Opposition Research on Hillary Clinton...

[MineralMan]

The Republicans are doing it and will increase their Googling dramatically after the primary season. Others, too, are doing it, but before even the first primary has been held. Even some supporters of Bernie Sanders are engaged in that activity. I've seen the results on Reddit and Twitter, and on other websites. It's easy to do, too. A wide range of searches that include Hillary Clinton will bring up old negative stuff, most of it long ago debunked.

Here's a secret for people who think that's a good idea: Everyone's seen that old stuff. It will not change a single mind. We heard it all in 2008, too. Barack Obama won in the primaries, but not because of opposition research. Clinton got almost exactly the same number of voters in primaries as did Obama.

In 2015, the election is not about Clinton "scandals" and obscure references to things written in editorials back then. We've all heard all of them multiple times, beginning when Bill Clinton was running for President.

Such old material will not materially affect the primaries and caucuses in 2016. It only reflects desperation on the part of supporters of another candidate. It won't change voters' decisions.

[Kalidurga]

1. It is clear Hillary supporters don't care about her negatives.

It is short sighted to think it won't matter in the GE though.

[MineralMan]

2. Obama won in 2008,

despite the most awful negative campaign in history.

I think Clinton will do just fine. Such negative campaigning often backfires. We're seeing that right now, I think.

[Kalidurga]

4. Yes

are you trying to make my case for me?

[Agschmid]

17. He meant the GE.

Just wait it actually gets worse.

[Scootaloo]

58. Your OP relies on a flawed premise

First, you're equating the criticism of Clinton from Sanders supporters to criticisms from Republicans. Second, you're arguing that Clinton has withstood shit the Republicans have thrown at her, so it ultimately doesn't matter.

The trouble is, both premises fall down on one fact - Republican criticisms of Clinton are make-believe. And you know that. You also know that the ones from Sanders supporters are not. Thus the need to conflate the two - and then only reference the ones from Republicans.

For instance one I see you guys bandying about is the Vince Foster murder conspiracy theory. Whenever Clinton is criticized, here comes one of you or the other goons to squirm out and go "oh what next, Vince Foster? " or something less intelligent (your OP is in the "less intelligent" category. Sorry.) Of course, no sanders supporter has ever made any hay about the Vince Foster bullshit. Again, you know this, right? But the goal is to associate whatever criticism is voiced by a Sanders supporter with the Vince Foster bullshit, and this dismiss it by proxy.

"oh, this is a criticism of Clinton? Well so is this thing from the republicans. Both are criticisms of Clinton, so they're both equal, so bye."

[1StrongBlackMan]

6. Do the supporters of any candidate "care about" ...

their preferred candidate's negatives?

I suspect we do; but, have done the weighing before settling on a candidate.

[BlueCaliDem]

28. Exactly, 1SBM. We *know* our candidate's negatives and have done a good bit

of weighing the pros and cons before we settle on the one we'll ultimately support and vote for. No amount of "gossip' from the oppo-team is going to change that. After all, we're not one-issue voters.

[Crystalite]

7. Yup. Written by an unwavering HRC supporter telling us how other people behave.

Rich, that.
Nobody expects the hardcore supporters to bend or switch.
But that considerably larger share of potential voters whose support is slight may be easily convinced that enough is enough, that we can do much better.
And the Independents.
And the younger Americans.
And the others.

[Historic NY]

54. 58% of register voters who describe themselves as Democrats don't care.

and her negatives






http://www.democraticunderground.com/110728882

[nc4bo]

3. I look at it like this, if it's no big deal than there's absolutely nothing to worry about.

Absolutely Nothing.

OTOH.................

[MineralMan]

5. Not worried.

Just tired of seeing old manure being spread on the campaign fields once again.

Did you know that Google will show you over 2.4 million hits for a search about Hillary Clinton being a lesbian? That was one of the oppo research items that was brought up in 2008. Are we going to see that crap again, too?

Once people commit to opposition research tactics, there is no bottom to that pit.

[1StrongBlackMan]

9. +1. n/t

[MaggieD]

12. I find it pathetic

Especially when it is recycled here over and over and over and over again, on a web site that is ostensibly designed to support Democrats.

They must think it helps. But the fact is there is nothing new under the sun and all the old shit has not done anything to keep her from being the frontrunner. They simply look like they are helplessly flailing at this point.

Yesterday we had posts about what Hillary said about violent video games a decade ago. Because I guess they think that is actually a meaningful issue in this election. LOL! The desperation is palpable at this point.

[virtualobserver]

15. Hillary Clinton's friend David Brock is using "opposition research tactics"....against Bernie......

with a well funded SuperPAC.....and as you say "there is no bottom to that pit".

[MineralMan]

16. You won't see any of it from me.

I'd gladly vote for Bernie in the GE.

[rbrnmw]

19. me too

[BlueCaliDem]

30. Me, too.

[bowens43]

8. it WILL affect the general election. The repubs have been preparing for this for decades

they are laughing at the democratic party. Her past gaurantees a loss in the GE

[MineralMan]

10. Nope. They've run out of ammo.

It's all been spread. Everyone's seen it and dismissed it.

If Clinton is the nominee, she will be the next President.

[MaggieD]

13. Exactly

[ibegurpard]

21. yup

And it's why her ratings are underwater with everyone but what looks like the majority of Democrats... A MINORITY of voterbase. High negatives. Baked in with no room to move them...because, as you've said, we've had 30 plus of this stuff weighing her down. And then her conservative stances and history on many issues very important to progressives (especially the corruption of our political system by big money and influence) demoralizes the people she absolutely needs to be voting.
What's your path to victory? Republicans are awful? Repeatrdly proven disastrous election strategyThanks to DWS and the DNC they're the only game in town for a message getting out.
Hillary is a tone deaf candidate compounding her already ample negatives without any help from opposition research.
What's your plan for what I see as the iceberg for our electoral Titanic?

[CajunBlazer]

23. Hide and watch her! (n/t)

[ibegurpard]

29. I don't want her

In addition to the fact that I think she's a disaster. She truly is the barely lesser of two evils.

[BlueCaliDem]

31. I don't want Bernie Sanders.

In addition to the fact that I know he'll be a disaster for the country and the Democratic Party, he's still better than any Republican. Should he by some miracle win the primaries, I will vote for him.

I ask you, ibegurpad, will you do the same should Hillary Clinton win the primary?

[ibegurpard]

37. continuing to allow politicians like the Clintons

To control our party is what is slowly bleeding it to death. They continue to sell out more and more Democratic values for the money the think they need to chase the fewer and fewer voters that remain engaged. How many more losses are you willing to endure before you finally see this?
If I personally have to vote for Clinton I will but I will GUARANTEE you the doors I knocked last election where turnout was abysmal will not come out for her.

[BlueCaliDem]

42. Every politician has a skeletons in their closests and aren't as pure as we'd like them to be.

To long for that is a fool's errand.

The Clintons aren't perfect by any stretch of the imagination, and I was never really enamored with President Bill Clinton, either. But he was better than G.H.W. Bush, and he turned out to be a good president who did a lot of positive things for the country even if he made some bad decisions. He is still incredibly popular the world round and people remember him for eight years of peace and prosperity.

I have NO illusions when it comes to politicians. I don't expect them to be Merlin and wave a wand to make everything perfect for me or mine. But I do expect them to fight Republicans to create an environment that allows for job growth, a stronger economy, a much stronger safety-net, to protect women's, civil, LGBT, and immigration rights, and to tackle foreign policy with diplomacy rather than bombs and war. But a president can't do that alone. They'll need Congress to help them and in order for that to happen, they'll need to know how to tackle obstructionist Republicans.

Hillary Clinton is the right person at this time for the job. She's tough, she's unafraid, she's experienced enough to run circles around Republicans, and they really are afraid of her. She knows where the skeletons are buried. That's why I'm supporting her. But should Sanders win the primaries, make no mistake, I will donate, canvass, instruct my young group of 38 Millennials to work hard to get out the vote for him, because the alternative is terrifying to me and them.

[ibegurpard]

45. you expect them to fight Republicans?

Like Obama did when he fought his own party for TPP fasttrack that UNDERMINES our ability to create our own policy in favor of trade tribunals? THAT is the kind of politician you are supporting and the fear of Republicans is preventing you from kicking them to the curb. They are not on your side. It's not a matter of whether they are perfect or not... they are working against you.

[BlueCaliDem]

63. Short answer: Yes. They will on policies that matter.

Like Obama did when he fought his own party for TPP fasttrack that UNDERMINES our ability to create our own policy in favor of trade tribunals?

The TPP fast-track bill didn't undermine anything other than President Obama's authority to get the best trade deal possible for American businesses and American workers. Without fast-track, he wouldn't have been able to negotiate from a position of strength, and the very good trade deal we've gotten out of it today would have never happened, keeping the status quo. It's why Republicans were against fast-track although they never had a problem with it under Bush. It was just more obstructionism on their part.

The "trade tribunals" you're worried about are under strict guidelines set forth under President Obama's TPP. The investment-state dispute settlement (ISDS) under this TPP is a standard feature under ALL trade agreements, but it's a giant leap in terms of protecting the rights of the public - including the guarantee for governments (including the U.S.) to be able to regulate in the public interest - and that of labor. In fact, corporate rights under the investment section of the TPP is more limited and the proceedings more transparent than under any other trade agreement to date. Click on the link and read for yourself.

But reasonably thinking, using plain common sense, do you actually think President Obama, with 69 consecutive months of positive job growth, would negotiate a trade deal that would kill that record? I don't. Why would President Obama risk his job-growth legacy to include a job-killing trade deal? That doesn't make any sense.

Yes, the TPP has gotten a LOT of negative press coverage (as did ObamaCare, remember?) because U.S. mass media are clarions for for-profit corporations - hence their support for Republicans rather than Democrats - and President Obama's trade deal will seriously limit corporate power globally. They don't like that.

They are not on your side. It's not a matter of whether they are perfect or not... they are working against you.

As I've stated in my previous post, NO politician is perfect. Even Bernie Sanders. His unapologetic and continued support for the bloated MiC via the Pentagon's most wasteful program, Lockheed Martin's horribly flawed F-35, already cost taxpayers $1 trillion dollars with no end in sight. That isn't really working in our best interest, is it? As I've stated, NO politician is perfect.

But just as long as they fight for women's reproductive, LGBT, civil, and immigration rights; as long as they fight for jobs, a stronger economy, and affordable health care; as long as they choose diplomacy over war; as long as they fight Republicans to invest more Federal dollars in education; as long as they fight for a feasible minimum wage...I'm happy. NONE of these things will happen under a Republican president, nor under a Sanders presidency.

As I've stated many times before, Hillary Clinton knows where the bodies are buried. They'll fight her in the beginning, I'm sure, but they'll eventually capitulate. Sadly, President Obama spoke to their better angels and it's been a tough road to hoe for him, but Hillary Clinton has no qualms pulling out a skeleton here and there to convince Republicans to see it her way. That's why she'll get more done for African Americans, for Hispanic/Latino Americans, and for ALL Americans. Oh yes, she's definitely on our side, even if it's for selfish reasons such as securing her legacy in a positive light, but in the end it works in our favor, too.

[Cal33]

68. Yes, I've also read that 14% of Democrats will not vote for Clinton. I agree with all of the

weak points you've written about her. But I would vote for her in the GE for this simple
reason: As president, she would at least help to keep our half-alive Democratic Party
half-alive. With her things will remain as bad as they are now, there will be no change.
She will maintain the status quo, correct?

What do you think would happen if there should be a Republican president after 2016?
Good-bye half-alive Democracy, and hello Fascist Oligarchy!! Which is the greater of
the evils -- being half alive, or completely dead?

I believe in the old adage, "where there is life, there is hope." One could live to fight
another day.

[R B Garr]

25. So totally true! I've even seen talk about Clinton nostalgia

in the media. It has all been seen and dismissed, exactly right. They are looking as desperate as the Benghazi committee.

[Historic NY]

57. That chestnut shriveled up long ago.....

11 hrs in the hot seat proved that got nothing........

[berni_mccoy]

11. Don't worry, she's generating all kinds of new stuff on a daily basis

just like she did in 2008.

[think]

14. Hillary has done PLENTY to show her actions make her candidacy very questionable. Choose to ignore

as you obviously will but the truth should be known as it shows how a Clinton presidency would effect the American people.

Hillary's decisions in regards to entanglements with dubious corporations & banks and her foreign policy are important whether you care about the implications or not.

And much of what she has done that is questionable has happened within the last 5 years so it's not ancient history. It's about what she currently has done and it's very important as to her judgement and character.

Taking over $3 million in speaking income from the too big to fail banks in 2013 alone speaks volumes about how she will deal with corruption on Wall Street. Her lack of support for Glass Steagall is quite telling to say the least....

[CoffeeCat]

18. Clinton and Obama may have had a tight race...

But Hillary began 2008 with every advantage. She was miles ahead in every national poll and in every state poll.

To lose the nomination, after having every advantage--including name recognition, a husband who was President and the race completely frontloaded in your favor, was a tremendous loss.

I remember looking at the national polls after Obama won Iowa. It still looked impossible for him to win, as she was kicking his butt by 50+ points in many state polls; and ahead of Obama by 30 points in some national polls.

The fall she took in 2008 was very steep.

The problem in 2008, is the same problem in 2016. Support for Hillary Clinton runs very wide, but not deep. Her support is soft and can be easily eroded. So many factors play into that soft support. Who knows if her "scandals" played into that and by how much. She certainly has more baggage than a 747, but I don't think most Democrats really care. They know that most of it is manufactured Republicans noise.

Within the Democratic party--her soft support (and the reason why Obama and Sanders pose a threat) seems to be generated by her right-leaning policies and beliefs, such as her warmongering, neocon tendencies, Wall Street ties, fracking support and her lack of fighting for what's right. We see Elizabeth Warren championing these causes daily. Clinton is no Warren.

With that said, I think so many factions (Republicans and Democrats) have their reasons for disliking her. I've seen her support with Independents as low as 6 percent.

You just can't win a race with this constellations of negatives across the Republican, Democratic and Independent spectrum.

Scandals or not--I don't she how she has a snowball's chance in hell of winning the GE.

[WillyT]

20. + 1,000,000,000 - What You Said !!!

Spot... On...

[ibegurpard]

22. yup

I said something very similar above but you put it better.

[CajunBlazer]

24. Bernie Sanders is not Barack Obama

Not even close. I can't think of more polar opposites.

[BlueCaliDem]

33. +1000

[CoffeeCat]

38. Yes, but Hillary Clinton is Hillary Clinton...

It doesn't matter which candidate is running against her--Obama, Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, some other liberal.

Hillary is the common thread here.

The entire trajectory of 2016 is nearly identical to 2008. And it's not because Sanders is Obama. It's because Hillary Clinton is Hillary Clinton. In both 2008 and 2016--she has soft-support mainly rooted in name recognition. That support easily erodes away to any candidate who is to the left of her and excites the base.

Clinton started out with an overwhelming lead in 2007. Obama started out at 4 percent. Obama was within single digits of Clinton in many polls 2 months before the Iowa caucuses.

Clinton started out with an overwhelming lead in 2015. Sanders started out at 4 percent. Sanders is now within single digits, nine weeks before the Iowa caucuses.

Same trajectory. Because Hillary Clinton is Hillary Clinton.

I would say that the dynamics for Hillary bode even worse this time. The Democratic party is irate at the status quo--and Hillary Clinton is not a change candidate. The Democratic electorate has aged eight years since Hillary last ran. Young people in their 20's and early 30's were babies - middle schoolers when Bill Clinton was President. The Clintons represent an important part of US history, but they represent the past they view Bernie as the future.

I know in Iowa there's a lot of "Oh, It's Hillary again" sentiment. Voters may have Hillary fatigue and if Sanders runs a dynamic and effective campaign, many could flock to him.

We've got a long way to go. I think we'll know a great deal more as the Iowa caucuses draw closer.

[KoKo]

62. ...! n/t

[MannyGoldstein]

26. We should keep things simple: her fondness for war is all

that's needed to want her far away from any lever of power.

I await your defense of her exhorting such incredible death and mayhem. Millions of casualties for no reasons.

Millions.

Men, women, and children.

[Cali_Democrat]

32. Did you vote for John Kerry in 2004? nt

[MannyGoldstein]

36. In the primary? Of course not.

Who would vote for such a person when there's an alternative who did not help to start such a pointless, ruinous, and murderous action?

Have you backed candidates who are either profoundly ignorant or sociopathic when there's an alternative who's not? I sure hope not.

[Cali_Democrat]

39. I was referring to the GE

Did you vote for John Kerry who voted for the Iraq War?

We're you willing to have him near the levers of power even though he supported the Iraq War?

I await your defense of him exhorting such incredible death and mayhem. Millions of casualties for no reasons.

Millions.

Men, women, and children.

[MannyGoldstein]

41. As opposed to Bush?

You're joking, trolling or nuts.

And we both know which.

[Cali_Democrat]

43. So you were willing to vote to put someone that close

to the levers of power even though he supported the Iraq war.

People have different reasons for supporting politicians and many of those politicians have had questionable positions in the past.

Don't go after someone who's willing to support someone who voted for the Iraq war when you did the same thing.

You just look foolish.

[MannyGoldstein]

44. Supporting Hillary over Bernie the same as Kerry over Bush?

Again, it's obvious that you're joking, trolling or nuts.

And, again, we both know which.

[ibegurpard]

46. let them gloat

Over the point they think they've made. Give them something...

[Cali_Democrat]

49. You're willing to vote for a politician who voted for the Iraq war.

You voted for Kerry because you thought he'd be a better Presdient than Bush. You were willing to let him pull the levers of power.

Perhaps the OP is voting for Hillary because he thinks she's the most electable.

Either way, you guys are both willing to support someone who voted for the Iraq war.

You're a hypocrite.

[MannyGoldstein]

50. Trying to bludgeon us with sophistry?

Millions of real people killed or wounded, and you play games. Very uncool.

[Cali_Democrat]

51. Yet you voted for someone who supported that war

Perhaps you want your 2004 vote overturned?

[MannyGoldstein]

52. I'd vote for Nixon over Stalin, which proves I suck.

Got it.

Good night.

[BlueCaliDem]

34. Bernie's voted for more war than Hillary Clinton, Manny. And you know it.

So that's a precariously thin glass house you're tossing stones from.

[MannyGoldstein]

40. That's an assinine statement.

The cognitive dissonance of supporting a person who laughs at murder and mayhem must be awful to warrant your coming up with nonsense like that.

I'd be disturbed if our teenager behaved like this, let alone a candidate for elected office.

[BlueCaliDem]

47. It's the truth nevertheless, and you know it, Manny.

You're an intelligent poster. You know I'm right. Except for the 2002 AUMF Against Iraq, Sanders has had a real fondness for war since he's voted YEA for every bill for war since he's been in Congress.

Yes, I saw your video, but it's got nothing to do with the topic we're discussing. so I'm dismissing it.

[MannyGoldstein]

48. That's possibly the most absurd argument ever. nt

[BlueCaliDem]

64. Good thing your opinion doesn't constitute a fact, eh? eom

[merrily]

60. Sanders did not vote for the Iraq War or the Afghanistan surge. Hillary did.

As between Sanders and Hillary, Hillary, not Sanders, was the legislator who actually voted for every war and surge for which she was eligible to vote. Not to mention.....

Hillary's supporters on DU seem to spend a lot of time and energy proving Sanders is the better candidate. Maybe y'all should consider not spending so much time and energy doing that?

NOT GOOD ENOUGH, BERNIE! YET, MUCH BETTER THAN HILLARY.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1280&pid=74854

[BlueCaliDem]

67. DESPITE HIS OWN CLAIMS, Sanders has not been an antiwar leader.

You should read "A Socialist in the Senate?" by Ashley Smith at Counterpunch:

Ever since he won election to the House, he has taken either equivocal positions on U.S. wars or outright supported them. His hawkish positions–especially his decision to support Bill Clinton’s 1999 Kosovo War–drove one of his key advisers, Jeremy Brecher, to resign from his staff.

He refused to join California Democrat, Barbara Lee, "to vote against Congress’ resolution that gave George Bush a blank check to launch war on any country he deemed connected to the September 11 attacks."

Sanders has been critical of the war on Iraq, but he has supported pro-war measures–such as a March 21, 2003, resolution, stating, "Congress expresses the unequivocal support and appreciation of the nation to the President as Commander-in-Chief for his firm leadership and decisive action in the conduct of military operations in Iraq as part of the ongoing Global War on Terrorism."

He also opposed the immediate withdrawal from Iraq, even though a majority of Burlington, Vermont residents voted for it in a town meeting resolution in February 2005.

Sanders was against joining the wave to impeach Bush. He called it "impractical".

In the summer of 2006, he voted for H.R. 921, which gave full support to Israel’s murderous war on Lebanon. He also voted for H.R. 4681, imposing sanctions on the Palestinian Authority geared toward the removal of the democratically elected Hamas government.

He supported and voted for H.R. 4655, the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act. It was included in the language by the Bush Admin in the 2002 AUMF Against Iraq (IWR), justifying that war. The first sentence reads: Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 - Declares that it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government.

From the article at the link above:

Finally, in perhaps his worst betrayal yet, Sanders joined a host of liberal Democrats including Barbara Lee and John Conyers to vote for HR 282, the Iran Freedom Support Act–which bears a striking resemblance to the resolutions that set up the framework for the war on Iraq.

The act stipulates that the U.S. should impose sanctions on Iran to prevent it from developing weapons of mass destruction and distributing them to aid international terrorism. It also calls for the U.S. to support democratic change in the country, thereby establishing all necessary pretexts for a war on Iran. Democrat Dennis Kucinich voted against the act and denounced it as a “stepping stone to war.”

Like I said, he's voted for more pro-war bills than Hillary Clinton. I'd advise you to think about that before you and others call her a warmonger while at the same time, are supporting Sanders.

[merrily]

69. Still better than Hillary.

[ViseGrip]

27. Shouldn't people see what they're getting into?

Don't look at that rotton roof on the house you're buying....ignore it.

[WillyT]

35. LOL !!! - OK MM...

[Scootaloo]

53. Say, how's that whole "sanders is a rapist" thing going for you guys?

[MannyGoldstein]

56. Marginally better than "Sanders protects pedophiles"?

And "Sanders has rape fantasies"?

But "Sanders is responsible for slavery and sick racist cops" might have some bite to it.

[Samantha]

55. I support Bernie Sanders but when I heard that woman ask Hillary Clinton

a question about Bill Clinton's past philandering, I thought it was extremely offensive. It really degrades the whole election process. I think critical comments on issues, meaning genuine solutions or approaches to problems within our government, are fine. We are supposed to debate here, and those differences are fair game. Questions about Bill Clinton's past relationships are not.

Sam

[Kentonio]

59. This op is based on a complete falsehood

Of course opposition research works, which is why campaigns do it. Voters don't closely follow most campaigns and their understanding of even well known candidates can be easily swayed by lies and misrepresentation. It backfires sometimes (and is deepy unpleasant ethically) but saying it doesnt work is just naive.

[99Forever]

61. It's been a walk in the park so far.

And her supporters already spend most of their time whining about "how horribly unfair" it all is.

You ain't seen jackshit yet.

If the Democratic Party is foolish enough to nominate this gawd-awful person, you'll see a shitstorm the likes of which will amaze even the most cynical of us.

Clinton doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of ever being Prez.

[CoffeeCat]

65. +1,000

I agree.

Her support and her gimmicks are falling flat a second time around.

Plenty of signs point toward her not faring as well as she did in 2008.

Seeing many signs of this in Iowa.

Sanders is within double digits in Iowa. He started out at 4 percent in the spring.

Plenty of signs that she is manufacturing the appearance of support. Purchasing Twitter followers, paying operatives to post anti-Bernie tripe. The campaign appears to be, in part, smoke and mirrors. A strong candidate does not do this.

[JoePhilly]

66. The decades of false attacks have inoculated her.

She is immune to Iocane powder.