I did read the entire link.
Nothing there but a liberal political groups attack on Fox News that includes not one fact or example.
Nothing there.Where is any proof?
Don't look too hand son. You won't find any.
I ain't your son - boy.
The proof is at the link you brain blistered buffoon.
No one has ever presented a fact of Fox News misrepresenting the news or lying.
Dude? Did you not click on the link Keller provided?
You are hopeless. Completely blinded by whatever poisoned kool aide you keep swallowing.
________________________________________________________________
I did read the entire link.
Nothing there but a liberal political groups attack on Fox News that includes not one fact or example.
Nothing there.Where is any proof?
Don't look too hand son. You won't find any.
If you read the link and didn't see the proven lies, you are obtuse.
Here is an example of a lie. You claim you spent 7 years in the Marines.
Here is another. You claimed that you are an executive in a company that was fight ing Ebola even though you had no clue about Ebola.
Those are lies. Get it yet? Or do we have to dumb it down some more for you?
No one has ever presented a fact of Fox News misrepresenting the news or lying.
Dude? Did you not click on the link Keller provided?
You are hopeless. Completely blinded by whatever poisoned kool aide you keep swallowing.
________________________________________________________________
I did read the entire link.
Nothing there but a liberal political groups attack on Fox News that includes not one fact or example.
Nothing there.Where is any proof?
Don't look too hand son. You won't find any.If you read the link and didn't see the proven lies, you are obtuse.
Here is an example of a lie. You claim you spent 7 years in the Marines.
Here is another. You claimed that you are an executive in a company that was fight ing Ebola even though you had no clue about Ebola.
Those are lies. Get it yet? Or do we have to dumb it down some more for you?
____________________________________________________
Wrong a$$hole.
I served seven years in the U.S. Marine Corps. and was discharged with honors.
How exactly have you served your country?
I never said that my organization fighting Ebola.
i said my organization was involved with the Ebola response.
You can't even lie accurately.
Typical liberal.
[Edited on 2/11/2015 by Muleman1994]
No one has ever presented a fact of Fox News misrepresenting the news or lying.
Dude? Did you not click on the link Keller provided?
You are hopeless. Completely blinded by whatever poisoned kool aide you keep swallowing.
________________________________________________________________
I did read the entire link.
Nothing there but a liberal political groups attack on Fox News that includes not one fact or example.
Nothing there.Where is any proof?
Don't look too hand son. You won't find any.If you read the link and didn't see the proven lies, you are obtuse.
Here is an example of a lie. You claim you spent 7 years in the Marines.
Here is another. You claimed that you are an executive in a company that was fight ing Ebola even though you had no clue about Ebola.
Those are lies. Get it yet? Or do we have to dumb it down some more for you?
____________________________________________________
Wrong a$$hole.
I served seven years in the U.S. Marine Corps. and was discharged with honors.How exactly have you served your country?
I never said that my organization fighting Ebola.
i said my organization was involved with the Ebola response.You can't even lie accurately.
Typical liberal.
[Edited on 2/11/2015 by Muleman1994]
You lie every time you come here. You were never a Marine. What the hell is the Ebola response? You had to deal with what exactly? You had nothing to do with Ebola.
Journalists Cool Their Heels, Waiting for Hillary
Journalists are ready. And waiting, and waiting, and waiting for Hillary.
The Republican National Committee notes that former Sen. Clinton, who’s known for giving well-compensated speeches to select audiences, hasn’t yet appeared in the United States this year. Her only appearances have been in Canada.
In fact, the RNC found, Hillary hasn’t had a real interview in more than six months. It reports:
• Days since last press conference: 202
• Days since she’s done an interview: 184
• Days since she’s been in Iowa: 103
• Days since she’s been in New Hampshire: 100
Meanwhile, even though reporters don’t have access to Mrs. Clinton, her aides have excess access to reporters. One aide even followed a journalist into a bathroom at an event last year. As the Washington Post explained after that incident, “Put simply: Neither Hillary nor Bill Clinton likes the media or, increasingly, sees any positive use for them.”
Of course, reporters are extremely useful to politicians. They allow candidates to amplify a message. Instead of trying to speak to voters in small groups, reporters allow candidates to speak to hundreds of thousands, even millions of voters at a time.
That’s not always positive. Reporters sometimes amplify a message that candidates don’t especially want out there. But giving an interview is like anything else: Practice makes you better.
So shunning the press may come back to haunt Mrs. Clinton. Unless, of course, she doesn’t have much to say.
Congratulations, Muleman1994. You became the topic of the thread. Score!
Good work steering it back to the topic.
Congratulations, Muleman1994. You became the topic of the thread. Score!
Good work steering it back to the topic.
Yet he continues to refuse to respond to posts he cannot dispute and keeps wishing upon a star that Hillary is suddenly going to go away and posting meaningless news stories about her supposed demise. In the meantime all the current polls show her with an average of 60% support from Democrats and her nearest challenger with less than 20%. And her PAC continues to build a war chest for the day she declares her candidacy.
Keep on wishing conservatives as your only hope is she taps out due to health concerns.
Congratulations, Muleman1994. You became the topic of the thread. Score!
Good work steering it back to the topic.
__________________________________________________________
Yea, thanks.
It seems that our liberals friends, unable to factually defend obama, his failed administration can not defend Hillary either.
Their only retort is personal attacks and an unending propensity to lie.
Hard to tell if it all comes from their political ideology or ignorance of factual information.
But it is fun.
Journalists Cool Their Heels, Waiting for Hillary
Journalists are ready. And waiting, and waiting, and waiting for Hillary.
The Republican National Committee notes that former Sen. Clinton, who’s known for giving well-compensated speeches to select audiences, hasn’t yet appeared in the United States this year. Her only appearances have been in Canada.
In fact, the RNC found, Hillary hasn’t had a real interview in more than six months. It reports:
• Days since last press conference: 202
• Days since she’s done an interview: 184
• Days since she’s been in Iowa: 103
• Days since she’s been in New Hampshire: 100Meanwhile, even though reporters don’t have access to Mrs. Clinton, her aides have excess access to reporters. One aide even followed a journalist into a bathroom at an event last year. As the Washington Post explained after that incident, “Put simply: Neither Hillary nor Bill Clinton likes the media or, increasingly, sees any positive use for them.”
Of course, reporters are extremely useful to politicians. They allow candidates to amplify a message. Instead of trying to speak to voters in small groups, reporters allow candidates to speak to hundreds of thousands, even millions of voters at a time.
That’s not always positive. Reporters sometimes amplify a message that candidates don’t especially want out there. But giving an interview is like anything else: Practice makes you better.
So shunning the press may come back to haunt Mrs. Clinton. Unless, of course, she doesn’t have much to say.
What does this mean? Nothing. She isn't a declared candidate, so she owes the press nothing.
Cagey strategy. In avoiding the press, Hillary doesn't have to take a position on
anything and makes herself all but gaffe-proof. Nobody can ask her about that
amazing whopper, that businesses and corporations "don't create jobs."
[Edited on 2/11/2015 by alloak41]
Cagey strategy. In avoiding the press, Hillary doesn't have to take a position on
anything and makes herself all but gaffe-proof. Nobody can ask her about that
amazing whopper, that businesses and corporations "don't create jobs."[Edited on 2/11/2015 by alloak41]
If she runs, she will answer questions. But really, is that all you got? 😛
Cagey strategy. In avoiding the press, Hillary doesn't have to take a position on
anything and makes herself all but gaffe-proof. Nobody can ask her about that
amazing whopper, that businesses and corporations "don't create jobs."[Edited on 2/11/2015 by alloak41]
If she runs, she will answer questions. But really, is that all you got? 😛
She will, and they are sure to be gripping and informative answers like "I was sleep deprived."
Cagey strategy. In avoiding the press, Hillary doesn't have to take a position on
anything and makes herself all but gaffe-proof. Nobody can ask her about that
amazing whopper, that businesses and corporations "don't create jobs."[Edited on 2/11/2015 by alloak41]
If she runs, she will answer questions. But really, is that all you got? 😛
__________________________________________________________
We are all still waiting for Hillary or the liberals to state any of her qualifications to be President.
So far, there have been none.
When asked the first time even The State Department Press Secretary couldn't answer the question. The second time The State Department Press Secretary referred the reported to the Hillary campaign.
Hillary is just another empty pantsuit.
Cagey strategy. In avoiding the press, Hillary doesn't have to take a position on
anything and makes herself all but gaffe-proof. Nobody can ask her about that
amazing whopper, that businesses and corporations "don't create jobs."[Edited on 2/11/2015 by alloak41]
If she runs, she will answer questions. But really, is that all you got? 😛
__________________________________________________________
We are all still waiting for Hillary or the liberals to state any of her qualifications to be President.
So far, there have been none.
When asked the first time even The State Department Press Secretary couldn't answer the question. The second time The State Department Press Secretary referred the reported to the Hillary campaign.Hillary is just another empty pantsuit.
Since she hasn't declared, she doesn't have to. Why don't you get that? Don't bother answering. We know you can't. 😛
One must tread lightly when asking Hil questions. If she feels the line of questioning
is unworthy that temper starts to flare up.
One must tread lightly when asking Hil questions. If she feels the line of questioning
is unworthy that temper starts to flare up.
If you say so, Sybill.
One must tread lightly when asking Hil questions. If she feels the line of questioning
is unworthy that temper starts to flare up.If you say so, Sybill.
________________________________________________
Hillary doesn't take questions unless there are pre-submitted in writing and approved.
If a reported is not on the approved list, they are not allowed to enter her speeches.
One must tread lightly when asking Hil questions. If she feels the line of questioning
is unworthy that temper starts to flare up.If you say so, Sybill.
________________________________________________
Hillary doesn't take questions unless there are pre-submitted in writing and approved.
If a reported is not on the approved list, they are not allowed to enter her speeches.
Got a source for that?
BTW, Hillary is a private citizen, just like you. You don't answer questions, but you expect her to answer questions? Another mule boy double standard. 😛
[Edited on 2/11/2015 by jkeller]
If she runs, I hope she pulls out that Negro dialect she used in the famous Selma
speech out on the campaign trail. She sounded like Forrest Gump after breathing a
few shots of Helium. That was hysterical.
For the liberal’s edification, there really are principles, standards and a code of ethics for journalism. The news media has a duty to report the news to the citizens and hold the government responsible while following their own principles.
Principles of Journalism
http://www.journalism.org/resources/principles-of-journalism/
The first three years of the Project’s work involved listening and talking with journalists and others around the country about what defines the work. What emerged out of those conversations are the following nine core principles of journalism:
1. Journalism’s first obligation is to the truth
Democracy depends on citizens having reliable, accurate facts put in a meaningful context. Journalism does not pursue truth in an absolute or philosophical sense, but it can–and must–pursue it in a practical sense. This “journalistic truth” is a process that begins with the professional discipline of assembling and verifying facts. Then journalists try to convey a fair and reliable account of their meaning, valid for now, subject to further investigation. Journalists should be as transparent as possible about sources and methods so audiences can make their own assessment of the information. Even in a world of expanding voices, accuracy is the foundation upon which everything else is built–context, interpretation, comment, criticism, analysis and debate. The truth, over time, emerges from this forum. As citizens encounter an ever greater flow of data, they have more need–not less–for identifiable sources dedicated to verifying that information and putting it in context.2. Its first loyalty is to citizens
While news organizations answer to many constituencies, including advertisers and shareholders, the journalists in those organizations must maintain allegiance to citizens and the larger public interest above any other if they are to provide the news without fear or favor. This commitment to citizens first is the basis of a news organization’s credibility, the implied covenant that tells the audience the coverage is not slanted for friends or advertisers. Commitment to citizens also means journalism should present a representative picture of all constituent groups in society. Ignoring certain citizens has the effect of disenfranchising them. The theory underlying the modern news industry has been the belief that credibility builds a broad and loyal audience, and that economic success follows in turn. In that regard, the business people in a news organization also must nurture–not exploit–their allegiance to the audience ahead of other considerations.3. Its essence is a discipline of verification
Journalists rely on a professional discipline for verifying information. When the concept of objectivity originally evolved, it did not imply that journalists are free of bias. It called, rather, for a consistent method of testing information–a transparent approach to evidence–precisely so that personal and cultural biases would not undermine the accuracy of their work. The method is objective, not the journalist. Seeking out multiple witnesses, disclosing as much as possible about sources, or asking various sides for comment, all signal such standards. This discipline of verification is what separates journalism from other modes of communication, such as propaganda, fiction or entertainment. But the need for professional method is not always fully recognized or refined. While journalism has developed various techniques for determining facts, for instance, it has done less to develop a system for testing the reliability of journalistic interpretation.4. Its practitioners must maintain an independence from those they cover
Independence is an underlying requirement of journalism, a cornerstone of its reliability. Independence of spirit and mind, rather than neutrality, is the principle journalists must keep in focus. While editorialists and commentators are not neutral, the source of their credibility is still their accuracy, intellectual fairness and ability to inform–not their devotion to a certain group or outcome. In our independence, however, we must avoid any tendency to stray into arrogance, elitism, isolation or nihilism.5. It must serve as an independent monitor of power
Journalism has an unusual capacity to serve as watchdog over those whose power and position most affect citizens. The Founders recognized this to be a rampart against despotism when they ensured an independent press; courts have affirmed it; citizens rely on it. As journalists, we have an obligation to protect this watchdog freedom by not demeaning it in frivolous use or exploiting it for commercial gain.6. It must provide a forum for public criticism and compromise
The news media are the common carriers of public discussion, and this responsibility forms a basis for our special privileges. This discussion serves society best when it is informed by facts rather than prejudice and supposition. It also should strive to fairly represent the varied viewpoints and interests in society, and to place them in context rather than highlight only the conflicting fringes of debate. Accuracy and truthfulness require that as framers of the public discussion we not neglect the points of common ground where problem solving occurs.7. It must strive to make the significant interesting and relevant
Journalism is storytelling with a purpose. It should do more than gather an audience or catalogue the important. For its own survival, it must balance what readers know they want with what they cannot anticipate but need. In short, it must strive to make the significant interesting and relevant. The effectiveness of a piece of journalism is measured both by how much a work engages its audience and enlightens it. This means journalists must continually ask what information has most value to citizens and in what form. While journalism should reach beyond such topics as government and public safety, a journalism overwhelmed by trivia and false significance ultimately engenders a trivial society.8. It must keep the news comprehensive and proportional
Keeping news in proportion and not leaving important things out are also cornerstones of truthfulness. Journalism is a form of cartography: it creates a map for citizens to navigate society. Inflating events for sensation, neglecting others, stereotyping or being disproportionately negative all make a less reliable map. The map also should include news of all our communities, not just those with attractive demographics. This is best achieved by newsrooms with a diversity of backgrounds and perspectives. The map is only an analogy; proportion and comprehensiveness are subjective, yet their elusiveness does not lessen their significance.9. Its practitioners must be allowed to exercise their personal conscience
Every journalist must have a personal sense of ethics and responsibility–a moral compass. Each of us must be willing, if fairness and accuracy require, to voice differences with our colleagues, whether in the newsroom or the executive suite. News organizations do well to nurture this independence by encouraging individuals to speak their minds. This stimulates the intellectual diversity necessary to understand and accurately cover an increasingly diverse society. It is this diversity of minds and voices, not just numbers, that matters.
I find it hilarious that Hillary has Muleman and Alloak so afraid. But she is a powerful woman.
Once, when Bill was still President, they went home for a visit. They snuck away from the Secret Service to grab a little something outside the Tastee Freeze. The Subaru was about on empty so they pulled up to the filling' station. Bill saw Hillary's old boyfriend busting down tires and said, "Look at that Hill. There's your old boyfriend. I wonder where you'd be if you had married him?"
Hill looked at Bill and said, "Why, I'd be married to the President of the United States."
That little story was happily plagiarized from tonight's episode of Justified. 
If she runs, I hope she pulls out that Negro dialect she used in the famous Selma
speech out on the campaign trail. She sounded like Forrest Gump after breathing a
few shots of Helium. That was hysterical.
I agree. Pure comedic gold.
One must tread lightly when asking Hil questions. If she feels the line of questioning
is unworthy that temper starts to flare up.
Possibly she can learn something from a GOP potential candidate? Alloak, do you have any suggestions? Maybe she take a few lessons from Chris Christie. He seems to have a pretty even tempered / laid back manner in dealing with questions & the media.
Rumour has it Bubba Clinton is already interviewing future interns to determine if they have the right skills for the job once he and Hillary are back in the White house. 😛
Rumour has it Bubba Clinton is already interviewing future interns to determine if they have the right skills for the job once he and Hillary are back in the White house. 😛
Rumor has it that Gennifer Flowers might be appointed Head Of Head.
Rumour has it Bubba Clinton is already interviewing future interns to determine if they have the right skills for the job once he and Hillary are back in the White house. 😛
Rumor has it that Gennifer Flowers might be appointed Head Of Head.
Nah, she is too old for Bubba. He wants some fresh tail to service him while Hillary is busy saving the country from the GOP obstructionists. 😛
[Edited on 2/11/2015 by Bill_Graham]
Fundraising and organizational troubles continues for Hillary
Big donors holding off making pledges to pro-Hillary Clinton super PAC
By Matea Gold February 10 at 8:32 PM
Hillary Rodham Clinton’s decision to delay an announcement about her presidential ambitions until as late as July has stymied efforts of a major allied super PAC to come out of the gate early with a slew of big-money commitments.
Priorities USA Action — which has positioned itself as the main advertising vehicle to back a Clinton candidacy — had hoped to line up dozens of seven-figure pledges before April as a show of strength but has secured only about 10, according to people familiar with the situation.
One factor that has contributed to the reluctance: Many wealthy political givers on the left have written large checks to the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, part a drive to raise money for the nonprofit organization before a likely Clinton presidential run. Major foundation donors have indicated to ¬super-PAC fundraisers that they are holding off on other large pledges for now, according to people with knowledge of the conversations.
Priorities’ slow progress has prompted internal conversations about whether the group will recalibrate what it can expect to raise this cycle — a sum that people close to the operation originally expected to be around $300 million. The super PAC’s difficulties in securing pledges were first reported late Tuesday by Politico.
Priorities officials said they are not concerned.
“Priorities USA Action chose not to raise money in the 2014 cycle because we did not want to compete with the many good Democrats who were fighting for their political lives,” senior adviser Paul Begala said in a statement. “We will play a critical role in electing a Democratic President in 2016. Anyone who doubts us should ask President Romney.”
Many party fundraisers concur, saying that once Clinton is officially in the race, the money will rush in from loyalists and new donors eager to be part of her candidacy.
“I think it’s like everything else going on -- what’s the timeline with her?” said one party strategist familiar with the dynamics, who requested anonymity to discuss donor attitudes. “Once things are more finalized with what she is doing, their job will become a little easier.”
Some top Democratic contributors said they won’t consider committing large amounts until she is officially in the race.
“I’m waiting to see if Hillary announces a campaign and to see what it looks like,” said David desJardins, San Francisco-based investor who supports independent political groups on the left.
Among the major Clinton supporters who have not pledged to Priorities is Esprit co-founder Susie Tompkins Buell, according to a person familiar with the situation. Buell, an early backer of the group Ready for Hillary, did not return a request for comment.
Billionaire media mogul Haim Saban, who has said he will spend “whatever it takes” to help Clinton reach the White House, has also not made a commitment to the super PAC, according to a person with knowledge of the fundraising efforts. Saban and his family have given between $10 million and $25 million to the Clinton Foundation, including a donation last year, according to the foundation’s records. A spokeswoman for Saban could not immediately be reached for comment.
The difficulties that Priorities has encountered in assembling an early money juggernaut also suggests that Democrats are still working to overcome distaste in the donor community for big-money groups.
New York venture capitalist Alan Patricof, a longtime Clinton friend and fundraiser, said he does not plan to get involved until she is an official candidate — and at that point, he said, he will probably focus his efforts on helping her official campaign.
“I am not much interested in a super PAC,” he said. “It’s just not something I believe in. I’m not ready to deal with the realities that people can give any amount of money.”
The early donor drought is one of the factors that led to a public falling-out this week between liberal activist David Brock and Priorities officials. Brock, who runs a network of prominent groups on the left such as Media Matter and American Bridge, noisily resigned from the super PAC’s board Monday, accusing people affiliated with the group of feeding negative information to the New York Times about the fundraising practices of his organizations.
After outreach by top Priorities officials, Brock agreed to reconsider joining the group. But the public showdown exposed a clash between two power spheres on the left, both vying for big contributions.
Supporters of Priorities were hoping to build an early financial base and avoid scrambling for dollars in the midst of the campaign, as the group did during the 2012 race, when the nascent super PAC initially struggled to raise money to run ads on behalf of President Obama.
In the end, Priorities pulled in $79 million. While the group was far outpaced by the pro-Mitt Romney super PAC Restore Our Future, which raised $153 million, its hard-hitting ads were credited with helping frame the Republican presidential nominee as an out-of-touch plutocrat.
This time around, the donor outreach began early. The day after last November’s elections, DreamWorks Animation chief executive Jeffrey Katzenberg and Hollywood political strategist Andy Spahn began reaching out to potential backers, urging them to make commitments to Priorities, which was refashioned into a pro-Clinton vehicle after 2012.
Other top officials have also been making pitches, including Priorities board co-chair and former Michigan governor Jennifer Granholm, executive director Buffy Wicks, finance adviser Jonathan Mantz, and senior advisers Sean Sweeney and Begala.
Less involved has been Jim Messina, who ran President Obama’s reelection campaign and co-chairs Priorities with Granholm. Most recently, he has been in London, where he has been consulting for Prime Minister David Cameron in the run-up to British elections.
Background item...
According to Hil, she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary. That's amazing foresight by her
parents in selecting the name. They knew six years in advance that he would one day scale
Everest and become famous.
Fundraising and organizational troubles continues for Hillary
Big donors holding off making pledges to pro-Hillary Clinton super PAC
By Matea Gold February 10 at 8:32 PM
Hillary Rodham Clinton’s decision to delay an announcement about her presidential ambitions until as late as July has stymied efforts of a major allied super PAC to come out of the gate early with a slew of big-money commitments.
Priorities USA Action — which has positioned itself as the main advertising vehicle to back a Clinton candidacy — had hoped to line up dozens of seven-figure pledges before April as a show of strength but has secured only about 10, according to people familiar with the situation.
One factor that has contributed to the reluctance: Many wealthy political givers on the left have written large checks to the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, part a drive to raise money for the nonprofit organization before a likely Clinton presidential run. Major foundation donors have indicated to ¬super-PAC fundraisers that they are holding off on other large pledges for now, according to people with knowledge of the conversations.
Priorities’ slow progress has prompted internal conversations about whether the group will recalibrate what it can expect to raise this cycle — a sum that people close to the operation originally expected to be around $300 million. The super PAC’s difficulties in securing pledges were first reported late Tuesday by Politico.Priorities officials said they are not concerned.
“Priorities USA Action chose not to raise money in the 2014 cycle because we did not want to compete with the many good Democrats who were fighting for their political lives,” senior adviser Paul Begala said in a statement. “We will play a critical role in electing a Democratic President in 2016. Anyone who doubts us should ask President Romney.”Many party fundraisers concur, saying that once Clinton is officially in the race, the money will rush in from loyalists and new donors eager to be part of her candidacy.
“I think it’s like everything else going on -- what’s the timeline with her?” said one party strategist familiar with the dynamics, who requested anonymity to discuss donor attitudes. “Once things are more finalized with what she is doing, their job will become a little easier.”
Some top Democratic contributors said they won’t consider committing large amounts until she is officially in the race.“I’m waiting to see if Hillary announces a campaign and to see what it looks like,” said David desJardins, San Francisco-based investor who supports independent political groups on the left.
Among the major Clinton supporters who have not pledged to Priorities is Esprit co-founder Susie Tompkins Buell, according to a person familiar with the situation. Buell, an early backer of the group Ready for Hillary, did not return a request for comment.
Billionaire media mogul Haim Saban, who has said he will spend “whatever it takes” to help Clinton reach the White House, has also not made a commitment to the super PAC, according to a person with knowledge of the fundraising efforts. Saban and his family have given between $10 million and $25 million to the Clinton Foundation, including a donation last year, according to the foundation’s records. A spokeswoman for Saban could not immediately be reached for comment.
The difficulties that Priorities has encountered in assembling an early money juggernaut also suggests that Democrats are still working to overcome distaste in the donor community for big-money groups.
New York venture capitalist Alan Patricof, a longtime Clinton friend and fundraiser, said he does not plan to get involved until she is an official candidate — and at that point, he said, he will probably focus his efforts on helping her official campaign.
“I am not much interested in a super PAC,” he said. “It’s just not something I believe in. I’m not ready to deal with the realities that people can give any amount of money.”
The early donor drought is one of the factors that led to a public falling-out this week between liberal activist David Brock and Priorities officials. Brock, who runs a network of prominent groups on the left such as Media Matter and American Bridge, noisily resigned from the super PAC’s board Monday, accusing people affiliated with the group of feeding negative information to the New York Times about the fundraising practices of his organizations.
After outreach by top Priorities officials, Brock agreed to reconsider joining the group. But the public showdown exposed a clash between two power spheres on the left, both vying for big contributions.Supporters of Priorities were hoping to build an early financial base and avoid scrambling for dollars in the midst of the campaign, as the group did during the 2012 race, when the nascent super PAC initially struggled to raise money to run ads on behalf of President Obama.
In the end, Priorities pulled in $79 million. While the group was far outpaced by the pro-Mitt Romney super PAC Restore Our Future, which raised $153 million, its hard-hitting ads were credited with helping frame the Republican presidential nominee as an out-of-touch plutocrat.
This time around, the donor outreach began early. The day after last November’s elections, DreamWorks Animation chief executive Jeffrey Katzenberg and Hollywood political strategist Andy Spahn began reaching out to potential backers, urging them to make commitments to Priorities, which was refashioned into a pro-Clinton vehicle after 2012.Other top officials have also been making pitches, including Priorities board co-chair and former Michigan governor Jennifer Granholm, executive director Buffy Wicks, finance adviser Jonathan Mantz, and senior advisers Sean Sweeney and Begala.
Less involved has been Jim Messina, who ran President Obama’s reelection campaign and co-chairs Priorities with Granholm. Most recently, he has been in London, where he has been consulting for Prime Minister David Cameron in the run-up to British elections.
Wow! Potential donors want to wait until she is an actual candidate before donating their millions of dollars. Shocking! I guess she really is in trouble. She'll be lucky to be able to afford to a small ad in a local paper. Poor Hilary will probably have to fly coach to all her campaign stops because her donors waited an extra 6 months to fund her until she officially ran. She'll never win now. Thanks Muleman for letting us all know how much trouble she is in.
LOL, conservatives are so afraid of her they will grasp at any negative story to make them feel better that there is a slight chance she won't run and win in 2016.
According to a Rueters even 25% of the Republicans polled evidently like Hillary........
http://www.forbes.com/profile/hillary-clinton/
Hillary 2016!!!!!!!!!!!
