This Explains a lot... (or yet another reason she MUST be stopped)

Photo:Flickr

Apparently there is a lot more that Hillary needs to answer for.  Everyone knows that she is one of the most secretive politicians in America and this article (from Barbara Ehrenreich, the author of Nickel and Dimed) at The Nation (cross-posted at HuffPo) explains just what is behind so much of that secrecy as well as her right-leaning tendencies.  When this makes the MSM this will undoubtedly show the country exactly how dishonest and calculating Hillary is and make many of her diehard followers open their eyes to the cold hard truth concerning the real motives behind her presidential run.  She’s been deceiving  the American people for too long.

The articles linked below and the forthcoming book from Jeff Sharlet are EXPLOSIVE to Hillary’s campaign since it links her to a religious group working within the houses of government and around the world.  Ehrenreich describes it as an “international networks of rightwing leaders”.  Current and former members include: John Ashcroft, James Inhofe, Joe Lieberman, Bill Nelson, Rick Santorum, Tom DeLay, Sam Brownback, George Allen, James Baker, Ed Meese,…

Among the many disturbing points brought up include that this group “takes credit for some of Clinton's rightward legislative tendencies”, (so they are heavily influencing her voting in the Senate) and their common belief that “it's only the elites who matter”.

Be sure to read these other links for more info on this group and their affiliations in Government. (Mother Jones, The Atlantic, and Harpers.)  This is truly frightening.

Whereas this is just funny (Pic:FreakingNews.com) :

Comments

[El MarvelOso]

It's getting easier and easier to refute what she states about her experience and her record.

[Ein Oso]

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I also find it interesting how people, in general, can invest so much of their being into a particular candidate, almost to the point of obsession. I just don't get it. Lest we forget, they are ALL politicians and they ALL play the game. It's like saying that one used car salesman is more honest and upstanding than another. I also find it interesting how vehement some people (once again, generally speaking) can get in their support of his or her chosen Golden Child, yet can condemn someone else's passion for another person's Golden Child. Be sure, I am talking about the "vehemence" here, not the particular person's political bent. If only such vehemence and passion were applied to bettering one's own place in the world.... And now, I'll get off my soapbox.

[El MarvelOso]

unfortunately for Hilary, this internet hasn't been good for her campaign. There have been so many videos and transcripts floating around where she is caught in lies. Her tactics in this election have been so Republican-like. I have yet to see anything like this on Obama. Even blogs who will not endorse any candidate have been pointing out her inconsistencies.

Just as one would do when assessing information garnered from FOX News, please consider the political bent of the source.

I am sure if one sought out an anti-Obama blog/source on the internet, one would find it. Out of curiosity, have you?

My point-- if one doesn't like a candidate already, one often would naturally gravitate to others/sources who also don't like that candidate, and thus cite "news" as reported by those like-minded individuals to bolster one's own opinion of that candidate. And notice I put "news" in quotes. Basically, what I am saying is that one should be careful to not become the left-leaning version of Fox News.

Of course you have to consider the source. But what if the sources were, at one point, pro-Hilary (Americablog comes to mind)? There's only so many times you can give the benefit of the doubt if you're not Pebbles.

There is a reason that she's losing endorsements from long-time associates and losing super delegate support.