Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

appal_jack

(3,813 posts)

7. Maybe, maybe not. But her record as SoS deserves scrutiny.

Reply to dballance (Reply #4)

Thu May 7, 2015, 09:02 PM

May 2015

Last edited Thu May 7, 2015, 10:25 PM - Edit history (1)

Such scrutiny will certainly muddy the message against Citizens United.

It seems like many positions and past actions by Hillary muddy her present attempts at messaging.

I prefer candidates whose past records better match their present statements.

-app

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

33 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Clinton supporters use the Citizens United defense on behalf of their candidate. [View all] appal_jack May 2015 OP

k&r nt 99th_Monkey May 2015 #1

Since Bill Clinton's execution of Ricky Rector and Hillary's position on Walmart's board. NYC_SKP May 2015 #2

+1 L0oniX May 2015 #18

you forgot to put on your KMOD May 2015 #23

They absolutely do. Excuses abound for the corporate candidate. It is absolutely mind boggling how mother earth May 2015 #3

The candidate that takes advantage of Citizens United to win will select a SCJ that is against CU. L0oniX May 2015 #21

The Citizens United ruling is abhorrent. But it would be foolish not to take advantage. dballance May 2015 #4

Maybe, maybe not. But her record as SoS deserves scrutiny. appal_jack May 2015 #7

I completely agree with you. dballance May 2015 #31

This message was self-deleted by its author 1000words May 2015 #5

Which Democrats? JaneyVee May 2015 #6

This was the original article's title, but I see your point. appal_jack May 2015 #9

I was just wondering because article doesn't name names. JaneyVee May 2015 #11

oddly enough in party of tens of millions he is unable to identify even ONE to support his msongs May 2015 #10

Consistency is key in messaging. appal_jack May 2015 #13

In other words as long as they don't get caught making the deal ...there are no paybacks. L0oniX May 2015 #8

Quid Pro Quo's are essentially impossible to prove, but... Bonobo May 2015 #12

Explanation of thread title changes. appal_jack May 2015 #14

fwiw, the emoprogs and dudebros have always loved the CU ruling, too Blue_Tires May 2015 #15

Who, what? whatchamacallit May 2015 #16

They are selling their political souls for it now. L0oniX May 2015 #17

had to check emoprog on urban dictionary. Fitting name. wyldwolf May 2015 #20

Raise your hand if you think this makes her extremely vulnerable in the general BrotherIvan May 2015 #19

Toast. Burnt toast. NYC_SKP May 2015 #22

^THIS^ cherokeeprogressive May 2015 #27

Fist-bump! nt appal_jack May 2015 #29

So now that Citizen's United is legal, KMOD May 2015 #24

Electing Bernie Sanders would certainly be a good start. nt appal_jack May 2015 #25

The Executive Branch is not involved in the Amendment process. NuclearDem May 2015 #30

A good bully pulpit gets involved in everything. appal_jack May 2015 #32

Because money is the solution to money being the problem reddread May 2015 #26

I'm waiting for the donations to pour in hedda_foil May 2015 #28

What a tangled web we weave, eh? nt appal_jack May 2015 #33