The Benghazi hearings: another reason why Hillary should and will be POTUS.

[DanTex]

The GOP jackasses are getting angry, and she's keeping her cool and professionalism. And she really really knows her stuff. Her performance is a testament to her demeanor and character, and also to her expertise.

She could do this for weeks, and the GOP would just keep looking dumber. Go Hillary!

[JTShroyer]

1. I agree 100%

Hillary is killing it!!

[randys1]

2. This shows how good she will be while President. Level headed, etc. Defies all the crap

rightwingers and some liberal men say Women cant be.

[JTShroyer]

3. She's been doing it since the 1990s:

And she always has to re-prove herself. Every. Damn. Time.

[randys1]

5. As badly as I want her to reinstate Glass Steagall and break up the banks, I will take

GREAT PLEASURE seeing her elected, if my guy Bernie isnt, and rubbing it in the face of the rightwingers on DU who have been doing Karl Rove's work

[djean111]

8. Elect her out of spite? Good grief. n/t

[randys1]

10. The anti Hillary brigade NEVER gives up...hmmm

[djean111]

13. The anti-Bernie brigade NEVER gives up, either.....hmmmmmm indeed.

I am thinking Hillary is getting a lot more mileage out of this than the GOP, really.
Was this really supposed to elicit an outpouring of support for poor Hillary? She is doing fine, I cannot support her for president. I prefer Bernie. Simple as that.

[randys1]

15. I am a Bernie supporter, and DU has paid trolls employed by Karl Rove and friends

[djean111]

17. And, right ablove us in this thread, you wrote -

This shows how good she will be while President. Level headed, etc. Defies all the crap
rightwingers and some liberal men say Women cant be.

As badly as I want her to reinstate Glass Steagall and break up the banks, I will take
GREAT PLEASURE seeing her elected, if my guy Bernie isnt, and rubbing it in the face of the rightwingers on DU who have been doing Karl Rove's work

Who do you support for president? Looks like it is Hillary, not Bernie. Give me a break.

[randys1]

18. Wrong, and you know it, I am on record here saying it hundreds of times

it says so in my post that you quote

KARL ROVE HAS PAID PEOPLE AT DU ATTACKING HILLARY
KARL ROVE HAS PAID PEOPLE AT DU ATTACKING HILLARY
KARL ROVE HAS PAID PEOPLE AT DU ATTACKING HILLARY
KARL ROVE HAS PAID PEOPLE AT DU ATTACKING HILLARY
KARL ROVE HAS PAID PEOPLE AT DU ATTACKING HILLARY

[djean111]

20. Saying "I support Bernie" while lauding Hillary for president is some damned weird support.

I think there are paid operatives attacking Bernie too. And some really enthusiastic volunteers.
In any event, even if KARL ROVE HAS PAID PEOPLE AT DU ATTACKING HILLARY is true, that does not mean she should be the candidate, or that supporters of other candidates should start supporting her. Out of sympathy? What a piss-poor reason to support a candidate.

[DanTex]

21. Why is that weird? Most Dems like both Bernie and Hillary.

You're mistaking support for Bernie with hatred of Hillary. They might appear the same on DU, but they're not.

[zappaman]

23. Looks like someone is having a bad week.

[djean111]

25. From what I have seen, it is the Hillary supporters who flat out declare that anyone who does not

support Hillary is a hater, and that any criticism of Hillary's record or policies is bashing and smearing. If one does not support Hillary, one is "anti-Hillary", as if the only reason anyone could possibly have to support another candidate is because they hate Hillary, as if supporting Hillary was supposed to be universal for Democrats, and we are just being stubborn and hateful.

[DanTex]

26. Not at all. The best indication of Hillary-hatred is people who won't vote for her in the GE,

preferring instead to let the GOP take over. And then there are the people who are cheering on the GOP witch hunt about emails and Benghazi.

All the leading Democratic candidates are great. I would happily vote for any of them in the general. You?

[Sheepshank]

60. not just this thread, but all over this site you are lashing out

at almost everyone that isn't in lock step with you.

Try and chillax, you might pop a vein if you're not careful.

[SusanaMontana41]

55. Most Corporate Dems sure like her.

Why would I support a Democrat when I can support a democrat?

[randys1]

24. I am pretty busy, I found out there are a lot of SO CALLED liberals who claim that

if they dont get their way, if Bernie is not the nominee, they will either NOT vote or will vote 3rd party.

This, combined with the MILLIONS of Black people and students who will NOT be allowed to vote, is a threat to the human race, because if teaparty or GOP is elected, all life on planet earth is therefore at risk.

So, like I said, kinda busy. Working two jobs at the same time, one to promote Bernie where and when I can, the other to try and get new voters to vote Democratic ticket.


So, from time to time, while I and thousands others work to save the human race from the disgusting teaparty and GOP, I may not have the time to respond to you.

But like I said, kinda busy, human race at stake...

[murielm99]

30. I don't have any problem with what randys is saying.

I support Hillary. I have always liked Bernie. I was happy see the way he gave away the donation from "pharmabro." My support of Hillary does not mean I have to hate Bernie.

That is what is wrong with this place. There is hatred here instead of support for our respective candidates.

There are no paid operatives attacking Bernie. That is absurd. This "They do it, too" crap is simply not true. That is how your side tries to deflect. They try to get the Hillary supporters on the defensive. It isn't working.

Bernie is no threat to the right or anyone else. If he ever does become a threat, you haven't seen what the right-wing and the media will do to him. Just wait.

[Hortensis]

33. Not weird to me at all. It's really possible to support one person without

trashing an opponent. Really.

You're also missing the point of Randys1's belief - that Rove would find attitudes of HRC haters here SO helpful that he would pay people to keep it coming. I don't know what Randys1 thinks he knows, but, in a game with extremely high stakes, it's certainly extremely credible. DU has a large audience, far larger than those who post.

It's also far, far too early for Rove to start trashing Bernie. Au contraire, since at this point his task is to take out our frontrunner, anyone Rove sent to discuss Bernie now would be praising him to the skies as a savior sent to rescue America from the Democratic Party Corporatists. (Boy, Randys1, does that sound really credible too!)

[djean111]

35. Trust me, the reasons I have for not supporting Hillary were not given to me by Rove.

War, cluster bombs, more H-1B visas, Third Way economics, triangulation, fracking, TPP. Revolving evolving.
i don't actually know what a paid Rove operative could add to that, really.

[Hortensis]

65. Oh, sure. We definitely have some intersects, Djean.

A Rove/GOP goal might be to help keep particularly useful issues on the table, though, make sure no one ever loses enthusiasm for broken records. Just look at their Benghazi technique.

[djean111]

68. The Benghazi "technique" is aimed at GOP voters.

And is being used by the Hillary campaign as campaign material, as if being able to "act presidential" is more important than enacting Third Way policies. Really, the $5 million the GOP spent on the panel is the best $5 million that Hillary did not have to spend, and it is ALL just hot air and posturing.

[Hortensis]

71. The "Third Way" came to the U.S. during a period of conservative mood

as a way for Democrats to undermine the GOP and gain power to get things done by stealing GOP issues and calling them their own. They hoped to get more independents moving toward the Democrats and to be able to pass laws that were at least toned-down, more functional versions of what the GOP would have passed.

Except for shameful failures -- Like Biden's failure to get passed a milder version of the three-strikes idea. It was enormously popular in an America that had been lead to believe violent crime was at all-time highs instead of in a long decline, and he failed and ended up help pass a GOP version that is a truly shameful stain on the Democratic Party. He did not hold a line that should never have been yielded.

Sure, maybe they should have all stood on their liberal principles instead, gone home, and handed all three branches entirely over to the GOP for 35 years, but maybe they shouldn't have either. You do realize there is a very strong right-wing movement toward replacing secular democracy with a theocratic democracy (like Iran's), right? We have people in Congress right now who are apologists for slavery; Bush feels we should bring back shaming. These are tips of a huge iceberg. It's NOT an imaginary threat.

Fascism is also a natural product of unchained economic conservatism, and we've been hearing a whole lot of push toward fascism from the right all through this period. But, in spite of the growth of a billionaire class and stripping of protective regulations from the working classes, it's still only noise. Our representative republic is still intact at base, and that is because the Democrats did not fold and go home. This is why I find all the one-sided criticism so misguided and offensive. And ungrateful -- surely a little grudging bit would be appropriate; not everyone who stuck found this era rewarding.

In any case, the point is that the nation has been shifting left once again and that era has passed. The need for liberal politicians to move to the right to get anything done has passed. The "third way" itself has a few lingering adherents but is basically passe. There are still plenty of economically moderate liberals -- and you can reasonably bad-mouth them for positions you don't like -- but there always were and always will be those, not to be mistaken with the brief third-way political movement, which IMO lives on most strongly in your indignation.

Well, off to bed. We drive off to Florida in the middle of the night.

[SusanaMontana41]

72. You found the exact words I was looking for.

[SusanaMontana41]

61. Rove doesn't have to pay anyone.

Everything Hillary is public record.

Almost everything …

[Phlem]

47. OKEE DOKIEEE

[SusanaMontana41]

53. Name names, randys1

If Karl Rove is paying people to attack HRC on DU, I want them gone more than you do.

[randys1]

54. No you dont, because you know damn well there is no way I could name them

without being banned from this place and I obviously cant know which ones are and which arent, BUT
your comment implies there arent any, then I dont want to talk to you anymore.

[SusanaMontana41]

56. OK. How about a link to the site that spilled this information?

No names, just a link.

[randys1]

58. Your insincerity is showing. First, Thom Hartmann says it is happening, others say it is

happening, most know that it is happening, why are you arguing against this commonly accepted reality?

What is your agenda?

Karl Rove is happy today.

[SusanaMontana41]

62. Thom Hartmann says it's happening here?

Provide the link.

[Sheepshank]

64. why are you goading a fellow Dem into a hide?

you know...or at least you should know full well that calling out a board member is not permitted by the TOS.

I question the existance of many on this board too.

[SusanaMontana41]

66. You must be joking. Quoting Thom Hartmann isn't banned.

I asked for a link to his broadcast. FAIL.

"If you can't answer the question, change the subject." — anonymous

[MineralMan]

75. Name them, then.

If you know that there are such people on DU, then you must know who they are. Let's see a list, please.

[randys1]

78. Let me go find what I wrote to the teapartier who asked me that EXACT question yesterday on a

different board.

Give me a second , this will be easy because rightwingers ask me that ALL the time...

hold on, just a second

oh yeah, here it is...

This is a disingenuous question, you know as well as I do that the internet and radio call in shows are constantly trolled by rightwing talking points. That it is impossible for anyone to discern who is and who isnt one of them and even if I knew if I were to say so I would be banned from the site, because there would be no definitive way to prove it.

Now, I KNOW why THEY Ask me that disingenuous question, but for the GOD FUCKING DAMN LIFE of me I dont know how it could EVER be asked on a liberal message board




You want a list? will make a list, and it will be of people who ask me this question on a liberal message board

[MineralMan]

79. Here's the deal, as I see it:

It's very easy to write that some people on any discussion site are trolls or paid tools of one side or another. It's a very common accusation. The reality, though, is that people who make such general accusations have no idea whether it is actually true or not, since they have zero evidence of it, other than their own suspicions.

It would be easy to come up with a list of people who have said that paid trolls or other usurpers are active on DU. It's really common for people to say that. So far, though, nobody has come up with any actual evidence of it.

So, whenever someone posts something like that, I always ask for a list of such people. Regardless of the rules of the site, if someone knew that there were individuals on this site who were acting as trolls at the behest of someone or some organization, such a list, with supporting documentation, could be sent to the admins of the website for their action. As far as I know, that has not happened, and of the many people who have been called such a thing, either directly or subtly, none have been banned for that reason.

I know that, because people have accused me of that. It's simply not true. I disagree with some people here from time to time, and that is what usually leads to that type of accusation. Like every DUer I know, I am here on my own accord and write my own opinions here.

So, again, if you know of people who are here on false pretenses because of Carl Rove or anyone else, please send those screen names and your evidence to the admins of the website. General accusations are meaningless. They only stir up bad feelings and are almost certainly incorrect. Document your claim and send the evidence to the admins, please. Failing that, please consider not making such claims in public posts.

[randys1]

80. Here's the deal, ANY con elected to the WH Is certain death for many people.

Actual death.

Women for sure, for the reason we all acknowledge, but others as well.

I remember what happened in 2010 when certain folks were mad at Obama and decided NOT to vote.

I remember.

[MineralMan]

81. I was not one of those people in 2010, nor in any other election.

That has nothing to do what I'm talking about, anyhow. DU is about electing Democrats to office. Almost everyone here is here to promote that. They're not all promoting the same Democrats, though, especially during primary season. Anyone promoting conservatives or conservative viewpoints here is soon going to not be here. That I've seen over and over again since I joined in 2008.

I'm talking about so-called paid trolls. You were talking about paid trolls. If you know of some, please inform the admins.

[A Simple Game]

40. This says a lot to me.

This shows how good she will be while President. Level headed, etc. Defies all the crap
rightwingers and some liberal men say Women cant be.

The bold is mine.

I don't know any liberal bashers that are Bernie supporters, all seem to be for Hillary.

Makes sense.

[George II]

45. Miss this? "I will take GREAT PLEASURE seeing her elected, if my guy Bernie isnt"

[randys1]

76. Selective sight they seem to have eh.

More than one person here on DU is CHALLENGING me that Karl Rove does NOT have anybody on DU posting anti Hillary threads

Funny, but when I say a clearly liberal thing and I get challenged, disingenuously, it usually happens on rightwing boards

No, I cant prove it anymore than Thom Hartmann can who says they are all over the place doing this, and no I dont think he specifically mentioned DU this time but he certainly has in the past, he has certainly said that there are rightwing PAID trolls doing just that here and elsewhere.

On Mark Thompson's XM show last night he picked up a caller before the caller was screened or knew he was going on and Mark caught him rehearsing his rove talking points.

It should be on twitter today, kind of a big deal.

[SusanaMontana41]

48. Looks like Corporate vs the underclass

If you want same-old same-old, vote Corporate.

[DrBulldog]

41. LOL.

This is a PREVIEW of her four years in the White House all the while she is unable to accomplish anything while both houses of Congress are firmly controlled by Republicans (due to low voter turnout) who will fight her every day. Do you really want four years of days just like today?

[randys1]

42. I dont want a Republican president, if you do I dont know what to tell you

[George II]

46. Obama has done just fine facing exactly the same thing, and for 7 years so far.

[MineralMan]

4. She Showed Presidential Demeanor

That's important. Presidents must be able to do that in the face of stressful situations. Both diffidence and bristling are inappropriate in a President's demeanor. Hillary Clinton is presidential.

[R B Garr]

67. Absolutely right. She is very Presidential, and

that came through in the debate, too.

[silenttigersong]

6. I wouldn't go that far

This is an example of United States interests that indicate a willingness to allow an unnecessary sacrifice of lives,for regime change. Hillary Clinton is part of that along with Republicans.

[redstateblues]

9. I wouldn't go that far

[upaloopa]

11. As has been pointed out many times this morning

diplomats knowingly put their lives on the line in service to their country.
Whether you agree with the administration's actions or not, you can't say Ambassador Stevens was a victim of the administration.

[ohheckyeah]

12. That's completely

untrue.

[redstateblues]

7. They continue to underestimate her.

[colsohlibgal]

14. Could Yes...Should Not So Much

Wall Street, the Security/Defense Conglomerate....Pro Hillary people think they don't expect a return on those investments?

Then there is that pesky yes vote on the Iraq unprovoked war...American lives in exchange for Halliburton, Blackwater etc making millions.

Just a bridge too far for some of us.

[Gothmog]

16. Hillary Clinton is doing great

[Politicalboi]

19. Yeah, we all enjoy playing the Clinton game

So we need to elect her as President so we can have 4 or 8 more years of this shit. I know the GOP are assholes, but this should show that she shouldn't be president. January 20th 2017 the impeachment of Clinton part 2.

I support Bernie, but WILL vote for HRC if she is the choice of the party at the GE.

[DanTex]

22. If the GOP tries to impeach her on day one, it will be to her advantage.

[Politicalboi]

31. To "her" advantage

So the country has to go through this again. I know it takes two to tango an impeachment, but if we don't get rid of those rabid Repukes we're going to have years of stagnation, with investigations on day one.

[DanTex]

32. I agree. Vote Hillary for president and Dems all the way down the ticket.

The GOP in control of congress makes progress much more difficult.

[mcar]

27. I do not know how she is keeping her cool

Gowdy is an unmitigated a-hole. She is so presidential right now - Obama-like in his calm intelligence.

[calimary]

28. Probably because she's eaten hors d'oeuvres bigger than him for lunch.

[DrBulldog]

29. No, it is not. Think it through.

Even if Hillary is nominated, there is little chance either house of Congress will be returned to the Democrats so the clowns that you are seeing today will still be there doing their daily dirt and Hillary will become a figurehead.

But if Bernie is nominated, he alone has the enthusiasm and energy of 75,000,000 millennials behind him who will explode the voting population and consequently likely capture at least one house of Congress for the Democrats, making it possible for Bernie to start working to fix some of our horrible problems.

So think of today's struggle as a PREVIEW of the one that will CONTINUE throughout Hillary's administration if she is elected.

[RBInMaine]

57. ENOUGH with the Debbie-Downerism.

[whatchamacallit]

34. Too bad the only people watching are rabid republicans

and rabid fans.

[Prism]

36. You misunderstand my opposition to her then

I don't think it's arguable that she is poised, intelligent, tenacious, composed, diligent, or resilient. She has many personal qualities that recommend her personally.

However, I do not trust nor want her policies or ideological disposition in the White House.

It is thoroughly possible to believe she is kicking Republican ass right now (and she is), and to still believe she should not be our chief executive.

[SusanaMontana41]

50. Seconded. nt

[Maedhros]

38. If the goal is simply to make the GOP look dumb, then maybe.

If the goal is to improve the lives of working class Americans, then no.

[Laser102]

39. Watching her and her command of the facts is really something.

Also thank you again, those who are supporting Bernie but rooting for Hillary during this political farce.

[nyabingi]

43. Let someone like me question her for two minutes

and she'll need to held back to keep from rushing the dais to attack me.

[raindaddy]

63. Instead of meaningless questions from a party that barely represents a quarter of the population...

It would be interesting if we had any real journalists left in this country that would ask Hillary about her association with Wall Street.

Would she make the American people a promise not to flood her administration with corporate and Wall Street insiders?

Would she appoint an Attorney General with no Wall Street connections and dedicated to prosecute fraud and corruption in the upper tier of our society.

Why won't she support Glass Steagall, especially since we've witnessed so much corruption in Wall Street.

Is she going to change her mind on the TPP if she becomes President?


I'd also ask her about some questionable donations to the Clinton Foundation and along with some questionable arms sales...

These are questions that should matter to Democrats, there's more to being President than standing up to a bunch of imbeciles promoting a politically motivated non-issue.

[hamsterjill]

44. I totally agree.

She's so far ahead of those idiots, it's not even funny. Her experience and intelligence is being showcased today and she is passing every test.

Go, Hillary!

[SusanaMontana41]

49. The Republicans ARE idiots.

And Paul Ryan thinks he can lasso the crazies? Herding cats would be easier.

[The Wizard]

51. The dumbass Repubics

are stepping all over their dicks, and she looks like she should be President. They forgot Rule Number One: When in a hole, stop digging.

[Phlem]

52. Yeay Murica! Let's have another 4 years of the Third Way!!!!

26 years have not been enough! This time it will be different, I swear!

Fuck the history. That's in the past, let's move forward!

[SleeplessinSoCal]

59. I think they are not so much "voting" right now, as stratesgizing.

We think they expose themselves and have helped Hillary. But the right wing media will put together a spin package like no other. I'm most anxious to hear what and how they spin it.

As for the idea she intended to get good PR on Qadafi, just remember Bush and . . .

"MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!"

[Avalux]

69. She's an expert at it that's for sure. Doesn't mean she's the best choice for President. n/t

[R B Garr]

70. Adam Schiff is awesome. His summary of

Sydney Blumenthal by the numbers really illustrated the true motives for this.

He beat out Jim Rogan for his Seat after Rogan's disastrous impeachmemt debacle. He really nailed Rogan.

[SunSeeker]

74. K & R

[CTyankee]

77. I doubt if the repukes will be back for another reaming after her performance (and theirs) at that

hearing. They took such a drubbing in the press and in the polls they'll probably steer clear of her and quietly
put an end to their "investigative" hearings...or at least with her...