So, i started actively supporting Hillary and...

[renie408]

I swear, I get more push back from Dems than I do from Republicans.

I am sorry, I know there is a wealth of information here and I could find what I need to know with some research. I tried google, but I am not finding why DEMS keep calling her corrupt. I got all the Whitewater/Benghazi/email BS, but only from hard right sites. And most of that is just crap. That shouldn't affect Dems, right?

Can somebody please give me a brief primer on why Dems would say Hillary is corrrupt and do it without snark? I am trying to defend my choices to friends who seem to feel adamantly, though vaguely, that she is just icky. Which is weird to me, cause I didn't think there was anything ickier than Donald Trump.

I am really not trying to start a war here. I am basically a farmer who gets up at 6 am and works their ass off all day. I am already 20 minutes past my bedtime and exhausted and just trying to figure this all out.

[BlueCaliDem]

1. Simple answer? Democrats *don't* say she's "corrupt". Think about that for a while.

[baldguy]

5. +1000

[BlueCaliDem]

30. *bowing* Thank you, thank you, baldguy. Much appreciated. :-) eom

[renie408]

9. Ok, I get that, too.nt

[floriduck]

28. I've heard it from other Dems myself. And don't say they aren't Dems since many have been so

as lifelong party members. Face it, the OP is correct. We can ignore it or face it. But it exists.

[BlueCaliDem]

31. I'll take your word on your anecdotal experiences re: lifelong Party members calling HRC "corrupt"

as truth, but my own anecdotal experiences have shown me that anyone who calls - or alludes to - HRC being corrupt are exclusively Republicans, or Greens (Jill Stein did just that yesterday), or Socialists, or Libertarians who have bought the decades long attacks on the Clintons, funded by tens of millions of dollars, that have later proven NOT to have any basis in truth or fact simply because they don't know any better (and don't care to).

I have yet to meet a person who I know in my life as a bona fide Democrat make these allegations. In fact, they're appalled and then get angry when they hear these call-outs and accusations.

[nolawarlock]

38. I've seen apparent lifelong Dems on one site quoting the farthest of the far right constantly ...

I think this election has upended everything. When so-called Democrats on allegedly progressive websites say they will "crawl through glass to vote for trump," then I guess anyone's a Democrat as long as they say they are right?

[nolawarlock]

37. hah!!!

[Xipe Totec]

2. You seem concerned. nt

[glowing]

3. It has to do with corporate money running and ruining literally our

world, and that the Democratic Party is refusing to even pretend on being the "good guys". Why not put up the most progressive Democratic Party plank at least to look good and try to bring in the youth?

Let's put it this way, democrats hold other democrats to higher standards because they know better. Republicans are supposed to be the bought out party of the wealthy. The Democratic Party is supposed to represent the people, however, it seems to be doing more for the upper 10% of Americans and the rest, oh well.

[renie408]

6. Ok, so its thr money

I asked a couple of people point blank why they say she is corrupt and they blew,me off, like it was OBVIOUS and I was just being disingenuous. I wasn't. I really don't get it.

[glowing]

22. I think corrupt is a new term that has entered people's

psyche's.... People don't trust the govt to do its job. They really don't trust them with these super pacs... We've been seeing billionaires buy entire elections. And as Trump was asked during a debate, why donate money to the Clintons? So, they can do what I ask them, they come to my wedding.

There's no way that money doesn't influence our politicians. We essentially have an oligarchy. Occasionally, they listen to us. Most of the time, not at all.

What has been simply fascinating about this election season was seeing a candidate who, thankfully, never had to "sell out", and was bought by the people. Most interesting To see millions of people collectively coming together vs power luncheons with a handful of muckity mucks.

I would continue on with the question, but I don't want to pile on and I don't want to be alerted again for doing so.

[Orsino]

25. Yep. "It's the money, stupid."

It does corrupt, and unfortunately we've so far lacked the will to remove it from our politics. Money is still unfortunately the way things get done, and Clinton has played that game very, very well.

We need to design a different game, and it looks like Clinton is going to be the main tool with which we'll do it.

[tonyt53]

26. Got news for ya, without loads of money in this election cycle, the 1% will win.

About that youth thingy - the youth do not vote in the general election. It is those over 50 that are consistent in voting. Yeah, I was once young too and backed a guy named McGovern and we got hammered with the "most progressive platform ever".

[Silver_Witch]

4. Sorry you have to work so hard.

I can't help you - but I can encourage you to go to bed and enjoy the rest.

[RandySF]

8. Bitter enders

They'll still be waiting for indictments, or for the California primary to flip, in January, 2017.

[Frustratedlady]

10. Perhaps it is because Republicans have been trying to nail her hide to the wall so many times

and not proven anything, that Democrats are numb to the next barrage? I still tend to analyze each attack, and have been doing so since Whitewater, but nothing seems to add up...there are just so many issues that you wonder if, some day, one will stick.

I will vote for Hillary, but will probably not listen to her speeches. I tried to listen to a few minutes of one today, but it was too grating. I saw mention in another post on DU that she needs a voice coach. Absolutely a must!

[renie408]

12. Honestly, I kinda think thats it

She is just tougher to like for some reason.

[DanTex]

11. It's the same people who voted for Nader in 2000 and gave us W.

Think Susan Sarandon. They think anyone who isn't an outright socialist is a right-wing sellout. Why? There's no logical reason, they basically think all Dems are corrupt.

[DCBob]

13. RW media has been very effective at pushing the Hillary is crooked story.

Its bogus bullshit. Ignore it.

[radical noodle]

14. Read The Hunting of Hillary

You should be able to get the FREE ebook here:
http://hillarybook.nationalmemo.com

My opinion about why any Dems would say this (if they are real Dems) is that they are either too young to remember and therefore don't know the truth of all that's happened, or they're people who hear the RW talking points but don't take the time to find the truth.

[Hekate]

35. Bingo

[Sienna86]

15. Democrats differ in their opinions

Some are concerned that her acceptance of Wall Street money for speeches affects her future decisions and that she had poor judgement exhibited in having classified information on her personal server. Others feel she is well-qualified by her prior government service and will represent the interests of the average American. There is a split in the party, in my opinion, about whether the candidate represents traditional democratic values. I think you are seeing that from reading your post.

You will have to figure out where your conscience allows you to land.

[still_one]

16. Why would you start with a negative search criteria? If you are really interested where Hillary

stands on the issues, why not go to Hillary on the issues, or the Hillary web site, instead of asking the negative through google, why is "she corrupt", and just who are these so-called "Democrats" who are calling her corrupt?

If you are searching for negative criteria on a person, guess what the search will produce, whether it is true or not.

I could do the same thing with Bernie, put in some negative search criteria, and I will guarantee you, I will find plenty of negative information spit out, whether it is true or not

Are you really not trying to start a flamebait, with the hypothesis that "you are getting more push back from Dems" than republicans.

In case you are not aware, Hillary won the primaries because more Democrats voted for her

[Fla Dem]

17. For 30 years the RW crapola machine has been manufacturing lies

Last edited Thu Jul 7, 2016, 10:48 AM - Edit history (1)

From RW radio to Fox News it has been a concerted effort to paint the Clintons as untrustworthy, liars and corrupt. Except for one thing, Bill's sleazy actions with Monica Lewinsky, there hasn't been one other action or event that would support those allegations.

Every bit of slime they have thrown at the Clintons has been made up of innuendoes and misdirection. They have blown up inconsequential events into major scandals that the media has gleefully sucked up and vomited all over cable news, print media and the Internet to increase ratings, sell newspapers and generate web site traffic. They are complicit in perpetuating this false image of the Clintons.

With Republcan control of congress they have wasted tax payers money with the impeachment proceeding of Bill Clinton, the Benghazi hearings and now the e-mails.

Where was all their concern when our embassies were attacked and people were killed when GW Bush was president?



Why wasn't the whole Iraq war investigated with all the contracts given to Cheney's friends at Haliburton,

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/28/us/a-closer-look-at-cheney-and-halliburton.html?_r=0

or the 22 million White House emails that were on a RNC server Karl Rove destroyed,

http://www.pbs.org/weta/washingtonweek/web-video/missing-white-house-emails

or why wasn't Colin Powell investigated when he was Sec of State and used a Yahoo account for his emails.

http://www.newsweek.com/2016/02/19/colin-powell-emails-hillary-clinton-424187.html

After 30 years of drip, drip, drip, of the Clintons are evil, the Clintons are corrupt, the Clintons are liars, even good people begin to believe it. Everyone's saying it so it must be true.

[Maeve]

27. It does weary one to fight back all the time

I remember the smears against the Clintons in the '90's. I remember the attempts to stop Bush-Cheney and their bloody wars, the failure when thousands took to the streets and changed nothing. I've watched Obama brave partisan attacks unprecedented in modern times and now we face continued crap dumped on our next president...it would be easy to say "f^$@ it all" and give up the fight and some have. But the easy way is not the right way. So we take a breath and rejoin the fight. Thanks for posting ammunition!

[Bucky]

18. you can't get to the Pinnacle of power in America without being cozy with moneyed interests.

Given this reality, the Clintons are about as good as we can get. They do stand up for democratic values the preponderance of the time. People who can only see the clintons corruption, are ignoring the fact that there is simply a choice between two alternatives facing the voters. of those two choices Hillary Clinton is vastly superior

[betsuni]

19. Brainwashing.

I watched my mother be completely brainwashed by right-wing radio and Fox News, and now the whole culture is infected. I saw ABC News report about the email thing the other day and everything was negative: DARK CLOUD, BLISTERING rebuke, Trump calls the system RIGGED and Republicans are OUTRAGED; finally at the end it was mentioned that there were no charges. It's just out there.

It's disheartening to see those person-on-the-street interviews and so many people, including the youngs, mindlessly repeat the exact same thing about Hillary without a shred of reason. Brainwashed. Some people are immune. I saw the 1950s version of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" recently and it seemed familiar.

[demwing]

20. You're asking people to re-argue the primary

And I don't think you'll have much luck with that

[BainsBane]

21. I think there are a few reasons

1) The primary got very negative, and they decided to believe too much of the rhetoric.

2) There have been hundreds of millions spent by the GOP to try to destroy Clinton. There is the obvious right-wing propaganda and the all too successful efforts by the right to spread anti-Clinton propaganda produced for leftist consumption, created and generated to appeal to Democrats/liberals/progressives.

3) The media furthers the negative narrative about her so-called "dishonesty" and lack of "authenticity." This despite the fact that an examination of actual issues by fact checkers showed she was the MOST honest candidate in this primary in either party.

4) She's a woman trying to break into a wholly male world. Social Science literature demonstrates that people view women as less honest than men, tend to believe them less. It isn't a conscious decision to engage in sexism but rather the result of socialization. They don't even think about it. It takes honest reflection to think about ways in which we, both men and women, tend to devalue or undermine women in society. In seeking to rise where no American woman has before, she faces more of that than most.

We saw plenty of what you refer to during the primary. Many truly believe what they say, but they seldom have evidence for it. They don't think they even need evidence. They simply assume it to be true. I saw a response of yours to a post removed (which I didn't see) about money. The entire responsibility for campaign finance has been placed on Clinton individually. Some don't believe she is interested in changing current finance law, despite her policy positions showing otherwise. They also don't realize that the Citizens United case was about an anti-Clinton video. The victory for Citizens United meant that organization could continue to spend unlimited amounts of money attacking her. Of course the implications go beyond that one example to private political expenditures more broadly, but the lack of understanding of it shows how successful right-wing propaganda against her has been among those on the left.

I didn't used to like Clinton. I never for a second considered supporting her in 2008. My stated reason was the Iraq War vote, yet I was ready to support Biden, who likewise voted for the war. I didn't even think about the double standard. Since 2008, I watched her as SoS and started to think more critically about the criticism of her. I looked into her voting record vs. that of other candidates. I informed myself more in this election than any other. I realized a lot of what is said about her is unfounded. You will note that most Democrats/progressives who continue to be very critical of Clinton know very little about her policy positions or even most of her voting record. They simply project ills onto her and will attribute policy positions that are completely opposite of where she stands. I saw over and over against that they weren't even interested in finding out what her positions actually were. The reasons for that, I believe, lie in numbers 1-4 above.

[JoePhilly]

23. The perpetually disgruntled are always disgruntled.

[Squinch]

34. I feel very gruntled by Hillary's candidacy.

[bklyncowgirl]

24. I'm struggling with this myself. Most normal people judge politicians by their own lives and values.

Hillary Clinton is a hard sell to many. I am ambivalent about her myself.

Back when Hillary was first lady and Bill was caught cheating on her, publicly humiliating her, many found it hard to understand why she stayed with him and supported him. Lots of women would have dumped the bastard in a heartbeat. She didn't. Whether it was love, ambition or most likely a combination of both, she stood by her man and they are still married today. LIke it or not our society considers raw ambition to be unseemly in a woman. Bottom line, while her loyalty may have been admirable to some, to others it was proof that she was not like them. Maybe that's a good thing. A statesman or woman should put the greater good above her personal needs. I personally give her a pass on that one, though I love the story that she threw a vase at his head even if it's not true. She is human after all.

Then there's the Wall Street thing. Why in the name of God would a Democratic politician who knows that she's going to run for president give a speech to a bunch of executives at Goldman Sachs, a group of people who in the public mind were responsible for destroying the economy and messing up their lives. Since she refused to releaase the transcripts in the heat of the primary it's pretty damn certain that she did not read them the riot act. About the only thing I can say in her defense is that in our political system, which is set up to give the rich a power that is far greater than their numbers would allow them to have in a more democratic system, money is essential. It is also a good thing to be on the good side of the powers that be. It's not the way things should be, its the way things are. Hillary Clinton is if nothing else a realist. The problem is that most liberals are not realists. We want to change the world not accept it.

Hillary Clinton is someone who believes in using military force--she is more hawkish than Obama and even her husband. Many if not most Democrats believe that military force should be used as a last resort and only if we are directly attacked. I find it hard to get around it myself, but at least she seems to be more of an old school "realist" of the Kissinger type than a nutcase like Trump.

Finally there's the e-mail issue. I don't know how to put lipstick on this pig except to repeat the mantra, the FBI said it was not illegal, other Secretaries of State did the same, etc. Most people I've talked to don't buy it. Anyone who's worked with confidential information knows thay'd be fired if they used their private e-mail accounts for business. About the best thing I could say is that she's admitted that it was an error in judgment (she has, hasn't she. I know she's said it was a mistake and that she's sorry--an ambivelent word that can mean she's sorry she got caught) and that the State Department system itself was antiquated and so are those of the rest of our federal government systems. Those issues ring true with anyone who has ever tried to use a government website.

I can admire a HIllary Clinton who is hard as nails, unemotional and calculating and willing to do what needs to be done for the greater good. Problem is most Americans, especially liberals want their leaders to be loveable and moral as well. Obama manages to do all of these things well. He's a hard act to follow. Bill Clinton was both calculating and loveable but hardly moral--at least on a personal, sexual level. Jimmy Carter was moral but lacked the ruthlessness that makes an effective leader. Shrub was loveable, to those who bought his schtick that is, but an idiot, in way above his head and manipulated by those more calculating and ruthless than him. We won't have THAT problem with HIllary who is as Machiavellian as Dick Cheney any day.

I realize that many who are Clinton loyalists here will accuse me of rehashing old scandals and this post will likely be deleted. The problem is that these issues are not going away however some may want to deny them or blame them on the Republicans or the media. I'd like to see her negatives turned into positives. Yes, she's calculating and ruthless--that is not necessarily a bad thing. To counter it, find some times when she's done the morally right thing when it would have been politically expedient to go the other way.

Try this slogan out for size. Hillary--she's one tough bitch--and that's a good thing. And yes I know that some people will be offended by the word bitch. Please realize that this is the least of what people are saying about her.

edited to improve grammar and spelling

[Sheepshank]

29. "Icky" is not debateable, or easily corrected

it's an internal gut feeling created after decades of mislabeling (without foundation) and smears (ungrounded in fact).

If you can do this without creating offence or letting the other person feel defensive, asking for tangible, real examples of what is so "icky" would be helpful.

[pnwmom]

32. A lot of people believe in the "where there's smoke there's fire" theory.

There have been so many allegations against her, this theory says she must have done something wrong.

But the truth is that the R's have been sitting there running a smoke machine for the last three decades. That's why there's so much smoke.

[StrictlyRockers]

33. It can be hard to swim against a strong steam. The meme is out there.

Hillary is a product of her time. It's normal to take big money donations. Just 'cuz Bernie didn't does not mean that Hillary is corrupt.

If you've been paying attention for the past 25 years, you know that she is a hard fighter for the right issues. The right wing hates her for being so right and so powerful. It's way too easy to ride down stream on the meme without checking or knowing the facts. Hillary is great.

[Jakes Progress]

36. Maybe it's because you actually work all day.

The brief primer on why some Democrats still shill the right wing agenda on Hillary is because they have fallen for the hype and the drama. The media need drama to get this kind of person to watch and keep their advertising revenue up. The don't get through to everyone, just those who are "tuned in" to the drama. Most Democrats don't fall for that crap, but there are those personality types that are susceptible to being easily influenced. It's the same thing that makes money for those "but wait" tv commercials.

They are home a lot or on line a lot and get overwhelmed by the made up stuff. If you say a lie often enough, some simple minds start to believe it. You. You are either too bright to fall for that crap, are working all day and miss the drama, or both.

Your post sounds like you wouldn't fall for that propaganda anyway. I don't know why some do, but it seems they do.

As for being a farmer - thanks for your service. Hard work. Absolutely the bedrock of society.