Man, you can’t not be condescending, can you?

The Washington Post says “Hilary Clinton... is... deceit[ful]... and... wants to [bomb] children.”

Most endlessly investigated at ridiculous expense without ever coming up with any proof of wrongdoing, you mean. But yeah, why not throw Vince Foster into it, too? Dumbass.

I wonder if these attack ads will have the opposite effect.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt.

Aw, and here I thought we were having a respectful discussion.

What people talk about in comments sections on the internet is not generally reflective of what people are discussing in the culture at large, and definitely not what is dominating news. Nobody is talking about the speeches anymore.

Because if she’d released them, those news cycles would have landed right in the middle of the primaries and the constant talking about her relationship to wall street could have swayed close races. Plus, if she’d released them then, there would be a demand for something else by now. This isn’t about putting people’s…

Yet Clinton and Sanders voted 93% of the time in the Senate (and some of those times were her votes to the left of him on guns). That’s an awful lot of hate over a very small percentage of disagreements.

No matter what it said that would not be the narrative. Look at any of the other false scandals and how they faired even when found to have exactly 0 evidence

Progressives have hated the Clintons since the 90s? Is that why Clinton was criticized for being too leftist throughout that decade (and basically until right now)?

That’s not concern trolling at all. I think it’s realistic. I fully expect a massive wave of misogyny this election season and into Clinton’s presidency. One that may threaten her very legitimacy as president. I think about this everytime I hear or see a report about Brazilian president Dilma Rousseff.

What I’m saying is that the fact she gave the speeches isn’t currently dominating the news cycle the way it would if she released the transcripts. The story has largely burned itself out. If she releases the transcripts, it’s all anyone will talk about for a week - even if there’s nothing in the substance, she gets…

What gets me is that according to politifact, she is the most consistently honest person running for president. Trump lies almost compulsively and bernie sanders has a similar ratio of truth to falsehood as her, but is much more likely to rely on partial truths.

Then you get this narrative that she’s some frothing…

Worse. Comic book. Superhero. Team. Pitch. EVER.

What’s a damned shame is how a generation that has easy access to almost any information it wants refuses to actually google any of these rightwing smears against the Clintons and lazily keeps repeating, “well everyone says they’re corrupt, so they must be corrupt”.

Republicans and some Democrats have been saying this shit for how long now? Just another day. But seriously, it’s a shame that many young people around my age won’t get to truthfully say that they participated in electing our first woman president. With all the criticisms she’s gotten (some fair, some not), she’ll…

But... the Washington Post printed “ruthless” on February 21st, 2014! Maybe in an article, possibly in an advertisement! That seals it for me! I don’t need any context at all, I mean... “ruthless” says it all! Possibly about Hillary Clinton!

“FAKE ACCENTS,”

The hilarious thing about this ad is that for the most part it’s just litany of cherished right-wing talking points. This is clearly made for people who already hate Clinton. A pep rally, if you will, for any despondency about a Trump nomination.