DNC Hacker Releases Trump Opposition File (gawker.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Following the report that Russian hackers penetrated the DNC's database and stole research on Donald Trump, a 200+ page Democratic anti-Trump playbook compiled by the DNC has leaked online. In the book, Trump is called a "bad businessman" and "misogynist in chief." The document was created on December 19th, 2015, and was sent to Gawker by a hacker calling himself "Guccifer 2.0." (Guccifer is a popular Romanian hacker who hacked various American political figures, most notably Hillary Clinton and her private server.) The hacker said in an email to Gawker that the package contains a variety of donor registries and other strategy files, "just a few docs from many thousands I extracted when hacking into DNC's network," adding that he's in possession of "about 100GB of data including financial reports, donors' lists, election programs, action plans against Republicans, personal mails, etc." His motive is to be "a fighter against all those illuminati that captured our world." The "Donald Trump Report," as it's called, appears to be a summary of the Democratic Party's strategy for delegitimizing and undermining Trump's presidential aspirations. There's a section titled "Top Narratives" that describes a seven-pronged attack on Trump's character and record. The hack was first revealed Tuesday by the cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike, linking the hack to Russian intelligence. Wikileaks founder Julian Assange says later this year it will publish enough new information about Hillary Clinton to indict her.

Comments

Doesn't Matter

[Anonymous Coward]

From perusing the table of contents, it looks like almost all of this is already well known (see the last couple weeks of NYT for articles about what a horrible real estate business man, husband, father, uncle, and University executive Trump has been).

Indeed many of the items listed are actually marketed as Trump himself and his followers as selling points (offensive and demeaning attitude to foreigners, for example).

But in the end, none of it matters. His followers are willing to forgive any behavior, no matter how crass, ignorant, or even downright evil. Trump literally would be able, as he pointed out, shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and still get elected president. They just don't care. And in fact will see this "oppo" research as more proof that the establishment is "out to get him" and so therefore must be elected.

Re:Doesn't Matter

[Dunbal]

Trump's mouth is almost as big as his ego. Newsflash. Also water is wet.

Re:Doesn't Matter

[Darinbob]

For bad business, check the last decade of news about Trump. He always aims big, bigger than he should, and sometimes he wins big but very often he loses big. Often when he loses he's just putting his name on someone else's product (his ego forces him to say that his name is his biggest asset) and is just a minor partner, so when a big Trump Brand loses big he's not losing much money. And with America's short term memory he's not losing much popularity when he loses big. His followers probably think anyone suing him is a damn democrat or a damn mainstream republican or is just trying to get rich by suing hard working patriots.

Probably some people think he's the smartest person on reality TV, which may actually be true, and therefore he's smart enough to be president. Others think he has a lot of money therefore he works very hard (the American myth that if you work hard you will get rich and if you don't work hard you will be poor); or because he's rich he knows how to balance the US budget; or becuase he's got a self serving book about how how to make a Deal that he can negotiate with Putin or Li Keqiang.

Re:Doesn't Matter

[Darinbob]

The Republican race started with at least 12 candidates who were better than Trump. (hedging here because there were a tiny number who were probably worse)

Re:Doesn't Matter

[MightyMartian]

Whatever Schwarzenegger is, he's no Trump. Most of his platform was fairly reasoned, though he did have to give the odd policy nod to the Republicans.

Re:Doesn't Matter

[Aighearach]

Governator was a moderate with a lot of Democratic supporters. "If I'm paying a lot of taxes, I must be making a lot of money."

No comparison at all. He's even a Kennedy by marriage.

This is a gift...

[Bartles]

...to Donald Trump. Who wouldn't want to know the other team's strategy and the information they are going to use to attack you?

Re:This is a gift...

[Bartles]

Yes, if Hillary is known for anything, it's truthfulness and correct statement of fact.

Re:This is a gift...

[phantomfive]

It is difficult to impossible to defend yourself against actual facts.

I see this is your first presidential election.

Re:This is a gift...

[swb]

Or is it?

If the facts and narrative of the files are legitimate, then they are bound to be bad for Trump. It may not matter if they're used strategically for so-called maximum impact -- releasing them at once may be like bomb, wounding Trump badly enough he can't regain momentum. And unlike carefully timed releases, the whole "stolen files" publicity may give the information the kind of self-perpetuating dynamic that keeps it in the public's eye longer than it would have on Meet the Press.

On the other hand, what if it's a plant? Just slander we already knew, served up on a different plate, by shadowy forces of "hackers" or "Russians" or some other ill-defined entity wanting to "ruin it for Hillary", with the DNC squealing all the way to November in righteous indignation? That kind of thing is just the sort of political theater you might expect and it can't help Trump, either, if he seems to be using it to his advantage.

I think generally speaking it's helpful to Trump if the leak is legitimate and represents their actual strategy. But none of it means they can't tweak their strategy, and if the information is damaging, well, it's still damaging.

Overall, I'd say very slight Trump advantage but with low-margin risks of serious blowback.

Re:This is a gift...

[AmiMoJo]

I'm more interested in the Russian security services angle. There have been allegations that Russia is campaigning for the UK to leave the EU too, as a way to weaken the EU. I would imagine they would see electing Trump as a way to weaken the US too, and the security firm that the DNC hired to investigate the hack claims it was Russian security services.

Re:This is a gift...

[AaronW]

Hillary Clinton:
http://www.politifact.com/pers...
True + Mostly True: 51%
False + Mostly False + Pants on Fire: 27%

Donald Trump:
http://www.politifact.com/pers...
True + Mostly True: 9%
False + Mostly False + Pants on Fire: 77%

And just for comparison, Bernie Sanders:
http://www.politifact.com/pers...
True + Mostly True: 51%
False + Mostly False + Pants on Fire: 30%

Re:This is a gift...

[Anonymous Coward]

Politifact is biased.

  "By levying 23 Pants on Fire ratings to Republicans over the past year compared to just 4 to Democrats, it appears the sport of choice is game hunting - and the game is elephants."
http://editions.lib.umn.edu/smartpolitics/2011/02/10/selection-bias-politifact-rate/

The Tampa Bay Times just endorsed Clinton for President. Why is this relevant? They own Politifact.
https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/45ml0p/the_tampa_bay_times_just_endorsed_clinton_for/

Re:This is a gift...

[drinkypoo]

And just for comparison, Bernie Sanders:
http://www.politifact.com/pers...
True + Mostly True: 51%
False + Mostly False + Pants on Fire: 30%

Not only is politifact biased, but your reporting of their reporting is shit. The most interesting thing about these ratings is not true+mostly true vs. false+etc. It's the pants on fire ratio. Politifact gives bernie a pants on fire score of zero but you've managed to conflate it there to make it look like he's a deceiver... because you're attempting to deceive. Luckily, I saw these charts this morning, so I know exactly what kind of nefarious bullshit you're up to.

Re:This is a gift...

[firewrought]

drinkypoo,
It seems to me that AaronW is summarizing rather than "attempting to deceive" the Slashdot audience with "nefarious bullshit". In context (observe Bartle's joke), he is simply trying to show that Clinton is more honest than Trump. Bernie was mentioned just for completeness.

However, AaronW did make a significant mathematical error by excluding the 32% "mostly false" category for Clinton. Her net false rating is 59%, not 27%. That significantly weakens his implicit claim that Clinton is significantly more honest than Trump, at least until you delve down into the more fine-grained ratings.

Moreover, PolitiFact percentages don't add up to 100% (nor close enough to reflect rounding). Their about page implies that each claim can only be assigned to one category, so quite possibly there's an error in how they are calculating percentages.

At any rate, let's try to conduct these conversations without personal attacks. Well, excluding obvious Microsoft shills anways, because, heh... we're Slashdot after all. :-)

Cordially,
firewrought

Re:This is a gift...

[david_thornley]

If they were that prejudiced against Republicans, why did Kasich do so well on Politifact? He was rated as about as honest as Clinton and Sanders.

The reason Politifact seems biased against Republicans right now is that there are a lot of Republicans who are lying. Religious fanatics tend to say things based on what they want to be true rather than what's true, and Trump of course is a liar. The Republican party in general is anti-inconvenient-science, currently more so than the Democrats.

I'd like to see the Republican Party come back to where it was some time ago, but it seems determined to attain irrational ideological purity at the expense of anything else - at least until the voters rebel and pick a candidate who isn't a hard-line conventional ideologically driven Republican.

"Change", versus "stay the course"

[Okian Warrior]

There's a really obvious reason why Trump is so popular.

A lot of people are facing complete ruin and are scared, holding their breath hoping that something will change.

Trump is the candidate for "change", and Clinton is the candidate for "stay the course".

I'm not a Clinton supporter, but I don't think that statement about Hillary is particularly controversial even among her supporters. She's definitely a political insider, is funded by moneyed interests, and her website has a list of issues that give a sense of "direction" without promising anything concrete. Typical of politicians for the last 50 years - nothing bad or unusual about that.

Trump has a list of 7 things that he will change, with a concrete list of changes for each. All of his proposed changes are aimed at making peoples' lives better.

People who are secure in their position, who have a job and don't see themselves being laid off or expect to find a new job quickly if they are laid off, should vote for Hillary. There are a lot of these people in the country, and "stay the course" is the least risky choice for them to make.

People who are unemployed, struggling, or in fear of losing their situation should vote for Trump, because he's proposing to make changes.

As the theory goes, when you're doing well you should minimise risk - don't do anything that could change your situation. When you're doing poorly, you can tolerate more risk in the hopes that it might help.

So it really all boils down to the proportion of people in the country who are at-risk and scared, versus the proportion who think the current situation is "pretty good".

We're presented with a never-ending stream of depressing news about this here on Slashdot, and you really can't trust the MSM any more, so it's easy to believe that majority of the country might be shivering in fear hoping for something to change, but that might not be an accurate view.

"Change" or "stay the course"? The voters will probably decide this November.

Re:"Change", versus "stay the course"

[PopeRatzo]

There's a really obvious reason why Trump is so popular.

The reason Trump is so popular is that he's actually not popular at all.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelli...

It's like a zen koan for morons: "He's so popular that 70% of people can't stand him."

Gamergate logic.

Re:"Change", versus "stay the course"

[phantomfive]

Typical of politicians for the last 50 years - nothing bad or unusual about that.

Being typical doesn't mean it's "not bad!"

Re:"Change", versus "stay the course"

[Anonymous Coward]

Trump has a list of 7 things that he will change [donaldjtrump.com], with a concrete list of changes for each. All of his proposed changes are aimed at making peoples' lives better.

Leaving aside that it would hardly be likely for him to propose worsening people's lives, your definition of concrete seems off.

Pay for the Wall? Proposal that relies on Mexico doing something and yet does nothing in itself. Wow, that's...kinda not concrete, when you look at it with a discerning eye. Sure, it seems like he's going to do something, but heck, just the issue of setting the borders is a complicated matter, let alone constructing anything along it.

Same with Immigration reform. Triple the number of ICE officers? That seems concrete, until you realize how much work it'll be. You can't just wave a wand and hire people. Same with his detention plans. Let's do it! Oh wait, how much will that cost? And you won't see any real proposals to make enforcement of E-verify a reality.

China? Oh, let's bring them to the bargaining table. As if they weren't already being negotiated with. Oh oh but he's going to have a zero tolerance IP policy. Durp, apparently we don't have any talks about that already. Oh but wait, he's going to be vigorously eliminating waste, fraud and abuse in the Federal government, ending redundant government programs, and growing the economy to increase tax revenues. How specific is that? Not at all, perhaps?

Healthcare? The only thing it gets right is that simple repeal isn't going to do shit. Unfortunately, it doesn't give us more than "Hey, Block Grants, let the states solve it" and "No more blocking drugs, let the pharmaceutical companies solve it!" and other stuff that won't help people's real problems.

VA? Oh my, going to any Medicare provider. But that assumes there are existing providers who can do the job. But he's going to INCREASE funding. Wait a second, I thought throwing money at problems was a bad idea? But wait, he's going to Transform the VA to meet the needs of 21st century service members! Is that supposed to be concrete?

Tax Reform? It claims to be revenue neutral. No numbers are shown. It can't even avoid talking about the estate tax as the death tax.

Gun Rights? Oh my, he says he's going to enforce the laws on the books. Yeah, that's very specific. Oh wait, he's going to make right to carry nationwide. IOW, he's going to tell states that they have to accept anybody with a gun that some state says is ok, with no safeguards. But he thinks that the right to travel isn't a right, and that recognizing that automobiles are used for that travel? What the fuck? Does Trump not know the Constitution at all? Or does he just buy into the empty NRA-style rhetoric without thinking about it? And the military doesn't want firearms uncontrolled on their bases. This is a deliberate and intentional choice to control the very serious danger of firearms. They have enough accidents in areas where they to have people armed, they aren't going to want to change that just because some idiot thinks it needs to be changed.

Sorry, but I see a blow-hard promising all sorts of shit, but actual delivery? That's another story.

Re:"Change", versus "stay the course"

[scatbomb]

Interesting that politicians appeal mostly to people's fears and insecurities. Fear of criminals, mass murders, fear of losing your job, xenophobia, fear of any number of disasters which each claims the other will bring if you don't elect the opposite as leader. Terror is just another word for fear, and one who uses terror to achieve political goals is a terrorist. Break the cycle, vote for somebody who doesn't need to scare you to get your support.

Re:"Change", versus "stay the course"

[Darinbob]

Except that no president can "fix" the economy. It's the responsiblity of the entire government not just whatever clown is in the oval office. Even then the entire government still has to rely on a good deal of luck. The government is basically able to nudge things in certain directions and provide for buffers against downturns. We've got one party who's mantra is to cut taxes when times are good and also cut taxes when times are bad, and we've got another party who is scared to do much at all for fear of spooking the middle class so they mostly just make big speeches.

There really isn't an option for positive change this time around. When you're down to your last dollar you dont put it into a slot machine at Vegas unless you're stupid.

Re:"Change", versus "stay the course"

[argStyopa]

Except that personal security is the FUNDAMENTAL contract between the governed and the governing.

As a theoretical exercise in a 'State of Nature' you can feed yourself, clothe yourself, house yourself...but protecting yourself is an escalating challenge: it's invariably going to involve 'needing more friends' than the other guy(s) which is the root of social organization. These people can't just do whatever they want, and consensus becomes difficult in larger groups, thus "government".

So I believe that this is the core thing that people expect from government: am I and my family, and to a lesser degree "our stuff" safe?

This is why fear works so well as a political tool, and why when this compact between citizens and government is perceived to be breaking down (ie today) the voters become astonishingly skittish, willing to make what they even may recognize as a stupid leader choice IF that leader is otherwise believed to be bringing them more safety.

Re:what matters

[Dorianny]

You realize Hillary is responsible for probably over a million deaths and a good part of Europe being overrun ?

There hasn't been a Secretary of State without blood on their hands since the "Monroe Doctrine."

Re:Wow

[oic0]

Not sure if should moderate troll or funny... so nothing lol.

Re: what matters

[20oz]

They tend to have a little less American diplomat blood though

Re:nah

[msauve]

"that wasn't an intentional crime"

Intention doesn't matter when classified materials are inappropriately handled. She was informed of, and signed off on, what the relevant legal rules were. There's also the smoking gun email, where she wrote "turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure" with regard to a classified fax, which does show intent.

Re: Anyone voting for Hillary should be tried...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sad, but a president must be able to send their people to die. It's part of the job. It's a qualification, not a liability.

Re:Wow

[FlyHelicopters]

You need her as President, to 'break the glass ceiling' as it were. To make the majority of you folk realize that a woman can lead.

By that logic, Sarah Palin would be the perfect President...

Re:Gamergate logic?

[Anonymous Coward]

Apropos of nothing, does your Gamergate logic explain why so many people voted for him?

Votes would seem to be a better measure, but then I'm not familiar with Gamergate logic.

GOP primary voters.

Approximately 14 million of them, and well, maybe you esteem their judgment, but I can't say I do. And 7.7 million of them picked Cruz, 3.5 million picked Rubio, and 4 million Kasich. What does that say?

Primary vs. General Election

[Goonie]

Being extremely popular with 30% of the Republican primary electorate in a divided and frankly weak field got him the nomination, but that's not enough to win him a general election.

Your guy is disliked by a far bigger proportion of the population than the proportion that like him. He is disliked far more than Hillary Clinton, according to the polls.

Your guy has little acquaintance with facts in his public rhetoric, but that doesn't make them go away. Trump will lose the general election to Hillary. The remaining question is whether his negative impact on the Republican vote will cost the GOP the House and Senate as well.

Redneck Liberal

[rsilvergun]

This is why Trump is popular.

Re: I know, right?

[Bartles]

linky

Re:Gamergate logic?

[PopeRatzo]

Apropos of nothing, does your Gamergate logic explain why so many people voted for him?

OK, let me unpack it for you, because I've studied this particular pathology in depth.

First, Trump has not really gotten that many votes, as a proportion of the total electorate, or even the Republican electorate. he's gotten about 13 million votes actually cast for him so far. In those same Republican primaries, there have been over 15 million votes cast against Trump. So a couple of million more Republicans voted against Donald Trump than for him. By the way, Hillary Clinton has also gotten over 2 million more primary votes than Donald Trump.

But here's the kicker: There are about 130,000,000 people who will vote in the next presidential election. Right now, Donald Trump has captured 10% of those votes. Do you think there are a lot of people who have been saying, "I'm going to wait to see what this Donald Trump is all about before I go out and actually cast a vote for him"?

This is why you hear about how "the demographics" overwhelmingly favor whomever the Democrats run in 2016. First, there are a lot more Democrats than Republicans in the US. Second, independents have actually been breaking against Donald Trump in the primaries. Third, even Republicans voted more often against Donald Trump than for him, and finally, the dude has a 70% disapproval rating since the end of the primaries. That means his disapproval numbers have jumped 10% in one month. His approval rating is at 29%, which is about the same as the approval rating of the mosquitoes that carry Zika virus.

It's time for you to start thinking of excuses for why Donald Trump got blown out in the general election. I suggest going with the, "they robbed him" excuse. That's a favorite of mine, and it's always been effective when my sports teams lose. Plus, it's almost certainly the excuse Donald will use because he seems constitutionally lacking in self-awareness. Come up with a good conspiracy theory and you'll be good to go for the next four long years that the unpleasant Mrs Clinton will be president.

Re:hijinks

[Darinbob]

One of the Koch brothers has said he'll vote for Hillary over Trump.

It's easy

[rsilvergun]

Google search the phase "Swiftboating". Then look up the stuff Karl Rove does.

Re: It's easy

[Boronx]

Except that they weren't there.

Re: It's easy

[MightyMartian]

And they weren't telling the truth.

Re:It's easy

[dywolf]

-Karl Rove created the swiftboating campaign.
-Kerry never said it before congress.
-when he did say it, it was as and with a profound sense of shame, and as part of his motivation to denounce the war, throw his medals away, etc.

in America we believe in redemption, and Kerry has more than redeemed himself.
yes, he is a hero.

It is you who have no shame, trying to spin things so disgustingly.

Re:Gamergate logic?

[amiga3D]

Really I imagine he'll probably lose in the general election. I suspect further that it wouldn't matter which Republican was running they'd lose as well. In fact I think Trump has a better chance than any of the others in the field. The reason is that I know a lot of people who voted this time around who haven't voted in years. Many who have never voted and registered so they could vote for Trump. He is not a politician and all the people that hate the lying fucking whores like Hillary finally got someone else to vote for. Sure he's a blowhard and a dirty bastard but compared to a shit stain like Hillary he looks pretty damn good. She's going to continue fucking us just like the bastard before her and the bastard before him. They're all a part of the same machine they just market them differently. I have no doubt that if by some miracle Trump managed to win it'd be a very short term before his aircraft malfunctioned or some nut case shot him. Can't have someone fucking up the system.

Sorry for the rant....I'm feeling especially cynical tonight. Can you blame me? I get to choose between a Crazy Bastard and a Crooked Bitch. Democracy??????

Re:Gamergate logic?

[PopeRatzo]

I get to choose between a Crazy Bastard and a Crooked Bitch.

I'm pretty sure that "Crazy Crooked Bastard" applies in this case:

http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/3...

http://dailycaller.com/2016/06...

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballo...

"Crooked Crazy Bastard" is also appropriate. I'm not sure why you'd think this indicates someone who would shake up the corrupt system.

http://img2.timeinc.net/people...

Guccifer Never Hacked Clinton's Server!!!

[quantaman]

Guccifer isn't a hacker, he's a dumbass who guessed password reset questions then dumped the contents for lulz.

Yet suddenly he claims to have actual "break into a server" hacking skills, uses those skills to crack into one of the biggest profile politicians on the planet, but suddenly thinks the contents are boring and doesn't dump anything??

He's just attention whoring as usual, when he was free he got attention by releasing dumps of emails that he has. But now he's in jail he can claim to have other super-duper important emails and he'd totally show them to you but he's in prison.

Stop feeding the damn troll!

Re:Guccifer Never Hacked Clinton's Server!!!

[quantaman]

This is Guccifer 2.0, totally different guy. Guccifer 1.0 is in FBI custody right now, and certainly didn't do this. Seriously, I am being serious.

I wasn't talking about Guccifer 2.0. The original Guccifer's made-up Clinton hack is included in the summary and treated as an established fact.

(Guccifer is a popular Romanian hacker who hacked various American political figures, most notably Hillary Clinton and her private server.)

This is the second time slashdot has fallen for this. I don't know if the editors are just clueless or they're getting flooded by political trolls who find the Guccifer claim to be a good attack against Clinton.

Re:Anyone voting for Hillary should be tried...

[MightyMartian]

If she's so fucking bad, then why did the GOP's two top nominees for her challenger represent the two most backward and unelectable factions of the party?

Re:Anyone voting for Hillary should be tried...

[MightyMartian]

It's irrelevant, really. Trump has absolutely no chance of winning. Christ, even the GOP knows it, and the number of senior Republicans who are either starting to say "No comment" a lot or outright stating they won't vote for him themselves is growing every day. At this point, I can only assume it's either Trump's utterly delusional fanbase or grumpy GOPers who still think that if they just attack enough times, somehow Trump will win.

I honestly hope the Republicans finally excise the lunatics from the party. They're going to have to, because the demographic war is not in their favor, and the more they cater to grumpy old men and Libertarian fruitcakes, the worse their long term fortunes will get.

Pray tell...

[Anonymous Coward]

Just WHAT are her much touted qualifications?

Worked as young lawyer on Democrat congressional team handling Nixon impeachment? - yes, but she was ejected by Democrats for being too unethical

Married a governor? So is Chris Christie's wife.

Married to a president? Ok...so was Nancy Reagan (both married to a governor and married to a president).

Given a safe senate seat? Very few are given such a safe seat, and she was not the first choice. The Democrats in NYC made no secret that they were holding other viable democrat candidates off from that race in the hopes that JFK jr would take it. Then he crashed his plane and the Democrats gave the seat to Hillary where the only thing of note that she did was to vote for the Iraq war.

Given the Sec State position? Sure. What was her training for that job? More importantly: what did she DO with that power? That "Arab Spring" worked out real well, right? The Russian "Reset" button? The woman practically lit the world on fire. Steve Erkel couldn't have done worse.

Instead of continually repeating the mantra from her campaign about being "the most qualified..." her supporters need to come up with a single example of what actually qualifies her to be president more than the nearest bus driver or public pool lifeguard most of whom have at least done SOMETHING useful with actual success.

Re:Pray tell...

[Crashmarik]

There isn't a school for politicians. She's a lawyer, she has served as a Senator and served in Cabinet. That seems a perfectly applicable set of qualifications to me.

So you don't consider having actually done something useful or beneficial to the country a needed qualification ?
Or perhaps not being under criminal investigation a needed qualification ?

Re:Pray tell...

[MightyMartian]

She's done as much as some fairly well respected presidents. Lincoln was lawyer and a legislator before he became president. By the same token Grant lead the Union to victory and was a fairly shitty president. Frankly your objection is spurious, and I susoect you know if.

Re:Pray tell...

[Crashmarik]

It makes me sad you can actually post in public comparing Hillary Clinton's early life to Lincoln's

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Just up top there Lincoln was an abolitionist, inventor, and soldier.

Hillary Defended Pedophiles, and married a draft dodger.

Re:Pray tell...

[dywolf]

this is the same ignorance that insists on demanding that muslims denounce terrorists, claiming they don't.

here.
LMGTFY

* Graduated from Yale Law School
* Worked as staff of a U.S. Senate subcommittee
* Staff of the Presidential Impeachment Inquiry Commitee,
advising the U.S. House Judiciary Committee during the Nixon impeachment proceedings.
* Faculty, University of Arkansas Law School
* Part-time chairman of the Legal Services Corporation, appointed by President Carter.
* Member of the Rose Law Firm
* National Law Journal named her twice one of the 100 most powerful lawyers in America
* Co-founded Arkansas Advocates for Children and Family
* Chaired the Arkansas Educational Standards Committee
* First Lady of Arkansas for 12 years
* First Lady of the United States of America for 8 years
* Chaired President Clinton's National Task Force on Health Care Reform
* Elected United States Senator from New York; served for eight years
* Served for five years as President Obama's Secretary of State, fourth in line of succession of the Presidency

http://addictinginfo.org/2015/...

Even though her major initiative, the Clinton healthcare plan, failed (due to Republican obstruction), you cannot deny that it laid ground for what we have today, the Affordable Healthcare Act, something Clinton supports and would continue.
She played a leading role in the development of State Children’s Health Insurance Program, which provides the much-needed state support for children whose parents cannot afford nor provide them with adequate healthcare coverage.
She was also instrumental in the creation of the Adoption and Safe Families Act and the Foster Care Independence Act.
Successfully fought to increase research funding for prostate cancer and asthma at the National Institute of Health (NIH).
She spearheaded investigations into mental illness plaguing veterans of the Gulf War; we now have a term for it – Gulf War Syndrome.
At the Department of Justice, she helped create the office on Violence Against Women.
She was instrumental in securing over $21 billion in funding for the World Trade Center redevelopment.
Took a leading role in the investigation of health consequences of first responders and drafted the first bill to compensate and offer the health services our first responders deserve (Clinton’s successor in the Senate, Kirsten Gillibrand, passed the bill).
Was instrumental in working out a bi-partisan compromise to address civil liberty abuses for the renewal of the U.S. Patriot Act.
  Proposed a revival of the New Deal-era Home Owners’ Loan Corporation to help homeowners refinance their mortgages in the wake of the 2008 financial disaster.
Was a major proponent of sensible diplomacy which brought about a ceasefire between Hamas and Israel, and brokered human rights with Burma.
Oversaw free trade agreements with our allies such as Panama, Colombia, and South Korea.
Was the most traveled Secretary of State to date.
The Clinton Foundation, founded by her and her husband, has improved the living conditions for nearly 400 million people in over 180 countries through its Initiative program.

These are not all of her accomplishments. Her activism on behalf of women a children across the world is renowned. Her activism for raising the minimum wage and combating climate change is stellar. You do not have to support what she does or stands for. But do not say she doesn’t have any accomplishments. The conservatives who say this are the ones who are pushing for Ted Cruz – who brought on a $24 billion shut down. That, to them, is an accomplishment?

Yes, Hillary Clinton has accomplishments. You don’t have to like them, but they do, in fact, exist.

Besides, after the abomination of Bush the Lesser...now you're worried about qualifications?

Re:Pray tell...

[dywolf]

oh, and about that Watergate comment:
http://www.snopes.com/politics...

A pair of articles published during Hillary Clinton's run for the presidency in 2008, one by Northstar Writers Group founder Dan Calabrese and one by Jerry Zeifman himself, asserted that Zeifman was Hillary's supervisor during the Watergate investigation and that he eventually fired her from the investigation for "unethical, dishonest" conduct. However, whatever Zeifman may have thought of Hillary and her work during the investigation, he was not her supervisor, neither he nor anyone else fired her from her position on the Impeachment Inquiry staff (Zeifman in fact didn't have the power to fire her, even had he wanted to do so), his description of her conduct as "unethical" and "dishonest" is his personal, highly subjective characterization, and the "facts" on which he bases that characterization are ones that he has contradicted himself about on multiple occasions.

Re: Pray tell...

[dywolf]

Bad at her? spoken like a deluded fool for whom up and down and down is up.
IE, typical conservative.

no less a person than Madeleine Albright stated that "Hillary’s Greatest Accomplishment at State Was to ‘Restore America’s Reputation"
And if you ask people in other countries, yes, contrary to the popular conservative myth, our standing in the world IS improved over Bush.
Obama didn't make us a laughingstock.
Bush did.
And Obama, with Hillary's work as Sec State, fixed it.

As senator she consistently fought for healthcare for the 9/11 responders, even as the bills were sidelined multiple times by the GOP.

Know how conservatives like to bash muslim countries by pointing out how (some of them) treat women and LGBT (while ignoring how poorly conservatives treat them)? As Sec State she spoke for womens and LGBT rights worldwide, even right in oppressive nations leader's faces, on their own soil.

She got expanded healthcare and leave benefits for military families.

That ceasefire between Isreal and Hamas? She negotiated it.

Know those islands China keeps claiming in the south sea? It's her actions that interjected the US into the dispute over concerns of keeping navigation of the oceans open.

She oversaw and was responsible for the New START Treaty.

Yes, she was a good Senator and good Sec State. Yes she wasn't perfect, as seen in the Libya bombing campaign. But no one is perfect, and for all the work she did do that never makes the front pages, all you idiots can focus on is one or two things and then claim she did nothing else. I mean seriously, this is the same old Hillary Derangement Syndrome that ignores reality. its worse and even more intractable than ODS ever was. She could literally cure cancer and you idiots would say she's putting doctors out of work.

More food for thought:
https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Re:Pray tell...

[Grishnakh]

Yep, back in the old days, our Presidents and other leading politicians (like Ben Franklin) were frequently polymaths. Jefferson was also an inventor, a businessman, and philosopher, for instance.

These days, our politicians are just lawyers who have no other skills or interests whatsoever, and somehow think that qualifies them for leadership positions.

Re:Gamergate logic?

[MightyMartian]

The worst thing about the Trump University fiasco isn't that he's a scam artist, it's that several years worth of work by Republicans working on the ground in battleground states to build support among the Latino community have literally been wiped out. I really do feel sorry for those people. I just can't imagine putting your heart and soul into trying to build support for your political party to have its presidential candidate, its leader, nuke the whole damned thing from orbit because he's pissy about a lawsuit.

South Park

[EEPROMS]

When I look at the US presidential candidates I can help but think of the South Park episode where they had to choose between a douche and a shit sandwich.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:what matters

[Plammox]

Oh, it's just ketchup.

Re:Give Me a Hit Off That Smoking Gun

[Aighearach]

The specifics is, the technology wasn't working, she was traveling, she needed to communicate normally-secure travel plans, and they used a non-secure channel. None of it was classified at the time, it gets a classification afterwards. But it was sensitive information, because it affects her security. But those are decisions you have to make when traveling and the "secure channel" is broken. If you just hunker down whenever that happens, that also creates a security risk.

None of the "accusations" involve documents that were classified at the time.

Re:what matters

[KozmoStevnNaut]

Yeah, I also live in Europe, and I'm not seeing anywhere that's being overrun.

In fact, the only real danger we're facing is the rapid rise of new nationalistic extreme right-wing political parties, due to the general escalation of hatred and mistrust in western society, caused by the FYGM policies enacted by our shitheel politicians.

Re:Anyone voting for Hillary should be tried...

[Walter White]

It's irrelevant, really. Trump has absolutely no chance of winning. ...

Trump has absolutely no chance of winning the Primary.

Or so I thought. And I was wrong, along with a lot of others. I would like to agree with you but I am not so certain.

Both Trump and Clinton are widely disliked. That will suppress voter turnout. With fewer votes it is easier for the election to tip one way or the other. This election may be decided more by who does not vote than those who do. Those of us who agree that a Trump presidency would be a Bad Thing(tm) can only hope that Trump is disliked more on election day than Clinton.

Re: Anyone voting for Hillary should be tried...

[dywolf]

No, it just takes someone who lives in reality.
reality being the acknowledgement that bush had ~60 benghazis and you twits don't even acknowledge that.
reality being that you shouldn't get your talking points frm Michael bay movies.
reality being that no one was "left to die"

Re:what matters

[drinkypoo]

There hasn't been a Secretary of State without blood on their hands since the "Monroe Doctrine."

So, she's evil like everyone else who has been selected to do her job. That's still an indictment, not an excuse.

Re: Wow

[Sir_Eptishous]

I am not opposed to Hilary because she is a woman. I am opposed to Hilary because she has a decades long record of making horrible decision, which often result in the unnecessary deaths of civilians and other non-combatants.

If that is your real reason you need to actually read some history of presidential decisions then, because they have all done that.

Re: what matters

[david_thornley]

Okay, what did Clinton do wrong with Benghazi? She had limited resources, and Congress refused to provide the additional resources she asked for. She distributed her security forces in a reasonable way, and that's all she could do. Once the attack started, there was nothing she could do to affect the outcome. If you're accusing her of causing the deaths of diplomats, everything that happened after the attack is irrelevant.

She went through more than a dozen Congressional inquiries from a very hostile Congress, and none of them was able to pin wrongdoing on her.

It's things like the constant harping on Benghazi that make me slow to believe anything bad I hear about her, since so much of what bad stuff I hear is malicious lies and half-truths.

Re:hijinks

[Coren22]

Whipslash for president?

I'd vote for you.