When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

Sometimes, particularly when used as a reply to snark, snark makes sense. Not using it, at times, means conceding passion to an opponent.

I was reacting to cosmic snark.

I've tried to stay away from that kind of crap, Snood...but there are times when the stuff coming one's way is too much to resist.

I was grateful Bernie finally called Hillary out on taking bribes from Wall Street last night. Couldn't believe he did it.

She came out in that big pseudo-indignant bellow, trying to say because of 911...yep, she' 911'd it...she'd been helpful to them "worked for them" and they donated (millions) to her. Uh huh.

So Bernie mutters something about bullshit...don't remember what he said...and then the most fabulous moderating team draws Hillary's attention to a tweet, which read:

"Have never seen a candidate invoke 911 to justify taking millions from Wall Street."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/11/14/hillary-clinton-invoked-911-to-to-answer-a-question-about-wall-street-and-twitter-was-not-happy/

She really showed her true colors last night to a largely disapproving audience.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-11-15/terror-overshadows-debate-but-rivals-cede-no-ground-to-clinton

Some great moments in the video. O'Malley has a very good night.
To Hillary about gun control: "You've been on three sides of this issue."

They basically called her on her habit of saying whatever the polls suggest she should say. It has now officially caught up with her.

Bernie: "People - not you Secretary Clinton - but other people have been shouting about gun control..." He had some laughs. Bernie also said when it comes to regime change, he is much more conservative than Hillary.

Good night for the Bern.
Good night for seeing Hillary be the real insidious pandering liar she is.

New Yorker: Where Clinton's Post-Paris Debate Went Wrong
Amy Davidson in the New Yorker:

http://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/hillary-clinton-post-paris-debate-goes-wrong

"...I think she said something like, ‘The bulk of the responsibility is not ours,’ ” Sanders said. “Well, in fact, I would argue that the disastrous invasion of Iraq, something that I strongly opposed, has unravelled the region completely. And led to the rise of Al Qaeda and to ISIS.” Clinton voted to authorize that war; he voted against it. Dickerson asked, “Are you making a direct link between her vote for that and what’s happening now for ISIS?”

“Oh, I don’t think any—I don’t think any sensible person would disagree that the invasion of Iraq led to the massive level of instability we are seeing right now,” Sanders said.

In other words, Clinton had managed, in a couple of sentences, to simultaneously open herself up to the charge that she sees ISIS as someone else’s war and that she rushed into wars too readily. Those notions feel paradoxical, and yet they both feed into a critique of Clinton as someone who does not always embrace responsibility. It did not help that she replied to Sanders not by acknowledging the specific disaster of Iraq but by saying that there had been big terrorist attacks before Iraq, too—under Reagan and “when my husband was President.” Perhaps “cannot be America’s fight” was an attempt to reassure non-interventionist primary voters, but she has favored more direct military involvement in Syria, and needs to better explain that she knows what the consequences might be, rather than occluding them. In that sense, the exchange touched on a fear that Clinton is not only hawkish but hawkish in a politically opportunistic way."

1 winner and 3 losers from the Democratic debate

Nice try, but pure bullshit.

She's mortally wounded and Bernie and O'Malley performed beautifully.

That article was bought and paid for. Just keep propping up Wall Street and the Clinton machine. When people see her for what she is and keep apologizing for her, they are culpable for the damage she's doing to this country and the world.

You are voting for another regime change.

Did you even SEE the debate? Anyone who tries to pull her flaming ass out of that should be embarrassed.

No I actually didn't see the debate, just saw that article and went with it as I usually like Vox and they are not always complimentary towards Hillary. But you could be right, I was just on another thread and learned a comment she said which was horrible and I don't agree with. (Paris attack thread)

I guess we'll see in a few days or week when new polls numbers start coming in. I am not wild over Clinton, but I am a democrat because I strongly believe in the democrat platform and would rather have her than any of the republicans and for me in the end, that is the main point.

I am beginning to think I should have watched it as I am getting different versions of what Clinton said concerning ISIS. If what she said below is true, then I agree with her 100%



source

(Juan Cole is hardly bought and paid for by Hillary)

You'd have to watch or read the whole thing to have a clue.

I'll wait for a complete transcript, but that quote is pretty self explanatory on its own.

Lash says you would you'd have to watch or read the whole thing to have a clue...but I suspect you would have to close your mind in order to feel as she does about the issue.

In Lash's mind it seems that not agreeing with her assessments means you "do not have a clue."

Hillary's comment makes lots and lots of sense.

Instant poll has Bernie Sanders winning debate with whopping 83 percent support


..... Time magazine conducted an online instant poll following the debate on Nov. 14, and viewers were in the corner of the senator from Vermont.

With 83 percent of the vote as of press time, Sanders was the obvious winner according to over 21,000 people who cast their vote. Clinton was far behind with 12 percent support, and O'Malley finished in last with five percent of the vote.....

http://www.examiner.com/article/instant-poll-has-bernie-sanders-winning-debate-with-whopping-83-percent-support


And Bernie won on twitter as well~
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/11/15/who-won-the-democrat-debate-on-social.html

Many media outlets who are in with Hillary can say otherwise, but we know who won.

That guy, Dickerson?, AND his panel were the BEST moderators of any debate I've ever seen.

He called her on her **** all night.

Especially when she cried gender and 911 to try to deflect her complicity with Wall Street. She was toasted.

We'll see who was "toasted" when a candidate is chosen next summer.

https://youtu.be/PYtbWWmtVYM

Hillary dodges criticism the old fashioned way.

The Second Democratic Debate Winner Was Bernie Sanders

http://www.bustle.com/articles/123712-the-second-democratic-debate-winner-was-bernie-sanders

And that's really why what happened tonight was so impressive. Despite facing long odds, and a news cycle that'd been dominated by terrorism heading into the debate — an issue not very in-line with his core economic justice platform, and surely a spot of greater experience for Clinton — Bernie Sanders walked away the winner of the second Democratic presidential debate, scoring some raw hits against Clinton's Wall Street coziness, and speaking authoritatively and expansively about ISIS, the Middle East,

The very nature of the debate ended up changing late in the game — CBS ultimately decided to front-load questions about terrorism, in light of the attacks in Paris, France the night before, which left 129 people dead, including at least one American. This was easily foreseeable as a big advantage for Clinton — given her years as Secretary of State, and given Sanders' heavy reliance on his domestic policy agenda, it theoretically gave her a chance to come out swinging early on an area of deep career experience.

But she might not have expected Sanders to perform quite as formidably as he did. Despite initially pivoting away from ISIS back to economics during his opening statement, Sanders capably attacked Clinton for her past vote to authorize the war in Iraq, which he characterized as the necessary precursor to ISIS' rise in the Middle East. He also set her on her heels on the topic of her huge amount of Wall Street contributions, as Business Insider detailed, suggesting that her explanations about her large amount of Wall Street campaign contributions are "not good enough," and arguing that it's no coincidence why the financial industry prefers her over him.



All in all, it was a red-letter night for Sanders. The only true test is whether it helps him out with early-primary states, and that'll be borne out by polls in the coming days and weeks. But on the strength of his overall performance, and the authoritativeness he showed even outside of his core area of economic justice, he definitely ought to get a little bump.



http://www.businessinsider.com/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-debate-2015-11
Bernie Sanders had a 3-word response when asked if Hillary Clinton's Wall Street plan was tough enough

Brett LoGiurato and Colin Campbell


BERNIE: 'I'm not that much of a socialist'
Hillary Clinton got grilled on ISIS with the very first question of the Democratic debate
Bernie Sanders burned Hillary Clinton with his first opportunity at the debate

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) unleashed on former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's ties to Wall Street during Saturday night's debate, prompting a quick counterpunch from the Democratic front-runner.

Sanders, asked what he thought of Clinton's Wall Street reforms, simply replied: "Not good enough!"

"Let's not be naive about it. Why, over her political career, has Wall Street been a major — the major — campaign contributor to Hillary Clinton?" he continued. "Maybe they're dumb and they don't know what they're going to get, but I don't think so."

Sanders proceeded to make the case for why big banks should be broken up and the Glass-Steagall Act, which separated investment and commercial banks, should be reinstated.

"Why do they make millions of dollars of campaign contributions? They expect to get something. Everybody knows that. Once again, I am running a campaign differently from any other candidate. We are relying on small campaign donors," he said. "That's who am I indebted to."

Clinton butted in.

"Wait a minute, he has basically used his answer to impugn my integrity. Let's be frank here," Clinton said.

"No," Sanders interjected.

"Wait a minute, Senator," Clinton shot back. "You know, not only do I have hundreds of thousands of donors, most of them small, and I'm very proud that for the first time, a majority of my donors are women."

Clinton then defended her record helping Wall Street "rebuild" after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

"It's fine for you to say what you're going to say," she told Sanders. "But I looked very carefully at your proposal. Reinstating Glass-Steagall is a part of what very well could help. But it is nowhere near enough. My proposal is tougher, more effective, and more comprehensive because I go after all of Wall Street, not just the big banks."

Confirmed: GOP Establishment Prefers Hillary Clinton Over Trump, Carson

Jim Hoft Nov 13th, 2015 9:51 am 90 Comments

It should be clear by now that there is one ruling class in charge of Washington DC.
The Republican Congress has been a disgrace.

And the Republican elites (GOPe) are very frightened they are losing control of the party to the working class Republicans.
trump make america great

According to The Examiner:

“The blue-col­lar wing of the Re­pub­lic­an primary elect­or­ate has con­sol­id­ated around one can­did­ate,” observes Ronald Brownstein. That’s Trump. “The party’s white-col­lar wing re­mains frag­men­ted.”

This has the Republican elites at FOX News, in the Beltway and New York City terrified.
They may lose control of the party.

The GOPe would rather see a Hillary Clinton presidency than Donald Trump or Ben Carson in the White House.
The Washington Post reported, via Vox Popoli:

Less than three months before the kickoff Iowa caucuses, there is growing anxiety bordering on panic among Republican elites about the dominance and durability of Donald Trump and Ben Carson and widespread bewilderment over how to defeat them.

Party leaders and donors fear that nominating either man would have negative ramifications for the GOP ticket up and down the ballot, virtually ensuring a Hillary Rodham Clinton presidency and increasing the odds that the Senate falls into Democratic hands….

The apprehension among some party elites goes beyond electability, according to one Republican strategist who spoke on the condition of anonymity to talk candidly about the worries.

“We’re potentially careening down this road of nominating somebody who frankly isn’t fit to be president in terms of the basic ability and temperament to do the job,” this strategist said. “It’s not just that it could be somebody Hillary could destroy electorally, but what if Hillary hits a banana peel and this person becomes president?”

Angst about Trump intensified this week after he made two comments that could prove damaging in a general election. First, he explained his opposition to raising the minimum wage by saying “wages are too high.”

Second, he said he would create a federal “deportation force” to remove the more than 11 million immigrants living in the United States illegally. “To have a leading candidate propose a new federal police force that is going to flush out illegal immigrants across the nation? That’s very disturbing and concerning to me about where that leads Republicans,” said Dick Wadhams, a former GOP chairman in Colorado, a swing state where Republicans are trying to pick up a Senate seat next year.

Elizabeth Warren tells you the facts about Hillary Clinton.
https://youtu.be/EWZVs2RzqD8