to do something in our best interests, even if it usually does the opposite.
We should be pouring our little or not-so-little contributions into these races, and learning as much as possible about these candidates or potential candidates, and actively searching for good potential candidates, and let the Presidential field chew each others legs off if they want to.
Am I the only one who finds this comment shocking?
"I do not know where Ms. Clinton stands on most of these issues and if she ever decides to speak up (like Bernie Sanders) her negatives will fade quickly and she will gain the support of the majority."
Don't you think it's odd that you don't know where Ms. Clinton stands on most of these issues even though she's been a public figure longer than Bernie Sanders?
If you don't know where she stands on these issues, what makes you so sure she'll "gain the support of the majority" when she finally lets us know?
"I do not know where Ms. Clinton stands on most of these issues and if she ever decides to speak up (like Bernie Sanders) her negatives will fade quickly and she will gain the support of the majority."
Don't you think it's odd that you don't know where Ms. Clinton stands on most of these issues even though she's been a public figure longer than Bernie Sanders?
If you don't know where she stands on these issues, what makes you so sure she'll "gain the support of the majority" when she finally lets us know?
1
There is no necessity for the "right" to bait the "left" about the Clintons and their career of cover-ups, deceits, and sexual irregularities. The Clintons have adequately baited their careers with ample examples of their duplicity and financial greed, from Bill Clinton's long history of womanizing, to renting out the White House to Wall Street by Hillary Clinton, to doing away with the banking restraints on gambling with the public's deposits, to pardoning tax cheats who made huge donations to the Clinton's interests, to dishonestly trying to cover up a White House affair with a young intern, to being willing to split hairs in self-servingly defining the meaning of "is" while sworn on the witness stand, and much more. The Clintons may be happy with all their new found millions but they have left a ruthless trail that needs no baiting from "the right".
3
Detached, narrow, and regressive guidance from the right is in no way needed to help the left recognize Hillary's faults. 18th century advice is not in much demand these days.
The GOP is mistaken. Attacking Clinton from the left makes her a stronger candidate like her husband, Bill Clinton. Both are middle of the road which is what most Americans want. Someone who can get things done instead of polarize.
1
America wants strong leadership that supports the middle class and reduces poverty.
Not to repeat many good points already made, I simply will add two further comments: (1) Well informed progressives won't be swayed by the usual propaganda dished out by the far right -- although many of us might vote protest anyway if Hillary is the candidate. (2) In 2008, no one would have predicted that Obama would beat Hillary; wait until citizens are treated to her debates with Bernie Sanders.
Everything the left complains about the right can be found in Hillary. The left doesn't need the help of the right for that.
1
As Ronald Reagan once said: "Here we go again... ." When will my party be FOR something? I have no interest in looking "forward" to 5.5 more years of assaults on a Democratic president, but that surely will not persuade me to vote for one of the stallions slogging along on the sloppy primary track that have come out of the gate. I'll be happy to spend time watching the next great race at Belmont.
1
Clintons cheated old people out of their life savings in Whitewater.
1
This will work until Republicans finally select a candidate from their clown car. Whoever that is will have a huge target on his back and lots of fodder for great attack adds. And it will be fun to see the press finally turn its attention to a truly awful prospect for president.
1
First, let's get real about the "dynasty" claim. There has been exactly one Clinton in office thus far; and two does not a dynasty make. There have been two Bush's in office thus far, but three is still not a "dynasty." Second, to suggest that Hillary is "no better" than the GOP candidates is to ignore her actual background. Yes, she has moved center, perhaps even a tad center-right, since her most "radical" days, but this was absolutely necessary in order to win a Democratic plurality (just as engaging in PACs is necessary unless she wants to "unilaterally disarm" and let the Kochs and Adelsons decide who is president). And yes, she is a "Wall Streeter" (of sorts), but then so is Obama, who appointed many Goldman Sachsers and other WSers into his inner circle. It didn't change his ability to (mostly) govern from the center-left. But Hillary is, without question, FAR more to the left on a variety of issues, both domestic and foreign, than ANY of her GOP counterparts.
What matters is not NOT whether one's father, brother, spouse, has "already" been in office, or whether it is one's "turn," etc. What matters is whether one has the experience, savvy, etc. to be a good leader. There is no question that Hillary has all these things - and more - and in greater quantity than any of the GOP candidates.
If the "progressive left" abandons her because they wear rose-colored glasses, they will subject everyone to a dangerously REGRESSIVE government.
What matters is not NOT whether one's father, brother, spouse, has "already" been in office, or whether it is one's "turn," etc. What matters is whether one has the experience, savvy, etc. to be a good leader. There is no question that Hillary has all these things - and more - and in greater quantity than any of the GOP candidates.
If the "progressive left" abandons her because they wear rose-colored glasses, they will subject everyone to a dangerously REGRESSIVE government.
2
@Maani: "There has been exactly one Clinton in office thus far; ..."
If you mean *elective* office, then there have been two, because Hillary Clinton was a US Senator.
"There have been two Bush's in office thus far, ..."
There have been three, because Jeb Bush was a Florida governor.
"... two does not a dynasty make."
'... but three is still not a "dynasty."'
Please give us a rigorous definition of "dynasty", instead of negative examples.
If you mean *elective* office, then there have been two, because Hillary Clinton was a US Senator.
"There have been two Bush's in office thus far, ..."
There have been three, because Jeb Bush was a Florida governor.
"... two does not a dynasty make."
'... but three is still not a "dynasty."'
Please give us a rigorous definition of "dynasty", instead of negative examples.
Rose-colored glasses make the dreary appear less so. I suggest that the writer wishes progressives not look at HC with a microscope.
I am shocked, shocked! to see such tactics take place. Why, the only other times I can recall such perfidy is in basically every election. I look forward to tomorrow's edition, when we learn the sun rises in the East.
2
Those who equate Hillary to Jeb, need to look no further than the supreme court. Look who appointed who and what the outcome has been. For the long term we need to rally around our candidate. I am sure Elizabeth Warren agrees. We will see Ms. Warren at the convention touting Hillary. Why? cause almost any democrat in the oval office is better than the republican clowns running.
In the arena of ideas all information should be included. Who knows how any given bit of information will effect an election which will be effected by events that have yet to occur. This article is a response to a tactic that the democrats invented and like all tactics will mutate and then mutate again. Adapting old ideas that have been around forever to the age in which we live will seem like something new until other ideas from the past are introduced in a high tech form.
"Having our first women President". What about the best person to rule?America's fascination with it's genitals is on the bottom rung of consciousness.
Who cares how many home runs Babe Ruth hit.
Clear the air, raise your awareness, move your attention from the base of the spine to the point between the eyebrows.
The Chieftains keep us divided, support opposing forces, make us think we have a choice.
While we run around the dung pile.
Who cares how many home runs Babe Ruth hit.
Clear the air, raise your awareness, move your attention from the base of the spine to the point between the eyebrows.
The Chieftains keep us divided, support opposing forces, make us think we have a choice.
While we run around the dung pile.
All Hillary needs to do--especially on the money issue--is literally own it. Say something like "Yup, this is the electoral system we've all allowed to develop. I don't like it much, but as president, I, and the Democratic party, will support any legislative effort from congress to change it."
That's a message a Republican cannot say, but a Democrat can...with an entire grassroots constituency chomping at the bit to hold her to it.
That's a message a Republican cannot say, but a Democrat can...with an entire grassroots constituency chomping at the bit to hold her to it.
1
Joke's on them. The Left turned against Hillary Clinton fifteen years ago and never looked back.
4
Winning is everything! In general, to tag a Presidential candidate as a Northeastern liberal is enough to energize the Republican base, particularly those who generally do not vote their economic interest. Machiavelli would have been a good Republican in this era.
1
So shocking. This is exactly how the tea party won in 2010. They attacked from the left insisting that the ACA was too centrist and why was Obama so weak he couldn’t get a public option.
Got to wonder who is helping to fund the Warren Campaign. Like a fake group pretending to be far left, funded by the right.
Nothing like a little dishonesty in politics.
Got to wonder who is helping to fund the Warren Campaign. Like a fake group pretending to be far left, funded by the right.
Nothing like a little dishonesty in politics.
At the risk of deterring the GOP from wasting its money in every possible way, I should point out that, even for Nader-level lefties, one of the most powerful reasons to vote for HRC is not because who she is, but who she isn't: a Republican.
Labeling today's GOP a destructively ideological cult would be unfair to delusional, but harmless, cults anywhere; calling the current crop of candidates a clown car would be an insult to clowns everywhere. Even the scary ones.
Labeling today's GOP a destructively ideological cult would be unfair to delusional, but harmless, cults anywhere; calling the current crop of candidates a clown car would be an insult to clowns everywhere. Even the scary ones.
4
The most glaring unlearned lesson for Lefties (and I was one) angry at the status quo and not seeing a candidate they adore is: VOTE ANYWAY!
You get older, you read history, and you learn that American is never going to have a President that is strictly aligned on all policy matters with either the severe left or right. There is no box for "none of the above," the nation's interests are best served over the long haul through maximum voter participation.
You get older, you read history, and you learn that American is never going to have a President that is strictly aligned on all policy matters with either the severe left or right. There is no box for "none of the above," the nation's interests are best served over the long haul through maximum voter participation.
1
As I understand this article, we're supposed to believe that Hillary Clinton's ethical difficulties are an illusion generated by a vast right-wing conspiracy.
1
The Republicans should be trying to figure out how they're going to keep the occupants of their Klown Kar from dragging viable candidates so far right that they have no chance in the general election.
Every candidate has baggage. The Democrats will do to the Republican nominee what Rove and company are doing to Clinton. In the meantime, all the Democrats have to do is sit back and watch the GOP's show which includes gems like Bush's Iraq flub.
Every candidate has baggage. The Democrats will do to the Republican nominee what Rove and company are doing to Clinton. In the meantime, all the Democrats have to do is sit back and watch the GOP's show which includes gems like Bush's Iraq flub.
1
The discussions will be helpful over the next year! Ultimately Hillary or Bernie or Martin or Elizabeth or Joe will be a far better choice than anyone who is rising from the Republican, tea partied base, Anyone!
1
Only goes to show that the Dems have viable candidates. As opposed to the Other Party. This is for the primary, you know..... When the Democratic candidate is finally chosen, whoever it is, the door slamming shut on the Repub's will be deafening. And awesome. Let them waste their money and strategy proving the obvious. That Dem's can actually find not one, not two, probably not only even three, excellent candidates.
1
Hillary will be Obama redux. If that is what we liberals think is acceptable then so be it. Personally, I have spent the last 6 years watching this President do everything in his power to preserve Corporate control of our country, Congress and all it's attempts at world domination.
Enough is enough, it is time for a change.
Enough is enough, it is time for a change.
2
Clinton is no saint and may deserve the attention she is getting from both the far right and the far left for her record of literally decades of public life. It is inevitably strewn with both things and positions that have turned out to be great and others that have turned out to be questionable or even wrong headed.
The really sad thing here is that the GOP cannot come up with a viable candidate that can beat her in a national election and they know it so they must resort to stirring the pot so to speak rather than concentrating on finding a real contender.
Until a real contender is found, which looks unlikely at this point from among the 20+ GOP wannabees, expect the dirt and innuendo to fly. They have nothing better to do with all their fat cat money. If you thought you had seen what swift boating can do to a qualified candidate when running against one of the worst incumbents in history and a Vietnam dodger to boot, "you ain't seen nothin yet".
The GOP leadership (the donors not the candidates or party leaders they control as their puppets) represent the American version of the nobility in their castles of money. The rest of us are mere serfs to be kept ignorant and misled to preserve their status quo. That is the reality when democracy crosses the line into plutocracy, which we have now done...again...and again in our short history.
The really sad thing here is that the GOP cannot come up with a viable candidate that can beat her in a national election and they know it so they must resort to stirring the pot so to speak rather than concentrating on finding a real contender.
Until a real contender is found, which looks unlikely at this point from among the 20+ GOP wannabees, expect the dirt and innuendo to fly. They have nothing better to do with all their fat cat money. If you thought you had seen what swift boating can do to a qualified candidate when running against one of the worst incumbents in history and a Vietnam dodger to boot, "you ain't seen nothin yet".
The GOP leadership (the donors not the candidates or party leaders they control as their puppets) represent the American version of the nobility in their castles of money. The rest of us are mere serfs to be kept ignorant and misled to preserve their status quo. That is the reality when democracy crosses the line into plutocracy, which we have now done...again...and again in our short history.
2
Oh, how I long for the days when the center left and center right ruled the parties. Maybe I'm just naive but listening to Elizabeth (I'm a sexist) and Ted is just a little too much. Please something resembling reality.
1
Maybe the GOP should try offering the country something to vote for rather than spending all their energy trying to get Americans to vote against someone.
2
America is ready for Hillary. So far, as a true conservative, I haven't seen a single reason not to vote for her. Every potential or actual GOP candidate hates the middle class and works against a system, however flawed, that's designed to provide a safety net. That's not conservatism: that's radical destruction of a rational society. All of my true conservative friends plan to vote for Hillary because she's the only real conservative in the race.
3
The commentary here is Orwellian and a perfect example of the "third person effect." It is Orwellian insofar as truth is regarded as an attempt at manipulation, something that knowing readers of the NYT have no reason to fear of themselves but the weak-minded masses who repeatedly vote against their own interests.
Insofar as Clinton is permitted to run an unchallenged campaign enabled by these elitist assumptions, she is very likely to lose to someone who has been tested and vetted.
Insofar as Clinton is permitted to run an unchallenged campaign enabled by these elitist assumptions, she is very likely to lose to someone who has been tested and vetted.
Politics as a game. Who cares? This is the kind of thing journalists love, because for them politics is just a game, with no meaning for the people who have to live in the result of those politics. In fact, this kind of electioneering tactic has been around since parties first emerged.
3
Silly season started early. If the GOP thinks they can manipulate left of center Democrats to oppose Hilary Clinton because of their tricks, they are delusional. This left of center Democrat is completely turned off by Hilary and her fake progressive political posture. However, if the alternative is ANY of the Republican candidates running or talking about running, I will vote for Hilary, the right of center representative of Big Banks, Big Business and Selling Out the American Middle Class. What an awful choice.
3
Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts. Or Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan.
There's a lot more to it than that, but it is also that simple.
There's a lot more to it than that, but it is also that simple.
4
It's one thing to vote for Hillary holding one's nose in the general election. Why do we have to vote for her in the primary, as opposed to, say, Bernie Sanders, who actually believes and would act on the positions Hillary dances around?
2
Propaganda-wise, Conservatives have put themselves in a strange but advantageous position: they are largely responsible for the creation of the corrupt electoral and lobbying system with money up front for many sensitive American to be seen and be disgusted with, and then blaming Democrats for any "appearance" of corruption. Their goal is two-fold: make their billionaires buying their candidates more acceptable (what the fuss, look, everybody does it), and turning more sensitive liberal voters away from voting. Bottom line: their hateful, angry and right wing radio talk show listening base will vote no matter what. For liberals is is important to vote for those who want to change this corrupt system and get the money away from politics. So far only Dems vow to do that.
2
The over the top Republican rhetoric toward Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama just makes me want to vote for anything that is not Republican. Rhetoric designed to please the Republican older white and religious base is likely to have very little, if any, impact on independents and is a big motivator for Democrats to get out and vote.
4
Interesting article, but I am struck by how ever increasingly, NYT's news articles are so apparently written by liberals, for liberals. Your reporters write about Republicans (news flash: about half the country) like anthropologists might write about some exotic tribe in a far away land.
2
Thank you Ashley Parker and Nick Corasaniti. But how is it that the Times was finally willing to publish something accurate and true about the right-wing campaign attacking Hillary Clinton? And. in so doing, illuminating the knee-jerk idiocy of some members of my party? Liberals love to find the flaws in our own, often more so than winning. When they realize their righteous indignation has been used against them -- yet again -- by cagey conservatives. they barely blush. Never forget: it was the august New York Times that promulgated the phony Whitewater "scandal" to a mainstream audience. The Times has never admitted its culpability or apologized, but finally starting to report the truth is a good step.
3
Left...Right....Up... Down...
No matter what direction you claim to face the facts surrounding and back-door dealings of the Clintons are enough to infuriate a voter who wants their country to succeed in the 21st Century.
The plight of career politicians should need not concern us in the lower-middle classes as our desires for upward mobility and security are nothing more than talking points.
Prepare thyselves for sludge oozing from both big parties this election season all while shady deals are being cut, decimation of our production workers dwindle, and poverty continues to creep upwards through society.
Until we have a true populist from the working class to promote the working class the "trash in, trash out" of political leadership will continue.
No matter what direction you claim to face the facts surrounding and back-door dealings of the Clintons are enough to infuriate a voter who wants their country to succeed in the 21st Century.
The plight of career politicians should need not concern us in the lower-middle classes as our desires for upward mobility and security are nothing more than talking points.
Prepare thyselves for sludge oozing from both big parties this election season all while shady deals are being cut, decimation of our production workers dwindle, and poverty continues to creep upwards through society.
Until we have a true populist from the working class to promote the working class the "trash in, trash out" of political leadership will continue.
Resorting to subliminal messages to defame Hillary Clinton is to be expected from the Right. No surprise here. Operating in the dark provides a cover for their mischief. I believe this is perfectly obvious. Instead of questioning Hillary's policies, ideas, or qualifications, the Right resorts to half-truth, lies and innuendo. When your political party and, especially, your presidential candidates are bankrupt of ideas, domestically and internationally, to benefit America it must resort to underhanded ways to achieve success. Their only hope is enough of their slander sticks in the mind of the voter. Need I say more.
No Republican candidate is as qualified as Hillary Clinton to be the next President of the United States. Definitely no surprise.
No Republican candidate is as qualified as Hillary Clinton to be the next President of the United States. Definitely no surprise.
1
The premise of this article, and of many of the responses here, is that Hillary Clinton is already the Democratic nominee because that's been decided by important people with money prior to a single primary vote being cast; and if anybody challenges that status, or even believes Democratic voters should decide who the nominee is, they're helping the Republicans. In fact, anyone who accepts this is not a 'democrat' in the small 'd' sense, even. The reason we have presidential primaries is to test the general election viability of a candidate, because the leadership and big money people are NOT infallible; further, there's a lot of reason, including this very concept of entitlement, to see Hillary Clinton as a weak general candidate who's going to lose in the end. Try to remember, folks: in 1980 the Democratic leadership and the big-money people behind them wanted to run against Ronald Reagan, thinking he'd be easy to beat in the general; and then in '84, they sought to stymie the insurgent candidacy of Gary Hart in favor of Walter Mondale, who got crushed in November. Is anyone out there really blind enough to think that Mondale would have won in '84 if there'd been no primary challenge that year?
1
I agree:
"For awhile I felt Jeb had promise but his comments the other day about seeking his brothers advice on the middle east did it for me."
If Jeb gets elected, George W. undoubtedly will show up at the White House for family functions now and then. But if I ever suspect Jeb would turn to that clown for foreign-policy advice -- or, worse yet, hire any of the clowns who used to work for George W. -- I'd scratch him off my list immediately. A bumbler-president I can live with, but an easily-manipulate bumbler-president -- not so much.
Hillary's not a bumbler. She just has no backbone. She's been around now for nearly a quarter of a century, but I still have no idea how she'd govern. Whenever she can avoid it, she declines to take any position on an issue (her recent remarks on immigration being a notable exception). When she's forced to take a position, she nearly always opposes what I think is best (as when she voted for the Iraq war). And I doubt any of this matters anyway, since she can't be counted on to stick with any position. All politicians flip-flop, but Hillary has turned it into a fine art.
"For awhile I felt Jeb had promise but his comments the other day about seeking his brothers advice on the middle east did it for me."
If Jeb gets elected, George W. undoubtedly will show up at the White House for family functions now and then. But if I ever suspect Jeb would turn to that clown for foreign-policy advice -- or, worse yet, hire any of the clowns who used to work for George W. -- I'd scratch him off my list immediately. A bumbler-president I can live with, but an easily-manipulate bumbler-president -- not so much.
Hillary's not a bumbler. She just has no backbone. She's been around now for nearly a quarter of a century, but I still have no idea how she'd govern. Whenever she can avoid it, she declines to take any position on an issue (her recent remarks on immigration being a notable exception). When she's forced to take a position, she nearly always opposes what I think is best (as when she voted for the Iraq war). And I doubt any of this matters anyway, since she can't be counted on to stick with any position. All politicians flip-flop, but Hillary has turned it into a fine art.
1
I just love those W.W.E.W.D, bracelets! Unfortunately, as a progressive Democrat, I've got news for all those right-wing disinformation specialists. It seems that Hillary's already got one to go along with her own, private internet server. Just shows you what all that foundation money can buy. Maybe, I'll order a W.W.M.D. bracelet as in What Would Mike [Huckabee] Do for poor ole Jeb Bush. Oops, did that say W.M.D.?! Well, that about describes that whole crowd. Bring on the axis of evildoers and their "nattering nabobs of negativism." With 18 months to go before the election, it's nice to begin with a visit to the Republican fun house located in a bunker on the far right dark side near you.
I truly wonder if the Electorate will ever [again] have the opportunity to objectively evaluate a presidential candidate?
It seems to me that Dems blindly back hillary, and whenever something negative comes out about her, they immediately discount the legitimacy of the story.
The GOP will ultimately back the establishment candidate -- regardless of how odious.
The other candidates, from parties not named Republican or Democrat will be marginalised and not allowed to meaningfully participate in the election process.
So, at the end of the day -- what are we left with? Hardly a substantive, thoughtful process for electing the most important public figure in the world...
It seems to me that Dems blindly back hillary, and whenever something negative comes out about her, they immediately discount the legitimacy of the story.
The GOP will ultimately back the establishment candidate -- regardless of how odious.
The other candidates, from parties not named Republican or Democrat will be marginalised and not allowed to meaningfully participate in the election process.
So, at the end of the day -- what are we left with? Hardly a substantive, thoughtful process for electing the most important public figure in the world...
This is not news to me; I have noticed that even in the Times comment section, Republican shills, paid or unpaid, have been attacking Hillary, apparently from the left.
However, when it comes to the general election, I feel that Democrats will get behind Hillary (who by now has proved that she can take anything anyone dishes out), if only to save Social Security and to prevent the complete privatization of the Federal Government.
Besides, with so many candidates, there will be many more opportunities for gaffes like Romney's 47% remark among the Republican contenders.
For so many reasons, Hillary is much less likely to say anything stupid.
However, when it comes to the general election, I feel that Democrats will get behind Hillary (who by now has proved that she can take anything anyone dishes out), if only to save Social Security and to prevent the complete privatization of the Federal Government.
Besides, with so many candidates, there will be many more opportunities for gaffes like Romney's 47% remark among the Republican contenders.
For so many reasons, Hillary is much less likely to say anything stupid.
1
The truth is the truth, no matter the source. Sounds like the NYT is trying to kill the messenger while closing their eyes to the real issue--HRC's multiple flaws.
5
The more the GOP picks on Clinton, the more female and minority votes she will get.
1
The problem with spending money on this strategy is that when liberal voters get a look at the republican candidate they will turn out to vote for chuckles the clown if he/she isn't the second coming of W. or Mclame. We have been treated to nuanced foreign and domestic policy over the last 6+ years. The thought of going back to "bomb 'em and let God sort it out" and "tax cut, tax cut, tax cut" as policy positions is too scary to imagine.
The real action for these PACs is, as is always the case, first the base and then, more importantly since the base will turn out as long as the right dog whistles are sounded by the candidate, the so called uncommitted voters e.g. those who don't pay any more attention than necessary to politics except perhaps for a single issue. That means identifying those voters and then painting the Democrat as hostile to both sides.
The real action for these PACs is, as is always the case, first the base and then, more importantly since the base will turn out as long as the right dog whistles are sounded by the candidate, the so called uncommitted voters e.g. those who don't pay any more attention than necessary to politics except perhaps for a single issue. That means identifying those voters and then painting the Democrat as hostile to both sides.
The Republicans are wasting their time attacking Hillary. She has enough baggage to implode on her our without any help. Start by reading "Clinton Cash". Is this really the kind of person you want as President. I don't think so and I'm a liberal Democrat!
4
So which GOP candidate do you support? And name us the kind of supreme court judge you as a liberal Democrat wants to see comes the next round of nomination for SCOTUS.
The right does not need to bait the left. Real Liberals/Progressives know what Bill & Hillary Clinton did to the democratic party. Just say no to "Clinton/Bush 2016"
2
So many commenters apparently believe most voters will vote either Republican or Democrat because that's what they are.
Most voters are independent.
On foreign policy, a voter may favor the US not getting involved in so many foreign wars. But does that mean voting for Hillary? Has there ever -- even once -- been a foreign war that Hillary didn't support?
On immigration, many independents strongly oppose open borders, but support legal immigration. Does that mean voting for Hillary, who's promised to do even more than Obama?
On many other issues, many independents support what Hillary supports (at least if we could figure out what it is she supports). But are her hawkish foreign-policy views and open-borders view on immigration enough to turn voters away from her even so? We'll see. I wouldn't vote for her just because I don't find her terribly impressive, and so I never even reach the issues. But for those independent voters who do, do they really agree with her enough to vote for her? Is it really enough that she's "better than some Republican" -- that's all it takes?
If Democratic strategists believe they can take the left wing for granted, they'll inevitably move farther and farther right in the future. If you were them, wouldn't you too?
Most voters are independent.
On foreign policy, a voter may favor the US not getting involved in so many foreign wars. But does that mean voting for Hillary? Has there ever -- even once -- been a foreign war that Hillary didn't support?
On immigration, many independents strongly oppose open borders, but support legal immigration. Does that mean voting for Hillary, who's promised to do even more than Obama?
On many other issues, many independents support what Hillary supports (at least if we could figure out what it is she supports). But are her hawkish foreign-policy views and open-borders view on immigration enough to turn voters away from her even so? We'll see. I wouldn't vote for her just because I don't find her terribly impressive, and so I never even reach the issues. But for those independent voters who do, do they really agree with her enough to vote for her? Is it really enough that she's "better than some Republican" -- that's all it takes?
If Democratic strategists believe they can take the left wing for granted, they'll inevitably move farther and farther right in the future. If you were them, wouldn't you too?
1
Thanks. I've been wondering who was behind all the trash being thrown at Ms. Clinton the last couple of months, the e-mail business, the Clinton Foundation business. Our good old friendly tricksters in the Republican Party. What a surprise. Got anything else to toss out? Why not do it now and get it over with. We might then be able to have an election based on discussion of real issues. Oh, then again, that might not be to your advantage, huh?
1
No one is really proposing that the far left...many of whom don't like
Hillary, would jumble on over to the right, which in this cycle
means only the FAR RIGHT? Really?
That calculation is insane.
Maybe a paragraph or two about how the Christians are leaving the
far right from sheer embarrassment.
Hillary, would jumble on over to the right, which in this cycle
means only the FAR RIGHT? Really?
That calculation is insane.
Maybe a paragraph or two about how the Christians are leaving the
far right from sheer embarrassment.
1
You do not want a Republican President in 2016, or ever for that matter, it's that simple
1
Satire script: Kock bros hire a technology company to create a faux grass roots fund-raising movement through which they funnel hundreds of millions of dollars to Bernie Sanders. Key reveal during campaign is the money was from the Kock's! Bernie has bloodied and weakened Hillary in debates and primaries, now he denies he knew of the money, but in todays culture, many assume he's lying.
The Koch's are gleeful their devious master plan is working. Bernie then adopts a single issue candidacy - A constitutional amendment that makes all elections exclusively publicly financed. No contributions from any person or entity allowed. Public support is so immense across all demographic and regional lines that even Republicans embrace the amendment.
Bernie sweeps into office on a wave of support. The amendment is adopted and the Koch's are like the rich brothers in Trading Places who turned out to be oh so very wrong. Hey, a guy can dream can't he?
The Koch's are gleeful their devious master plan is working. Bernie then adopts a single issue candidacy - A constitutional amendment that makes all elections exclusively publicly financed. No contributions from any person or entity allowed. Public support is so immense across all demographic and regional lines that even Republicans embrace the amendment.
Bernie sweeps into office on a wave of support. The amendment is adopted and the Koch's are like the rich brothers in Trading Places who turned out to be oh so very wrong. Hey, a guy can dream can't he?
2
Don't be so scared of big money. Adelsons billions didn't buy the White House for his guy, and Romney couldn't buy it for himself.
Lots of little money can do wonders. And the candidate to really fear, if youre a progressive, is Rand Paul.
He sounds like a breath of fresh air compared to the rest of the already-declared and coyly-waiting Republican candidates, and he has a message that many young people respond to--if they don't look too deeply into who and what he really is.
I was a wild-eyed progressive in my long-ago youth in NY, and have matured into a grimly-realistic unaffiliated-with-any-party adulthood. I have always voted Democratic but have sacrificed the ability to vote in primaries because I do not want any label slapped on me.
I will never vote for Hillary, no matter how much the doomsday drumbeat is banged in my ear. The integrity of my vote means something to me, though it means nothing to her. Lets hope enough people still believe in hope to give Bernie a fighting chance.
Lots of little money can do wonders. And the candidate to really fear, if youre a progressive, is Rand Paul.
He sounds like a breath of fresh air compared to the rest of the already-declared and coyly-waiting Republican candidates, and he has a message that many young people respond to--if they don't look too deeply into who and what he really is.
I was a wild-eyed progressive in my long-ago youth in NY, and have matured into a grimly-realistic unaffiliated-with-any-party adulthood. I have always voted Democratic but have sacrificed the ability to vote in primaries because I do not want any label slapped on me.
I will never vote for Hillary, no matter how much the doomsday drumbeat is banged in my ear. The integrity of my vote means something to me, though it means nothing to her. Lets hope enough people still believe in hope to give Bernie a fighting chance.
1
The Clintons are so utterly and perfectly corrupt that they have inoculated themselves and their base from any discussion of their corruption.
3
As a liberal, I think this is great! The enemy of Clinton is my friend. I have always wondered why conservatives don't do this since Democratic nominees are so unrepresentative of their voters' beliefs.
2
Folks, the Democratic Party has not yet nominated Hillary as its candidate to run for the Presidency. Let's not forget that in 2008, Hillary was also the anointed one until a relative unknown who had opposed the Iraq War came out of nowhere to capture the nomination and win the Presidency. My personal preference is for the candidate who isn't in the pockets of the financiers and corporations and who actually is for the people--Bernie Sanders. Until and unless Hillary wins the Democratic nomination, let's not talk about her and her chances against the Republicans.
First of all, the Clintons were never the darlings of the left. As founders of the Democratic Leadership Council inside the Democratic Party, they devoted themselves to finding 'a third way' between the extremism of the right in the 80's and 90's and the liberalism of the Democratic Party during that same period. The DLC's and the Clintons' 'third way' seemed to be to adopt Republican policies, such as welfare reform, moderate them minimally and sell them as progressive reform. That said, liberals voted for the Clintons, not out of love or devotion, but because the alternatives, Bush and Dole were if anything worse. If that was true for the 90's, it is even more so true now. Look across the field of Republican candidates for President and you see a crowd of bumbling ideologues bowing down before the Kochs and other wealthy benefactors whose sole interest in America is greed to pad their already substantial fortunes. They offer us another Bush, as if two were not more than enough and then the likes of Rick Perry, Scott Walker, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul. And they think liberals will not vote for Hilary so that they can elect someone worse? Seriously!!
1
The efforts of conservative groups to turn Democratic Party voters against Hillary Clinton with nasty attack ads is downright insulting. We are quite capable of obtaining information about candidates and forming our own opinions without their assistance.
Voting is a form of game theory and voters know how to play. These are probably not designed to sway voters, they are designed to keep small donors from giving to Hillary who they may ultimately vote for.
The interesting thing is that these attacks have to be done anonymously, because any of the Republican candidates voicing these criticisms would be laughed off the stage.
"Shrillary", "Killary", "Billary"...all names for Mrs. Clinton that succinctly describe one or more of her character traits. Typically used by those on the Right, these appellations are quietly being accepted by those anti-Clintonistas on the Left. GOOD!
I voted joyfully for history once, and then in desperate hope a second time, and what did it get me?
Cheneys foreign policy advisor now working for the Obama White House; more Middle Eastern dictators tossed out to create even worse chaos; Wall Street happier than ever; the powerfully connected getting the usual pass--Petraeus--and the little guy who committed a comparable offense going to jail--Sterling.
And the vaunted ACA? The realistic economic analysts had it right. They said the premium rates were set in fantasyland. The result? Up here, our major world-class teaching hospital is losing so much money on the newly-insured that it is going after the middle class, using Simon Legree-like tactics to collect on bills that had already had their balances negotiated in fair and achievable payment plans. This isn't rumor-mongering--this is happening to people right now.
But things would have been even worse if Hillary had gotten to the White House in 2008.
You can warn me about the Supreme Court all you want. Democratic Senators helped put Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court because they didn't have the courage to resist a little name-calling by an absolute mediocrity.
Bernie Sanders has bitterly disappointed me by his failure, too, to stand up to AIPAC and call murder of innocents the murder of innocents. So I guess global justice wont be on his calling card. But at least he will fight for us here.
Cheneys foreign policy advisor now working for the Obama White House; more Middle Eastern dictators tossed out to create even worse chaos; Wall Street happier than ever; the powerfully connected getting the usual pass--Petraeus--and the little guy who committed a comparable offense going to jail--Sterling.
And the vaunted ACA? The realistic economic analysts had it right. They said the premium rates were set in fantasyland. The result? Up here, our major world-class teaching hospital is losing so much money on the newly-insured that it is going after the middle class, using Simon Legree-like tactics to collect on bills that had already had their balances negotiated in fair and achievable payment plans. This isn't rumor-mongering--this is happening to people right now.
But things would have been even worse if Hillary had gotten to the White House in 2008.
You can warn me about the Supreme Court all you want. Democratic Senators helped put Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court because they didn't have the courage to resist a little name-calling by an absolute mediocrity.
Bernie Sanders has bitterly disappointed me by his failure, too, to stand up to AIPAC and call murder of innocents the murder of innocents. So I guess global justice wont be on his calling card. But at least he will fight for us here.
3
I think that this would be a losing strategy. I think that voters who are somewhat upset with Clinton would be appalled at the prospect of even the most moderate of the GOP prospects (not that there are many). They would be deathly afraid of a GOP president with a GOP congress.
@Times: "... it is sometimes difficult to know where that information comes from ..."
OK, but the America Rising web site is not an example. The "About" page says: "America Rising PAC was set up in Spring 2013 to serve as an organization on the right for the sole purpose of exposing the truth about Democrats through video tracking, research, and communications. By cataloguing every Democrat utterance we have the data to ensure they are held accountable for their words and actions."
OK, but the America Rising web site is not an example. The "About" page says: "America Rising PAC was set up in Spring 2013 to serve as an organization on the right for the sole purpose of exposing the truth about Democrats through video tracking, research, and communications. By cataloguing every Democrat utterance we have the data to ensure they are held accountable for their words and actions."
i simply hope that liberals, leftists and progressives--those are different things, you know--don't Nader themselves again. that they don't rant about a DINO and not vote. That they don't sneer because Ideological Purity.
see the Supreme Court? Like the way it is? guess how it got that way.
see the Supreme Court? Like the way it is? guess how it got that way.
1
So what? The choice for president has almost always been between Tweedledum and Tweedledee, though as in 2000 next year will be Tweedledee and Tweedledumb.
4
We have a disgusting situation in Washington D. C., a vote about to happen on Fast-Tracking a Trade Deal that will ultimately do great damage to American families and workers, but we are focused on whether or not the Right-Wing Manipulators are going to spin Voters into voting for them. Get over it, GOP. Real Democrats, those who understand REAL POLICY PLATFORMS of great impact, will never vote for you. You represent the dismantling of jobs, rights, families' stability across the nation, and in some cases, around the world.
Bernie Sanders and others, E Warren, Sherrod Brown all speak to the facts being ignored by our Mainstream Media in a large degree. These people are trying to awaken American voters to thinking, to reading and understanding all the facts around what has created this mess in the USA. I hope our MSMedia will share these facts in a more advanced, concentrated manner, so that democracy will have some chance of regaining strength in this United States government. WIthout the MSMedia outlets participating more fully in truth telling on a constant basis, we are sunk. And no one can deny that.
Now let us see if they wait until midnight to approve my comment.
Bernie Sanders and others, E Warren, Sherrod Brown all speak to the facts being ignored by our Mainstream Media in a large degree. These people are trying to awaken American voters to thinking, to reading and understanding all the facts around what has created this mess in the USA. I hope our MSMedia will share these facts in a more advanced, concentrated manner, so that democracy will have some chance of regaining strength in this United States government. WIthout the MSMedia outlets participating more fully in truth telling on a constant basis, we are sunk. And no one can deny that.
Now let us see if they wait until midnight to approve my comment.
1
As soon as voters get a look at the GOP candidates, they will fall back in love with Hillary.
1
nothing like running on one's merits. the only 'good' is that perhaps hilary will withdraw, finally realizing she is NOT going to be welcomed as queen.
4
The GOP better be careful. Two can play that game.
1
Just how big a right wing drift by the Democratic Party has to take place before the electorate realizes that the duopoly has merged into a monopoly?
2
Won't work, the alternatives are worse.
I don't need someone on the right to tell me that she supported the Iraq invasion, and later as Sec'y of State she supported the Libyan policy that turned the most prosperous nation in Africa into a Somalia-on-the-Mediterranean. And furthermore that she supported Obama's 2009 "surge" in that quagmire known as Afghanistan. I don't need the right to tell me that she offered only the most mealy-mouthed response to Bahrain's killing and torturing of peaceful protesters during the Arab Spring, just because the US Navy has a base there.
I don't need the right to tell me about the unreported donations to her foundation, or her email scandal. And I don't need the right to tell me that Mrs Clinton is so cozy with Big Money that if the Wall Street Journal had a swimsuit issue she'd be on the cover.
The messenger may be on the political right but the message is still accurate.
I don't need the right to tell me about the unreported donations to her foundation, or her email scandal. And I don't need the right to tell me that Mrs Clinton is so cozy with Big Money that if the Wall Street Journal had a swimsuit issue she'd be on the cover.
The messenger may be on the political right but the message is still accurate.
3
Two words: Supreme Court. Don't let the Republicans put any more people on the Supreme Court or we are toast.
3
Some facts.
Voting for President is a big deal. Your personal feelings don't matter. Your knowledge of the facts do matter.
Here are the facts: no one is perfect, not even you.
If you don't vote Democratic in 2016 in the Presidential election,
you, yes you, are throwing Democracy under the bus.
The republican right already has democracy, your medicare benefits, your social security benefits, your Obamacare choices, in the gutter and tied down.
If you don't start voting Democratic, democracy will be non existent.
Catholics need to be Democrats, the Catechism tells them why but they don't read it.
We have separation of church and state. So separate yourself from whatever hold you back, because you are hurting the entire working class by not voting Democratic.
Now, if you want specifics, let's talk someplace else.
But these are the cold facts stripped down to the naked truth
Voting for President is a big deal. Your personal feelings don't matter. Your knowledge of the facts do matter.
Here are the facts: no one is perfect, not even you.
If you don't vote Democratic in 2016 in the Presidential election,
you, yes you, are throwing Democracy under the bus.
The republican right already has democracy, your medicare benefits, your social security benefits, your Obamacare choices, in the gutter and tied down.
If you don't start voting Democratic, democracy will be non existent.
Catholics need to be Democrats, the Catechism tells them why but they don't read it.
We have separation of church and state. So separate yourself from whatever hold you back, because you are hurting the entire working class by not voting Democratic.
Now, if you want specifics, let's talk someplace else.
But these are the cold facts stripped down to the naked truth
1
Same old culprits.....white, anglo, protestant, male, heterosexual good ol' boys feeling beleaguered and redundant (and plain scared!) by notions of change which don't necessarily ensure their place at the head of the table, top of the pile, etc. Get real dudes, women aren't going back to the kitchen, blacks aren't going back to the fields or the factories, latinos aren't returning south of the border and gays aren't going back to the closet. Just Get Over It and Just Plain Deal With It.
2
Unfortunately for you, at some point you'll need to stop blaming others (read: us devilish WASP boomer males) for your life's disappointments. It would be best for you to have a Plan B.
From the party that brought us Dirty Tricks, now updated for the tech era. And with untraceable mounds of billionaires' cash to fund the effort.
No surprises there. While we think we're having a discussion, the solid coal face of humanity denial is busy looking for advantage.
Selfishness and greed, aided by exploitation and phony religion, strikes again.
Selfishness and greed, aided by exploitation and phony religion, strikes again.
2
Wrong.
It's not the Rs raking in tens of millions of "pay-to-play" dollars from plain folks like the Kremlin and George Stephanopolous.
It's HillBill themselves, baiting the Left to turn against Hillary entitlement to the Presidency. But it won't work. Ds won't be fooled, even by the Clintons' own "gotta-pay-the-bills" admissions. She's got a lock on their mindless, braindead vote.
It's not the Rs raking in tens of millions of "pay-to-play" dollars from plain folks like the Kremlin and George Stephanopolous.
It's HillBill themselves, baiting the Left to turn against Hillary entitlement to the Presidency. But it won't work. Ds won't be fooled, even by the Clintons' own "gotta-pay-the-bills" admissions. She's got a lock on their mindless, braindead vote.
3
The jewel in our political box of democrat ticket candidates is Senator Bernie Sanders, yet many here choose cheap paste, mainstream mentality that we can expect and don't deserve the quality gem. Senator Sanders will receive my contributions until the primaries. Nothing lost as he isn't running third party. If he is the nominee, due to massive citizen support, he will receive my vote in the general election. If not, I will vote for the least of two evils. Commentators write that they wish for Senator Sanders, but seem to have given in to the least of two evils from the beginning. Contribute to Senator Sanders if you prefer his policies, and as you declare, want him to become the next presidential nominee. You can still vote for your least of two evils, the Clintons, in the general, if Senator Sanders isn't nominated.
1
The sinister undertakings of the Republicans are directly proportional to the quality and expansive experience of the candidate. Hillary is super qualified and uniquely experienced to be President.........and they know it.
2
What this demonstrates most clearly is that the only effective strategy Republicans have is reducing voter turnout for their opponents. They appear to have largely given up on the idea of appealing to voters through the strength of their arguments.
Most progressives already know that Hilary Clinton is no liberal, so I can't really see that this will cause much damage to her. In the meantime, it gives Clinton the opportunity to point the arrow back at Republicans and ask whether the arguments they make about her aren't true about Republican donors like Sheldon Adelson and the Koch brothers. And why are the identities of most large Republican donors kept secret?
Most progressives already know that Hilary Clinton is no liberal, so I can't really see that this will cause much damage to her. In the meantime, it gives Clinton the opportunity to point the arrow back at Republicans and ask whether the arguments they make about her aren't true about Republican donors like Sheldon Adelson and the Koch brothers. And why are the identities of most large Republican donors kept secret?
3
I think the saying is "if the shoe fits". You cannot attack someone who is what they say they are on anything but what they are. All this says is that Hilary should not be the candidate. So she is a greedy, needy retread who hustles cash.. she is. This column would seemed designed to boost Hilary because the bad bad republicans are outing who she is. Well She Is. It is a question of what Is- is, as her husband said.
2
If the Republicans really want to weaken Hillary, they could nominate a rational candidate. But they don't have any.
1
After all these Mad magazine spy vs spy shenanigans the bottom line remains the same- the Democrat party should be able to put forth someone a lot better than Hillary Clinton, and they know it.
3
Sticks and stones......what have the Republicans got to offer? Another intellectually challenged Bush who would gladly repeat his idiot brother's mistakes, thats what. Oh, and there are a hundred other candidates, basically brainless snarling attack dogs for the far right that don't have a complete functioning brain collectively among them all. I wish Bernie Sanders had a chance, but Hillary is all we have at this point.
Many of the readers' top picks deal with the deviousness of right-wing trolls, followed by the usual question: What choice do we have? What they don't deal with is how far Hillary Clinton is from progressive principles, and how she represents only the milder side of a style of politics and governing that has already eroded the confidence of the public in the United States, and that is flailing abroad as well.
The discussion of Canadian politics is not dissimilar, by the way. Commenters on the right goad progressives to abandon leaders who are too centrist. But for every one of these comments, there is another one (usually from a supporter of the party that resembles the Democrats) accusing a genuine progressive of secretly supporting the right, or "splitting the vote."
The discussion of Canadian politics is not dissimilar, by the way. Commenters on the right goad progressives to abandon leaders who are too centrist. But for every one of these comments, there is another one (usually from a supporter of the party that resembles the Democrats) accusing a genuine progressive of secretly supporting the right, or "splitting the vote."
3
Turn against Hillary and towards whom? Jeb "just another" Bush? Ted "I hate everything" Cruz? Marco "I'm more Hispanic than Ted Cruz" Rubio? Carly "vote more because I got fired" Fiorina? Rand "I'm less Libertarian than my father" Paul? Oh, I know! Ben "I'm a black neurosurgeon" Carlson.
1
The 15% to 20% in the middle who are not already dedicated 'believers' and who'll actually decide the election will wait to see which of the two candidates hit which of their hot buttons. Up to then, it's just batting practice.
2
The proverbial bottom line is that (at least since Lee Atwater) Republicans typically take the path of demeaning ANY and every Democratic opponent. In the absence of real policies to remedy recognized problems, they've found no other strategy. One -- but not the only -- result of this seemingly endless negative pursuit is that they continuously post inferior candidates whose strongest urge appears to be to pander to The Base. To date, as anticipated, his trend continues.
Everyone learns from everyone else, and anything that can happen will happen; nothing in this story is a surprise and the R are simply moving into the particular tactics employed by the D. The real story is how the NYT is once again sheltering the Clintons and their shocking use of Presidential celebrity, public office and a tax-exempt "foundation" to be and remain as gross multi-millionaires like their hedge fund manager buddies. The Big Lie is to ignore this money-sucking machine which obviously leads to the sale of votes and public policy.
1
The 2016 presidential campaign may come down to whose lies are more believable and who has the most money to tell them the most times. What a sad state for electoral democracy.
Is it really too late to demand a serious Democratic primary? Just because Hillary has been campaigning for the presidential nomination since 2007?
The nation needs a selection of candidates and viewpoints to choose from at the primary level.
If we are presented with a Bush/Clinton contest next year I predict the lowest voter turnout in decades because the people will have given up any illusion that we have a real choice in who is elected. I've always wanted to see a real woman president, but Hillary is just another political pantsuit.
The nation needs a selection of candidates and viewpoints to choose from at the primary level.
If we are presented with a Bush/Clinton contest next year I predict the lowest voter turnout in decades because the people will have given up any illusion that we have a real choice in who is elected. I've always wanted to see a real woman president, but Hillary is just another political pantsuit.
1
Interesting approach by the Republicans. According to the Times, Hillary is an unbeatable Democratic primary candidate and she looks quite OK for her age.
If I were a Republican strategist, I would focus on a relatively decent Republican candidate, according to me (and quite a few other people) the third member of the Bush dynasty: Web Bush. First to get him nominated, then to get him elected as Bush III.
If I am still alive next year, I will vote for Hillary in the general election. On TV Bill Clinton wears glasses, Hillary probably contact lenses.
Interesting story in the Times. My standard theme in presidential election years has always been: a very democratic UK can elect its PM after just a few weeks of campaigning. Much better than the convoluted campaigns here.
If I were a Republican strategist, I would focus on a relatively decent Republican candidate, according to me (and quite a few other people) the third member of the Bush dynasty: Web Bush. First to get him nominated, then to get him elected as Bush III.
If I am still alive next year, I will vote for Hillary in the general election. On TV Bill Clinton wears glasses, Hillary probably contact lenses.
Interesting story in the Times. My standard theme in presidential election years has always been: a very democratic UK can elect its PM after just a few weeks of campaigning. Much better than the convoluted campaigns here.
It may be a hold your nose up coming Presidential election with Hillary part of the bad smell, but the thought of Ted Cruz or a worse yet empty suit Marco Rubio as President is enough to dampen the smell in addition to keeping me up at night.
1
The "right Bait" could work but only to a minimal extent in creating some apathy among the Democratic and a lot more apathy in independent voters. But a late surge in women's sentiments may even energize Republican women to vote FOR Hillary Clinton. Thus the Right Bait could cancel out in the end.
Remember what happened in 1998/99 when the Newt Gingrich engineered impeachment process against Bill clinton. aided also by liberal media like the NYT & Washington Post? In that attempt, media lost so much credibility, from which they haven't recovered yet. Walter Cronkite was the most trusted man in America. But those were the good old days. The current antipathy towards the media has also been enhanced by Rush Limbaugh & Fox News.
Remember what happened in 1998/99 when the Newt Gingrich engineered impeachment process against Bill clinton. aided also by liberal media like the NYT & Washington Post? In that attempt, media lost so much credibility, from which they haven't recovered yet. Walter Cronkite was the most trusted man in America. But those were the good old days. The current antipathy towards the media has also been enhanced by Rush Limbaugh & Fox News.
1
I do not recall that the NYT or any other liberal outlet orchestrated anything against Clinton during the impeachment process. If anything they subjected it to the high degree of skepticism it deserved without making any prejudgment or favoring either side.
Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton will campaign like a tag team, beating up on Republican tax, trade, and labor policies, and building a progressive platform that the times demand.
Politics will always be prone to these sorts of game. The bigger issues are how to stop voter disenfranchisement, gerrymandering, and unlimited campaign "contributions" (or as we used to call them, bribes).
1
Really? The GOP offers up a fraudulent identity of a left wing critic of a woman who served as First Lady, NY senator, and Secretary of State - mostly based on her access to money, which they want all to themselves. There are no policy positions on improving quality & affordability of healthcare, no plan for protecting environmental cleanliness, nothing about expanding jobs and economic growth to benefit all Americans, no concern about repairing or improving transportation & other infrastructure, etc. There is not one shred of evidence of a GOP plan to govern & provide public service for all in our democracy.
The main argument here is that Mrs. Clinton takes money from Wall Street, the oil industry and other big money donors that "should" be given to the Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise Institute and other GOP superpacs created by Republican appointed Supreme Court justices in Citizens United. The fake-left critics are just mad that Mrs. Clinton could beat them at their own game. That's what the GOP has to offer.
The main argument here is that Mrs. Clinton takes money from Wall Street, the oil industry and other big money donors that "should" be given to the Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise Institute and other GOP superpacs created by Republican appointed Supreme Court justices in Citizens United. The fake-left critics are just mad that Mrs. Clinton could beat them at their own game. That's what the GOP has to offer.
2
The sad fact is that the Democrats should've picked someone better than Hillary. If they can't find anyone better, then it's time for the Dems to clean house. And they'd better get it done quick. Nothing is more humiliating than a Democrat losing to a Republican.
1
It seems to be a disastrous undertaking for the democratic party or the Left to have anointed one individual i.e., Hillary Clinton as the next president without a democratic process involved. We cannot afford to be enamored with her to the extent her connections go unquestioned. Her relationships, actions, character and plans to address the plethora of issues confronting America and Americans, are of necessity to be transparent. If the Right bring up concerns around her I still want to hear of it. If it is a matter that deservedly gains traction, true or false, HRC should respond to it. It shouldn't be chalked up as some scheme of the Right to attack her or Bill, since he is fair game for criticism as were other presidential candidates spouses in the past. The ability to discern between an argument or difference in views should not be surrendered to the Right or the Left. Social media, commentators, pundits, lobbyists, Republican candidates, spokespersons, etc., can obscure in their views, apparent issues such that the public becomes confused. How and with who the very private citizen Hillary Clinton is making her millions is a valid issue. Her connections with boards, foundations are as well. The Right are not the only ones to broadcast these; the Left should as well. The importance of who wins the presidency is not foremost. What kind of president the American people will have for right & left matters. HRC is neither. She will agree with either if they support her.
1
The GOP is misdirected. They better take care of there own store. Hillary will be crushed by the burden of the named Clinton. The country is tired and can no longer make the claim they know what it's like to be in the working/middle-class. That is what happens when you pull down $500,000 per speech, accept contributions on behalf of your foundation while SOS, and have a total disregard for properly safeguarding your emails WHILE SOS.
The good news is there is a viable alternative for the Democrats, Amy Klobuchar. ..... http://lstrn.us/1BOqto4
The good news is there is a viable alternative for the Democrats, Amy Klobuchar. ..... http://lstrn.us/1BOqto4
The day Americans come to understand there is zero difference between the charlatans who pretend to be representatives of the people, will mean there is a new beginning in America.
Currently, both parties, Republican and Democrat, work together, passing the baton back and forth every two years, and every four or eight years, depending on the success of their "perception management", programs.
That baton which few truly see, and understand, is cloaked in their perception management policies, and is wielded with such great hidden power, it is impossible to not be affected by it.
The corporate / government alliance in this nation leaves nothing to chance, and the idea that "we the people", would ever be allowed to decide the outcome of an election, is pure folly.
Take a look back over the last several decades, starting around 1973, and note how power began to pass from the hands of the people, inexorably, into the hands of the .01%ters, and never forget that they are quite content to succeed slowly.
Perhaps Warren or Sanders, if they can grab the baton, may make a difference, but it's likely they would be co-opted.
"Time is on their side, yes it is", meaning the elites.
Currently, both parties, Republican and Democrat, work together, passing the baton back and forth every two years, and every four or eight years, depending on the success of their "perception management", programs.
That baton which few truly see, and understand, is cloaked in their perception management policies, and is wielded with such great hidden power, it is impossible to not be affected by it.
The corporate / government alliance in this nation leaves nothing to chance, and the idea that "we the people", would ever be allowed to decide the outcome of an election, is pure folly.
Take a look back over the last several decades, starting around 1973, and note how power began to pass from the hands of the people, inexorably, into the hands of the .01%ters, and never forget that they are quite content to succeed slowly.
Perhaps Warren or Sanders, if they can grab the baton, may make a difference, but it's likely they would be co-opted.
"Time is on their side, yes it is", meaning the elites.
3
So, did she or did she not go to the fundraiser with the lobbyist for Keystone?
3
This is a wasted effort on the Republicans part. However hard they try to separate her from her female base it will fail. If things get bad enough all she has to do is let loose another carefully staged crocodile tear and they will all fall over themselves to support her against those meano Republican men.
"The collective opinion on the comment board that it is your fate as a progressive to hold your nose and vote for Clinton..."
Actually, I see more of a mixture in the comments. Some say "Vote for Hillary, like her or not; don't let the Republicans divide us." Others say "If you vote for Hillary, the Democratic Party will just run somebody even less liberal next time. Voting for Hillary is like voting for Eisenhower or Nixon. Stand up for what the Democratic Party has always stood for."
Actually, I see more of a mixture in the comments. Some say "Vote for Hillary, like her or not; don't let the Republicans divide us." Others say "If you vote for Hillary, the Democratic Party will just run somebody even less liberal next time. Voting for Hillary is like voting for Eisenhower or Nixon. Stand up for what the Democratic Party has always stood for."
No need to besmirch Honest Ike in this debate. But Nixon, yes, of course. The secretiveness, inauthenticity, money-grubbing and knack for scandal are eerily similar.
Thinker,
The tweeter scam is a waste of time & money, the liberals will vote for the liberal & the conservatives will vote for the conservatives.The only possible change is the Jewish vote, that may split in 2016, as a statement against Obama & the Muslim appeasers.
The tweeter scam is a waste of time & money, the liberals will vote for the liberal & the conservatives will vote for the conservatives.The only possible change is the Jewish vote, that may split in 2016, as a statement against Obama & the Muslim appeasers.
The unfortunate truth is, Hillary provides the Republican party with a steady supply of hand grenades for their arsenal of attacks. The Republican war wagons -overloaded with ammunition, every round of which has HRC written on it and manufactured by Ms. Clinton- will be useless should the Democratic Party produce a viable alternative.
How would the Republicans handle Elizabeth Warren or Al Franken or Barney Frank or Jim Webb? Who wouldn't love to watch any one or all of the Republicans crammed into the clown car debate any of these Democrats.
It's the Democrats' election to lose. It's time to stop arming the opposition.
How would the Republicans handle Elizabeth Warren or Al Franken or Barney Frank or Jim Webb? Who wouldn't love to watch any one or all of the Republicans crammed into the clown car debate any of these Democrats.
It's the Democrats' election to lose. It's time to stop arming the opposition.
1
.." Zac Moffatt, a co-founder of Targeted Victory, a right-leaning political technology firm, who handled Mr. Romney’s digital operation and has worked with groups like America Rising and American Crossroads.." That worked out very well, didn't it. This loser shows the Republicans are devoid of ideas. So they are trying voter suppression again in another form.
So now we know and the next time something shows up in my feed, I'll be sure to point out the source. Thanks NYT for giving me an article to link to.
It's very telling that the Republicans feel that they have to weaken Hillary Cinton in order to win. It's a real shame that they can't run, or win, on the issues.
1
Voting for the less awful when I vote against the GOP will fulfill my civic duty. An imperfect Democrat will govern in the best interests of the most rather than the special interests of the few. I can vote for Hillary.
With all this dark money swelling the slime in politics, we voters have had to developed thick skins to match the candidates' own. Bring it on, GOP. We can take your tweets and blinking sidebars.
With all this dark money swelling the slime in politics, we voters have had to developed thick skins to match the candidates' own. Bring it on, GOP. We can take your tweets and blinking sidebars.
In other words... "don't vet Hillary! with facts and truths, that's sexist"!!!
2
So if a conservative says it, regardless of its truth or its alignment with liberel/progressive views it's not true or worthy of discussion among the left? Why is it about the messenger rather than, you know, the message? How narrow and illiberal the progressive mind has become.
2
"This strategy of the GOP attacking the Democratic front runner from the left is not new."
Of course not. Both parties have done it for decades, probably for centuries. But that's not what this article is about. It starts right out with a report that Bill McKibben -- not somebody pretending to be Bill McKibben, but the actual Bill McKibben -- enticed his "150,000 Twitter followers" to check out a website to which he helpfully provided a link. Those who followed Bill McKibben's lead, by clicking on the link he'd provide, would end up at a website that doesn't pretend to be liberal -- quite far from it, in fact: that website is openly anti-Hillary. Nothing deceptive.
Of course not. Both parties have done it for decades, probably for centuries. But that's not what this article is about. It starts right out with a report that Bill McKibben -- not somebody pretending to be Bill McKibben, but the actual Bill McKibben -- enticed his "150,000 Twitter followers" to check out a website to which he helpfully provided a link. Those who followed Bill McKibben's lead, by clicking on the link he'd provide, would end up at a website that doesn't pretend to be liberal -- quite far from it, in fact: that website is openly anti-Hillary. Nothing deceptive.
Was anyone not expecting the GOP to use an elaborate and relentless smear campaign against Hillary Clinton? They have nothing else to offer; no ideas, no solutions and no where to hide from their own dismal record.
1
Having been a Democrat since my first vote, and having been raised in a very progressive family, I am confused why the Progressives have determined that only they should decide who will represent the Democratic Party in the next election. It has always been my understanding that the Democrats were a party that welcomed all people regardless of their religion, ethnicity, gender and sexual preferences, and whether they were left, center or right politically. That we could find common ground because we believed in democracy, justice and freedoms stated in the Bill of Rights.
Hillary Clinton for most of her public life have acted on those principles. She has been demonized in ways that most normal people cannot even imagine. Much of it was by the so called Progressives. Yet, many of us who supported her still voted twice for President Obama because we were Democrats and believed he would be best suited to carry out our principles. If the Progressives are fooled by the Republicans in this trickery, they deserve whatever will be forthcoming, especially a Supreme Court with another one or two very Right justices.
The Progressive Democrats have no more right than the Center or Rights ones to decide beforehand who should be our candidate. Democrats should vote in primaries that will be held. Fortunately, we do not have billionaires determining
beforehand who should lead us.
Hillary Clinton for most of her public life have acted on those principles. She has been demonized in ways that most normal people cannot even imagine. Much of it was by the so called Progressives. Yet, many of us who supported her still voted twice for President Obama because we were Democrats and believed he would be best suited to carry out our principles. If the Progressives are fooled by the Republicans in this trickery, they deserve whatever will be forthcoming, especially a Supreme Court with another one or two very Right justices.
The Progressive Democrats have no more right than the Center or Rights ones to decide beforehand who should be our candidate. Democrats should vote in primaries that will be held. Fortunately, we do not have billionaires determining
beforehand who should lead us.
1
Once again curious Republican logic. Repeatedly remind voters of the liberal left positions that Hillary Clinton is somewhat to the right of and then come with their own candidate who is 100% supportive of positions that the liberal left hates. Brilliant.
2
The idea that people wouldn't have concerns about Hillary Clinton if the right wing wasn't trying to inspire criticism is ludicrous. In fact, Mrs. Clinton would like everybody to have amnesia about her and her husband. The saddest thing is that for the most part the Democratic Party is simply rolling over and, like the Republicans, becoming the lap dog of the very wealthy. I don't need a Republican to tell that or that it is wrong.
1
This comment is highly misleading:
"Who believes America Rising supports Elizabeth Warren for President?"
America Rising doesn't claim to support Elizabeth Warren for President. Where did you get that idea? Check out its website -- Bill McKibben provided the link, in his tweet quoted in the article. I did. Nothing there that would suggest America Rising supports Elizabeth Warren, nor that America Rising is anything but what it plainly purports to be: a strongly anti-Hillary Clinton website.
"Who believes America Rising supports Elizabeth Warren for President?"
America Rising doesn't claim to support Elizabeth Warren for President. Where did you get that idea? Check out its website -- Bill McKibben provided the link, in his tweet quoted in the article. I did. Nothing there that would suggest America Rising supports Elizabeth Warren, nor that America Rising is anything but what it plainly purports to be: a strongly anti-Hillary Clinton website.
3
In the end, many people who will vote for Hillary will do so simply because she's a much less scary alternative to whomever the GOP nominates. Perhaps the Republicans, if they really want to win, should focus less on trying to destroy Hillary than in finding a candidate of their own who doesn't sound like he or she is running for Theologian-In-Chief, C.E.O-In-Chief, or who is just itching to find yet another country to bomb.
3
I trust Secretary Clinton's Democratic challengers are carefully vetting the sources of contributions to their own campaigns.
Would not be at all surprising if some shell for a "conservative" group was adroitly funneling funds to Senator Sanders, Governor O'Malley, Senator Webb, etc. in further efforts to weaken the Clinton campaign.
We get the government we deserve...
Would not be at all surprising if some shell for a "conservative" group was adroitly funneling funds to Senator Sanders, Governor O'Malley, Senator Webb, etc. in further efforts to weaken the Clinton campaign.
We get the government we deserve...
Uh, there's the supreme court....I vote for the Demos Pres candidate because of that and other basics. But haven't forgotten B Clintons ending federal welfare programs. So... a progressive at heart...
Not to strike others as inconsistent, but I seriously doubt the Clintons have done anything wrong, or ever will, with the Clinton Foundation. In my view, if some Saudi Arabian sheikh wants to give $10 million to fund some relief effort in Africa or Nepal, I'd take his money in a heartbeat, offer him nothing in return, give him nothing in return, and let the political chips fall where they may -- exactly what it seems to me the Clintons are doing.
I don't support Hillary just because I don't find her terribly impressive, and because it bothers me that she almost never takes a firm position on anything, and can't be counted on to stick with her position in those rare cases where she does. But I don't think she's corrupt, or ever has been.
I don't support Hillary just because I don't find her terribly impressive, and because it bothers me that she almost never takes a firm position on anything, and can't be counted on to stick with her position in those rare cases where she does. But I don't think she's corrupt, or ever has been.
1
This vilification of Hillary is overly frantic.
Condense it, and stay on theme.
She represents the past. Period.
One theme and one theme alone should be emphasized.
"Hillary, Pass the torch to a new generation."
It makes no difference to me personally is our next POTUS is a Republican, Democrat, Independent, man, woman, Black, white, Latino, Latina, Chinese, et.al...
Just "Pass The Torch!"
She represents hackneyed ideas and worn-out business (political) models...
Condense it, and stay on theme.
She represents the past. Period.
One theme and one theme alone should be emphasized.
"Hillary, Pass the torch to a new generation."
It makes no difference to me personally is our next POTUS is a Republican, Democrat, Independent, man, woman, Black, white, Latino, Latina, Chinese, et.al...
Just "Pass The Torch!"
She represents hackneyed ideas and worn-out business (political) models...
1
Maybe it's just me, but I think that the conservative batch of Republicans are not going to peel off many voters when it comes to environmental policy.
Remember this is the party of "I'm not a Scientist" when their candidates are asked about climate change. This along with their willful demonization of science will fool no one on the left.
Remember this is the party of "I'm not a Scientist" when their candidates are asked about climate change. This along with their willful demonization of science will fool no one on the left.
1
Because Hilary is a scientist
It's truly remarkable how much time and money goes into such new ideas by people who have no idea. We could work together to build a better America. But that would take actual effort.
5
A friend just posted a comment connecting Hillary
to a racist statement made by Margaret Sanger. Not a doubt in my mind that the original "sharing" of Sanger's statement comes foreman of those conservative groups with the agenda of attacking Hillary from the left.
to a racist statement made by Margaret Sanger. Not a doubt in my mind that the original "sharing" of Sanger's statement comes foreman of those conservative groups with the agenda of attacking Hillary from the left.
2
Liberals are the most inept people in the world. They own the issues and with the exception of LGBT rights are totally outflanked by the republicans and the far right. How is it that in the gun rights debate, 23 young children are killed in Connecticut by a hateful younger man yet this becomes a boon for conservatives and the NRA and we can't even get a background check bill passed. Climate change is happening in front of all of us. The glaciers are melting, California is in a historic drought and Texas is not far behind. 95-98% of climate scientist agree man made events contribute significantly to this yet the democrats and liberals fail to make the case to the American people for policy changes. We see evidence daily of police brutality and misconduct yet liberals in power can't make necessary reforms and their voices are drowned out by conservatives. Now they join the conservatives to attack the first serious woman candidate on ridiculous growns. The liberals and democrats seriously need a booster dose of testosterone.
5
While I'm certainly to the left of Hillary,this attempt by the Right won't work on me.On the one hand I'm glad Sanders is in the running and hope he'll last long enough for some primary debates with Hillary to sharpen her up for her debates during the General election campaign in the very strong likelihood she's the Democratic nominee.In such a an instance I won't hesitate to vote her,even if Hillary takes a few positions I disagree with,because there's not one GOP candidate I remotely consider fit to be President.Most other Lefties I've spoken to feel the same.
3
It is sad indeed when you have to resort to slime and dirt to win - you would think that the Republican Party and its members would object to such tactics, it is sad, they have stooped to the lowest level ever.
We are seeing the end of the Republican party as it was years ago, we hope they can stop this new trend of money and sleeze rather than ideas and constructive policies and goals.
We are seeing the end of the Republican party as it was years ago, we hope they can stop this new trend of money and sleeze rather than ideas and constructive policies and goals.
2
I don't need the Republicans to tell me Hillary sells out; she'll say/do anything for power.
But this Republican ploy is akin to the kettle calling the pot black;; they are calling Clinton out for doing what Republicans brag about. They might just get some of their party to vote for Hillary.
It's a shame this will be a contest between a Republican and a Republican.
But this Republican ploy is akin to the kettle calling the pot black;; they are calling Clinton out for doing what Republicans brag about. They might just get some of their party to vote for Hillary.
It's a shame this will be a contest between a Republican and a Republican.
1
Well I say three cheers for Carl Rove and all those rich but very inept Republicans funding this effort ! ! !
Hillary is a neocon wannabe, as the NYTimes has noted, and should not be President in any case. She voted for the Iraq war; supported sending arms to Syrian rebels, aka ISIS; likened Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin, to Adolf Hitler; wholeheartedly backs Israel; and stresses the importance of promoting "democracy" -- ie, more intervention on behalf of the 1%. She opposes slashing the bloated military budget. She presided over the orange revolution in the Ukraine -- which amounted to the violent overthrow of an elected government. She's George Bush in a skirt.
The strategy of these rich Republicans implicitly assumes Hillary will be the next Dem candidate. Not so. There's tens of thousands of Dems who are actively looking for an alternative like Bernie and Elizabeth or whomever -- all to the left of Hillary the warmonger. That the rich are willing to finance that movement is just fantastic.
In case the rich Repubs haven't noticed there's an activist wave sweeping the country and it's not limited to police killings.
Hillary is a neocon wannabe, as the NYTimes has noted, and should not be President in any case. She voted for the Iraq war; supported sending arms to Syrian rebels, aka ISIS; likened Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin, to Adolf Hitler; wholeheartedly backs Israel; and stresses the importance of promoting "democracy" -- ie, more intervention on behalf of the 1%. She opposes slashing the bloated military budget. She presided over the orange revolution in the Ukraine -- which amounted to the violent overthrow of an elected government. She's George Bush in a skirt.
The strategy of these rich Republicans implicitly assumes Hillary will be the next Dem candidate. Not so. There's tens of thousands of Dems who are actively looking for an alternative like Bernie and Elizabeth or whomever -- all to the left of Hillary the warmonger. That the rich are willing to finance that movement is just fantastic.
In case the rich Repubs haven't noticed there's an activist wave sweeping the country and it's not limited to police killings.
1
Nice try. Just practice saying Madam President. You'll do fine.
--
Hillary in a landslide.
--
Hillary in a landslide.
2
"Divide and conquer is not a good policy if you want to build a stronger Republican Party."
Really? Worked pretty well in Florida in the 2000 election. If Ralph Nader hadn't been on the Florida ballot, Gore would have won Florida for sure, and he'd have been president rather than George W. Bush.
Really? Worked pretty well in Florida in the 2000 election. If Ralph Nader hadn't been on the Florida ballot, Gore would have won Florida for sure, and he'd have been president rather than George W. Bush.
2
What we should find worrisome about this is that the R's would appear to believe that pushing Clinton to the left -- just as those ads and activities at the progressive end of the D spectrum intend to do, with my full support -- will weaken her as a candidate. Are they right in this? Clinton is, of course, on top of the polls that address this question, but it will be crucial to progressives to assess this issue correctly.
1
Any erosion of support for Hillary Clinton during the primaries will be erased during the general election campaign when voters get acquainted with her opponent.
2
"Having our first woman president may be the way forward. I believe in would resonate with the people. It is huge."
Maybe, maybe not. Having our first black president was huge too. I'm not sure how many people will vote for Hillary just because she's a woman.
Maybe, maybe not. Having our first black president was huge too. I'm not sure how many people will vote for Hillary just because she's a woman.
Another especially strong point for bringing the facts forward about the Republicans and their Machinery, and it works incessantly for all things slanted.
I would respond that it is time the NY Times and other "NEWS" orgs finally get onboard with sharing the Facts about other Democratic Candidates, such as Bernie Sanders. We need the News Media to be honest and stop dillydallying on facts. Meet the Press could FINALLY lead the way, if they would decide to stop pandering to the Right Wing.
Bernie Sanders is the real candidate that needs the Liberal Progressive Party to pay attention and support his policies. Long standing policies that are ALL about The People, nothing else. Yes, we see no historical facts being presented by any of the mainstream media folks on a daily basis. Yet you see and hear nothing but constant drum beat for Jeb or for Hillary. It is sickening, quite frankly. The voice of Mr. Sanders is, in this way, being silenced. As is the Voice of The People.
I will not vote for anyone who is tied at the hip of Wall Street or Mainstream Media outlets who do not report the FACTS to us, repeating them to make sure AMERICANS have those facts to base their decisions for voting upon. We are failing in all ways of democracy, and doing so willingly in Mainstream Media.
Hillary may be adored by a few who happen to get into those polls, but she is not the candidate Of The People. Bernie Sanders is!
I would respond that it is time the NY Times and other "NEWS" orgs finally get onboard with sharing the Facts about other Democratic Candidates, such as Bernie Sanders. We need the News Media to be honest and stop dillydallying on facts. Meet the Press could FINALLY lead the way, if they would decide to stop pandering to the Right Wing.
Bernie Sanders is the real candidate that needs the Liberal Progressive Party to pay attention and support his policies. Long standing policies that are ALL about The People, nothing else. Yes, we see no historical facts being presented by any of the mainstream media folks on a daily basis. Yet you see and hear nothing but constant drum beat for Jeb or for Hillary. It is sickening, quite frankly. The voice of Mr. Sanders is, in this way, being silenced. As is the Voice of The People.
I will not vote for anyone who is tied at the hip of Wall Street or Mainstream Media outlets who do not report the FACTS to us, repeating them to make sure AMERICANS have those facts to base their decisions for voting upon. We are failing in all ways of democracy, and doing so willingly in Mainstream Media.
Hillary may be adored by a few who happen to get into those polls, but she is not the candidate Of The People. Bernie Sanders is!
1
Which is why my fellow progressives, including those who attack Clinton on the NY Times blogs, should beware. No candidate is perfect; a progressive candidate like Bernie cannot win; and our most recent act of political suicide resulted in the George W. Bush presidency. Standing on principle may In this case be no different than strolling on quicksand.
Clinton is a liberal Democratic, and I support her. To say that she is no different than a Repubiican is to ignore Iraq, the Great Recession, and the Roberts Supreme Court. We may be about to achieve a constitutional ruling in support of gay marriage, due to Ginsberg, Kagan, Breyer and Sotomayor, with a boost from Kennedy. Is a self-righteous vote - that feeling of political virtue - worth enabling a right-wing campaign to elect another right-wing President?
Clinton is a liberal Democratic, and I support her. To say that she is no different than a Repubiican is to ignore Iraq, the Great Recession, and the Roberts Supreme Court. We may be about to achieve a constitutional ruling in support of gay marriage, due to Ginsberg, Kagan, Breyer and Sotomayor, with a boost from Kennedy. Is a self-righteous vote - that feeling of political virtue - worth enabling a right-wing campaign to elect another right-wing President?
6
If democrats had half a brain, they would run from Hillary. She is not electable. Even the MSM cannot whitewash her dirty laundry. Obama had no record, thus little to hide. Hillary is a disaster. I am an independent voter and certainly not a socialist but would vote for Bernie over Hillary, Huckabee, Bush, or Christie. Please explain to me this blind acceptance and coronation of Hillary. It just doesn't make sense. It has to be about MONEY. Maybe she has made promises to Wall Street. Maybe she has promised to save the NYT from financial ruin. I don't get it.
2
She is more electable than any of the Republican candidate. It took nearly a week for their front runner to say that invading Iraq was a mistake.
The entire $10 billion election-industrial complex is aimed at Hillary Clinton. Twenty or 30 GOP candidates are in the game to make her look bad and Jeb look better. But all we need do is look at recent Supreme Court decisions -- W wins the election, corporations are people; money is speech; employers dictate contraception; the Second Amendment is absolute; vote suppression is okay, etc. -- and it becomes starkly apparent the United States cannot afford another Republican-appointed jurist who will drag the Court off the reactionary edge.
5
A bury-his-head-in-the-sand commenter writes:
"The voting public needs to understand this -- that the Republican party's loyalty and efforts centers entirely around pleasing its wealthy benefactors..."
You need to understand that top Democratic donors give far more to liberal candidates than top Republican donors give to conservative candidates. I could point you to all sorts of websites that establish this, but you'll believe it only if you find those websites yourself -- official reports of campaign spending.
You'll soon learn, for example, that the top Democratic Party donor, all by himself, donated nearly 10 times as much as the Koch brothers combined in the last election (2014).
Whoever runs for the Democrats, and whoever runs for the Republicans, will have all the money he or she needs. That as true in 2008 (before Citizen's United), it was true in 2012, and it will be true in 2016. This "rich Republican donors" argument is a red herring. Check for yourself.
"The voting public needs to understand this -- that the Republican party's loyalty and efforts centers entirely around pleasing its wealthy benefactors..."
You need to understand that top Democratic donors give far more to liberal candidates than top Republican donors give to conservative candidates. I could point you to all sorts of websites that establish this, but you'll believe it only if you find those websites yourself -- official reports of campaign spending.
You'll soon learn, for example, that the top Democratic Party donor, all by himself, donated nearly 10 times as much as the Koch brothers combined in the last election (2014).
Whoever runs for the Democrats, and whoever runs for the Republicans, will have all the money he or she needs. That as true in 2008 (before Citizen's United), it was true in 2012, and it will be true in 2016. This "rich Republican donors" argument is a red herring. Check for yourself.
3
The GOP's attack dogs seem clueless when it comes to their tunnel vision re H. Clinton. One example? Benghazi; an issue that dominates my thinking. So..., "Fido, sit. Attention! Good boy. Now look at what your party is preparing to offer to the ultimate general electorate as presidential candidate-alternatives to Clinton."
Trickery in politics is as old as the Republic- no news here- and well-informed progressives need no help in recognizing Hillary's Wall Street-friendly War Hawk positions. The comments are more interesting as Democrats continue to be satisfied voting for the lesser of evils rather than actively engaging to ensure that their party once again represents the interests of the middle class and workers rather than continues as the Republican-Lite Party created by Bill Clinton. Clinton gave us NAFTA, the WTO, the repeal of Glass-Steagall, the Telecommunications Act, and just about everything Wall Street wanted with the resultant loss of tens of millions of good jobs. Obama expanded the surveillance state, the wars without end and as a fitting bookend to NAFTA- the Trans-Pacific Partnership. It's long past time to take back the party from the wolves in sheeps clothing.
Income inequality at its highest level in American history, Wall Street corruption and greed run amok, Super PAC's raising unlimited amounts of money, college tuition getting further and further out of reach and the only credible Democratic candidate for President in 2016 is Hillary Rodham Clinton?
The political environment right now has never been better for a passionate, reform-minded liberal candidate and what we have instead is Hillary Clinton running virtually unopposed: an establishment centrist who voted for the Iraq War, wants to get aggressive with Russia, supports Israel full tilt, wanted to bomb Syria, never advocated for meaningful campaign finance reform and has no track record of aggressively challenging Wall Street.
The fact that virtually nobody has stepped up to challenge her is the most puzzling political development I've seen since Mario Cuomo passed up his chance to become president in 1992.
The political environment right now has never been better for a passionate, reform-minded liberal candidate and what we have instead is Hillary Clinton running virtually unopposed: an establishment centrist who voted for the Iraq War, wants to get aggressive with Russia, supports Israel full tilt, wanted to bomb Syria, never advocated for meaningful campaign finance reform and has no track record of aggressively challenging Wall Street.
The fact that virtually nobody has stepped up to challenge her is the most puzzling political development I've seen since Mario Cuomo passed up his chance to become president in 1992.
2
I don't think there was a Democrat that Democrats were more disillusioned with than Barack Obama in the run up to the 2012 elections.
He was fresh off of his fight to offer up social security and medicare to the GOP as he pivoted from Keynesian to deficit hawk. He was no where to be found in the fight to promote the ACA, the GOP was clobbering Democrats all over the country using him as this article describes how the GOP is trying to use Hillary.
He had cut taxes further than George Bush, and raised them only on those making over 400K. He was droning more people in the middle east than George Bush did. Off shore oil leases were opened up in a way that would make a Saudi royal proud.
But, really, what would be the alternative? Imagine if John McCain had won the chance to nominate the two Supreme Court justices that Obama did.
If you want to defeat conservatives, then just look at what makes them nervous at election time. And right now 2016 is a replay of 2012.
I expect independent voters to jump ship, as they did in 2010, since they are little more than embarrassed Republicans.
But Dems must not fall for the tricks.
He was fresh off of his fight to offer up social security and medicare to the GOP as he pivoted from Keynesian to deficit hawk. He was no where to be found in the fight to promote the ACA, the GOP was clobbering Democrats all over the country using him as this article describes how the GOP is trying to use Hillary.
He had cut taxes further than George Bush, and raised them only on those making over 400K. He was droning more people in the middle east than George Bush did. Off shore oil leases were opened up in a way that would make a Saudi royal proud.
But, really, what would be the alternative? Imagine if John McCain had won the chance to nominate the two Supreme Court justices that Obama did.
If you want to defeat conservatives, then just look at what makes them nervous at election time. And right now 2016 is a replay of 2012.
I expect independent voters to jump ship, as they did in 2010, since they are little more than embarrassed Republicans.
But Dems must not fall for the tricks.
2
Nice try, Republicans. Here's the deal. Whither Hillary or Martin or Bernie or... , people interested in moving this country forward will vote Big "D". It's just that simple and simple is all Republicans understand.
5
The strategy is divide and conquer. Don't fall for it.
4
Not sure some commenters actually read the article.
It was Bill McKibben -- Bill McKibben -- who posted the Tweet that he "promptly shared the post with his 150,000 Twitter followers." It wasn't somebody pretending to be Bill McKibben -- it was Bill McKibben himself. No dispute there.
And it was Bill McKibben who posted the link to the America Rising PAC website -- not somebody pretending to be Bill McKibben.
And if one clicked on the link, thus going to the website to which Bill McKibben -- Bill McKibben -- had helpfully provided the link, one would see immediately that the website was run by a conservative anti-Hillary organization -- NOT by some "pretend" liberal group that was trying to "trick" Democrats into not liking Hillary.
Read the article. Click on the link. See for yourself.
It was Bill McKibben -- Bill McKibben -- who posted the Tweet that he "promptly shared the post with his 150,000 Twitter followers." It wasn't somebody pretending to be Bill McKibben -- it was Bill McKibben himself. No dispute there.
And it was Bill McKibben who posted the link to the America Rising PAC website -- not somebody pretending to be Bill McKibben.
And if one clicked on the link, thus going to the website to which Bill McKibben -- Bill McKibben -- had helpfully provided the link, one would see immediately that the website was run by a conservative anti-Hillary organization -- NOT by some "pretend" liberal group that was trying to "trick" Democrats into not liking Hillary.
Read the article. Click on the link. See for yourself.
1
Hopefully people will look a little more closely before reflexively passing along political messages. Though no one should hold their breath, after all that would involve thinking.
3
First of all, there is no left left in this country. To speak of a left, let alone a "far" left, is laugh time. Secondly, not to calculate a few steps ahead to the avalanche of discontent on the gauche is truly a poor calculus for those in the fragile bubble. It's sumpin comin.
1
How much "dark" money is funding Republican candidates?
2
I would assume a fair amount, just like the "dark" money funding Hillary.
Clinton is just as bad or worse then the money hungry GOP candidates that the left despises. Big money will go with Clinton and the uninformed poor will vote for her anyway. Isn't there anyone else out there for the democrats to run? Does this have to be preordained?
3
If the Republicans succeed in eliminating Hillary before the nomination, it can only strengthen the Democrats. God forbid that this antediluvian war-soaked pro-capitalist politician lead the country. We might as well sit out an election that pits Hillary vs. any of the Republicans. So, let's have the Republicans succeed in saving the Democrats from themselves, and saving the rest of us from a truly appalling choice.
6
When time arrives, will vote for the democrat nominee. Bernie Sanders receives my contributions. He is running on the Dem. ticket, no drama, straight forward policies, record to back those policies for civil rights, climate change action, living wage, no to fast track TPP, public education, rebuilding infrastructure, single payer healthcare, against citizens united, for quality veteran care, for corporate and banking regulation and building social security system. He is a Democratic Socialist, a man of substance, brilliant and honest. Will contribute to his campaign until the primaries and see who and what turns up between now and then. The "mainstream" Republicans and "mainstream" Democrats have shown their offerings over the past 40 years, a desolate path they wish us to follow. Senator Bernie Sanders, 35 yrs. of clean political service to the people of America. Mrs. Clinton, my perception of mediocre, but loud, personality disordered celebrity, sporting erratic policy, voting record, over many years. She is chaotically entertaining, financially nourishing to "mainstream" media, but to imagine Mrs. Clinton as a politician who will lead us toward a more egalitarian, quality, contemporary America, sadly, no.
4
Psychological Principle: Attacking or undermining a person's choice actually causes them to strengthen the choice. Therapists know this, which is why tiring to reason somebody out of their beliefs never works.
So... May the right continue their (as usual) misguided tactic! Let the backfiring begin!
So... May the right continue their (as usual) misguided tactic! Let the backfiring begin!
2
the left shouldn't need any baiting, nor should the NYT. What's baffling is that the left believes that individuals who have proven to act cowardly and irresponsibly in the face of situations like Benghazi, sustained millions in bribes thru their foundation while holding public office and wants to throw open even wider the southern border; is a wise choice. But the kooks whose main fault is that perhaps they are Christians and value a controlled southern border and a balanced budget are to be disdained. That's amazing!
1
As soon as you bring up Benghazi seriously, everything you say can be safely ignored.if you think those are the readons people don't want a right-wing President, then you aren't paying attention.
Another commenter mentions what may be the greatest threat to Hillary's chances:
"It's still possible that Clinton won't run, she might develop a severe health issue for instance. Then what?"
If Hillary gets elected, she won't be the oldest President ever elected -- Reagan would still hold that title (by a few months) -- but she'll be a close Number 2. Over the Christmas holidays last year, she collapsed at home. Not sure why -- I don't think that's ever been adequately explained (exhaustion was the explanation, as I recall), and at this point I doubt it ever will be. People probably will forget she's had health problems, but if she collapses again during the campaign, I suspect she'll be toast.
Then, as this other commenter rhetorically asks, what will the Democrats do?
"It's still possible that Clinton won't run, she might develop a severe health issue for instance. Then what?"
If Hillary gets elected, she won't be the oldest President ever elected -- Reagan would still hold that title (by a few months) -- but she'll be a close Number 2. Over the Christmas holidays last year, she collapsed at home. Not sure why -- I don't think that's ever been adequately explained (exhaustion was the explanation, as I recall), and at this point I doubt it ever will be. People probably will forget she's had health problems, but if she collapses again during the campaign, I suspect she'll be toast.
Then, as this other commenter rhetorically asks, what will the Democrats do?
1
Somewhere Richard Nixon is smiling.
1
Even those of us who are more independent than Dem will hold our noses and vote for HRC...She is light years better than any nincompoop that the tea gops would put up!
2
I made up my own mind about HRC. No money or vote from me. I didn't need any help from the Right Wing to decide on that.
The Democratic Party needs a better candidate than Mrs Clinton and they are out the recollecting money to run. And they are receiving my money. Both O'Mally and Sanders have gotten a donation from me already.
If arms Clinton ultimately wins the nomination I'm out, no more money for the Democratic Party from me for this election cycle. I know that will not hurt Hilary's campaign chest with all the corporate money the Clintons gave hauled in over the years.
No Cinton No Bush 16.
The Democratic Party needs a better candidate than Mrs Clinton and they are out the recollecting money to run. And they are receiving my money. Both O'Mally and Sanders have gotten a donation from me already.
If arms Clinton ultimately wins the nomination I'm out, no more money for the Democratic Party from me for this election cycle. I know that will not hurt Hilary's campaign chest with all the corporate money the Clintons gave hauled in over the years.
No Cinton No Bush 16.
1
When push comes to shove, I do not expect "America Rising" and its ilk to fool too many of us.
I am one of the thousands of people who has already contributed to Sen. Sanders' campaign. But if my party ultimately nominates Hillary Clinton, I will actively support her. Not because I think she or her party are perfect, quite obviously. But because I am crystal clear about who her Republican adversaries are, what they stand for, and what they will do if they control the Presidency.
I do not expect to be thrilled with Hillary Clinton's presidency, should it happen. However, this generation's Republican Party is too angry, selfish, ignorant, aggressive, and contemptuous of democratic norms to be trusted with executive power.
There would be a massive difference to the real lives of Americans between a President Clinton who would make inadequate improvements around the edges, vs. a Republican president committed to aggressively destroying every remaining vestige of the institutions of social progress. Moreover, we now have a century of experience with the argument that things have to get a lot worse before we can organize to make them better. It has repeatedly proven to be a catastrophically self-indulgent and horrible idea. So, if I'm given those two choices, Hillary it will be.
I am one of the thousands of people who has already contributed to Sen. Sanders' campaign. But if my party ultimately nominates Hillary Clinton, I will actively support her. Not because I think she or her party are perfect, quite obviously. But because I am crystal clear about who her Republican adversaries are, what they stand for, and what they will do if they control the Presidency.
I do not expect to be thrilled with Hillary Clinton's presidency, should it happen. However, this generation's Republican Party is too angry, selfish, ignorant, aggressive, and contemptuous of democratic norms to be trusted with executive power.
There would be a massive difference to the real lives of Americans between a President Clinton who would make inadequate improvements around the edges, vs. a Republican president committed to aggressively destroying every remaining vestige of the institutions of social progress. Moreover, we now have a century of experience with the argument that things have to get a lot worse before we can organize to make them better. It has repeatedly proven to be a catastrophically self-indulgent and horrible idea. So, if I'm given those two choices, Hillary it will be.
3
Simpson tweets against Hillary Clinton are no match for the interesting people that the GOP are trying to sell us. We have two kinds of fantasy here. We have one from a cartoon and one from a news broadcast. Which fantasy would scare you?
Bait all you want to. There's not one republican I'd vote for - ever!
3
Like many other commenters, this one seems to have missed the point of the article:
"But there's something kind of beautiful about the Koch brothers funneling a chunk of their billions into left-wing ads..."
The article reported on a Tweet by Bill McKibben -- not exactly an ally of the Koch brothers -- in which McKibben provided a link NOT to some "liberal ad" that had actually been put there by some conservative group. McKibben's tweet included a link to a conservative anti-Hillary website that didn't pretend to be anything but a conservative anti-Hillary website.
Don't take my word for this. Click on the link yourself. The Times article helpfully pasted in McKibben's tweet, link and all.
Nothing deceptive here.
"But there's something kind of beautiful about the Koch brothers funneling a chunk of their billions into left-wing ads..."
The article reported on a Tweet by Bill McKibben -- not exactly an ally of the Koch brothers -- in which McKibben provided a link NOT to some "liberal ad" that had actually been put there by some conservative group. McKibben's tweet included a link to a conservative anti-Hillary website that didn't pretend to be anything but a conservative anti-Hillary website.
Don't take my word for this. Click on the link yourself. The Times article helpfully pasted in McKibben's tweet, link and all.
Nothing deceptive here.
So with a "laser like focus" Republican organizations are using The Simpsons to attack Hillary. Either they are desperate enough to be wandering across into fantasy land, or they are correct and the Left already lives there.
Either way, I don't think they are going to run into too many voters in that territory who would be supporting Hillary in any case.
Either way, I don't think they are going to run into too many voters in that territory who would be supporting Hillary in any case.
Trickery in politics is as old as the Republic- no news here- and well-informed progressives need no help in recognizing Hillary's Wall Street-friendly War Hawk positions. The comments are more interesting as Democrats continue to be satisfied voting for the lesser of evils rather than actively engaging to ensure that their party once again represents the interests of the middle class and workers rather than continues as the Republican-Lite Party created by Bill Clinton. Clinton gave us NAFTA, the WTO, the repeal of Glass-Steagall, the Telecommunications Act, and just about everything Wall Street wanted with the resultant loss of tens of millions of good jobs. Obama expanded the surveillance state, the wars without and as a fitting bookend to NAFTA- the Trans-Pacific Partnership. It's long past time to take back the party from the wolves in sheep's clothing.
1
I am afraid that the November 2016 general election will be the grimmest for me since my first election in 1968. No way do I want a dynastic Presidency in this country, which is why I supported Obama in 2008.
But voting Republican is not a viable alternative. I suspect this is just another Republican effort to suppress turn out.
I pray for the day that lower income "conservatives" wake up, realize that their diet of Limbaugh, Hannity and Drudge is keeping them enslaved to a political movement that has the clear intention of draining them dry. They should all be Warren supporters.
But voting Republican is not a viable alternative. I suspect this is just another Republican effort to suppress turn out.
I pray for the day that lower income "conservatives" wake up, realize that their diet of Limbaugh, Hannity and Drudge is keeping them enslaved to a political movement that has the clear intention of draining them dry. They should all be Warren supporters.
4
There is a scarier reality here: that PACs have information, gathered through social media, on what voters already think. The erosion of privacy that this reflects is precisely what opens us up to ideological manipulation. By giving away our information, we are giving up our political independence.
3
"...the arguments make you stronger."
That essential truth exposes the great weakness of today's Republican psyche: The right cannot tolerate alternative views ("My way or the highway") and cannot understand changing one's opinion based on new facts or conditions ("Wishy-washy").
Arguments are the essence of democracy, a concept that terrifies Republican Party leadership and its lock-step mentality. I am amused by the mind-set of right-wing schemers like Rove who think that promoting liberal policies and thought will somehow poison the public discourse and create chaos. Sorry, Karl, but the tree of democracy grows from a free exchange of ideas. Keep it up.
That essential truth exposes the great weakness of today's Republican psyche: The right cannot tolerate alternative views ("My way or the highway") and cannot understand changing one's opinion based on new facts or conditions ("Wishy-washy").
Arguments are the essence of democracy, a concept that terrifies Republican Party leadership and its lock-step mentality. I am amused by the mind-set of right-wing schemers like Rove who think that promoting liberal policies and thought will somehow poison the public discourse and create chaos. Sorry, Karl, but the tree of democracy grows from a free exchange of ideas. Keep it up.
1
Love those W.W.E.W.D, bracelets! Unfortunately, as a progressive Democrat, I've got news for all those right-wing disinformation specialists. It seems that Hillary's already got one. Just shows you what all that foundation money can buy. Maybe I'll order a W.W.M.D. bracelet, as in What Would Mike [Huckabee] Do, for poor ole Jeb Bush. Oops, did that say W.M.D.?! Well, that about describes that whole crowd. Bring on the axis of evildoers and their "nattering nabobs of negativism." With 18 months to go before the election, it's nice to begin with a visit to the Republican fun house located in a bunker on the far right dark side near you.
1
"This is childish and laughable that a real Democrat would vote for the GOP."
But some Hillary critics are playing the "long game." They know this: If Democratic voters keep pulling the lever for candidates like Hillary, Democratic strategists will conclude they have no worries about losing support on the left. Result? The next Democratic candidate will inch just a little bit more to the right, and Democratic voters will still vote for that candidate. And then the next Democratic candidate will inch just a little bit more to the right. And so on, as long as Democratic voters just keep pulling the lever for whomever the party leader put up there.
But some Hillary critics are playing the "long game." They know this: If Democratic voters keep pulling the lever for candidates like Hillary, Democratic strategists will conclude they have no worries about losing support on the left. Result? The next Democratic candidate will inch just a little bit more to the right, and Democratic voters will still vote for that candidate. And then the next Democratic candidate will inch just a little bit more to the right. And so on, as long as Democratic voters just keep pulling the lever for whomever the party leader put up there.
1
If Democrats allowed themselves to be played by republicans this way, they will only have themselves to blame when a repubican is elected and wrecks the country even more than Bush did, for they are far more extremist now.
4
The left doesn't need the right to "bait it" to "turn against Hillary". With her ties to Wall Street and the military-industrial-complex, Hillary never represented anything even remotely approximating true, liberal progressivism. She reminds me of Gore Vidal's assertion that America has one party, with two right wings.
She's not my idea of perfect, or anything close, but against any of the GOP candidates she'll get my vote.
3
"The irony is that Hillary Clinton is the best Republican candidate the Republicans could have."
This commenter was being facetious, but there's truth in this remark. For centrist voters, there's not much difference between Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush. Certainly there is between, say, an Elizabeth Warren and a Rand Paul. But Hillary v. Jeb? Probably won't make much difference either way.
This commenter was being facetious, but there's truth in this remark. For centrist voters, there's not much difference between Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush. Certainly there is between, say, an Elizabeth Warren and a Rand Paul. But Hillary v. Jeb? Probably won't make much difference either way.
1
Same line was used in Bush v Gore. Wrong then, wrong now.
“... if you diminish enthusiasm, lukewarm support can translate into lackluster fund-raising and perhaps diminished turnout down the road.”
How many elections have the Democrats lost because of reduced turnout? Few Democrats would vote for the latest GOP version of Herbert Hoover, but how many would not vote if it has been made much harder for them by GOP voter fraud laws? As it is, some people I know are willing to hold their noses and vote for Hillary Clinton but that may not be enough to avoid the disaster of another Republican President. How many times have we heard populist rhetoric from a candidate who, once elected, discovers reasons not to honor his promises?
Nominating someone with a record of integrity like Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren would greatly encourage many disillusioned Americans to come out and vote once again. How many of them will stay home if the only non-GOP choice is just another Democratic friend of Wall Street?
How many elections have the Democrats lost because of reduced turnout? Few Democrats would vote for the latest GOP version of Herbert Hoover, but how many would not vote if it has been made much harder for them by GOP voter fraud laws? As it is, some people I know are willing to hold their noses and vote for Hillary Clinton but that may not be enough to avoid the disaster of another Republican President. How many times have we heard populist rhetoric from a candidate who, once elected, discovers reasons not to honor his promises?
Nominating someone with a record of integrity like Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren would greatly encourage many disillusioned Americans to come out and vote once again. How many of them will stay home if the only non-GOP choice is just another Democratic friend of Wall Street?
Most, if not all, liberals prefer the pipe dream ticket of Warren and Sanders considering their outstanding Senate work. But we have to settle for the reality of Hillary. That's not really so bad given whoever crawls out of the Grand Oblivion Party primaries. I really look forward to continuing the GOP nightmare of having a woman president succeeding the socialist Kenyan non-American.
2
If all Republicans have is bashing Hillary and Obama, they're going to lose badly.
2
I dunno -- all the Democrats and liberals here seem to have is ridiculing Republican candidates -- insulting and calling names to American citizens and voters (stupid, redneck, low information, etc.).
Gail Collins has made a cottage industry out of ridiculing Mitt Romney for putting his dog in a rooftop carrier -- 40 years ago! -- she's STILL DOING IT, even though the man conceded 2 years ago and holds no public office. And the lefty posters eat it up with a spoon -- such hilarity!
Now we read of birtherism among the LEFT towards Ted Cruz ("he's not a real American!"). So there's that. The left invented bashing.
Gail Collins has made a cottage industry out of ridiculing Mitt Romney for putting his dog in a rooftop carrier -- 40 years ago! -- she's STILL DOING IT, even though the man conceded 2 years ago and holds no public office. And the lefty posters eat it up with a spoon -- such hilarity!
Now we read of birtherism among the LEFT towards Ted Cruz ("he's not a real American!"). So there's that. The left invented bashing.
Another way to think about the republican party propaganda machine is to remember that the republicans declared political civil war on the rest of America.
Now, as civil wars go, this one is far more preferable to the one started in 1861, but we are in a civil war of competing political ideologies nonetheless.
Trouble is, the democratic party doesn't seem to have internalized that fact. Comparing the partisan attacks on Bush to the same type of attacks on Obama is illustrative.
Bush merely led the country into his war of choice, didn't bother to pay for it, and merely created the worst economic crisis in America since the 1930s. Obama became president primarily for that reason since he really hadn't done anything in his professional or political career to that point other than delivering one great speech.
Obama merely navigated us through the economic crisis to a soft landing when compared to every other country in the world and ended our role as the mercenaries of Saudi Arabia and Israel in the middle east.
Why is this relevant? Because the republican party leadership realized that the best defense is an offense and raised propaganda to levels not seen since Goebbels and Molotov. To that end, the party's controlling financial powers funded such notorious defamations as the swift-boating of John Kerry.
Yes, today the "bullets" of our civil war are 30 second sound bites and the republicans are out-gunning the democrats.
Now, as civil wars go, this one is far more preferable to the one started in 1861, but we are in a civil war of competing political ideologies nonetheless.
Trouble is, the democratic party doesn't seem to have internalized that fact. Comparing the partisan attacks on Bush to the same type of attacks on Obama is illustrative.
Bush merely led the country into his war of choice, didn't bother to pay for it, and merely created the worst economic crisis in America since the 1930s. Obama became president primarily for that reason since he really hadn't done anything in his professional or political career to that point other than delivering one great speech.
Obama merely navigated us through the economic crisis to a soft landing when compared to every other country in the world and ended our role as the mercenaries of Saudi Arabia and Israel in the middle east.
Why is this relevant? Because the republican party leadership realized that the best defense is an offense and raised propaganda to levels not seen since Goebbels and Molotov. To that end, the party's controlling financial powers funded such notorious defamations as the swift-boating of John Kerry.
Yes, today the "bullets" of our civil war are 30 second sound bites and the republicans are out-gunning the democrats.
3
Democrats will soon turn their guns on Obama. Democrats may want another Obama in office but America does not.
3
@waken I would vote for him if he ran again I voted for Nixon, Regan , Bush , Ross Perot. Bush, Bush, Ralph Nader, Romney, What America are you speaking for? The 38% of the actual voter who participates or the 62/65 % that stay home.
Every time I click on a link that takes me to a NYT article and then review reader comments, I am amazed by the overwhelming liberal bias. What New Yorkers or devotees to the NYT don't get is this: most of the country is tired of failed left wing policies attempted during the past half century. HRC, together with the feckless Obama, represent the worst of liberals who have torn this great country down since the 1970s. Liberals have put their ideology over our national safety. To imply that the Right is doing anything new by informing the base of the Left about HRC's lies and inconsistencies is biased at least and journalistic malpractice at worst. The Left has been doing this to the Right for years. What's good for the goose is good for the gander...and it's good that Republicans now seem willing to stoop to Democrats' level to gain an even playing field. It's about time. In the end, I'm hopeful the country wakes up and restores competent, moral leadership to the White House. Through her actions as FLOTUS, Secretary of State, and big wig position in the Clinton Foundation, HRC has repeatedly shown herself to be incompetent and immoral. We deserve better.
4
First off: the editorial board and almost all columnists are hard left liberals. (The two who are nominally "conservative" are softies who believe in gay marriage and would be laughed out of any conservative organization.) I think they must have an oath or litmus test to write here; surely nobody espousing ANY conservative belief would be tolerated. The attacks on the Catholic Church alone are suspicious (and I am not a Catholic or even a Christian).
Secondly: these forums are heavily edited. I know because I read here daily and post often, and I see where my comments are redacted. Its when I express a conservative viewpoint -- pro religion or pro traditional marriage. This is verboten. Today, for lefty liberals, for someone to simply SAY that they believe marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman -- something OBAMA believed up until 2012! -- is literally hate speech. And they intend to SHUT IT DOWN and eliminate all debate, dialog and discourse.
Scratch a lefty liberal and inside is a totalitarian. This is not simply an election coming up. This is a culture war, and this publication is firmly in the saddle to impose THEIR collectivist, socialist, redistributionist philosophy on everyone, and absolutely shut down any attempt at even an alternate viewpoint. The long term goal is a ONE PARTY SYSTEM (such as happened in California!) where it is all Democrat, all the time. Then they can impose the lefty social engineering of their dreams.
We do deserve better.
Secondly: these forums are heavily edited. I know because I read here daily and post often, and I see where my comments are redacted. Its when I express a conservative viewpoint -- pro religion or pro traditional marriage. This is verboten. Today, for lefty liberals, for someone to simply SAY that they believe marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman -- something OBAMA believed up until 2012! -- is literally hate speech. And they intend to SHUT IT DOWN and eliminate all debate, dialog and discourse.
Scratch a lefty liberal and inside is a totalitarian. This is not simply an election coming up. This is a culture war, and this publication is firmly in the saddle to impose THEIR collectivist, socialist, redistributionist philosophy on everyone, and absolutely shut down any attempt at even an alternate viewpoint. The long term goal is a ONE PARTY SYSTEM (such as happened in California!) where it is all Democrat, all the time. Then they can impose the lefty social engineering of their dreams.
We do deserve better.
You do realize that both in 2012 and 2014 Democrats running for the House and Senate won far more votes than Republicans, destroying your claim that the left is weakening. The reasons are quite simple, as Bill Moyers explained.
http://billmoyers.com/2014/11/05/gerrymandering-rigged-2014-elections-re...
http://billmoyers.com/2014/11/05/gerrymandering-rigged-2014-elections-re...
Several wise Hillary supporters have made the same comment:
The Republicans' (realistic) goal isn't to transform a Hillary Clinton voter into a Jeb Bush voter. It's to transform a Hillary Clinton voter into a voter who stays home or votes for some left-wing fringe candidate -- not as good as a Jeb Bush voter, but close enough.
Reminds me of a remark by John McCain in the 2008 campaign, when Hillary stayed in the campaign long after it was clear she'd lost to Barrack Obama and thus was merely weakening him for the general election. McCain said he'd be overjoyed if the Democrats were unable to decide between Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
Hillary's getting a little of her own medicine this time.
The Republicans' (realistic) goal isn't to transform a Hillary Clinton voter into a Jeb Bush voter. It's to transform a Hillary Clinton voter into a voter who stays home or votes for some left-wing fringe candidate -- not as good as a Jeb Bush voter, but close enough.
Reminds me of a remark by John McCain in the 2008 campaign, when Hillary stayed in the campaign long after it was clear she'd lost to Barrack Obama and thus was merely weakening him for the general election. McCain said he'd be overjoyed if the Democrats were unable to decide between Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
Hillary's getting a little of her own medicine this time.
19
If the goal is to push Democratic voters into throwing votes away on fringe candidates like Sanders and Warren -- the right has already succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.
This is not new; the Nixon campaign employed a team to do precisely the same thing and more. And it's the same people separated only by two generations: adolescent viciousness honed in the steamy meetings of College Republicans or a campus Young Conservatives club. I can hear the titters as Trumka forwards a Twitter tweet.
I don't blame them. It's tough to being an American Plutocrat. After spending billions buying a congressional majority, they're forced to endure for a second time a Republican Center Ring filled with a cast of side-show performers: there's the Bearded Lady, the Man with No Face and the World's Smallest Horse.
Make no mistake, however. For the 85% of the American people who don't live in a "swing state" and the 99% of them who don't "earn" a quarter of a billion annually, the presidential election is solely a spectator sport. Neither I here in Texas nor you in New York have any influence over the outcome. Imagine that American "democracy' has created a system where a ballot case in an election has all the relevance of a ballot cast in the old East Germany!
I don't blame them. It's tough to being an American Plutocrat. After spending billions buying a congressional majority, they're forced to endure for a second time a Republican Center Ring filled with a cast of side-show performers: there's the Bearded Lady, the Man with No Face and the World's Smallest Horse.
Make no mistake, however. For the 85% of the American people who don't live in a "swing state" and the 99% of them who don't "earn" a quarter of a billion annually, the presidential election is solely a spectator sport. Neither I here in Texas nor you in New York have any influence over the outcome. Imagine that American "democracy' has created a system where a ballot case in an election has all the relevance of a ballot cast in the old East Germany!
If you are on the more liberal end of the Democratic party, please, please don't split the vote by going for some inevitable loser. Wasn't Ralph Nader the ultimate lesson? If not, isn't it enough to see what conservatives are trying to sell you now? Keep your eyes on the prizes--the Supreme Court and avoiding eight years of Republican-controlled executive plus legislature--and get real. Fast.
7
Democrats are so timid and waffling, they have real problems even running a primary with a real choice of candidates. So they let rightwing stooges do it for them. If they had backbones, Democrats would work hard to debate among themselves, and pick the best candidate, instead of mostly lining up like sheep to support a coronation of the candidate with most money, connections, blemished track record.
3
A message to The Grand Old Party: Please give us a little more credit. For us that are a little more left of center, we know that we need someone who is experienced as well as smart. We know that to attract a broad range of Democrats, for a national election, we need to be a tad more to the center. And it is time for a woman to be president. To my knowledge, our one female nominee will be Hillary. Most of all be assured, no matter how "conservative" she may seem to liberals, she will get our backing a thousand fold. Don't think for a minute we will stay home on Election Day, or horror, vote for one of "yours."
3
There is nothing new about this practice. Here in New York, the teachers union ran a stealth legislative campaign supporting a far right candidate in order to split the Republican vote so that their Democrat candidate would win over a popular, moderate Republican incumbent. It worked. Just like the tea party can be easily baited, the liberal progressives - equally righteous and inflexible - can be easily baited. The fix is not to criticize the tactic as "sleazy" when it isn't. The fix, if you are the voter targeted by these tactics, is to ask yourself if you want change, which requires collaboration and compromise, or if you just want to holler and act like a wounded victim all the time.
We Democrats do not "goose-step" in line with every policy, proposal and position that comes from any Democratic candidate. We question authority, something the Republicans just don't get. Our tent is a big one and their are many opinions. I am an advocate for Bernie Sanders as president but I would not turn my back on Hillary Clinton over any one lone issue and ever conceive of voting for any of the right wing loonies in the Republican clown car.
It seems to me that this article is just another of a string of attempts by the NYT to undermine the Clinton campaign.
It seems to me that this article is just another of a string of attempts by the NYT to undermine the Clinton campaign.
5
"this article is just another of a string of attempts by the NYT to undermine the Clinton campaign."
...Or make it stronger? By highlighting these techniques, millions who otherwise wouldn't have questioned the sources of such oppo-research now will. How many Republicans do the same thing? Methinks not many.
[As an aside, all Hillary needs to do--especially on the money issue--is literally own it. Say something like "yep, this is the electoral system we've all allowed to develop. I don't like it much, but as president, I, and the Democratic party, will support any legislative effort from congress to change it." That's a message a Republican cannot say, but a Democrat can.]
...Or make it stronger? By highlighting these techniques, millions who otherwise wouldn't have questioned the sources of such oppo-research now will. How many Republicans do the same thing? Methinks not many.
[As an aside, all Hillary needs to do--especially on the money issue--is literally own it. Say something like "yep, this is the electoral system we've all allowed to develop. I don't like it much, but as president, I, and the Democratic party, will support any legislative effort from congress to change it." That's a message a Republican cannot say, but a Democrat can.]
So if the NYT ran a article about a republican candidate doing the same thing you would applaud it as good investigative journalism. If you claim to a be informed voter you need to know what all the candidates are doing. There have been articles in the NYT painting republican candidates in a not so flattering light. It sounds like your devotion to Hillary does not allow you to see the forest for the trees.
Your suggestion of what Hillary should do doesn't make her and the Democratic party sound like they has much ethics. And if she does become president who's to say which side of the fence she will actually jump to. We all know that power and money make strange bed partners.
The difference between Romney in 2012 and Hillary in 2016 is, of course, that Romney is indeed a cold-hearted plutocrat ... and Hillary clearly NOT. The public at large didn't know Romney well, but we have lived with the Clintons for quite some time now. Bill liked the ladies and ate too much junk food, and Hillary, unfortunately, has a really irritating personality ... but the real criticism ends there. In terms of what they have contributed to the betterment of the United States citizenry, they are building and supporting them, while the Romneys, Cheneys and Roves of this country are tearing them apart chasing after dollars. Social media is reactive, but time brings more details and by 2016 liberals will remember why they are not Republicans..
5
Clinton's own corporatist record and her stand (or failure to take a stand) on Fast Tracking the trade deals will speak for themselves, without Republican help== along with the Obama's record of relying on liberals to win but failure to deliver on policies.
1
Colin Reed's picture gave me a flashback to the group that surrounded Nixon, his group from California that started the dirty trucks campaign. So it's been more than 40 years and this is still their style. Maybe they should work on substance, but that would be hard work and not as much fun.
3
Hillary Clinton is not a perfect candidate but who the heck would I vote for if not for her? Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren might have a few good ideas but both are too liberal to be likely contenders. Some of the Republican candidates have a few good ideas, but on the whole, Mrs. Clinton is the best candidate -- not too liberal and not too conservative. As for those who would sit out an election, they are being irresponsible. It's basically hiding their heads in the sand and letting others decide for them. Voting has always been about deciding on the lesser of two evils and there is no candidate I could agree with completely. I'll just vote for my flawed candidate rather than the other flawed ones!
3
"Let's see...the GOP gave us the Iraq War..."
Oh please!
Hillary voted for the Iraq war too. So did John Kerry. They later changed their minds, of course, but when it counted they voted to back George W. Bush. Hillary was all for going into Libya too. If she were President right now, rather than Barack Obama, our troops would be in Syria helping ISIS and al Nusra fight Assad's troops (so Syria could be transformed into another Libya), and our generals would be helping Netanyahu's military planners get ready for an attack on Iran.
Oh please!
Hillary voted for the Iraq war too. So did John Kerry. They later changed their minds, of course, but when it counted they voted to back George W. Bush. Hillary was all for going into Libya too. If she were President right now, rather than Barack Obama, our troops would be in Syria helping ISIS and al Nusra fight Assad's troops (so Syria could be transformed into another Libya), and our generals would be helping Netanyahu's military planners get ready for an attack on Iran.
3
Yes, of course both parties engage in these highly questionable campaign tactics but no one does it better than Republicans. Faustian Karl Rove, the father of sleazy campaigning secured two hellish presidential terms for George W. Bush. It doesn't get much more diabolical than that.
4
Dirty tricks, lying, scare tactics, no where do I see an actual focus on policy. The election process has become a complete and total sham. We do not demand accountability from our elected officials and they know this and continue to treat us with total disdain. So we can expect clever political ads that have nothing to do with anything, just like a Seinfeld episode, but we should not expect nor will we get a true debate on policies.
4
The bottom line is if you have nothing to hide the best way to eliminate the criticism is to divulge everything. So far Hillary hasn't been willing to do this.
2
For the time being, the mob that is competing for the Republican right to lynch Hillary has a less successful social media strategy than ISIS. SNL's opening skit at first glance made her look like a woman obsessed with being president. But people may have taken away a message that she is serious will do what it takes to win and be a good president. In any case, it builds her name recognition.
But people may have taken away a message that she is serious will do what it takes to win and be a good president. In any case, it builds her name recognition.
==================
No, people have seen the reality that she is greedy for money and obsessed with power.
==================
No, people have seen the reality that she is greedy for money and obsessed with power.
The Clintons (and the Bushes) bring so much baggage to this election season it's hard not to imagine every Tom, Dick and Harry PAC—right, left, and center—having some kind of axe to grind against them. That the GOP is getting on the bandwagon shouldn't surprise anyone. They've treated politics as a blood sport since Reagan hired MIchael Deaver, the godfather of political sleeze.
As it stands, Hillary is the presumed candidate, which leaves the GOP with a single target for the next 18 months. We can expect nothing less than even sleezier tactics.
In the end, though, the GOP is totally devoid of a legitimate candidate. Moreover, the GOP has no positive vision of the future; just relentless negativity against anything with the word "government" in it. That simply won't win elections, over the long haul. Americans want to be positive, not negative.
As it stands, Hillary is the presumed candidate, which leaves the GOP with a single target for the next 18 months. We can expect nothing less than even sleezier tactics.
In the end, though, the GOP is totally devoid of a legitimate candidate. Moreover, the GOP has no positive vision of the future; just relentless negativity against anything with the word "government" in it. That simply won't win elections, over the long haul. Americans want to be positive, not negative.
50
I fear you you give the American voter too much credit!
They would spend time and money better if they found a "reasonable"Republican candidate to run. For awhile I felt Jeb had promise but his comments the other day about seeking his brothers advice on the middle east did it for me.
1
Nothing in this article suggests that the accusations being passed to liberals by the GOP are untrue. Hillary could easily solve this problem by, say, not meeting with Keystone lobbyists. But the article seems rather to aim at painting the left as unwitting dupes of the right. This is a long-used tactic . Remember when Ralph Nader was falsely accused by main-stream media of making Gore lose the election in 2000? But when a study of Florida voters was done, it turned out that Nader's candidacy prompted many people to register, and many of those people switched to Gore at the last minute. If Nader hadn't run, Bush's margin of victory would have been larger than it was. But the temptation to blame the left for the failures of centrist Democrats is apparently irresistible.
3
That is simply not true; unless you think Nader voters would have voted for Bush, then every Nader vote was a vote lost by Gore.
The truth is Gore would have won (albeit a narrow victory) if Nader had dropped out of the race.
The truth is Gore would have won (albeit a narrow victory) if Nader had dropped out of the race.
The republican party propaganda machine is in full force as the campaigning unfolds. No doubt.
Problem is, Hillary and Bill make themselves such easy targets for attack campaigns by their borderline ethics and hair splitting rationales.
That is by no means saying that any of the republican presidential aspirants is preferable to Ms Clinton. By virtue of the failed republican economic agenda and failure in governance more broadly, America cannot afford another republican president for the foreseeable future. Seriously, Ted Cruz? Rick Perry? Scott Walker? Jeb Bush? The republican party is without a serious candidate. Their main talking points are all anti-Obama and for the most part, their talking points are empty rhetoric. There is no substance to GOP policy pronouncements.
Quite frankly, the democratic party has botched the marketing of President Obama's clear accomplishments (navigating us out of the Great Recession; pulling us out of the Iraqi debacle; starting us on the path of a better healthcare system for starters). While no FDR to be sure, but like him in a political sense, President Obama has been vilified by the right side of the political spectrum.
No, we don't need a faux midstream politician like Ms Clinton for the next president. We need a return to middle American values as personified by a presidential team who reflects American ideals for patriotism, fair play, and intellectual rigor.
We need a ticket of Jim Webb and Elizabeth Warren.
Problem is, Hillary and Bill make themselves such easy targets for attack campaigns by their borderline ethics and hair splitting rationales.
That is by no means saying that any of the republican presidential aspirants is preferable to Ms Clinton. By virtue of the failed republican economic agenda and failure in governance more broadly, America cannot afford another republican president for the foreseeable future. Seriously, Ted Cruz? Rick Perry? Scott Walker? Jeb Bush? The republican party is without a serious candidate. Their main talking points are all anti-Obama and for the most part, their talking points are empty rhetoric. There is no substance to GOP policy pronouncements.
Quite frankly, the democratic party has botched the marketing of President Obama's clear accomplishments (navigating us out of the Great Recession; pulling us out of the Iraqi debacle; starting us on the path of a better healthcare system for starters). While no FDR to be sure, but like him in a political sense, President Obama has been vilified by the right side of the political spectrum.
No, we don't need a faux midstream politician like Ms Clinton for the next president. We need a return to middle American values as personified by a presidential team who reflects American ideals for patriotism, fair play, and intellectual rigor.
We need a ticket of Jim Webb and Elizabeth Warren.
One has to admire the ability of the Republican Party to find novel ways to lie and cheat -- though, absent any good ideas or compelling leaders, it's not unexpected.
4
I get the sense Hillary is laying low, letting the critics do/say their worst and then factually respondimg at the appropriate time. Having seen her full testimony before the Congressional subcommittee on Bengazie for example, it's no wonder the Republicans are delaying and otherwise impeding their own demand that she again tresify on the subject. Not only was she a formidable Republican adversary in her initial testimony - she dominated the room. No amount of tactical subterfuge will seperate the majority of voters from the onerous agenda advocated by the Republicans : trickle-down economics, outsourcing American jobs, elimination of the social safety-net and the imposition of an antiquated, hypocritical, biased social value belief-system.
3
When push comes to shove, even the most anti-Hilary Democrat will vote for her, because the Republican candidate will still be anti-science, anti-women, anti-middle-class. These clever Republican operatives cannot put lipstick on their pig and believe a Democrat will vote for it.
2
i did not think it was possible, but then again, in the warped society we live in, anything is possible. I did not think the hate and vitriol many Americans have shown President Obama could ever be matched again. Perhaps not in our near future. Wrong. The Right-wing hate machine will attempt to portray Mrs. Clinton as Satan's wife. The reason is obvious. They fear she will kick the butt of any candidate the Republicans nominate. It is already beginning to look like an election between Snow White vs. the Seven Dwarves. Intellectually, that is.
1
We're way beyond that, ohio. They're trying to portray Bill as Satan's husband.
If only the time, energy and money spent was used to lay out and promote the plans and ideas of the candidates, left and right, to move the country forward.
Arctic drilling, roads falling apart, wages stagnant, big banks bigger, Gitmo up and running, whistle-blowers jailed, Iraq war in full gear, Afghanistan still sucking us dry, and Detroit in ruins...yes, sign me up for 4 more years of Republican-lite!
Folks, the Democrats are novacaine and the Republicans are a tooth-ache. Four years of Toothache might just make us elect a real dentist with a real degree and a real root canal. Things have to get much worse before they can get better.
You can vote for Hillary and pretend your mouth isn't a fright, but I won't.
Folks, the Democrats are novacaine and the Republicans are a tooth-ache. Four years of Toothache might just make us elect a real dentist with a real degree and a real root canal. Things have to get much worse before they can get better.
You can vote for Hillary and pretend your mouth isn't a fright, but I won't.
All this low level sniping is rather meaningless. Our Oil Wars are blowing up on us and Hillary is a big fan of Oil and our "Oil First" Foreign policy.
Hillary has a chance of winning but there is no chance of the Democrats winning the Congress so it will be more of the same or ,if the Republicans win, much, much worse.
Hillary has a chance of winning but there is no chance of the Democrats winning the Congress so it will be more of the same or ,if the Republicans win, much, much worse.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with this. It brings ideas out into the open and is good for democracy. I doubt it will have the intended effect, however.
I'm having trouble being excited about Hillary's candidacy, but nothing could make me vote for a Republican.
1
In 2008, many Obama supporters sounded like the right in their arguments against Hillary. It won't happen or work this time.
1
Please. If "the left" has been paying any attention, they don't need to the GOP to see, very clearly, how corporate, pro-war, pro-oil a Hillary adminstration would be. She can say whatever she wants, but Obama showed every single liberal that the Wall Street candidate on the Democratic side will always say whatever they need to in order to win. And they'll never back their word up, except in piecemeal half-measures, that are identical to anything a Republican would do to try to convince people their legislation isn't TOTALLY pro-war, pro-Wall Street, or pro-oil. These parties answer to the same would-be kings and queens of America who have all the money and power, who pull all the strings now. If anyone on "the left" or "the right" can't see this clear truth, its because they're trying very hard not to look at it.
I won't repeat the succinct synopsis of the questionable 'accomplishments' of two Bushes, Cheney, et. al. embodied in Walter Rhett's earlier comments. But I've seen enough of the current brand of Republican to last me a lifetime.
Forget dirty tricks. This discussion is moot. They can say what they will about the Democratic candidate(s). I already know I'm voting against whatever or whomever the Republicans try to foist on us. (Alas, he or she will almost surely be an enemy of the working and middle classes, especially when it comes to increasing the federal minimum wage, providing a minimum living income, implementing a truly national health insurance program, or preserving and expanding social security as we now know it.)
Forget dirty tricks. This discussion is moot. They can say what they will about the Democratic candidate(s). I already know I'm voting against whatever or whomever the Republicans try to foist on us. (Alas, he or she will almost surely be an enemy of the working and middle classes, especially when it comes to increasing the federal minimum wage, providing a minimum living income, implementing a truly national health insurance program, or preserving and expanding social security as we now know it.)
3
The left and many not so left Democrats don't need prodding to be unhappy with the prospect of Mrs. Clinton's nomination. I hear it from a lot from friends who are unhappy with her "baggage", ties to Wall Street, enormous wealth etc. The fact is dissatisfaction has not reached a critical mass and is unlikely to. There is also the problem of those pusillanimous Democrats who would have a chance to foster a real debate in genuinely contested Democratic primaries but who cower at confronting Hillary and her money. The few who have lack national recognition, charisma or a platform to make a serious effort. Where is a Eugene McCarthy or a RFK? Those who decry coronations and dynasties (Clinton, Bush) have a point.
This is the political equivalent of hurling rocks at trains by a bunch of empty suits with no platform to stand on.
3
It has nothing to do with politics. Most Americans just want a President who is beyond reproach in terms of honesty and integrity.
Only Hillary can prove her critics wrong by divulging everything about her personal finances, emails etc.
Only Hillary can prove her critics wrong by divulging everything about her personal finances, emails etc.
1
This sounds like a "Vast right wing conspiracy " argument . That any attack on Hilary must be somehow orchestrated by conservatives. Which I guess means that Liberals have no ideas of their own, or cannot think on their own.
Certainly Hillary and Bill are open to criticism. Making 30M in over a year. Because "We have to pay our bills" Or "We were flat broke" With of course nine houses to pay for.
Imagine if Romney had said something like that. The liberal media would be all over him.
There is plenty for liberals to be uneasy about with Clintons. Their greed, thier large appetites for anything they want. Their total lack of ethics. If liberals have to be shamed into looking closing at the Clinton's record then maybe you don't deserve to win. If the Clintons are the best you can do, you are in trouble.
Certainly Hillary and Bill are open to criticism. Making 30M in over a year. Because "We have to pay our bills" Or "We were flat broke" With of course nine houses to pay for.
Imagine if Romney had said something like that. The liberal media would be all over him.
There is plenty for liberals to be uneasy about with Clintons. Their greed, thier large appetites for anything they want. Their total lack of ethics. If liberals have to be shamed into looking closing at the Clinton's record then maybe you don't deserve to win. If the Clintons are the best you can do, you are in trouble.
1
1. The perfect is the enemy of the good.
2. Demographics. Demographics. Demographics!
2. Demographics. Demographics. Demographics!
2
The Left doesn't need the Right to tell us to turn against Hillary Clinton. She is a neocon, a pro-bankster operative who never saw a war or a transnational corporation she didn't like. Those of us who have been awake since Bill "Gramm-Leach-Bliley/Telecommunications Monopolization Act/NAFTA-GATT-IMF" Clinton oozed into power know well what the Clintons stand for--and it isn't We the People. The Clintons have gotten stunningly wealthy since Bill was elected, and all that money did not come from small-donor Democrats, but from corporations--many of them foreign, with foreign interests:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2015/02/18/foreign-don...
I resent articles like this, the purpose of which seems to be to push progressives to support Hillary Clinton because some rightists claim to be against her--an identity-politics ploy worthy of Faux "News". I will never support Hillary Clinton--and now that Bernie Sanders is in the race, I don't have to even consider it.
BERNIE IN '16!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2015/02/18/foreign-don...
I resent articles like this, the purpose of which seems to be to push progressives to support Hillary Clinton because some rightists claim to be against her--an identity-politics ploy worthy of Faux "News". I will never support Hillary Clinton--and now that Bernie Sanders is in the race, I don't have to even consider it.
BERNIE IN '16!
1
AMEN, brother/sister! Amen!
Let's have a robust primary in the Democratic party, and then we'll all pull for the nominee. Nothing difficult about that.
2
This is as low as politics can get. The Right baiting the Left and the Left falling for it. The Democrats are their own worst enemies. For a more intellectual Party to fall into this trap, it is very disconcerting. Should'nt all of them get behind their candidate, come hell or high water? They did not back their own President in anything and deliberately distanced themselves from him and they all lost! These cunning GOPers!!! When they foresee that direct attacks will not be of any consequence, they have resorted to underhand, passive-aggressive attacks. Hopefully, the smart ( supposedly ) Democrats recognize this and not fall prey to these wily, unscrupulous GOPers.
I know what Dems are, I know what Repubs are.
End of story.
End of story.
3
Sounds like moderate Republicans might have a someone to vote for after all.
2
This kind of stuff if an invitation for liberals to shoot themselves in the foot. My god consider the alternative.
2
This is a concerning example of politics when a groups try and appear to be be successful to change minds of those they hate. When we use comments that we do not know the source rather than using facts this happens.
1
Republicans and the ultra right love sanctimonious liberals the way most democrats love the extreme right. The extremes of either party want ideological purity and often vote against their own best interests by rejecting candidates on single issues. Pragmatists are typically ready to accept the flaws of their front runner candidates. No one is as pure as the driven snow. In the end, ideological purity is poisonous and those who imbibe are like Socrates and his hemlock. For those of us who are pragmatists the choices are clear as day.
36
Care to name any names?
Innovative tactic.....NOT. It's just a copy of 99% funded ads linking Republican candidates with the Koch brothers and big business lobbyists. Politic has basically grown in the same way that NASCAR did. At one time it was a grass roots process run and funded by average citizens. Then big businesses saw it as a profit source. Now it's an elitist sport funded by a huge range of companies spending billions for advertising. And so is NASCAR.
1
I dunno. This seems pretty tame to me. They're holding back the big guns for later.
Anyone on the far left tempted to abandon the Democratic nominee needs to keep the 2000 election before their eyes daily. Yes, the Democrats are corporate sellouts too, but you can't persuade me that the soul-destroying malaise that's followed 9-11 would've happened if Al Gore had been in office. As a country led by Bush, we didn't emerge from tragedy to build visionary alliances, and instead fell into pointless violence, retaliation, and zealotry. I'm tired of the Ayn Randian nastiness and hypocrisy.
The Clintons understand power. That's their sin, but also what makes them succeed. It's the best we can hope for right now. Either that, or emigration to Finland.
Anyone on the far left tempted to abandon the Democratic nominee needs to keep the 2000 election before their eyes daily. Yes, the Democrats are corporate sellouts too, but you can't persuade me that the soul-destroying malaise that's followed 9-11 would've happened if Al Gore had been in office. As a country led by Bush, we didn't emerge from tragedy to build visionary alliances, and instead fell into pointless violence, retaliation, and zealotry. I'm tired of the Ayn Randian nastiness and hypocrisy.
The Clintons understand power. That's their sin, but also what makes them succeed. It's the best we can hope for right now. Either that, or emigration to Finland.
10
When you have nothing constructive to offer, and you haven't for decades, you slash and burn. As C-3PO would say it, "How typical."
5
If the right wants to spend money "for" Bernie Sanders, let em!
In the end, if we finally have to vote for Hillary over a clown, we will hold our nose and do it.
In the end, if we finally have to vote for Hillary over a clown, we will hold our nose and do it.
6
The whole thing makes me bone-weary. Campaigns are about NOTHING now--just race, money, win, lose, manipulation. Seems to be the way of American life in general.
So I vote based on the essential differences between parties. And yes, they definitely still exist. First of all, I am female. Second, I am not wealthy. Third, I don't believe that the free market works for absolutely everything, and I still believe in government as the best way to organize much of civic life. Fourth, I strongly believe in the separation of church and state. That means I will pretty much never vote Republican until the party hauls itself out of the 19th century.
So I vote based on the essential differences between parties. And yes, they definitely still exist. First of all, I am female. Second, I am not wealthy. Third, I don't believe that the free market works for absolutely everything, and I still believe in government as the best way to organize much of civic life. Fourth, I strongly believe in the separation of church and state. That means I will pretty much never vote Republican until the party hauls itself out of the 19th century.
11
I respected your comments, LS, and identify with all of them. Thanks for such a good post, which reflects so many Americans' feelings, ideas, and obligations for considering whom to vote for.
Amen!
"They're doing it to ensure that their own personal and business agendas are implemented and followed."
Why don't you assume the same of Hillary's Wall Streeters, and big foreign contrbutors to the Clinton Foundation? If some developing country contributor were so interested in helping a particular Clinton Foundation grant recipient it could contribute to that recipient directly. Why use the Foundation as an intermediary? And why throw in 700k to Bill outside the Foundation - for a speech? And why do those so opposed to the 1% give a pass to the Clintons? A principle is a principle - no?
Why don't you assume the same of Hillary's Wall Streeters, and big foreign contrbutors to the Clinton Foundation? If some developing country contributor were so interested in helping a particular Clinton Foundation grant recipient it could contribute to that recipient directly. Why use the Foundation as an intermediary? And why throw in 700k to Bill outside the Foundation - for a speech? And why do those so opposed to the 1% give a pass to the Clintons? A principle is a principle - no?
3
If politics was a sport instead of the dirty game it is, the Republicans would be sitting in the penalty box all day long because they are the dirty players, the ones who cheat, short stick, kick the opponent out of sight of the ref. They play dirty and the dirt sticks to them.
4
Our brothers and sisters on the left are not going to be deceived by right wing fanatics who want to destroy Social Security and Medicare and start new wars around the world.
7
Pushing Hillary from the left is one thing, but the left had best be careful or they will end up with Rand Paul or Gov Walker. I have been left of center all my life but I also realize that, like the T-Party, the overreaching can come back and bite you.
When I hear Elizabeth Warren exaggerating the free trade agreement (sometimes free trade in general) effects and using the same fear mongering techniques the T-Party does, I am disappointed. It in the end is self-defeating. We are not a left of center nation. And there are more effective communications styles.
Dems lost the last election in my opinion largely based on appearing as united as a herd of cats. So many wandering in different directions at a time when the people were looking for leadership and an end to dysfunctionality in Washington.
Perhaps Mr. Gombiner's view that all this will make the Dems stronger is correct. But logic tells me that in a low information society the strategy he favors is high risk. It may make for great chatter on the social networks but remember only 22% of Americans use social networks 2 or more times a day even tho more than 50% have profiles. A large majority are young and have not shown much interest in voting.
Hopefully, the Dem Party and Mrs. Clinton are just biding their time 18 months before the election: Letting all the poo hit the multitude of MSM fans, before releasing the cavalry. They too must hit the social media hard with their message.
When I hear Elizabeth Warren exaggerating the free trade agreement (sometimes free trade in general) effects and using the same fear mongering techniques the T-Party does, I am disappointed. It in the end is self-defeating. We are not a left of center nation. And there are more effective communications styles.
Dems lost the last election in my opinion largely based on appearing as united as a herd of cats. So many wandering in different directions at a time when the people were looking for leadership and an end to dysfunctionality in Washington.
Perhaps Mr. Gombiner's view that all this will make the Dems stronger is correct. But logic tells me that in a low information society the strategy he favors is high risk. It may make for great chatter on the social networks but remember only 22% of Americans use social networks 2 or more times a day even tho more than 50% have profiles. A large majority are young and have not shown much interest in voting.
Hopefully, the Dem Party and Mrs. Clinton are just biding their time 18 months before the election: Letting all the poo hit the multitude of MSM fans, before releasing the cavalry. They too must hit the social media hard with their message.
44
It is imperative to have no more GOP appointed "Justices"!!
The "right" may regret this move, if Bernie Sanders becomes a national figure their golden geese are cooked. After all Hillary is actually a Republican, and those that call themselves Republicans are actually Reactionaries. And our country is not really ready to be ruled by Reactionaries.
10
A perfect, spot on comment, reflecting the facts. Thanks, Tim.
The GOP has always resorted to the sleaziest and more dishonest tactics because they lose in a fair contest of ideas. Obviously they're already scared to their bones of Ms Clinton or they wouldn't be this desparate this early.
4
Don't forget Nixon was a Republican and can you ask for any more sleaze than that??
Sleazy, yes…but so what? It will motivate those of us with the courage of our convictions to vote for somebody else (Sanders, or a write in for Warren) during the primary. Doing that, however, will not blind us to the necessity of making a different choice during the general election.
4
The thought of a government totally controlled by the miserable Right should send shudders up all Democrat-leaning voters' spines.
5
Hillary doesn't need any baiting from the right. Over the last two decades she has left a trail of lies, deceit and braggadocio to swamp her bid all by themselves.
3
Yup, no politician has every lied like Hillary. I think you may have a Hillary fixation.
All politicians lie. Mostly to keep true to their financial backers. Our election system has deteriorated to the point that without big money you loose. The newly minted Sen Cotton of "Letter Fame" did not have a chance in hell of winning his election in AK but at the last minute he got a million bucks from Bill Kristal's foundation and drenched AK in negative advertising. It does not matter much which party does it. Both are guilty. Do you think Elizabeth Warren or Bernie or Jeb or Scott Walker are pure of heart and free of political big money?
The only other choice is Elizabeth Warren. Is she free of lies, deceit and braggadocio? If you listen carefully to her speeches and on air pushing of her causes, she knows the game and plays it moderately well. Tho, in my opinion not well enough to beat Hillary.
Now if you are a Republican hater of the Clintons then do you think none of the candidates are without sin? Hard to make that case. Most lie about basic facts daily when in front of the cameras. Some have pretty spurious pasts like Huck, Trump, or Gov Walker.
It is refreshing to know our Motherland still has a fair electoral policy. Six weeks campaign. No TV ads. Anyone over 18 and holding Brit nationality gets to vote. There have been electoral spending limits by party and candidate since 1883. Many of our problems would disappear if we reined in time and money
All politicians lie. Mostly to keep true to their financial backers. Our election system has deteriorated to the point that without big money you loose. The newly minted Sen Cotton of "Letter Fame" did not have a chance in hell of winning his election in AK but at the last minute he got a million bucks from Bill Kristal's foundation and drenched AK in negative advertising. It does not matter much which party does it. Both are guilty. Do you think Elizabeth Warren or Bernie or Jeb or Scott Walker are pure of heart and free of political big money?
The only other choice is Elizabeth Warren. Is she free of lies, deceit and braggadocio? If you listen carefully to her speeches and on air pushing of her causes, she knows the game and plays it moderately well. Tho, in my opinion not well enough to beat Hillary.
Now if you are a Republican hater of the Clintons then do you think none of the candidates are without sin? Hard to make that case. Most lie about basic facts daily when in front of the cameras. Some have pretty spurious pasts like Huck, Trump, or Gov Walker.
It is refreshing to know our Motherland still has a fair electoral policy. Six weeks campaign. No TV ads. Anyone over 18 and holding Brit nationality gets to vote. There have been electoral spending limits by party and candidate since 1883. Many of our problems would disappear if we reined in time and money
Why take the Karl Rove / Koch Brothers bait? I have issues with Hillary Clinton but she has my vote because she will continue to support what President Obama has done. Enough said. Vote your self interests.
13
I don't need any help from conservatives. The Clinton Foundation circumstances are outrageous. Please go away and allow our party to begin the rejuvenation process so that we can offer a leader that Americans deserve.
3
Not unlike the Obama campaign's attacking Mitt Romney's wealth with lower-income Southern whites. Which, by the way, was very successful; had white males turned out in the same numbers in 2012 that they turned out in 2008, Romney would have won.
1
Connecticut Yankee writes "Not unlike the Obama campaign's attacking Mitt Romney's wealth"
Does this mean Obama's campaign forced Romney to utter the 47% remark? That remark, which was self-induced on Romney's part, did more to sink him than any left-wing advertising.
Does this mean Obama's campaign forced Romney to utter the 47% remark? That remark, which was self-induced on Romney's part, did more to sink him than any left-wing advertising.
First, Mitt Romney was in fact wealthy. And he GOT wealthy by inheriting money and connedtions, then sitting in a nice corner office all day corporate raiding.
Second the argument on the Dreadful Suppression of the imperiled white southern male voter is just pish and tosh. In point of fact (at least in this dimension) Democrats got their tails kicked in 2014 because their voters didn't vote, and Romeny got whupped far too well for a single demographic to matter --and largely won the South anyway.
Second the argument on the Dreadful Suppression of the imperiled white southern male voter is just pish and tosh. In point of fact (at least in this dimension) Democrats got their tails kicked in 2014 because their voters didn't vote, and Romeny got whupped far too well for a single demographic to matter --and largely won the South anyway.
The Republicans can't fool me and there isn't any one of them running I would vote for.
I'm overjoyed that Bernie Sanders is running and would like Jim Webb to enter as well.
A Princeton Study recently reported that the U.S. is an oligarchy and no longer a democracy. I see Hillary and Bill Clinton as oligarchs living in a bubble and I'm tired of them and Hillary's multitude of surrogates.
The Clintons already spent eight years in the White House. That's enough.
I'm overjoyed that Bernie Sanders is running and would like Jim Webb to enter as well.
A Princeton Study recently reported that the U.S. is an oligarchy and no longer a democracy. I see Hillary and Bill Clinton as oligarchs living in a bubble and I'm tired of them and Hillary's multitude of surrogates.
The Clintons already spent eight years in the White House. That's enough.
8
And so The New York Times begins its task of seeking to discredit all opponents to the self-proclaimed "inevitable" candidate Hillary Clinton. What does it matter from what source the criticisms of Clinton come from, it they're valid? Personally, after Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, I've had enough of corporatist Democratic presidents and don't want another one. And with accelerating global warming, a disintegrating Middle East, the huge wealth disparities that are tearing our country apart, and the imminent Trans Pacific Partnership agreement that will destroy our national sovereignty, I don't think that we can afford another corporatist in the White House, from either party.
That's why I'm for Bernie Sanders all the way!
That's why I'm for Bernie Sanders all the way!
10
@Caleb: "What does it matter from what source the criticisms of Clinton come from, it they're valid?"
Since when is propaganda ever "valid"?
Since when is propaganda ever "valid"?
Candidates like Sanders or Warren don't stand a chance of winning a general election. Their name on the ballot would make McGovern's '72 campaign look close by comparison.
That said, Hillary Clinton is too far to the right, and too morally compromised to get my vote. Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil. The Democrats need to find a better choice.
That said, Hillary Clinton is too far to the right, and too morally compromised to get my vote. Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil. The Democrats need to find a better choice.
That actually explains a lot. A certain sort of nasty, meanly stupid anti-Hillary comment has been pouring into liberal commentary in places like The Guardian, Atlantic and others - I've actually thought that libs making comments are starting to sound like the Limbaugh crowd. Not that there aren't plenty of lefties very worried about her and angry, too, but these feel like canned hate-bombs. They do the job, too - the internet has taken mob mentality to whole new levels. I loathe the dishonesty of it.
7
I hear you! But when have the Republicans been about honesty? You name it from Faux News on down they have pulled every dirty trick in the book to take the electorate through the looking glass where fact is fiction and truth is false.
But the criticisms of Hillary Clinton are legitimate. Her lies, the blood on her hands from her support of the Iraq invasion, the Libyan campaign and Obama's Afghan surge, her close ties with big money, and her refusal to take strong, principled stands on politically hot issues like Pacific trade are well-known; no one needs conservatives to be reminded of them.
The Democrats need to find someone better. Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.
The Democrats need to find someone better. Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.
Bernie Sanders would be my first choice. I know that he would have the best interests of the people as his primary concern. He is a smart and compassionate soul....But then there's the "system" -- post Citizens' United -- that we all have to contend with. Mega corporate and media interests seem to work together to produce their desired result. The only defense against this is an "educated electorate" capable of formulating their own opinions. Too many low information voters allow themselves to be swayed by these interests. All that I know is that I most certainly do not want a Republican in the White House, particularly now when the Republicans control both the House and the Senate. If the American voting public allows that to happen, they will most assuredly feel the pain of their ignorance when the Republicans start pushing their social safety net cutting' conservative agendas easily through Congress, followed by (God forbid) the signature of a Republican president.
14
Hillary is a thing of the past and a past that needs no repeating. We need a breath of fresh clean air. is there no one else that can step to plate? please come out of hiding if you are out there.
5
There will always be political fools. The left is hardly immune. Remember all those deluded Dems who voted for Nader in 2000. I wonder if they rue that. But honestly, I have a hard time believing GOP psuedo environmental, pseudo economic populism, pseudo lefty tweets will sway many voters on that Tuesday in Nov, 2016. A GOP administration will slam the door in the face of everyone except the oligarchs. Welcome to Putin's Russia! Good bye to the environment, the middle class, a living wage, affordable health care, voting rights, infrastructure reconstruction, affordable education, you name it. Welcome to serfdom.
6
All anyone has to think about is Scalia, Thomas, Alieto, Roberts. These SCOTUS members were appointed by the Bushes. If anyone wants anti-woman, anti-99% rulings vote for the GOP/T candidate. If they vote for Jeb, they want another war either in Europe or the Middle East, or both.
14
Can you imagine what it would be like under a government completely controlled by the Republicans?...I shudder to think of the consequences.
12
As Lyndon Johnson quipped ", It's nothing personal it's just politics".America Rising can't do anymore harm to Hillary than the fanatical liberal fringe of the Liberal party..If the Democrats under Hillary have any chance of holding on to the Presidency she must state her Foreign Policy position as regards to I(Israel, & Iran, otherwise she will lose the very important Jewish voting bloc in the major cities.As it is,as Jewish Americans join other affluent groups who's concern is large government & larger taxes, Obama's coolness towards Israel has already turned many Jews away from liberalism that has become outspoken critics of Israel, while Conservatives have been vocal about their support for Israel.Hillary should not take the Jewish vote for granted, as she will need every vote she can get.
3
Yes, Bill McKibben should have known better, but his heart is in the right place. My policy is not to tweet or share a link unless it comes from a highly credible source like the NYT. As I did when I shared the news of the Clintons personally earning 30 million dollars in 16 months.
4
The GOP relies on convincing the uneducated and uninformed voter to vote against there own best interests. Most Democratic voters are educated and informed, i.e., another failed policy for the GOP.
4
Thirty million dollars speaking fees for the last 16 months. I wonder how much Hillary charges for a speech on income inequality?
10
So the right wants the left to disavow Hillary because she's supposedly left the left and started behaving like those on the right. Right? Maybe they'll try to perusade her to change her party affiliation. In that way they'll actually have a candidate with a chance of winning the Presidency...
5
The only way for the Republicans to win the White House is to tamp down the vote both by active voter suppression and by convincing the ones that they can't suppress not to vote or to waste their vote on a meaningless third party candidate. Worked well in Florida in 2000 and we got 9/11, an illegal invasion, a botched occupation, a disastrous disaster and the Great Recession.
As imperfect as the current Democratic front runner is, she is miles better than any of the Republican candidates. And that is the reason for the Republican dirty tricks.
I wonder how many of the commenters on these blogs are Republican trolls. Usually their comments start with "I am lifelong Democrat but...".
The fact that more progressive Democrats need to face is that not enough voters subscribe to the progressive agenda. A candidate that wants to win must appeal to the majority of voters. If you want a progressive candidate, lay the foundation by promoting progressive causes locally. Stop expecting the arrival of the Great Progressive Hope who will not only advocate perfectly progressive on every issue but will also win. This will not happen in a country with citizens befuddled by a media that actively supports conservative mythology.
As imperfect as the current Democratic front runner is, she is miles better than any of the Republican candidates. And that is the reason for the Republican dirty tricks.
I wonder how many of the commenters on these blogs are Republican trolls. Usually their comments start with "I am lifelong Democrat but...".
The fact that more progressive Democrats need to face is that not enough voters subscribe to the progressive agenda. A candidate that wants to win must appeal to the majority of voters. If you want a progressive candidate, lay the foundation by promoting progressive causes locally. Stop expecting the arrival of the Great Progressive Hope who will not only advocate perfectly progressive on every issue but will also win. This will not happen in a country with citizens befuddled by a media that actively supports conservative mythology.
6
The right realizes that nobody has appeared on the left to essay the 2016 presidential lists and WIN but Hillary.
The notion that a majority of Americans would vote for Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren is hilarious; and Joe Biden could only win an uncontested election. O'Malley may have had a shot before Baltimore. The only one who could make a serious showing against Jeb Bush is Andrew Cuomo, but he hasn't given indications yet that he will run, and still faces questions about his killing of a corruption commission in New York that could land him in trouble. Jim Webb? An admirable man, but his one shot at politics (U.S. senator from Virginia) was abandoned after one term because he's not a team player -- Americans aren't about to elect yet ANOTHER loner to its highest office, even a very bright one.
So, the left has no option but Hillary. If they reject her, for ANYBODY, it's over. The right knows this.
The notion that a majority of Americans would vote for Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren is hilarious; and Joe Biden could only win an uncontested election. O'Malley may have had a shot before Baltimore. The only one who could make a serious showing against Jeb Bush is Andrew Cuomo, but he hasn't given indications yet that he will run, and still faces questions about his killing of a corruption commission in New York that could land him in trouble. Jim Webb? An admirable man, but his one shot at politics (U.S. senator from Virginia) was abandoned after one term because he's not a team player -- Americans aren't about to elect yet ANOTHER loner to its highest office, even a very bright one.
So, the left has no option but Hillary. If they reject her, for ANYBODY, it's over. The right knows this.
36
You are correct.
1
They may reject her for ANYBODY, as you put it; but the right has put up as candidates NOBODY.
"The only one who could make a serious showing against Jeb Bush is Andrew Cuomo..."
What??!! You're talking about Jeb Bush, brother of W. He's not even particularly well received on the right. I'll put it this way. Yes, Hillary has her work cut out for her in motivating the progressive base, but it's definitely doable. The chasm that exists between Jeb and the Tea Party is insurmountable. In Jeb you have a combination of W and Mitt Romney. Hardly a force to bring about a victory in the general election. And the only way Jeb has a chance of winning in the primary is if the American/Israeli billionaires choose Jeb as their water boy. Then he buys the nomination during the primary with the billionaires' money and loses in the general.
If this election is between Jeb and Hillary, the country will have a clear choice. Did the country do better under Bill Clinton or George W. Bush? The outcome is obvious.
What??!! You're talking about Jeb Bush, brother of W. He's not even particularly well received on the right. I'll put it this way. Yes, Hillary has her work cut out for her in motivating the progressive base, but it's definitely doable. The chasm that exists between Jeb and the Tea Party is insurmountable. In Jeb you have a combination of W and Mitt Romney. Hardly a force to bring about a victory in the general election. And the only way Jeb has a chance of winning in the primary is if the American/Israeli billionaires choose Jeb as their water boy. Then he buys the nomination during the primary with the billionaires' money and loses in the general.
If this election is between Jeb and Hillary, the country will have a clear choice. Did the country do better under Bill Clinton or George W. Bush? The outcome is obvious.
Super-Pacs funded by billuonaires are actually accusing Hillary of having made too much money?
Oh, that's convincing stuff.
Oh, that's convincing stuff.
4
Left, Right "What difference does it make!" Hilary is deceitful and dishonest along with having some sort of flawed psychological makeup.
No to Clinton, no to GOP, just not in that order:
Wrong, wrong, wrong. It is not Benghazi, the pipeline crud, nor the email thing the Repubes are pushing. Democrats learned a valuable lesson in Clintonomics. Bill Clinton could have vetoed the repeal of Glass Steagle Act and did nothing. We are still paying for this HUGE error in our government's policy making. The great recession would not have happened if Clinton had vetoed the repeal of Glass Steagle that the Republican Congress pushed through. And don't forget Republicans repealed the last round of limitations, Dodd Frank, on BIG MONEY, they repealed the first round of limitations, Glass Steagle, on BIG MONEY. I see a pattern here.
Hillary is a Bill clone, willing to say anything, but not willing to go against BIG MONEY. She is looking to line her pocketbook along the path to the Oval Office. And probably thinks that us peons won't notice the wolf in sheep's clothing.
Ms. Warren, you are NOT going to do as much in the Senate as you could in the White House, but I do understand you not wanting to be torn apart by the hungry dogs of the GOP in the vetting process. No one to run against Clinton? Then I will NOT vote. Is that what you want DNC?
NO, no, no to Clinton. Demos better come up with something quick. I am not the only one who remembers the Clinton's were a two faced, BIG MONEY backer.
What is worse than a Clinton? Anything Republican.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. It is not Benghazi, the pipeline crud, nor the email thing the Repubes are pushing. Democrats learned a valuable lesson in Clintonomics. Bill Clinton could have vetoed the repeal of Glass Steagle Act and did nothing. We are still paying for this HUGE error in our government's policy making. The great recession would not have happened if Clinton had vetoed the repeal of Glass Steagle that the Republican Congress pushed through. And don't forget Republicans repealed the last round of limitations, Dodd Frank, on BIG MONEY, they repealed the first round of limitations, Glass Steagle, on BIG MONEY. I see a pattern here.
Hillary is a Bill clone, willing to say anything, but not willing to go against BIG MONEY. She is looking to line her pocketbook along the path to the Oval Office. And probably thinks that us peons won't notice the wolf in sheep's clothing.
Ms. Warren, you are NOT going to do as much in the Senate as you could in the White House, but I do understand you not wanting to be torn apart by the hungry dogs of the GOP in the vetting process. No one to run against Clinton? Then I will NOT vote. Is that what you want DNC?
NO, no, no to Clinton. Demos better come up with something quick. I am not the only one who remembers the Clinton's were a two faced, BIG MONEY backer.
What is worse than a Clinton? Anything Republican.
4
It's amazing to what extremes a political party will go when facing certain defeat at the polls. When your only goal is seizing the power of the presidency at all costs, no innuendo, distortion, or outright lie will be left unused. All spread under the protection of first amendment freedom of speech rights, of course. Despicable.
2
This is where the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision was always going to take us. Enough money to buy enough "free speech" is certainly going to be plunked down on the boards this time, before the people finally wise up and demand an amendment to repair what the court has wrought of what used to be free speech and is now a weapon reserved to the well funded.
“Finance is a gun. Politics is knowing when to pull the trigger.”
— Don Lucchese, in the film The Godfather Part III.
“Finance is a gun. Politics is knowing when to pull the trigger.”
— Don Lucchese, in the film The Godfather Part III.
Let's face it, Hillary has more baggage than Samsonite. Many Democrats are looking more closely at plan B if she becomes too dirty to win. It's so funny that George Stephanopolis ,an unbiased journalist who worked for the Clintons in the White House, donated $75,000 to the Clinton foundation knowing that only $7,500 would go to charity. What does the rest of the donation get him? An exclusive interview with the Clintons? Why not donate to a charity where all or most of the funds go to the actual cause?
Thank You Ashley Parker and Nick Corasaniti and the New York Times. We need much more of this type of reporting and exposes to shine light under the rocks where these "strategists" live. As obvious as it seems, we still need the real media to bring these things out into the open and show them for what they truly are.
Thank You!
Thank You!
2
The Republicans know that they can't run on their real agenda, which is tilting the playing field so that the very rich get richer and everyone else doesn't matter, so they focus on manipulating public perception. They are refining the old advertising maxim, "Sell the sizzle, not the steak." The GOP is all sizzle, and what they have to sell is nothing but rancid hamburger.
5
How much baiting of the Left is necessary? All the Left needs to do is pick up a newspaper or watch a news broadcast for 5 minutes and they will quickly realize what a cynical hypocrite they have as their frontrunner.
Flitting around the world while masquerading as Secretary of State, she was the lead bag lady for the Clinton money laundering operation.... Husband & wife using the good name of the people of the United States as a shill to enrich themselves beyond their wildest dreams.....Charging foreign governments & corporations millions to hear their pearls of wisdom while padding their own pockets.......Raking in the dough from every angle even as our young soldiers were killed and maimed in a war which she herself voted for & then disavowed.
Can it get any worse than that?......You bet it can. Intentionally, destroying an e-mail system to cover the tracks while operating outside of the System itself.. all for personal gain.
The Left doesn't need baiting......they need their collective heads examined!
Flitting around the world while masquerading as Secretary of State, she was the lead bag lady for the Clinton money laundering operation.... Husband & wife using the good name of the people of the United States as a shill to enrich themselves beyond their wildest dreams.....Charging foreign governments & corporations millions to hear their pearls of wisdom while padding their own pockets.......Raking in the dough from every angle even as our young soldiers were killed and maimed in a war which she herself voted for & then disavowed.
Can it get any worse than that?......You bet it can. Intentionally, destroying an e-mail system to cover the tracks while operating outside of the System itself.. all for personal gain.
The Left doesn't need baiting......they need their collective heads examined!
1
Why all the fuss about Clinton?
Oh that's right!. There is literally nobody else in the Democrat Party worthy of the job. Could we have a list of up and coming stars to challenge her?
Oh that's right!. There is literally nobody else in the Democrat Party worthy of the job. Could we have a list of up and coming stars to challenge her?
The truly ironic thing would be if Hillary's so-called support for non-Progressive issues like the Keystone Pipeline garners her some Republican voters. Considering the alternatives on the GOP side, this is not out of the question. Be careful what you wish for.
I have a greater concern about Republican strategies for voter suppression with any means at their disposal than "baiting the left to make a turn' and turn from a qualified candidate in Clinton, even with her 'baggage.'
There will be Democrats who will not vote for Clinton. However, if she is the nominee, confronts the issues, both personal and professional, then hopefully those voters will cast their ballot on those factors. I am not a supporter of Hillary Clinton now. I am grateful that Senator Sanders has stood up and will debate many of the issues vital to 'everyday Americans'
Rather than a piece on Party infighting, it would be far better for the NYT to focus much more on voter suppression legislation in many states that undermines the basic principles of American democracy.
There will be Democrats who will not vote for Clinton. However, if she is the nominee, confronts the issues, both personal and professional, then hopefully those voters will cast their ballot on those factors. I am not a supporter of Hillary Clinton now. I am grateful that Senator Sanders has stood up and will debate many of the issues vital to 'everyday Americans'
Rather than a piece on Party infighting, it would be far better for the NYT to focus much more on voter suppression legislation in many states that undermines the basic principles of American democracy.
2
The point is not to convince Democrats to vote for a Republican for President, as many commentators seem to imply.
The point is to keep liberal/progressives voters away from the polls on Election Day. And in national elections that --thanks to the Electoral College-- are now decided in a few "swing states," this could give the Republicans in the White House in 2016.
Few pundits point out the significant role the anti-democratic EC plays in corrupting our democracy. Armed with "rights" granted by Citizens United and later rulings by the oligarchs' favorite Supreme Court justices, zillionaires may be able to capture the Presidency by pouring money into a few places like Florida and Ohio.
My progressive friends already have little enthusiasm for Hillary Clinton. This fact makes this latest iteration of Republican "dirty tricks" even more dangerous.
My hope is that Mrs. Clinton will chose a running mate like Senator Warren who will energize the left and the young. It may be the case that her choice of running mate will turn out to be the most important decision of her campaign.
The point is to keep liberal/progressives voters away from the polls on Election Day. And in national elections that --thanks to the Electoral College-- are now decided in a few "swing states," this could give the Republicans in the White House in 2016.
Few pundits point out the significant role the anti-democratic EC plays in corrupting our democracy. Armed with "rights" granted by Citizens United and later rulings by the oligarchs' favorite Supreme Court justices, zillionaires may be able to capture the Presidency by pouring money into a few places like Florida and Ohio.
My progressive friends already have little enthusiasm for Hillary Clinton. This fact makes this latest iteration of Republican "dirty tricks" even more dangerous.
My hope is that Mrs. Clinton will chose a running mate like Senator Warren who will energize the left and the young. It may be the case that her choice of running mate will turn out to be the most important decision of her campaign.
127
Why does nobody seem to understand that Ms. Warren has stated clearly and repeatedly that she does not want to run? And if she does change her mind why would she run as second fiddle to Hillary instead of remaining where she is - in a position where she can actually accomplish something? Not all women politicians are obsessed, as Hillary is, with being "the first woman president."
Either Warren or Sanders, either would do to get the gases going in progressives.
I favor Cory Booker for Dem VP nominee. That would practically guarantee that (A) more minorities would turn out, and (B) the GOP would get not a single vote from most minorities.
We (liberals) don't actually need Hillary. For one thing I don't think she is as electable as people seem to think. I'm eighteen and I just can't see young people getting excited about her. Anyway, parts of this article make it sound like critisizing Mrs. Clinton is a crime, which it is not. Yes, it is weird that America Rising is doing this, and people should know about the tactic, but the tone of this article is a little off. After all, some of us sort of agree with America Rising: Hillary is not good for America.
7
As an 18 year old, it would behoove you to get some education and history on facts instead of aligning yourself with America Rising. What are the details of your statement, she is not good for American. Why? Let's hear some facts. Did you know she fought for universal healthcare and republican rightwingers crucified her, calling her all sorts of names. And why is the right against universal healthcare? Because the right believes this infringes on the ghastly costs that hospitals, big pharma, and doctors groups have been free to charge all these years without anyone looking at the value for the cost. Do you know American health care is the costliest in the world, but not the best? And why is it costlier? Because the medical/RX industry has been free to impose outrageous premiums and costs on an unsuspecting public. Do you know it was the greed and marketing of the right that brought the idea that people with "pre existing conditions" should pay more? Do you even know the ACA, known as obamacare, eliminated pre-existing conditions and rightly so. If you are alive, you have a pre existing condition. This is a scam masquarading as business. Do you understand Obamacare? Do you know its not government run, that the government merely set up exchanges to so consumers could compare costs. Do you know that insurance businesses who followed the ACA guides have done extremely well and their profits have increased. Do not call yourself a liberal unless you know facts
I was a Hilary supporter v Obama 1 and am likely supporting her this time around. However, the Clinton penchant for conflating personal gain with their political position has me concerned. It is hard to understand how they allowed CGI to cross lines with their personal self-interest considering how much scrutiny they know they would be under. It's good the Republicans & Dems test her during the primaries. It's only then that we can tell whether she can actually be an effective candidate and leader during the general. She has allowed herself to be defined by her foes by refusing to address the obvious issues. She needs to come out clearly on issues ranging from immigration, taxes, ISIS, to a full disclosure of donors and where CGI funds went. Get it out, deal with it and move on.
To her credit, Hillary actually has come out clearly on at least one major issue: immigration. She's said she'd do exactly what Obama has proposed, only that she'd do even more. Like that position or not, she's at least been clear on it, and deserves credit for being clear on it.
The problem is that we know what Hillary does by the trail she's left, but we haven't a clue what she'd do as president.
All candidates will say whatever is necessary to get elected, then start their machinery rolling to accomplish, as much unopposed as they can, as quick as they can.
Left or right, there is no trust that if they say something to get nominated or elected, they will stick to their promises.
As an example, remember the key word "transparency?"
All candidates will say whatever is necessary to get elected, then start their machinery rolling to accomplish, as much unopposed as they can, as quick as they can.
Left or right, there is no trust that if they say something to get nominated or elected, they will stick to their promises.
As an example, remember the key word "transparency?"
1
So Clinton gave a talk to Renaissance Capital in Moscow for $1/2 million in
June 29, 2010. Prokhorov, a Kremlin operative, owns 1/2 of this bank (he owns the Nets).
According to the NYT "As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation."
Uranium One is the Canadian company that owned 1/5 of US uranium that it sold to the Russians, and needed US Government ok. The Russian company is Rosatom and is state owned (eg by the Kremlin).
So the Clintons got paid off by both ends of the deal that gave 1/5 of US uranium to Putin. Talk about "reset".
Moller, the former CIA director now says that spy agencies around the world have copies of HRC emails. Surely they are planning to put them to good use to "lubricate" more "deals".
In the new media landscape one just has to half report a scandal once and hope it will go away to allow patronage to continue, as is clearly the case between Carlos Slim (NYT) and HRC.
bloomberg.com news articles/2010-06-09/renaissance-capital-hires-bill-clinton-for-moscow-update1-
bloomberg.com news articles/2014-03-24/brooklyn-nets-to-call-russia-home-as-putin-request-heeded
nytimes.com 2015/04/24 us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?referrer=
June 29, 2010. Prokhorov, a Kremlin operative, owns 1/2 of this bank (he owns the Nets).
According to the NYT "As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation."
Uranium One is the Canadian company that owned 1/5 of US uranium that it sold to the Russians, and needed US Government ok. The Russian company is Rosatom and is state owned (eg by the Kremlin).
So the Clintons got paid off by both ends of the deal that gave 1/5 of US uranium to Putin. Talk about "reset".
Moller, the former CIA director now says that spy agencies around the world have copies of HRC emails. Surely they are planning to put them to good use to "lubricate" more "deals".
In the new media landscape one just has to half report a scandal once and hope it will go away to allow patronage to continue, as is clearly the case between Carlos Slim (NYT) and HRC.
bloomberg.com news articles/2010-06-09/renaissance-capital-hires-bill-clinton-for-moscow-update1-
bloomberg.com news articles/2014-03-24/brooklyn-nets-to-call-russia-home-as-putin-request-heeded
nytimes.com 2015/04/24 us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?referrer=
2
Colin Reed appears to look like the reincarnation of .....Donald Segretti
Donald Segretti was in charge of the many "dirty tricks" carried out by the CREEP. These act(s) included the break-in to Nixon critic Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrists office
Game never changes
Donald Segretti was in charge of the many "dirty tricks" carried out by the CREEP. These act(s) included the break-in to Nixon critic Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrists office
Game never changes
3
The far left of the Democratic Party is just as dangerous and damaging to American cultural values as the far right of the Republican Party. Hopefully, these encounters will help the vast majority of Americans reject the arguments from the fringes and hew to the core values that will sustain and strengthen our country
1
They got nothing but self-preservation. Hillary has something, it's called fundamental sanity. They scared of it.
3
ooohh wee, the written venom dripping from liberal keyboards this morning. The collective opinion on the comment board that it is your fate as a progressive to hold your nose and vote for Clinton as if you are swallowing castor oil is hysterical. By the way how did a bunch of (to the liberal mind) geriatric, wealthy, entitled white males learn to use twitter anyway, somebody ought to sue them for stealing liberal technology.
9
"geriatric, wealthy, entitled white males learn to use twitter anyway,"
No doubt they found a young intern to do the work who probably won't be receiving health insurance for his efforts.
No doubt they found a young intern to do the work who probably won't be receiving health insurance for his efforts.
I can manage to hold my nose and vote for Hillary. Vote for a Republican? I'd have to cut off my head.
It can be your fate, Jordan, to hold your nose and vote for Clinton. Or you can hold your nose as the next GOP president stocks the court with right-wing evangelical zealots and launches more billion-dollar wars across the globe as middle-class Americans starve. You get to choose.
This strategy of the GOP attacking the Democratic front runner from the left is not new. Anderson in 1980 was a 'former' Republican who ran to the left of Carter, drew about 7% of the vote in the general election, and as it turned out, was funded almost entirely by the Republican party. Nader also has received funding from the right. Will the left get suckered again?
12
As usual the repubs just don't get it. There is nothing they can say or do to get this very liberal New Yorker to vote for a repub clown car loser or help them by staying home on election day. And on the days I lament that Hillary isn't my perfect candidate, there are 5 repub ideologues on the SCOTUS to remind me of how important my vote is.
So go ahead boys, waste your money on me while I laugh all the way to the voting booth.
So go ahead boys, waste your money on me while I laugh all the way to the voting booth.
25
And there's her refusal to take a position on the trade agreement or to seek to change the tax code so at least those billionaire hedge fund managers aren't getting breaks unavailable to working people that make me think how I unimportant my vote is. I used to think it was important.
You can laugh all the way to the voting booth, but the Republicans will laugh all the way to the White House. There's no way the no talent, accomplishment free and corrupt Hillary Clinton will get elected. So enjoy your laugh in the voting booth.
For those this strategy is apparently aimed at, it's really kind of like pushing the river. As anyone can see from some of the replies from "the left", Clinton never had their votes. We saw this with Nader. Bernie is no Nader, thank God, but will pull Hillary to the left, though it will never be far enough for the these folks.
2
They don't make Democrats like they used to, that's for sure. Barack and Hillary are so far to the right that they make Eisenhower and Nixon look like Lenin and Marx. The era of Liberalism went out with a whimper in 1980 with the coronation of Ronald the actor playing his greatest role ever. That show has had a 35 year run and its failures are becoming apparent with the efective redistribution of wealth to the .1%. Conservatism is coming to its end, but it will most likely end with an economic earthquake and mark the rise of Asia/China as the new center of power.
22
This article and many of the comments show how shallow politics has become in this country.
What difference does it make the "source" of information, if it is true. This fear of repeating what someone, not precisely aligned with your politics, said, is quite inane. Then no Democrat should ever mention an attack one GOPer ever makes on another Republican.
If Democrats can't abide bipartisan criticism, then they have simply devolved to being mere partisan hacks. Something they accuse the other side of being, all the time.
What difference does it make the "source" of information, if it is true. This fear of repeating what someone, not precisely aligned with your politics, said, is quite inane. Then no Democrat should ever mention an attack one GOPer ever makes on another Republican.
If Democrats can't abide bipartisan criticism, then they have simply devolved to being mere partisan hacks. Something they accuse the other side of being, all the time.
5
When you have no ideas or proposals to fix the infrastructure or help Americans, resort to subterfuge.
14
Bill Clinton talked (and talked) about rebuilding the infrastructure. How'd that work out? Barack Obama talks about rebuilding the infrastructure. How's that working out? When the left actually does something other than talk about infrastructure then they can justifiably criticize others.
The best incentive to vote for Hillary in the general, if she is the nominee will be the Republic platform.
17
Divide and conquer is not a good policy if you want to build a stronger Republican Party. Look at communists, when they ran out of ideas, they focused their effort in dividing their own people. And now they look as a political "Jurassic Park". No new voters in any part of the world. If you want to prosper you need to build, not to destroy.
7
Communism was discredited because its ideas have proven to be economuc disaster and communist governments universally lead to tyranny. Its that simple.
Hillary is win win for the Republicans so they better not overdue this. Bill Clinton was the best Republican president since Reagan. Hillary and a Republican congress will be even better.
6
Why do Democrats not see what you, me, and a lot of other people see?
Endlessly attacking Hillary Clinton may backfire. Democrats may, in increasing numbers rally behind her, in her defense.
Ultimately, the American people are looking for a way forward. As Obama said in 2012, "Forward, not Backward." Having our first woman president may be the way forward. I believe in would resonate with the people. It is huge. Everyone counts. Ultimately, there is no elite.
Ultimately, the American people are looking for a way forward. As Obama said in 2012, "Forward, not Backward." Having our first woman president may be the way forward. I believe in would resonate with the people. It is huge. Everyone counts. Ultimately, there is no elite.
138
Yes, it will! Shhhhh...
2
Seriously, do you really believe one word you wrote? Many democrats, in ever increasing numbers, do NOT see Clinton as a true democrat.
Furthermore, what Mr Obama has taught me, and hopefully many democrats, is to look past the neo-liberal's pretty words, and more at the diabolical actions.
Furthermore, what Mr Obama has taught me, and hopefully many democrats, is to look past the neo-liberal's pretty words, and more at the diabolical actions.
No elites! Are you kidding? You don't think that all those wealthy people giving money are the elite? The only reason Hillary Clinton is refusing to follow the heart of the Democratic Party against the trade agreement is that those elite want it (if the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is for something you can be sure that it isn't in the best interest of working people.)
1
Once again, true to form, the NYT steers the story to the political implications and process, sidestepping the serious implications of what the Clinton family is doing through their foundation to undermine American democracy.
13
You stated if perfectly. I would only add that a President Hillary Clinton will do more damage to the Democrat Party than the Republicans will ever do.
Since the NYT is shirking its duty, please enlighten us. I, for one, was not aware that the Clintons are undermining American democracy.
And if the Clinton family is not stopped they might...however far fetched it seems now...do something grotesque like bail out Wall St., lets imagine, in a banker-initiated crisis that forever negatively alters the economic realities of multi-millions of American citizens. But that could never happen because if it did and was not corrected legally, American democracy would be undermined.
And vote for a Republican? One more clue that they have no clue.
19
Let's be honest, shall we? The political party that needs to take a long, hard, and insightful look at itself is the Republican party. (Of course, we also know that the likelihood of this introspective self-analysis happening amongst the majority of Republican politicians is zero to none.)
Although money has corrupted both political parties, at least the majority within the Democratic ranks understands that the bastardization of our political process, made possible by the conservative members of the U.S. Supreme Court's "Citizens United" decision (aka "Republican") is the "root of all political evil".
The voting public needs to understand this -- that the Republican party's loyalty and efforts centers entirely around pleasing its wealthy benefactors. That is why we consistently hear of the need for reform (aka "cuts") of our social network programs i.e. Social Security, Medicare, the Affordable Care Act, etc.. These come exclusively from congressional Republicans.
We've all heard of the transfer of wealth from our middle class to the ultra wealthy. This process has been going on for the better part of 30 years. The Republicans in Congress have been uniformly supportive of this process, with minor exceptions. The dismantling of our Social Safety Net programs will be the last axe to fall on our heads if we allow the Republicans to get their way.
So, I would urge everyone to think twice when they hear or see these fraudulent ads. It's your neck that they're after!
Although money has corrupted both political parties, at least the majority within the Democratic ranks understands that the bastardization of our political process, made possible by the conservative members of the U.S. Supreme Court's "Citizens United" decision (aka "Republican") is the "root of all political evil".
The voting public needs to understand this -- that the Republican party's loyalty and efforts centers entirely around pleasing its wealthy benefactors. That is why we consistently hear of the need for reform (aka "cuts") of our social network programs i.e. Social Security, Medicare, the Affordable Care Act, etc.. These come exclusively from congressional Republicans.
We've all heard of the transfer of wealth from our middle class to the ultra wealthy. This process has been going on for the better part of 30 years. The Republicans in Congress have been uniformly supportive of this process, with minor exceptions. The dismantling of our Social Safety Net programs will be the last axe to fall on our heads if we allow the Republicans to get their way.
So, I would urge everyone to think twice when they hear or see these fraudulent ads. It's your neck that they're after!
13
very well said! facts. getting the media to constantly report these facts is utterly missing from citizens' view.
While much of the blame does indeed rest upon the republicans, it could not have happened without help from many democrats, and certainly Bill Clinton and Obama.
What's really clever is how we Democrats have manipulated 22 Republican Candidates to enter their primary race for the prize. Each one is more extreme and kookier than the last one in, forcing the other to take more of a laser pointer position than the last to enter the race.
Will Democrats be fooled into not voting by comments like 'Bob- Nashville' - ''I was born a Democrat, but I'll never vote for Hillary in a million years.'' - what clever and devious spin doctoring.
Bengahzi, Bengahzi, Bengazi. USA USA USA. Let's have more jobs for the poor and lower middle class because oligarchs and criminal billionaires will suddenly feel grateful and generous if we vote Republican and repeal all taxes on incomes over $1M. - What clever schemes, memes, and masterminds from the ne0-c0n class of dunces who delivered us into 2007 meltdown and Iraq before that. Pure Brilliance.
Will Democrats be fooled into not voting by comments like 'Bob- Nashville' - ''I was born a Democrat, but I'll never vote for Hillary in a million years.'' - what clever and devious spin doctoring.
Bengahzi, Bengahzi, Bengazi. USA USA USA. Let's have more jobs for the poor and lower middle class because oligarchs and criminal billionaires will suddenly feel grateful and generous if we vote Republican and repeal all taxes on incomes over $1M. - What clever schemes, memes, and masterminds from the ne0-c0n class of dunces who delivered us into 2007 meltdown and Iraq before that. Pure Brilliance.
9
Some Dems can't wait to manipulate the primaries too...
It seems you are the pot calling the kettle black, spin doctoring indeed.
While I would never take my marching orders, or voting suggestions from faux news, I would however look at the voting record of Hillary Clinton.
The media for decades told us how "liberal" Hillary Clinton is, all the while her actions spoke quite differently. It is not because of Bengahzi, or some misplaced patriotism, but primarily her vote FOR the Iraq war. I believe actions ave consequences, and many in America especially the elites, don't like that concept. They want to be able to say the right things, but in back rooms divorce themselves of their words and act like those beholden to the 1% do. Pushing for anti worker trade deals, wars in the Middle east, and handing more of our rights over to the police state.
I will never be fooled to vote for the "lesser of two evils", give me a real option or you will not get my vote (you don't need my money, your corporate donors have that taken care of)
While I would never take my marching orders, or voting suggestions from faux news, I would however look at the voting record of Hillary Clinton.
The media for decades told us how "liberal" Hillary Clinton is, all the while her actions spoke quite differently. It is not because of Bengahzi, or some misplaced patriotism, but primarily her vote FOR the Iraq war. I believe actions ave consequences, and many in America especially the elites, don't like that concept. They want to be able to say the right things, but in back rooms divorce themselves of their words and act like those beholden to the 1% do. Pushing for anti worker trade deals, wars in the Middle east, and handing more of our rights over to the police state.
I will never be fooled to vote for the "lesser of two evils", give me a real option or you will not get my vote (you don't need my money, your corporate donors have that taken care of)
Is it any surprise that progressives and liberals become tools of the GOP given our gullibility and intellectual laziness? It's time to stop pleasuring ourselves over how stupid "the others" are for buying what Fox news sells and wake up to our own stupidity.
16
Please, what Fox is selling ONLY republicans are buying. The left has its own pied pipers, the "liberal media" is liberal in name only. All of the media is corporate, and contrives the illusion of a left and right media, simply as a tool of manipulation. Americans need to listen to all news with a critical ear, and not buy into group think, period.
Who believes America Rising supports Elizabeth Warren for President? Both the traditional media and the social media will facilitate contesting the election of 2016 on the basis of personality not policy. The result is likely to be the election of Scot Walker who will appear fresh and attractive personally, but largely unknown to the voting public as to policy. Then seniors who will vote for him overwhelmingly will be surprised to discover medicare and social security at risk. Americans as a whole will discover that Mr. Walker has neither experience, nor knowledge nor credibility in handling foreign affairs. They will discover that decentralized, weakened national government will have to do with diminished social programs, environmental protection, product safety and reliability, BUT NOT the use of a strong central government to promote tax policy, and demand favorable to corporate interests. The Clintons have been allowed to play rather fast and loose with policies important to liberals - failure to enforce side clauses to NAFTA requiring environmental and workers' rights protection, for example, and Hillary's veer to "toughness" i.e. militarism in foreign policy and away from human rights and what should be true American exceptionalism, a stand for justice through diplomacy and economic incentive. We must strive to hold Hillary accountable, but sadly she is all we have.
You are wrong, it is precisely because you accept Hillary as an option that allows the democrats and their corporate masters to offer us such a undesirable option. You will please note how republican candidates reflect republicans values, can you say the same of democrats, sadly the answer is more often no, than yes. This is because republicans hold their elected officials accountable, period. Furthermore, it is an example of moral failings of the democrats that we focus on the outcome rather than the journey. That is to say, many democrats will compromise our ethics and reason as long as we get something remotely similar to what we would like to see get elected. We constantly compromise our values, and in doing so, we compromise America's future. I will never vote for a war monger, thus I will never vote for a HR Clinton, I will not compromise who I am, because we have a corrupt system. I will old the democratic party responsible, only voting for people who follow the principals of historically great democratic leaders, period.
There's something peculiar in the stars at the onset of elections. By way of warning, the universe is laughing at us. American Pharaoh has won two legs of the Triple Crown, and here we have two American dynasties vying for the top throne. If either family wins, our fate as a great nation is sealed.
Vote third party; vote Rand or Bernie, but do not vote for the Clinton/Bush regimes.
Poor American Pharaoh. He never asked for fame or this metaphor. Regardless, If he wins the Triple Crown, I won't be sorry I didn't bet on him.
Vote third party; vote Rand or Bernie, but do not vote for the Clinton/Bush regimes.
Poor American Pharaoh. He never asked for fame or this metaphor. Regardless, If he wins the Triple Crown, I won't be sorry I didn't bet on him.
4
Senator Sanders is running on the democrat ticket, not a third party ticket candidate. He is a Democratic Socialist. Rand Paul is whatever he is, defines himself as libertarian, running of the Republican ticket. Neither candidate is running third party.
it's another example of wasted energy.what liberal is going to vote for a republican?
8
The right is not baiting the left to turn them against Hillary. Hillary has already been outed, by her own people, as being untrustworthy. The right should pay more attention to their own ideology and candidates, and kick out the ones who are clearly not in line with the majority of the people.
Unfortunately, Hillary will win the Presidency because she's the only Democrat who will be allowed to run (Bernie Sanders has already been tossed aside).
Unfortunately, Hillary will win the Presidency because she's the only Democrat who will be allowed to run (Bernie Sanders has already been tossed aside).
4
What this article does not say is that 350.org is also funded by oil money, linked to Gulf oligarchs that see Keystone as competition. They use fronts like 350.org to undermine potential competition. We are talking of the Rockerfellers, who only announced recently under pressure, that they will start to try to divest from carbon. And it's roving harder to do it than to say it. The hypocrisy, bias and corruption of the media continues.
1
I wonder if America Rising has permission to use that image from The Simpsons.
9
All the Democrats have to do to win every presidential (and other) election is to eliminate taxes on the (super) wealthy.
2
They already pretty much have. Chuck Schumer is probably most vociferous supporter in the Senate of that tax break for hedge fund managers.
What caught my eye in the article were the references to agitprop ads against HRC appearing in Twitter and Facebook news feeds of targeted liberals. It was just last week that we learned that some of the very best brands in journalism -- including the New York Times -- are working with Facebook on placement of news content on Facebook as a way to reach more readers.
This would not happen on the Times's website. But, with mainstream media's survival at stake, more content providers are turning to social media, where the source of information is often unclear and obscure. And, as an unintended consequence, political propaganda is cleverly along for the ride, further blurring the line between professionally gathered and edited news and managed content intended to further an often hidden point of view.
This would not happen on the Times's website. But, with mainstream media's survival at stake, more content providers are turning to social media, where the source of information is often unclear and obscure. And, as an unintended consequence, political propaganda is cleverly along for the ride, further blurring the line between professionally gathered and edited news and managed content intended to further an often hidden point of view.
4
The Clintons created their foundation and solicited donors while Mrs.Clinton was secretary of state. Nobody did this to them. It was their choice. Further, their speaking fees should be disclosed. Is the NYT suggesting that these activities should be ignored? Democrats have long operated war rooms that specialize in instant messaging. And they have had their share of slimy liars, like Harry Reid, who flat out lied about Mitt Romney's taxes. So in response to the article -- so what?
5
Extremes meet. The far left and the far right agree on most issues. The Occupy Movement and the Tea Party were united in their opposition to the government of the United States.
3
'"You'd expect different from a Clinton? Really! Well not if you understood the Clinton legacy of pandering to Wall Street, interventionism, deregulation, and a stunning dedication to neoliberal thinking, all of which are proclivities normally associated with the right. Now why would a Progressive want to be for those things, which certainly Bill Clinton stood for, if they understood what to be a Clinton means?
Bill asked Richard Rubin of Goldman Sachs what Wall Street wanted, and then he endeavored to give it to them by signing the repeal of the Glass Steagall Act, and also signing the Enron Loophole into Law, which took the CFTC out of regulating electronic energy exchanges. Bill even apologized for that a few years ago, and within about a week of that apology he again apologized for wrecking the Agrarian Economy of Haiti by forcing neoliberal enterprise zones and heavily subsidized American Farm Goods upon them.
In Foreign Policy both of the Clintons have supported intervention as knee jerk neocons. Bill Bombed Belgrade in order to stop what we later learned were Albanian terrorists from taking over Kosovo, which was a part of Serbia. Hillary kept up the family tradition by supporting the Iraq War and becoming a major player in the dodgy War on Terror. If one is progressive why would one even consider voting for a Clinton given their trail of what we should recognize as right wing actions.
Of course Republicans have noticed this. Why wouldn't they? They're kin.
Bill asked Richard Rubin of Goldman Sachs what Wall Street wanted, and then he endeavored to give it to them by signing the repeal of the Glass Steagall Act, and also signing the Enron Loophole into Law, which took the CFTC out of regulating electronic energy exchanges. Bill even apologized for that a few years ago, and within about a week of that apology he again apologized for wrecking the Agrarian Economy of Haiti by forcing neoliberal enterprise zones and heavily subsidized American Farm Goods upon them.
In Foreign Policy both of the Clintons have supported intervention as knee jerk neocons. Bill Bombed Belgrade in order to stop what we later learned were Albanian terrorists from taking over Kosovo, which was a part of Serbia. Hillary kept up the family tradition by supporting the Iraq War and becoming a major player in the dodgy War on Terror. If one is progressive why would one even consider voting for a Clinton given their trail of what we should recognize as right wing actions.
Of course Republicans have noticed this. Why wouldn't they? They're kin.
9
It's funny how very few media outlets even presume for a second that people of whatever ideological bent can actually think for themselves. Not that there isn't a lot of evidence for that, but I heartily recommend that people first learn how the really-existing media system works -- not by conspiracies, of course; just a normal institutional analysis. Such exist in large numbers, of course. After you get that down, and it doesn't take long (common sense about human nature goes a long way), and you get a sense of how really-existing politics works, then you can make a really informed choice about policies, pols, whatever. Unless and until that happens, we'll mostly be dancing to someone else's tune, and that ain't democracy. Or, in fact, worthy of respect.
PS: No, I don't think that doing both those things leads easily to this or that ideological conclusion. But at least we'll be able to have a real democratic conversation about reality, as opposed to this or that PR firm's marketing drive.
PS: No, I don't think that doing both those things leads easily to this or that ideological conclusion. But at least we'll be able to have a real democratic conversation about reality, as opposed to this or that PR firm's marketing drive.
2
It's still possible that Clinton won't run, she might develop a severe health issue for instance. Then what?
1
I'm not all that nuts about Hillary Clinton for any number of reasons. But when I look at ANY of candidates on offer by the GOP, I'll vote for her.
13
The Republicans can make Hillary look bad but there are very few liberals who would vote for any one of their candidates because they are all anti-choice. If the Republicans had a decent candidate that the voters didn't know a whole lot about and who was pro-choice, that camdidate would have a gppd chance pf winning, With its current list of candidates, they can make Hillary look as dumb as they want and they will still not be able to beat her. Because in the end Democrats have core values and they are not the ones the republicans are running on.
8
Yes, but their stated core values are not true principles. For example they claim to want to protect the helpless, yet are bizarely vote for post birth abortions. They portray gop treatment of women as reprenhensible, yet protect muslims who are actual oppressors of women. They in fact do the same thing as republicans, which is identify large voting blocks and pander. Contradictory stances abound on both sides and the only real issue is relection. Im a republican not because of their crazy stances on various issues, but because they want to limit the power of government. Under obama the nsa is stronger, police forces have run rampant, taxes are higher, regulation more constraining. Big government is becoming more and more like slave ownership. They own us.
sniff, sniff...My, that's a strong smell of fear and desperation wafting up from over yonder.
HRC must really scare the bejabbers out of the far-right conservatives for them to be pitching their prevarications 12 months short from what used to be the start of the campaign season. Luckily, having 'cut the cord,' will be able to avoid their desperate plaintive pleas, libelous visuals, slanderous rhetoric and defamatory bovine night-soil.
HRC must really scare the bejabbers out of the far-right conservatives for them to be pitching their prevarications 12 months short from what used to be the start of the campaign season. Luckily, having 'cut the cord,' will be able to avoid their desperate plaintive pleas, libelous visuals, slanderous rhetoric and defamatory bovine night-soil.
10
Of course they're scared. Most of their candidates during the 2014 elections had some variation of "the Obama/Clinton economy" as part of their stump speech, so they've been terrified of her for years. (Leaving out the facts that the Secretary of State has very, very little to do with the economy and the amount of obstructionism on the part of the Cons. in D.C.)
Polls consistently show that the majority of voters agree with the Democratic Party's views on a host of issues. When you can't get voters to agree with you, you try to get them to stay home on election day. Then you don't need to propose any solutions, just "we're not Obama/Clinton".
Polls consistently show that the majority of voters agree with the Democratic Party's views on a host of issues. When you can't get voters to agree with you, you try to get them to stay home on election day. Then you don't need to propose any solutions, just "we're not Obama/Clinton".
What a disgusting farce this mob of juvenile delinquents who do nothing but sabotage others really are. They have made public life radioactive to sane people.
21
Sure, and they had great teachers.
Are you describing PAC's or just Facebook and Twitter?
1
Sounds about right. Bait the Lefties on the internet before going out to the Jeb Bush rally. Offense matters when you have no core.
14
“We don’t want her to enter the general election not having been pushed from the left, so if we have opportunities — creative ways, especially online — to push her from the left, we’ll do it just to show those folks who she needs to turn out that she’s not in line with them.”
What these cynical GOP oppo strategists fail to understand is that -- quite unlike the Tea Party nonsense spouted by Mitt Romney during the 2012 primaries -- any "push" from the left will push Hillary Clinton toward policies that a sizable majority of Americans polled actually support.
I say: Push away!
What these cynical GOP oppo strategists fail to understand is that -- quite unlike the Tea Party nonsense spouted by Mitt Romney during the 2012 primaries -- any "push" from the left will push Hillary Clinton toward policies that a sizable majority of Americans polled actually support.
I say: Push away!
26
And so it continues the Repubs have nothing to offer. They still haven't learned that pure attacks don't get you votes and again they will have to sit the next 4 years out. Wow, they just don't get it.
11
What a strange thing to say, it seems to me that the Republicans kicked the dems in the dirt this last election. So which party got the most votes or are some people purely delusional and living in a fantasy land!
You must have forgotten to read the article. Look at the last cycles in 2008 and 2012 where Romney was slammed for not having served in the military and you had someone undercover to spring the whole "47%" misquote. They also castigated him for being a 'cold hearted' capitalist who created his own fortune while the anointed one never ran so much as a lemonade stand.
All I see is using Democratic tactics against them.
All I see is using Democratic tactics against them.
This should be a cautionary tale because it demonstrates how big money plays an increasing role in elections. Those creative types don't come cheap.a
America Rising provides fodder for conservative candidates at the state and local levels as well as in national elections. It was created by an adviser to Mitt Romney and each candidate has something comparable. They all strive to refine their craft drawing lessons from previous campaigns.
Conservatives also have a platoon of public relations experts, writers, researchers, and not-for-profit groups who try to influence opinion. Democrats have, so far, failed to compete with this juggernaut.
We might hope that journalists would provide the counterweight, but they are also subject to manipulation. Instead of meaningful news, we see reports of polling results, interviews and the he-said-she said back and forth. We also see a lot of bloviating that is confused with journalism. I suspect that objective reporting is too expensive to compete with Twitter posts. Or maybe it's just not entertaining enough.
America Rising provides fodder for conservative candidates at the state and local levels as well as in national elections. It was created by an adviser to Mitt Romney and each candidate has something comparable. They all strive to refine their craft drawing lessons from previous campaigns.
Conservatives also have a platoon of public relations experts, writers, researchers, and not-for-profit groups who try to influence opinion. Democrats have, so far, failed to compete with this juggernaut.
We might hope that journalists would provide the counterweight, but they are also subject to manipulation. Instead of meaningful news, we see reports of polling results, interviews and the he-said-she said back and forth. We also see a lot of bloviating that is confused with journalism. I suspect that objective reporting is too expensive to compete with Twitter posts. Or maybe it's just not entertaining enough.
9
I'm trying to think how a similar tactic might be used against Republican candidates. Maybe show them helping a little old lady across the street?
2
Actually they'll be throwing the little old lady under the bus.
If Republicans weren't so hypocritical, they wouldn't be Republicans. Remember them shouting about morality but didn't have a problem with Senator Vitter frequenting a house of ill repute or Sarah Palin's daughter having a child out of wedlock.
It would seem that the Republicans are finally learning a few tricks that have been used by the Democrats. Ultimately the contest should be decided by a well informed electorate, regardless of party affiliation.
3
The irony is that Hillary Clinton is the best Republican candidate the Republicans could have. They should nominate her and bypass the clown show. She's pro-corporate, pro war and without ethics. A perfect Republican.
32
Once a Goldwater Girl, always a Goldwater Girl.
And she voted for sending other people's children to war while her own child stayed home safe. And she's shown no conscience about bragging about having a grandchild without thinking about all those families who won't have children or grandchildren because their husbands, wives, and children were casualties of an unnecessary war.
I consider this behavior I would expect of the current Republican Party. I guess I now should expect it of the Democratic one, too
I consider this behavior I would expect of the current Republican Party. I guess I now should expect it of the Democratic one, too
That's ok because it's Hillary and she can do no wrong. She's just one of us trying to make it in this tough world. Just cause she was broke when her and Bill left the White House she has to make money some how to campaign for the presidency. So what if she takes money from foreign governments or doesn't answer any questions from the press, she's been having those staged meetings with campaign workers who, we are told, are just regular everyday supporters.
5
Once again the truth will out. She got rich from speaking fees, /she did not take money from foreign governments (Russia). That was her foundation. The foundation doesn't make her rich. She already is.
Why do you find it so easy to conflate the Clinton Foundation -- a charity which does humanitarian work around the world -- accepting donations from foreign countries with Hillary Clinton? She doesn't personally accept foreign contributions, secret or otherwise, but you choose to pretend that she does. For that reason alone your comment is terribly dishonest, as are the tactics discussed in the article. But somehow I'm not surprised that Republicans are using the new tactics described to "rough her up" and attempt to make her unelectable. Clearly, Hillary Clinton's candidacy fills conservatives with dread. She's formidable, and you and the rest of the Republican Party know she will be extremely difficult to beat in November 2016.
Everyone expects dirty tricks from Karl Rove and the rest of the Republican operatives, and I suspect many of the conservatives posting comments in response to this article are posing as liberals. Why? Because Republicans haven't come up with a new idea in over 30 years. They only win elections by resorting to double talk and dirty tricks, and when they don't win, they appeal their loss to the Supreme Court. Remember?
Everyone expects dirty tricks from Karl Rove and the rest of the Republican operatives, and I suspect many of the conservatives posting comments in response to this article are posing as liberals. Why? Because Republicans haven't come up with a new idea in over 30 years. They only win elections by resorting to double talk and dirty tricks, and when they don't win, they appeal their loss to the Supreme Court. Remember?
And the democrats don't use the same tactics.... Give me a break.
10
>
Not with the skill and frequency that the GOP does.
Not with the skill and frequency that the GOP does.
"They did it first!" seems to be the most popular excuse for Republican lies and venality among Republicans. That's why I think those Republicans never grew up.
The sad thing is that "liberals" fall for it! They are willing to canonize Bill DeBlasio who has proven in the short time that he has been mayor that he is a secretive arrogant corporatist. This assessment isn't based on a Simpsons' show but on his behavior. But liberals, of which I am one, seem particularly susceptible to fantasy but positive and negative.
Hilary may not be perfect but I sure wish we had not bought the Obama fantasy becuase I think we would be in a better place right now.
Hilary may not be perfect but I sure wish we had not bought the Obama fantasy becuase I think we would be in a better place right now.
8
>
Many of us will not be voting "for" Hillary but "against" the cyclopic GOP, and that is enough; for if the GOP ever obtains full control of the Government you'll wish your Mommy never met your Daddy.
Many of us will not be voting "for" Hillary but "against" the cyclopic GOP, and that is enough; for if the GOP ever obtains full control of the Government you'll wish your Mommy never met your Daddy.
This reminds me of High School, where elections were based on anything other than competence for the job. My hope is that Americans rise above what the GOP has brought to the table in the last 30 years.
35
The article reveals Republican cynicism more than anything about Clinton. Democrats will engage with these ideas and democracy and good governance will be enhanced. In the end, Clinton will emerge stronger.
23
Of course Democratic base support for Hillary will be "lukewarm" in the early part of the primary. It will be lukewarm right up until the base starts to here the usually buffoonery on the right.
We all have things we would love to see from Hillary. I want her to come out and say "My vote in favor of the Iraq war was a mistake."
I want her to say, "Bill's repeal of Glass - Steagall was a mistake"
In the end though it will only take 30 secs of listening to whatever science denying Idiot the right throws up for everyone on the left to run home to Momma Clinton.
We all have things we would love to see from Hillary. I want her to come out and say "My vote in favor of the Iraq war was a mistake."
I want her to say, "Bill's repeal of Glass - Steagall was a mistake"
In the end though it will only take 30 secs of listening to whatever science denying Idiot the right throws up for everyone on the left to run home to Momma Clinton.
First of all, unless the GOP can put forth a candidate that looks assured ( unlike Jeb Bush) and moderate ( unlike the rest if the hopefuls) this campaign will fail. At this point, the Rrpublican candidates all look weak, either because they are too extreme, or their own party is fighting them. And the candidates aren't fooling Democratic voters- no evidence at all of that.
Secondly, I am saddened by yet again the unrealistic new search for an idealized hero who would do everything "right." The Presidency is an inherently compromising job, and both Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders would "betray" their followers to some degree once in office. Democracy is also an interactive process. So, you vote for the best candidate you can, and stay involved so that the worst doesn't happen. You don't always get a 2008 Barack Obama. Perhaps if there were major campaign finance reform we'd get better candidates. But it's not happening soon. And when two thirds of eligible Democrats don't even vote- well, that's why you have a big Republican presence. No magic here to figure this out.
Secondly, I am saddened by yet again the unrealistic new search for an idealized hero who would do everything "right." The Presidency is an inherently compromising job, and both Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders would "betray" their followers to some degree once in office. Democracy is also an interactive process. So, you vote for the best candidate you can, and stay involved so that the worst doesn't happen. You don't always get a 2008 Barack Obama. Perhaps if there were major campaign finance reform we'd get better candidates. But it's not happening soon. And when two thirds of eligible Democrats don't even vote- well, that's why you have a big Republican presence. No magic here to figure this out.
246
Reva,
I would like nothing better than to have a female as President, it would certainly be a step forward, however, if I read the electorate accurately the country will elect what they conceive as a person who seems to have strong leadership ability unlike Obama who appears very weak & somewhat confused about Foreign Policy, Lindsey Graham may be a dark horse, I believe Hillary has too much baggage, & Warren is too liberal & is considered weak when it comes to dealing with the likes of Putin.
I would like nothing better than to have a female as President, it would certainly be a step forward, however, if I read the electorate accurately the country will elect what they conceive as a person who seems to have strong leadership ability unlike Obama who appears very weak & somewhat confused about Foreign Policy, Lindsey Graham may be a dark horse, I believe Hillary has too much baggage, & Warren is too liberal & is considered weak when it comes to dealing with the likes of Putin.
1
"The Presidency is an inherently compromising job" - Nonsense. How can you possibly make such a claim, when every President in living memory has been pre-compromised before even being allowed to run?
"You don't always get a 2008 Barack Obama" - The more astute among us recognized that there was never any such persona even then.
"So, you vote for the best candidate you can" - No, you vote strategically so we can get some better candidates. Depending which way you lean, that means voting for Sanders or Paul.
"You don't always get a 2008 Barack Obama" - The more astute among us recognized that there was never any such persona even then.
"So, you vote for the best candidate you can" - No, you vote strategically so we can get some better candidates. Depending which way you lean, that means voting for Sanders or Paul.
Had Obama not cut all ties with his base, Organizing for America, it would have been a powerful force with which to lobby Congress. It is the single strongest card working Americans hold, we have the power to oust the scoundrels. O went into office with that massive strength at his disposal. He blew it; I wonder if even he knows why?
Comments from a life-long Democrat. Sure, I'd love to see Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, or even Noam Chomsky as President, but politics is the about compromise and the art of the possible. For the folks who say, no more Bush or Clinton dynasty, I say there is too much at stake here, e.g. the Supreme Court to think of throwing your vote away. To those who state that the Clintons do not the support the common man/woman, given that they are now millionaires, I say they have more than enough money to retire for several lifetimes, so I have no doubt that they are sincere in their desire to make the lives of the common person better, people who started out as they once did. I'm happy that they have the resources they do, so that they will actually be competitive in this campaign. Finally, only Democrats could split the vote or not turn up to vote, because of their pettiness or "moral principles", and lose the election. Nothing would make the Koch brothers, and their like, happier.
35
In the end It ain't gonna make a hill of beans difference. The issue is, and will always be, the Supreme Court and no one with any sense will allow the denizens of the Republican clown car to make those appointments. Go Hillary!
26
Oh it's so refreshing to see democracy at work with attack posts on social media designed to weaken your opponent. Thank goodness we do not have a democracy where conservative groups are advancing and explaining their own agenda for the country and building support for their own candidates. So clever, so smart and so high school.......
17
Well, just remember, as the Times notes, they got this idea from the Obama 2012 Campaign. You know, the one that didn't discuss track record, or the President's "agenda for the country" because they were too busy telling us that Mitt was a heartless multimillionaire who was causing cancer in poor neighborhoods. Hey, it worked, so can you blame the GOP for copying a wining strategy?
Republicans explain their agenda? Not a good idea since most Americans don't support it. And as for advancing their candidates, the infighting among different factions makes that a real challenge. So they are left to rely on the old reliable--a negative campaign that attacks their presumed Democratic opponent. Just wait until the campaign really heats up.
And so like the Democrats. This country really needs a multi-party system to dilute the influence of the 1% crowd with whom both parties are allied today.
Dealing with lobbyists, taking money for speeches, creating PACs, and so on. Republicans are accusing Hillary of doing the same things they do. They want to erode enthusiasm for her campaign. At least she is planning to do some things right. So we know who she is. And when the Republiicans finish exposing each other, they'll scare voters back to her. I just hope she won't try to win them over like the President did-Republican appointments, drones, not backing Democrats..... That strategy has been terrible and shows no sign of improvement.
7
I don't think progressives need the Republicans to tell them about HRC's flaws or the flaws of her husband's neoliberal compatriots. They are and have been abundantly clear for decades. Progressives should appreciate the work of the right wingers who are sharing this information on specific issues: it might get America to give serious consideration to a candidate who is unabashedly and unapologetically liberal instead of one who mouths predictable platitudes and runs on the "at- least-I'm-not-as-bad-as-any-Republican" platform.
13
After 36 years of Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush and Obama, we, as a nation, has seen our nation hijacked by 1% money, Wall Street, conservative Christians and self serving politicians. Effectively, for what will be 36 years of one party rule; the almighty dollar of very well connected people. And throw in poor governance with Nixon, Ford and Carter. The turning point of decline started with the 1973 oil embargo and the the 1980s recession created by the one in 1979. Since then wages and quality of life has declined to where we are today. A nearly vanished Middle Class and the death of the American Dream.
So, why on earth would I want to continue this decline by electing anyone in the GOP or Hillary Clinton? Doing so will continue the decline further and continue this nation's road to a few "have" and a lot of "have notes" ruled by well connected millionaires. It has gotten to the point that both parties serve those who have the most money to fund their candidates. Their platforms are nothing more than a means to divide the country. Nothing more.
So, while he may caucus with the Democrats, I feel that Bernie Sanders may be the last hope to those who feel disenfranchised, which is pretty much anyone who is not in teh so called 1%.
So, why on earth would I want to continue this decline by electing anyone in the GOP or Hillary Clinton? Doing so will continue the decline further and continue this nation's road to a few "have" and a lot of "have notes" ruled by well connected millionaires. It has gotten to the point that both parties serve those who have the most money to fund their candidates. Their platforms are nothing more than a means to divide the country. Nothing more.
So, while he may caucus with the Democrats, I feel that Bernie Sanders may be the last hope to those who feel disenfranchised, which is pretty much anyone who is not in teh so called 1%.
37
I love Sanders and Warren. That is a match made in heaven. But earth is not heaven. So we have to settle for mere mortals, flaws and all. I certainly will not vote for anyone in that rapidly filling clown car.
Don't forget the military industrial complex. Even Obama has been hijacked. Read "The Kill Chain." More whack-a-mole means more American deaths, and empowers the crazies on the Muslim side.
So then how would you vote or not vote at all, which would be against your own best interests, isn't that what American's do all the time, vote against their own best interests, they must you see because they keep voting in republicans.
So it's Hillary with all the knocks against her vs 18 Republican presidential candidates (at last count) trying to be as hard core right wingers as they can be to win the nomination backed by the Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelson who have promised to donate $1 billion each to elect a Republican president.
We all know Sheldon Adelson and the Koch brothers are not parting with a billion dollars each for altruistic reasons. They're doing it to ensure that their own personal and business agendas are implemented and followed.
The choice is obvious.
We all know Sheldon Adelson and the Koch brothers are not parting with a billion dollars each for altruistic reasons. They're doing it to ensure that their own personal and business agendas are implemented and followed.
The choice is obvious.
100
Yes the choice is obvious...The Clintons who have been raiding student funds at universities demanding speaking fees of $25,000 to 250,000 per event. Where does that money come from....student loans. The Clintons are corrupt and focused on just one thing: putting one more dollar in their pockets.
"We were down to our last million dollars..." Hillary.
"We were down to our last million dollars..." Hillary.
What about Steyer and Soros !!!They are buying elections too !!!!
In America you have a choice between the lesser evil and a Republican.
55
Actually, we have a choice between Bernie Sanders, the lesser evil and a Republican. I'll take Bernie Sanders any day. He's the only one who is really on the side of the American people and workers. All the rest are shills for the 1%.
Do some people still doubt that the liberal media is in the bag for the Democrats... As George has said previously, you have to "pay to play" with the Clinton's and it sure looks like that's exactly what happened. But but but, at this point what difference does it make, anyway...
11
It makes a big difference when the media is in bed with the Democrat front runner. She is treated with kid gloves Because she is a woman. She should be treated the same as men and the same as the Republicans.
Shocked. Shocked, I tell you. This is happening in both camps. Why is this a lead article unless it's only a biased attempt to show 'how dirty those rotten Republicans are'?
20
It really doesn't matter what the right is doing or saying about Hillary Clinton. The realities are that we don't need any more dynasties in office: no more Bushs' and no more Clintons, as both of them represent loyalty to our entrenched oligarchy. Hillary Clinton is just as vulnerable as Jeb Bush with regard to shirking her responsibilities toward the average American. And she's beholden to the same sponsors that Bush is: Wall Street, obscenely rich Hollywood, a militant Israeli government and the U.S. military industrial complex. Both Clinton and Bush will continue a policy of crushing the average American through promotion of cheap foreign labor - just as Obama is attempting to do now - spying on Americans through the NSA, supporting secret courts, obsessively regulating personal conduct, and continuing to fight low-key, futile wars to keep Americans on edge, taxed and drained.
In the mean time, the environment will suffer as it has, casting more Americans economically adrift in both flooding and acute drought.
There are only two candidates in the two party system that appear to have the strength to lead America into a brighter future, and those are Bernie Sanders and Rand Paul. The rest of them have been corrupted and are essentially, a path to our decline. That includes Clinton who btw, has to stand on her own merits. And those "merits" don't include any serious dedication to average American men or women.
In the mean time, the environment will suffer as it has, casting more Americans economically adrift in both flooding and acute drought.
There are only two candidates in the two party system that appear to have the strength to lead America into a brighter future, and those are Bernie Sanders and Rand Paul. The rest of them have been corrupted and are essentially, a path to our decline. That includes Clinton who btw, has to stand on her own merits. And those "merits" don't include any serious dedication to average American men or women.
101
I wish I could agree. The right's control of the discussion in the media is verging on being hegemonic. Rupert Murdoch and his friends have convinced the working classes and the poor that the left is to blame for the lack of opportunity in America, and that liberty is endangered by liberal ideas of business regulation.
Dynasties are the future, because they have access to campaign money, and to vast support networks. The two candidates will be Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton. And Bush will win, because women are not trusted by Americans.
Dynasties are the future, because they have access to campaign money, and to vast support networks. The two candidates will be Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton. And Bush will win, because women are not trusted by Americans.
2
No, it really does matter what the right wing is doing. They have packed the supreme court with hardliners who approved outright political corruption. This exaggerated the power of billionaires, corporations (on the right) and labor unions (on the left.) Now the right has carefully redistricted and gone local to knock out the labor unions. We saw the results in 2014. Massive advertising funding that turned off and repressed moderates and independents. Giving us representatives of extreme right orientation totally beholden to the source of this "free speech" funding. Basically, we need to keep the Presidency out of the hands of these extremists until the opportunity arrises through appointment to moderate the Supreme Court and reverse Citizens United.
4
Carolyn if either Clinton or any of the Republican candidate becomes President we may soon be wistful for the military industrial complex's current policy of "continuing to fight low-key, futile wars to keep Americans on edge, taxed and drained." The MIC has been setting its sites on revving up tension with Russia and our new "ultimate adversary" China for the last 5 years while a bought and paid for or clueless main stream media continues to act as stenographers to the Defense Department and wave their pom poms. The last thing this planet needs is a new and more unstable Cold War II. We somehow against all odds and human frailty escaped the last one intact. Given global conditions I wouldn't want to wager on our odds of dodging that bullet a second time. The next American President will determine whether we are sucked into another unstable Cold War that benefits the war profiteers and no one else or somehow the country frees itself from the grip of the industry of death. The military industrial security complex is like the scorpion riding on the frog's back across the river. They will kill the country and destroy our world even if it ultimately spells their end as well because they simply cannot help themselves and it's in their nature. The next US president has to be capable of working with world leaders whoever they are to get the scorpion of the global arms industry off this planet's back . Sadly Clinton does not look up to the task.
3
Hillary is as Liberal as the money she receives or as conservative as she needs be, to get it. Any way the $$ wind blows!
9
What about writing about the issues? NY Times should shy away from gossip. Focus on facts.
5
So receiving large sums of money in return for political support is not an issue? Maybe it's 'non-factual' money? But you can still use it to buy stuff.....
2
Given the same respect they showed Romney.
Everything fair game in political ring.
If you going to disgrace one 1% from the right its only fair the right disgrace the lefts 1% candidate.
Mrs Clinton is toast she has way to many ties with oil industry and wall street.
She is more crooked than Romney ever was and
at least Romney got his from inheritance where Clinton got her scheming the system and the little people.
All it take is look up Clinton foundation on BBB and you shall see they don't have good ratings .
Also says how since the foundation started only about 10% of the money goes toward charity or those they claim the help.
Till we see no homeless women and children n this country and we see sids patient being ale to buy their meds then will I believe the Clinton foundation is true to their word of helping these people..
Clintons have done nothing to help the poor here or the Aids patients.
Everything fair game in political ring.
If you going to disgrace one 1% from the right its only fair the right disgrace the lefts 1% candidate.
Mrs Clinton is toast she has way to many ties with oil industry and wall street.
She is more crooked than Romney ever was and
at least Romney got his from inheritance where Clinton got her scheming the system and the little people.
All it take is look up Clinton foundation on BBB and you shall see they don't have good ratings .
Also says how since the foundation started only about 10% of the money goes toward charity or those they claim the help.
Till we see no homeless women and children n this country and we see sids patient being ale to buy their meds then will I believe the Clinton foundation is true to their word of helping these people..
Clintons have done nothing to help the poor here or the Aids patients.
4
Romney inherited hardly anything. Back in the 60s, when his father was the president of a car company and then a governor, people like that made very little money compared to today.
Romney made his fortune as a financier, buying and selling companies. Many people didn't like him for that reason, but at least the work was generally considered legal.
Romney made his fortune as a financier, buying and selling companies. Many people didn't like him for that reason, but at least the work was generally considered legal.
4
How does one respond to a comment like Jonathan's? Mitt Romney was sent to the best private schools, studied in Europe, his father was immensely influential. Mitt gained entree to the inner sanctum because of his father. He inherited everything.
The funny thing is, it's a waste of money. The left wing purity caucus is already in the throes of anti-Hillary paroxysms, without the help from the right, thenkyewveddymuch. They do it every single cycle. No good Democrat is ever good enough, so they take over the liberal blogs and attack any Democrat that doesn't comply with their version of "liberal."
In 2000 it was the Naderites, then came the Deaniacs, then the holy war between the Obamabots and the PUMAs. Of course, Obama is now a corporate shill beholden to Wall Street and the NATSEC spying on your emails and murdering American terrorists with drones without a trial. Now it is the Greenwaldians. (Of course, Greenwald is not a leftie, but he plays the left like a well-tuned fiddle.)
The left, believe me, is a circular firing squad that is perfectly capable of doing it to themselves, and each other. and any Democratic candidate. Luckily for us Dems, the Purity Caucus is a miniscule, insignificant slice of the Democratic Party. Unlike the GOP, where the clowns have taken over the whole train.
In 2000 it was the Naderites, then came the Deaniacs, then the holy war between the Obamabots and the PUMAs. Of course, Obama is now a corporate shill beholden to Wall Street and the NATSEC spying on your emails and murdering American terrorists with drones without a trial. Now it is the Greenwaldians. (Of course, Greenwald is not a leftie, but he plays the left like a well-tuned fiddle.)
The left, believe me, is a circular firing squad that is perfectly capable of doing it to themselves, and each other. and any Democratic candidate. Luckily for us Dems, the Purity Caucus is a miniscule, insignificant slice of the Democratic Party. Unlike the GOP, where the clowns have taken over the whole train.
19
"No good Democrat is ever good enough..."
Actually, FDR was more than "good enough", Kennedy, LBJ and Carter were good enough. Of course, they were real Democrats who found a reasonable balance between attending to Wall Street and Main Street.
I suspect that Cathleen is too young to be familiar with how far right the New Democrats have moved the party.
Actually, FDR was more than "good enough", Kennedy, LBJ and Carter were good enough. Of course, they were real Democrats who found a reasonable balance between attending to Wall Street and Main Street.
I suspect that Cathleen is too young to be familiar with how far right the New Democrats have moved the party.
That's enough for me. I'm sending Hillary a check.
26
Don't worry about Hillary - Wall Street will be taking good care of her (although she will need supporters to man the phone banks and hand out flyers).
I am a progressive center left leaning independent. In the past Democrats like President Obama have relied on people like me to help their campaigns.
Both with boots on the ground and financially. Also in the past I was a big Hillary supporter, but her votes on Iraq, support of Keystone, TPP, and hawk like tendency have made me a lot less enthusiastic. I am not sure I will support her. But the majority of core democrats are moderate voters who have moved on from Iraq and believe in climate change but are not sure what to do about it. It is the Independent voter is going push who ever over the top. Hillary will not jeopardize their vote, and they are center right. She will not need the far left to win the nomination this time. It will be core Democratic voters who do the job. The republicans in the last three election are not center right, they are far right. They are the ones picking the nominee. Rominey never had a chance. He was a bad candidate to begin with, and if his team didn't know he was going to have to swing to the far right to win the nomination that is their fault. He should have fired them early on. These are very different paradigms, a few 100,000 voters on the far left will not matter. Otherwise President Obama would not have put Tim Dechristopher in prison for three years. Contrast a republican candidate stating I am considering a 10 day waiting period on assault rifles or birth control not abortion is a private issue. They would never win the nomination.
Both with boots on the ground and financially. Also in the past I was a big Hillary supporter, but her votes on Iraq, support of Keystone, TPP, and hawk like tendency have made me a lot less enthusiastic. I am not sure I will support her. But the majority of core democrats are moderate voters who have moved on from Iraq and believe in climate change but are not sure what to do about it. It is the Independent voter is going push who ever over the top. Hillary will not jeopardize their vote, and they are center right. She will not need the far left to win the nomination this time. It will be core Democratic voters who do the job. The republicans in the last three election are not center right, they are far right. They are the ones picking the nominee. Rominey never had a chance. He was a bad candidate to begin with, and if his team didn't know he was going to have to swing to the far right to win the nomination that is their fault. He should have fired them early on. These are very different paradigms, a few 100,000 voters on the far left will not matter. Otherwise President Obama would not have put Tim Dechristopher in prison for three years. Contrast a republican candidate stating I am considering a 10 day waiting period on assault rifles or birth control not abortion is a private issue. They would never win the nomination.
4
Chuck from Ohio,
you are right, we democrats in the rest of the country do depend on you to have common sense and support the democrat in your swingy state of Ohio. My state of Connecticut does not depend on me to go dem every four years: it is pretty reliably blue. But you do have a role to play there in Ohio, voting and organizing and talking sense to center int=dependents and dems. Don't get soft on us. the time to count votes is after the election.
you are right, we democrats in the rest of the country do depend on you to have common sense and support the democrat in your swingy state of Ohio. My state of Connecticut does not depend on me to go dem every four years: it is pretty reliably blue. But you do have a role to play there in Ohio, voting and organizing and talking sense to center int=dependents and dems. Don't get soft on us. the time to count votes is after the election.
Of course, these "dirty tricks" by the Republicans are made possible by the fact that, on economic and foreign policy issues, Hillary is basically a Republican.
What a fine pass we've reached, in 2016 we will get to decide between two Republican candidates.
If my comments WERE emanating from a right wing PAC, does that make them any less truthful? The U.S. electorate deserves accurate reports on where candidates stand, not the usual whitewashing of Hillary's corporatist, war mongering record - a record that has more in common with W than FDR.
What a fine pass we've reached, in 2016 we will get to decide between two Republican candidates.
If my comments WERE emanating from a right wing PAC, does that make them any less truthful? The U.S. electorate deserves accurate reports on where candidates stand, not the usual whitewashing of Hillary's corporatist, war mongering record - a record that has more in common with W than FDR.
12
This is what the right has been doing for decades along with promoting the rich interests. Now the Clintons do it while still fighting for the average person and it's suddenly bad.
Nice spin from the party of Atwater and Rove.
Nice spin from the party of Atwater and Rove.
19
Not to mention the Roberts Court, Faux News, the Koch Brothers, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and all those other really, really bad people. Shame on them!!
"... the Clintons...fighting for the average person..."
Please, give us some examples of these fights.
Please, give us some examples of these fights.
Looks like the spirit and legacy of Richard Nixon and his "dirty tricks" brigade lives on in the soul of the Republican party. I find it tragic that the Republicans don't have enough of their own "substance" to run on that they need to publicize distorted and out-of-context "gripes" about Hillary. The fact is, once they settle on their own knight who will be sent to slaughter in 2016, Hillary (or whoever is chosen) will not have any problems showing the clear differences between the parties and who they actually represent.
213
For as long as I can remember (I've been voting since '68), this has been the primary strategy of the Republicans -- that is, not campaigning on their own merits, but doing their best to destroy the image and reputation of their Democratic opponent by whatever means possible. Remember their "Swiftboat Vets" campaign against Kerry? Disgusting. Kerry should have fought back immediately and hard...but he allowed the lies in the public arena to germinate before attacking the source.
3
You must have missed the part of the article in which it was explained that Republicans are copying the strategy developed by Democrats and used against Romney in 2012. Did you complain when Democrats developed this tactic?
The Democratic nominee "will not have any problems showing the clear differences between the parties" IF she/he isn't drowned out by mendacious propaganda via "Citizens United." (And if the media gets beyond false equivalence and does its job of truth-telling.) In the short run, the big lie can work.
1
I don't care where the truths about Mrs. Clinton come from. Bernie Sanders would make a far better President than Hillary. I vote for the best person, not for the person who is supposed to win.
16
The Clinton drive for riches and power by any means necessary is apparent to all.
Should Americans expect a President who is trustworthy,ethical and honorable?
If not, why listen to a President whose goal is personal riches and power and not the interests of the American people?
Should Americans expect a President who is trustworthy,ethical and honorable?
If not, why listen to a President whose goal is personal riches and power and not the interests of the American people?
8
You mean just like every republican running.
Hard hitting front-page journalism at its best! NYT has blown the lid off the sleazy world of politics where one party uses satire against the other! The shame! And the really pathetic thing is the subtext which seems to say: "We need to stick together guys and vote for Hillary, and not let those evil right wingers trick us into in-fighting!"
5
Dr. Reality,
Well you can't blame the Republicans for these sleaze tactics, when their field of potential candidates is so pathetic.
Even Jeb Bush, their strongest candidate(?) was knee-capped by a 19 year old University of Nevada student, asking Jeb a question about the Iraq war..
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/may/15/jeb-bush-ivy-ziedrich-col...
Well you can't blame the Republicans for these sleaze tactics, when their field of potential candidates is so pathetic.
Even Jeb Bush, their strongest candidate(?) was knee-capped by a 19 year old University of Nevada student, asking Jeb a question about the Iraq war..
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/may/15/jeb-bush-ivy-ziedrich-col...
Let me recall: a vast right wing conspiracy to bring down her husband over the Monica alleged affair. Then the truth comes out. He was having an affair. Ever since then, Hillary cannot be trusted. Power, to her, trumps a bad marriage.
9
Based on the comment's logic, we can extrapolate to include that ALL women who have been fooled by their men on any occasion are obviously untrustworthy. Or something.
Your recollection is spotty. The vast right-wing conspiracy was about lots more than Monica Lewinsky. Hillary got that one wrong but she got everything else right.
She did once claim to have bernaise sauce with her french fries but it turned out to be hollandaise. Ever since then, she can't be trusted.
She did once claim to have bernaise sauce with her french fries but it turned out to be hollandaise. Ever since then, she can't be trusted.
Let's see...the GOP gave us the Iraq War and the Great Recession. Once they got bounced they showed less contrition than Japan did after WWII, and immediately went about doing everything they could to destroy the guy who was elected to pull us out of the sump they created and to clean up the mess. Hillary, with all her warts, is a saint compared to that crew.
51
Wrong, Glass Steagall was repeated by Clinton. They will continue to serve their Wall Street puppet masters and give us an other massive Ponzi Scheme that will crash.
1
Let's see...Senator Hillary Clinton had access to the same information about Iraq that George W. Bush did, and she agreed with the decision to invade.
1
Amen.
It's no surprise that the Republican campaign will be all about attacking Hillary. But she can take it and dish it out.
Republicans have no positions on issues that a majority of Americans would support. It's pretty hard to win on the issues when your best platform planks are "Starve the Beast" and "Let them Starve"
Republicans have no positions on issues that a majority of Americans would support. It's pretty hard to win on the issues when your best platform planks are "Starve the Beast" and "Let them Starve"
23
There is little doubt if Hillary Clinton only changed one thing, her political party, Democrats would hate her. I have yet to read much rationale for voting for her other than " shes way better than any candidate the gop will offer up." Really? You mean they get paid less for their political influence; didnt vote for iraq war?, didnt skirt rules? Hillary runs in part on being a strong woman, yet she allows her husband to disrespect her time and again.
1
Yes, B, they failed miserably in the 2014 midterm elections. From coast-to-coast, the Republican and conservative brands were overrun by hordes of engaged "progressives" looking to salvage the last two years of the disaster that has been the Obama presidency. I'm not sure why they even run anymore. The sinking ratings on Fox and other non-traditional outlets portend the end for the Republicans.
Where else can we see so many fat boys advocating starvation?
1
The mounds of cash speak to the Clinton's knowledge and understanding of world politics, the use of the loop holes the Bush supreme court has created, and their dominate self interest. They are taking advantage of the opportunities before them. I wonder how much of this was fostered by Ms. Clinton's use of private email. It is not the people we should monitor, it is the politicians.
6
A perfect example of Rove's "soft-sell of disappointment", written by Repubs pretending to be Democrats who gosh darn it, just can't find it in their hearts to support the candidate this time....
It didn't wirk fir Romney or Rove, who managed to not have a single candidate he suoported, win. Despite what, 200 million spent by his Super Pac?
But sure, give it another try...after all, there are no supportable policies by Repubs that stand a prayer in a national, non-gerrymandered election.
It didn't wirk fir Romney or Rove, who managed to not have a single candidate he suoported, win. Despite what, 200 million spent by his Super Pac?
But sure, give it another try...after all, there are no supportable policies by Repubs that stand a prayer in a national, non-gerrymandered election.
Correction: wrong comment respinded to by my post. The jest of it is applicable, of course, based on the thesis in the article.
The right and I guess the Times does not understand the dynamics in play today. Yes, Hillary Clinton is imperfect. Do many on the left wish we had more and better options? Sure. But the Republican candidates are truly terrifying. Many will be voting not just for Ms. Clinton but also against the Republican party. The future of the Court, our economy, or foreign policy, our social safety net, education, environment, basically our idea of America, is at stake.
58
Let's be honest, if people on the left really cared about the things you mention, they would all support Bernie Sanders.
Hillary is a deeply flawed candidate but she's better than any of the Republicans and liberals are too lazy to demand anything better.
Hillary is a deeply flawed candidate but she's better than any of the Republicans and liberals are too lazy to demand anything better.
Yep, its sleazy and either very stupid or very smart.
But there's something kind of beautiful about the Koch brothers funneling a chunk of their billions into left-wing ads, particularly ones that criticize a candidate for....wait for it: thats right, being awash in dirty campaign money.
But there's something kind of beautiful about the Koch brothers funneling a chunk of their billions into left-wing ads, particularly ones that criticize a candidate for....wait for it: thats right, being awash in dirty campaign money.
25
And they said irony was dead in America after 9 11. I think it was actually just getting started.
As others here have noted, no one is trying to hide what they're doing. This is about strengthening Clinton, not weakening her. The moneyed interests who run our government don't care whether we elect a corporate shill from the Democratic party or one from the Republican party. The battle itself is big business, but it's only a show. Both sides win. The public loses. Every time.
10
In the new media landscape one just has to report a scandal once and hope it will go away to allow patronage to continue, as is clearly the case between Carlos Slim (NYT) and HRC.
Clinton gave a talk to Renaissance Capital in Moscow for $1/2 million in
June 29, 2010. Prokhorov, a Kremlin operative, owns 1/2 of this bank (he owns the Nets).
According to the NYT "As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation."
Uranium One is the Canadian company that owned 1/5 of US uranium that it sold to the Russians, and needed US Government ok. The Russian company is Rosatom and is state owned (eg by the Kremlin).
So the Clintons got paid off by both ends of the deal that gave 1/5 of US uranium to Putin. Talk about "reset".
Moller, the former CIA director now says that spy agencies around the world have copies of HRC emails. Surely they are planning to put them to good use to "lubricate" more "deals".
bloomberg.com news articles/2010-06-09/renaissance-capital-hires-bill-clinton-for-moscow-update1-
bloomberg.com news articles/2014-03-24/brooklyn-nets-to-call-russia-home-as-putin-request-heeded
nytimes.com 2015/04/24 us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?referrer=
Clinton gave a talk to Renaissance Capital in Moscow for $1/2 million in
June 29, 2010. Prokhorov, a Kremlin operative, owns 1/2 of this bank (he owns the Nets).
According to the NYT "As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation."
Uranium One is the Canadian company that owned 1/5 of US uranium that it sold to the Russians, and needed US Government ok. The Russian company is Rosatom and is state owned (eg by the Kremlin).
So the Clintons got paid off by both ends of the deal that gave 1/5 of US uranium to Putin. Talk about "reset".
Moller, the former CIA director now says that spy agencies around the world have copies of HRC emails. Surely they are planning to put them to good use to "lubricate" more "deals".
bloomberg.com news articles/2010-06-09/renaissance-capital-hires-bill-clinton-for-moscow-update1-
bloomberg.com news articles/2014-03-24/brooklyn-nets-to-call-russia-home-as-putin-request-heeded
nytimes.com 2015/04/24 us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?referrer=
It is possible to be too cynical. I think a lot of letter writers clearly have crossed that threshold. Positions stop making any sense.
Look at American history: the good guys win sometimes. Slavery ended. Our Bill of rights is pretty righteous still. Women got the vote. FDR began the social safety net that has meant so much to all of us. schools began to be integrated. Gay marriage, anyone?
Hillary Clinton has most often been on the side of change and good.
The hatred from the right during the Clinton years was unendurable and yet they endured it. The hatred and skepticism toward her now from the left is even worse. This article makes clear such shortsightedness by the leftest of the left only plays into the hands of those all the way on the right.
She is our Eleanor, more than anything else.
Look at American history: the good guys win sometimes. Slavery ended. Our Bill of rights is pretty righteous still. Women got the vote. FDR began the social safety net that has meant so much to all of us. schools began to be integrated. Gay marriage, anyone?
Hillary Clinton has most often been on the side of change and good.
The hatred from the right during the Clinton years was unendurable and yet they endured it. The hatred and skepticism toward her now from the left is even worse. This article makes clear such shortsightedness by the leftest of the left only plays into the hands of those all the way on the right.
She is our Eleanor, more than anything else.
2016 was supposed to be about inequality in America. By nominating Hillary, Dems would ensure that the only choice people have would be a 1%-er Democrat vs a 1%-er Republican... how unfortunate!
You say other important issues? Hillary would have the same impact as Bush / Walker / Rubio (i.e. any plausible candidates) on the following ones:
- Wars : She voted for Iraq and she thinks Obama should have got involved more in the Middle East. (No, a republican president simply won't put soldiers in any war if elected - americans simply don't have appetite for that).
- Healthcare / Gay marriages : Ship has sailed on these ones. I don't see what a republican president can do realistically, even with a republican House and the Senate.
- SS / medicare : No one dares touch these programs, unless they have (political) suicidal tendencies. And 2014 elections have illustrated that pragmatic wing of the GOP has way more influence than Tea partiers.
Issues where a GOP president would be worse than Hillary:
- environment : esp. with control of EPA
- Abortion / women health
Finally, an important issue where GOP would be BETTER than Hillary (gasp!):
- Immigration : GOP is right on this one (against amnesty), maybe for the wrong reason (racism?). But Hillary and NYT are surely worse on this one, what with their nonstop championing of lawbreakers, and ignorance of actual American citizens
All in all - Pres. Hillary looks as bad/good as a GOP president*
* Barring Cruz/Fiorina/Jindal
You say other important issues? Hillary would have the same impact as Bush / Walker / Rubio (i.e. any plausible candidates) on the following ones:
- Wars : She voted for Iraq and she thinks Obama should have got involved more in the Middle East. (No, a republican president simply won't put soldiers in any war if elected - americans simply don't have appetite for that).
- Healthcare / Gay marriages : Ship has sailed on these ones. I don't see what a republican president can do realistically, even with a republican House and the Senate.
- SS / medicare : No one dares touch these programs, unless they have (political) suicidal tendencies. And 2014 elections have illustrated that pragmatic wing of the GOP has way more influence than Tea partiers.
Issues where a GOP president would be worse than Hillary:
- environment : esp. with control of EPA
- Abortion / women health
Finally, an important issue where GOP would be BETTER than Hillary (gasp!):
- Immigration : GOP is right on this one (against amnesty), maybe for the wrong reason (racism?). But Hillary and NYT are surely worse on this one, what with their nonstop championing of lawbreakers, and ignorance of actual American citizens
All in all - Pres. Hillary looks as bad/good as a GOP president*
* Barring Cruz/Fiorina/Jindal
3
What about the Supreme Court?
1
You are not entirely wrong, but keep your focus on the critical state of the Supreme Court. There is a good chance that the next president will appoint three new justices--do you want them appointed by a Jeb Bush or Rand Paul? Clinton will protect a woman's right to choose (keep in mind that even birth control has become increasingly contested), and she at least recognizes the reality of climate change. Their is an enormous gulf between the parties, and voters have to keep their eyes on that, rather than surrender their country in the face of campaign cash, greed and realpolitik.
Look at the Supreme Court and the age of the justices and then pretend that electing Hillary doesn't do us any good. Look at how close we are to having abortion unavailable in most parts of the country and then make an argument that Hillary winning will be a bad thing.
Look at how over the last 25 years republicans have done everything they can to weaken the court's decision in Rowe v. Wade and then tell me that gay marriage is very near a decided issue: republicans will delight in looking for every possible way to undo that new pivotal freedom as it emerges.
Having a dem in the White House as the court turns over these next few years is central to the battle over income inequality and disparity: re-deciding election finance cases will be possible if a dem gets to pick new justices anytime soon.
Look at how over the last 25 years republicans have done everything they can to weaken the court's decision in Rowe v. Wade and then tell me that gay marriage is very near a decided issue: republicans will delight in looking for every possible way to undo that new pivotal freedom as it emerges.
Having a dem in the White House as the court turns over these next few years is central to the battle over income inequality and disparity: re-deciding election finance cases will be possible if a dem gets to pick new justices anytime soon.
I would be very grateful if someone, somewhere, would explain to me who and what the Left and the Far Left are in America today.
It seems clear to me that the "Left" or left wing of the Democratic party died out decades ago, a casualty of exhaustion from the Vietnam war and other battles. Progressives, instead? Not sure what that means, in Democratic party terms.
Parse Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, and you get the FDR/New Deal theories of how to govern, theories with which this Democrat agrees. Since FDR became president in 1932, I'd hardly call Warren and Sanders leftists, or radicals, or anything out of the ordinary in the history of the Democratic party.
In short, I don't know what this article, and these right wing extremists, are even talking about. There's no SDS, no Black Panthers, no presence whatsoever of the far left "radicals" of the 1960s and early 70s. No one's idolizing Che, or carrying Mao's Little Red Book around anymore.
The only extremists or radicals are this group of Republicans/Tea Partiers who grabbed the reins of Congress and state houses, and "govern" in their psycho-bubble of passe John Birch Society, Minutemen, and Barry Goldwater ideologies.
Secretary Clinton is a Democrat, which means she's grounded in reality, aware that minimum wage, equal pay, taxing the rich, preserving health care, the right to choose, rebuilding the middle class, must be her priorities.
This "Leftist" is happy to vote for her.
Colin Reed's riding in the Clown Car.
It seems clear to me that the "Left" or left wing of the Democratic party died out decades ago, a casualty of exhaustion from the Vietnam war and other battles. Progressives, instead? Not sure what that means, in Democratic party terms.
Parse Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, and you get the FDR/New Deal theories of how to govern, theories with which this Democrat agrees. Since FDR became president in 1932, I'd hardly call Warren and Sanders leftists, or radicals, or anything out of the ordinary in the history of the Democratic party.
In short, I don't know what this article, and these right wing extremists, are even talking about. There's no SDS, no Black Panthers, no presence whatsoever of the far left "radicals" of the 1960s and early 70s. No one's idolizing Che, or carrying Mao's Little Red Book around anymore.
The only extremists or radicals are this group of Republicans/Tea Partiers who grabbed the reins of Congress and state houses, and "govern" in their psycho-bubble of passe John Birch Society, Minutemen, and Barry Goldwater ideologies.
Secretary Clinton is a Democrat, which means she's grounded in reality, aware that minimum wage, equal pay, taxing the rich, preserving health care, the right to choose, rebuilding the middle class, must be her priorities.
This "Leftist" is happy to vote for her.
Colin Reed's riding in the Clown Car.
515
Who are today's left? From the GOP viewpoint everyone who is not a republican. The modern GOP wants to put all of us into reeducation camps.
1
Bill Clinton could have vetoed the Glass Steagle repeal. That would have avoided the Great recession. Hillary is a clone of her husband. 2+2=4 - Clintons will back BIG MONEY, and we need anything but that in the White House, the last branch of our Gov. to not be controlled by GOPs. Why did you not mention that?
No on Clinton now, before it is too late. Let's force the hand of Warren, make her run. She does not want to go through the horrors of the Presidential vetting process, tough cookie. It is better to have served ....
No on Clinton now, before it is too late. Let's force the hand of Warren, make her run. She does not want to go through the horrors of the Presidential vetting process, tough cookie. It is better to have served ....
1
Many of the left are those who changed their registration from republican
to democrat in the Bush administration...
Count me there; I worked for GHWB in his first primary, was core
repuiblican enough to be taken into the Reagan administration when GHWB
was named vice president...and served in a very political place,
never considered the possibility of being a democrat...
but couldn't and wouldn't possibly consider being a republican now.
Or even voting so. Are you kidding?
to democrat in the Bush administration...
Count me there; I worked for GHWB in his first primary, was core
repuiblican enough to be taken into the Reagan administration when GHWB
was named vice president...and served in a very political place,
never considered the possibility of being a democrat...
but couldn't and wouldn't possibly consider being a republican now.
Or even voting so. Are you kidding?
5
Slant of the article is revealed right at the start: "...the source of the offending tweet". "Offending"? To whom and why? Only to Hillary Clinton because it depicted what is (or should be) apparent to all, her shameless pursuit of money.
I guess Ms. Parker and Mr. Corasanti feel that the only criticism of Ms. Clinton that is not 'offending' is that which comes from Democrats as the rest of the article is about the source of criticism, not the substance.
I guess Ms. Parker and Mr. Corasanti feel that the only criticism of Ms. Clinton that is not 'offending' is that which comes from Democrats as the rest of the article is about the source of criticism, not the substance.
6
It is sad that all the Republican Party has left is dirty tricks and not one concrete proposal to help ordinary Americans.
37
That is the essence...the fundamental truth. Their ultimate constituency is the ultra wealthy. And the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision made this reality obvious for all to see.
The Republicans should spend more of their time advocating that their candidates become less libertarian, less Christian, less anti-science, less anti-immigrant, less anti-worker, less anti-women, and less anti-gay rights. Spending their time undermining of Ms. Clinton from the left won't stop their voters from noticing they haven't got anybody who can win the Presidency in 2016. Jeb will give it the old billion-dollar college try, but he won't win.
14
I am sure Hillary is not perfect, but she is far bette than anyone the republicans will put up for president.
People from both sides need to learn to listen to the candidate and not pay attention to attack ads. These are destroying the american political system.
People from both sides need to learn to listen to the candidate and not pay attention to attack ads. These are destroying the american political system.
20
The Republicans have been living in the Fox universe for so long that they don't realize how self-defeating their strategy is. If you push Hillary to the left you just make her more electable. On most issues the general public is to the left of the Democratic Party. The gay rights issue is a good example; for a decade the public was to the left of the Democrats; the Republicans pushed the Democrats to the left right into a winning political issue. The immigration issue is next.
14
Sure, sure, go ahead and run Hillary as a revolutionary socialist. I'm sure she'll do very well....
1
I, for one, take offense at Mr. Wilcox's labelling of Elizabeth Warren as a "lightweight" and Bernie Sanders as a "goofball." Sen. Warren is not running for President but Bernie Sanders is. He has been in Congress (as an Independent) for 24 years and has a track record of fighting for, what many people consider to be, important issues: Breaking up the "Too Big To Fail" Banks, opposing the current trade bill, addressing climate change, rebuilding our deteriorating infrastructure, raising the minimum wage, fixing the system so college is affordable for all and taking on real tax reform. To me Bernie is and has always be a REAL Democrat in a sea of pretenders.
Why these are considered "leftist" views is beyond me. These are issues which impact most Americans. Republicans are fools if they think they can undermine Hillary Clinton buy appealing to citizens who support these issues. I do not know where Ms. Clinton stands on most of these issues and if she ever decides to speak up (like Bernie Sanders) her negatives will fade quickly and she will gain the support of the majority. Rather than disparaging others via covert methods, Republicans need to talk about their own agenda and then let the people decide on which plan will best serve our country.
Why these are considered "leftist" views is beyond me. These are issues which impact most Americans. Republicans are fools if they think they can undermine Hillary Clinton buy appealing to citizens who support these issues. I do not know where Ms. Clinton stands on most of these issues and if she ever decides to speak up (like Bernie Sanders) her negatives will fade quickly and she will gain the support of the majority. Rather than disparaging others via covert methods, Republicans need to talk about their own agenda and then let the people decide on which plan will best serve our country.
43
Republicans can't talk openly about their agenda. They'd lose if they did that!
So what? If she is that vulnerable to GOP attacks, why is she the heir presumptive?
At this point in time, all Democrat candidates are equal -- there have been no primary votes cast. Hillary is only the heir presumptive because the press treats her that way. The press treats her that way because she is the big-money candidate for the Democrats. The press equates money with legitimacy. Shame!
If you don't believe me, ask yourself why Ted Cruz gets headlines every time he sneezes whereas I have never seen a single article about Lincoln Chafee or Martin O'Malley.
We have alternatives. Are they good? We'll never know unless their Times starts giving them the same coverage as Hillary and the Republican crowd. But their resumes got cred.
Bernie Sanders: US Senator. Former US Representative.
Martin O'Malley: Former Governor of Maryland, 19th most populous state.
Jim Webb: Former Senator, Former Secretary of the Navy. Decorated Veteran.
Lincoln Chafee: Former Governor of Rhode Island. Former US Senator.
At this point in time, all Democrat candidates are equal -- there have been no primary votes cast. Hillary is only the heir presumptive because the press treats her that way. The press treats her that way because she is the big-money candidate for the Democrats. The press equates money with legitimacy. Shame!
If you don't believe me, ask yourself why Ted Cruz gets headlines every time he sneezes whereas I have never seen a single article about Lincoln Chafee or Martin O'Malley.
We have alternatives. Are they good? We'll never know unless their Times starts giving them the same coverage as Hillary and the Republican crowd. But their resumes got cred.
Bernie Sanders: US Senator. Former US Representative.
Martin O'Malley: Former Governor of Maryland, 19th most populous state.
Jim Webb: Former Senator, Former Secretary of the Navy. Decorated Veteran.
Lincoln Chafee: Former Governor of Rhode Island. Former US Senator.
14
This will backfire. If they make her appear too "right", there will be more of a chance of voters from the right coming to her side than voters from the left leaving her side.
6
I don't know if Hillary is all in for Wall Street and the big corporations, or will stand tall for the middle class and the environment. Up to now, I was not too keen on Hillary for president, but after this news, now I am!
Hope the nasty americanrisingpac.org Twitter campaign backfires big time!!
There is no way I would vote for any one of the Republican candidates, who are a genuine embarrassment to this country. When GW Bush-D. Cheney were President, I spent a lot time when traveling abroad apologizing for Bush, his entire administration, and what they did while in office. People were always asking what is wrong with your country? How could Americans elect such horrible men? What do you think of George Bush? Did you vote for him?
Anyway, why would anyone vote for/hire someone to be President of the United States who hates government and wants to drown it in the bathtub? That would be like hiring a florist who hates flowers.
Hope the nasty americanrisingpac.org Twitter campaign backfires big time!!
There is no way I would vote for any one of the Republican candidates, who are a genuine embarrassment to this country. When GW Bush-D. Cheney were President, I spent a lot time when traveling abroad apologizing for Bush, his entire administration, and what they did while in office. People were always asking what is wrong with your country? How could Americans elect such horrible men? What do you think of George Bush? Did you vote for him?
Anyway, why would anyone vote for/hire someone to be President of the United States who hates government and wants to drown it in the bathtub? That would be like hiring a florist who hates flowers.
42
The hype machine already wants to make HRC the Democratic candidate, that's clear. Why they want her is not so clear, as she seems to embody and espouse many of the same plutocratic traits and values that the GOP candidates do. Hillary is certainly the beneficiary of Wall Street, having shamelessly profited from insider trading for decades, and is by no means representative of the "average" American with her incalculable annual income derived from ironically-named honoraria. She is every bit as imperious and imperialist as anyone on the other side of the political fence, and is concerned about exactly one person: herself.
It is quite ironic that they are attacking Clinton on the grounds that she is favoring some Republican cause (the pipeline). Wouldn't that then work to turn undecided Republicans in her favor? Not really, because the Big Lie here is that she is in favor of the Keystone Pipeline-but-we-all-know-that-she-is-not (we're just saying it but you know we don't really mean it.) Republicans have managed to invent another version of The Truth, a statement that includes within it an understanding that it is merely being stated without validation. It is a True Lie.
8
The tweets imply she is in favor of the pipeline because she is paid off. Presumably, she would oppose it if the environmentalists put up even more money than she is currently receiving.
1
Let us face facts. The left is smarter than the right. The left will support Hillary because Hillary has an excellent chance to win the Oval Office. Us on the right will back our chosen candidate to the bitter end even though we know for a fact that he or she has zero chance to win.
We on the right stand on principle and lose. Those on the left stand on winning.
We on the right stand on principle and lose. Those on the left stand on winning.
4
The 'principles' the Right stands on are - anti-choice, anti-gay, anti-immigrant, anti-separation of church and state, anti-science. No thanks!
Well the right is smart enough to get to the polls, I'll give you that. They're dumb enough to vote against their own interests and that's not exactly something to brag about.
Little surprise here. Republicans and conservatives have only bankrupt policies and denial of reality from evolution to economics. But thank them for helping polish Hillary Clinton's message
16
Lately I have felt a tectonic shift in the comment section of every article written about our current state of affairs in politics. The right now seems to have a battalion of "contributors" who basically sound all the same with a startling lack of details unlike the progressives who have much in the way of details including but not limited to place, time, names, quotes, history, etc., which the GOP fans feel little need for or are hard pressed to back up and contribute little to any real discourse.
26
I point to your generalization lacking specifics.
1