We've known Hillary for long time, her charity works towards numerous other humanitarian issues etc.
1. She gave and delivered a kickass commencement speech at Wellesley College in 1969.
2. She was one of 27 women who graduated from Yale Law School in 1973, out of a class of 235.
3. She was the only woman on the Nixon impeachment investigation team.
4. She cofounded the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families advocacy group.
5. She broke the mold for first ladies with her speech at the 1995 United Nations Women's Conference in China.
6. She won a Grammy for the audio edition of her book, It Takes a Village.
7. She worked with Ted Kennedy to expand the Children's Health Insurance Program.
8. She won the most votes of any female presidential candidate in history.
9. She set the stage for Obamacare by pushing health care reform in the '90s and during the 2008 campaign.
10. She became the most-traveled U.S. secretary of state ever.
11. She set into motion the first American talks with Iran since the 1979 revolution.

Now who is Bernie Sanders, I don't know, I really don't know and to me he popped up suddenly out of nowhere. If you are partaking in a match, there has to be someone to compete with. I believe any contenders to Hillary are just those out there just for the sake of it(match aka debate). And for someone like me when I saw him suddenly on TV saying that he's getting donation for his campaign not from billionaires but public. People paid standing ovation with round of applause, so? so what's the point? Does that make him saint? But to lot of people that made sense and now he's everyone's' talk of the night. Yes, there are things that make lot of sense to people. The same people who would believe they're getting free Ipad on some fake facebook page of real publication, the same people who follow Trump the maniac, the same fans who would like/share tweets of their drughigh fav singer who claims earth is flat, the same people who resend/retext/reshare religious messages out of fear(do this or curse would happen type), the same people who argues Ron Paul's gold theory must come back in action, the same people who believe and sell all their belongings in the name of judgment day only to turn into homeless next day, seriously I sometimes think how gullible we are to think whatever we hear and see are the truths. Bernie Sanders is another hype to me. Few videos on youtube found me the guy was a big time critique of democratic party itself, and didn't spare Obama policy from criticizing. I am afraid of sweet talkers and often time they're the back stabbers.

In all honesty, I really can't trust this Bernie dude and it seems like how honestly he's saying his things, Hillary is the way to go. Campaigns can't be run without money, however way you get it, you need money. He'll be in billionaire's pocket too if he's to get presidency. Those who think he's not going to be, are just type of people I mentioned in a paragraph above this.

If you are OBAMA supporters, VOTE for Hillary, if you are not VOTE for bernie.

Good Luck.

I'm seeing Hillary Clinton as the next president of the United States of America.

Hillary is a stooge of Donald Trump. Donald Trump has given her so much money that if she runs against him, he will eat her alive.

I’m a Hillary Clinton fan. But I hope she bows out with grace

Mary Dejevsky

Monday 17 August 2015 14.27 EDTLast modified on Tuesday 18 August 201507.13 EDT

• Share on Pinterest
• Share on LinkedIn
• Share on Google+

Shares

8,249

Comments

1,882

 Save for later

Hillary Clinton has a fundraising pot that is overflowing. She appears to be cruising to the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination: and then, if the stars align in her favour, on to a well-deserved place in history as the first female president of the United States.

Her supporters have wished it for so long, it seems almost impossible that it might not come to pass. And I would count myself among those supporters, ever since – as a Washington-based correspondent – I watched the lobbyists gang up to defeat her health plan, and observed how she toughed out the sordid revelations about her husband and “that woman, Miss Lewinsky”.

Clinton, as she showed then and has shown since, is not one to walk away. She embodies that all-American quip about the going getting tough and the tough getting going. But I just hope that there are those, somewhere in her entourage, who are even now begging her not to do it, and to bow out while there is still time to do so with grace.

Reality must be looked in the eye. Clinton is a hugely divisive figure, including within her own party – and not primarily because she is a woman. There is the clan question. What does it say about the meritocratic credentials of the United States that two of the most favoured candidates for 2016 are closely related to recent presidents? Neither is to blame but in my book, this alone would be a reason for both Clinton and Jeb Bush to leave the field. It is also a reason why they may not be electable.

Then there is the Bill question. A large section of the Republican party hates the Clinton name with the same venom that many Britons reserve for Margaret Thatcher, blaming Bill, as they see it, for defiling the presidency. This should not affect Hillary Clinton’s support – but it will limit her ability to appeal across parties. Nor do US voters need to be dragged all over again through the intricacies of the (loss-making) Whitewater land deal, the involvement of the Rose Law firm, or the suicide of a close aide, but they probably will. And if these Bill questions are not enough, there is another where she really does have some explaining to do: it concerns her involvement with his post-presidential charitable fundraising at a time when she held public office.

Clinton’s chief liability, though, is the baggage she carries of her own. This includes the matter of that private email account she is claimed to have used professionally while secretary of state, and her handling of the murder of the US ambassador in Libya. The latter suggests a reluctance to accept ultimate responsibility, which is not a good recommendation for a president. The former suggest

Clinton’s chief liability, though, is the baggage she carries of her own. This includes the matter of that private email account she is claimed to have used professionally while secretary of state, and her handling of the murder of the US ambassador in Libya. The latter suggests a reluctance to accept ultimate responsibility, which is not a good recommendation for a president. The former suggests confusion about where to draw the line between the personal and the professional – a line more clearly drawn in US politics than here. Her explanations – most recently to reporters in Iowa, where she talked about “convenience” that turned out “to be not so convenient” – remain unsatisfactory and high-handed.

Most unfair of all is the health question. In her last weeks as secretary of state, Clinton spent a few days in hospital being treated for a blood clot, the prognosis being a complete recovery. When she first mooted running again for the presidency, however, George Bush’s former attack-dog, Karl Rove, cited that incident to sow doubt about her health. He was criticised even by fellow Republicans at the time, but presidential campaigns are ruthless. If she wins the nomination, the health issue will not be off limits.

For Clinton even to consider halting her campaign would, of course, be wrenching, and not only for reasons of personal ambition. As her loyalty to her parents and her wayward husband showed, she is imbued with a deep sense of duty, and duty doubtless plays a role in her campaign. As the one woman with the profile and fundraising capacity to reach the White House in 2016, she would surely prefer to entrust her fate first to the delegates of the Democratic convention and then to the voters of the United States. This would be understandable but misguided. In any pursuit there comes a point of no return, and with a pre-campaign fixture – the Iowa State Fair – out of the way, that point is fast approaching.

As it happens, yesterday was the anniversary of Bill Clinton’s public admission of his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Today is the anniversary of that gruesome family tableau – Hillary, Chelsea, Bill, and dog Buddy – taking the long walk across the White House lawn to the helicopter that would whisk them away to their holiday on Martha’s Vineyard.

In the 17 years since then, Clinton has become the first former first lady to win a Senate seat, and the first woman to be elected as a US senator for New York. These years also included her defeat for the Democratic nomination to the one candidate in a generation whose appeal outstripped hers. And she spent four of them travelling the world as US secretary of state. It is a distinguished and remarkable career, but it is now time to call it quits, while the decision is still hers to make.

She can cite personal reasons (concerns about her husband’s health, for instance), or the hope that she has left time for another woman – the Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren, or the health secretary, Kathleen Sebelius – to run. But call it quits she should, unbeaten.

Richie, u can just put the links for these articles. You don't have to copy/paste an entire article if it's not your words. I'll delete your posts if you do it again.

lmao :)

Why Bernie Sanders tuawks like that ? A short history on Brooklyn-NY accent.

Bittertruth sorry for late reply. I was not aware that you are not allowed to copy paste.

Anyways here's a link to see if you know HIllary

http://myhillary.me/soyouthinkyouknow/

Damn.... So much hate!! I was all for hillary until @bittertruth posted a clip from fox news to support his hate for bernie and to tell us he is not good to be president!! ;D

Damii!!!
But i am on trumptrain2016!!!

This is ingenious. A petition to allow guns into the republican convention has received over 32k signatures. Let's sign this petition and give the republicans a taste of their own medicine :D

https://www.change.org/p/quicken-loans-arena-allow-open-carry-of-firearms-at-the-quicken-loans-arena-during-the-rnc-convention-in-july-2

@anamolities, I couldn't care less. By the way, some facts can't be ignored even if it's coming out of shit.

At this point of time now, there isn't even enough room for slandering. It's now just wait and see game.

Sanders won 3 states. Now he gotta win most of the major states out there including California, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and New York. If he wins New York and California, it's going to be unprecedentedly tough for Hillary. Just like the victory that we saw yesterday, Bernie has to win other states in similar pattern. Close or upset victory wouldn't make big of a difference for his chance of winning the nomination. Democrats award delegates proportionally. Bernie can't just win barely like he did in Michigan. That turnover results just modest gains in delegates and that will not guarantee his victory. It might look like he's winning but with such a lead currently Hillary has, he might lose eventually.

Hillary has current lead of 1712 delegates.
Bernie has 1004 delegates.
And, it takes 2382 delegates to win.

Simple math says Hillary only needs 670 delegates whereas Bernie is going to need whopping 1378 delegates.
(These statistics are going to change up until summer)

Like I wrote earlier, Bernie has to sweep up all remaining states. Unlike republican, a winning in democrats don't take it all away. If Bernie could pull massive victory in those 4 states above I mentioned, his chance of winning nomination comes to almost fruition. If he just win them like almost 50-50 he did in Michigan, he will unexpectedly lose.

On the Contrary, if Hillary even wins California or New York, that would simply be the final nail in the coffin for Bernie's nomination.

Things are getting interesting, lets just speculate. As some people may infer this as my prediction, what I implied is just an analysis.

Peace
:)

If you put superdelegates aside, Hillary has 1243 pledged delegates and Bernie has 975. 2049 delegates are still up for grabs. If Bernie wins 56.54% of the remaining delegates, he will tie with Hillary. As far as the superdelegates are concerned, they are not bound. They can switch their allegiance to Bernie the same way they switched from Hillary to Obama in 2008. So, Bernie can still win the nomination. All he needs is 56.54% of the remaining delegates which doesn't sound very improbable.

BT bro ..Here is the difference between prediction and fair analysis..

Likewise mainstream media, you also failed to mention that Hillary's delegate count also consists of 482 super delegates who are free to change their stands whenever they want. Even that is very unlikely to happen, for the sake of fair analysis you have to write what happens if those super delegates change their position and Bernie keep improving his performance. But you prefer to dismiss that fact and still want us to call your opinionated argument (prediction) a fair analysis ?

Fact is fact, it's pretty straightforward and I must reiterate — as of now simple math says Hillary only needs 670 delegates whereas Bernie is going to need whopping 1378 delegates.

So, I don't give priority to "would've-could've-should've" kind of thing. If not giving priority to such assumption is not doing a fair analysis, then there is some issues in understanding things on your end. I apologize if it's pretty harsh to say but I rarely dwell in figment of my own imagination. You could, but I don't. That last post, I've made is actually a bitter truth. I'm not siding with anyone there. I'm just analyzing what outcomes could come based on current context to each candidate. How fair can it get than this from hardened Hillary support now that he's realizing the fact that both candidates have equal chance to pull the flag up.

By the way, it's not 482, it's 469 super delegates she has right now.
Hillary => 1712(Total delegates)-1243(pledged delegates) = 469 super delegates :)

I know this post of mine will look hilarious when these numbers change in couple of days. My point is when someone doesn't even have simple grasp of delegate maths, comes with wrong figures to discuss and validate their points.

Rest assured, I wouldn't be surprised if Hillary would be faced with the same fate that she faced during Obama election.

The latest installment of “The Internet Explodes with Hatred for Hillary Clinton” happened earlier this month. The Democratic presidential candidate, whose own record on AIDS research and funding is better than any other candidate, mistakenly said that former US first lady Nancy Reagan was a key supporter of AIDS research. Reagan was, in reality, horrible about AIDS in every possible way. Clinton immediately apologized, then apologized again, at length. Yet we’re still seeing a wagonload of “I’ll never vote for her” claims from progressives, as if her words about Reagan trump–and I’m using that verb deliberately–her actual record on AIDS research and funding. Why?

Clinton’s stellar record on AIDS is ignored while people indignantly attack her for making an inaccurate statement. I like Bernie Sanders. I really do feel the Bern. But I see Democrats brush aside things that he and other male politicians have done while raining fire on Hillary for the exact same thing–or something much less.

This happens all the time. Clinton is flamed for being a “career politician” and an “insider” when Sanders has been in political office much longer than she has. (Clinton was first elected to political office in 2000; Sanders was elected to his first office in 1981 and his first national office in 1991.) People flame Clinton for speaking in favor of the omnibus crime bill in the 1990s when she was first lady, a position with no political power. But Sanders, as a member of Congress, actually had the power to enact it into law, voting in favor of it despite the fact that many of his colleagues did not.

I’m not here to argue about Clinton versus Sanders. I genuinely like them both. I’m here to say that I’m sick of seeing her reviled for the same things people forgive easily when they’re done by men, and that the stakes are too high this election cycle to indulge that or leave it unexamined. If you’re reviling Clinton for saying something racist and stupid in 1994 in favor of a crime bill that turned out to be a very bad idea, but you’re not reviling Sanders for actually using his political power to pass that very bad crime bill law, I want you to take a long, long think about why that is. If you’re reviling Clinton for campaign contributions made by banks, but did not revile Barack Obama for the same thing, I want you to take a long, long think about why that is.

Those of us who are old enough to remember what it was like to live under the Reagan and the Bush administrations remember how bad it was. How much better almost everything–including the economy and job growth—got under Bill Clinton and Obama. I lived through this, and I would support half a Snapple as the Democratic nominee rather than go back to the policies of Reagan or (any) Bush.

I see people swear up and down their hatred of Clinton isn’t because she’s a woman, or doesn’t stem directly from decades of vicious, lying conservative propaganda— they will swear it!–and then immediately turn around and eviscerate her for something Sanders did (or is) himself, or call her a “crook,” or say nonsense like, “She doesn’t have an honest bone in her body.” Conservative copywriters, whoever you are, I applaud you for your success in taking a complete and total fabrication and successfully integrating it so far into the American consciousness that there are people who agree with nearly every policy position Clinton has today, yet will still claim that she’s “dishonest.” That’s some impressive chicanery, and I mean that.

We should be closely examining all candidates for office, and balanced, honest criticism of a candidate’s record and policies is crucial. Respectful debate about the candidates is necessary and healthy. But supporting Sanders should not be the same as hating Clinton. Too many people are not debating the candidates and their various records or platforms logically, instead viciously reviling Clinton–often in misogynistic terms–for things they routinely excuse in male politicians. And I have to say, the level of unfocused, irrational vitriol feels an awful lot like what conservatives have been doing to Obama for years.

There’s not a thing wrong with choosing Sanders over Clinton, or disliking Clinton’s current policy proposals. However, the out-and-out hatred we’re seeing from some Sanders supporters (and about which I am hardly the first person to write) bears some serious scrutiny. While the Sanders campaign has made real efforts to deal with the worst of it–the “Bernie Bros” acting as a misogynistic mob, attacking Clinton and her supporters Gamergate-style; the “Bern the Witch” controversy–there’s still far too much active hatred, and far too much of it is misogynistic or coded misogyny. Far too much of it stems from willing belief in conservative propaganda about Clinton that has been debunked over and over.

I think we all expected it, but I did not expect it from our side.

It’s one thing to prefer one candidate over another. That’s healthy. That’s admirable. It’s another to actively hate a candidate for doing exactly the same things as the last three men you voted for, despite her liberal record.

Let’s think practically about the election in November.

If Trump gets elected, how many vulnerable people will be hurt, how many programs cut, how bad will the the economy get under conservative policies? How much damage will be done if Trump, an open racist and misogynist, is empowered to command our military, veto bills, and nominate people to the Supreme Court, impacting life in the US for decades to come? Trump exhorts his followers to attack Black protestors at his rallies (“The next time we see him, we might have to kill him,” a follower said  after punching a Black protestor at a rally earlier this week), excuses his followers who attack Mexicans on the street, claims Mexican immigrants are rapists, refused to distance himself from the KKK, supports banning Muslims from even entering the US, advocates killing the families of terrorists, and is openly sexist. Trump is the worst America has to offer.
 .
How privileged do you need to be to imagine that it’s a good idea to risk the actual lives of vulnerable Americans because you “hate” Hillary so much you vow to stay home if Sanders doesn’t get the nomination? How protected from the consequences of a Trump presidency do you need to be to think your hatred of Hillary constitutes, as I saw someone say earlier this week, an “inviolable principle,” meaning, more important than the actual lives of vulnerable Americans? That all applies equally to anyone saying the same about Sanders. (We have yet to see the full weight of American antisemitism aimed at Sanders, and if he wins the nomination, we most certainly will.)
.
Vote for whoever you like in the primary. But let’s step away from vicious attacks and hatred. Let’s step away from buying into debunked conservative propaganda about Clinton’s trustworthiness. Let’s look at the candidates’ actual proposals and weigh those proposals’ actual strengths and weaknesses. Let’s respect each other’s choices in the primaries.

And whoever becomes the Democratic nominee, the stakes are far, far too high for us to selfishly stay home because we didn’t get our first choice. I will happily, proudly vote for either Clinton or Sanders, and I hope you will do the right thing and join me.

BT bro ...did you just lose your cool ?
Please eat more greens and continue practicing meditation.

AS OF NOW ? Are you serious ? Do you need to do so called ANALYSIS to tell us what is happening AS OF NOW ? Isn't that straight forward ? We all know that Hillary Clinton has more number of pledged delegates and super delegates than Bernie Sanders AS OF NOW. If I got wrong number then unlike you I don't have any problem acknowledging my mistake. But my question is are we talking about what is happening AS OF NOW or what could happen in next several months ?

I don't have any interest to know what your PRIORITIES are, but I am amazed with your ignorance. Politics is not a simple math as you claim. But do you understand the importance of variables in mathematical functions? For you it is like who cares. You just give PRIORITY to variables that favor your hypothesis and make one of kind analysis. What a superb way of doing mathematics !

Earlier you posted half truth and your last post* (you posted another one before I made this post) is nothing more than bitterness ( bullheadedness, arrogance, and disrespect). You even didn't bother to mention who you are referring to in your arguments. You can't bring peace in this world just by inserting that word. First of all, you need to pacify yourself, your need peace of your mind. Then there are few other words like respect and love. Once again, I suggest you to eat more greens and continue practicing meditation.

Last thing, please don't make any serious commitment that you will never appear in Sajha if Hillary loses the nomination. Even if Bernie wins the nomination, we will still need you in Sajha.

GT bro, there is no need to slander one candidate over another when they're from the same party. Is it really that hard to get? I give my priority to facts, not assumption, assumption of 'delegates might switch to other side'. You came up with pure assumption while I am on the other hand was presenting the 'stat' de facto. I am not denying the fact of delegates switching sides but that's not the current scenario. When that happens, then we can talk. I didn't know you give priority to 'assumptions' over 'facts.

When I wrote 'as of now', I didn't conclude anything, I just wrote in plain simple language that as of now this and that delegates. Both candidates might need this and that leftover delegates based on 'this and that' now. Simple. :)

I know you have been just scanning few lines and replying back like a chatbot otherwise you wouldnt' have missed me saying "I don't really care whoever wins Hillary or Bernie". So, there is no question for me to feel embarrassment if Hillary loses nomination, it's still Bernie for me. See, you are making another wrong assumption about me. I don't blame you, you jumped in the middle of the conversation and you are lost. I'm not leaving sajha lol.

Anyway, judging me and suggesting me to do totally irrelevant stuff is bit childish. :)

I can clearly see you are losing your cool. I apologize if that raised your BP though it wasn't intended.

bittertruth, that's a well written article. The article resonates with me. I wish Bernie supporters would stop harboring bitterness and hatred against Hillary.

lol BT bro .. 120/70... no it is not the number of delegates or super delegates... it is my BP in mm Hg AS OF NOW ... lol