On Becoming Anti-Bernie
Robin Alperstein

To accuse Sanders of lying, while showing no evidence, is bad. To do so while ignoring the many lies of Clinton is dishonest in itself. Here is just a small sampling of her lies from this campaign. The fact the article pretends these lies and deceptions do not exist is in itself deceptive.

* Her emails: she repeatedly claims she merely did what others have done but has yet to name even one other who had a private email server installed in their house. NO examples of someone truly doing as she did. She could argue that this allowed her to make the email more private and try to turn it into a positive, but her dishonesty on this at least makes it seem she has something to hide — perhaps emails that should be public that she does not want others to see. She also committed perjury and said she released all emails when she had not (and later admitted to) and of the deleted emails she said many went to her husband who publicly says he does not use email! http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/14/state-dept-cites-gaps-hillary-clinton-email-record/?page=all


* Her speeches: She refuses to release them. Why not? She gives the impression that either the speeches have info in them that she does not want out or that they are mundane enough to make it so the payments for them were payoffs. Either way she looks bad. She again refuses to be open. Oh, and she lies about them time and time again: https://www.facebook.com/itstheGADFLY/videos/1141125379240531/

* She argues against the fact that she is the establishment candidate. She is — if there was any question the super delegate (establishment) votes prove it. Instead of being honest and speaking about how this can be an advantage she lies and denies. Why not instead speak about how she and Sanders want many of there same things but as the establishment candidate she has more connections and more influence and will be able to get more done. She COULD be (mostly) honest and point out the benefits (showing the good side is what we all do in an interview… I get that).

* She claims to not want to speak of the 1990s, whining often when Sanders brings the time up. She, however, repeatedly brings up the 1990s. This happens time and time again in the debates. More than that, when you run for president it is completely predictable that your past record will be asked about… to complain about people doing so is immature and silly. She at least comes across as having something to hide and deflecting.

* She feels the need to repeatedly twist Sanders’ record. The Washington Post goes into some detail here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/10/5-times-hillary-clinton-has-played-fast-and-loose-with-the-facts-on-bernie-sanderss-record. She makes things up about or twists Sanders’ record on immigration, the auto bailout, the Minutemen, the Koch brothers, his work with bank regulation, and more. At the very least this indicates she is afraid of his growing popularity and is playing dirty to try to win the candidacy. She shows she does not think she can stand on her own record.

* Her answer about fracking was wordy and never really answered the question (a common theme with her, really). Mother Jones has an article about a likely reason why: http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/09/hillary-clinton-fracking-shale-state-department-chevron If she thinks fracking should be used why does she not just say she is for it (and then can add that she wants to make sure it is well regulated). Why the deception and double talk from her?

* Her comments on immigration were anything but clear, too. More on that from the New York Post: http://nypost.com/2016/03/11/immigration-experts-have-no-idea-what-hillary-is-talking-about/ She repeatedly talks in circles and does not give clear answers.

* Her comments about health care. When Sanders speaks of healthcare for all she says it would cost too much… but then in the next moment she says she wants to expand ObamaCare so that it covers healthcare for all (not just 90%). She cannot just give a clear answer.

* Lying about not knowing where Sanders was as she pushed for better health care. http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/272790-sanders-spokesperson-fires-back-at-clinton-for-healthcare

* On her own voting record she is just as unclear. The Onion had fun with this fact with this article: http://www.theonion.com/article/clinton-throws-flash-grenade-divert-attention-ques-52499 Clearly that is satire, but the point it makes is serious — she repeatedly gives non-answers to questions.

* Repeatedly it seems like after breaks she has stronger answers to questions. I (and others) have hypothesized that she is getting assistance from her advisers. Now there seems to be direct evidence to back this up: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/sanders-campaign-says-this-photo-proves-clinton-broke-rules-during-univision-debate/ She at least seems to be unable to play by the rules.

* She backs supporters of hers even when they act badly — in one example going so far as to play the sexist card claiming that there is a special place in hell for women who back Sanders.

* He husband at the very least skirts campaign laws by even hanging around polling places and blocking people in strong Sanders areas from voting: http://mediaite.com/a/vkkzf and http://www.snopes.com/clinton-campaign-laws-massachusetts/

* Her husband also sinks to saying Sanders’ supporters, who back his fight for greater equality, are just as bad as Trump supporters who fight heavily against equality.

* Lying about the Reagan’s response to the HIV/AIDS crisis. I will grant and commend her for retracting this praise… and as such can see it as more of a mistake than a lie. I leave it on this list because I previously noted the inaccuracy of her claim. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/03/11/hillary-clinton-apologizes-for-praising-nancy-reagans-response-to-hivaids/

* Lying about where her funding comes from and trying to sounds like she is similar to Sanders in this. http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/clinton-claim-small-donors-mostly-false-politifact-finds

* Her lie about avoiding a New York debate because of Sanders’ tone when everyone know it is because she fears it will harm her chances of winning the state. In the past she has directly said “You should be willing to debate anytime, anywhere.”: https://www.facebook.com/berniesanders/videos/1016591345062536/

* She lied when Sanders noted her money from the oil industry. Worse than that, she lost her temper over it… even though she used the SAME attack against Obama when she was running against him. http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/01/politics/hillary-clinton-oil-gas-donations-obama/ and her ad against Obama: https://youtu.be/3satJnoBXi8 She refuses to sign the agreement Sanders did to NOT take oil money, maybe because she has had massive amounts of oil money flow into the Clinton Foundation: http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/04/09/oil-money-flowed-clinton-turned-back-rights-abuses-colombia-report

* Her fighting against Sanders for the $15 / hour minimum wage and then in New York working with the people fighting for it pretending she was backing it the whole time and is with them on their fight. http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/la-na-clinton-minimum-wage-20160404-story.html

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.