Reply #10: no, I'm not saying that's wrong. I'm saying I could

[cali]

for instance, put together something that painted John Edwards as a "war monger" by posting the fact that he co-sponsored the IWR, and supported military action rather than the use of diplomacy. Any of our candidates can be framed in a way that's deeply negative and intrinsically dishonest. The OP leaves out that Clinton has vowed to use direct diplomacy with Iran and end the war.

I don't support Clinton, but I despise these kinds of posts because they use some facts and omit others, and fashion a narrative that's simply not accurate. It's the narrative that's the fabrication, not the fact that she's received more money from military contractors than any other candidate. Let's examine that: How meaningful is it? How big a slice of her total funding is it? Do we have any reason to believe that she'll be unduly influenced by the defense industry? All those are reasonable questions but the OP doesn't bother asking them. It's a hit piece, and if it were about any other candidate but Clinton, DU would be outraged.