Remember when we only commented about a woman's hair, face, attire (did we make fat jokes about female candidates?).

All of those double standards came crashing down this year. Everyone is fair game.

But we're not ready for media whore. Too soon.

One thing I hate about Hillaryspeak, and it plays into her untrustworthiness (people TOTALLY get it on a subconscious level), is she responds to every tough question beginning with "Well..." I was listen to Hill respond to something Bernie said, "Israel's response was excessive."

Q: Do you agree with Senator Sanders that Israel's response was excessive.

HRC: Well...(the long winded dance of avoidant language; the more you say, the less you say)

Of course Hillary wouldn't answer the question, just like she can't say, "Of course Bernie is qualified," or "Of course Barack Obama is a Christian." Even easy questions are difficult for her.

I can't take it anymore! What the fuck is this all about?! Ha! Turns out it's speaks to exactly what her detractors have said about her for years: She's fucking full of shit, and here she goes again! Cry sexism all you want. People know on a conscieous or subconscious level that she's lying.

If You Begin a Sentence with Well, There's a Good Chance You're Lying

"If you think someone's lying, you can't really subject them to a polygraph test. But, it turns out that if they start their sentence with the word "well," you won't have to.

Over at Psychology Today, psychologist John R. Schafer gets into one technique that's part of the Poor Man's Polygraph—a series of techniques to detect deception in your everyday conversation. It's pretty simple. If someone starts off a sentence with "well," there's a good chance they're lying. Here's why:

When you ask someone a direct Yes or No question and they begin their answer with the word "Well," there is a high probability of deception. Beginning an answer to a direct Yes or No question with the word "Well" indicates that the person answering the question is about to give you an answer that they know you are not expecting."


http://lifehacker.com/5687190/if-you-begin-a-sentence-with-well-theres-a-good-chance-youre-lying

They we happy to trade in stipends - pensions and social security - for the GOP 401K lottery. Years before trickle down showed slow job growth (with stagnant wages), "Obama's stock market" had already doubled!

Woo hoo! Democrats have mastered the GOP casino economy!

This is why it's imperative that a successful Clinton 45 admin not rock the Wall Street boat.

Nope, can't prove it and if you even so much as suggest it, you're impugning President Obama.

Yeah, well, some of us called bullshit on Obama in 2009 while the others only hold Republicans accountable.

So, if Hillary has spent 25 years in the Goldman/Clinton bubble, if these are the only people she knows and trusts, what's her team of economic advisors going to look like.

She's right, we can learn a lot from President Obama. From 2009:

"That was the day the jubilant Obama campaign announced its transition team. Though many of the names were familiar - former Bill Clinton chief of staff John Podesta, long-time Obama confidante Valerie Jarrett - the list was most notable for who was not on it, especially on the economic side. Austan Goolsbee, a University of Chicago economist who had served as one of Obama's chief advisers during the campaign, didn't make the cut. Neither did Karen Kornbluh, who had served as Obama's policy director and was instrumental in crafting the Democratic Party's platform. Both had emphasized populist themes during the campaign: Kornbluh was known for pushing Democrats to focus on the plight of the poor and middle class, while Goolsbee was an aggressive critic of Wall Street, declaring that AIG executives should receive "a Nobel Prize - for evil."

But come November 5th, both were banished from Obama's inner circle - and replaced with a group of Wall Street bankers. Leading the search for the president's new economic team was his close friend and Harvard Law classmate Michael Froman, a high-ranking executive at Citigroup. During the campaign, Froman had emerged as one of Obama's biggest fundraisers, bundling $200,000 in contributions and introducing the candidate to a host of heavy hitters - chief among them his mentor Bob Rubin, the former co-chairman of Goldman Sachs who served as Treasury secretary under Bill Clinton. Froman had served as chief of staff to Rubin at Treasury, and had followed his boss when Rubin left the Clinton administration to serve as a senior counselor to Citigroup (a massive new financial conglomerate created by deregulatory moves pushed through by Rubin himself).

Incredibly, Froman did not resign from the bank when he went to work for Obama: He remained in the employ of Citigroup for two more months, even as he helped appoint the very people who would shape the future of his own firm. And to help him pick Obama's economic team, Froman brought in none other than Jamie Rubin who happens to be Bob Rubin's son. At the time, Jamie's dad was still earning roughly $15 million a year working for Citigroup, which was in the midst of a collapse brought on in part because Rubin had pushed the bank to invest heavily in mortgage-backed CDOs and other risky instruments.

Now here's where it gets really interesting. It's three weeks after the election. You have a lame-duck president in George W. Bush - still nominally in charge, but in reality already halfway to the golf-and-O'Doul's portion of his career and more than happy to vacate the scene. Left to deal with the still-reeling economy are lame-duck Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, a former head of Goldman Sachs, and New York Fed chief Timothy Geithner, who served under Bob Rubin in the Clinton White House. Running Obama's economic team are a still-employed Citigroup executive and the son of another Citigroup executive, who himself joined Obama's transition team that same month.

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2009/12/13/obamas-big-sellout-president-has-packed-his-economic-team-wall-street-insiders

hushing and lecturing BLM. Blacks are the most loyal Democratic voter block. Black leadership was driving a wedge between blacks and Bernie. Bernie was a fake, Johnny come lately Democrat. And "Socialist" was a deal breaker. Despite everything, Bill was the first "black President" still resonates, and Hillary had built meaningful relationships.

I thought for a while, if only Super Tuesday took place in May, sigh... After everything thing I've read, I now accept there's absolutely no chance for Bernie in the Deep South.

Resumes that portray 3 wildly successful women: a Secretary of State, a CEO, and a Governor.

Holy crap criers! I can't go wrong with any of these amazing women!!!

But what applies to Fiorina and Palin, for some mysterious reasons, Hillary's supporters won't apply to Hillary. Can you guess what that is? Right! Scrutiny!!!

To Hillary's supporters, she's untouchable! That's why Fiorina and Pailin fail their tests but Hillary scores 15 on a scale of 1 to 10. It's up to Bernie supporters to scrutinize her record and say, you know if I only got Ted Cruz's resume, I'd hire Hillary in a heartbeat. But I got Bernie's resume, first, and this is where Hillary doesn't stack up. I think her two war votes together disqualify her. They scream naivety and poor judgment. Further, I want to take the country in a new direction and Hillary promises more of the same: Goldman Sachs advisors and so on. Those are the only people she knows and trusts. Now I see, when she was Senator during the Bush Admin, she worked with Repulicans, but that was then, this is now. She's more hated than Obama. I don't believe for one minute she will accomplish as much as Bernie with this Congress, and that will be nothing at all. So really, I'm looking at who has the best vision. Bernie wants to take the country where I want to take it. Hillary doesn't and will face more obstruction than Obama, obviously.

And there you have it. Hillary is a sacred cow, so to scrutinize her is sexist.

its predessor, which was too close to Labor, which was rife with scandal at the time. The DLC is completely tone deaf; it's been in charge of the Party since Clinton 42 and overseen the Great Redistribution of wealth from the middle class to the upper classes; it has overseen the Party getting decimated at all levels of government, losing Governorships as well as both houses of Congress; it's completely ignored its base, which has been telling them for more than a decade, it doesn't matter who wins, both parties are the same. The DLC is completely baffled by the implications here. They respond, "We are not the same! Do you think the Republican Party cares about civil rights?! (All the while, mounting losses are rolling back gains made pre-DLC.) And Hillary is the most tone deaf: ridicule, shame, and blame (the unengaged) is the DLC M.O.

So Bernie comes along, and guess what, Populists care about civil rights, too! Astonishing! So civil and human rights is a complete wash. Now, we can focus on "why bother, both Parties are the same." Bernie says, "You know what unengaged voters? You're absolutely right! And I'm not agreeing with you today, I've been saying it since the 1980s! Not only that, my opponent has lived her entire 25 years inside the DLC bubble. Who will be her advisors? Rahm Emanuel? Well, thank god he's too toxic now. Another crop of Goldman Sachs executives? Today's top Wall Street defense attorney? These are the people she knows and trusts. A vote for Hillary is a vote for another 8 years of 'there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans.' That will guarantee an electorate that remains unengaged, more losses at all levels, and a Party that remains tone deaf and has just one resort: blame and shame."

Bernie said, I could give a shit about your email, so she's gotten a pass in the primary.

It might be much ado about nothing, like Bernie is a comie, but that's what they do! She and her supporters are in for a rude awakening. Perhaps there's nothing there, BUT IT'S HILLARY, it's what people expect. Half of Democrats believe there's something there as do ALL of Republicans and Independents. PERCEPTION is everything. How this is lost on people here is shocking.

I'm 50 and have had 6 female bosses and 4 male bosses, I've even worked in a female dominated field where I'm the only male in the office at two locations.

4 Male bosses: let me be me, shot the shit, talked sports, took me to lunch

The good female: very similar, not uptight, knew I liked to entertain the others and appreciated me. Laughed at my jokes.

5th male boss wasn't my direct boss, he was the program director, and worked in cahoots with a young, female manager who was awesome to my face but afraid to tell me anything other than I'm awesome and bring so much to the team. So he attended all of my supervisions and tried to intimidate me while she sat their blank faced. So fuck those two, I liked her a lot but knew she felt otherwise about me. Ultimately, I reported both of them to the Department of Labor. I would have just quit and moved on, but they picked a fight with me.

1 female boss: she wasn't an onsight boss so she relied on the 23-26 year old women, very inexperienced in life, poor social skills, and unliked by young adult clients because they spoke down to them, to watch me closely. I was twice their age and a natural at my job. But I made my coworkers feel inferior about themselves. The program director, a man, thought I was awesome so I stayed as long as I wanted. Totally ignored the criticism from my boss because it was based on reports from pathetic coworkers.

1 female boss: SOOOO uptight, very condescending, horrible people skills, thought my comedy act reflected poorly on her and gave me busy work. She got fired after 1 year, I was with the company for almost 7 years, but lost that job on Day 1 of the Great Recession. She was replaced by one of the good female bosses.

good bosses, gender neutral:
1. Not uptight
2. Appreciate me
3. Good people skills
4. Shoot the shit

Bad bosses, gender neutral:
1. Shitty people skills
2. Uptight
3. Micromanagers
4. Network of spies


Now you go!

doesn't float. People hear "Obama Progressive" and "Clinton Progressive" but don't do their due diligence. They here Hillary wants "More of the same." To me, that means more Goldman Sachs and Wall Street attorneys. And she claims there's no way to prove she's influenced by Wall Street money when that's the only world she knows.