Hillary caught flat out lying. An Oscar worthy performance.

[Phlem]

Ahh the History, the Internet and digital video. It does make my heart sing sometimes.

the video:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x109944

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

all right gang, spin it and give it yer best shot.

[Jester Messiah]

1. That's like catching a fish flat out swimming

I mean, at this point, it's like "yeah, and...?" It's what she does. People who support her actually like this about her, that she's such a consummate "player of the game." It's not an issue. It's what she does.

[bkkyosemite]

4. It amazes me that they think it okay.

[nolabels]

22. It's not they think it's okay, but more that is a way to conduct one's business

Understanding what you are working with is half the battle in getting whatever you are doing done.

[Bonobo]

2. Lying about being a victim of warfare is particularly disgusting.

She has encouraged the deaths of many, many, many people through her votes and speeches.

There are real people, innocent people, babies that are actually the victims of wars.

It is disgusting to make light of that by playing the false victim.

[bkkyosemite]

7. This liar wants to lead our Country and people are fine with it...just amazed as I said before!

[Politicalboi]

3. Again? LOL!

Gotta have this

Liar liar pants on fire.

[Phlem]

8. Dude, your killing me!

you made me cry.........with tears of joy!

[Merryland]

27. Hillary and Brian Williams should compare notes on starring in dramatic war stories.

Like 2 aging lying generals.

[Duval]

38. Brian made one mistake.

I have missed him. I don't see myself ever missing Hillary.

[yourpaljoey]

29. too good

[itsrobert]

5. Keep it up

Only a few more weeks and your fun will be over.

[Trenzalore]

6. +1

[Phlem]

9. Oh I think I'm going to need more effort than that.

Convince me otherwise.

[Fawke Em]

10. Why?

Even if she becomes the nominee, do you think we're magically going to stop discussing her flaws? Maybe not on this board as its a violation of TOS, but we're going to continue to point out how really bad she is all over social media.

No matter what you think, there is a sizeable chunk of progressive voters who will NEVER vote for her. If we'd wanted a Republican, we'd have voted for one. We'll be going Green or writing in our choice.

[Phlem]

12. Exactly.

I'm way past the election.

I'll follow the rules.

I will still post where I can.

[Politicalboi]

13. I'm with you

I will support Jill Stein over Hillary. And visiting other sites to warn others about Hillary. And of course pointing out her never ending LIES! It's going to be fun to watch tears of defeat again. YUM!!!!

[LiberalArkie]

18. The secret with be to keep Bern-Net working to start to focus on state elections and

not let it fall apart. If that can be done then the nation can be changed.

[2pooped2pop]

19. Impeachment will start day one

She would go down in history as the worst president ever, perhaps even beating out Bush. Then electing a woman president after that will be nearly impossible. Then she will take her place as the second half of the only husband and wife team to be impeached.

[JTFrog]

25. Because we don't need that fucking noise here when we are trying to win an election.

We'll be making phone calls, registering voters, getting out the vote and using DU as a place to support the Democratic nominee for president.

As Skinner said after Obama became the presumptive nominee:

A thought about context and the constructiveness of criticism.
Posted by Skinner in General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)
Wed Jul 02nd 2008, 08:59 AM

Since the FISA and faith-based stories have been in the news, there has been a lot of discussion about whether (and how) members should be permitted to criticize Barack Obama, our presumptive presidential nominee. I'm not going to get into the gritty details of enforcement, or what is-or-isn't permitted, because that is not the purpose of this post. The purpose of this post is merely to make an observation about criticism, and the context in which it is offered.

If someone offers criticism of Barack Obama, I find that the criticism is easier to accept if the speaker has already sufficiently demonstrated their support for Senator Obama's candidacy.

Put another way: If you want to be taken seriously, it helps to prove your bona-fides.

To be clear: I'm not speaking as a DU Administrator here. My purpose is merely to offer some helpful insight to those of you who don't seem to understand why you are not showered with rose petals when you offer your special brand of constructive criticism here on DU. Allow me to explain.

If you have spent the last six-to-twelve months trashing Senator Obama here on DU, and since the primaries ended you have not given any credible indication that you are now a supporter of his campaign, then if you post a thread about how you are incredibly disappointed in him because {insert reason here}, people are likely to wonder about your motivations and conclude that you are still trying to derail his campaign.

I'm not saying they're right. I'm not saying it's fair. What I am saying is that it is virtually inevitable.

So, if you want to be taken seriously -- if you want your constructive criticism to be accepted as constructive -- I humbly suggest that you put some effort into demonstrating that you actually want our guy to win this thing.

Of course at that time there were moderators and actual rules about constructive criticism. I hear they are making some changes around here to deal with the noisemakers after we have a nominee regardless of which candidate wins. Things have progressed far beyond "heated politics" here.

[Phlem]

36. Mkay.

Sorry but I won't be here if Hillary is the presumptive nominee. Oh I'll follow the rules but I'm voting for who I want as president. I'll take it somewhere else.

I've been here since before her 1st try, she is worse than before. But go ahead and work for someone who's a pathological liar. I won't make any so called noise around here, but I will continue to spread the truth.

Happy?

Oh, and Hell No I don't want a Republican to win but that's not my fucking fault is it. I've always voted D, never voted R, will never ever vote R. But I have suffered greatly under Clinton and Obama, 2 thirdway politicians, yet you're asking me to do it again? Seriously? Yea that's right it's not all fucking Rainbows and Unicorns out here in real world.

Politicians are supposed to work for us, not themselves. They are not fucking rock stars or celebrities but the nations and the citizens of that nation's employees and I'm going to hire the best candidate for the job, not vote for the lesser of 2 evils ever again because that is not a choice, it's blackmail.

We are not going to align until we all feel the same equal pain, unfortunately we are not there yet. We desperately needed that when Obama the populist was running, then turned complete Thirdway after becoming President. Not playing that game anymore.

If politicians cannot entice people to vote for them that is their fault and the Party's fault, not the people's.

Remember, voting is each individual's choice?

Simple logic.

[JTFrog]

37. No one is telling you who to vote for.

DU rules apply to DU only.

Go do what you gotta do.

[Phlem]

40. "Because we don't need that fucking noise here when we are trying to win an election."

"We'll be making phone calls, registering voters, getting out the vote and using DU as a place to support the Democratic nominee for president."

Exactly, like before, when every time a thirdway corporate friendly candidate is in place, we work against our best interest.

So we're in agreement.

Like I said before, never voted Republican, never will.

[pinebox]

39. Agreed 100%

[IdaBriggs]

11. From your keyboard to the Heavens above ---

Please make her GO AWAY in a few more weeks!

Amen.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

15. I think not. The fun will move somewhere else if Sanders doesn't get the nod.

[bkkyosemite]

20. If telling the truth about lying yes we will keep it up.

[LondonReign2]

26. So tell us, why are you OK with the constant lies of your preferred candidate?

[All in it together]

30. Yup, if Hillary is the nominee no more fun for anyone but the .01%

I guess unless we keep pushing on Hillary to go left and not go to war, not encourage fracking, but save our environment and reduce climate change. Not fun, much more work than electing Bernie in the first place.

[ViseGrip]

14. Best shot? She's a habitual liar.

[Phlem]

16. So true.

still waiting for someone to refute it.

[AzDar]

17. "She Was Practiced At The Art Of Deception..." --Rolling Stones...

[amborin]

21. repeatedly

[DanTex]

23. ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511690900

[Phlem]

24. It's not a fucking smear if it's the Truth chief.

Nice try but you lose.

It's extremely dangerous to ignore the facts about a candidate's past thinking they'll be different once they're elected.

She's tried it before and she's using the same BS that she did last time, this time.

Look past the female and SEE THE POLITICIAN!

Jeeebus!

Go on and ignore the facts of her history, the rest of us won't.



PS. Don't be a hypocrite, you know damn well Hillary supporters do a fantastic job of smearing.

[Phlem]

32. Your post has no substance again. Try refuting it.

That's all I ask.

[Phlem]

28. Hillary supporters are unable to look past the female and SEE THE POLITICIAN!

They think Sanders supporters are not pro female and don't realize we are evaluating the politician which goes hand in hand with the person.

The Person running for President will be evaluated no matter what. If the person has any skeletons in their closet, they will be found.

All part of running for POTUS. See History.

FFS.

[Faux pas]

31. I wouldn't have

a pathological liar for a friend. Why would all the clintonians want one as our country's leader???? Do not compute.

[Shrike47]

33. If we have to choose between two pathological liars, wouldn't you pick the Democrat?

[VulgarPoet]

34. Not when there's three people running.

Thankfully, my home of record is in a state deep enough red, that if I cut my hand open compared to it, it'd look like I was bleeding white; so my vote really doesn't matter.

[Phlem]

35. "Not when there's three people running"

Exactly.

2 from the establishment and 1 trying to change the establishment.