Posted: 12/19/15 at 5:41pm
Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Clinton are too close, understand? Matt, the GOP will never allow Trump to be their nominee. We can only dream. Awright guys I've calmed down.
Posted: 12/19/15 at 5:53pm
The gifted writer (read him!) John Weir posted this and it calls to mind a lot of people here. #HowIsThisStoryAboutYou?
'I gotta say this: everybody - everybody, including her supporters - is jonesing to see Hillary Clinton fail. There is such a vibe out there. We want that public humiliation of a powerful and ambitious woman.
And the fervent denying of the existence of that vibe, that want, is a thing to behold! It's as if no one in America was ever in the 7th grade. But I remember for instance the 7th grade home-run-hitting 13-year-old rock star guy throwing the most popular girl in our class to the ground during after-lunch recess, and yelling at her, "Spread your legs!", and everyone, everyone laughing.
We are taught from a very early age that women are contemptible and must be humiliated and controlled.
The guys who harassed girls in 1972 at my grade school in New Jersey were by the way the same guys who called me a faggot, by which they meant, "even worse than a girl."
It is by some sort of mass collusion that we agree to forget how we are trained, in this country, to treat women of all colors as if they are both worthless and threatening, and must be kept in their place.
I do not understand why so many people get so angry and defensive when they are asked to reflect on their investment in and collusion with our culture-wide devaluing of women. We all know how we were raised.
This is not an ad for Hillary Clinton, by the way, and I am not "playing" any "card."'
Updated On: 12/19/15 at 05:53 PM
Posted: 12/19/15 at 5:56pm
Another reason NOT to vote for Hilary.
How dare she? HOW DARE SHE?!?!
Posted: 12/19/15 at 6:13pm
The Broad City gals got crap for shooting a Hillary cameo for their new season, from people who claimed to be their fans (but not after this, of course!). Because even broads need to know their place.
Posted: 12/19/15 at 6:18pm
Why on earth did they blame them for something HILARY did?!?! Thanks, Obama.
Posted: 12/19/15 at 6:23pm
I'm just so sick of Hell-ary not doing anything to prevent these things that she didn't have any knowledge of. #feelthebern
Posted: 12/19/15 at 6:34pm
Do what you want, but Bambi's mother was killed, so I'm definitely NOT going to vote for Hilary. I mean, GAWD y'all, connect the dots!
Posted: 12/19/15 at 6:54pm
#bambghazi!!!!!!!!
Posted: 12/19/15 at 6:59pm
If the glove doesn't fit, don't vote for Hilary.
Posted: 12/19/15 at 7:17pm
Is there anything more frightening to unenlightened straight white men than two women who are "too close"?
Posted: 12/19/15 at 9:03pm
Namo are you the consummate asshole? So far all three are doing well.
Posted: 12/19/15 at 10:06pm
Hillary is really bringing it tonight.
Posted: 12/20/15 at 8:24am
My favorite aspect of her game-game tonight: how she was ready to take down O'Malley. O'Malley! She could've flicked him off her forearm like a mosquito, but was fully briefed on the holes in his now tiresome "How I Saved Maryland from the Fires of Hell" narrative. That delighted look on her face, when she wheeled on him and suddenly knew more about his track record than he. To me, the defining moment. She doesn't just arrive ready, she turns up ready to take no prisoners. Even when Martha was doubling back and FOX-ing her about Libya, seeking an apology-slash-confession (good luck, honey) she was devoid of flop sweat. Another solid night.
Posted: 12/20/15 at 12:29pm
Fact checking the debate. And real numbers regarding Hillary and her Wall Street donors:
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/12/factchecking-the-third-democratic-debate/
Posted: 12/20/15 at 12:33pm
It's suprising they had no plan unless a break ran long to run an extra commercial or anything. But giving Hillary a chance to make an entrance did nothing but help her. Sorry Bernie.
Posted: 12/21/15 at 5:00pm
Love "devoid of flop sweat".
Posted: 12/21/15 at 5:28pm
I wish she would have said something like "Sorry, I'm late. You know how the lines for the ladies room can be" or something like that. I knew that her "Sorry" would cause "outrage" in some circles.
Posted: 12/23/15 at 4:18pm
Posted: 12/25/15 at 9:27am
Democratic Candidates Blast Obama Administration Plan To Deport Families *except Hillary Clinton
Senator Bernie Sanders, chief rival to Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination, said in a statement, "Our nation has always been a beacon of hope, a refuge for the oppressed ... we need to take steps to protect children and families seeking refuge here, not cast them out."
White House spokesmen with President Barack Obama in Hawaii did not comment.
Spokesmen for Clinton, who is leading among Democratic candidates seeking the presidency in next November's elections, did not respond to a request for comment.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/democratic-candidates-deportations_567c5b82e4b014efe0d82b8e
Posted: 1/8/16 at 2:15pm
Surprise!
Hillary Clinton Is Not Telling The Truth About Wall Street
And it's damaging her campaign.
"WASHINGTON -- Hillary Clinton's campaign spent much of this week waging a dishonest attack on Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and his campaign's Wall Street reform platform. The risky attempt to make inroads with progressives on one of her weakest issues is damaging the credibility of some of her top lieutenants.
Clinton's attack on Sanders is as simple as it is untrue: Unlike Sanders, Clinton has argued, she is willing to take on "shadow banking" -- a broad term for various financial activities that aren't regulated as strictly as conventional lending.
Sanders has in fact proposed attacking shadow banking in two principal ways: by breaking up big financial firms that engage in shadow banking, and by severing federal financial support for shadow banking activities by reinstating Glass-Steagall.
These would be substantive changes. A lot of shadow banking takes place at firms with traditional banking charters, like JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America. Some of it takes place at specialized hedge funds, or at major investment banks like Goldman Sachs. Breaking them up would not eliminate the risk shadow banking poses to the economy, but it would limit it. Risky shadow banking activities cannot bring down institutions that are too-big-to-fail if there are no too-big-to-fail institutions.
Yet the Clinton campaign has repeatedly said Sanders is wholly ignoring shadow banking, accusing Sanders of taking a "hands-off" approach to it that would not apply to firms like Lehman Brothers and AIG. This barrage has come from Clinton's press aides, campaign CFO Gary Gensler, and Clinton surrogate Barney Frank.
In a bizarre appearance on Chris Hayes' MSNBC show, Frank claimed that splitting up Morgan Stanley or Bank of America "is not going to do anything, literally not anything to restrain shadow banking." He even said that since Lehman Brothers was "very small" when it failed, Sanders' break-up-the-banks plan would be unworkably broad and apply to too many firms.
It's hard to see these comments as anything but dishonest. Lehman Brothers was not "very small" when it failed. At $639 billion in assets, it was the single-biggest bankruptcy filing in American history. Only six U.S. banks are now larger than Lehman was, and the next-largest institutions are almost half Lehman's size. AIG -- then the world's largest insurer -- was even bigger."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-wall-street_568ed8d6e4b0cad15e6415cd?
Posted: 1/8/16 at 3:05pm
funny, because in spite of my reservations about Clinton, and I have many, I'm jonesing to see her succeed, not fail. Not because she's a woman, although it would be certainly great to have a woman president. But because I genuinely like her. I really didn't like her in 2008 and I didn't want her to get the nomination then. But I like her very much now. I always thought she was terrifically smart. But now I actually like what she does with her smarts. Most of the time.
I also like Bernie Sanders a lot. And on most issues I'm more politically in line with him.
Frankly, I'm leaning toward Clinton because I think she has a better chance of actually working with Congress and getting things done. But that says a lot more about the contempt I have for Congress than it does about how I feel about Sanders v. Clinton. What's more, I think my sense that there will be less Congressional obstruction with Clinton than with Sanders might well be a delusion. If the Republicans keep control of Congress they will likely be ridiculous and obstructionist, ideologically inconsistent and doing whatever it takes to bring the president down no matter what Democrat is sitting in the White House.
So, the thing that matters most is which candidate is more likely to win the general election. At this point, I'm not as sure as a great many people that Clinton has that much of an advantage over Sanders. This election is completely nuts and is defying all expectations on so many fronts. Seems to me that either Clinton or Sanders could win the general. And either could lose. When you read polls showing Clinton's and Sanders's margins over Trump differing by only two-three points and both (Heaven help us) only narrowly beating Trump...
Another reason I'm leaning toward Clinton is because, whether she wins or loses the general election, I really don't want to have to listen to many people, including my friends, for another eight years telling me that Clinton should have been the Democrats' nominee and things would have been so much better if she had been.
Updated On: 1/8/16 at 03:05 PM
.jpg?format=auto&width=365)
