Too bad that Hillary fucked over the org she went under cover for. They disavowed her.

[Luminous Animal]

MARIAN WRIGHT EDELMAN: Well, you know, Hillary Clinton is an old friend, but they are not friends in politics. We have to build a constituency, and you don’t—and we profoundly disagreed with the forms of the welfare reform bill, and we said so.

http://www.truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/how-hillary-clinton-betrayed-the-childrens-defense-fund-for-political-gain/3862-how-hillary-clinton-betrayed-the-childrens-defense-fund-for-political-gain

Bill and Hillary purposefully threw more children INTO poverty than any Democrat in my lifetime.

And bragged about it.

[Luminous Animal]

1. Not only did she champion a policy that would throw more humans into poverty… she characterized them

as dead beats.
https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=TnshAAAAIBAJ&sjid=IYoFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1438%2C3320670

[jwirr]

87. It was not just poor children. I remember our county workers

helping clients who were disabled get onto SSDI because they were going to be effected by Bill and Hillary's welfare reform.

It also effected caregivers like myself. The way it was written there were to be NO exceptions. I was taking 24/7 care of my severely disabled child. Under the federal law I would have had to place her back into the more expensive institution where she had been abused. Then I would have had to get a "real" job. I remember a mother in NC who had to do exactly that.

Fortunately MN had more brains than that state. They realized that welfare saved a lot of money by keeping me at home to take care of her and made caregivers an exception to Bill and Hillary's law.

THIS is the number one reason why I do not want her as
the president of the USA.

[lewebley3]

91. The Clinton Administration economy was one the most successful in history

Their policies lifted the middle class and the poor out of poverty:
the court was at full employment, and the welfare rolls were almost
empty by the time they left office.

[Tommy2Tone]

101. They don't want to hear that

It is much more in their interest to show starving children and blame the Clinton's.

[lewebley3]

109. These are the same people supported Nader: and helped Gore lose

[Tommy2Tone]

128. True and then went silent when Bush won.

[lewebley3]

144. NO, they whined about the war: and protested: and Bush took the country war

Their is no substitute for real power: the country went to war because
Dem's didn't have a seat at the table to stop it.

The GOP will go to war if is Hillary is not elected with Iran

[questionseverything]

115. the welfare rolls were "empty" because the only safety net we had was devastated by the clintons

n/t

[Chan790]

129. That's the part Clintonites will never get...

you don't to claim an accomplishment if the welfare rolls are empty because you threw people that were legitimately receiving benefits and should have continued to receive benefits off the welfare rolls.

People didn't stop receiving benefits because they found employment or stopped needing benefits...they stopped receiving benefits because Bill Clinton's "welfare reform" was little more than middle-class placation and yet another example of the Clintons fucking-over the poor. They didn't improve shit...they made the situation worse, claimed an accomplishment and hoped nobody noticed they weren't actually governing well, governing by the Democratic values they paid lip-service to, or being decent to people that needed a little human decency.

Bill Clinton was the most-insidious Republican President of my lifetime and Hillary isn't going to be any better. Let's be fair and call the Clintons what they really are: class-warriors for the oligarchy. Let's be doubly-fair and call their ardent supporters what they really are too: quislings for the class-warriors of the oligarchy.

[emsimon33]

131. Yes!

No longer was the aim to get people into careers with a career path which meant education. The goal changed to just getting a job and most were dead end which over the years since has led to not only increasing the cycle of poverty but in lowering wages in general.

[gordyfl]

117. Except for Disabling Glass-Steagall

which helped lead the way to the Great Recession of 2008. We're still feeling the pain from what he did.

Bill Clinton undid what FDR accomplished back in the 1930's.

NOTE: Bernie Sanders spoke out against it and voted against it.

I still believe banks should be banks.
Insurance companies should deal in insurance.
Stock brokers should deal in stocks.

They should not be merged into one.

FDR understood this. Bill Clinton apparently did not. He took the advice of Wall Street. Ka-Boom!

[gordyfl]

119. Bill Clinton Grants Wall Street Their Wish

FDR Signs Glass-Steagall...






Greenspan - far left

McCain - second from left

[sulphurdunn]

122. The middle class wasn't in poverty,

that's why it's called a middle class. Most of the poor remained poor. The country never approached full employment. The welfare rolls declined because needy women and children were kicked off of them. This despite the fact that Clinton presided over one of the longest economic expansions in history.

[navarth]

123. guys you're feeding a troll

shouldn't give it a meal like that, it'll just come back for more

[lewebley3]

146. NO: the US was in full employment : The Clinton's has one of best economy is history

I remember getting raises under the Clinton's, and my income tripling:
I was able to buy a house. There was very little poverty and county was not
in debt: the congress voted support many programs for the poor that
were very successful. Everyone did better under the Clinton's, in fact they
proved by helping the middle class and the poor: the whole country did better:

The Clinton's proved Reagan's trickle down economics was a failure:


Bush and the GOP crash the economy because the went back to a Hoover
and Reagan failed econ theory

To be clear I think the Clintons ideas on economy were held my most Dem's
and most Dem's were successful:

[sulphurdunn]

148. Of course. It was a golden age.

It was a magical time of unicorns and turning straw into gold. We shall never see its like again, unless we restore the House of Clinton to the throne and make HRC our queen once more.

[lewebley3]

150. Its was the best of times: Check the graphs: We can only dream of what was then now

[EndElectoral]

153. There was a boon in technology due to the spending on computers in Clinton's era, BUT...

While the economy benefitted greatly from that, when it came to welfare let's face it he came up short in helping those in need.

http://billmoyers.com/2014/05/12/how-bill-clintons-welfare-reform-created-a-system-rife-with-racial-biases/

Or

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1997/03/the-worst-thing-bill-clinton-has-done/376797/

Just an excerpt from the latter.

But the bill that President Clinton signed is not welfare reform. It does not promote work effectively, and it will hurt millions of poor children by the time it is fully implemented. What’s more, it bars hundreds of thousands of legal immigrants—including many who have worked in the United States for decades and paid a considerable amount in Social Security and income taxes—from receiving disability and old-age assistance and food stamps, and reduces food-stamp assistance for millions of children in working families.

Not Bill's finest moment.

[lewebley3]

156. The Clintions pulled7 millions people out of poverty: Sanders just talked

about helping the poor

[lewebley3]

155. The House of Clintons was the American peoples house

[sulphurdunn]

152. No

The US has never had full employment, not even during WWII.
No, not everyone did better under the Clintons and 30 million Americans remained in poverty while he was president.

[rhett o rick]

130. Interesting that you said "they left office" liked they shared the presidency. Clinton isn't

responsible for the dot.com bubble that he rode. When it broke a lot of the 99% were severely hurt financially. Of course your 1% made out. The Clintons became rich themselves and now live comfortably in the 1%. I am sure they love us and think we can eat cake. I think it's morally wrong to worship the wealthy and let children go to bed hungry.

[lewebley3]

145. Clinton's Administration was not responsible for micromanaging the economy

Presidents don't run private business, they are governors for general welfare of
the people ( they set a budget that works for most). The Clinton's earned every penny through hard work: they
have chump money compared to the GOP: The Clinton's can not write 1billion
dollar checks from an industry they own personal: Hillary has to go begging like most
Dem's

I for one don't begrudge the Clinton's their success: I cheer it: I glad Hillary is talented
enough to afford her own transportation. The Clinton's have proven to be very gifted
in success in just about everything they do. It bodes well for a successful Hillary Presidency:

I frankly tried of Sanders sick bitterness against Hillary: if she didn't make money
you would be calling her loser.

[rhett o rick]

147. Make up your mind whether the Clinton's were responsible for the economy during their presidency or

not.

In my mind selling books and making speeches isn't working hard. Ask people that are working for $7 per hour. It's an easy way to get payoff from people you've helped politically.

[lewebley3]

151. People who are making 7hr; doing so because of Bush and the GOP

Fact remains: The Clinton's were on of the most successful Administrations in
history: and people go raises under the Clinton's; Under GOP they
always are attacking workers.

We can only dream of hoping to match their success with Hillary Presidency

[Luminous Animal]

138. Welfare roles were almost empty because they kicked people off of welfare.

It didn't reduce the need. Welfare reform only made it more difficult to access support.

Welfare reform is directly responsible for our obscene rate of child poverty today.

[ucrdem]

139. Bill ran on growing the economy and that's exactly what he did. Take employment for example:

[Jarqui]

2. Hmmm ...

MARIAN WRIGHT EDELMAN: ... We were for welfare reform, I am for welfare reform, but we need good jobs, we need adequate work incentives, we need minimum wage to be decent wage and livable wage, we need health care, we need transportation, we need to invest preventively in all of our children to prevent them ever having to be on welfare.

And yet, you know, many years after that, when many people are pronouncing welfare reform a great success, you know, we’ve got growing child poverty, we have more children in poverty and in extreme poverty over the last six years than we had earlier in the year. When an economy is down, and the real test of welfare reform is what happens to the poor when the economy is not booming. Well, the poor are suffering, the gap between rich and poor widening. We have what I consider one of—a growing national catastrophe of what we call the cradle-to-prison pipeline. A black boy today has a one-in-three chance of going to prison in his lifetime, a black girl a one-in-seventeen chance. A Latino boy who’s born in 2001 has a one-in-six chance of going to prison. We are seeing more and more children go into our child welfare systems, go dropping out of school, going into juvenile justice detention facilities. Many children are sitting up—15,000, according to a recent congressional GAO study—are sitting up in juvenile institutions solely because their parents could not get mental health and health care in their community. This is an abomination.

You know who I thought of when I read those words about what Marian wanted? Bernie. Not Hillary

Then this by the article author

"We are disillusioned, to say the least, that the Obama camp appears so deficient in being able to bring Hillary's checkered record on progressive issues out as a campaign issue. "

[pnwmom]

21. Edelman is supporting Hillary for 2016 and even did the voiceover for

the campaign video.

So you are wrong about who Marian would want.

[Jarqui]

75. I'm not so sure.

Did she know Sanders was running when she made the endorsement (which I haven't seen)?

If she isn't acquainted with Bernie's positions, should she get acquainted, when she goes into that voting booth, I wonder who she would vote for: a man who has advocated for the things she has wanted all his life or the woman who was a long time family acquaintance, who admitted that the welfare bill the Clintons supported during Bill's years was a time when she recognized she was no longer an advocate (or a loyal friend in my opinion) ... she'd become a politician (something to that effect as I recall).

With Bernie, there is no wondering about where he stands. With Hillary, you always have to wonder about her frequently changing positions on issues because they're not firmly based on her passionate beliefs (if she has any). Like the weather vane symbol some have posted around here, her positions are based on what will serve her best at the time to get her the power she wants. That is at the central core of Hillary Clinton. She and Bill sold the Edelman's out in 1996 on welfare reform. And she'd do it again without batting an eyelash if it meant getting her more votes. I don't doubt that for a second because she's done it all her political life.

I'm sure Marian Wright Edelman knows that about Hillary. She said as much in the above quote - that's beyond debate. Naturally, if her choice is between Hillary and a GOP candidate, at least she has a chance that the political winds will blow the right way with Hillary that she won't have with the GOP candidate.

[Chitown Kev]

141. You really think that Marian Wright Edelman does not know

who Bernie Sanders is and what he's done?

SMDH

[Jarqui]

149. I'm sure, like many, she is aware of Bernie. I do not know her personally.

Nor have I followed her closely. I also know she's getting on - Hillary's boss in early 1970s

I do not know how well she knew Bernie and what he's about when she supposedly (I still haven't seen it) "endorsed" Hillary. I've always liked Bernie but I didn't know nearly as much about him before his campaign started as I do now.

Knowing how committed or uncommitted they are to what they stand for, I don't have much doubt after her remarks above, that Edelman would prefer Bernie's commitment to the causes most important to her. Unlike her experience with Hillary, she would know Bernie is much less likely to use welfare for women and children as a pawn in a political chess game with Newt Gingrich.

The Tragic End of the Woman Bill Clinton Exploited As Poster Child for Gutting Welfare
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/tragic-end-woman-bill-clinton-exploited-poster-child-gutting-welfare

In 2008, Sen. Hillary Clinton defended and strongly endorsed her husband's welfare reform while on the campaign trail. “Welfare should have been a temporary waystation for people who needed immediate assistance,” she said. “It should not be considered an anti-poverty program. It simply did not work.”

From Welfare Shift in ’96, a Reminder for Clinton
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/11/us/politics/11welfare.html?_r=0

Many welfare advocates dispute Mrs. Clinton’s characterization. Since entering the Senate, they say, she has shown a predilection for compromise at the expense of the poor.

When the overhaul bill came up for reauthorization, Sandra Chapin, a former welfare recipient affiliated with a coalition called Welfare Made a Difference, lobbied Congress to allow more women to attend college while they received aid. Mrs. Clinton “wouldn’t have anything to do with it,” Ms. Chapin said.

Ms. Chapin, now program director of the Consumer Federation of California, posted an e-mail message to a discussion board in February accusing Mrs. Clinton of having “had a hand in devaluing motherwork in this country, and no doubt sending thousands of children and their families deeper into poverty.”…

As the saying goes, "a tiger cannot change it's stripes". Bernie has his principles. Hillary has her politics. If you've followed both some, that's not too hard to see. Like most of us, Marian Wright Edelman probably is plugged in to Bernie by now. In 1996, she had a first hand head start with what Hillary was about with welfare.

I think Marian Wright Edelman and her husband have been proven right on their position and what they feared would be the consequences. They knew that the real test of welfare legislation came when things got tough. And the Clintons helped make things considerably tougher for millions of Americans with NAFTA.

In 2008, Hillary's got caught blatantly flip-flopping on and lying about her position on NAFTA. As many would know, NAFTA sent a lot of American factory jobs to Mexico, China, etc. So these people who had developed a trade and worked all their life towards living off that trade in these factories, had no quick solution to finding another job unless they wanted to move to China and work for a dollar a day and a bowl of rice (price of Chinese labor in 1999). Americans in that position, and there were millions of them, needed more than (Hillary's words) "a temporary waystation for people who needed immediate assistance". Tragically, Bill Clinton gave away their jobs with NAFTA and they never got the help they needed from the welfare reform Clinton did. And Hillary is oblivious to it - or she'll blame it on George Bush.

And since I'm on the subject of blaming George Bush, a hunk of this collapse of the middle class that Bernie has been so concerned about and increased in poverty that the Edelmans were concerned about was brought to the United States by William Jefferson Clinton and his wife with NAFTA and their welfare reform.. It's not all the GOP's fault. A hunk of the economic collapse suffered during Bush's watch came from the house of cards economy Clinton left him. NAFTA delivered short term gain and long term pain - a gutting of the middle class - and they knew it would happen - turmoil, upheaval and job losses. Clinton enjoyed the short term gain. A bewildered Bush wasn't up to dealing with the longer term pain of NAFTA. We'll struggle with that for some time to come.

[Tanuki]

3. Yeah, they "disavowed" her by honoring her in 2013 at their 40th Anniversary gala:

http://www.childrensdefense.org/newsroom/cdf-in-the-news/press-releases/2013/honoring-hillary-clinton.html
Said Marian Wright Edelman on that occasion:
“CDF is pleased to recognize Hillary Rodham Clinton, who has been a tireless voice for children. She’s brilliant. She cares deeply about children. She perseveres. She’s an incredibly hard worker, and she stays with it. She’s done extraordinarily well in everything she’s ever done. and I’m just so proud of her,” said Marian Wright Edelman, President of the Children’s Defense Fund. - See more at: http://www.childrensdefense.org/newsroom/cdf-in-the-news/press-releases/2013/honoring-hillary-clinton.html#sthash.LLZSYwrL.dpuf

Here they are that night, looking as if they have patched things up since the 2008 remark you cite:
[img][/img]

[dlwickham]

6. stop posting facts

you confuse the bern bots

[Historic NY]

23. LOL.

[SCantiGOP]

83. To say that they "bragged" about it???

They bragged about putting children into poverty?
When you read something like that the poster instantly has zero credibility on this or anything else he/she may post. Incredible that this is how they hope to win over people for their candidate.

[Luminous Animal]

7. Yep. They disavowed her,. But they know where their bread is buttered.

[Empowerer]

8. If they disavow her, their view is relevant. If they honor her, they're crooked hypocrites.

Got it . . .

[BlueCheese]

16. The only consistency is consistently hating Hillary Clinton.

Honestly, if people were confident in their own candidate, they wouldn't have to resort to this kind of smear.

[Laser102]

108. Spot on.

[joshcryer]

14. The quote is specifically political.

Political rhetoric at its best. Bandwagoning on the Obama train.

[stevil]

133. LOL

Whatever

[Number23]

10. Damn, I wish I could get "disavowed" like that.

[BlueCheese]

15. Thank you for bringing reason and facts into this ridiculous thread.

[senz]

38. So? There are photos of Hill being as chummy w/Kissinger and Trump.

Politics is politics.

When you're trying to get something done in Washington you smile a lot and you don't openly hold grudges.

You do favors to get favors. That's how it works.

[BlueMTexpat]

49. Bernie and Trump

So anytime people are in a photo together (photo-shopped or not), they are automatically kindred spirits?

Not really a logical argument, IMO.

[karynnj]

98. Photo shopped - as this obviously was -- is not the same

My advise: Stick with the truth -- that sometimes getting things done means working with people whose positions are far from yours. There is no virtue in refusing to join even if you dislike the people if they can help accomplish something you think worthwhile.

In addition, it is to be expected that ex Presidents are sometimes seen together -- and ex Secretaries of State. In the case of Trump, he was an influential man from his media roles and a big dollar donor in the period the picture of the Clintons is from. I doubt there is a serious politician anywhere who has not allowed a photo with someone who is later controversial.

[BlueMTexpat]

110. I hope that you realized

that I realized that the image was indeed photo-shopped.

[karynnj]

111. Yes -- and I hope you realize that there really is a difference between actual photos and photo shop

I hope you appreciate that I explained why the real photos of Clinton with Kissinger or Trump are understandable, not a big deal, and do not reflect either that they are similar or friends.

I would not be surprised if YOU made the Sanders/Trump photo.

[BlueMTexpat]

112. I really don't believe that we are

in disagreement. Did you actually read what I said in my first post - below the photo-shopped picture? It is pretty much what you have said in both of yours.

And no, I found the Sanders/Trump photo on the "tubes" to illustrate my point. I do not photoshop photos to imply something different from the truth. You should be able to find the url simply by clicking on the image.

But when you accuse me of doing something that I haven't, I get irritated. You have never before struck me as an unreasonable person, so I hope that this was an aberration.

[karynnj]

114. I was not accusing you, but answering your post suggesting I did not know it was a photo shop

You pretty much called it photo shopped -- and it would be an easy one to do as both have very black backgrounds. Is it really worse to have created a very obvious photo shop rather than just posted one?

[JunkyardAngel83]

126. Duh, it's Photoshopped. The purpose was not to make you think Trump and Sanders were

photographed together pointing at each other from opposing podiums. It's just showing them in the same pose.

[BlueMTexpat]

143. I was using it simply to make the point. eom

[gordyfl]

120. Here's What Bernie Sanders Said About Winning Over Trump Supporters...

The Vermont senator said his and Trump's followers are mad about the same issues, but he — unlike Trump — has a plan to solve those problems.

“Look, many of Trump’s supporters are working-class people, and they’re angry,” Sanders said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” “And they’re angry because they’re working longer hours for lower wages. They’re angry because their jobs have left this country and gone to China or other low-wage countries.”

“And what I’m suggesting is that what Trump has done with some success has taken that anger, taken those fears, which are legitimate, and converted them into anger against Mexicans, anger against Muslims,” he added.

“And in my view, that is not the way we’re going to address the major problems facing our country.”

Sanders said Trump would only exacerbate these problems by offering generous tax breaks to the wealthy and demonizing minorities.

“In fact, he has said that he thinks wages in America are too high,” he said of Trump. “But he does want to give hundreds of billions in tax breaks to the top three-tenths of 1 percent.”

“So I think for his working-class supporters, I think we can make the case that if we really want to address the issues that people are concerned about … that we need policies that bring us together … and create a middle class that works for all of us, rather than an economy that works for just a few,” he added.

[gordyfl]

121. Now Trump Says Wages Are "Too Low"

Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump has appeared to take a new position on US wages.

After previously saying wages were "too high," Trump instead stressed Sunday and again Monday that they were actually "too low."
"Wages in are country are too low, good jobs are too few, and people have lost faith in our leaders. We need smart and strong leadership now!" Trump tweeted Monday morning.

The apparent shift came after Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont), a Democratic presidential candidate, said in a Sunday interview that his message would resonate among Trump's working-class supporters.

[Agschmid]

67. ...

This from you? Call me shocked.

Politics is politics.

When you're trying to get something done in Washington you smile a lot and you don't openly hold grudges.

You do favors to get favors. That's how it works.

[Number23]

113. The irony of that statement is fairly seismic given current events, wouldn't you say??

[Agschmid]

116. Yah, I absolutely would.

[uponit7771]

70. Thx for facts

[Tommy2Tone]

103. Well they do say a picture is better than a thousand words.

[Faux pas]

4. Kickin'

for exposure.

[Katashi_itto]

5. K&R down with 3rd way

[joshcryer]

9. Bill Clinton got elected on the welform reform platform.

This is so stupid...

[Luminous Animal]

12. And Black Lives Matter has challenged her on her support or that platform.

So stupid that she refuses to address it.

[joshcryer]

17. Absolutely.

And I still consider it shallow criticism.

[Tommy2Tone]

104. Yea she's so stupid she is polling over 80% with black voters.

[Ken Burch]

47. He got elected on universal healthcare.

And reforming welfare didn't have to mean punishing people for using it.

[joshcryer]

64. His famously stated he'd "end welfare as we have come to know it."

But you're not wrong that he campaigned on health care and it was a big issue back then.

[Ken Burch]

65. There were many other ways to do that without just sticking it to the poor.

jobs programs in areas where the heritage of redlining created job deserts, reducing the costs of college so the unemployed would actually have a shot of getting into real jobs.

It never had to be "know your place-working the fry machine 'til you die", and it never had to treat being on welfare as a crime.

What got called "welfare reform" was actually more like Calvinism on bath salts.

[joshcryer]

68. I'm not defending Clinton's campaign rhetoric.

I'm just saying it is what it is. Different times and all. One thing I don't dig is people railing on a politician for keeping a campaign promise. That's something I respect even if I disagree with that promise.

[TSIAS]

11. To the alerter

Close, but no cigar.

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

Mail Message
On Sun Dec 27, 2015, 11:47 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Too bad that Hillary fucked over the org she went under cover for. They disavowed her.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251951645

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Purposefully threw children into poverty? What is this garbage?

Don't waste bandwith to use DU as your personal bathroom wall.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Dec 27, 2015, 11:53 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Welfare "reform" is as it does.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Do your homework, and then refute it or agree. It's the DU way.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Argue it out.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This alert doesn't have anything to do with TOS.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Over top. Agree with alerter.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I can't discern what's over-the-top and what isn't in this forum anymore. I'm going to vote to Leave.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[SCantiGOP]

84. The post might stay

But I bet the person who put up this ridiculous crap picked up a dozen or so more spots on Ignore lists.

[Hekate]

92. They don't care.

We've got Dominionist Ted Cruz waiting in the wings to get the GOP nomination, and all these folks can do is savage Democrats. Go figure.

Pigs will fly before I do that.

[BlueCheese]

13. The Clinton hatred on this board is out of control.

[bvar22]

95. Oh, Yes...

because the ONLY reason one could oppose Hillary is "hatred".
So simple, I don't see why everybody doesn't get it.
Its ALL about hatred,
and her warmongering and coziness with Wall Street and the Republicans aren't issues at all.

[brooklynite]

102. And apparently the ONLY reason one could support Hillary...

...is if you're a 1%er or a brainwashed working class Democrat.

[bvar22]

107. I could go along with that,

....because it doesn't make any sense to support her if you have to Work for a Living.
They DO have many Republicans who vote against their own financial interests.
AT the rate at which Republicans are being invited into our "Big Tent", I guess that could be true for Hillary too.

[SunSeeker]

18. False. Marian Wright Edelman has not "disavowed" Hillary, she's a Hillary supporter.

She even provided the voiceover on Hillary's "Fighter" campaign video this year.

Perhaps the first clue came the day before her Saturday speech at the Four Freedoms Park on Roosevelt Island in New York City, when the Clinton campaign released a new video, entitled “Fighter.” A few seconds into the clip, a voice takes us back “before Secretary of State, before Senator, First Lady of the country” to when Hillary Clinton “was just a caring young bright creative student who cared about children and those left behind.”

The voice belongs to Marian Wright Edelman, a civil rights activist and public interest lawyer who worked with Martin Luther King on his Poor People’s Campaign and in that spirit founded the Washington Research Project and then the Children’s Defense Fund, a non-profit specializing in lifting children and their families out of poverty. Hillary Clinton’s first job out of law school was for Edelman; at the Children's Defense Fund she first worked as a staff attorney, then as a board member, and eventually as board chair. She has always credited Edelman with being her most important mentor and a close friend.

But after Hillary’s husband signed welfare reform in 1996, Edelman condemned it, issuing a statement that “President Clinton’s signature on this pernicious bill makes a mockery of his pledge not to hurt children.” And eight years ago, when her former protégée was first running for president, Edelman was asked by Democracy Now host Amy Goodman, “What are your thoughts about Hillary Rodham Clinton?” Edelman answered, damningly, “Hillary Clinton is an old friend, but they are not friends in politics.” Now, in 2016, it seems that Edelman is back on board. But in her callback to the time before the State Department, before the Senate, before her first tour in the White House, it’s telling that Edelman’s argument on behalf of a potential future president points straight toward Clinton's deeper past.

https://newrepublic.com/article/122035/meet-new-old-hillary-clinton

[pnwmom]

19. Wrong. Marian Edelman helped Hillary produce her 2016 campaign video

by doing the voice-over.

[Luminous Animal]

28. Edelman was not lying when she said this.

MARIAN WRIGHT EDELMAN: Well, you know, Hillary Clinton is an old friend, but they are not friends in politics. We have to build a constituency, and you don’t—and we profoundly disagreed with the forms of the welfare reform bill, and we said so.

And why Edelman has abandoned women and children is on her own conscience.

[pnwmom]

29. They disagreed. But they maintained their friendship over the years,

and Marian is helping Hillary campaign now, not Bernie.

And why Edelman has abandoned women and children is on her own conscience.

That you could judge Edelman this way says so much -- but not about Edelman.

[Tanuki]

74. It is reprehensible for you to state that Marian Wright Edelman has "abandoned women and children"

and it is patently false. I suggest that you read about what the Children's Defense Fund is doing, and I am pretty sure you will find yourself in agreement with most of their current programs and campaigns. You may want to edit your post after you educate yourself about this.

http://www.childrensdefense.org/policy/

http://www.childrensdefense.org/campaigns/cradle-to-prison-pipeline/

[Tommy2Tone]

105. People can disagree on a lot of things

The important thing is she still supports Hillary and I'm pretty sure she does so with a clear conscience.

[Divernan]

20. "Going undercover" =s convincing, bald-faced liar.

I'm sure when 24 year old Hillary was lying (my husband and I are looking for a school for our children), she had the same wide-eyed look & sincere tone as she did at age 49, in 1996, when she described ducking from sniper's fire.

Or at age 47, in 1994, when she told Ken Starr she couldn't comply with a subpoena to produce her Rose law firm billing records because she had no idea where they were. (They showed up 2 years later on a tabletop in the family living quarters in the White House.)

My takeaway from the story of Hillary going undercover? You have to independently verify everything she says.

[oasis]

24. Ken Starr is a right wing puppet who conducted a multi

million dollar witch hunt on the Clintons at the expense of the American taxpayer.

That's something DUers should know.

[Divernan]

30. Here's whole sordid story, w/cites. HRC remains her own worst enemy!

Response to TM99 (Reply #4)

Thu Aug 13, 2015, 09:17 AM

Star Member Divernan (14,023 posts)
16. HRC's stubborn refusal to respond to Whitewater subpoena resulted in Bill's impeachment

To belabor the obvious, she ignored a legal subpoena in order to keep her business records SECRET. Bottom line, she was subpoenaed to produce to a court her billing records from when she was a partner at the Rose law firm. Against the advice of counsel, she stonewalled and for two years, she insisted she had no idea where they were and they couldn't be found. According to Sid Blumenthal's Clinton era book, The Clinton Wars, HRC was the one who was against just putting out every detail they had on Whitewater and killing the issue. He wrote of her being extremely angry after several Democrats, including Moynihan, Kerry and Bradley - some former prosecutors, recommended that. And yes, that is the same Sid Blumenthal whose email correspondence with Hillary is much discussed in the current Clinton email hot mess.

So the Whitewater investigation dragged on for 2 years until a White House employee found a stack of files (the Rose billing records) on a table outside the door to HRC's office in the White House family quarters and turned them in. Ken Starr had pretty much shut down his investigation at that point, but the discovery of those documents led him to reopen it, and it was AFTER that that L'Affaire Lewinsky developed. THAT led to Bill being deposed about Monica, and getting caught (blue dress evidence)lying under oath and THAT led to his impeachment.

Interesting that the Republicans pushing on the email investigation and missing emails have not, as far as I've seen, mentioned the similarity to the missing Whitewater documents. That was some 20 years ago, so younger posters probably never heard of this, but I have no doubt that GOP oppo research team is drooling to throw this at HRC should she win the primary.


Republicans on the special Senate Whitewater committee released a report from the Federal Bureau of Investigation today showing that the fingerprints of the First Lady, Hillary Rodham Clinton, were found on records discovered in the White House family quarters two years after they were first sought by investigators.
http://www.nytimes.com/1996/06/05/us/hillary-clinton-s-fingerprints-among-those-found-on-papers.html

Those Whitewater documents had been subpoenaed from HRC and for 2 years she stoutly claimed she had absolutely no idea where they were. Then they were found on a table in the first family's private quarters - just outside the door to HRC's office. And she again disavowed any knowledge of how they got there.

In January 1998, Starr suddenly requested and received permission to expand his investigation again. The new area of inquiry: whether Clinton and his close friend Vernon E. Jordan Jr. encouraged Monica Lewinsky to lie under oath about whether she had an affair with the president.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/whitewater/whitewater.htm


Ted Koppel did a masterful Nightline report on the whole incident. Here's a link to the transcript of Ted Koppel's coverage of this nightmare. HRC is caught in mis-statement after mis-statement after mis-statement and keeps trying to spin and twist her way out of it. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/clinton/etc/01301996.html
The Whitewater Lost And Found Records
Correspondent: Chris Bury
Anchor: Ted Koppel

TED KOPPEL (VO): The accusation? Obstruction of justice, knowingly withholding subpoenaed documents. The location? A book room on the third floor of the White House, a room in the first family's private quarters. One clue? A White House log handed over today with the names of all the people who might have had access - from Mrs Clinton's chief of staff, to Chelsea Clinton's friends, to dignitaries visiting the President. Tonight, the mystery of the lost and found records.


ANNOUNCER: This is ABC News Nightline. Reporting from Washington, Ted Koppel.
TED KOPPEL: Almost exactly two years ago, a subpoena was issued for some billing records from the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock, Arkansas. These are records that go back about 10 years or so and that would, it was believed, shed some light on how much work attorney Hillary Clinton did on a particular real estate deal, and for whom she did that work. For the better part of these last two years, those records could not be found. Then, seemingly out of nowhere, they turned up earlier this month in the office of a woman named Carolyn Huber. What turned that into a major story is that Ms Huber works at the White House, and that she says she found the billing records in the private quarters of the first family - found them, in fact, last August, right outside Mrs Clinton's private office - didn't know what they were, packed them up, didn't realize what they were until a couple of weeks ago, when she was tidying up her own office. If someone has been deliberately concealing those records, that would be a federal crime. The White House says that a surprisingly large number of people actually had access to the Clintons' private quarters last August We'll tell you more about that later, but we want to use most of our time this evening to put this latest development into context. We begin by taking something both the President and the first lady have said recently.


CHRIS BURY, ABC NEWS (VO): The President and Mrs Clinton complain that the questions keep changing, but the controversies over Whitewater and the Travel Office have stayed alive, in large part, because the answers keep changing, too.

CHRIS BURY (VO): On January 15th, Mrs Clinton told a radio interviewer all documents had been released. Five days later, the White House issued a statement to The New York Times saying that wasn't quite true. On Castle Grande, Hillary Clinton's legal work for a land deal regulators describe as fraudulent: in May 1995 she told the Resolution Trust Corporation, quote, 'I don't believe I knew anything about any of these real estate parcels and projects.' But after billing records showed Hillary Clinton had at least 14 conversations with Seth Ward, the major player in the deal, Mrs Clinton told Barbara Walters she knew the project by another name.

HILLARY CLINTON: ('20/20,' January 19, 1996) And so when I was asked about it last year, I didn't recognize it, I didn't remember it. The billing records show I did not do work for Castle Grande. I did work for something called IDC, which was not related to Castle Grande.

CHRIS BURY (VO): That is not how Susan McDougal, the Clintons' former business partner, remembers it.
SUSAN MCDOUGAL: It was always the same thing. As far as I know, IDC and- and- and Castle Grande were one and the same.

Clinton cover-ups do not work out in the long run.
It's not the initial decision to use her own private email account, it's the perceived cover-up. It was an attempted cover-up by Bill Clinton which resulted in his impeachment. "Bill Clinton, the 42nd President of the United States, was impeached by the House of Representatives on two charges, one of perjury and one of obstruction of justice, on December 19, 1998."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton

It was so painful and ugly, for me as a Democrat who had worked for Bill's election and even been a guest at his first inauguration, to go through all the years of investigations and embarrassing results thereof. If she's the Dem. nominee, we will all have to go through months and months of rehashing this yet again. Horrifying to contemplate. If the Clintons had come clean and cooperated with the Whitewater investigations, Ken Starr would never have gotten around to Monica Lewinsky.

[Divernan]

60. Exactly. HRC had nothing worth hiding but she still defied a subpoena.

and ignored sound legal advice from leading Democrats Moynihan, Kerry and Bradley to turn over the documents subpoenaed. And for what reasons? (1) because she could; (2) because she is absolutely convinced that she knows better than anyone else and (3) because she has no respect for the Rule of Law.

Against the advice of counsel, she stonewalled and for two years, she insisted she had no idea where they were and they couldn't be found. According to Sid Blumenthal's Clinton era book, The Clinton Wars, HRC was the one who was against just putting out every detail they had on Whitewater and killing the issue. He wrote of her being extremely angry after several Democrats, including Moynihan, Kerry and Bradley - some former prosecutors, recommended that.

Of course, as per usual, you provide zilch in the way of links/documentation regarding your comments about Mrs. Sanders.

And if you want to talk about getting jobs because of connections, look at Chelsea Clinton's jobs with
consulting firm, McKinsey & Company; Avenue Capital Group(private equity firm and hedge fund), and NBC. Clinton earned an annual salary of $600,000 for her "special correspondent" work at NBC (with zilch training or experience as a journalist). That last gig, in which she filed "a trickle of stories" lasted 3 years, at $600,000 per year. Pretty slick, right?

Boasting a big name but zero experience in journalism, Clinton joined NBC News as a full-time special correspondent in 2011.

In the ensuing years, she filed a trickle of stories, primarily feel-good feature pieces for her "Making a Difference" segment highlighting nonprofit work.

A ripple of shock coursed through the industry after the former First Daughter’s seismic salary was revealed in June.

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv/chelsea-clinton-quits-nbc-600k-pay-article-1.1921369

[pnwmom]

61. I can't help it if you ignored links the previous times I've posted them.

This is about the loans she applied for, under the pretense that they had received millions in pledges (that was actually a promised bequest for some unknown time in the future)

http://vtdigger.org/2015/09/13/jane-sanders-overstated-donation-amounts-in-loan-application-for-burlington-college/


Former Burlington College president Jane Sanders overstated donation amounts in a bank application for a $6.7 million loan that was used by the college to purchase a prime 33-acre property on Lake Champlain in 2010.

Sanders told People’s United Bank that the college had $2.6 million in pledged donations to support the purchase of the former Roman Catholic Diocese of Burlington property on North Avenue. The college, however, received only $676,000 in actual donations from 2010 through 2014, according to figures provided by Burlington College.

That’s far less than the $5 million Sanders listed as likely pledges in the loan agreement, and less than a third of the $2.14 million Sanders had promised People’s Bank the college would collect in cash during the four-year period.

SNIP

Burlington College also cited a $1 million bequest as a pledged donation that would be paid out over six years, even though the money would only be available after the donor’s death.

SnIP

Sanders, wife of Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., who is now running for president, resigned under pressure from the Burlington College board of trustees nearly a year after obtaining the multi-million dollar loan. After both sides lawyered up, the board gave Sanders the title of president emeritus and a $200,000 severance package. Sanders was president of Burlington College from 2004 to 2011.

She got her PhD in 2000, and her College President job in 2004. In between, the PhD program she was in at the Union Institute lost its accreditation from Ohio.

Sanders phd

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026765394

In all aspects of her career, Dr. Jane O’Meara Sanders has focused on transformational leadership and social change, choosing opportunities to make a real difference in her community.

Dr. Sanders earned her Ph.D. with a concentration in leadership and policy studies from Union Institute & University in 2000. She also attended Harvard University’s Institute for Educational Management and Presidents Seminar.

In 2004, she accepted the position as president of Burlington College where she expanded the college’s social and economic involvement in the community and stressed the need for students to graduate as engaged citizens. Under her leadership, the college developed nine new undergraduate majors, and moved to a higher degree institution by establishing four Bachelor of Fine Arts degrees and an Individualized Master’s Degree program. As part of her legacy, the college developed partnerships with Vermont Law School, the Vermont Woodworking School, University of Havana in Cuba and established an Institute for Civic Engagement.

http://www.signorile.com/2011/07/what-kind-of-doctor-is-marcus-bachmann.html


The Union Institute's Ph.D. program came under scrutiny by the Ohio Board of Regents in the late 1990s, early 2000s which culminated in its 2002 Reauthorization Report. The report was critical of the Union Institute's Ph.D. program, noting in particular that " ... expectations for student scholarship at the doctoral level were not as rigorous as is common for doctoral work ... " (OBR 2002 Reauthorization Report, page 13) As a result, The Union was put on probation, the Union Graduate School was dissolved and the Ph.D. program was restructured.

The Union Institute no longer offers PhDs in Jane Sanders field.

And here is a link to the article in which a Trustee says the college hired her for President in part due to her connection with Bernie:


http://www.sevendaysvt.com/vermont/jane-says-sanders-secret-weapon-or-a-political-liability/Content?oid=2670992

Burlington activist Robin Lloyd, who served on the board, says she supported O'Meara Sanders' hiring, in part, because, "We felt that her connection with Bernie would be helpful, certainly in terms of fundraising." But when the college had to come up with the cash to make its payments, O'Meara Sanders didn't pull through, she says.

"She was very confident and gave good presentations to the board, but, frankly, she didn't raise money," Lloyd says.

[Divernan]

63. Poor ecnomy; donors reneged on pledges

You should know by now, that if you want to be taken seriously, you need to provide links and cites. And come on! You seriously expect DU readers to have not only read but also recall your links from your +66,000 earlier posts??? I gently suggest, get over yourself!

That said, thank you for providing the links as I requested. Upon reading them, I concude that the story is not as one-sided as you previously presented it. Jane Sanders was praised for many of her actions and programs as head of the college. She did have a problem with fund-raising, as did many colleges after 2008,
One example:

Former trustee Ron Leavitt is listed in a chart in the loan document as Rle (to differentiate him from another donor and former trustee Robin Lloyd). Next to his name is an ‘x’ in the confirmed donor column. His pledge is listed at $60,000 in two payments of $30,000 to be made in fiscal years 2011 and 2012.

Leavitt did make the first $30,000 contribution, and even discussed making a second gift of $30,000 with an official from the school, but he said in an email that he “certainly never made a full formal pledge of ($60,000).”

Members of the college’s board of trustees have never publicly explained why Sanders was asked to leave, but former trustee Robin Lloyd told Seven Days that Sanders’ difficulty meeting fundraising goals was a factor in her resignation. Greg Guma, who covered Sanders departure for VTDigger, reported that former trustee Jonathan Leopold was unhappy with her fundraising just days before her resignation was announced in September 2011.

In a recent interview, Leopold praised Sanders’ leadership, but he acknowledged that at the time he and other trustees were concerned when the pledges didn’t materialize. Sanders and other school officials had given presentations to the board confirming the $2.6 million in pledges.

Leopold never saw the actual signed pledge agreements, but he believes “the representations that were made at the time were made in good faith.” “In hindsight a problem like this is an orphan, and there a lots of people who want to lay it at the feet of a specific person,” Leopold said.

Leopold emphasized that other members of the administration were also responsible for the capital campaign’s failure and a weak economy was also a factor.

[pnwmom]

66. Your false claim was that "per usual" I had provided "zilch" in terms of links.

I have provided these many times before, so i didn't bother this time.

You also have ignored the worst problem with her loan documentation. The College falsely claimed that a future bequest for a million dollars was actually a current pledge, to be paid at the rate of $150K a year.

This wasn't a question of a donation failing to materialize. They deliberately and falsely described a very large bequest at some unknown future date to be a current annual pledge.

I'm sure this played a large part in their asking her to step down.

[riversedge]

90. Thanks for these links Re. to

Mrs. Sanders career

[randys1]

118. The right would go after Bernie and Jane like mad over this.

Not sure how vicious the right would be, as it is the RIGHT which CONSTANTLY attacks HILLARY and do they have time to viciously and erroneously attack both Jane and Hillary?

Dont know, what I do know is the RIGHT attacks Hillary all day, every day since the day she became FLOTUS

Did I mention it is the RIGHT which does this?

[JunkyardAngel83]

53. LOL WTF

Hillary is to blame for President Clinton's impeachment? Wow...

[Divernan]

62. For want of a nail, the shoe was lost, etc.

You know the rest? For want of a horse shoe the horse was lost, for want of the horse, the rider was lost, for want of the rider the skirmish was lost, for want of the skirmish the battle was lost.

The ultimate blame for Bill Clinton's impeachment was not that he did what he did with Monica Lewinsky; it was that he lied about it under oath, and DNA testing on his semen stains on Monica's blue dress proved his downfall.

But if Ken Starr had not resumed his almost completed investigation when those Rose billing records turned up 2 years after the subpoena, it's quite likely that Hillary's Bimbo Eruption Squad could have contained/silenced any issues with Monica and there would have been no impeachment.

I wouldn't say Hillary is to blame for Bill's impeachment. But her stubborn refusal to honor a subpoena created the circumstances under which Bill lied under oath.

What a lovely couple!

[KoKo]

85. "It's Not The Crime, It's The Cover-Up"...as they say

(Sadly, both Bill and Hillary seem to have had a long history with delay, distraction, deflection, obfuscation and what could be considered, "Cover-Up.&quot
-----------

A cover-up is an attempt, whether successful or not, to conceal evidence of wrongdoing, error, incompetence or other embarrassing information. In a passive cover-up, information is simply not provided; in an active cover-up, deception is used.

The expression is usually applied to people in positions of authority who abuse their power to avoid or silence criticism or to deflect guilt of wrongdoing. Those who initiate a cover-up (or their allies) may be responsible for a misdeed, a breach of trust or duty, or a crime.

While the terms are often used interchangeably, cover-up involves withholding incriminatory evidence, while whitewash involves releasing misleading evidence.

When a scandal breaks, the discovery of an attempt to cover up is often regarded as even more reprehensible than the original deeds.

The mildest case, not quite a cover-up, is simply to release news which could be embarrassing but is not important enough to guarantee attention, at a time when other news is dominating the headlines, or immediately before a holiday or weekend.

Initially a cover-up may require little effort; it will be carried out by those closely involved with the misdeed. Once some hint of the hidden matter starts to become known, the cover-up gradually draws all the top leadership, at least, of an organization into complicity in covering up a misdeed or even crime that may have originally been committed by a few of its members acting independently. This may be regarded as tacit approval of that behaviour.[citation needed]

It is likely that some cover-ups are successful, although by definition this cannot be confirmed. Many fail, however, as more and more people are drawn in and the possibility of exposure makes potential accomplices fearful of supporting the cover-up and as loose ends that may never normally have been noticed start to stand out. As it spreads, the cover-up itself creates yet more suspicious circumstances.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cover-up

[AtheistCrusader]

94. That wiley Ken Starr, puppeteering Hillary to lie about sniper fire.

He's a crafty bastard, and Hillary only tells the truth.



Yeah, no shit Starr is a right wing puppet. Care to address any other issues Hillary has had with the truth? Because seriously, those issues are going to get MAJOR play in the General, if she wins the nomination.

I generally assume Hillary can and will win the primary, so maybe it would be nice if someone could come up with a comprehensive strategy to deal with all that fucking baggage she brings to the table. Because there's a lot of it, and only a small percentage can be laid at the feet of the Republicans.

[oasis]

125. The 2016 election won't be about Hillary's so-called "baggage".

Don't look now but there's some real shit happening in the world we live in TODAY.

[AtheistCrusader]

127. hahhaha yeah ok.

[BillZBubb]

77. I am not totally sold on either of our potential nominees yet, but your post REEKS.

Anyone who uses Ken Starr and his witch hunt as an example of anything in not a person I would listen to EVER.

You should be ashamed. My takeaway of your politics is I have to ignore anything you post. Disgusting.

[Divernan]

81. She was legally obliged to answer the subpoena, WHOMEVER served it on her.

It's called the Rule of Law. I also have a low opinion of Ken Starr, but he was acting legally in his appointed capacity.

I have total contempt for Supreme Court justices Scalia and Thomas, but I cannot discount their votes on Citizens United or any other of their votes on the Court, and thereby claim, whoops no majority here - so I can ignore the ruling.

If we are allowed to pick and choose which laws we follow, we are in anarchy.

Hillary Rodham Clinton, against the advice of Moynihan, Kerry and Bradley, illegally refused to comply with the subpoena, and in so doing demonstrated a contempt for our legal processes and system.

I suggest YOU should be ashamed to demonstrate your ignorance of and contempt for law.

[snot]

22. Just like to say . . .

I can believe they felt it necessary at the time.

But we can't afford to acquiesce in that sh*t any longer.

[JDPriestly]

25. K&R.

[Hekate]

26. Well, aren't you special.

[pnwmom]

31. And did you catch this?

And why Edelman has abandoned women and children is on her own conscience.

The poster feels free to judge not only Hillary, but Edelman.

[MADem]

33. This is a thread worth bookmarking. I've never seen such absurdity in my life!

I think it says a lot for Clinton supporters that they don't play this "Dig Up Old Shit" game when it comes to Saint Bernard.

Because I gotta say, if we were going to go down that road, there's plenty of actual fodder out there that makes all this "asked and answered" nothingness look like pure fluff.

[senz]

39. So you bookmark threads you regard as absurd?

Why? How do you expect to use such threads?

[MADem]

41. Why not? Why would I need to "use" them? What's your issue, there? Hmmm?

Why do you care what I do? What's with the accusatory tone?

[senz]

42. Most people bookmark items they want to refer to later. Items of value, you know?

It didn't make sense that anyone would want to bookmark something they find absurd.

Also: it's silly to roll all over the floor like that at this time of night, MADem. Try to get a hold yourself.

[MADem]

43. And some people bookmark things that make them laugh.

Not everyone is like you, capisce?

Not everyone is in your time zone, either.

See--it's not all about YOU all the time....

[senz]

44. LOL, okay thanks for the laugh, MADem

but I don't think I'll be bookmarking it ...

nitey nite

[Hekate]

34. It's real special.

It's become kind of a toxic waste dump approach to politics.

[Live and Learn]

32. K&R nt

[Lil Missy]

37. *sniff!* *sniff!* Berns of desperation.

And yet it's just another day in toxic wasteland, courtesy of Sanders supporters.

[senz]

40. Tch tch! How dare anyone bring up Hillary's past?

Such a toxic thing to do! Oh my, those Sanders supporters.

[Ken Burch]

46. It's desperation to tell the truth?

If Marian Wright Edelman turns against you, it proves you don't give a damn about the poor. Bill would have won without throwing the poor under the bus in '96, and he did nothing in his second term that was significantly different than what Dole would have done(even on LGBTQ issues). And HRC defends this knifing of the poor TO THIS DAY.

How can you not care about such an unforgiveable betrayal of any notion of common humanity?

[BlueMTexpat]

55. Please join us all here in 2015.

This is an outdated quote describing a two-decades old program. The quote has been superseded by events and completely mischaracterizes MWE's current support for Hillary Clinton in 2016.

[Ken Burch]

57. a two-decades old program that was never needed and has never stopped hurting innocent people.

It isn't possible to defend the signing of that bill and still care about the poor.

[BlueMTexpat]

59. You deliberately evaded the point of my post.

But that's fine. MWE is currently a Hillary supporter. She will not - miraculously or otherwise - change her mind during this election cycle, unless Hillary is not the Dem GE candidate.

Does MWE now go under the bus? Do I also go there for my support of Hillary? If so, I'm in very good company.

[Ken Burch]

45. Yeah...so much for that "liberal streak". n/t.

[ucrdem]

48. A noun, a bash, and Hillary Clinton . . .

Never mind that the article is from 2008 and based on a 2007 transcript recalling a 1994 Clinton initiative. Bill Clinton, that is -- Hillary held no office and had no vote. This smells of desperation.

[BlueMTexpat]

52. Indeed. eom

[uponit7771]

71. +1

[Hekate]

93. Good construction, and still works. A noun, a bash, and Hillary Clinton. Yep. nt

[ucrdem]

100. Thanks Hekate, and a hat tip to the master . . .

?t=40s

[BainsBane]

50. Wright Edleman must have missed the memo

because she appeared in this year's campaign ad for Clinton.

Obviously the concept that it is possible for well-meaning people to disagree on how to best address poverty, particularly when we are talking about a program from two decades ago, is lost on you. But then, Edleman and Clinton are both people who actually think seriously about policy, who care about the well being of the nation.

[BlueMTexpat]

51. MWE's more recent words clearly

show that whatever their disagreements, she and Hillary have remained friends over the years.

As several posters have already pointed out above, MWE supports HRC in the 2016 Dem primaries.

Your narrative is not only out of date, it puts absolutely the wrong "spin" on MWE's support for Hillary.

But that was your point, n'est-ce pas?

[BainsBane]

56. Because the point is to malign and obscure

rather than engage in any thoughtful discussion of an issue. Taking old quotes out of context is crucial to a level of political discourse lower than even cable television.

[BlueMTexpat]

58. That has become too

painfully obvious here. Such posters lose more credibility with me each time they post such drivel - and some had little credibility to begin with, I'm afraid.

[JunkyardAngel83]

54. That link is from 2008.

Marian Wright Edelman is endorsing Hillary Clinton for president in 2016. She even did a voiceover for a Clinton campaign ad.

[bigtree]

69. 80 recs for a bullshit premise

...it was Bill Clinton's legislation, and even Edelman attributed the welfare bill to him, rather than Hillary. There's scarcely a harsh word about Hillary from Edleman in that article posted. Rightly so, given that she had absolutely nothing to do with welfare reform in his administration.

[Agschmid]

72. They don't care. Clearly.

[Bluenorthwest]

99. I just left a long thread 'Bernie is just like Trump because both say 'movement' about their

campaign. Of course so does Hillary, so did Obama. It gets old. Extreme language creates more of the same.

[uponit7771]

73. +1

[BlueCheese]

135. Thank you bigtree.

You're one of the great ones on this board. I know you support O'Malley, but I respect that you call it fair and square when it comes to the other candidates.

[BlueCheese]

136. I just checked the rec list for this post.

I'm seriously disappointed by some of the usernames I see there. I'm not surprised at many that I know to be reflexively anti-Clinton, but there are others whom I thought would not join in such a low pile-on.

[Luminous Animal]

137. Hillary stated that she WORKED HARD TO ROUND UP VOTES FOR ITS PASSAGE.

Bill & I, along with members of Congress who wanted productive reform, believed that people able to work should work. But we recognize that assistance & incentives were necessary to help people move permanently from welfare to employment & that successful reform would require large investment in education and training, subsidies for child care and transportation, transitional health care, tax incentives to encourage employers to hire welfare recipients, and tougher child support collection efforts.

The third bill passed by Congress had the support of the majority of the Democrats in the House & Senate. It contained more financial support for moving people to work, offered new money for child care and restored the federal guarantees of food stamps & medical benefits.

The President eventually signed this third bill into law. Even with its flaws, it was a critical first step to reforming our nation's welfare system. I agreed that he should sign it and worked hard to round up votes for its passage.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Hillary_Clinton_Welfare_+_Poverty.htm

[JoePhilly]

76. You should send this outrage widget back to the factory ...

... its defective.

[WillyT]

78. K & R !!!

[fredamae]

79. If memory serves

During the last debate there was a question pertaining to spousal involvement in the WH. HRC pointed out that she would likely still choose the flowers and china...but amongst a couple other issues she Would consult her husband on matters of economy.....
This is relevant in the vetting process, imo.

[BillZBubb]

80. There are legitimate claims against Hillary--this is not one of them.

The claim the "disavowed" her is totally deceptive. They disagreed on something. It happens. She's still admired by the organization because they agree on so many other issues.

I lean towards Sanders and I find this sort of attempted smear very dishonest. You can support Sanders a lot more effectively by sticking to facts.

[NurseJackie]

82. +1

[Enthusiast]

86. Kicked and recommended!

[SmittynMo]

88. The baggage never ends

I wonder what baggage will show up tomorrow.

[Starry Messenger]

89. Did this go as you intended?

[msanthrope]

96. This thread is as awesome as the one where you accused me of plagiarizing my own DU thread.....

I mean, I can provide the link on request, but the time you threatened to tell all of DU that I was plagarizing, and it turned out it was just my own thread?

This is why I post sober in GD , and save the chardonnay-based posts for Cooking and Baking......

[Beacool]

97. Desperation is in the air.

The constant scraping of the bottom of the barrel is at once funny and pathetic.

Still, it won't make any difference in the long run. Hillary will be the nominee.

[Tommy2Tone]

106. and predictable.

[mgmaggiemg]

124. welfare reform

is a republican bill pushed on his desk by republicans

[MeNMyVolt]

132. You must be pretty embarrassedl...

...ya know, the way this thread ended up. Kind of a buzzkill, no?

[Luminous Animal]

140. Nope. Not at all. Hillary Clinton touted, as a success, an initiative that has contributed to

an explosion of child poverty.n It was one of the MOST DISGUSTING BILL EVER PROMOTED AND SIGNED BY A MODERN DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT. And Hillary lobbied for it.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Hillary_Clinton_Welfare_+_Poverty.htm

She worked hard to contribute to its passage.

Bill & I, along with members of Congress who wanted productive reform, believed that people able to work should work. But we recognize that assistance & incentives were necessary to help people move permanently from welfare to employment & that successful reform would require large investment in education and training, subsidies for child care and transportation, transitional health care, tax incentives to encourage employers to hire welfare recipients, and tougher child support collection efforts.
The third bill passed by Congress had the support of the majority of the Democrats in the House & Senate. It contained more financial support for moving people to work, offered new money for child care and restored the federal guarantees of food stamps & medical benefits.
The President eventually signed this third bill into law. Even with its flaws, it was a critical first step to reforming our nation's welfare system. I agreed that he should sign it and worked hard to round up votes for its passage.

Source: Living History, by Hillary Rodham Clinton, p.366-368 , Nov 1, 2003

[BlueCheese]

134. A number of times I feel like GD-P has jumped the shark.

The time when an unverified, unsupported claim about paid Hillary supporters got over 200 recs.

The time where a cartoon from a right-wing organization depicting Hillary on a pile labeled "Vince Foster", "Benghazi", and other smears got 40+ recs.

And this time, where a simply ridiculous and, let's face it, slimy attack accusing Hillary Clinton of literally throwing children into poverty gets 166 and counting recs.

I actually like Bernie Sanders a lot. But some of his supporters seem intent on making me stop. I don't know if they realize how counterproductive they're being.

[msanthrope]

142. It's some racist shit when you use Marian Wright Edelman in the manner you do.

It's sad you don't perceive it as such, but there you go.

[EndElectoral]

154. Speaking of Racial Bias

http://billmoyers.com/2014/05/12/how-bill-clintons-welfare-reform-created-a-system-rife-with-racial-biases/

How Bill Clinton’s Welfare “Reform” Created a System Rife With Racial Biases
May 12, 2014
by Joshua Holland