If You're Liberal and You Think Hillary Clinton Is Corrupt and Untrustworthy

[fun n serious]

If You're Liberal and You Think Hillary Clinton Is Corrupt and Untrustworthy, You're Rewarding 25 Years of GOP Smears

Obviously, Clinton carries with her more than 25 years in the white-hot public spotlight that Sanders doesn't -- despite his career in the Senate -- and over that length of time people have been able to form opinions of her and they're ones not likely to change at this point. What you know about Hillary is what you know about Hillary. There aren't a lot of surprises. Maybe you figure this is bad for her, but in truth it can be argued that this is a positive rather than a negative because there's nothing the Republicans can throw at her that we haven't already been fed to death. And when you take a step back and look at Clinton objectively -- which is admittedly difficult for many, even, or maybe particularly, on the left -- that's exactly the point. Hillary Clinton's reputation is largely the result of a quarter century of visceral GOP hatred.


Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders share a lot of the same basic policy prescriptions. The difference is one of method. Sanders makes sweeping pronouncements and talks of a revolution that will be so undeniable that it will upend the American political system as it's been for decades and silence all who oppose. Clinton, on the other hand, promises that she'll continue to fight tirelessly for liberal causes and concedes that at times that fight won't yield perfection but it will yield results that benefit people's lives. She promises to build on the legacy of one of the most effective liberal presidents this country has ever seen. Sanders says it all needs to be torn down and started from scratch because too many compromises have already been made. Sanders wants to fundamentally change American hearts and minds. Clinton wants to formulate a plan of action that gets things done. Sanders sells idealism. Clinton sells pragmatism. And the problem is that pragmatism isn't a sexy sell, even though it's an essential quality in an effective leader.

The thing is, both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are good people, though -- and that's what some seem to be forgetting. Hillary is no more an establishment shill than any other American politician, if by establishment you mean that she works within the U.S. government and is therefore subject to its bottom line. Even Sanders, for all his beatified status on the left, has to adhere to political reality if he wants to get anything at all accomplished. He can't simply wave a magic wand and get what he wants, not even if he has the political capital provided by the support of a large part of the electorate. What Hillary Clinton isn't is this grotesque self-parody that a quarter-century of Republican "vetting" has reduced her to for far too many. An overwhelming number of the so-called controversies that have dogged Clinton's career are either whole-cloth creations or convenient manipulations by the GOP.

You can say you don't want to vote for Hillary Clinton because she's scandal-prone and who wants to go through another four or eight years of that. But remember two things: One, no matter what Democratic candidate gets elected, he or she will face a daily trial by fire from irrationally outraged conservatives. Seven years of Barack Obama-fueled insanity proves that. Two, the supposed scandals that Clinton's been enduring for the past 25 years are mostly nonsense. The GOP wouldn't have it any other way. And they couldn't be happier that right now so many liberals have turned against the woman they utterly despise in favor of someone they're fully aware they can beat. Because they understand she's the only thing standing in their way in 2016. They can't beat her. And they know it.




http://thedailybanter.com/2016/01/hillary-gop-smears/

[daleanime]

1. ......

[MADem]

38. ..........

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/02/16/blood-traces-bernies-iraq-war-hypocrisy/

Since you went there, 'n all.

[kristopher]

60. Pathetic attempt to minimize her record MADem. Pathetic attempt to draw moral equivalency ...

where there is none.

None.

[MADem]

76. That vote in 98 is what gave Bush the stones to do what he did.

And, in case you are unclear, this is CRITICISM from the LEFT:

Sanders supported Bill Clinton’s war on Serbia, voted for the 2001 Authorization Unilateral Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF), which pretty much allowed Bush to wage war wherever he wanted, backed Obama’s Libyan debacle and supports an expanded US role in the Syrian Civil War.

More problematic for the Senator in Birkenstocks is the little-known fact that Bernie Sanders himself voted twice in support of regime change in Iraq. In 1998 Sanders voted in favor of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which said: “It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.”

Later that same year, Sanders also backed a resolution that stated: “Congress reaffirms that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.” These measures gave congressional backing for the CIA’s covert plan to overthrow the Hussein regime in Baghdad, as well as the tightening of an economic sanctions regime that may have killed as many as 500,000 Iraqi children. The resolution also gave the green light to Operation Desert Fox, a four-day long bombing campaign striking 100 targets throughout Iraq. The operation featured more than 300 bombing sorties and 350 ground-launched Tomahawk cruise missiles, several targeting Saddam Hussein himself.

Even Hillary belatedly admitted that her Iraq war vote was a mistake. Bernie, however, has never apologized for his two votes endorsing the overthrow of Saddam. On the rare occasions when Sanders has been confronted about these votes, he has casually dismissed them as being “almost unanimous.” I went back and checked the record. In fact, many members of the progressive caucus in the House, as well as a few libertarian anti-war Members of Congress, vote against the Iraq regime change measures.....

But hey, distract, deflect, make it about me, call me "pathetic."

I see what you did.

[kristopher]

83. There is no comparison between that and Hillary's warmongering. None.

Text of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998

The text of the bill below is as of Oct 7, 1998 (Passed Congress/Enrolled Bill).

Source: GPO
H.R.4655


One Hundred Fifth Congress
of the
United States of America


AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the twenty-seventh day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-eight

An Act

To establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘Iraq Liberation Act of 1998’.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress makes the following findings:

(1) On September 22, 1980, Iraq invaded Iran, starting an 8 year war in which Iraq employed chemical weapons against Iranian troops and ballistic missiles against Iranian cities.

(2) In February 1988, Iraq forcibly relocated Kurdish civilians from their home villages in the Anfal campaign, killing an estimated 50,000 to 180,000 Kurds.

(3) On March 16, 1988, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iraqi Kurdish civilian opponents in the town of Halabja, killing an estimated 5,000 Kurds and causing numerous birth defects that affect the town today.

(4) On August 2, 1990, Iraq invaded and began a 7 month occupation of Kuwait, killing and committing numerous abuses against Kuwaiti civilians, and setting Kuwait’s oil wells ablaze upon retreat.

(5) Hostilities in Operation Desert Storm ended on February 28, 1991, and Iraq subsequently accepted the ceasefire conditions specified in United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (April 3, 1991) requiring Iraq, among other things, to disclose fully and permit the dismantlement of its weapons of mass destruction programs and submit to long-term monitoring and verification of such dismantlement.

(6) In April 1993, Iraq orchestrated a failed plot to assassinate former President George Bush during his April 14-16, 1993, visit to Kuwait.

(7) In October 1994, Iraq moved 80,000 troops to areas near the border with Kuwait, posing an imminent threat of a renewed invasion of or attack against Kuwait.

(8) On August 31, 1996, Iraq suppressed many of its opponents by helping one Kurdish faction capture Irbil, the seat of the Kurdish regional government.

(9) Since March 1996, Iraq has systematically sought to deny weapons inspectors from the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) access to key facilities and documents, has on several occasions endangered the safe operation of UNSCOM helicopters transporting UNSCOM personnel in Iraq, and has persisted in a pattern of deception and concealment regarding the history of its weapons of mass destruction programs.

(10) On August 5, 1998, Iraq ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM, and subsequently threatened to end long-term monitoring activities by the International Atomic Energy Agency and UNSCOM.

(11) On August 14, 1998, President Clinton signed Public Law 105-235, which declared that ‘the Government of Iraq is in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations’ and urged the President ‘to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations.’.

(12) On May 1, 1998, President Clinton signed Public Law 105-174, which made $5,000,000 available for assistance to the Iraqi democratic opposition for such activities as organization, training, communication and dissemination of information, developing and implementing agreements among opposition groups, compiling information to support the indictment of Iraqi officials for war crimes, and for related purposes.

SEC. 3. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING UNITED STATES POLICY TOWARD IRAQ.

It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.

SEC. 4. ASSISTANCE TO SUPPORT A TRANSITION TO DEMOCRACY IN IRAQ.

(a) AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE- The President may provide to the Iraqi democratic opposition organizations designated in accordance with section 5 the following assistance:

(1) BROADCASTING ASSISTANCE- (A) Grant assistance to such organizations for radio and television broadcasting by such organizations to Iraq.

(B) There is authorized to be appropriated to the United States Information Agency $2,000,000 for fiscal year 1999 to carry out this paragraph.

(2) MILITARY ASSISTANCE- (A) The President is authorized to direct the drawdown of defense articles from the stocks of the Department of Defense, defense services of the Department of Defense, and military education and training for such organizations.

(B) The aggregate value (as defined in section 644(m) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961) of assistance provided under this paragraph may not exceed $97,000,000.

(b) HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE- The Congress urges the President to use existing authorities under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to provide humanitarian assistance to individuals living in areas of Iraq controlled by organizations designated in accordance with section 5, with emphasis on addressing the needs of individuals who have fled to such areas from areas under the control of the Saddam Hussein regime.

(c) RESTRICTION ON ASSISTANCE- No assistance under this section shall be provided to any group within an organization designated in accordance with section 5 which group is, at the time the assistance is to be provided, engaged in military cooperation with the Saddam Hussein regime.

(d) NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT- The President shall notify the congressional committees specified in section 634A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 at least 15 days in advance of each obligation of assistance under this section in accordance with the procedures applicable to reprogramming notifications under section 634A.

(e) REIMBURSEMENT RELATING TO MILITARY ASSISTANCE-

(1) IN GENERAL- Defense articles, defense services, and military education and training provided under subsection (a)(2) shall be made available without reimbursement to the Department of Defense except to the extent that funds are appropriated pursuant to paragraph (2).

(2) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS- There are authorized to be appropriated to the President for each of the fiscal years 1998 and 1999 such sums as may be necessary to reimburse the applicable appropriation, fund, or account for the value (as defined in section 644(m) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961) of defense articles, defense services, or military education and training provided under subsection (a)(2).

(f) AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS- (1) Amounts authorized to be appropriated under this section are authorized to remain available until expended.

(2) Amounts authorized to be appropriated under this section are in addition to amounts otherwise available for the purposes described in this section.

(g) AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE- Activities under this section (including activities of the nature described in subsection (b)) may be undertaken notwithstanding any other provision of law.

SEC. 5. DESIGNATION OF IRAQI DEMOCRATIC OPPOSITION ORGANIZATION.

(a) INITIAL DESIGNATION- Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall designate one or more Iraqi democratic opposition organizations that the President determines satisfy the criteria set forth in subsection (c) as eligible to receive assistance under section 4.

(b) DESIGNATION OF ADDITIONAL ORGANIZATIONS- At any time subsequent to the initial designation pursuant to subsection (a), the President may designate one or more additional Iraqi democratic opposition organizations that the President determines satisfy the criteria set forth in subsection (c) as eligible to receive assistance under section 4.

(c) CRITERIA FOR DESIGNATION- In designating an organization pursuant to this section, the President shall consider only organizations that--

(1) include a broad spectrum of Iraqi individuals, groups, or both, opposed to the Saddam Hussein regime; and

(2) are committed to democratic values, to respect for human rights, to peaceful relations with Iraq’s neighbors, to maintaining Iraq’s territorial integrity, and to fostering cooperation among democratic opponents of the Saddam Hussein regime.

(d) NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT- At least 15 days in advance of designating an Iraqi democratic opposition organization pursuant to this section, the President shall notify the congressional committees specified in section 634A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 of his proposed designation in accordance with the procedures applicable to reprogramming notifications under section 634A.

SEC. 6. WAR CRIMES TRIBUNAL FOR IRAQ.

Consistent with section 301 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993 (Public Law 102-138), House Concurrent Resolution 137, 105th Congress (approved by the House of Representatives on November 13, 1997), and Senate Concurrent Resolution 78, 105th Congress (approved by the Senate on March 13, 1998), the Congress urges the President to call upon the United Nations to establish an international criminal tribunal for the purpose of indicting, prosecuting, and imprisoning Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi officials who are responsible for crimes against humanity, genocide, and other criminal violations of international law.

SEC. 7. ASSISTANCE FOR IRAQ UPON REPLACEMENT OF SADDAM HUSSEIN REGIME.

It is the sense of the Congress that once the Saddam Hussein regime is removed from power in Iraq, the United States should support Iraq’s transition to democracy by providing immediate and substantial humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people, by providing democracy transition assistance to Iraqi parties and movements with democratic goals, and by convening Iraq’s foreign creditors to develop a multilateral response to Iraq’s foreign debt incurred by Saddam Hussein’s regime.

SEC. 8. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces (except as provided in section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.

[MADem]

87. You cut and pasted something you could have linked to, easily--but you didn't prove your assertion.

I won't play a bandwidth game with you.

You can either read the essay from that left of center publication, COUNTERPUNCH, or not.

[Hortensis]

103. Good try, but LIBERALS like Hillary. Far Left extremists and their

evil twins on the far right, as well as plain ol' hard-core conservatives, are the HillHaters, and no amount of truth has ever turned them from their dishonest obsession. By now it's no longer about what Hillary is, but rather it is a part of them and an expression of who and what they are. After a quarter-century of this phenomenon, I now expect them to grow old and die without ever changing their minds.

[MADem]

107. I know. It's quite the odd thing, isn't it?

I cannot understand how someone can call themselves a "liberal" and support the likes of Ron or Rand Paul, either.

The utter HATE is ... irrational. I think it might have something to do with a paradigm shift in what "leaders" look like.

The nation is past due for finding a clue on this score--the military is light years ahead of the population at large.

Adm. Michelle Howard (Navy), Gen. Janet Wolfenbarger (Air Force)
and Gen. Ann Dunwoody (Army). (Getty Images)

[Hortensis]

114. Bingo! Lots of odd "things" calling themselves liberal

But some probably really don't know and only now are getting a clue from their enmity toward liberals.

Of course, you've nailed the genesis of this one peculiar hate. It obviously took on a life of its own long ago, though, and needs no reason beyond the mention of her name to flare.

And, of course, the entire Democratic party and most of the institutions of our country are objects of their hostility, as are all those previously admired now under that bus. These are all major clues that we are not looking at liberals here but people across the open end of that ideologic U from the far right who fully share their enmity, plus, no doubt, some of the other conservatives drawn to Bernie's antiestablishment message.

[daleanime]

62. After being told yet again that anyone on the left....

who doesn't trust Hillary is drinking the right kool-aid.

And I'm willing to list where I disagree with my candidate, I think he's completely wrong on drones, how about you?

But have a lovely day anyways!

[MADem]

72. I don't need to agree 100% with a candidate to support them.

And I don't need to "hate" an opponent, either. That's something I see all too often on "the internets." I find it unfortunate. Pointless. Childish, even.

Bernie Sanders is simply my second choice.

If you're going to drag up old stuff from decades ago like it matters (notwithstanding that the candidate has apologized for her vote), then it's only fair to drag up votes for which other candidates have NOT apologized.

I think the OP has a point--it's not like there hasn't been a relentless, right wing attack against both HRC and her husband, starting in the early nineties, after all. The article is directed, really, at the "Bernie or Bust" crowd, and is predicated on HRC winning the nomination.

If you believe the premise to be premature, you're welcome to say so--but you do yourself no favors by dragging up old stuff that's so easily countered.

[daleanime]

80. So you're upset that I said Iraq war vote, instead of...

'no fly zones'? She may have apologized, when she realized that it was hurting her chances, but she hasn't changed her view point. She's far more pro-war then I'm comfortable with. Sorry if that doesn't sit well with you. Have a great day anyways!

[MADem]

88. I am not "upset" at all. And you're the one inventing distinctions -- not me.

Very curious how I'm being characterized in this thread.

First I'm "pathetic," next I am "upset."

And "that doesn't sit well with (me)." I mean, really! Look in the mirror!

You are the one who veers towards the personal. Why is that, I wonder?

Stop trying to tell people how you think they feel--you get it wrong, every time.

[uponit7771]

96. Sanders votes against Brady bill... Why do you guys still think he's

..a saint ?!?!?

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

2. A broken clock is right twice a day.

nt

[noretreatnosurrender]

3. Don't Need GOP Smears

All you have to do is look at her record.

[840high]

102. Not impressive as SOS.

[noretreatnosurrender]

106. Nope

Not impressive at all.

[Politicalboi]

4. Clinton's take money from Blackwater

Good people indeed.

Don't let fluff pieces like this fool you. Hillary is in it for the POWER not the people.

[840high]

108. .+10

[JonLeibowitz]

5. Forget all the GOP smears.

Just looking at her record from the left reveals her to be untrustworthy. It's a nice strawman though.

[pdsimdars]

6. NO! ABsolutely NO!

Sure, they have been after her for 25 years, but you don't have to believe a word they say or an accusation they make. All you have to do is watch videos of her in HER OWN WORDS. Give us a break with this deflection. She has promoted every war that came up.

Did the Republicans force her to take all that Wall Street money? The list goes on and on of ACTUAL THINGS she has said and done.

I SAW her go out and lie about Bernie's stance and record. SAW IT. And she had her own daughter go out and do it too. Even after FORBES called it out as a lie, she STILL kept on with it until the elections in the rust belt were over. Give the re-writing of history a break. . . we got video these days. Save the propaganda for the MSM.

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

15. Preach it!

nt

[ChairmanAgnostic]

35. Wachew sed!

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

109. LOL

nt

[MADem]

39. Let's look at everyone's votes, shall we?

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/02/16/blood-traces-bernies-iraq-war-hypocrisy/

[fun n serious]

63. This part is interesting.

"But Sanders’s shots at Clinton haven’t inflicted much damage this time around, largely because there’s so little breathing space between the two candidates on foreign policy. Both Clinton and Sanders are seasoned interventionists, often advancing their hawkish policies under the ragged banner of “humanitarianism.” (See: Queen of Chaos by Diana Johnstone.)

Sanders supported Bill Clinton’s war on Serbia, voted for the 2001 Authorization Unilateral Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF), which pretty much allowed Bush to wage war wherever he wanted, backed Obama’s Libyan debacle and supports an expanded US role in the Syrian Civil War."

I don't think Sanders is bad. I think Americans in general are violent and war mongering by history and nature. Even Sanders.

[CorporatistNation]

74. The Comparison Is One Of Character And Integrity... The Videos Are Not Impeachable....

Get a drink... sit down and watch these videos ... Then be honest with yourself....

[NWCorona]

7. Enough said

[fun n serious]

10. This was her joking..

People were saying she was NOT progressive so she made a joke of the meme of the week.

[NWCorona]

16. She said the same thing in 2008

I'm not knocking her for her take on liberalism. Just the framing of the op.

[PufPuf23]

34. Is this a joke? Hillary Clinton thought so,

[bunnies]

8. Right. Everyone knows Sanders supporters can't think for themselves.

[fun n serious]

9. Wasn't E. Warren a republican Until 1995? nt

People change or do they?

[pangaia]

45. Clinton 'changes' every 3 days..depending....

[Jackilope]

11. Baloney. The Clintons do this to themselves.

Her record and judgement are a huge issue. Saying "I was wrong" doesn't erase the deaths involved with Iraq. She has been on the wrong side so many, many times. Her cozy relationship with Wall St., Goldman Sachs, Kissinger ...?

How enabling and blind do HRC supporters have to be? She owns the baggage and it is not our fault. The damage she will do to us will be perhaps a little less or slower than with the GOP, but there will be damage and yes.... it is on her.

[Bjornsdotter]

85. +1.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. They can't beat Sanders either.

I don't think it's a "trial of fire" she's endured. Just typical establishment "politic-as-usual". Which is what Sanders is trying to destroy.

[fun n serious]

13. No she has been destroyed by the GOP more than any other person

in history. She has endured their smears like no one else ever has in history.

[NWCorona]

17. That I can agree with.

[Divernan]

32. If it's true, it is not a smear.

[fun n serious]

43. Most are smears

some are not. Read the whole thing. Her senate votes are just slightly to the right of Sanders.

[scscholar]

54. This, and...

nothing has ever stuck, because there is nothing!

[marions ghost]

14. I know way too much about HRC

that has nothing to do with right wing smears.

You can argue logically that she had to be involved with corrupt people, just to get where she is today. She plays the system very well.

It's nothing to be admired. We have a better candidate.

[CoffeeCat]

18. The headline of this screed is ridiculous enough

"If You're Liberal and You Think Hillary Clinton Is Corrupt and Untrustworthy, You're Rewarding 25 Years of GOP Smears."

Bernie Sanders supporters are active in politics. They're plugged in. Most of the Sanders supporters I know are active consumers of political information. They're political junkies.

To suggest that we're passive victims of right-wing smears is not only inaccurate, it's ridiculous.

Many Sanders supporter, including myself--are turned off by her warmongering and her corporate corruption. These are two points that are often discussed on DU and beyond.

No Republican is dissing her on her warmongering! That's laughable. No Republican attacks Hillary for picking Robert Kagan--the founder of the neocon movement--to be her adviser while she was Secretary of State.

They agree with her!! Republicans praise her for those choices. She surrounds herself with neoons like Kagan and Kissinger. They're certainly not criticizing her.



And her ties to Wall Street, the fracking industry, the private-prison industry and other powerful interests---are NEVER criticized by Republicans. They engage in the same tactics! They're in bed with the Wall Street moguls, just as Hillary is.

This screed is flawed beyond repair. Our main criticisms of Hillary do not come from the right wing. They come from liberals and progressives who do not share her corporate ties and her warmongering.

Many right-wing smears are perpetuated on right-wing radio. I don't know ANY liberals or progressives who are, in any way, swayed by that slop.

This article is flawed and ridiculous.

[HooptieWagon]

19. Koch Bros funded the DLC, which Hillary co-founded.

That tells me all I need to know about how corrupt she is.

[Todays_Illusion]

20. OP respectfully, You don't think for me, and conservatives attacks are not why I don't like Hillary.

[NowSam]

21. No. I just believe my own eyes and ears

and if that rewards the Gop than I'd say run a better candidate like Bernie.

[frustrated_lefty]

22. Hillary is a neocon.

You don't need right wing smears to come to that conclusion, it's based on her own words and actions. I don't believe she is "good people." She's the candidate of the 1%, she's an irredeemable hawk, and she has the potential, if elected, to do as much, if not more, lasting damage to the country than that imbecile Trump.

[MerryBlooms]

111. Jury results:

On Sat Mar 26, 2016, 08:23 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Hillary is a neocon.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1580708

REASON FOR ALERT

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

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Supporting Bernie is fine, but calling the probably Dem nominee a "neocon" goes too far. This merits a hide, even though Bernie did win today.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Mar 26, 2016, 08:29 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Clinton is NOT the nominee, we're still in primary season, so there is nothing wrong with the alerted post.
Ridiculous alert.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Obviously just one poster's opinion.
It's primary season--deal with it.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Time to end the personal attacks of Hillary Clinton,
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Alleging HRC is worse than Trump is something
I would expect of a Freeper mole. Go on with your old self.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I agree with everything in this post. Not hide worthy. TIME TO PANIC
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Really?

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Jackie Wilson Said]

112. Your comment about Hillary is disgusting and doesnt belong on this board.

[H2O Man]

23. not

[99Forever]

24. In her own words:

Well? Is she "Rewarding 25 Years of GOP Smears?"

[Dems to Win]

25. Marc Rich pardon

Iraq War vote

Cashed in on her public service to the tune of $20 million in speaking fees.

Bill cashed in on his public service to the tune of $200 million! Including very sleazy involvement with Laureate, a chain of for-profit colleges that preys on the poor.

The Clintons have earned their reputation for corruption.

[jeff47]

26. Clinton's own words are not right-wing smears.

And posting this same article over and over again does not change that.

[Divernan]

27. The Clintons lost me with their own actions over past 25 years.

This article insults me and other lifelong Democrats at DU by stating negative opinions of Hillary must be a result of 25 years of GOP smears. I was such a Clinton supporter, I got VIP tickets to various inaugural activities at his first inauguration. One of my kids worked on his inaugural committee and then for the DNC. I still have many mementos of that inauguration, such as several unopened bottles bearing the label "Germain-Robin Alambic Brandy, Small Barrel PV25, Clinton Inaugural 1933, Bottle No. (and written in by hand the number 35) The second label, on the back of the bottle says: "This brandy was distilled by hand on an antique cognac still by Hubert Germain-Robin, whose family has produced cognac for 200 years. The Clinton inaugural blend was drawn from a small barrel blended each year for the White House. The blend marries traditional elegance from the old world with the rich fruit flavor of grapes grown in Mendocino County, California."

I don't expect perfection from any politician, and although I thought Bill was a shit for all of his serial philandering, I wrote that off as typical of the kind of personality which you often see in male politicians. When he was arrogant enough to lie under oath? And Hillary staying with him after the rejection and humiliation she suffered as his wife? The terrible impact of Clinton policies - gutting welfare, promoting private prisons, pro-Iraq war and pro-cluster bombs votes? quid pro quos between foreign governments, weapons contractors the State Dept. under HRC and the Clinton Foundation? This never-ending string of Clinton scandals? I lost respect for the both of them. And in the last ten years or so, with the voluminous amount of documentation of those scandals now available via the web?

Hillary Clinton's reputation is the result of her own choices, decisions and actions, and nothing else.

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

28. So let me see if I have this right...

The GOP has smeared Hillary, therefore any criticism of her is "rewarding GOP smears". Does that just about sum it up?

What a joke.

[hollysmom]

29. first of all no one should assume what I think,

I don't think she is corrupt but she is influenced by her friends and all her friends have money right now. We are all influenced by the people around us, if you feel the need to raise a lot of money it is easiest to get it from people who have lots of money. and if you spend all your time talking to them, you lose the perspective of talking to those who do not. That is why I would love to see money out of politics.


Much like if you spend all your time talking to neo cons, you will most likely be a neo con and I think that is what she did.

In my life I am surrounded by uninterested non-voters (I really do hate talking to them) and to tea party people. If I was to let myself be influenced by them I would be a sad case, so I actively work to read a variety of sources and check out and verify stories they tell me (most turn out to be fake, I particularly like it when I can tell them that the source of what they read was from a satire site like the onion)

I don't think she is evil, I do think she will be a bad leader because of her associates. two different things. I don't believe the republican smears about Benghazi - if anyone uses their brain, they know what a stupid position that was for republicans, unfortunately most don't use their brains, but I do believe that she alters her views temporarily to win, and will switch back to her real beliefs. She is after all a politician and many do that. Should she win I see a quick approval for the TPP and more warmongering in the middle east, neither appeal to me.

[dchill]

30. No I'm not, and I KNOW I'm not.

You, on the other hand, choose to ignore the flagrant betrayal of law and trust that she IS guilty of.

[djean111]

31. Oh, FFS - Hillary is all for war, fracking, the TPP, cluster bombs, etc.

If you think for one second that I would support a politician who is for those things, if not for "GOP smears", you are sadly mistaken.

Be more dignified to just accept that many of us vastly prefer Bernie Sanders, and the platform/deeds/stances of those two politicians are diametrically opposing.

[DookDook]

78. Don't forget she's also for capital punishment and willing to compromise on abortion. eom

[vt_native]

33. Nice try, Chez

This is complete bullshit. No one's buyin' it.

[frylock]

36. Right, GOP smears are what caused the current crises in Libya and Honduras

Derpa derp.

[AgerolanAmerican]

37. Blaming the victim

No, if I think Clinton is untrustworthy it's because she's proven she can't be trusted.

[Logical]

40. LOL, ok. nt

[SamKnause]

41. There is absolutely nothing fun or serious in your posts.

It appears you are clueless on the background of the candidate you

support, or you know her background and just don't care, or you

support her policies and poor judgment.

[polly7]

44. Most respectfully, Sam

I know fun from years ago before the Iraq war even started and we were posting against it together on another message board. She was very, very anti-war. She's also been away from politics for a few years d/t a serious illness. I know she supports Clinton, I don't know or have any say in any of her views or if she's aware of all of the things many here are who've been here steadily for years .... but she's a good person with a heart of gold.

And so are you.


Hope she can be persuaded to go Sanders.

[SamKnause]

52. Thank you so much for your input.

I have been reading her posts for months.

She has said some pretty nasty things about Bernie that are not true.

I don't like seeing such an honorable humble man being maligned.

You are a good person as well.

I hope you have a wonderful safe weekend.

[polly7]

55. It makes me sad to see that.

He is a good man, and has only the welfare of the people he wants to lead at heart. I just love him.

You and yours have the same.

[fun n serious]

58. Thank you Polly. I love you

Yes. I was against the Iraq war from the start. I admit I knew what apparently Hillary did not! I also heard she voted for the war because it was going to be passed anyway and Bush Admin said they would give money to rebuild NY. She was a senator there when it happened. If you look at my post count it doesn't reflect being on DU for a decade.. That is because I steeped away for a long while and not up to date on all current events that have occurred. I have fond memories of the Clinton's from the 90's and I remember Janet Reno. Linda Tripp and all the hypocrisy attacks the GOP threw the Clinton's. Polly and I took some real bullying and attacks from hard right freako peeps but we kept on pushing. I love you so much, Polly.

Anyway, Cheers.

[polly7]

61. Cheers, girl.

Have a great weekend!!

[fun n serious]

66. You too.

I'm watching these Caucasus go down while my grandson is napping. After that it's Jimmy Neuron dominating the TV

[polly7]

67. ummmm .....

who is this Jimmy Neuron person?

[fun n serious]

68. Cartoon

Rocket kid cartoon guy kids show.

[polly7]

69. LOL

Oh! I should have guessed that with a little one to babysit. Sounds peaceful and sweet - enjoy that grand-baby and give him a hug and smooch from me, please.

[fun n serious]

70. I will TY. nt

[fun n serious]

47. Oh look how cute you are!

[phantom power]

42. Or, you remember who Henry Kissinger is. Or, what the Iraq War was.

[fun n serious]

49. Yes. People change

Elizabeth Warren was a republican until 1995..

[Wilms]

46. Because the Republicans hate her, it means she is squeaky clean.

That's the thrust here. Right?

Some of your posts lead me to believe you're not serious, but rather, are just having, er, fun.

Enjoy away!

[strategery blunder]

48. Some of her "weaknesses" are attributable to RW smears, some of them are self-inflicted.

I think most Democrats, outside of the trolls, can fairly evaluate which or which.

I'm a Sanders supporter. I accept that pretty much anything from the 1990s is a RW smear and disregard it. Benghazi? RW smear. I disregard it.

Now, I'd like to add a bit of my perspective.

The first primary I was old enough to vote came in 2004, and after Dean was Screamed by the media, John Kerry was the "electable" one. He had experience. He was a war veteran, which was pushed as an important "electability" credential at the time. These all sound like arguments that Hillary supporters are making now. But what happened in the general? "He was for the Iraq war before he was against it." The flip-flop meme cost him dearly, even though it was only a half truth, there was enough to it to undercut him. (And the swiftboating was just disgusting, I think we can all agree).

Now, if Hillary is the nominee, I'm sure we'll be hearing stuff like, "She negotiated the TPP before she was against it."
"She voted for the bankruptcy bill that made it harder for people to get a fresh start, and easier for the big banks to squeeze the middle class, before she told the banks to 'cut it out.' "

Stuff like that. That is self-inflicted. Even after discarding the scurrilous RW smears, she's still extremely vulnerable to charges of flip-flopping, the same kinds of attacks that ultimately doomed the Kerry candidacy and gave us 4 more years of overgrown shrubbery.

I fear her lack of credibility on the TPP alone will cost us Michigan and Ohio, and possibly Wisconsin too. Especially Ohio. Especially against Trump, who can semi-credibly run as an outsider (and to Hillary's left!) even though he sees his run for the presidency as a personal investment that he expects to pay off. And those are states we need.

[Motown_Johnny]

50. Epic Fail.

Your hero worship has mislead you. She is corrupt and untrustworthy.

Deal with it.

[peace13]

51. This isn't the first time around for this piece.

Some of us are old enough to have Hillary speak with her own lips into our ears. She can't keep a story straight and that is the bottom line.

[arcane1]

53. She manages to "reward" them all on her own. Here's a crazy idea:

If your opponents are trying to smear you as untrustworthy, don't be untrustworthy.

See how easy that is?

[joshcryer]

56. I don't think she's as corrupt as most politicians.

But I do think she equivocates on everything, sm which gives the impression she's a huge liar (but I don't think she lies as much as most politicians either).

Controversial I know.

[fun n serious]

90. I appreciate that thought

and I understand it. Thank you

[UtahLib]

57. K&R. Thanks, fun n serious.

[fun n serious]

71. YW.

I thought it was a good read.

[1StrongBlackMan]

59. LOL. I'd say ...

If You're Liberal and You Think Hillary Clinton Is Corrupt and Untrustworthy

Was on Team Bernie ... before even considering the question.

[Katashi_itto]

64. Lololololololololol................Lolololololololol........

Lololololol.........snicker.

[EndElectoral]

65. Here we go again..

[hopeforchange2008]

73. Bosnia sniper fire is a good example of how Hillary gets herself in trouble

without assists from anyone else. That one statement - which she repeated several times - represents why I don't trust her. She's too comfortable lying to promote herself. Her goal isn't to serve her constituents. It's to sit in the oval office chair.

[Autumn]

75. I think that Hillary is very untrustworthy, as for corrupt I lean that way

because of her emails I have read. That's not GOP smears, that's her own damn actions. She smeared herself.

[mainer]

77. She voted for war in Iraq. She pushed for wars in Syria and Libya.

That's enough to tell me what I need to know. And it has nothing to do with Republican smears.

[Loki]

100. And Bernie voted to help pay for those wars.

Hypocrisy is so easy when no one is paying attention.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/07/27/bernie-sanders-savior-or-seducer-of-the-anti-war-left/

[NastyRiffraff]

79. All too true

Thanks fun n serious. I don't think some of the Bernie supporters realize that even Bernie will have to deal with Congress, and that he will be subjected to the evil eyes of the Republicans in the unlikely event that he gets the nomination and wins the GE. Yes, EVEN BERNIE will have to actually get things done to fulfill his promises. Except when (not if) he doesn't, he, too, will be tossed under the bus by his (former) adoring supporters.

Yes, EVEN BERNIE will be exposed as a flawed human. Luckily for him and his supporters, he won't win the nomination.

[felix_numinous]

81. If you've read all the same evidence

everyone else has and believe HRC's version then vote for her.

This is a matter of trust, which neither can be bought or forced, it is earned. What can be forced is compliance, and Americans are not in a blind compliant mindset these days. They know they've been ripped off.

We've all heard the RW conspiracy theory too and it just doesn't add up. I think they've just made a lot of enemies like all neo cons do, and they are experiencing the blow back (ie Karma) associated with the aggressive and xenophobic actions of the past.

Democrats stood strong against the policies of GWB so to expect the party to suddenly change our stripes is to me deluded.

[Carolina]

82. What a load

of BS

I guess the GOP smear machine is behind her aye votes for IWR, Bush's Bankruptcy Bill and Patriot Acts 1&2. The GOP smear machine is also responsible for her love of regime change and its horrific consequences in Honduras, Libya and Syria. It's also behind her sales of arms to those who "donated" to the Clinton Foundation, like Saudi Arabia. And the GOP made her take all that Wall Street money and support TPP, fracking, Monsanto and Keystone pipeline. Yes, that's all the GOP smear team's doing. And I guess it also made her team up with its former poison pen man, David Brock.

Yes, the GOP may malign her, but $hillary can blame only herself for her record; and those who cannot see this are willfully blind!

[mhatrw]

84. If you are liberal, and you think Hillary Clinton is as well,

I have some prime real estate in the Everglades that you might be interested in.

[fun n serious]

95. You should practice LOVE and peace.

Like me. I know your comment was meant to say I'm gullible or dumb...It's not nice to show hate and ugliness. I love you.

[Bill USA]

86. I applaud your efforts to get people to do their own thinking. It's a long shot of course..

So many people don't want to make the effort. So, not having thoughts of their own, they are oh-so compliant and allow their thoughts to be programmed by the GOP.

Propaganda and use of the techiques of disinfromation programs people to think a certain way through suggestion - innuendo and insinuation. Unfortunately, this does work with the many credulous people who are wandering around through life. I think one part of propaganda's appeal is that it gives people a kind of simple(-minded) certainty (it offers a kind of security they had when children and their parents would tell them the way things 'are') that facing reality and coming up with your own conclusions does not. Real answers requires obtaining relevant evidence and application of logical analysis of the evidence at hand.

[fun n serious]

89. Thank you Bill

Yes. I hope to continue to post positives about Clinton. I have to try to bring us all together. I want people to see the positives of both of our candidates and the STARK difference there is from the GOP even though they don't think so.

[Throd]

91. I didn't need Republicans to come to that conclusion.

Just as I don't need them to point to a tree and say "that's a tree".

[Roland99]

92. Another BS premise

Seeing a lot of those this weekend

Hmmmm

[loyalsister]

93. Victimology was a good political strategy for both Clintons for awhile

But, a lot of us have grown tired of it. The truth is it has all been of their own making. Hillary really has told numerous disprovable lies. She also did use a private server for official government communications while a member of the executive branch. And, her husband did, in fact, lie under oath. Yet, they want us to all be sympathetic and forgiving because the GOP walked through the doors they left open?
It's a silly ideology to forgive every transgression because of the political motives of people we don't like. But, she can apparently count on it among some people.

[tammywammy]

94. K&R

[mcar]

97. K&R

[democrattotheend]

98. I don't distrust her because of Republican smears

I distrust her because almost every time I see her interviewed, it feels like she is not telling the truth and/or equivocating to avoid being pinned down. Yes, all politicians do that, but she does moreso than others.

I also distrust her because she has a tendency to be overly secretive and even paranoid, probably as a result of 25 years of GOP smears. Often she is her own worst enemy by being so secretive that it looks like she has something to hide when it turns out she doesn't.

I also don't support her because she is far too hawkish for me (although unlike some Bernie supporters, I think her hawkishness has more to do with over-compensating for being a woman than her being part of some shadowy conspiracy).

I do not hate Hillary, and I will support her if she wins the nomination. There are plenty of things I admire about her. But the criticisms above are the reasons she is not my first choice, and why I don't find her to be as trustworthy as Bernie.

[DemonGoddess]

99. K&R!

[Cha]

101. Mahalo fun!

[Cobalt Violet]

104. It's the GOP's fault she won't release the transcripts of her speeches?

[iwillalwayswonderwhy]

105. The republican smears?

Jeez, I didn't believe a one of 'em. Not the Rose Law Firm, nor Vince Foster, not Ben Gauzy, not the email scandal (although I think that one was poor judgement). There's more ridiculous ones, but I never gave them an ounce of credence.

It's the cronyism, the hawkishness, and her rigid and inflexible philospophies that only seem to change when it's politically expedient that put me off.

I'm not even sure she'd name a Supreme Court justice that wasn't to the right.

Not one thing I don't like is something a republican would have any problem with.

[jfern]

110. No, I see how she repeatedly lies about Bernie

That has nothing to do with the Republicans.

[TexasTowelie]

113. K&R.

[Sky Masterson]

115. She lacks courage.

I have seen countless clips of her saying horrid bigoted things like "Marriage is between a man and a woman" and pimping invading Iraq.
I feel that she is Hawkish and poll driven and lacks integrity.
Also, Where I live in Kansas she is terribly disliked.
Mostly by women(Which blows me away).
Not that a Democrat could win Kansas, but that feeling isn't just here.
She will not be the lesser of two evils in the General. She will be the Sorta evil running against the Devil.
This liberal will vote for the "Sorta evil" one in that instance.