All of this Hillary bashing is not going to end well. It might be fulfilling for some

[karynnj]

116. We are not even to the primary

If you really think that discussions on a left Democratic board could ultimately defeat HRC in a GENERAL election, you need to explain why you think she is really such a flawed candidate that speaking of her actions, records or words is possibly damaging.

The fact is that - judging by past elections, nearly everyone here will not only vote for the Democrat, but a large percent will contribute either time, effort or money. However, that will never mean that people here will accept every position, statement or action with pure praise. Even Republicans do not do that - and they are easier to corral.

Recently, there has been negative reactions to a series of comments which hit many here as tone deaf. If I were a HRC supporter, I would hope that she learned from 2008 that when you say something that is a gaffe, but which says nothing bad about who she is -- admit it was poorly said and move on. Here, if the goal in the comment was to show that she is of the middle class and understands some hardships it might be good to transition to - a very standard Democratic response - that though she and Bill have been privileged since Yale Law School, they have worked consistently for people less fortunate. Move from this to relevant parts of her platform.

Having HRC, BC and Chelsea all doubling down on this just feeds the echo chamber - which never needed more than one gaffe or even something that could be spun into a gaffe. For HRC supporters, remember how you reacted to John Edwards portraying himself as the son of a millworker - ignoring that from the point he and Elizabeth married just out of law school, they were already middle class with a strong likelihood of being upper class in a very short time. (aside - I admire that Bill Clinton did not follow that path - which he easily could have.) For that matter, imagine how disgusted you would have been had Kerry spoken of the years where he found it tough to have an apartment in both DC and Boston - briefly having neither - to argue that he knew what it was to be broke. (In fact, even at the point it was true, he spoke of being lucky to have been born to a family that could help him.)

Both of these examples show why "factually true" is not the bar. Edwards in his attempt to be every man ignored his entire adult life. Kerry, had he argued he had any tough financial times, would have had to ignore that his extended family was always there when he need help. Ask yourself how you would have felt had Kerry said he had a point where he was "dead broke" - which was likely as "factually true" as HRC's statement.

Bill Clinton, could and did run as not wealthy in 1992 - and it was absolutely true. They might have been among the poorest Yale Law School graduates of their class - and it was because of their choice of service over money. However, no matter what their bankbook said in January 2001 when they left the WH, she had a $8 million book advance and he was likely to get a bigger one. In addition, there was fundraising to pay off the lawyers' fees for them and their subordinates.

Consider the decisions people need to make when dead broke. I seriously doubt either avoided eating at restaurants - much less struggling to have enough food to stay healthy. I doubt either considered not going to doctors etc

Given that these comments hit so many people here, I am not surprised it had long threads here. I am also not surprised that it has been everywhere in the echo chamber. The GOOD thing is this is summer 2014. It is NOT summer 2016 when people are starting to look at the general election. This will be great if the Clintons and their advisers take the time now to really learn how something like this plays.

Remember that the Republicans tried UNSUCCESSFULLY in 2012 to argue that the wealthy Romney was no different than the wealthy Kerry - and argued that only Republicans are held to task for being wealthy. The difference is that Democrats - including HRC - support policies against their financial interest.