Bernie tells the biggest lie so far this primary campaign.

[DanTex]

"We are on track for the nomination."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/03/16/bernie-sanders-tells-supporters-he-sees-a-winning-streak-coming/

Let's be clear: this is not a mistake, this is a lie. Bernie might have a few delusional supporters, but the man is intelligent. He knows the score.

Also, this lie is being told to people who he knows trust him, in order to get them to give him money. In other arenas, the word for this is fraud. And for what? A few more months in the spotlight for him and his campaign team? Maybe Tad Devine thinks that some more TV time will make him more marketable to future campaigns?

I could respect the guy if he had said: look, the campaign's not turning out how we wanted so far. We're down by almost three times as much as Hillary ever was in 2008. We're probably going to lose, but I'm sticking in to the end because I think I have an important message, and hey, you never know, anything can happen. So give us a few bucks.

But pretending he's on track for the nomination? That's simply a lie.

[LexVegas]

1. Needs to raise more money I guess. nt

[riversedge]

26. Yes, according to the article itwas said during "a fundraising solicitation"...

By John Wagner March 16 at 2:46 PM

Bernie Sanders smiles during a campaign event in Phoenix on Tuesday night. (Luke Sharrett/Bloomberg News)

FLAGSTAFF, Ariz. — Bernie Sanders, who fell further behind Hillary Clinton in Tuesday’s presidential primaries, told supporters Wednesday that he has “an extremely good chance to win nearly every state that votes in the next month.”

Sanders’s rosy assessment comes as he tries to reassure supporters that he has a path to the Democratic nomination despite a mounting lead by Clinton in the number of delegates needed to claim victory.

In a fundraising solicitation, the senator from Vermont wrote that Clinton had reached her “high-water mark” in the campaign.........

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/03/16/bernie-sanders-tells-supporters-he-sees-a-winning-streak-coming/

[NurseJackie]

2. To keep the money flowing?

[sufrommich]

3. Honestly,no campaign would do any different.

"We're losing but send money" would be a foolish thing for a campaign to advance as a strategy.

[Armstead]

8. Thank you

[rock]

14. Agreed

There are situations where a politician is expected to lie. Society would crumble if everyone told nothing but the truth all the time, By the way, does my hair look OK?

[randome]

23. Not with those granite features of yours. Sorry.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]

[Walk away]

60. Maybe he could pretend to be abducted and Tad could send out email kidnap notes...

to all Bernie's followers asking for $40,000,000.00 in small bills for this months ransom. That would still be a lie but it would be different!

[DawgHouse]

137. Yes I expect any other would do the same. JMHO

[Beartracks]

176. Yep. This.

[Jefferson23]

4. Bernie is a viable candidate, there is no lie. He is on track to continue to gain delegates.

It is absurd for him to suggest never mind say, we're probably going to lose.

When the primary is over its over..Clinton did not drop out in 2008.

[firebrand80]

9. I remain on track to becoming a Billionaire nt

[Jefferson23]

15. Good, donate to Bernie. n/t

[merrily]

27. And no one can disprove that. Best of luck to you in your goal on Saint Pat's day and always.

[firebrand80]

30. Exactly, I can use as loose a definition of "on track" as I want nt

[tokenlib]

152. The Third Way will give you that hope...n/t

[Happenstance24]

10. Hillary was behind by 90 delegates in 08 not 330. Please don't

insult us all by comparing the 2.

[Jefferson23]

13. He has no obligation to drop out and he remains viable. There is no lie. n/t

[Happenstance24]

16. He doesn't have to drop out but he isn't remotely viable barring a miracle. -nt

[Jefferson23]

17. According to you. n/t

[Happenstance24]

19. And math. And facts. And reality. And Bernie's own team going after her pledged and super ds -nt

[Jefferson23]

20. The OP's claim is bullshit, there is NO biggest lie. That is what I take issue with, Bernie

remains a viable candidate. His delegate count is not in dispute and you nor
the OP know what comes next.

[merrily]

29. His winning is not mathematically impossible.

If and when his winning becomes mathematically impossible, your post will be accurate. Until then, it isn't.

[PotatoChip]

57. Exactly. That sums it up very well. (nt)

[LanternWaste]

156. "We are on track to avoid becoming statistically irrelevant and mathematically possible!!!"

"We are on track to avoid becoming statistically irrelevant and mathematically possible!!!"

Valuable succor for the biased and the irrational.

[Walk away]

70. If Bernie and his followers want to Die the Death of a Thousand Cuts....

maybe we should just leave them to it. Maybe they could go on Marco Rubio's FaceBook page and bully him into giving up his unused delegates.

[floppyboo]

78. or every dollar is an affirmation of Bernie's message

that, no matter the outcome, is as powerful a way as any to remind the public of democracy. Grassroots taken up a level! I love it! And it is working - you can't deny that.

[Walk away]

92. Because College is free and corporations are giving away their profits???

It is definitely getting a lot of people excited for the time being. Reddit, Facebook and hundreds of "Progressive" sites are making a fortune and the cable news networks are breaking even for a change.
That is business as usual and will mostly go away when the election season is over.

I heard someone say this morning that Bernie doesn't dare call off his campaign now. He has been promising some nebulous "thing" at the convention for too long to get away with quitting before that. I'm sure the party is happy that he is staying in. They need some kind of shiny object to keep people focused on the Democratic campaign because the other side is a complete circus!

[floppyboo]

95. doesn't Hillary also support reigning in corporate profits and affordable college or did I miss it?

Why are you using her campaign promises against her? Oh, and don't forget affordable universal health care. Why is she promising all this free stuff? Even though we know it is impossible, given her backers.
Hers being the oligarchy, Sanders being the people.
Give it up

[Walk away]

96. Hillary Clinton's platform is just that.

A set of well thought out goals, how to accomplish them and what their costs would be to the tax payer. Bernie has never explained how he would produce his, far more extreme and expensive promises. He is just having a "revolution".

But I'm not trying to convince you. Most of Bernie's followers have so much invested in his hollow ideology that they will be "in it" until the day that Bernie endorses Hillary Clinton of President. It's, literally, your dime.

[floppyboo]

97. Awesome

So glad she got a nudge in the right direction. Can't imagine it happening without such a strong contender.

[Walk away]

98. FYI, losing by 321 delegates isn't generally considered strong....

but keep sending in those Bernie bucks!

[HumanityExperiment]

160. Priceless...

as you watch as the 'leading' candidate is being pulled further left by a candidate 'losing by 321 delegate' count

So I consider it money well spent don't you?

[Walk away]

166. Hillary Clinton was rated in the top 10 Liberals in the Senate while she was there.

I get that Bernie admires Castro and is a proud Socialist, but thankfully, Hillary hasn't let his extremist ideology change her.

[HumanityExperiment]

169. Hmmm...

https://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/hillary-campaign-ad/3001364

You sure about that?

[Walk away]

183. I didn't bother to watch.

You argument has fallen apart if you are hawking SNL videos. Good luck with your losing candidate. His desperate hope that the republicans will make up enough garbage to get an indictment is about 40,000,000 to one! About how many Millennial dollars it costs to keep Bernie on the road for a month!

[HumanityExperiment]

184. expected...

my support of a candidate that's forcing your candidate to the left is enjoyable to watch

so 'luck' isn't needed here, this is exactly why the majority of Hillary supports post that Bernie should drop out, as well as Hillary desire to pivot to the GE 'debate'

Suffice it to say your post confirms the point

[Walk away]

196. Bernie's poor record on Guns, immigration, women's health all make Hillary look....

far to the left of Sanders on social issues. Why do you think women, People of Color and gun control advocates think Bernie is really a Libertarian lefty! Just another spoiler like Nader who hates the Democratic party and is using ridiculous promises to lure a cult like following!

[HumanityExperiment]

204. Interesting...

"Just another spoiler like Nader who hates the Democratic party" - aren't we defining what the Democratic party is to be for this election cycle through this primary process?

Odd that you would want to stifle policy debate and give all the states their opportunity to vote on these candidates and their policy positions

"ridiculous promises" - this... this in particular always makes me laugh coming from Hillary supports

This 'ridiculous' nature we have as Americans is what got us to the moon and beyond... I'll take ridiculous all the time over 'just enough'

[Walk away]

207. Look, I'm a life long Democrat and Bernie is a Socialist who has spent decades...

either using or abusing my party. I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I think you should send every available penny to Bernie so that he can continue to lose up until the convention. Then he will sell you out and endorse the woman you demonize. I think it's kind of pathetic but it's not my problem.

I don't think a few thousand votes from Naderite-like Independents is going to make a difference. Most of the whiners who will "never vote for Hillary" wouldn't vote for her anyway. This place is chock full of Green party, Left-Libertarians, Gun lovin' Liberals, Republicans and Democrats who hate the Democratic party. It's always been that way and it always will. They are never happy with anyone who gets elected to office. Just look at how fast Bernie supporters turned like vipers on poor Elizabeth Warren.

[John Poet]

211. Yeah, don't worry, Hillary's still a neoconservative warmonger

who both admires, and socializes with, unindicted war criminals.

Some would say she is one herself, but I wouldn't go quite that far.

[timmymoff]

177. well

that's this week.. we do not know where she will stand on this issue next week. or keystone, or TPP, or in support of Wal-mart starvation wages, or with regime change, or health insurance, or private prisons, or gay rights, or big pahrma, or wall st.. it's hard to tell where she stands from minute to minute.. but hey third way is the best way.. it's worked so well.

[Walk away]

182. Yet she was way to the left of Sanders on Guns, women's health,...

immigration and many other progressive issues. That's why Bernie is losing so badly, Those of us who care about these things can clearly see that Bernie hasn't got a clue.

[k8conant]

186. She reigns in corporate profits

but whether she'd really rein in corporate profits I don't know.

[LanternWaste]

153. And according to math...

And according to math... but math has a well-known bias against irrational statements, so I get it little fella. I get it.

[gcomeau]

51. She was being by 150 IN JUNE and still insisting...

...she was in it when making that up with the tiny handful of states remaining required far higher winning percentages than Sanders needs. So spare us.

She didn't concede until Obama hit the delegate threshold and not a second before.

[Gwhittey]

109. That not true

Even then she was taking it into convention unless Obama offered her a Cabinet seat.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

111. Hillary set the standard... keep goin Berrrnnniiiieeeee!!!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!

[democrattotheend]

151. I thought she was behind by over 200 at one point?

[k8conant]

187. Down by about 225 on 4 March 2008

and never ahead after 5 February 2008

[k8conant]

193. She was behind by 225 on 4 March 2008

and behind from 5 February 2008 through the end.

She didn't drop out.

Also, the whole schedule of primaries was different.

[Walk away]

64. I say "go for it!"

it's your $$$

[Jefferson23]

175. That's what he's doing, thanks for your concern. n/t

[The Second Stone]

171. But I thought he was not just another lying politico

but a breath of honesty, truth and fresh air.

He is not going to win the nomination in 2016. He will continue to trail in most states, and maybe win a few big ones. He doesn't have a good grip on political reality if he actually thinks he is going to win the nomination, and he generally seems not to be demented. He's telling this lie, and it is a lie, so he can keep getting his message out. It's a lie I can forgive.

[Jefferson23]

173. He's not a liar, and you have no idea what will happen next. If he loses he loses.

What do you care?

[The Second Stone]

179. What do I care? I want him to lose like the losing liar he is

He lies about guns, he lies about his party loyalty, he lies about his goals, he lies about his supporters. He's just a lying liar, just like the rest. He lies about his chances to win the nomination (it is currently at zero), he lies about his supporters being involved in violence at Trump rallies, he lies about the importance of his role in the civil rights movement, he lies about guns, about Sandy Hook responsibility, gun maker responsibility for child massacres. He's nothing but a doddering old liar.

His biggest lie is about his party affiliation. He is an American involved in politics his whole long life, and only registers as a Democrat last year for the first time. Dude is a socialist. Lifelong member of various socialist parties. Now, he pretends he is a Democrat? Nope, narcissistic socialist who was always too good to help the local Democratic party.

[Jefferson23]

180. lol

bye bye

[Happenstance24]

5. Sure is. What I want to know is...

when MSM talky heads are gonna start calling him a liar and accuse him of conning his voters like they did Hillary in 08. I won't hold my breathe until that happens though. It's perfectly fine to accuse her of everything but if Bernie isn't handled with kiddie gloves it is the end of the world.

[Armstead]

6. The bullshit quotent here was slightly lower for a little while

Every goddamn politician in a campaign makes rosy predictions, and says they have a chance to win -- until they decide they don't.

[DanTex]

7. I noticed that. Now that Bernie is toast, his angry supporters are really flinging it.

[aikoaiko]

18. And WaPo reporters are flinging it, too.

[Armstead]

21. Not quite what I was referring to

[mariawr]

63. Hillary's poo flingers are out in force...Hillary's "BernieBros" brigade. We see you nt

[riversedge]

82. +1

[Marr]

99. Really? To me it seems more like some Hillary supporters are working themselves up

into a frenzy now that they think their candidate has won, and Sanders supporters should be unusually vulnerable to good kicking. It isn't pretty.

[treestar]

59. Bernie has been presented as totally honest however. Nt

[casperthegm]

11. Give me a break

Supporters of Bernie aren't stupid. We know the math and we see that there is a way forward, with the vast majority of the states coming up favoring him. Will it be enough? Who knows? But to call this out as some kind of egregious lie is ridiculous.

If you want pathetic lies, let me throw a couple your way; claiming a candidate is a one issue candidate, telling people that your opponent opposed the auto bailout, or trying to connect your opponent, who has a much better environmental record than you, to the Koch brothers.

[R B Garr]

12. His ego is addicted to the applause. That's all this is about now.

It's really disgusting. This just goes to show how empty all his rhetoric has really been. He just throws out some lines and waits for the clapping. It gotten to the point that during the debates and townhalls, you can see him pausing and waiting just for the clapping response. Now this is proof that it's all about ego. He cannot let go of the limelight. What's sad is that he manipulated people into thinking he really cared about them when it's all about himself.

[merrily]

33. If Hillary got applause, she might well be addicted.

[lunamagica]

129. Oh, right, Hillary never gets applause. Post like this just highlight how

disingenuous Sanders supporters can be

[merrily]

130. Get a sense of humor.

And a dictionary.

[Tarheel_Dem]

181. ^^^ THIS ^^^

[virtualobserver]

22. Let me educate you DanTex....a lie is when you say you experienced sniper fire.....

and video proves that you didn't , not when you are expressing optimism about winning an election.

[DanTex]

24. The opposite. When you make a mistake in recollection, it's not a lie.

A lie is saying something false on purpose. For example, "we are on track for the nomination". Obviously false, and Bernie obviously knows it's false.

Mistaking the exact circumstances of some decades-old event is not "lying".

[eShirl]

34. What is it called when you continuously make mistakes in recollection?

[DanTex]

36. When you live decades of your life in front of a camera, every little mistake you make is recorded.

Fortunately, most people understand that.

[angrychair]

87. So mistake or lie

When one of her 2008 campaign surrogates called Obama a "drug dealer"?

When her 2008 campaign shopped around a photo of Obama in Somali traditional grab, in a "not like us" meme?

When, as SoS, she continued to seek advise from Sidney Blumenthal, despite a directive from her president to not deal with him or talk to him or allow him anywhere near the executive branch and kept it secret from her president? (See released emails)

When she stated she didn't know where Sanders was when she was fighting for healthcare in 93-94 despite there being hours of video and documentation showing he was right there, working with her from the beginning.

When she talked about Nancy Rayguns fighting AIDS, not only when they did nothing of the sort but let there own friend die without trying to help.

Those are all very true and easily googled. Mistake or lie??

[DanTex]

88. LOL. So now you're digging up stuff that someone other than Hillary said 8 years ago.

Meanwhile, Bernie lied just today in order to get people to give him more money.

No wonder she beat him by so much.

[angrychair]

90. Her campaign staff

She said it. The minor things you can let slide, campaign literature errors or oversights or missteps but that was neither of those things. Is this a "everyone's fault but mine" excuse?

Also very telling that you decided to ignore the Sidney Blumenthal issue. Talk about convenient.

[DanTex]

91. You're nitpicking about the distant past, while right now Bernie is lying in order to get people

to give him cash. Fascinating.

[angrychair]

93. Again, ignoring Sidney Blumenthal issue

That was when she was SoS and she was going against a direct order from her president and keeping it secret.

Plus, not sure where your ethical center is but racist memes to gain political advantage is not "nitpicking"

[DanTex]

94. I could not care less about Blumenthal. This is what Hillary-haters never understood.

Outside of your little circle, nobody cares about these silly little non-issues. People care about the future of the country, not the email server, or whether Hillary got advice from Blumenthal, or whatever.

And while y'all were off harping on nonsense like that, Hillary and her supporters were winning the primary by talking about things that actually matter.

It's just too bad that Bernie now has resorted to lying to his supporters in order to get money from them.

[angrychair]

100. Talk about cognitive dissonance

We are talking about principles, integrity and loyalty. Those things matter.

The fact that you (and many other HRC supporters but not all) think the email server and Blumenthal "don't matter" is unsettling. That the bar has been set so low is a very unsettling portent of politics to come in the future.

The simple fact is both the leading (in delegates count) republican and Democratic candidate for president are under criminal investigation and yet they are leading in their respective delegate counts and either people don't know or don't care, in either case, that is sad.

[DanTex]

101. Not dissonance. I care about what matters and not what doesn't matter.

I don't know the details of the Blumenthal thing, and I don't care to. I've seen dozens of Hillary-bashes like it this season, and not one of them boiled down to anything remotely significant. Some people just hate her, that's the way it is. And the fact that she's standing between a man they adore and the nomination accentuates that hatred.

What I care about is whether we get things like an increased minimum wage, more infrastructure spending, protecting and extending Obamacare, liberals on the Supreme Court, etc. You know, stuff that affects peoples lives.

The emails are completely irrelevant to all that. It has nothing to do with principles, or integrity, or loyalty, or anything of the sort. So she used a private email server. Who. Cares.

[angrychair]

116. I told you why Blumenthal matters

She interacted with someone the POTUS expressly forbidden her to interact with and lied to the POTUS and kept it secret that she was doing it. Her and Blumenthal's emails confirm that. It's not a made-up hit piece.
A hacker from India, now in FBI custody, hacked Blumenthal 's emails and released it on the web.
These are not bullshit teapublican hit pieces, the FBI, DOJ and SoS IG do not get involved in teapublican witch hunts.
Most importantly, as a person that worked in that line of work and I've seen people lose their jobs and arrested for less, the email server issues matter due to classified materials. She is not above the law and making a mistake doesn't matter. Why should a low-level State or DOD employee get fired or arrested, for less I might add, and she get off because of who she is?

[DanTex]

120. You did, and I disagree with you.

First of all, I have zero belief that you are presenting a fair account of the events. But regardless, I do not care *at all* about some minor squabble between Obama and Hillary about Blumenthal. Obama has made it very clear that he believes that Hillary was an excellent SoS, so obviously he doesn't think it's a big deal. The only people who do are Hillary haters.

I also do not care, at all, about her use of a private email server. As has been thoroughly documented, other SoSes used private emails , and her emails were not classified at the time of sending (Colin Powell also had retroactively classified material on private email). What's more, where the email server is hosted is irrelevant to the question of classified materials, because you're also not allowed to use .gov emails for that, there's a whole separate system.

But, further, even if not for all those facts, I still wouldn't care. Why? Because it affects nothing. Nobody seriously thinks she was intentionally trying to damage US security. She's not very tech savvy and she used her own email out of convenience. If you're really really worried about that, you can rest assured, she won't be doing it again as president.

What I care about is the future of the country. Healthcare. Tax rates. Abortion rights. That sort of thing. The emails are purely political theater. The only relevant info to come out of the email nonsense is that the system of document classification is a byzantine mess.

[angrychair]

164. Sorry, your details are vague

And inaccurate. The fact that some were retroactively classified doesn't matter, once classified, they are considered classified since "birth" and the sender is still responsible for them.
That aside, there were over a thousand emails that were resent by her that were classified at the time she sent them.
When it comes to classified material, your "intentions" or how "tech savvy" you are is irrelevant. You break the "rules" you get fired, if lucky, go to jail if not.

[DanTex]

167. OK, well at least you're off the Blumenthal nonsense.

But you're totally wrong about how classification works. If I handle a doc that is not considered classified at the time, I have no obligation to use secure communications. If someone later decides to classify it, I (obviously) can't be held accountable because I (obviously) could not possibly be expected to know what would happen afterwards. And, no, there weren't emails that were classified at the time she sent them.

Again, as I've pointed out, none of this nonsense has the slightest relevance about how Hillary would perform as president. Zero. It's 100% witch hunt. Her political enemies on the left and on the right are hoping that they can use this to take her down because they don't think they can beat her in an election. For all the noise that Hillary-haters have made, not even one person has attempted to make a case that this actually affects how she would govern.

[marew]

117. What is truly fascinating-

is Hillary's BFF Wasserman Schultz's vociferous fight against against reigning in payday lenders. She is very clearly adopting the GOP position on this and getting a lot of flack from Democrats on this. Hillary has said nothing about this since her BFF adopted the GOP corporate position!

Strangely I have not seen a single post by any Clinton supporter rejecting Wasserman Schultz very overtly and openly siding with the GOP on this! This story broke March 1.

Why? Because you believe taking advantage of the poor is a good thing perhaps? Or are Clinton supporters so tone deaf they are not paying attention to what is really going on in Hillary's "Democratic Party"? Can you not acknowledge the corruption that has been perpetrated by Party elites?

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/banking-financial-institutions/271302-dnc-chief-backs-bill-to-hamper-payday-loan
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2016/03/01/3755213/wasserman-schultz-payday-loans/
http://www.salon.com/2016/03/01/dnc_chair_debbie_wasserman_schultz_joins_hands_with_gop_in_assault_on_elizabeth_warrens_consumer_protection_agency/
http://www.wsj.com/articles/rep-debbie-wasserman-schultzs-payday-loan-stand-targeted-in-ad-campaign-1457641359
http://theslot.jezebel.com/why-is-dnc-chair-debbie-wasserman-schultz-co-sponsoring-1762193449
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/03/dnc-chair-lends-a-hand-to-payday-lenders.html

[DanTex]

122. Wow, already a false statement in your first sentence. DWS is not Hillary's "BFF".

You should probably correct that.

I don't know much about the payday loans thing -- I'm more concerned about defeating the GOP, because if that doesn't happen, the payday loans will be the very least of our problems. But from the sounds of it, I disagree with DWS on this. Not sure what it has to do with Hillary.

[marew]

149. Oh come on!

It is well know DWS attempted to tilt the race in favor of Hillary. Independent sources have confirmed this! Reality check.

The payday loan debacle, Hillary's BFF (of course theyre BFFs- why else would DWS decorate DNC offices with Hillary posters, why is Hillary allowed to share DNC offices) DWS's betrayal of the Democratic Party and her alliance with the GOP has EVERYTHING to do with Hillary! This situation has been around for weeks now and Hillary remains strangely silent.

“Silence becomes cowardice when occasion demands speaking out the whole truth and acting accordingly.”
― Mahatma Gandhi

See ya!

[DanTex]

157. Hillary and DWS are friends, but not BFFs by any means. I would be surprised if they

even talked very often, and I'd be very surprised if Hillary had her number in her favorites list. If you want to talk about Hillary's BFF, at least pick someone like Huma Abedin.

They are friends, colleagues, and political allies, but like I said, Hillary isn't responsible for what DWS does.

[marew]

165. Get real!

"Hillary isn't responsible for what DWS does."

Silence = complicity!

Huma Abedin, I am sure they are close. Look who else Huma is involved with! She is married to Anthony Weiner, a disgraced former U.S. Representative from New York.

Perhaps Huma should chose the people she associates with more wisely.
Weiner, Hillary, not the best choices maybe?

[marew]

113. Talk about lies!

We are seeing a consistent pattern of lies by Hillary yet you claim digging up stuff is wrong! Hillary's history speaks volumes! Core character does not change! Reality check!

Remember Hillary's gratuitous self-pitying comment about being 'dead broke"! Turns out in 1999, they bought a five-bedroom home in Chappaqua, N.Y., for $1.7 million. In December 2000, just as they were leaving the White House, they bought a seven-bedroom house near Embassy Row in Washington, D.C. The price was $2.85 million. It was, is, and always will be about her. She knew very well of the millions and millions she and Bill could and did make in speeches and numerous other activities. The "dead broke" comment, unbeknownst to her, gave us a look into her true character. She had no concept, no depth, of what that comment in just a few words revealed to us all about her and her core values. As a retired, graduate level social worker, I have walked the poorest, most destitute neighborhoods in my county. I have seen "dead broke"over and over and Hillary "ain't" it. I have had homeless people confide in me where the safest place to sleep is, had people tell me they will walk me back to my car because their neighborhoods are dangerous.

Then there's her BFF Wasserman Schultz's vociferous fight against against reigning in payday lenders. She is very clearly adopting the GOP position on this and getting a lot of flack from Democrats on this. Hillary has said nothing about this since her BFF adopted the GOP corporate position!

Yet you come down on Bernie for being positive!

Which is more important? Wasserman Schultz abject absolute unwavering abandonment of the Democratic position on payday loans or what Bernie said?

This is exactly why Democrats and Independents are leaving Hillary by the tens of thousands. Hillary once said she had a lot of work to do with Independents but she had no idea how many Democrats she has pushed away.

[DanTex]

115. Consistent pattern? What a joke.

You're cherry-picking a few statements, some of them honest mistakes, some of them the out of context, over the course of two decades plus of public life.

For example, the "dead broke" comment actually appears to be correct -- they had a negative net worth at the time due to legal bills they owed. But that's not even the point. The point is that the hatred you feel towards her is so strong that you pick some basically benign comment from 15 years ago and insist that is her "true character." And even if her net worth was actually positive, who cares? Maybe she should have said "we had a lot of debt" instead, but I truly can't imagine why, with all the problems we have in this country, so many Hillary-haters obsess over the most irrelevant things.

[marew]

131. Oh please!

So past behavior is not relevant to future behavior? I could write volumes of what has happened over years and years as anyone could who has followed Hillary! Cherry picking is not necessary here- there is plenty of "there" there! In fact I supported her for years, many many years, but she has increasingly joined the corporate elite- just like her BFF Wasserman Schultz who has entrenched herself with the GOP position in their payday loan betrayal of the poor. So I can assume you support Hillary's BFF Wasserman Schultz also! Birds of a feather!

I am hardly a Hillary hater yet if anyone points out anything negative or inconsistent about Hillary we are haters! Giving us that label makes it very easy for people like you who blindly worship at her shrine to dismiss anything and everything we say without looking at those pesky little things called facts!

So you actually buy into the "dead broke" idea. She knew they would make millions! If her finances were in such a bad horrendous horrible way, why did they buy multiple houses worth multiple millions of dollars? You are so naive! Even Chelsea got paid $600,000 a year for her very first job out of school! She had such difficult, complex assignments like going to Africa to observe elephants. She even interviewed the Geico gecko! Wow! That must have been challenging!

None are so blind as those who will not see!

[DanTex]

135. Past behavior is relevant, but the fact that she said "dead broke" rather than "in a lot of debt" to

describe her financial condition in 2000 is totally and completely irrelevant. I honestly can't believe you're still pushing this. Who. Cares. The fact that you're clinging to this one thing so strongly is further evidence that you've really got nothing substantive. Like I said, it appears she had a negative net worth at the time, which is the definition of "broke." Of course she was going to make a lot of money, but at the time she had zero. And, yeah, Chelsea's a celebrity, and celebrities can get paid a lot for doing nothing.

So what? Chelsea got a sweet cushy job, so we should let Trump ruin the country? Is that the logic here? Just to punish Hillary and the Clintons for being financially successful and saying "dead broke" instead of "in a lot of debt" 15 years ago? It's getting beyond silly.

I've seen the "volumes" of junk that Hillary-bashers write, and it's all irrelevant nonsense like that. The fact is, she's been in the public eye for decades, and so there are plenty of quotes and misquotes that can be taken out of context by people who hate her and want to portray her in a bad light.

[marew]

140. Of course Hillary's behavior and words over so many years mean nothing-

And do not in any reveal her true character! Right! At least in your world! Mental health professionals would not agree with you! Everyone who calls her to task or questions anything she has ever done is a malicious horrible monster hater just picking on this poor sad little deprived waif!

Defining her critics as such excuses you from researching the truth!

LOL!

The worst delusion is self-delusion!

See ya!

[DanTex]

142. The thing is, there's nothing there. She said "dead broke" instead of "in a lot of debt".

She misremembered landing in Bosnia a decade earlier. Who cares? People make mistakes. Picking a couple statements you don't like out of decades of public service, shining the worst light possible on them, and claiming it reveals her "true character" is absurd.

None of this stuff makes the slightest bit of difference to the future of the country or the kind of president she'd be. It's totally irrelevant. Hillary-haters don't care about policy or about the future of the nation. They hate Hillary, and want to see her personally suffer, even if that means the country goes down the tubes with President Trump.

[frylock]

119. Eight whole years! That was like a lifetime ago. Ancient history.

That's what all the wingers used to say when one would bring up Bush's record.

[DanTex]

124. If the best you have is a few misstatements from 8 years ago, its no wonder that your candidate

is losing so badly. People care about the future of the country, not irrelevant things that Hillary mis-remembered in 2008.

[frylock]

125. A few misstatements from 8 years ago is just a small part of a long list of complete fuck-ups.

[DanTex]

127. No, actually it's not. She's been in the public eye for decades, the number of

misstatements she's made is, if anything, lower than you'd expect from any human being who has been on camera for that long.

This is why the haters keep having to dig back years and years into the past.

[frylock]

144. Like the wingers say, ancient history.

She's the most vetted candidate in ever, as far as she knows.

[progressoid]

150. Didn't Brian Williams lose his job because of such a little mistake in memory?

That seems like being shot at is something one would remember.

[DanTex]

158. IIRC Williams's incident was different, he had been telling the story

over and over many times. And, again, I don't care. She doesn't work for NBC, she's running for president. The fact that 8 years ago she misremembered a 10-year old event makes no difference to me. At all.

[progressoid]

162. That's an interesting standard.

So if she were working for NBC, she should get fired for lying. But as a presidential candidate, its OK.



Of course the irony is that it seems Williams' helicopter did actually receive sniper fire. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Williams#Iraq_War_helicopter_incident

[DanTex]

163. I didn't say she should get fired for lying if she worked for NBC.

You said that, not me. I said I don't know enough about the similarities to tell, but I also don't care, because it's not up to NBC to decide. She's running for president, and misremembering a decades-old landing has zero to do with what she would or would not do for the country.

It's funny, with all the bashing, nobody has yet explained to be why any of the nonsense hurled at Hillary makes any substantive difference whatsoever. So she said she was "dead broke" when it was probably more accurate to say "in a lot of debt". She didn't remember some event from the distant past correctly. Who cares about any of this? I care about issues, and I care about beating the GOP.

[progressoid]

168. nobody has yet explained why any of the nonsense hurled at Hillary makes any difference?

It goes to the issue of trustworthiness and honesty. And it HAS been explained over and over.

It is the same issue DUers had 8 years ago.

[DanTex]

170. In terms of electability, sure, all the right-wing smears take a toll.

Which is all the more reason that so-called "progressives" repeating them are doing nothing but helping to elect president Trump.

But in terms of actual governance, who cares where her email was hosted? It's totally irrelevant.

[virtualobserver]

35. when you make mistakes in "recollection" that severe, you should be hospitalized.....

you know, like when your memory of the Reagans is that they were AIDS activists.

Trump would go to town on this shit.....any Republican would.....Hillary's free pass on these embarrassing "recollections" goes away if she wins the nomination.

Bernie believes that he can win.....and the future has not yet been written. Hillary, on the other hand, thinks that the past can be RE-written.....and tries to do so on almost a daily basis.

[DanTex]

38. Meh, people make mistakes all the time. She's lived decades of her life on camera.

OTOH, what Bernie wrote wasn't a mistake. He's trying to get people to give him money under false pretenses.

[virtualobserver]

41. They were not mistakes....they were invented in order to woo voters

Brian Williams was fired from his job as NBC news anchor for an invention that was far less absurd.

[DanTex]

43. Of course they weren't invented. They were mistakes.

[virtualobserver]

48. why do you even bother to push this nonsense? Republicans would rip her to shreds with this.

[DanTex]

53. Because I'm right. Sure, the GOP will try to rip her to shreds. They've tried that for decades.

The last episode was the Benghazi hearings, and she wiped the floor with them.

[virtualobserver]

58. This isn't Benghazi......and Trump isn't Trey Gowdy

also, thanks for motivating me to donate another $100 to Bernie. You are one heck of a fundraiser for him as you illustrate why Hillary is such a poor candidate.

[DanTex]

61. Trump will be vicious, no doubt about it. Good Hillary won the primary, because Bernie would have

withered under his constant attacks.

[virtualobserver]

69. Bernie will decimate Trump....he doesn't give Trump the free pass that he gives Hillary.

What did you think of Hillary's newest gaffe ( “We’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business”) and her letter of apology to Joe Manchin?

Was that not classic Hillary?

[fleur-de-lisa]

83. Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

On Thu Mar 17, 2016, 09:19 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

when you make mistakes in "recollection" that severe, you should be hospitalized.....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1513353

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

"when you make mistakes in "recollection" that severe, you should be hospitalized."

Absolutely beyond the pale. This kind of bashing of any of our candidates has to stop. This is not productive and it does not help elect Democrats to office.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Mar 17, 2016, 09:27 AM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Trump will bring this up IF Hillary gets the nomination. Get used to it. She will need to answer for it. Still waiting for her to look into the transcripts!
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Agreed - let's tone it down and make DU suck a little less.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Good grief. The OP called Bernie a liar and yet you alert on this post? What hypocrisy! Leave it.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I see this as no worse than the title of the OP that it is in.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The Hillary attackers are pathetic. But at least this is being done in the appropriate forum. I feel sorry for them so I am not going to vote to hide every time they lash out. They are frustrated and upset. I can respect that until the nominee is declared once and for all.

[virtualobserver]

89. It is considered bashing to accurately describe Hillary's list of tall tales

you don't really need to say anything else.

[Human101948]

37. Love the Hillary apologists...

She was using that sniper lie to bolster her cred as a "veteran" of war. Just as she used the IWR to bolster her Commander in Chief cred.



http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/mar/25/hillary-clinton/video-shows-tarmac-welcome-no-snipers/

[DanTex]

39. It's a simple and inconsequential mistake. All people make them.

The fact that Hillary-haters are obsessed with a misstatement she made 8 years ago regarding an event that took place 20 years ago is telling.

[Human101948]

49. No, it is a reasonable response to your attack on Bernie...

Can we reference a more recent "misstatement?"

Mrs. Reagan started a national conversation on AIDS?

Are you fucking kidding me?

[DanTex]

56. Yes, that was another misstatement. Like any self-respecting Hillary-basher,

you have memorized every single mistaken statement she's made over the last 25 years.

[Jim Lane]

73. Here's another example of a lie for you.

What Hillary Clinton actually said:

This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements....

What Hillary Clinton later said she said:

I did say, when I was secretary of state, three years ago, that I hoped it would be the gold standard.

Was that just a "mistake in recollection"? If so, it was a doozy, given how many times she'd said similar things.

A few more links if you want to read more about "Bernie Clinton" and her newfound retroactive opposition to TPP:
* "What Hillary Clinton really said about TPP and the 'gold standard'"
* "PolitiFact: Clinton hoped TransPacific Partnership would be gold standard"
* "Why Clinton’s flip-flop on trade is so unbelievable"
* "45 times Secretary Clinton pushed the trade bill she now opposes"

Oh, and congratulations on your early return from your latest timeout. I see you're getting right into the spirit of Skinner's amnesty.

[DanTex]

75. Wrong again. The first statement was made while TPP was under negotiation, and the

second was made after the final draft. Unless you think she can see into the future, obviously you understand that she wasn't referring to the same document.

[Marr]

102. I honestly hope you're being well paid for this.

The thought of someone so shamelessly promoting a 1%er like Hillary Clinton for minimum wage just makes me sad.

[DanTex]

104. LOL. Accusing me of being a paid troll. All Bernie fans know how to do is smear people.

It's remarkable how frequent this is: a Bernie fan totally ignores the substance of a discussion and goes purely ad hominem.

Fortunately, all that smearing didn't work. Bernie's done, and all the insults in the world aren't going to change that.

[Marr]

105. Literally the only things I've seen you post are smears and insults.

And you climb up onto a cross the instant someone gives you the same.

C'mon-- this is ridiculous.

[DanTex]

107. Hmm, let's see. Here's the post you responded to by accusing me of being a paid troll...

Wrong again. The first statement was made while TPP was under negotiation, and the

second was made after the final draft. Unless you think she can see into the future, obviously you understand that she wasn't referring to the same document.

No smears, no insults. Just facts. The poster I was responding was apparently not aware that Hillary's earlier statements were made while TPP was under negotiation, and did not refer to the final draft.

You could have chosen to respond with substance, but instead you engaged in a personal attack. Which, as I've said, is extremely common in the Bernie camp, and also somewhat understandable because the facts are rarely on their side.

[Marr]

110. Oh, c'mon-- let's not play stupid.

Anyone can look up and see that this is *your* thread, DanTex. The topic is 'Bernie tells the biggest lie of the campaign'. What you cited there is just a (sadly weak) excuse for one of the untrue statements Hillary has made that was offered in rebuttal.

If that's really the best you can offer, then let's just stop here.

[DanTex]

112. The only one playing stupid is you.

You accused me of being a paid troll, and that was the first personal attack in this exchange. Like I said, I get it a lot from Bernie fans -- they can't argue the substance so they attack the person making the argument.

Bernie obviously did lie when he said he is on track for the nomination, because he obviously is nowhere close to on track, and he knows that.

Conversely, Hillary being in favor of TPP while under negotiation and then against the final draft is not even close to a "lie". It's like if I'm baking a cake, and I taste the batter, and I say "this is gonna be a great cake", and then I leave it in the oven too long and it comes out a brick, and than I say "this cake is junk." It's pretty simple, and this is why instead of arguing the point you decided to attack me personally.

[Marr]

114. You have a nice day, DanTex. /nt

[Jim Lane]

138. Now you add TWO errors

First, the assertion that her flip-flop on TPP was based on changes in the document is rather blatantly pretextual. She made her tepid statement of opposition to it before she'd even seen the final version, nor has she ever explained what was supposedly different between the draft she addressed in Adelaide and the final version.

Second, you're defending a statement she didn't make. She didn't say, "I said TPP set the gold standard but unfortunately that bungler Obama handled the negotiations badly and several (unspecified) provisions were changed for the worse, so it no longer is the gold standard." Instead, she just flat-out "misrecollected" her earlier statements. Compare the excerpted quotations in my post, helpfully repeated here:

What Hillary Clinton actually said:

This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements....

What Hillary Clinton later said she said:

I did say, when I was secretary of state, three years ago, that I hoped it would be the gold standard.

The issue here is not your assertion that she had good reason (besides Sanders's poll numbers) for changing her mind, based on unspecified changes in the text. The issue here is that she denied having changed her mind, by rewriting her past comment.

[DanTex]

141. I'm right. And it's not even complicated.

While TPP was under negotiation, she was optimistic about it. When the final version came out, she was disappointed, and couldn't support it. This is like if I bake a cake, and taste the batter, and say "it's gonna be a great cake", and then later it sits in the oven too long and I say "this cake is no good." I wasn't lying, it's just that as the process of baking went along, what looked to be a good cake turned out to be not so good after all. It's staggering that people don't understand this. Have you never worked on any kind of project that looked good at one point but then turned out poorly?

As far as nitpicking her word choice, it's plainly obvious that when you're talking about a deal that's still under negotiation, you can't possibly know the exact end result, so you're talking about what you expect that the end result will be. If I'm baking a cake, and I say "this is a good cake" before the cake is done, it's obvious that what I mean is that I think that the future cake that this becomes will be good. If it turns out badly, and then I explain that, well, I hoped it would be good, but it didn't live up to that, it's ludicrous to accuse me of "lying."

The amount of parsing and reparsing that Hillary-haters go through is just silly.

[Jim Lane]

143. It's easier to deride "Hillary-haters" than to answer substance, isn't it?

First, on the point of rewriting history, Clinton made many, many statements in support of the TPP in which she didn't qualify her support at all. It may have been "obvious" to you that she didn't really know what she was talking about, but her cheerleading wasn't accompanied by any acknowledgment of that point. Her less-than-unconditional support was something she added in only retroactively, when it was to her political advantage to do so.

Second, on the substance, you continue to propagate the myth that she changed her mind because the final version of this "cake" didn't turn out as well as she'd hoped. You completely ignore the two points I made on that score: that she flip-flopped before seeing the final version, and that she's never explained what was supposedly different about the final version as compared with the version she so enthusiastically and repeatedly promoted. I'm very interested in the TPP, and I'd be grateful if you'd provide me with a link to where she specifically discusses what good provisions were worsened or deleted, or what bad provisions were added, comparing the version she praised with the final version.

[DanTex]

146. I did both. The substance is easily on my side here.

I don't know how you could possibly think I was avoiding substance if you actually read my last post. Sure, maybe you disagree with my conclusion, but I most definitely tackled the substance of the matter.

And the substance is: there's no rewriting of history, there's just an unbaked cake that looked promising but turned out not so great. Yes, while the cake was baking, she made many many statements of support. She obviously really thought it was going to turn out well. But (also obviously), the cake wasn't done so those statements were about here hopes and expectations about the future cake that would come out of the oven, because there was no actual cake at the time, all there was was some batter.

One point you made: that she "flip-flopped" before she saw the final version. I'm not sure how much of the final version she either saw or was briefed on, but obviously she had learned enough about it, and what she learned was short of her expectations by enough for her to take a position. I guess if you're an experienced enough baker, you can tell if a cake has gone bad before it's totally out of the oven. By the way, a lot of economists, pundits, and politicians also took positions on TPP about the same time she did, and many even before that (including Bernie), so evidently there was enough info about it for many knowledgeable people to form an opinion. I guess you could argue she should have waited longer, but in that case Bernie looks even worse for coming out against it even earlier.

If you're interested in specifically what provisions she didn't like, hit google. For example, here she mentions currency manipulations and big pharma:

“I have said from the very beginning that we had to have a trade agreement that would create good American jobs, raise wages and advance our national security. And I still believe that’s the high bar we have to meet,” she said. “I have been trying to learn as much as I can about the agreement. But I’m worried. I’m worried about currency manipulation not being part of the agreement. We’ve lost American jobs to the manipulations that countries, particularly in Asia, have engaged in. I’m worried the pharmaceutical companies may have gotten more benefits — and patients and consumers fewer. I think there are still a lot of unanswered questions.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-tpp_us_56157832e4b0fad1591a9289

[Jim Lane]

172. I wondered if you'd trot out the old "currency manipulation" canard

You are of course correct that the final TPP had nothing in it about currency manipulation. Your implication that Clinton was praising an earlier draft that did include it, however, is totally false. Nor can you credibly claim that her gushing and repeated praise was "obviously" conditioned on the inclusion of a currency manipulation provision. The facts are that currency manipulation was never in the TPP, that the other countries adamantly opposed including it, and that the United States therefore didn't even try to include it. Here's Treasury Secretary Jack Lew explaining the administration's position, in a letter urging Congress not to insist on currency manipulation as part of the fast-track (TPA) legislation:

At the same time, there are currency proposals that we believe would be harmful to TPA, our workers, and our economy. For example, enacting a TPA currency discipline that requires an enforceable negotiating objective would likely derail our efforts to complete the TPP and cause us to lose ground on holding countries accountable on currency. We are also concerned about the consequences of an enforceable currency provision in a trade agreement since it could actually hurt the United States. An enforceable currency provision in our trade agreements could give our trading partners the power to challenge legitimate U.S. monetary policies needed to ensure strong employment and a healthy robust economy, an outcome we would find unacceptable.

Our trading partners have made it clear that they will not join a trade agreement that includes enforceable currency provisions. They fear an approach that could ultimately block their central banks from applying appropriate monetary tools to maintain economic stability, and to respond when they, like our Federal Reserve Board, need to address macroeconomic challenges that threaten their domestic, and sometimes the global, economy.

For these reasons the Obama Administration cannot support the inclusion of amendment 1299 on TPA.

(from "Treasury Secretary Jacob J. Lew Sends Letter to Senate Finance Leadership", emphasis added)

So, according to you, when she said, "This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements...." it was "obvious" what she really meant: "If we change our position and decide to push for currency manipulation provisions, and if the other countries that adamantly oppose that plan magically change their positions, so that the current draft undergoes a major change in that respect, then TPP will set the gold standard." Maybe that was obvious to a person of your discernment, but I think most people would read "This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements" as meaning that this TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements.

When she repeatedly praised the TPP, what was different about it? We know it wasn't currency manipulation. Was there some change, relevant to big pharma, between the version she praised and the final version? If so, what specifically was that change? Link or slink.

Before the final version was released, many NGOs and trade experts denounced the plan, based on the drafts that had been leaked. These were drafts that reflected several years of negotiation. It was obvious to any sensible person that they would be close to the final, and that only comparatively minor changes would be made in the final few months. Nevertheless, when supporters of Sanders and O'Malley pointed to those candidates' opposition to the TPP, the Hillary-can-do-no-wrong crowd on DU was ready with an answer: Those are just drafts, if they're even drafts at all, because maybe Wikileaks just made stuff up.

So, when the final version was released, all those Clinton supporters presented a barrage of DU posts pointing out the big differences between the drafts and the final version, right? Uh, no. The leaks turned out to be largely accurate.

By the way, if Clinton really had been as tentative about TPP as you and she now want to make her out to have been, she could have shown that by opposing TPA. There were many Democrats in Congress who've endorsed her. She could have urged them to vote against TPA until we could see the final draft of TPP. The TPA vote was comparatively close. Clinton has much more influence with Democrats in Congress than Sanders or O'Malley -- that's one of the key talking points Clintonites use when it suits them -- and if she'd added her weight to that fight, we might have won. But, in typical fashion, she wants it both ways. She should be President because of her foreign policy experience as Secretary of State in the Obama administration, including her TPP advocacy, so she didn't want to help block a key Obama bill in Congress, but she also wants to appeal to the progressives in the Democratic Party, so now she's not satisfied with TPP, but she also doesn't want to say that her prior statements were wrong, so she rewrites them.

More American voters care about her trustworthiness than about the details of trade policy. Clinton could have said, "I was for TPP but the analysis done in the ensuing years has underscored problems that I didn't fully appreciate at the time, so I now think I made a mistake." If she had come right out and said that, it would probably have been better for her politically. By contrast, the insinuation that she's reacting to unspecified changes in the draft just reinforces her biggest weakness.

[DanTex]

178. Yes, that and pharma. I'm sure if you google around you will find more details.

But you don't seem to be interested in that, you just want to score some points against her.

Not being privy to the negotiations, or to Hillary's thoughts during them, I have no idea how Hillary thought the TPP would ultimately turn out. Evidently she did hope that there would be something in there about currencies, or that it would be better on generic drugs, or whatever.

You may right about one thing though: maybe she could have said something different that might have played better politically. And really, that's what all these games about catching Hillary in a "lie" are about: politics. I has nothing to do with policy, with how she would govern, with the future of the country, or anything else. It's about her political opponents trying to find something to pin on her.

[Jim Lane]

185. Stow the condescension. I've done the searches and I've given you links.

If you're asserting that Clinton's change of position is based on differences in the agreement, then it's incumbent on you to support your assertion. At a minimum, you need to identify the supposed changes.

Instead of doing any such work, you simply quoted her campaign statement in which she mentioned two issue areas but in which she said absolutely nothing about what had changed, in either of those areas, from the earlier version. Nevertheless, I undertook the effort to provide some actual facts about one of them (currency manipulation). I showed that it was simply false to imply that there'd been any change on that score.

It's ridiculous for you to brush this off with a snide suggestion that I do a Google search. You're making the assertion and you should back it up.

Nevertheless, just for fun, I did a search. I didn't know how you thought I should frame this search so I just went with a natural-language query: "What specific provisions in the Trans-Pacific Partnership were changed between the draft that Hillary Clinton repeatedly praised and the final agreement?" I got 56,200 results. The top three were all articles I'd already read, so Google's algorithm may push them to the top. The fifth one down was about Republicans' positions so I stopped reading there, leaving the remaining 56,195 for your perusal. Here are the top four:

* "Hillary Clinton flip-flops on Trans-Pacific Partnership"
* "What Hillary Clinton really said about TPP and the 'gold standard'"
* "45 times Secretary Clinton pushed the trade bill she now opposes"
* "Policy fights await release of trade deal"

Unsurprisingly, not a one of those links provides the kind of information that would support your (and her) position.

The first link, from PolitiFact, offers a fair commentary on the situation:

It’s possible the deal looks dramatically different than it did at the early stages of negotiations, when Clinton was at the State Department. The negotiations have been conducted in secret, so it’s hard for us to assess that ourselves.

That illustrates exactly why, if Clinton wants us to believe that changes in the agreement prompted her change in position, it's incumbent upon her to say what the changes were.

The major difference between you and me is that you're prepared to take it on faith: "Evidently she did hope that there would be something in there ...." I'm not. The final proposal has been released so there's no reason she couldn't provide specifics.

Your final point is that this "has nothing to do with policy, with how she would govern...." Ah, but it does. Part of a campaign season is the voters' attempt to predict how each candidate would govern. The most reasonable inferences from the record are:
* Bernie Sanders is opposed to trade agreements, like TPP, that deliver a corporate wish-list at the expense of labor rights, environmental protection, public health, and a host of other concerns. As President, he would not enter into or seek approval of such agreements, and he would try to renegotiate or withdraw from any already in effect.
* Hillary Clinton is broadly supportive of the so-called "free trade" agenda, which encompasses lower tariffs but which goes far beyond that, to give big business extensive rights and powers, including those that allow override of the democratic process. Her current guarded expression of opposition to TPP is a political maneuver that does not predict how she would govern. As President, she would continue to pursue approval of such agreements.

[DanTex]

191. The essential truth here is that her position is consistent, despite all you've said.

If you're asserting that Clinton's change of position is based on differences in the agreement, then it's incumbent on you to support your assertion. At a minimum, you need to identify the supposed changes.

Wrong. If you're going to call her a liar, it's on you to support your assertion. Maybe in Hillary-hater world everything she says is presumed false, but in reality, she gave a totally reasonable and understandable explanation -- TPP didn't turn out as she had hoped -- and if you think that's a lie, you need to prove it.

Thanks for googling. I pretty much agree with those two sentences you quoted. The difference is that I don't share the presumption of lying. When she mentioned currencies and pharma, those are critiques that others have made about TPP, so they are entirely reasonable reasons for her to bring up. And, as I'm sure you know, whether there were specific provisions already written into prior drafts or not proves nothing one way or the other, because even if there were no such provisions, she could very easily have been expecting for such provisions to come into being in the final agreement.

Your final point is that this "has nothing to do with policy, with how she would govern...." Ah, but it does. Part of a campaign season is the voters' attempt to predict how each candidate would govern.

This is a good point. And, no doubt, Sanders would be less likely to sign new trade agreements than Hillary. Hillary's been for some, and against others, while Sanders is pretty much against them all. Since I think that both sides of the free trade debate grossly exaggerate the effects of FTAs, I don't care very much.

But, when it comes to honesty, by far the biggest outright liar in this arena is Bernie, as he went around Ohio and Michigan and blamed the collapse of manufacturing on Hillary and NAFTA. This is ludicrous, of course, since it started way before NAFTA was even under consideration, and I don't for a second believe that Bernie is stupid enough to think that a trade agreement passed in 94 caused the hollowing out of manufacturing that started in the 70s.

But, he wanted to win some votes. And it looks like it worked in Michigan.

[Jim Lane]

222. I did the work and gave you the evidence on currency manipulation

You write that, "even if there were no such {currency manipulation} provisions, she could very easily have been expecting for such provisions to come into being in the final agreement." The facts, as I documented, are that the other countries were adamantly opposed to such provisions, and that the United States wasn't even trying to include them (even aside from the Obama administration's own reservations about the effects of such provisions, as mentioned in Jack Lew's letter).

What is it that Clinton supporters say about Sanders's proposals -- rainbows and unicorns, or some such? You're arguing, in effect, that Clinton "could very easily have been expecting" that a rainbow would appear over a TPP negotiating session, that a unicorn would slide down it and sprinkle fairy dust on the negotiators, and that they would all suddenly start clamoring for regulation of currency manipulation.

That particular point is unusually clear because Senators from both parties were pressuring the administration on currency manipulation, leading to the Lew letter and to similar Congressional testimony by Michael Froman, the USTR. Most aspects of this huge proposal haven't received that much publicity. You're saying that I must support my assertion, which I could do only by pointing to the text of the drafts that were current when Clinton made her pro-TPP statements -- documents that Clinton has had access to but that haven't been publicly released. The drafts that have been released certainly support my position, inasmuch as they are all totally silent on currency manipulation.

I'll also note that Clinton herself has not said that currency manipulation was in the TPP when she endorsed the deal, nor has she said that she at any time expected it to be in, let alone that she had any reasonable basis for such a hope. In particular, she hasn't said that the U.S. negotiators were even seeking to include it.

So, no, I'm not assuming that she's lying. I'm taking such facts as I know (including, where relevant, her silence) and drawing the most plausible inferences.

Your mode of reasoning is different. You start with the assumption that Hillary Clinton can do no wrong. It's on that basis that you can say, "Evidently she did hope that there would be something in there about currencies,...." even though, as you admit, you have no idea what was going on in the negotiations. You're just reasoning backward from the conclusion you want to reach, and filling in whatever factual assumptions are necessary.

And her statement in the debate was NOT an accurate report of what she had said in Adelaide. Maybe one of those sniper bullets grazed her head and impaired her memory.

Inasmuch as facts make no impression on you, I'm done with this exchange. You may now have the last word. I suggest you use it to reiterate your zealous advocacy for Clinton, and add a few nasty words to Bernie on the side.

[FlatBaroque]

25. Maybe he knows when She will finally be indicted.

[Trust Buster]

31. A shameful post. Why don't you self delete.

[R B Garr]

32. Maybe Bernie will be indicted first. The FEC is all over his fraudulent campaign

contributions, which are obviously just as phony as all the online polls he claims he won. The FEC is investigating his "contributors".

[Alfresco]

44. Yep, today is the deadline for one inquiry. Link

http://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/988/201602110300034988/201602110300034988.pdf

http://www.thepeoplesview.net/main/2016/3/14/bernie-sanders-potentially-illegal-campaign-contributions

[Human101948]

45. Yes, you're right ...Hillary's contributors are easier to keep track of...

But the F.E.C.’s review suggests that the sheer volume of small
contributions Mr. Sanders is receiving — more than 3 million of them so far,
according to his campaign — may be straining his campaign’s ability to keep
track of which donors are which. Most of the contributions cited by the
commission were given by donors with relatively unusual names, whose small
checks are generally easier to tally.
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/02/12/f-e-c-tells-sanders-campaign-that-some-donors-may-have-given-too-much/

Hillary's top donors

Emily's List $939,881 $930,961 $8,920
Citigroup Inc $883,547 $875,547 $8,000
DLA Piper $847,930 $820,930 $27,000
Goldman Sachs $821,031 $811,031 $10,000
JPMorgan Chase & Co $771,111 $768,111 $3,000
Morgan Stanley $754,538 $749,538 $5,000
University of California $608,858 $608,858 $0
Time Warner $591,524 $566,524 $25,000
Skadden, Arps et al $522,688 $518,188 $4,500
Corning Inc $492,750 $474,750 $18,000
Kirkland & Ellis $443,420 $426,420 $17,000
Paul, Weiss et al $427,062 $427,062 $0
Greenberg Traurig LLP $411,640 $403,540 $8,100
Sullivan & Cromwell $396,625 $396,625 $0
Akin, Gump et al $393,531 $390,031 $3,500
National Amusements Inc $366,640 $363,640 $3,000
21st Century Fox $363,899 $363,899 $0
Lehman Brothers $362,853 $359,853 $3,000
Ernst & Young $360,127 $340,127 $20,000
Harvard University $359,451 $359,451 $0
https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cid=N00000019&cycle=Career

[mariawr]

65. She's bought and sold. Has the best campaign money can buy nt

[R B Garr]

147. Anti-Hillary spam is not the answer to everything. Bernie's whole campaign is based on

his myopic spoutings about a corrupt campaign finance system, yet he shows no difference. You can't say it's a good thing that Bernie cannot account for his own donors, but is perfectly willing to smear and malign anyone else just to get people to clap for him.

And what a total crock it is to say that Democrats can't compete against Republicans just because Bernie wants to preserve his image of goodness and light. People see through that bullshit.

[livetohike]

55. Maybe he and others HOPE she will be indicted. Sounds like a Republican wish list to me.

I doubt Bernie knows very much about anything except his own narrow ideology. Still waiting for that foreign policy speech. He's losing this nomination and it isn't because people don't know him yet. They are finding out about him and they don't like him.

[Trust Buster]

28. This comment doesn't approach Sanders' pandering to college students with the promise

that he can wipe their college debt slate clean knowing that his proposal is DOA in Congress. That's a deception that can cause real harm IMO.

[k8conant]

188. Having good goals is not pandering

pander

to gratify or indulge (an immoral or distasteful desire, need, or habit or a person with such a desire, etc.).

[Trust Buster]

190. The college kids he's promising debt relief that he can't deliver are looking for more than goals.

[k8conant]

192. Of course, they and we are

but if you don't go for what's possible you'll never get it either.

Are you saying we should only try to achieve what the right-wing wants?

[Trust Buster]

194. I'm saying that he should be honest with those students.

Don't raise their expectations when he knows a Republican-controlled House won't even consider it. These students want debt relief in the immediate future. He can't deliver that and he knows it.

[k8conant]

195. F*ck that

You can't get where you should go if you're going in the wrong direction.

Don't tell me you're going to keep voting for Republicans in the House. I'm working on getting our stupid Alex Mooney out of there.

[Trust Buster]

197. These students are looking for relief from THEIR debts. That a short term goal.

Given the despicable Republican gerrymandering after the 2010 census, the Republicans have a lock on the House until after the 2020 census at a minimum.

[Vattel]

40. You are delusional. Everyone knows that until you drop out, you express

optimism about the outcome. That is an accepted rule of the game. Clinton's lies, by contrast, amounted to cheating, sleazy politics, and pure slime.

[DanTex]

42. LOL. So when Bernie lies, it's just "an accepted rule of the game", but when Hillary honestly

mis-remembers something from 20 years ago, it's "cheating".

[Human101948]

47. You are attributing honesty without anything to back it up...

Youare being ludicrous.

[DanTex]

50. Actually, you are attributing dishonesty without anything to back it up.

This simple, obvious explanation, is that she made a mistake. People mistakenly recall things all the time, especially from a decade ago.

[DanTex]

199. Unlike you, I don't presume that everything out of Hillary's mouth is a lie.

And given that every person I've ever known has on more than one occasion misremembered some event 10 years in the past, I have no reason to think that Hillary doing it somehow makes her evil.

[Vattel]

198. I don't know what misremembering you are talking about,

but it wasn't what I was referring to. Only in your fantasy world is there anything deceitful about Bernie seeing a path to victory even though he must beat the odds to win. The campaign Hillary has run has been very dishonorable by comparison to Bernie's campaign. That much is obvious to any objective person.

[DanTex]

200. Raising money under obviously and knowingly false pretenses is deceitful.

It's pretty much the definition of fraud.

As far as the campaign, Hillary's has been cleaner and more honest by a significant margin. Bernie went around Michigan and Ohio trying to blame the manufacturing losses that began in the 1970s on Hillary, via NAFTA, which started in 1994 and was passed by her husband, not her. He's insinuated that her speaking fees, which are an extremely common source of income for public figures, in her case were a form of bribery (with no evidence whatsoever to support the slander). He's railed at her for having SuperPAC backing while in fact receiving more SuperPAC support in the primary than she has. His campaign stole Clinton's data, and then decided to spread a conspiracy theory and fundraise on the back of it. They've also been caught more than once misappropriating logos/falsely claiming endorsements. And he recently even admitted that he was simply using the Democratic party for money and exposure.

And his supporters have been far more uncivil than any other candidates' on either side except for Trump.

[Vattel]

201. Please join the real world. Calling it fraud is patently absurd.

[DanTex]

202. It's not illegal, I'll grant you that.

The thing is, when right-wing candidates bilk their supporters out of money for their own self-promotion, well call them out on it. Bernie's got no chance left, you know it, I know it, and he knows it. No it's not fraud in any criminal sense. But neither is it honest.

[MoonRiver]

46. What a joke.

[merrily]

52. Sanders is definitely NOT the biggest liar this campaign season, not even close.

[mariawr]

68. She has the best campaign money can buy. Propping her up real nice

.....got to keep those oligarchies happy.

Watch her turn on a dime. TPP? Bad? Naaaah, I was just kidding in the primary. It's all good!

Just wait.

[Gothmog]

66. There is no way that Sanders will be the nominee

[Agnosticsherbet]

67. An excellent New Yorker article that explains what is happening.

The Great Divide
But Sanders seems far more interested in affecting policy than in taking advantage of Clinton’s scandals. It might be the right decision in the long run; it’s not clear that attacking Clinton helps him win over the older and nonwhite partisans who are the core of her support. Sanders’s real legacy may be proving to the Democratic Party that the new generation of voters has no affinity for the old Clinton-era politics of moderation. “Sanders is speaking to a rising generation who want both a better and more responsible capitalism and a better and more ethical politics,” Simon Rosenberg said. “Unrigging the system will be a central focus of Democratic politics for years to come—as it should be.”

Sanders is far from ready to admit how narrow his path to victory is, but he is prepared to take credit for shaping the Democratic debate. “When people respond by the millions to your message, then that message is now mainstream,” he said. “That changes political reality. Smart politicians like Hillary Clinton and anybody else have got to move where the action is, and the action is on those issues that I’ve been raising.”

He is going all the way to the convention so he can write chunks of the platform. This isn't about winning the election. it is about movement building.

[mariawr]

74. And this is a move of a LOT of people. Start locally, keep the progressive move going..

Thanks, Bernie. With you all the way. Sent money just now. Spend it all!

Let Hillary tap her big money donors for more...they can afford it.

[Agnosticsherbet]

79. Well, except for the lack of honesty...

on his part, but he is just a politician.

[kstewart33]

81. Bernie should take credit for shaping the Democratic debate.

That is his real contribution to the country. And there will likely be more when he negotiates with Hillary at convention time in exchange for his endorsement.

However, Bernie's chances at winning the nomination are moot. And his wooing super delegates after criticizing them simply isn't going to work.

[greymouse]

71. dream on, OP

Most of the states coming up are Bernie states. Your wishing it is not so will not change it.

But then again, Hillary, heroine of surviving Bosnia sniper fire, and her supporters don't recognize reality when it bites them in the ankle.

[DanTex]

77. LOL. 300+ pledged delegate lead. Have fun with that big upcoming win in Utah...

[think]

76. If you weren't so busy being a tool for Hillary you might notice who's telling the lies...

[mr_liberal]

80. Id like to know how much money Sanders' consultants on his campaign are making.

Because this seems to me that it could be like the Ben Carson campaign. It was essentially a scam for political consultants to make a lot of money. Reports are that Carsons consultants made millions off him even though they knew he was never a serious candidate.

[seabeyond]

84. He needs an excuse and shelter to continue to damage the Democratic Party and our Democratic

candidate trying not to get the stain of contempt on him. It won't fly with most people. No wiggle room here.

[MaggieD]

85. He's a typical politician

His biggest lie is pretending he's not. That said I hate that he saying crap like this to wrangle more money out of people. He knows he has no shot at this point.

[salinsky]

86. So, the excuse is ...

... Bernie is just another politician subject to all their frailties?

But, just yesterday I was informed in another thread that he is Ghandi, MLK, and FDR all rolled into one.

Geez, you could get whiplash from the spin around here.

[shawn703]

103. No, Clinton told the biggest lies of the campaign.

The first being that she's a progressive, contradicted by earlier statements that she's a centrist. The second being that she called out Wall Street even though they gave her money, contradicted by her placing blame on poor people for taking out mortgages they couldn't afford.

[DanTex]

106. Wrong on all counts.

"The first being that she's a progressive, contradicted by earlier statements that she's a centrist." The term was "moderate" and being moderate and progressive are not mutually exclusive. This is a dumb terminology game and it's disappointing that Bernie would sink so low as to play it.

"The second being that she called out Wall Street even though they gave her money, contradicted by her placing blame on poor people for taking out mortgages they couldn't afford."

Totally false. She did call out Wall Street, it's just that the video you saw of that conveniently cuts out the part where she points to all the misdeeds of banks and mortgage brokers, and skips to the one sentence about homeowners who paid extra money to not have to document their income.

Out of curiosity, do you agree that people paying extra money to not document their income on a loan application should know that they are getting in over their head? Or do you think that this is sound judgement?

[cemaphonic]

108. Pretty much every losing political campaign does this though.

I don't disagree with the premise that Sanders is dead in the water, and probably knows it (although denial can be a powerful force). But campaigns always swear they are in it for the long haul until the moment they drop out, and not a moment sooner.

[frylock]

118. Remember to vote for Hillary in November, delusional supporters.

Another awesome display of GOTV! Keep up the good work, Dan.

[workinclasszero]

121. "We are on track for the nomination."

[Octafish]

123. You're reaching. Like when someone asks, ''Name even ONE THING Hillary has done for us.''

And the Bankruptcy Bill would count.

[Politicalboi]

126. LOL!

But The Queen lies ALL the time. And this is no lie. He is on track for the nomination. Go Bernie!!!!!!!

[MohRokTah]

128. I disagree.

I think he honestly believes he will win and his ego has driven him to delusion.

[Nailzberg]

132. Tad Devine's real money comes in the big media markets. He'll make millions taking this to June.

Bernie wants to keep running? Fine. Go for it. Keep having a voice, keep saying what you have to say. Build a message. Build a movement. I was a political organizer, I can really appreciate his spirit and activity.

Tad Devine is just fleecing supporters, though. Somewhere along the line, just like deciding to run in the Dem Primary, I think Sanders made the decision he had to have a few Tad Devines on his payroll, and I think that contradicts how Bernie defines himself.

[Logical]

133. Lol,dan, classy as usual! Nt

[TheSarcastinator]

134. LOL: is he under sniper fire?

Xrist, Team Wall Street is full of crap.

[immoderate]

136. Now that there is some impressive trolling.

--imm

[Waiting For Everyman]

139. Oh get over it.

What makes you think you know what Bernie Sanders thinks or sees? And how is that your business? His supporters decide whether they want to believe him or not.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

145. He's not the candidate known for lying. There is a reason for this.

[ljm2002]

148. He still has a shot...

...and I for one would be disappointed if he did anything but keep on trucking, and keep on campaigning, and keep on with his positive message for change, especially in light of the huge amount of support he has garnered in this campaign so far.

Sorry that is inconvenient for Clinton, but there it is. Win or lose, he'll be at the convention with a shitload of delegates, and it will be very interesting to see how all of that plays out.

[bkkyosemite]

154. I'm so sick of this crap! I am not delusional damnit! Bernie is telling the truth

he believes he still has at this moment a chance to win. So do we. I am so sick of the Bernie lost meme...Damn Damn Damn if the shoe was on the other foot you hillary supporters would be saying she can win she can win....and you know it.

[ksecus]

155. its time to end this

Time to move to the General. The writing is on the wall. Lets start doing this thing together.

[k8conant]

189. What thing?

The general comes after the primary, not during.

[Mike Nelson]

159. A common falsehood, along with...

...the emphatic "No!" when asked if they are dropping out.... Nobody is ever, EVER dropping out of the race - until they drop out of the race.

[giftedgirl77]

161. Reality is nonexistent within that campaign.

[JackRiddler]

174. Had to laugh soon as I saw that.

Yeah, right. This is your idea of a lie?

[noretreatnosurrender]

203. Horseshit Threads

Every time Hillary supporters post these horseshit threads donate to Bernie.

[FreedomRain]

205. If you really think Hillary has this in the bag then relax

Why the desperation? The math should make your point in as few as 2 weeks; maybe 12 weeks, depending on the margins, right? The desperation act is probably having the opposite effect of your intention to make people believe it is over already.

[DanTex]

206. That word again, "desperation". LOL. Whoever's sending out the talking points needs to change

it up every now and then.

The math has already made my point. Bernie's toast, it's over. But there's still the general election to win, and that's all that matters. If Bernie slogs it out and keeps up his Hillary bashing, it could hurt her odds against Trump. The GE will be a close fight, it always is, and taking Trump lightly is a mistake.

I'm not worried about Bernie. I never was -- he was never going to do anything but make a statement. But I am worried about Trump.

[riderinthestorm]

208. If Hillary loses to Trump that will be Hillary's fault (and the DNC)

no way will any of us let you falsely hang her defeat around Bernie's neck or his supporters.

It will be on her shoulders solely.

She needs to win over Bernie supporters somehow if she wins the nomination. It's on HER to get over the finish line.

Right now Bernie's doing exactly what he's supposed to do, campaign on his issues. Period.

[DanTex]

209. If Trump wins, "fault" doesn't really matter.

Having said that, any "progressives" who decide to sit out or vote Green deserve nothing but contempt. The Naderites got rightfully pilloried for throwing 2000 to W. I don't think that Bernie fans will do the same this year, but if they do, they will have earned every bit of scorn that they receive.

[riderinthestorm]

210. Gore won remember? And I'm bookmarking this for when HRC's supporters "blame" us

I can point to your words that "fault" won't matter. This election is hers to win, just like Gore.

Thanks for this.

[DanTex]

212. It's very telling that you're looking forward to a Trump victory.

It's about hating Hillary, not about the future of the country. My advice is, let the hatred go. It doesn't do any good.

[riderinthestorm]

214. Lol, nice twisting of my words. Desperation seeping through eh?

I'm in this til the end with Bernie and his movement.

My comments were solely aimed at IF she loses.

But you knew that. It's actually humorous seeing Hillary supporters get desperate.

[DanTex]

215. That word again, "desperation". LOL.

It seems like the harder Bernie gets crushed, the more his fans project their "desperation" on Hillary.

Anyway, back in the real world, the end of the Bernie candidacy happened on Tuesday. He's an irrelevant sideshow now. It's Hillary vs Trump/Cruz.

[riderinthestorm]

216. Oh no, I'm sure Hillary isn't desperate, it's you on this thread.

What are you, 150 posts alone on this thread telling us Bernie should drop out, he's lost, it's time to let Hillary focus on the GE blah blah blah.

And now it's Bernie will be to blame if its President Trump?!



Carry on. My point is made. Feel free to have the last word.

Oh and thank you for the spirited conversation - you've inspired me to make another donation to Bernie and sign up for a couple hours volunteering tomorrow.

[DanTex]

217. Hey, you gotta call someone desperate, otherwise the Bernie talking point gods will be upset!

I mean, he's getting demolished in delegates, has no path to the nomination, so you gotta lash out against someone, might as well be me! LOL.

Yeah, keep donating. And also buy some lottery tickets. Don't let all your money go to waste.

[FreedomRain]

221. funny

the math isnt there. saying it is when it isn't = desperation.
"talking points" = projection, rude or dismissive. I have posted 330 times in a decade, not a talking points guy.

Bashing of either candidate will hurt-- by a small but maybe measurable amount--the chances of either candidate in the general, there I agree with you against the OP. Oh wierd OP has the same name as you.

[John Poet]

213. Hillary ALREADY TOLD the BIGGEST LIE,

when she claimed she was progressive.

So shove that up your pipe and smoke it.

[Beacool]

218. Sanders is an ideologue.

By that I mean that to him it's more than just about the presidency, it's his cause. He seems to truly believes that there's going to be a political revolution. If you're a true believer you don't quit. I think that he means what he says and that he'll go all the way to the convention in June.

[Baobab]

219. Less of a lie than if Hillary claims it

IMHO.

Hillary's "support" is a lot softer than Bernie's.

And for good reason.

Nobody wants to vote for another Republican.

[Buns_of_Fire]

220. Y'know, Dan, if you're not Hillary's campaign manager...

...you probably should be. No snark (for a change) -- just a grudging admiration for someone willing to go to the mat again and again for their chosen candidate.

Okay, enough of that. I shall now return to being my normal smartass, Hillary-Not-Particularly-Liking, snarky self.