RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment

Rich writes: "The practical question coming out of the debate is not whether Clinton turned some Trump supporters to her side (surely not), or vice versa (also not). It is simply: Did Clinton arouse more enthusiasm among millennials, white and black and Hispanic, who were never going to vote for Trump but might vote for Gary Johnson or skip Election Day altogether?"

Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. (photo: Getty Images)
Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. (photo: Getty Images)

How Hillary Clinton's Pitch-Perfect Put-Downs May Have Changed the Race

By Frank Rich, New York Magazine

28 September 16


Most weeks, New York Magazine writer-at-large Frank Rich speaks with contributor Alex Carp about the biggest stories in politics and culture. Today: the first 2016 presidential debate.

oing into last night’s debate, polls showed Hillary Clinton’s lead over Donald Trump continuing to shrink. But a CNN/ORC instant poll right after the debate found that she’d won it by more than a two-to-one margin. Should her performance last night be enough to move the needle back?

We’ll have to wait for polls a few days from now for the answer to that question. But let’s pause for one moment to savor how Clinton performed last night. My heart sank with her first answer, to a question about job creation: her usual diligent wonky A-student’s recitation of a list of prefab economic proposals that the brain instantly tunes out, that no one thinks will ever happen, and that have been promised by Democratic politicians in every presidential election since Carter and then Mondale were slaughtered by Ronald Reagan.

But what followed was something of a miracle: Hillary from then on mustered a pitch-perfect response to the boor on the other side of the split screen. She stuck to substance (of which he had none) and waited out his diatribes (many long waits) either by looking slightly bemused or by outright laughing at his absurdities. She refused to get lost in the weeds of his many lies and factual errors — urging viewers to consult fact-checkers online instead — and allowed herself some actual wit. “If we’re actually going to look at the facts … ” she said early on, throwing the line away lightly but devastatingly (though her target seemed oblivious to the dig). When Trump went on and on to try to pin his own birtherism campaign on her, a foolhardy errand in which he assumed the audience understood his oblique references to Sidney Blumenthal and Patti Solis Doyle, she retorted, smilingly, with “Just listen to what you heard.” It was a perfect response, directing the audience simply to watch her opponent as he choked on his own incoherent gusher of words. And when Trump went on his bizarre tear about how he had really, truly been opposed to the Iraq War early on, and how Sean Hannity could vouch for him despite all the evidence to the contrary, she replied with an even bigger smile and the mot juste for the moment: “O-kay!”

Finally, there was that great final-round climax when she refused to allow Trump, who tried to brush past the fact that he had attacked her for not having a “presidential look,” to change the subject from “looks to stamina,” as she put it. She cited a number of his misogynistic slurs, then brought it home with a fresh incident, his referring to a beauty-pageant contestant who didn’t meet his physical standards as “Miss Housekeeping” because she was Hispanic. It was a tough and stirring moment, for which Trump could muster no better response than another attack on Rosie O’Donnell. Sad!

All that said, the margin in the instant debate-night poll was virtually the same as the margin that had Mitt Romney killing Barack Obama in the first debate of 2012. I will say for the hundredth time that the one thing Trump is right about is that his supporters would still vote for him if he shot someone on Fifth Avenue. And they will still vote for him after this debate. This was a big night for fact-checking by a plethora of major news organizations, but what’s lost in this frenzy of media empiricism, worthy as it is, is that Trump’s supporters don’t care about the facts any more than he does. This election is a culture war, not a debate over policy, and in that war Trump is the white-guys’ guy.

So the practical question coming out of the debate is not whether Clinton turned some Trump supporters to her side (surely not), or vice versa (also not). It is simply: Did Clinton arouse more enthusiasm among millennials, white and black and Hispanic, who were never going to vote for Trump but might vote for Gary Johnson or skip Election Day altogether? I would hope so, but I certainly don’t know.

This was Trump’s first one-on-one debate, with less room to hide than he had on the crowded stage of the primaries. Did the spotlight, and a few pointed follow-up questions, show you anything new about how Trump responds to pressure?

It’s hard to know how he could have performed worse. He obviously was true to his own pre-debate spin in one respect — it was clear he really did no preparation. His “policies” were content-free. Even the zingers he was supposedly stocking up were nowhere to be found. His main subject, the only one he was passionate about, was himself. Otherwise, he recycled the same old rants ad infinitum. His sole points seemed to be (1) America is a Third World shithole; (2) every other politician is “a disaster”; (3) only he can make everything great again. And his style was, if anything, worse than his content (if not as vacuous). He constantly interrupted Clinton as if he owned the joint and she was an uppity underling. I’d call it mansplaining, except Trump didn’t even offer up the mansplanations to go with his obnoxious attitude. He was Ralph Kramden without the wit: I kept half-expecting him to bellow, “Hillary, you’re going to the moon!” And his over-the-top facial expressions as she gave her answers were, dare I say it, Al Gore–like in their impatience, petulance, and general asininity. All this from a man who went on at considerable lengths to brag about how he has “a much better temperament than Hillary.”

To the vast delight of the internet, Howard Dean tried to explain this performance by tweeting: “Notice Trump sniffing all the time. Coke user?” I doubt it, given Trump’s germ phobia and aversion to alcohol. But if he were on cocaine, how would that explain his alternately churlish and meandering presentation? Not what I’d call coked up. Maybe he was OD-ing on his real drug of choice, McDonald’s.

The moderator, Lester Holt, couldn’t resist some mid-debate fact-checking — like practically everyone else, it seems — but once the candidates got going he largely stepped out of the way. Was this the right strategy?

To his credit, Holt tried to call out Trump on his Iraq War claims, but otherwise he was almost a phantom presence, with no authority or control over the proceedings. His role model could have been Mr. Cellophane in the musical Chicago. He’d tell Trump he had “just ten seconds” to give a rejoinder and then disappear as Trump went on ad infinitum. One way to look at this is that Holt was just the latest NBC anchor (after Joe Scarborough and Matt Lauer) to tilt toward the former star of the network’s Apprentice. But in the end, Holt’s refusal to police Trump’s filibusters, intentionally or not, was a boon to Clinton: As Trump just went on and on unchecked, and she could be seen on the other side of the screen watching with borderline delight as he talked himself into one free-associative cul-de-sac after another, it all accrued to her benefit. It was one smart woman against two less-than-brilliant bros, and, should we still care about such distinctions, she looked like a president while in the end they both seemed to just fade away. your social media marketing partner


A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

-25 # librarian1984 2016-09-28 10:58
Yeah! And the pitch-perfect way she handled the questions about her Wall Street speeches and goading of Putin and her obvious lies about supporting TPP and stealing the Democratic nomination and her anti-choice VP pick and ..

Oh. That's right. Those questions were never asked.
-26 # Skyelav 2016-09-28 13:17
Yep, Librarian1984 is getting negatives again for being correct. #2 Frank Rich is a right wing lightweight, and so who listens to him anyway. #3 why is everyone suddenly voting for Gary Johnson as an alternative. Interesting how no one ever says the word Jill Stein.
-4 # REDPILLED 2016-09-28 13:22
Jill Stein is the ONLY progressive presidential candidate.

Trump and Hillary are corporate/banks ter imperialists, and Johnson doesn't believe in public school education or the need of governments to work together against the catastrophic climate crisis.

The latter three are categorically unfit to govern in the 21st century, stuck as they are in pre-19th century world views.
-9 # beeyl 2016-09-28 15:19
The low positives and high negatives that rational comments (like the 3 above) are getting constitute one large reason why I don't much read RSN anymore. I think it's been months.

And why return? So I can read tribalistic drivel from the likes of Frank Rich? So I can see evidence of Hillary trolls who click the thumbs down button but don't have the courage to rebut the arguments being made?

And instead of being worried about this dumbing down of their site, the editors of RSN are still tagging every article with a promise to censor any comments that use "harsh" or "confrontationa l" language.

+24 # Eliza D 2016-09-28 16:23
Thank you ,beeyl, for stating what I've been saying for months-punctuat ed by long absences because I, too, cannot bear to read the comments. The presidential election seems to have turned commenters into feral attack animals who don't consider those who disagree worthy of a reasoned answer. It is so sad that what was once a civilized,livel y conversation has degenerated into vulgar name-calling.
0 # beeyl 2016-09-28 21:12
Hell, I'd prefer vulgar name calling to the anonymous and craven thumbs down-ing that so many here do. But I share your nostalgia for better times. I used to be addicted to RSN, but I was censored a few times – for using words like "sociopathic," and once, dropping the f-bomb and then editing it out before I sent the comment, but the fact that I'd typed it irritated some editor so much, s/he wouldn't let the comment stand. And when I asked them if they'd considered a non-censoring way to improve the tone and reduce the gratuitous vulgarity, they denied it was censorship they were doing, and then stopped interacting with me. Who has time for that?
+19 # candida 2016-09-28 23:41
"As Trump just went on and on unchecked, and [Clinton] could be seen on the other side of the screen watching with borderline delight as he talked himself into one free-associativ e cul-de-sac after another, it all accrued to her benefit." Gotta love Rich's writing! Hilarious! Thank you for helping me enjoy Trump's public emasculation even more. Poor boy, beaten by a girl!!!
+13 # candida 2016-09-28 23:43
Quoting librarian1984:
Yeah! And the pitch-perfect way she handled the questions about her Wall Street speeches and goading of Putin and her obvious lies about supporting TPP and stealing the Democratic nomination and her anti-choice VP pick and ..

To librarian1984 and the plethora of Hillary-haters on this site, yes, Clinton is cozy with Wall St., goads Putin (who the fuck cares?!), supports TPP, manipulated the Dem nomination, and you forgot, she's a Zionist (interestingly, none of the Hillary haters mention this, so maybe you are, too), and militaristic. Even with all these sins, she is STILL the superior candidate (with a snowball's chance in hell of winning) far!! That is the sad state of our nation. If you want that to change, stop spending so much damn time on the internet and go get active in a community group somewhere. You seem to always be the first one commenting on the election articles and never letting others start the conversation. Hmmm….must be a white guy.

Rich's statement says it best, "This election is a culture war, not a debate over policy, and in that war Trump is the white-guys’ guy." Watch out guys, your white male supremacy is showing!
+14 # Kiwikid 2016-09-29 02:26
Exactly right, Candida. This is the first opportunity I've had to break into the perpetual echo chamber of the Hillary Haters choking up this site, congratulating one another one how omniscient and virtuous they are, and how ignorant and craven the rest of us are. They carp about our cowardice in only giving thumbs down and not contributing to lively and meaningful debate, unable to recognise that they ultimately behave very like Donald J. by making it very difficult for the rest of us, who have lives outside of RSN, to get a word in edgeways.
+3 # Rain17 2016-09-30 21:49
Kiwikid, you're dealing with a group of irrational people here. I've pretty much written most of them off. I hope Hillary wins without them, because once she earns that 270th electoral vote, the Democratic Party will then be free to ignore them forever because the party will have shown it can win without them.
-1 # librarian1984 2016-10-01 06:21
They already DO ignore us, have done since Clinton I -- and look where that's gotten us. We now have TWO Republican parties.
+1 # candida 2016-10-01 21:58
Quoting librarian1984:
They already DO ignore us, have done since Clinton I -- and look where that's gotten us. We now have TWO Republican parties.

I do agree with this, lib.
0 # librarian1984 2016-10-03 11:32
+4 # librarian1984 2016-09-29 07:55
candida, we obviously disagree on a few things :-) but I recognize your reasoning. However your statement that no one should care about neoliberals goading Putin is a foolish attitude. That is the most frightening thing about HRC and Nuland et al. THAT is what will bring the US crashing down if we continue.

It is more reckless than D!ck & W's military adventures. We're not taking on a third rate military, we're ramping up aggression with a country that has never been defeated. AND that has some of the best hackers in the world. It is beyond reckless.

Europe does not see Putin as the aggressor or us as the savior in that scenario, partly, but not exclusively, because they depend on Russia for oil.

If we push for war with Russia, WE will be seen as the Axis power. Maybe it will induce other nations to impose controls on us, if we're lucky. If not, it could result in a nuclear exchange. Both Obama and Clinton have expressed a willingness to do so.

As someone with children, and maybe one day grandchildren, I find that unimaginably horrifying.
+4 # bmiluski 2016-10-01 12:07
The most frightening thing is Trump thinking that Putin paid him a complement and so considers him a great leader.
The most frightening thing is that HRC was able to manipulate him into foaming at the mouth. Just think how easily Putin and the Chinese could manipulate him.
I wonder what Trump will think of Putin once he finds out that Putin did not call him brilliant (as in smart) but brilliant as in flashy.
-1 # librarian1984 2016-10-01 12:43
I'd rather have a 3 am twitter war than a nuclear strike.

No one is defending Trump. He's a slimy bigot unable to stay focused long enough to attain subject and verb agreement, but Hillary is so determined to keep the war state going. This country cannot afford it.

The GOP establishment is afraid of Trump. That's a point in his favor.

The DNC decided Trump wasn't scary enough to let the legitimate and better polling Sanders win.

So what is there to worry about? The establishment has got our backs.

I'm voting for Stein, and if that means Trump wins, blame the DNC. Blame Clinton.
+1 # Caliban 2016-10-01 14:38
Where has Clinton urged the US to go to war with the US?

And if she did so while in either the US Senate or the Obama administration, why didn't we go to war at those times?

+2 # candida 2016-10-01 22:00
Quoting librarian1984:
your statement that no one should care about neoliberals goading Putin is a foolish attitude. .

I will reconsider my view. (I'm actually thankful for the hack of DNC regardless of who did it.) But like Caliban below, I want to know what is the evidence that she is "goading" them to the point of war. Please educate us (not said with any sarcasm! I truly want to be educated on this.)
+1 # librarian1984 2016-10-03 11:45
Hi, candida, and regards.

HRC has advocated for a Syrian no-fly zone, which Obama has so far refused, and which would result in confrontations with Russia.

The US has expanded NATO positions, putting missiles much closer to the Russian border.

We have assisted the far-right coup of the democratically elected leader of the Ukraine.

In her speeches Clinton calls Putin a "vicious dictator", though he too was democratically elected.

We recently broke a Syrian ceasefire by bombing Russian assets, saying it was a mistake.

Here is the result, Russia is beginning to pull back from US-Russai agreements:

Europeans do not see Putin as the aggressor in these tensions. At a recent conference Obama was unable to get any other country's leader to support his anti-Putin statements.

No one has ever defeated Russia and they have the best hackers in the world. They have nukes. Do we really need this? And why is Hillary pushing for it?

Catch you later!
+15 # librarian1984 2016-09-28 16:41
Thank you. I believe the things I'm saying are (mostly) rational. Sometimes I let my temper or my flippancy show what a moran I can be, but mainly I want to exchange ideas and opinions.

I love the community here but I too am tired of not knowing what's going on with rsn. We get enough funding requests .... Marc knows how to reach us. So why not tell us what's going on with the profile pages? Why not let us try to help with fundraising ideas?

How about addressing ways we could approach this troll problem? I don't mean posters, I mean trolls and bots. Billy Bob has some ideas that might help.

Marc, I give you credit for creating this place and doing all the hard work and raising the money and editing and writing. You're phenomenal. I couldn't do it. Hell, probably TEN of us couldn't do it. So let us help.

The people on this site are educated, intelligent and wide-reading. Maybe a filtering structure could let them help you build the content.

After Bernie dropped out I doubled my monthly donation and I'm happy to do it. I spend a lot of time here and that's fair. When it's a time of desperation I chip in a bit more but I can't always. I'm trying to be a member of the community.

But why don't we get more news about third parties or what's happening with Bernie's groups or ?? I'm tired of shill pieces.

Thank you, beeyl, for your nice comment. Where do you go instead?
+10 # beeyl 2016-09-28 21:30
I've reread your top comment several times, librarian, and can see nothing that merits a –10 rating. It's rational and true in each detail. Of course, I get why the rational truth upsets people who are devoted to a flawed candidate like Hillary. But where are the progessives who used to dominate this site to tip the balance to the thumbs up? I guess many of them drifted away like myself.

As for WHERE I went, it's no one place. I gave up frequenting Truthout for the same reasons. I spent a few months with The Young Turks, but after the California Democratic Primary and Seminar in Election Fraud, TYT folded up their progressivism like a cheap suit and started earning their establishment-s erving bona fides. Most of them, anyway.

Jimmy Dore will be the last man standing up for his principles, when everyone else has buckled to tribalism. He will never end up like Winston Smith, surrendering his mind to love Big Brother, and I adore that. Plus, he's very funny.

For the serious stuff on international affairs, I like the Intercept, with Glenn Greenwald and Jeremy Scahill. But reading their articles is like getting punched in the gut with truth, and I can only take it in small doses.

Occassionally there's some good journalism on The Guardian's site, and often on Al Jazeera. But again, so much awful news, and so little power to do anything about it, can be wearying.

But thank you for your excellent comments!
+4 # librarian1984 2016-09-28 22:25
Sometimes my style is fairly obnoxious and I've made a few non-friends. C'est la vie. The people I admire the most here I get along with fine and I'm okay with that.

I was over at Huffington Post today and was surprised at the anti-HRC comments. The last few times I've been there it was much more pro-Hillary.

I also like the Young Turks and Jimmy Dore, and appreciate your other recommendations . As you mention below, I used to enjoy Maddow, Hayes and O'Donnell but can't bear to hear their propaganda now.

I hope you'll visit more often. (Maybe after the election it will become more civil again.) You seem quite brilliant and you have excellent judgment :-D We have really been outnumbered lately and could use the help but I can understand not wanting the abuse.

What kind of a candidate does that to people whose votes they're seeking? I heard today that Hillary is trotting out Sen. Sanders and Michelle O. in a big effort to bring in the millennials -- now that she finds she needs them -- after a year of abuse and insult!

I would not let Hillary babysit. These two candidates beggar description -- the Unconscionable Choice versus the Unthinkable Alternative.

Thank you again and kindest regards.
+4 # grandlakeguy 2016-09-28 22:56
I saw Bernie on that stage today with Clinton and he appeared anything but enthusiastic!

It must kill him to sit there knowing that the DNC dirty tricks and election theft stole the nomination that he so richly deserved and much worse stole the opportunity from the American people to actually participate in the concept of representative governance.
+3 # librarian1984 2016-09-28 23:08
And to hear Hillary co-opting his ideas to lure in the millennials! He must know better than most that these promises might never be met.

He has been a man of his word to the DP but that won't stop the abuse they'll pile on him, blaming him for millennials' non-compliance. I am still incredibly angry that House DEMOCRATS booed him!

Michelle is really laying it on thick too, but even now none of them appeal to citizens' sense of hope or vision. With Hillary it is always and ever about fear.
0 # Salburger 2016-09-29 03:04
Yes, I'm sure it hurts--but he has enough sense to see what the real alternatives are now and therefore he says vote for Hillary
+7 # davehaze 2016-09-29 08:52
Ask Frank rich about Bernie Sanders and he'll say Bernie who? Through the entire primaries he pretended that Sanders didn't exist or if he was mentioned it was to say that he didn't have a chance against Hillary. Frank Rich once a fun read is now just another Democratic hack like Howard Dean who was once a liberal politician and is now a conservative lobbyist and pundit for all things DNC.
-2 # librarian1984 2016-09-29 13:14
Totally agree. I used to enjoy Frank Rich's pieces very much, and I admired Howard Dean. Do you know Dean actually tweeted during the debate that he thought Trump must have done coke because he was sniffing so much?! Even if he thought it he shouldn't have tweeted something like that.

I've lost respect for SO MANY PEOPLE and institutions this election -- even the CBC and Mother Jones :-(

The Clintons are like existential distillers. The precipitate is growing -- but progressives are still in solution :-)
+1 # candida 2016-10-01 22:05
Quoting librarian1984:
I used to enjoy Frank Rich's pieces very much, and I admired Howard Dean. Do you know Dean actually tweeted during the debate that he thought Trump must have done coke because he was sniffing so much?! Even if he thought it he shouldn't have tweeted something like that.

Don't lose your humor, lib! I have to admit I did like Dean's dig. And, who knows? Maybe it's true. It could explain some of Trump's irrationality and "free-associati ve cul-de-sacs," as Rich so richly described Trump's debate discourse.
0 # librarian1984 2016-10-03 11:48
He was an incoherent mess. Did he ever finish a sentence?
+6 # jimallyn 2016-09-28 23:10
Quoting librarian1984:
These two candidates beggar description -- the Unconscionable Choice versus the Unthinkable Alternative.

I forget, which one is which?
+4 # librarian1984 2016-09-28 23:21
Exactly! I believe it could be argued either way.
+2 # grandlakeguy 2016-09-29 10:58
Whenever anyone asks me which one of these two is worse I answer:
"They are both worse!"
+2 # librarian1984 2016-09-29 13:16
A logical impossibility and yet somehow true!
+1 # BlueMorpho 2016-09-29 00:27
Well said. I just chipped in a little after being hit with a request. But I agree with what you've said--except for you describing yourself as a moron. Sorry, I don't think so. ;-)
+4 # librarian1984 2016-09-29 00:39
lol -- oh I can be pretty moronic! :-)
+1 # BlueMorpho 2016-09-30 19:35
Anonymot's right and I should've read more carefully.You said "moran" not "moron." Btwn Anonymot's info and your reply: interesting. A W supporting fool and the Masai, if I'm correct?

It's been a while since I've read Mother Jones. Are you saying they've gone down the tubes also?
0 # Anonymot 2016-09-29 11:01
Hoho, Librarian! I assumed you meant to type moron way up there, but made a typo. Look up moran in a Swahili dictionary - or maybe it's in Oxford. It's the opposite of moron and suits you well. I used to live among them. I miss 'em.

Or maybe you used it intentionally!
-1 # librarian1984 2016-09-29 13:39
Ha I did not know that was Swahili -- cool!

I use the word 'moran' based on a famous picture of a W supporter back in 2003 ACE.

Protestors demonstrated against wmd and there's a picture of a guy defiantly holding up a sign against the protestors. It read, 'Get a Brain Morans!' Priceless.

In the picture I saw there's a guy standing next to him with a huge smile on his face. He may also have been conservative but I think he was a better speller.

The implication is that many people took pictures of the sign holder. He probably felt like a rock star.

To me it's always been funny to perpetuate that moran's work -- and it seems a little more polite than using the correct word.

Now that I know about the Swahili I will embrace it even more gleefully!

Thank you, A.
+1 # grandlakeguy 2016-09-29 19:09
I remember that photo, it was priceless!
+1 # black lamb 2016-09-28 17:24
beeyl 2016-09-28 15:19

Thank you.

The reflex negatives' (and undue positives') proliferation has resulted much from RSN's publishing a spate of pro-Hillary and anti-Trump pieces of tripe while according only a microscopic trickle of texts concerning Jill Stein. And each day, the tripe-publicati ons are worse than the previous day's.

That trouble galls and angers the increasingly relative FEW readers who are deadly serious, research well, and treat issues factually, logically, and with open-minded, scrupulous criticism.

The problem is exacerbated by the plummeting intelligence-le vel of many too many comments.

The situation moves previously calm, thoughtful, circumspect readers to post sometimes-acrid comments. But I sense that those comment-posting readers tend not to assign pluses or minuses to others' comments. Rather, they tend to post textual responses (as do I).


In my just-now-comple ted review of plus or minus tagging occurring in streams of comments posted regarding nine articles that RSN published today and during the past 11 days, I noted that Hillary-support ers have appeared to have awarded and been the most pluses and minuses. Among Hillary-support ers, one exception seems to be carytucker.
0 # beeyl 2016-09-28 21:42
I've no doubt your explanation is dead on the mark, black lamb. The pull towards the establishment – the pull of tribalism – is something that is apparently irresistible to most people, including, sadly, the folks at RSN and TYT and MSNBC (at least Rachel Maddow and Chris Hayes used to be watchable).

According to Stanley Milgram's experiments, when loyalty to one's group and/or obedience to its authority figures is on the line, 80-85% of us are capable of behaving in utterly monstrous and stupid ways.

And I agree: text comments are so much better than just a + or – click. Still, I often do both – as I have here, giving the lot of you thumbs ups and telling you why.

Bernie and Jill's progressivism will abide… because it has to.
+8 # rural oregon progressive 2016-09-28 18:21
Meanwhile, the FBI "dump" of additional Hillary investigation information from last Friday has had zero coverage on the pages of RSN,Truthout and CommonDreams. I get that most of these sites are scared shitless of a Trump presidency with good reason, but withholding important Hillary news is what MSM is famous for. I hate seeing RSN and others following in those footsteps.
-4 # ericlipps 2016-09-28 19:08
Ohhh-kay. Let's talk "tribalistic."

RSN has attracted a tribe of Hillary-haters who rant and rave at anyone who disputes their superstitious belief in demigods like Bernie Sanders and demons like Hillary Clinton.

That's a big reason why I'm finding it harder and harder these days to justify contributing to this site.

Oh, and about those "arguments": they're argumentative, all right, but hardly arguments in the logical sense. They tend to be hyperemotional outbursts--digi tal screams, if you will--either devoid of factual content or stuffed with misunderstood or even fabricated information.
+9 # beeyl 2016-09-28 21:55
When you complain about others' arguments being devoid of factual content, would that include comments like yours, here?

Because as far as I can see, your comment fails to mention a single issue or give a single example of what you're caviling about.

And you clearly weren't interested in addressing the specific criticisms that librarian wrote in the first comment, about Hillary's Wall Street transcripts, or her goading of Putin, or her constantly evolving relationship to the TPP, or her VP pick's obvious corporatist and conservative positions, or the extent of her involvement in the collusion between the DNC and her campaign to sabotage Bernie. It's been a while since her appearance on 60 Minutes, when she ducked two questions about that by claiming she hadn't read up on it yet.

Why aren't those fair topics to bring up here? Why were they beneath you to rebut the points that librarian made?
+8 # jimallyn 2016-09-28 23:12
Quoting ericlipps:
RSN has attracted a tribe of Hillary-haters who rant and rave

I don't believe that most people here hate Hillary Clinton. Rather, they just acknowledge the facts about her.
-1 # Majikman 2016-09-29 11:05
Right, on beeyl. During the runup to the nomination RSN didn't censor the trolls that drove most of us batshit crazy with boredom or drove us away (I suspended my monthly donation in total frustration). Then to have my comment, well within the guidelines, deleted by some twit of a censor who didn't like my position was the last straw. I should pay for a "news" site that censors me? Not hardly.
+2 # John Escher 2016-10-01 10:50
Quoting beeyl:
The low positives and high negatives that rational comments (like the 3 above) are getting constitute one large reason why I don't much read RSN anymore. I think it's been months.

And why return? So I can read tribalistic drivel from the likes of Frank Rich? So I can see evidence of Hillary trolls who click the thumbs down button but don't have the courage to rebut the arguments being made?

And instead of being worried about this dumbing down of their site, the editors of RSN are still tagging every article with a promise to censor any comments that use "harsh" or "confrontational" language.


Even inane posts set up a context. Combining your accusation that Rich is "tribalistic" with the above statement that he is right-wing, does that mean he is a right-wing tribalist? Or a Trumpster? I suggest a re-reading of the article.
0 # bmiluski 2016-10-01 11:59
Please, tell me what has Jill Stein ever done for the middle class.
+1 # Billy Bob 2016-10-01 21:48
I missed you, beeyl.

I always liked your comments. I've been largely off the radar for the EXACT reasons you specified.
+1 # kyzipster 2016-10-02 00:20
"So I can see evidence of Hillary trolls who click the thumbs down button but don't have the courage to rebut the arguments being made?"

That definitely goes both ways on this site. Maybe we Hillary trolls should call you Trump trolls at every opportunity if we're looking for fair and balanced.
-3 # JSRaleigh 2016-09-28 17:26
Jill Stein is the ONLY progressive presidential candidate.

Yeah, but Jill Stein also panders to the anti-vaxer kooks which cancels out a lot of her progressive cred.

She's an MD who practiced Internal Medicine for 25 years and taught at Harvard Medical School.

She should know better.
+5 # jimallyn 2016-09-28 23:07
Quoting JSRaleigh:
Yeah, but Jill Stein also panders to the anti-vaxer kooks which cancels out a lot of her progressive cred. She should know better.

She does know better. She has said repeatedly that she is fully aware of the effectiveness of vaccines. My guess would be that this lie was started by the Hilboughts.
+3 # Salburger 2016-09-29 03:08
“As a medical doctor, there was a time where I looked very closely at those issues, and not all those issues were completely resolved,” Stein told the Washington Post. She also said “There were concerns among physicians about what the vaccination schedule meant, the toxic substances like mercury, which used to be rampant in vaccines. There were real questions that needed to be addressed. I think some of them at least have been addressed. I don’t know if all of them have been addressed.” and that's an irresponsible dog whistle to anti-vaxers
+1 # kyzipster 2016-10-01 21:58
It's not irresponsible at all. Thimerosal, a mercury based preservative, has been removed from childhood vaccines and that's a good thing. If a person does some in depth reading on the subject they'd understand that some good has come from questioning the safety of vaccines. Enough evidence of toxicity was presented to the FDA by responsible experts to warrant the removal of mercury.

Amazing that a person can't even have a dialog without getting labeled an anti-vaxer nutcase. There's no distinction made between informed criticism that led to important changes in protocol and people who put others at risk by refusing to vaccinate their children. IMO, this refusal to allow an honest discussion actually adds to the confusion that makes people suspicious of vaccines.

We can thank some of the 'anti-vaxer nutcases' for their hard work and passion, making childhood vaccines much safer today.
+10 # Karlus58 2016-09-28 16:15
Because Jill Stein has no chance whatsoever. Nada compadres. Nada. Whatsoever. That's reality and if you folks want to keep on with this anger towards Clinton, then what we may get will be worse than Bush in 2000. That is reality.
+6 # sus453 2016-09-28 20:03
We all know that the chances of Jill Stein winning are minimal, but a vote for her will help the Green Party and its agenda (which pretty well matches with my principles) in the future.

Spoiler? Don't you dare blame supporters of Jill Stein and the Green Party. If Hillary Clinton loses, you can blame her for being a wooden candidate with not much to say (not unlike Kerry and Al Gore) and a lot to hide; in addition to that, you can blame the Democratic establishment who stacked the deck against a real transformationa l candidate, Bernie Sanders. who, had he been nominated, would havebeen wiping the floor with Donald Trump.
+6 # beeyl 2016-09-28 22:08
Excellently said, sus. And I'd add a third group of people who could be blamed, and that would be folks like Karlus, who claims to see Trump as such an uber-monster that it warrants the sale of your soul and core principles (by voting for HRC) to make sure the Donald isn't elected.

Except I'd bet dollars to donuts that Karlus (and most who direct blame towards Bernie supporters for the prospect of Pres Trump) ignored EVERY matchup poll done this calendar year, showing Bernie outperforming Hillary by significant margins – in many, beating Trump by double digits.

Where was his fear of Trump then? Did he support, donate to, and phone bank for Bernie? Not if he's a typical Hillary supporter, who instead, repeatedly told us that Bernie had no chance and that those matchup polls were meaningless. And he also joined in the chorus in saying we were unserious to hold progressive principles over pragmatic support for a party that… sabotaged Bernie's campaign, and quite frankly, hasn't done a thing to help the middle and working classes in decades.

Karlus, you should have believed us. We weren't bluffing.
+4 # Salburger 2016-09-29 03:11
Vote for Stein in a state where the outcome is certain, but don't play risky games in a swing state or President Trump and his Supreme Court appointees will crush any chance for the Green agenda moving forward.
-2 # librarian1984 2016-09-29 08:13
I'm in a swing state and I'm voting for Stein.

The DNC knew the risks and they chose corporatism, money and oligarchy. They stole the nomination from a spectacular candidate who was bringing in a generation of new voters to the party.

If THEY were willing to risk a Trump presidency to keep themselves rolling in money, why should we worry? They obviously thought it was worth the risk.

Why should I compromise my values to vote for someone I loathe because THEY are corrupt and made a stupid choice? Let them have Trump. Let them deal with Trump. Let them shut him down and earn their paychecks for once. Let THEM pay the price for their corruption instead of always taking the gains but passing on the cost.

What you advocate guarantees more and worse corruption.

They soundly rejected progressivism. I will never vote for an establishment politician again.
-2 # Majikman 2016-09-29 11:22
Right on, lib! Further, our gov't has become so corrupted by corporate money that we citizens have no say whatsoever. The termites have so riddled the foundation that the entire structure will collapse in astorm. Elections are for the distraction and amusement of the populace who still believe they mean a dam thing.
So vote for whomever you wish, doesn't matter since the decision has already been made by our "democratic" process.
0 # Rain17 2016-09-30 21:56
Stein only recieved 469,627 votes in 2012 or .36% of the vote. Even Gary Johnson fared better.
-1 # librarian1984 2016-10-01 12:47
Then there's nothing for you to worry about is there?
0 # candida 2016-10-01 22:16
Quoting sus453:
If Hillary Clinton loses, you can blame her for being a wooden candidate with not much to say (not unlike Kerry and Al Gore) and a lot to hide;

sus, if you think Kerry and Gore lost because they were wooden nor didn't have much to say (and what did they have to hide?), I'm afraid you're not really paying attention. Compared to Bush, both Kerry AND Gore were Einsteins. And an Alfred E. Newman is preferable to Kerry and Gore?!

If you think the corruption of the Dem nomination was bad (and it was), it compares not to the Republicans' dirty tricks (Reagan's October Surprise, Bush vs. Gore, the amping up of voter suppression efforts into a frenzy on the heels of the Repub Congress not renewing the Civil Rts. Act, etc., etc., and the millions who have been disenfranchised from the vote over the last several election cycles. Democrats are bad. Republicans are far worse.

Every warrior knows it is far better to live wounded in order to fight another day than to die. With Trump we die. With Clinton we are wounded but live to fight another day, including the day after she is inaugurated, the Goddess willing.
-1 # kyzipster 2016-10-02 17:32
If Trump wins, I'll place the blame where it belongs, on voters. Gore was probably more boring than Clinton but he would have made a far better president than Bush imo.

Of course vote your conscience but please don't deny cause and effect, or fact. There were over 9000 votes for Nader in Florida, that is not Al Gore's fault because he was part of the establishment and a very boring politician. It's not anyone's fault, it's simply a fact.

It's completely reasonable to believe that if just one-ninth of those voters had chosen differently, history would be different, like the countless deaths in Iraq and the trillions of dollars wasted and the fallout from that war that is still killing people today. It's also reasonable to point this out running up to an election with very similar circumstances.
+1 # jimallyn 2016-09-28 23:26
Quoting Karlus58:
Because Jill Stein has no chance whatsoever. ... if you folks want to keep on with this anger towards Clinton, then what we may get will be worse than Bush in 2000.

Karlus58, how long have you been voting? The reason I ask is because I have noticed over the years that the candidates on offer get worse with each election. "Our" candidates are mostly chosen for us by the wealthy "elites" and the corporations, and are chosen because they will represent the elites and the corporations, without regard for how that will affect the rest of us. Yet people continue to vote for the corporate candidates, election after election. And when the elites and the corporations see what they got away with in the last election, it encourages them to run somebody even more evil in the next election. And that has brought us to our current situation, where even people like Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump can be taken seriously. Well, I figured out the solution: stop voting for the "lesser evil" corporate candidates. And that is our only hope. Surely you don't think the elites are going to change their strategy when it is working so well for them? There is an old saying, authorship unknown, that says "insanity is doing the same things over and over and expecting different results." So, look around you: how well has lesser evil voting worked for you? Have you been flaunting your own insanity with your voting choices?
+1 # candida 2016-10-01 22:26
Quoting jimallyn:
Quoting Karlus58:
Because Jill Stein has no chance whatsoever. ... if you folks want to keep on with this anger towards Clinton, then what we may get will be worse than Bush in 2000.

Karlus58, how long have you been voting? The reason I ask is because I have noticed over the years that the candidates on offer get worse with each election. "Our" candidates are mostly chosen for us by the wealthy "elites" and the corporations,

Candidates get worse each election cycle and are more beholden to the corporations because the Left was destroyed by them and the police state in the 60s and 70s and, today, the public is not engaged enough in social movements to bring the Right back to its knees as it did during those decades. However, the struggle continues. Join it!!! Karlus58 is right. Direct your anger to the struggle. Get involved with a local community group that is making progressive changes.
-1 # grandlakeguy 2016-09-28 13:48
If Frank Rich thinks that Hillary Clinton was pitch perfect then he is tone deaf!
+9 # jimmyjames 2016-09-28 13:58
+51 # PhilO 2016-09-28 13:59
Why don't the mics get shut off if the candidate runs waaaay over their allotted time?
+16 # grandlakeguy 2016-09-28 15:15
I kept wondering the same thing every time that Hillary talked over Bernie in their debates and violated those rules shamelessly!
+15 # librarian1984 2016-09-28 16:15
Exactly right. HRC talked over Bernie all the time. I wish Jon Stewart were around. It's just the kind of piece he'd run the two side-by-side. She was very rude to Sanders.
+3 # grandlakeguy 2016-09-28 23:00
Yes, and as rude as she was to Bernie Sanders he was that much decent and respectful to her.
There were so many facts about her past that he could have thrown at her such as her cluster bomb vote and her lies about coming under sniper fire in Bosnia.
I wish that he had mentioned those things because too many people do not understand what kind of person Hillary Clinton actually is!
+4 # librarian1984 2016-09-28 23:26
Hi, glg!

I think Sanders was right to take the high road. People wouldn't have been as loyal if he'd used the same tactics. But I really don't understand why he didn't have surrogates out there telling the public about Clinton's record.

I thought Weaver and others were good strong advocates but there was more about HRC that should have been called out -- and how can one make sense of the campaign's not confronting election fraud?

I can't wait to read Jane Sanders' book .. or whoever gets one out there.
-6 # grandlakeguy 2016-09-28 14:02




And if she becomes President the facts regarding the theft of the primary elections will continue to emerge and she will be exposed as more and more illegitimate as time goes on.
-11 # tswhiskers 2016-09-28 14:44
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
+9 # hipocampelo 2016-09-28 15:48
glg: You are completely correct. Keep it up.
-1 # carytucker 2016-09-28 22:59
Quoting librarian1984:
Yeah! And the pitch-perfect way she handled the questions about her Wall Street speeches and goading of Putin and her obvious lies about supporting TPP and stealing the Democratic nomination and her anti-choice VP pick and ..

Oh. That's right. Those questions were never asked.

Tim Kaine has a 100% rating from Planned Parenthood. Not bad for 'anti-choice,' but don't let facts interfere with your Hate Hillary rants.
-4 # kalpal 2016-09-29 08:47
Did you call up Lester Holt and order him to ask the questions you wanted asked? If not, why not? Surely you will make the necessary arrangements to have those questions asked before the next debate. After all you are one of the few living experts on HRC's perfidy and one of the plethora of poorly educated Trump adherents.
-1 # grandlakeguy 2016-10-01 12:43
My message to all journalists:


-35 # black lamb 2016-09-28 12:05
Frank Rich is generally an idiot, specially incapable of seeing or stating a fact, but sublimely excellent at falsifying reality to shill for Hillary.

Concerning the polls reacting to Monday night's debate, see

black lamb 2016-09-27 15:55, at


black lamb 2016-09-27 15:44, at

And see, e.g., Capro-Lupo 2016-09-27 20:34, at

AND especially concerning the CNN poll, see

black lamb 2016-09-28 02:04, at


black lamb 2016-09-28 02:05, at


black lamb 2016-09-28 02:07, at
-4 # black lamb 2016-09-28 16:51
So, at least 34 people dislike facts.

But one may presume that they like the smell of the swill Frank Rich sweeps at them.
-3 # RMDC 2016-09-29 19:31
b. lamb -- I agree completely with your description of Frank Rich. He's always been a crappy journalist.
+59 # Activista 2016-09-28 12:16
Our goal should be Social Democracy - like in Scandinavia - free education, free healthcare.
Not consumerism, not greed, not money culture.
Democratic Party has support (Bernie Sanders and others) for this PEACEFUL change. This change is possible within democratic party - but this party change has to start from bellow - Power of powerless.
+14 # grandlakeguy 2016-09-28 14:00
The Democratic party likes to pretend that Hillary Clinton is a Progressive…
What she is…
is not a Progressive or even a Moderate…

+26 # Vardoz 2016-09-28 15:56
As Jimmy Carter Recently Said ' We no longer live in a functioning Democracy. We live in a corporate dictatorship that writes our laws and policies to benefit them. This state of affairs is a serious threat to our health, safety and welfare. Also the nomination of HRC was a total coup that began when she was made Sec. of State and then in 2015 she began to collect her super delegates with the help of the DNC who broke their own rules. Then HRC along with an illegal gang of privatized election saboteurs implemented a wide range of tactics to steal the election and on top of that AP announced her to be the winner the night before all the votes were counted. So, in my view, this was a total coup and we will NEVER vote for ANY super delegates that endorsed her. Bernie is working hard to recruit like minded people to the house and senate which, as we know, holds tremendous power. 488 seats are up for grabs and its time to clean house. Bernie also want us to stay engaged and active and elect those who support his agenda to as many posts as possible.
+4 # grandlakeguy 2016-09-29 00:16
The most terrible part of all this is that so many Americans are OK with the fake elections that keep on happening.

When we lose the ability to choose our representatives we lose our freedom.
+2 # jimmyjames 2016-09-28 13:15
This article/video link should have been published by RSN. I am disappointed, but share it with RSN readers now:
+10 # Anonymot 2016-09-28 13:27
She is a better debater, but I vote on her Actions not her verbiage. Her actions have brought us wars (that her DOD buddies lost.) Her actions brought us TPP and NAFTA (because she and Bill were & are tied at the temples & the bank accounts, not the hips.) Her actions have destroyed the Middle East and will slowly do the same to Europe with the millions of refugees fleeing what she and her fellow Deep Staters, BUSH/CHENEY/RUM SFELD/ETC. have done.

She's not responsible for Obamacare or the welfare net or any social actions except, perhaps LGBT promotion, she just talks about it as though all the good things are hers.

And poor, old, aptly named Rich is plugging for a cabinet-level appointment - for which one can't blame him.
+14 # countmarc 2016-09-28 14:04
And remember she gave Adam the apple while POTUS Obama was telling Pandora to open the box. The problems in the Middle East do predate Hillary and although I would like to blame him Cheney. NAFTA and IRAQ are the spawn of Multinationals that own the world governments and no matter how much we would like to pin it on one person or one party or one country, to quote Hillary, it takes a village and that village is the entire world.
+11 # AshamedAmerican 2016-09-28 18:41

"The problems in the Middle East do predate Hillary".

It is true that our destruction of the Middle East did begin before HRC was in position to affect it. After her husband's responsibility for the deaths of 1/2 a million Iraqi children etc, via sanctions and bombings, she did campaign and vote for Bush II's Iraqi massacre. She played major parts in the ruination of Libya and Syria. These are just perhaps the worst examples among many.

HRC also played a major part in pushing for the TPP. In doing so, she is trying to allow the Multinationals to "own the world governments".

And you are right the corruption is pervasive throughout the major parties, our government, and throughout the world to varying degrees. That is why we need to be trying to remove said corruption, and not voting for candidates that we know promote and expand it.
+8 # librarian1984 2016-09-28 19:25
Beautifully said.
-1 # AshamedAmerican 2016-09-29 21:35
Thank you librarian.

There are a number of yours that I especially like, such as when you shut ericlipps down. And: "I have learned many uncomfortable truths here. It's easier not to know, but one cannot correct things one cannot see".
-2 # librarian1984 2016-09-30 13:29
You're very kind. I've never been quoted to myself before :-)

I notice you're not around as much. I hope after November the trolls will find something else to do, presumably bringing discomfort and injustice SOMEwhere, and you and other great commenters will return more frequently.

Kindest regards.
-2 # Phillybuster 2016-09-30 19:14
There were wars in the Middle East prior to recorded history. Historians don't know when the first war occurred because there is no written record of it but certainly earlier than 3500 BCE.

Modern times are merely a continuation of this ancient, honored tradition of bloodletting and slaughter. If you think that Syria is a problem, you should check out the ancient history of ASSyria.

Take away tribal warfare, religious zealotry and hatred of anyone or anything different, and the Middle East wouldn't have anything else to do.

I predict they'll continue fighting until the sun becomes a red giant and engulfs the earth. Or they'll migrate to another planet and continue their warfare there. And people wonder why ET doesn't make contact!
+9 # guomashi 2016-09-28 13:36
I find the pre-digested pablum being vomited down our throats profoundly offensive.

If anyone at RSN or anywhere else believes that saying-so-makes -it-so will rescue Hillary, they are absolutely wrong. In fact, it only deepens the contempt in which she is already drowning.

We will find out shortly what the story is in relation to how the debate affected the race, but to borrow from Mark Twain, the reports of Hillary's victories are greatly exaggerated.
+6 # Cassandra2012 2016-09-28 16:09
Well, enjoy your neo-fascist hell if/when your guy Trump gets in! It will be one long, long, pig-lipstick reality show.
-1 # guomashi 2016-09-28 23:28
Are guilt trips the best you've got?
It doesn't matter if Trump or Clinton wins in November.
The loser will be US.
But if Clinton is installed in January, the loser will be the entire world.

And you are trying to change minds with a sniveling little guilt trip?
+22 # revhen 2016-09-28 13:51
What a collection of Hillary Haters.
+20 # grandlakeguy 2016-09-28 15:18
It is not personal revhen,
what we hate about Hillary Clinton is her actual dismal record and the fact that she has caused hundreds of thousands of deaths and destroyed millions of lives!
+17 # rivervalley 2016-09-28 16:54
Right now, for instance, our client in the Middle East has American trained pilots flying American bombers and dropping American bombs on some of the poorest people in the world in Yemen. But standard bombs don't create enough chaos, so our country sent them phosphorus bombs and cluster bombs. The American manufacturer just stopped manufacturing them, so we probably bought the inventory.

This "foreign aid" is a direct pipeline to give tax dollars to Boeing and our other weapons manufacturers, and it is backed 100% by the President and Clinton. How can I vote for someone who, in 2016 is unleashing cluster bombs on children?
+3 # SusanT136 2016-09-29 10:26
Quoting rivervalley:
How can I vote for someone who, in 2016 is unleashing cluster bombs on children?

I totally agree. EXCEPT - Trump. If you think he will be "ethical " in our dealings abroad think again. Think about Trump calling for "blowing out of the water" the Iranian ships for simply "taunting" our troops. Then think about the nuclear codes, and how the Pres can launch all on his /her own. Trump won't care about killing children; in fact he has called for "taking out" the families of terrorists as well as the terrorists.

Just think about the birther thing for a minute. Then add how he was lying about how "great" stop and frisk worked. This guy is more racist than George Wallace ever was. He wants "Law and Order" - translation - accelerate the race towards a fascist police state faster than you can blink.

Then think about Trump's history of "making deals" with contractors for work then either stiffing them or refusing to pay them their full fee. Notice he's been completely incoherent on raising the national minimum wage.

I live in a safely blue state (NYS). I will be voting for Jill Stein. But if I lived in a battleground state, i THINK I would suck it up and vote for Hillary.

But I do understand how some people are having a hard time stomaching that.
-2 # librarian1984 2016-09-29 13:47
The thing is that there are reasonable people who can make different choices and most of us here know that. I don't vilify someone who's going to vote for Clinton, though I disagree.

It's the Hillary people who are absolutely incensed that people might not do what they're told.

I always thought it was the GOP that was so authoritarian but I believe the Clintons are bringing that thinking into the DP.
-3 # ericlipps 2016-09-28 19:18
Not personal? Do you actually READ the comments attached to these articles? for instance, the ones that go on about "Queen Hillary" or how she thinks she's an empress. The ones that gleefully peddle rumors that she's too sick to make it to November and will have to "step aside for Bernie." And on and on.

I'm sure people here despise what she's done, or what they hold her responsible for, but a lot of the comments I see go WAAAAAY beyond that into outright defamation. Clinton won't bother to sue, but if she did, she'd have plenty of grounds.
+10 # librarian1984 2016-09-28 19:28
So what? Since the times of Punch and Judy (and I'm sure long before) people have used snipe and snark to caricaturize politics and public figures.

Don't you call Sanders 'St. Bernard' a lot?

Do YOU read YOUR posts? You are often one of the nastiest commenters!

If you want things to be more civil -- start with yourself. Maybe others will follow.
+9 # dbrize 2016-09-28 20:14
Quoting ericlipps:
Not personal? Do you actually READ the comments attached to these articles? for instance, the ones that go on about "Queen Hillary" or how she thinks she's an empress. The ones that gleefully peddle rumors that she's too sick to make it to November and will have to "step aside for Bernie." And on and on.

I'm sure people here despise what she's done, or what they hold her responsible for, but a lot of the comments I see go WAAAAAY beyond that into outright defamation. Clinton won't bother to sue, but if she did, she'd have plenty of grounds.

Repeat after me:

She didn't do it...(or say it...or mean it)

Ok, maybe she did but it's no big deal...

Only "haters" think it's a big deal...

Only "misogynist haters" think it's a big deal...

Now you are up to snuff, carry on.
-8 # WYThomas 2016-09-28 16:22
Quoting revhen:
What a collection of Hillary Haters.

+15 # librarian1984 2016-09-28 17:04
So we can put you down as FOR cluster bombs for children?
+9 # A_Har 2016-09-28 18:01
Quoting WYThomas:
Quoting revhen:
What a collection of Hillary Haters.

As if there is no reason at all to dislike her? Obviously you haven't done any research as all on it--the shallow DNC PR line has captured you.

My SO and I were in a motel, and he watched the debate with some interest. That's the only time we have access to a TeeVee as neither of us own one. (We share a mutual hatred of the TUBE.)

Anyway at one point HRC began a sentence about OUR DEMOCRACY. I had to choke--this pretender STOLE the primary from Sanders and has the gall to talk about "our democracy"--wha t a bloody sham!
+7 # librarian1984 2016-09-28 19:30
And when she said we had to get rid of private prisons!

Trump was painful to watch but Hillary made me choke a few times.
+5 # futhark 2016-09-28 18:44
Truth is only hurtful to liars.
+14 # Santacruzer 2016-09-28 13:53
Is Hillary a warmonger? Yes, she like 98 other senators voted for to give President Bush authority to commit US forces to Iraq. (Only Bernie & Barack Obama voted against it). But lets take a step back and look at the context of those days.Bush and Cheney were saying that they had intelligence that Saddam Hussein had 'weapons of mass destruction' (read nuclear weapons)They also pointed out that Saddam had invaded Kuwait and implied so pointedly that Saudi Arabia was vulnerable that he immediately began sending air & naval forces to their aid. As we and Hillary now know this was The Big Lie, but at the time we as Americans stood bye what the president told us. When the truth came out Hillary to her credit changed her position and has subsequently said 'that had she known then what she knows now she would have voted against the war' This, my friends is learning from experience not deserving of the stigma of being called a warmonger.
+14 # guomashi 2016-09-28 14:13
If she has learned anything, why is she so actively baiting Iran, Syria, Russia, etc.?

Sorry, but her 'learning' reeks of male bovine fecal matter.
+19 # jimallyn 2016-09-28 16:04
Quoting Santacruzer:
As we and Hillary now know this was The Big Lie, but at the time we as Americans stood bye what the president told us.

I sure as hell didn't. I knew he was telling lies to start a war that he and his cronies would profit from. Bernie Sanders also knew he was telling lies. Anybody that had been paying any attention whatsoever knew that he was telling lies. Not all of us are dumb enough to fall for the lies, Santacruzer. Some of us were smart enough to see through the lies and oppose Bush's illegal and immoral war of aggression. Too bad that Hillary Clinton wasn't, and that you weren't.
+17 # librarian1984 2016-09-28 17:11
Millions participated in the largest worldwide peace march in history. We were hearing from the weapons inspectors, telling us they weren't finding wmd. Diplomats were leaving the State Dept. in droves.

Lots of people knew.

I also remember pundits discussing how Hillary would vote on Iraq because everyone knew she wanted to run for president and she was trying to calculate which vote would be more helpful.

If she had known how things would go I'm sure she would have voted AGAINST it.

She does not have a vision. She does not have principles. She is an amoral opportunist.

And she has bad judgment. She chose wrong didn't she?
+14 # lfeuille 2016-09-28 17:41
There is not much credit in changing your position for political expediency. She changed when she decided to run for president, not before. And her vote on Iraq is not the most important basis for considering her a war monger. There is also Libya and Syria and her demented hostility toward Iran and Russia.
+8 # AshamedAmerican 2016-09-28 18:56

"lets take a step back and look at the context".

Regardless of what "Bush and Cheney were saying", we knew of the lies that were used to legitimize the destruction of Iraq by Bush's father 12 years before- such as the incubator story.

"They also pointed out that Saddam had invaded Kuwait and implied so pointedly that Saudi Arabia was vulnerable". That he had invaded Kuwait, was the excuse used for the '91 devastation of Iraq. Fears for Saudi Arabia was another lie told before the '91 pulverization of Iraq. The claim was that their army was poised on the Saudi border ready to invade, but it had since been proven to be a lie by satellite photos. The lies preceding the '91 invasion were lame; to buy into them a second time 12 years later would have been stupid. As HRC had insider knowledge, it is not believable that she believed there were WMDs, or that that was the reason for the 2003 invasion. And if you believe otherwise, you must also think HRC was the most stupid of us all. But she isn't stupid; she is evil.

And she has since played much bigger parts in the wrecking of other countries, proving beyond any doubt that HRC IS A WARMONGER.
+10 # futhark 2016-09-28 19:00
Santacruzer, it is time for you to recheck your history books. The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 promoted by Cheney/Bush passes the Senate with a 77 to 22 favorable vote at 12:50 AM on Friday, 2002 October 11. Senator Hillary Clinton did vote in favor of it. Senator Bernie Sanders did vole against it. Barack Obama did not vote for or against this resolution at all, as he was still serving in the Illinois State Senate at the time and would not enter the United States Senate until 2005 January 3. Mr. Obama did speak out against the passage of this resolution initially, but in 2003 March declared at an anti-war rally that it was "too late to stop" the war.

Note that 21 senators other than Mr. Sanders voted against the Iraq invasion, so he was by no means standing alone. Even Republican Senator Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island voted against it. Ms. Clinton allowed herself to be swept up by the war hysteria promoted by the neocons.

We badly need political leadership that is skeptical of claims of the self-serving elite who always find ways to personally profit from the violence inflicted on others by the peerless American military machine.
+11 # sus453 2016-09-28 20:10
Santacruzer, we all knew the truth back then, and so did they. It was available to anyone who bothered to read. Robert Byrd voted against it (as did others) and gave quite an eloquent speech about it.
+1 # Phillybuster 2016-10-01 09:40
Exactly. When I spoke out against invading Iraq, I lost friends, was told I was unpatriotic and that I should fall in line and support the President. One friend told me, parroting Ari Fleischer, "Be careful what you say". The majority of people I knew were gung-ho for the invasion. I said an Iraq war would be another Vietnam and people looked at me dumbfounded.

No one ever came back to me and said, "You were right". I never said, "I told you so". But almost all of these folks have since changed their minds about the wisdom of the invasion. I've never reconnected with the friends I lost though.
+8 # maindrains 2016-09-28 13:55
The media are desperate to declare that Clinton "won". I watched the debate but don't think either of them "won". I thought; why am I watching this drivel? Why is the fate of a once great nation dependent on 90 minutes of not very informed verbal sparring? Clinto looked smug and Trump is correct; if she thinks health care and free education and the end to trade treaties is a good thing why hasn't she done much about it? As for Trump.. his lies are of the disingenuous "the dog ate my lunch variety" and easily debunked whereas Hillry re her emails, re her role as a peacemaker, re her role as a warmonger... harder to deconstruct but nevertheless, not as simple as she makes out.
+10 # countmarc 2016-09-28 13:56
Astounding how changing one's position as more information or events change your perspective is equated with "lies". I wonder if the people that call Hillary a liar because she changed her mind would prefer a president that refused to incorporate new information into the discussion despite being shown that they are wrong?
+18 # grandlakeguy 2016-09-28 15:23
The tens of millions of citizens worldwide that marched in the streets against the Iraq war did not believe the Bush lies.

I guess that all of them had better judgement than Hillary.

And one of the two Senators who voted against the Iraq war was Bernie Sanders, who, by the way, would have been the actual winner of the Democratic party primaries absent elect theft!
-10 # ericlipps 2016-09-28 19:29
Or they just went with their gut, Bush style, and happened to be right, so in hindsight their "judgment" looks good.

About your third paragraph . . . yawn . . . nodding off now . . . heard it all before, usually in SCREAMING CAPITALS.
+11 # jimallyn 2016-09-28 16:26
People call Hillary Clinton a liar because she IS a liar. For example, there's the "landing under sniper fire" lie that she told at least 4 times, and you can see video of all 4 of them here:

Then there's all the lies she told about her email. FBI Director James Comey confirmed 6 of the lies Clinton told regarding her email, or maybe 7 lies, depending on how you interpret Comey's answer on one of them. You can see this confirmation that Clinton repeatedly lied about her email here:

There's more, shall I go on?
+12 # lfeuille 2016-09-28 17:46
She is called a liar first of all because of the documented instances of lying that were uncovered by the email investigation. This was fact. She lied to Congress to the FBI and to the American people. She is also considered a liar because her "changes of opinion" always occur when it is politically expedient, such as when Bernie is beating her up over TPP.
+5 # AshamedAmerican 2016-09-28 19:03
No one calls Hilliary a liar because she changes her mind. She is called a liar because she is a liar (see Jimallyn above).

It doesn't matter what she incorporates into a discussion. What matters is that she incorporates no decency into her actions.

It makes no sense to pretend that she has a conscience based on her acknowledgement that she was wrong in one instance, when she repeats the same behavior and much worse numerous times afterward.
+10 # anarchaos 2016-09-28 14:41
Having watched as much of the 'debate' as I could stomach, I will reiterate (4 the umpteenth time): The lesser of two evils is still Evil! "reject the lesser evil for the greater good." A wasted vote is actually a vote given to one of the two Frauds in that debate. Vote for Stein/Baraka in 2016
+2 # alice arlene 2016-09-28 14:44
So true countmarc, but the discourse here has gone beyond uncivil to the childish and ridiculous if not the obscene. So actually calling a public figure a liar has become tame in this forum. Never mind the low level of communication to which one of the candidates has taken us. Never mind utilizing thoughtful discourse here to analyze the policies of both candidates. Thanks to Frank Rich for his astute comments in regards to the demeanor, ridiculous comments and substance-less remarks (for the most part) of one of the debaters.
+6 # AshamedAmerican 2016-09-28 19:10
alice arlene:

"actually calling a public figure a liar has become tame in this forum".

As HRC is obviously a liar, what is wrong with calling her such? Is it worse to lie or to call a liar a liar? Is it worse to be a warmonger or to call a warmonger a warmonger? How can things ever be fixed if we can't even describe the problems? It is not our fault that our leadership is uncivil, childish, ridiculous and obscene; but it would be foolish to ignore what said leadership is. How can people have "thoughtful discourse" without being able to use accurate language to describe the threats to us all?
-6 # ericlipps 2016-09-28 19:24
Quoting alice arlene:
So true countmarc, but the discourse here has gone beyond uncivil to the childish and ridiculous if not the obscene. So actually calling a public figure a liar has become tame in this forum.

But that's the whole point: calling Hillary Clinton a liar is what RSN's comments section has become all about. That, and worse: my favorites are the loons who think Bill and Hillary Clinton hired Donald Trump to run as a straw-man candidate to make Hillary's path to the White House smoother.
+6 # dbrize 2016-09-28 20:24
Quoting ericlipps:
Quoting alice arlene:
So true countmarc, but the discourse here has gone beyond uncivil to the childish and ridiculous if not the obscene. So actually calling a public figure a liar has become tame in this forum.

But that's the whole point: calling Hillary Clinton a liar is what RSN's comments section has become all about. That, and worse: my favorites are the loons who think Bill and Hillary Clinton hired Donald Trump to run as a straw-man candidate to make Hillary's path to the White House smoother.

Hey Man!

Henry David Thoreau loved loons. He was inspired by them and found them highly intelligent.

You are such a negative generalist.
-4 # carytucker 2016-09-28 22:50
Quoting ericlipps:
Quoting alice arlene:
So true countmarc, but the discourse here has gone beyond uncivil to the childish and ridiculous if not the obscene. So actually calling a public figure a liar has become tame in this forum.

But that's the whole point: calling Hillary Clinton a liar is what RSN's comments section has become all about. That, and worse: my favorites are the loons who think Bill and Hillary Clinton hired Donald Trump to run as a straw-man candidate to make Hillary's path to the White House smoother.

My favorite is the chronic cry-baby whine that Sec'y Clinton stole 4 million votes in the primary. My second favorite is not so much aimed at Sec'y Clinton, but reflects the lunacy informing the Hate Hillary mob: that 11 Sep 2001 was an Evil government plot. A corollary: AA #77 did not smash into the Pentagon. I guess Ted Olson's wife just did a runner.
+4 # librarian1984 2016-09-28 23:35
Sure, 'whining' about election fraud is so passe. Do you think it's worldly or sophisticated to accept fraud and corruption?

Americans have lost their sense of moral clarity. We sat silent when SCOTUS stole the presidency for D!ck & W, and now we sit quietly when HRC and the DNC steal the nomination, greatly increasing the odds of a Trump presidency.

We don't deserve to be the leaders of the free world. If we can't clean up our act and send these inbred, freakishly stupid oligarchs packing, we deserve to have the world contain us -- through sanctions, boycotts -- maybe even a great big giant wall -- to protect others.
+3 # grandlakeguy 2016-09-29 00:28
The day that the "Supreme Court" stole the 2000 election to anoint "George the Worst"(as opposed to George the first) was the day of my awakening as a political activist (or pain in the ass as local Republicans view me.)
Starting that very day I slammed the theft of elections and the criminal wars of aggression on the marquee of the Grand Lake Theater for the entire Bush administration and beyond.
The sign was seen by tens of thousands daily and even spawned a line of greeting cards picturing the messages.
My focus all those years and to this date has been the disgraceful fact that our elections are not honest!
Will the American people ever wake up and demand honest elections?
Now the Democrats are playing the same game as the Republicans have been guilty of all those years.

I hope that there is so much cheating this year by both parties that the official results are way beyond physical possibility, perhaps then the MSM would be forced to talk about it!
Seeing "election totals" well exceeding 100% would be priceless!
+1 # librarian1984 2016-09-29 00:44
Yeah, that was a big eye opener for me too. And my education continues ....

I have learned many uncomfortable truths here. It's easier not to know, but one cannot correct things one cannot see.

Take care, guy :-)
-1 # Caliban 2016-09-30 16:24
I agree about 2000, #grandlakeguy.

But #ericlipps and #carytucker are right that some folks here are claiming fraud for which no evidence exists -- just because their favored candidate didn't win.

What do you say to that?
+13 # bardphile 2016-09-28 14:59
Anyone here tune in to Hannity once in a while? If not, you're missing a real hoot of a juggling act. Example: Hannity defending his own support for the Iraq war while allowing Trump to claim he opposed it, presumably to save his "credibility," since he's lied about it repeatedly. Sean is desperate to sell Trump to the Fox audience, lobbing soft questions, wincing when the Trumpster coughs up a kernel of falsehood wrapped in a wad of nonsense...mayb e a better analogy is of a hunter trying to help the blind old dog find the pheasant under the bush right in front of them. Here, boy! Right there in front of you! (The hunter finally pulls out the pheasant and puts it in the dog's mouth.) Good boy. (To his hunter buds) See? I told you he could do it! (To the dog) See the lady in the pants suit? Sic! Go get her! And like my neighbor's Chihuahua, he stands there and barks incoherently until sunrise.

People: Whatever you think of Hillary, this man CAN NOT be our president!
+6 # librarian1984 2016-09-28 17:15
I disagree with your conclusion, bardphile, but I'm upvoting you anyway because that was very entertaining.
+4 # bardphile 2016-09-28 22:47
'Preciate it.
+5 # jimmyjames 2016-09-28 15:39
+9 # Allears 2016-09-28 15:40
Drivel is right, but beyond that,what struck me as I listened to the debate was that both of them were passionless, especially considering the depth of the responsibilitie s of the jobs they are competing for. Passionless and boilerplate. Both are liars,
each just doing it a little differently. She is a more, shall we say, sophisticated liar because her knowledge is of course much deeper and broader than his, otherwise he might have gotten a dig in re the Glass Steagal repeal by Pres Clinton the first, which is the main reason for the recent economic crisis and why its bound to happen again. Wells Fargo, anyone?
+2 # margpark 2016-09-28 15:55
Your question about the crux of the matter being did she become more popular with the voters, you are right on with that one. As other commenters tend to not be impressed with Mrs. Clinton, if she can't pick up some of the disgusted non voters or the voters who are going to vote for an alternative candidate, we are going to be faced with Donald Trump in his full glory in the White House.
0 # gdsharpe 2016-09-28 16:12
Keep in mind that Trump may not be President for very long. He has already said he does not really want the job and might quit. Additionally, he may very well be under indictment for fraud and other financial crimes. The upshot of these points is that if he quits or gets convicted or whatever, we will be stuck with Mike Pence, a legitimate extremist conservative. I'd rather have Hillary. At least she doesn't owe Putin or Russian banks any money.
+10 # banichi 2016-09-28 18:15
Really? She owes all of the oligarchs/corpo rations/media etc for their support in both monetary and other ways - like the media ignoring Bernie Sanders and the stadiums he filled with people who wanted to hear him speak, until he started winning states, and even then giving more credence to Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the DNC who were doing their best to kill off Bernie's campaign with lies and trickery....but maybe you think that this does not mean she owes them for that marker?

It is intentional blindness on the part of most of HRC supporters to not want to recognize her background is even worse than Trump's - and I would not vote for him, any more than I would vote for HRC.

Wanna compare? Trump has been a truly disgusting man in so many ways, yes - but he has not intentionally caused regime change in 7 different countries, turning them into hellholes and at least two (Ukraine and Honduras) into Nazi governments...a nd for Honduras, caused refugees to filter north through Mexico to try to escape the murderous government created by US....only to be either turned away at the border, or deported back to the Hell of Honduras again. Most of them children. That OK with you?

That's Hillary's record. Not a right-wing plot to discredit her, just what she did. I won't even go into the TPP and fracking support she did as SoS in countries around the world. Or the pay for play donations to the Clinton Foundation.
+9 # Aliazer 2016-09-28 17:15
This entire debate performance was an embarrassment for the nation as it addressed little or nothing except pablum for the public and the listening audience.

Skillfulness in responding to other person's comments amounts to little or nothing for a nation that is demanding a multitude of political solutions that are purposely never discussed through collusion by a corrupt corporate media, ruling class, along with all the minions who are willing to serve them.
-3 # JSRaleigh 2016-09-28 17:29
Clinton needs to come up with her own version of Reagan's devastating "There you go again ..." line to use every Trump goes off into cloud cuckoo land.
+5 # AshamedAmerican 2016-09-28 19:15

We would all be much better off, if we had leadership with integrity that owed something to Putin and/or Russia...and therefore wouldn't want to further antagonize him/them.

(I don't mean to imply that Trump [or Clinton] has integrity. Jill Stein does though.)
-1 # Robbee 2016-09-28 19:30

It’s worth taking a moment to ask the questions, who are the Koch brothers, and what do they want?

The Koch brothers are the second-wealthie st family in America, worth $82 billion. For the Koch brothers, $82 billion in wealth apparently is not good enough. Owning the second-largest private company in America is apparently not good enough. It doesn’t appear that they will be satisfied until they are able to control the entire political process.

That is not democracy. That is oligarchy.

The Kochs' biggest target this election is North Carolina's senate seat. They know that the incumbent senator, Richard Burr, is a reliable vote for their interests. And they know that Deborah Ross, the Democratic nominee, is a threat to the Koch family's goals of oligarchy.

Deborah Ross would be a terrific person to serve in the U.S. Senate. Deborah Ross is a progressive champion who'll fight for clean energy, for good jobs, and for ending the influence of special interests in Washington. She'll work for public education and to make our economy work for everyone again.

And as much as the Koch brothers don't want Deborah Ross to win, they want to keep Russ Feingold out of the Senate too. So the Kochs are spending millions of dollars in their elections on both TV ads and on-the-ground organizers. It's up to our political revolution to fight back.
+1 # Robbee 2016-09-28 19:31
Can you rush a $3 contribution split between Deborah Ross, Russ Feingold, and Our Revolution to take on the Koch brothers' goal of buying our democracy? Add your contribution here before Friday's FEC fundraising deadline.

The Koch brothers are not interested in a vision of our democracy where millions of people make small contributions to help power campaigns. They are interested in buying the political process to increase their grotesque level of wealth.

Deborah Ross is running on a platform that directly challenges the goals of the Koch brothers. She wants to get big money out of politics and take on corruption in our democracy. She wants to fight the effects of climate change and focus on renewable energy. She's led efforts to make sure women earn the same as men for equal work. You can count on Deborah Ross to be a true advocate for working families.

Russ Feingold is a progressive hero who has already led some of the most significant progress against big money in politics. He was the only vote in the Senate against the Patriot Act, and he has opposed disastrous wars and disastrous trade deals. Now he's running to win a seat in the Senate from Republican Ron Johnson, someone who was called the Koch brothers’ "model legislator."
0 # Robbee 2016-09-28 19:32
The Koch brothers, and billionaires like them, have bought up the private sector and now they’re buying up the government. It will require all of us standing together with one voice to support Deborah Ross and Russ Feingold and fight off the influence of the Koch brothers in their elections.

We are making tremendous progress towards our goal of 100,000 contributions split between our endorsed candidates by Friday's FEC deadline, and adding yours to these Senate candidates will go a long way towards helping reach this goal.
-2 # Caliban 2016-09-30 16:33
These suggestions are right on target. Thanks for the specifics, #Robbee.
+3 # black lamb 2016-09-28 20:56
"The Bump On Hillary Clinton’s Back During The Debate Raises Health Questions: Some Say Lester Holt Helped Her ‘Cheat’," at
+1 # sdraymond 2016-09-28 21:06
When Bernie was still in the race, I agreed with most of the comments on this site. However, since he is out of the race and Jill Stein doesn't have a chance in hell of winning, we are stuck with the choice between a lunatic who will set back progressive causes for more than a generation with his supreme court nominees and will serve to divide Americans from each other as well as from the rest of the world, or a war monger who will not divide us and will nominate liberal or progressive judges.

Therefore, left with this awful choice, I will go with Bernie and vote for Hillary. I don't think that bashing Hillary at this point will serve the greater good of keeping Trump out of the White House.

Although, since Bernie left the race, I seldom agree with Librarian, I think his suggestion to help Marc with his fundraising is a good idea. There must be a better way to achieve the goal than constant irritating pleas for assistance. Why don't you bring your community into the campaign, Marc, and make your budget and expenses transparent, plus as Librarian suggested, let us help you figure out a better way forward.
+3 # librarian1984 2016-09-28 22:07
Hi, sdraymond. I can understand what you're saying. There have been several choice points where liberals/Dems/p rogressives have split from one another, and while we had Bernie you and I were together -- but at this point we've made different decisions. I hope I haven't offended you (but I probably have :-) I am pretty radically anti-HRC.

At the beginning of the primary I supported Bernie but figured I could vote for HRC if she were the nominee -- but for two reasons I've changed: I've learned more about her record, and I've witnessed her unnecessarily negative campaign tactics like slandering Sanders and stealing the nomination.

I can't support that. You've made a different decision and I respect that. I think you're wrong about SCOTUS but your pov is reasonable.

Thank you for your civil post. I hope we'll be on the same team again in the future.

PS edit your post by clicking on the paper and pencil icon in the lower left of the window

+1 # AshamedAmerican 2016-09-28 21:09
Wasn't the one Bush wore considerably smaller? And it looks like tubes coming off of it-not thin wires.
+2 # Activista 2016-09-28 23:37
"I'm proud of the primary campaign that Bernie and I ran. We ran a campaign about issues, not insults. And when it was over, we began to work together to try to figure out how we could take the issues we agreed on and come together, knowing we are stronger together, to come up with specific policies in education, in health, and so much else. Thank you, Bernie. Thank you for your leadership, and thank you for your support in this campaign." —Hillary
.. we need to move Democratic Party to Social Democracy like in Scandinavia.
0 # SusanT136 2016-09-29 10:02
I find the tone of this article a bit overly glossy and fawning. While Hilary didn't commit any terrible errors, she's still the same extremely flawed candidate.

One of the biggest things I felt missing from her was any sense of passion.

You could feel some passion from Trump. But then you also could see what a racist, narcissistic, entitled, clueless liar he is - IF you were willing to see, and not just pretend.

It still comes back to this great article on Common Dreams "Vote for the Lying Neo-Liberal War Monger - It's Important"
-2 # librarian1984 2016-09-29 13:52
I kept thinking, THESE are our two choices?!

I agree. HRC has no vision. She should have brought it at the debate. Remember that picture of Bill shaking JFK's hand? He sure did betray his idol.

Thanks for the article recommendation.
0 # librarian1984 2016-09-29 19:16
For those of you interested in the profile page problem, try this:

Click on your icon and go to your profile page -or- Go to the bottom of any article


Click the 'Update' button below the index card-looking menus.

Your profile page appears!

Unfortunately you need to do this each time and I don't think you can see other people's pages, or at least I haven't figured out how.

(I have cross-posted to several threads. Apologies.)
+1 # black lamb 2016-09-29 20:35
This is
a 4-PART comment.


Earlier today (29 Sept.), I read an article that claims the "scientific" poll-results indicate Hillary won the first debate hugely. The article says the MANY Trump-favoring polls were not "scientific," because they were online and populations not randomly sampled. It lists seven polls — (1) CNN/ORC, (2) Politico/Mornin g Consult, (3) NBC/SurveyMonke y, and (4) Public Policy Polling, (5) YouGov/Huffpost , (6) YouGov, (7) Echelon Insights. But "two" polls were conducted by YouGov; so the fair number is six.

The Echelon Insights poll’s method:

Sample size, 1833 Registered Voters Nationwide

Democrat/Republ ican/Independant distribution: 41% Democrat, 36% Republican

Demographics: Male 46%, Female 53%; 15% age 18-29, 18% age 30-39, 15% age 40-49, 29% age 50-64, 23% 65 or older,

Result: Clinton win = 48%, Trump win = 22%, unsure = 29%.

The Echelon Insights result parallels the Democrat/Republ ican percentages, which favor Clinton, significantly. The Male/Female selection percentages favor Clinton significantly (weighted much in favor of Female). The age percentages favor Clinton substantially, according to the average of results of most other national polls conducted since late July of this year. So, the Echelon Insights poll was pro-Clinton biased.
+1 # black lamb 2016-09-29 20:36

CNN/ORC, Politico/Mornin g Consult, and NBC/SurveyMonke y selected Democrats substantially more than Republicans. Example: CNN sampled 521, 41% Democrat, 26% Republican. See
black lamb 2016-09-28 02:04, at

YouGov is not much respected. The 538 website finds YouGov not markedly reliable and substantially pro-Democrat. AND Huffpost has a HUGE pro-Democrat bias. So, if Huffpost joins YouGov to conduct a poll, the method is pro-Democrat biased more than if YouGov runs a poll alone.

Of the six "scientific" polls, five did NOT conduct random sampling. That failure produces built-in bias. And the CNN sample was not only selected with pro-Hillary bias, but also with unscientificall y small sample-size relative to the very huge number of people who watched the debate.

Only Public Policy Polling conducted a poll that has NOT been PROVED biased or conducted with a sample that was significantly inadequate. The Public Policy Polling website does not report the method or sample-size of its poll. So, we cannot know.

But the Public Policy Polling result differed markedly from those produced by the other five polls: 51% Clinton, 40% Trump (earlier 54% to 31%, but later 51% to 40%). (The other polls had Clinton winning by much greater margins — mean 29.6%.)
+2 # black lamb 2016-09-29 20:36

The Trump-favoring polls included some that, likely (information is inadequate), used one of the "standard" polling methods. Examples: CBS (and, contrary to one article’s lie, CBS did run a poll); Drudge; TIME, The Hill, Fox News; Breitbart; The San Diego Tribune; Slate; Fortune. See
black lamb 2016-09-27 15:44, at

More important:

The sample sizes were ENORMOUS. Examples: (a) 49,332; (b) 238,273.

Numerous polls were involved. I cited 20 polls (and their results) in
black lamb 2016-09-27 14:19
AND in
black lamb 2016-09-27 15:44,
both at

The polls’ outcomes were mostly consistent with each other. Most results had Trump winning by more than 20%. Of the others, most had Trump winning by 8% or more. The only small margin was 2% — Trump 51.47% Clinton 48.53% [per Variety].

Perhaps several Trump-favoring online polls were biased by the accident that Republicans responded markedly more than did Democrats. But other such polls did not suffer such bias significantly.
+2 # black lamb 2016-09-29 20:37

But the vital matter is akin to the Law of Large Numbers or the Principle of Indifference:

Even if, in a case of a relatively small number of relatively small sample-items (of biological events, test-results, study-outcomes. .....or statistical or legal evidence), some bias might invalidate or render unreliable a statistical inference, still, if many samples are involved and each involves a very large sample-populati on-size, then any bias becomes insignificant.

So, this is the correct conclusion:

Except one, all pro-Clinton polls’ methods were clearly pro-Clinton biased. The exception (Public Policy polling) may have been, too. At least one pro-Clinton poll (CNN) involved a sample-size insufficient for reliability.

But even IF (though we do not know) several pro-Trump-resul t polls’ samples were biased, still, because the pro-Trump-resul t polls were so numerous and had such very large sample-sizes, those polls’ outcome-average permits a reliable inference that Trump won the debate.
0 # Vintor 2016-09-30 06:16
I noticed that the game is to avoid mentioning Jill Stein. Good luck trying to make her disappear. Progressives are voting for Jill Stein because she and only she are for the interest of common people, not the banks and corporations. She's not a murdering warmonger like Hillary. And just because you now have her democratic tea party followers on reader supported news, it won't help her. Readers supported must now be in bed with the Clintons.
-3 # librarian1984 2016-09-30 13:38
Marc endorsed Sanders originally, and shifted to Clinton after Bernie did.

There are few Stein/Green articles here, but probably more than at most sites.

During the Dem convention I spoke to/heard many Sanders delegates and protestors. EVERY SINGLE ONE says they plan to vote for Stein. The polls are biased and flawed and just another way to misinform us.

I agree with you about the media's collusion in keeping progressive memes out of view. It became apparent from Bernie's rallies that there is a powerful thirst for a progressive agenda.

Can't have that.
+1 # Rain17 2016-09-30 21:53
What are you going to do when Stein gets less than 1% of the vote? She only recieved 469,627 votes or .36% of the vote in 2012.
0 # librarian1984 2016-10-01 06:32
Then what are you worried about?
-1 # Rain17 2016-10-01 09:46
Not worried about anything.
-1 # librarian1984 2016-10-01 12:48
OK then.
+1 # Maybe 2016-10-01 14:53
From the cheap seats: I thought it would be a romp for Hillary from the beginning; it's shocking that her opponent should be taken so seriously that no one can predict the outcome. But what's horrifying to me is the amount of thinly suppressed hate awash in this country. Donald Trump is not collecting people who agree with his manic about-faces. He's providing a "legitimate" opening for all the scarcely veiled anger and bigotry buried not-so-deeply in the hearts of so astonishing a number of Americans! He's the "hate" vote. God help us.
-1 # librarian1984 2016-10-01 15:10
He's also the vote for millions of people who are scared, desperate and angry with the government. Plenty of his supporters are embarrassed by his ignorant statements, but they are determined to punish the establishment that has decimated the middle class, and calling them deplorable has really united them and gotten them fired up. oops.

People can be in denial all they want to but Hillary is drawing in crowds of hundreds while Trump is drawing thousands.

There is a populist, anti-establishm ent mood. Voters are demanding change. It sure is a pity the DNC stole the nomination and installed an establishment warmonger who promises incremental improvement and treated millennials like trash.

What do you think will most get Trump elected .. citizens' anger or Hillary's poor campaign?
0 # Activista 2016-10-01 15:38
The Clinton health care plan, known officially as the Health Security Act and unofficially nicknamed "Hillarycare" (after First Lady Hillary Clinton) by its detractors,[1][ 2] was a 1993 healthcare reform package proposed by the administration of President Bill Clinton and closely associated with the chair of the task force devising the plan, First Lady of the United States Clinton.

The president had campaigned heavily on health care in the 1992 presidential election. The task force was created in January 1993, but its own processes were somewhat controversial and drew litigation. Its goal was to come up with a comprehensive plan to provide universal health care for all Americans, which was to be a cornerstone of the administration' s first-term agenda. A major health care speech was delivered by the president to the US Congress in September 1993. The core element of the proposed plan was an enforced mandate for employers to provide health insurance coverage to all of their employees.
Opposition to the plan was heavy from conservatives, libertarians, and the health insurance industry. The industry produced a highly effective television ad, "Harry and Louise", in an effort to rally public support against the plan.
and the negative propaganda against HRC goes for 25+ years.

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.