Politifact:Hillary Clinton's claim about being "dead broke" is mostly false.

[Fed. Pac. Chairman Devin]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/jun/10/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-says-she-and-bill-were-dead-broke/

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

Who the hell cares

[Fed. Pac. Chairman Devin]

Who the hell cares

Right, its so much more important to discuss random people from Kentucky wanting a Pakistani President. Or the something crazy a Republican SS candidate from NOVA said. The only reason you don't care is because its Hillary. If it were Rand Paul 100 bucks says this story would be all over the forum.

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

Who the hell cares

Right, its so much more important to discuss random people from Kentucky wanting a Pakistani President. Or the something crazy a Republican SS candidate from NOVA said. The only reason you don't care is because its Hillary. If it were Rand Paul 100 bucks says this story would be all over the forum.

Nah, I don't think it would. I'd take that bet.

[Fed. Pac. Chairman Devin]

Who the hell cares

Right, its so much more important to discuss random people from Kentucky wanting a Pakistani President. Or the something crazy a Republican SS candidate from NOVA said. The only reason you don't care is because its Hillary. If it were Rand Paul 100 bucks says this story would be all over the forum.

Nah, I don't think it would. I'd take that bet.

Oh really? How many threads were there when she got caught lying about dodging sniper fire? Now compare that to the number of threads about pretty much anything said by Paul.

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

Who the hell cares

Right, its so much more important to discuss random people from Kentucky wanting a Pakistani President. Or the something crazy a Republican SS candidate from NOVA said. The only reason you don't care is because its Hillary. If it were Rand Paul 100 bucks says this story would be all over the forum.

Nah, I don't think it would. I'd take that bet.

Oh really? How many threads were there when she got caught lying about dodging sniper fire? Now compare that to the number of threads about pretty much anything said by Paul.

She said that during the divisive 2008 primary. I'm pretty sure, of the gaffe got a lot of public attention, then there were a lot of threads on the subject. Hillary-love was basically nonexistent around here in 2008.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Who the hell cares

Right, its so much more important to discuss random people from Kentucky wanting a Pakistani President. Or the something crazy a Republican SS candidate from NOVA said. The only reason you don't care is because its Hillary. If it were Rand Paul 100 bucks says this story would be all over the forum.

Nah, I don't think it would. I'd take that bet.

Oh really? How many threads were there when she got caught lying about dodging sniper fire? Now compare that to the number of threads about pretty much anything said by Paul.

She said that during the divisive 2008 primary. I'm pretty sure, of the gaffe got a lot of public attention, then there were a lot of threads on the subject. Hillary-love was basically nonexistent around here in 2008.

I'll grant you that Hillary was not loved much in 2008 here (I wouldn't join for another three years, but I have read some old threads), but Devin is still correct in noting the number of "LOL NAZI RAND PAUL" threads....

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

Who the hell cares

Right, its so much more important to discuss random people from Kentucky wanting a Pakistani President. Or the something crazy a Republican SS candidate from NOVA said. The only reason you don't care is because its Hillary. If it were Rand Paul 100 bucks says this story would be all over the forum.

Nah, I don't think it would. I'd take that bet.

Oh really? How many threads were there when she got caught lying about dodging sniper fire? Now compare that to the number of threads about pretty much anything said by Paul.

She said that during the divisive 2008 primary. I'm pretty sure, of the gaffe got a lot of public attention, then there were a lot of threads on the subject. Hillary-love was basically nonexistent around here in 2008.

I'll grant you that Hillary was not loved much in 2008 here (I wouldn't join for another three years, but I have read some old threads), but Devin is still correct in noting the number of "LOL NAZI RAND PAUL" threads....

If you search for Rand Paul threads in the 2016 and US General Discussion threads the only things even remotely close to "LOL NAZI RAND PAUL" threads are the ones talking about him plagiarizing Wikipedia, attempting to disqualify HRC for Pres. by hitting Bill on his "predatory behavior", his new-confederate media guy, and his comment on trading Dems instead of Taliban members (which are all pretty legitimately crazy and out there crap). The rest are his attempts to expand the party base by throwing off GOP orthodoxy.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Who the hell cares

Right, its so much more important to discuss random people from Kentucky wanting a Pakistani President. Or the something crazy a Republican SS candidate from NOVA said. The only reason you don't care is because its Hillary. If it were Rand Paul 100 bucks says this story would be all over the forum.

Nah, I don't think it would. I'd take that bet.

Oh really? How many threads were there when she got caught lying about dodging sniper fire? Now compare that to the number of threads about pretty much anything said by Paul.

She said that during the divisive 2008 primary. I'm pretty sure, of the gaffe got a lot of public attention, then there were a lot of threads on the subject. Hillary-love was basically nonexistent around here in 2008.

I'll grant you that Hillary was not loved much in 2008 here (I wouldn't join for another three years, but I have read some old threads), but Devin is still correct in noting the number of "LOL NAZI RAND PAUL" threads....

If you search for Rand Paul threads in the 2016 and US General Discussion threads the only things even remotely close to "LOL NAZI RAND PAUL" threads are the ones talking about him plagiarizing Wikipedia, attempting to disqualify HRC for Pres. by hitting Bill on his "predatory behavior", his new-confederate media guy, and his comment on trading Dems instead of Taliban members (which are all pretty legitimately crazy and out there crap). The rest are his attempts to expand the party base by throwing off GOP orthodoxy.

All of which are as relevant as Clinton lying about her debt.

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

Who the hell cares

Right, its so much more important to discuss random people from Kentucky wanting a Pakistani President. Or the something crazy a Republican SS candidate from NOVA said. The only reason you don't care is because its Hillary. If it were Rand Paul 100 bucks says this story would be all over the forum.

Nah, I don't think it would. I'd take that bet.

Oh really? How many threads were there when she got caught lying about dodging sniper fire? Now compare that to the number of threads about pretty much anything said by Paul.

She said that during the divisive 2008 primary. I'm pretty sure, of the gaffe got a lot of public attention, then there were a lot of threads on the subject. Hillary-love was basically nonexistent around here in 2008.

I'll grant you that Hillary was not loved much in 2008 here (I wouldn't join for another three years, but I have read some old threads), but Devin is still correct in noting the number of "LOL NAZI RAND PAUL" threads....

If you search for Rand Paul threads in the 2016 and US General Discussion threads the only things even remotely close to "LOL NAZI RAND PAUL" threads are the ones talking about him plagiarizing Wikipedia, attempting to disqualify HRC for Pres. by hitting Bill on his "predatory behavior", his new-confederate media guy, and his comment on trading Dems instead of Taliban members (which are all pretty legitimately crazy and out there crap). The rest are his attempts to expand the party base by throwing off GOP orthodoxy.

All of which are as relevant as Clinton lying about her debt.

They're nowhere near as relevant. In what way are Rand Paul's crazy beliefs and associations as relevant as the Clintons' debt status. I'd rate this as even less relevant than Romney's out of touch "I'm unemployed too" comments.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Who the hell cares

Probably the 2016 Presidential Election Board, which is where I'm moving this thread to.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

what a surprise

[dead0man]

I don't understand her point for adding it in the book.  Trolling for sympathy?  Seems she'd have better angles to attack that with than this one.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Who the hell cares

Right, its so much more important to discuss random people from Kentucky wanting a Pakistani President. Or the something crazy a Republican SS candidate from NOVA said. The only reason you don't care is because its Hillary. If it were Rand Paul 100 bucks says this story would be all over the forum.

Nah, I don't think it would. I'd take that bet.

Oh really? How many threads were there when she got caught lying about dodging sniper fire? Now compare that to the number of threads about pretty much anything said by Paul.

She said that during the divisive 2008 primary. I'm pretty sure, of the gaffe got a lot of public attention, then there were a lot of threads on the subject. Hillary-love was basically nonexistent around here in 2008.

I'll grant you that Hillary was not loved much in 2008 here (I wouldn't join for another three years, but I have read some old threads), but Devin is still correct in noting the number of "LOL NAZI RAND PAUL" threads....

If you search for Rand Paul threads in the 2016 and US General Discussion threads the only things even remotely close to "LOL NAZI RAND PAUL" threads are the ones talking about him plagiarizing Wikipedia, attempting to disqualify HRC for Pres. by hitting Bill on his "predatory behavior", his new-confederate media guy, and his comment on trading Dems instead of Taliban members (which are all pretty legitimately crazy and out there crap). The rest are his attempts to expand the party base by throwing off GOP orthodoxy.

All of which are as relevant as Clinton lying about her debt.

They're nowhere near as relevant. In what way are Rand Paul's crazy beliefs and associations as relevant as the Clintons' debt status. I'd rate this as even less relevant than Romney's out of touch "I'm unemployed too" comments.

Because the typical voter is more willing to tolerate some differences in policy preferences than a perception that a politician is an out and out liar who thinks the voters are too gullible to notice their prevarications.  Voters don't expect to find a candidate who they agree with 100% of the time, but they do expect to find candidates who don't tell blatant falsehoods.  Note:  I haven't followed this story closely enough to judge what level of prevarication, if any, Hillary Clinton has engaged in.  But considering her husband's reputation for playing fast and loose with the truth at times, Hillary needs to keep her own image squeaky clean.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

So we are just gonna lie Clinton and say if this was Rand Paul, the left wouldn't be all over it? LMAO.

i would be saying

what a surprise

if this was paul too, fwiw

[Bull Moose Base]

She didn't lie. Politifact, or someone working for them with an ax to grind, deemed the vague expression "dead broke" inappropriate(?) for someone with the earning potential of a former president and first lady. What she did is more akin to a Romney tone deaf gaffe. She was asked about her huge speaking salary and tried to justify it by invoking the Clintons' massive debt after leaving the White House which is true, but she went all Romney (but has since owned up to the gaffe-y word choice). Still, it reveals one of her weaknesses. I don't think she's the strongest D for a general election but it's beside the point since it's still very hard to imagine her not being the nominee. Plenty of time for course correction anyhow.

Rand Paul is a true gaffe machine. I was one of the first to point it out and will happily accept your accolades. His are interesting especially when they give ammo to nomination rivals. And of course, there are plenty more to come.

[Beet]

^^
Pretty much,

Diane Sawyer: Why did you earn high speaking fees?

Clinton: We were dead broke.

Politifact: She wasn't dead broke because of her future ability to earn high speaking fees. Liar!

[IceSpear]

^^
Pretty much,

Diane Sawyer: Why did you earn high speaking fees?

Clinton: We were dead broke.

Politifact: She wasn't dead broke because of her future ability to earn high speaking fees. Liar!

Politifact is very good at logical contortions to meet their preconceived notions. Example: Ryan's budget eliminating Medicare is not only a lie, it's such an utterly egregious falsehood that it is made lie of the year.

Why? "Medicare will still be there" ...even though it will be radically changed and a shadow of what it used to be.

[Beet]

Plenty of time for course correction anyhow.

1. The problem is, how much can people change by this point in life? The one thing you think she would have been good at-- having a thick skin-- she's not. The Terry Gross interview: She after the third or fourth question she should have just started giving single line answers. "Yes." "I changed my mind." "I've already answered that." and so on.

2. She's got to start enjoying this. When she gets attacked, she tends to get defensive and starts to mentally bristle. It probably brings back a lot of painful memories and I sort of understand, because she gets attacked unfairly a lot. But getting defensive isn't the way to go. The best is to show that you're enjoying beating down your enemies. Mock their stupidity. Connect it back to a pattern of stupidity. Humiliate them a little bit. That goes down much better and is much better for the psyche.

[Bull Moose Base]

That she would be under GOP attack on Benghazi for over a year but somehow be caught off-guard by Terry Gross on gay marriage boggles the mind. But then again, in 2008, she got a lot sharper after a few months of a competitive primary. Maybe Democrats should hope for Schweitzer or Sanders to be her sparring partner.

[Free Bird]

This double-standard is sickening.

[IceSpear]

I just listened to the Terry Gross interview, fully expecting to cringe when she got "hostile" and "defensive", but within context her response was completely reasonable. Gross essentially kept asking the same question over and over again, and every time Hillary said she evolved. Then she asks it again for like the fourth time, essentially trying to force her to admit to her preconceived notion (that being, Hillary was always in favor but didn't come out earlier for politicial reasons), which annoys Hillary. Perfectly rational response.

I wonder, if an interview was something like this:

Interviewer: So Gov. Christie, did you have any awareness about Bridgegate?

Christie: No, it was done completely without my knowledge.

Interviewer: So just to clarify, you DIDN'T know?

Christie: Yes, as I said, I did not.

Interviewer: Okay, but back to my point, are you SURE you didn't know?

Christie: Look, I've already stated I didn't know, and we should move on. What don't you understand about "I didn't know?"

Would the headlines be...

Politico: "Christie explodes at reporter for asking a simple question"
NY Times: "Christie shows political rust, gets defensive when pressed on Bridgegate"

I highly doubt it.

[Mister Mets]

They're nowhere near as relevant. In what way are Rand Paul's crazy beliefs and associations as relevant as the Clintons' debt status. I'd rate this as even less relevant than Romney's out of touch "I'm unemployed too" comments.

Rand Paul's beliefs will get coverage, although he's less likely to get the Republican party's presidential nomination than Hillary Clinton is.

I'm curious as to why you think these comments are less relevant than Romney's. At the very least, it should be as relevant. Hell, Romney had a better understanding that his situation was not the same as that of the people he was talking to.