Hillary Clinton

The Most Shameless Moment at Tonight's Democratic Debate

A noun, a verb, a gender reference, and 9/11


At tonight's Democratic debate, Bernie Sanders went after Hillary Clinton for her Wall Street ties. Clinton replied with the #LeanIn version of Giuliani impression:

NEXT: Democratic Debate: Candidates So Different You Can Barely Tell Them Apart

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. My 9/11 cooch has strong mojo!

    1. Somebody mentioned 9/11. Quick, somebody light the Christie signal!

      (Well it’s either Christie, or Batman’s really let himself go.)

      1. Christie appears in the Dem debates too? Actually makes sense.

    2. I don’t remember there even being an FEC requirement to disclose your gender when donating to a campaign. How does Hillary even know that 60% of her donors are women?

      1. Because they only contribute 77% on every dollar the men donate.

        1. Kaboom. Internet is over for the remainder of the day.

          1. Yeah, that is pretty much a wrap for today.

  2. Ah, Hillary will go FURTHER than Sanders.

    Well. I think the choice is clear.

    1. She’ll get the nomination right before the federal grand jury indictment comes down. Genius.

      1. She could still win indicted. Actually kind of appropriate running her criminal empire from prison.

        1. Whutzisname, the socialist, got something like 20% of the vote while in the slammer for disobeying a judge in 1918. There was a time when a few socialists had cojones. Soon after they instead turned to having other people’s ears, jewelry and gold fillings. Looking at the GOP, Dem and Socialist parties is a lot like visiting a rest home for doddering war criminals. The LP, at 44, is still eligible and active in the job market.

      2. Bbbbut…. James Clapper has said that none of her emails were Top Secret, because she knew what intelligence would find before it did. Are you impugning the integrity of James Clapper?

        1. No way in hell is she ever indicted. Biden declining to run made sure of that.

        2. No one would ever impugn the integrity of Mr. James “Least Untruthful” Clapper. Everyone know if it comes from Clapper, it’s legit.

  3. “The Most Shameless Moment at Tonight’s Democratic Debate”

    The moment it was scheduled!
    That’s easy…

    1. “The Most Shameless Moment at Tonight’s Democratic Debate”

      Looking at that certainly qualifies as a target-rich environment

      (in a rhetorical non woodchpper-y way of course)

  4. I haven’t seen Hillary so good since the spring months of her 2008 Presidential campaign. If you need to be shameless, go all the way.

    1. The less I see of the Clinton mafia, the happier I am.

  5. Anybody else get mildly hammered tonight?

    1. Sort of, but not related to the debate at all. I had some football to watch and some ribeye caps to eat.

    2. We did, but we were binge-watching Curb Your Enthusiasm. We’re in the middle of Season 3. “Are you my Caucasian?”

      1. I’m not exactly sure I understood a thing you wrote there but I’m pretty sure I don’t want to know.

  6. “Do you want Bernie Sanders as president; a man who, for all we know, is a holocaust-denying 9/11 pedophile?”


    “Withdrawn. A vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote for America and a rebuke to the terrorists!”

  7. The Most Shameless Moment at Tonight’s Democratic Debate

    When Hillary said that we have a moral duty to import more Syrian refugees into the US?

    Bernie asserting that global warming is a much greater threat to the US than Islamic terrorism?

    1. Bernie asserting that global warming is a much greater threat to the US than Islamic terrorism?

      I suppose one might think that if one believes that climate change will eventually turn the earth’s climate into what’s on Venus. Someone ought to tell Ol’ Bern that the Sun is steadily using up its supply of hydrogen with nary a thought to conservation.

    2. I don’t get this moral duty shit. People bash Christians all the time for them claiming to have the definitive guide to morality but then they turn around and want to lecture everyone else on morals.

      At least the Christians have a really old book with some fancy writing.

      1. It’s feels-based morality.

    3. Hillary is most of the reason that there are Syrian refugees. They should all get tents on her lawn.

      1. Racists !

      2. But that’s wrong.

  8. So what did she say? Don’t make us watch the video.

    1. Watch the video. It’s short and worth it.

      1. I couldn’t watch the entire video. How do people bring themselves to vote for such insufferable arseholes? Without getting hammered first, and then rape showering after, that is.

        1. Because they themselves are insufferable arseholes.

    2. Sanders said that he has 750K small donors and doesn’t have to kowtow to Wall Street like Clinton does, and implied that Wall Street expects something in return for their support of Clinton.

      Her response was in three parts.

      1. She accused Sanders of “impugning my integrity”

      2. She talked about 60% of her contributors being women

      3. She claimed Wall Street supports her because she was New York’s senator on 9/11 and helped them rebuild. (Lower Manhattan would have been left in ruins if they only had Schumer in the Senate)

      1. Greerg, don’t encourage Ted’s laziness.

        1. Really – this is why welfare never ends, and the kitteh keeps coming back if you put out the dish of milk….

      2. It’s pathetic that when she accused Bernie of impugning my integrity; he denied doing so. He should have said Damn straight I’m impugning your integrity, you’re taking bribes.

  9. The would be emperor is wearing no clothes besides the pearl necklace Wall street gave her.

  10. Reason will double down on unlimited immigration and open borders in 3 2 1.

    1. It’s a moral imperative.

      1. Oh those libertarians and their goddamn belief in icky freedom.

        1. Nothing says freedom like paying welfare to a jihadi immigrant while he plots killing you.

  11. Soooooo.

    I love watching Democrats talk like Soviet-style commies and populist Marxists who are gonna ‘go after’ this and that.

    Not only is she a faux-populist she actually had the nerve to pull out the 9/11 card? I don’t seem to recall Hillary’s face anywhere in the streets of NYC on that day and in the aftermath. Not like Giuliani. That was HIS town.

    It started as a rebuttal trying to defend her integrity but it ended with her revealing she has none.

    1. I was there on 9/11 and I don’t even remember HC being senator then.

      1. If you didn’t bask in HC’s light on 9/11, you weren’t really there, man.

      2. She was actually in the south tower, helping disabled people who couldn’t get down the stairs. After having to evade Serbian sniper fire in Sarajevo, she realized just how precious life is.

        1. I initially read that as saying that she was evading Serbian sniper fire from Sarajevo while in the South Tower.

          1. yeah, they almost shot down her helicopter

          2. I initially read that as “helping disable people”. Like breaking their legs just so she could take credit for giving them crutches.

            1. Stop giving her ideas…

    2. It started as a rebuttal trying to defend her integrity but it ended with her revealing she has none.


      huh, this wasn’t another SNL skit? fuck.

  12. I don’t know what’s worse: Hillary saying she took so much money from Wall Street because of 9/11 or the underlying suggestion that Hillary is unqualified to be President because she’s insufficiently hostile to capitalism.

    I know what’s worse than taking campaign contributions from Wall Street. Accepting donations from foreign governments while being Secretary of State is so very wrong and crooked, nobody ever bothered to think before about whether it was technically illegal.

    1. the underlying suggestion that Hillary is unqualified to be President because she’s insufficiently hostile to capitalism.

      At this point, Wall Street is one of the greatest enemies of real capitalism, as opposed to the cronyist variety. Not only are they dependent on sucking at the Fed’s free money teats, they also benefit from the predictable patterns of economic activity created by massive regulation and the minefield that IP law has created.

      1. yeah maybe but how else are we supposed to get rich without taking (personal) risk or producing anything of value? $700 lunches does eat themselves

      2. They’re just like any other industry confronted with having their business threatened with government regulation. When the government threatens you with annihilation, you take over the politicians and the regulators. And that’s exactly what happened when the government and the Federal Reserve forced the last two independent investment banks–Goldman and Morgan Stanley–to become bank holding companies so that the government and the Fed could legally regulate them.


        I wouldn’t quietly go into the night either. If I’m a kulak, and there’s a third choice between having my farm collectivized or being executed for saving it, then I’m going to take that third choice–especially if it means I get to keep and operate my farm. There’s no glory in being annihilated on principle–no matter what Ayn Rand said. There’s a word for people who lose because the government gets in their way. They’re called “losers”.

      3. What Goldman and Morgan Stanley used to do in taking risks that the taxpayers never needed to bail out–no matter what Obama said–was the very machinery by which creative destruction happened, not just in this country but around the world. If we never saw American capitalism do its creative destruction magic the way it used to again because the American people were too stupid to deregulate, then that would be too bad for us. Luckily, the American people aren’t that stupid. The fact is that there’s a regulation cycle that follows the the credit cycle and the economic cycle.

        There isn’t a politician in the world stupid enough to stand for long between the American people and the home loans they want, and as the demand for such credit increases (and as the Millennials mature), that regulation will go by the wayside–just as sure as the economic cycle will dip and rise again in the future.

        1. 2009

          Govt: “we must stimulate the economy. Let’s loan banks cash at 0% interest so they can loan it to citizens and businesses. That’ll help get things rolling.”

          Bank CEO: “thanks for the interest-free loanz, but things out there in fly-over country look a little too risky just now.We’d rather lend that money back to the federal govt @ 1% interest.”

          Govt. “Ok. By the way, we’re hosting a $10,000 per plate fund-raiser next week.”

          Bank CEO: “Awesome! I’ll brink the escorts!”

    2. Accepting donations from foreign governments while being Secretary of State

      You’d think one of her “competitors” would call her out on that, wouldn’t you. Hmm.

      1. They’re too afraid she might end up as President–and she has a personal history of being vindictive.

        See Filegate.

        1. Good point. Better safe than sorry.

  13. Got campaign contributions from Wall Street. Doesn’t matter, because 9/11, women, trees, oh, shiny.

    1. Yeah, the applause after the “women” line made me cringe. Who are these people that they think scorn and mocking aren’t the only appropriate response?

      1. I was going to comment on the women applause line, too. What is wrong with them?

        1. So we just confirm that Sevens, prolefeed and Crusty hate teh wimminz.


          Herself 2016 -Because Snuke and I Took Wall Street Money to Avenge 911!!!@@1

        2. Because ‘I’m a woman’ sounds better than ‘I’m Dr. Evil in drag’.

  14. The Most Shameless Moment at Tonight’s Democratic Debate

    How can you pick just one? Blue Nixon vs. clueless socialist. ugh.

  15. Lets roll with those punches.


  16. “I’m not impugning your integrity, Madame Secretary, I’m denying its existence.”

    1. This is the Dem debate equivalent of, “No, Mister Bond – I expect you to DIE!”

      1. I’d watch a debate if it involved strapping the candidates to a table under a giant laser.

        1. Only if I had the controls and a pre-signed pardon..

  17. The worst part wasn’t her answer but the loud applause she got just for saying “women”. But Team Blue is totally the party of smart, thoughtful people!

  18. The most shocking development to come out of the debate was that Sanders has stopped kissing Hillary’s ass and is actually starting to attack her. If Sanders goes down in the polls because of this, my respect for Democrats will hit rock bottom.

  19. Speaking of Glass-Steagal, what’s Robert Rubin up to these days?

    Most likely bathing in the over one-hundred million dollars he earned from the Citigroup deal.

    1. I picture him changing it to quarters “…so I can SWIM in Kyle’s Wall Street’smoney!”


  20. Sanders said the Wall St. model was based on fraud. What’d he mean, they make their $ selling phony investments?

    I’d also know what they meant by “go after Wall St.” Hillary’s taking credit for both bldg. them up & tearing them down?

    O’Malley emerged as the reasonable choice by not trying to go over the top on anything.

    1. Well, it’s true that IPOs are traditionally overpriced, but do you think that’s the fraud Sanders was referring to?

      1. He doesn’t even know what “fraud” he’s referring to. He doesn’t even have to, all it takes to fire up his base is the magic combination of “WALL STREET” and “FRAUD”.

      2. Robosigning mortgages, selling subprime-backed instruments as prime, etc.

        The real money is being made by abusing the high frequency trading system, but that’s way too intricate for low info voters to understand.

        1. I know this is a popular point among critics but aside from occasional screwups is there any evidence that HFT is abused or abusive?

          1. I don’t believe it changes the long term effects of the market. If your company is worthless, the price will eventually go down.

          2. Yes. There is extensive documentation of illegal frontrunning and stop-clearing, but the SEC is so deeply in the pocket of the big banks that they don’t enforce most of the time. The few times a malactor gets fined, it’s like 10% of the profits they made from the illegal acts they’re supposedly being punished for.

            The argument given for HFT is that it introduces liquidity into the market, but that’s bull. They pull out as soon as a crisis hits, exactly at the times when the market needs liquidity.

          3. No. HFT helps markets work better.

            1. The vilification of HFT is a campaign of lies.

              The reality is stunningly at odds with Mr. Lewis’s version. Study after study has shown that HFT has produced uncountable benefits to stock investors, making the prices they pay for stocks more accurate and less prone to manipulation than they had been in the past.


              1. What a pile of shit that article is. He attempts to dismiss concerns about HFT frontrunning by noting that frontrunning happened in the old system too; ignoring the fact that HFT makes frontrunning much easier to do on a massive scale, and much harder to detect.

                The famous “studies show” without any citations of these supposed studies should make you check for your wallet.

                1. Just because front-running is easier doesn’t mean it happens more often.

                  1. Just because front-running is easier doesn’t mean it happens more often.

                    Making something profitable easier to do means you get more of it. If you don’t understand, or pretend not to understand, that there’s no point talking to you.

                    1. If you don’t understand, or pretend not to understand, that there’s no point talking to you.

                      Greerg, meet Cytotoxic.

              2. I’m not vilifying HFT itself. I’m showing that it’s prone to abuse and questioning the alleged benefits.

                Maybe it’s possible to run an exchange with HFT that doesn’t lend itself to these abuses. IEX is an attempt to do that (though the NYSE is trying to block it from being approved as an exchange). I seriously doubt that the powers that be would allow such an exchange to siphon away their profit source, though.

    2. No, you see, when the stock markets are going up, people are making all this money in their portfolios because they’re just so smart. When the stock markets are going down, people are losing all this money in their portfolios because their mean old brokers tricked them into investing in this stuff.

  21. Jesse, I consider your lack of a trigger warning a mircroagression.

    Please think of those of us who vomit on sight of Hillary’s face.

    Also, are we surprised pandering shit-bag panders?

    1. Man, this is a rough weekend for you. I’ll be right over.

      I just need to stop a and pick up a bottle of Boone’s Strawberry Hill on the way.

  22. The Most Shameless Moment at Tonight’s Democratic Debate

    when they bowed their heads in prayer?

  23. I can’t even take a half minute watching that woman speak. If she wins its gonna be a real long 8 years.

    1. I’d be surprised if the country survived 8 years with that hag at the helm.

      1. Barring a health issue arising for her, or some type of weird meltdown I fear that she is the next Pres. It looks like the GOP is gonna go full bore stupid and pick Trump as the nominee.

        1. Scaring me too.

          1. Things could get interesting if there’s a viable third party candidate capable of peeling off moderate Democrats who don’t like Hillary, moderate Republicans who don’t like their nominee (assuming Cruz or Carson wins), and seems reasonable to independents. Jim Webb would be a prime candidate.

            I’ve always wanted to see the House of Representatives elect the president in my lifetime.

            1. Jim Webb would be a prime candidate.

              Webb doesn’t have enough “fuck you” money to mount a campaign like that. People like Trump or Perot can get away with going against the grain of the status quo because they have enough cash to not worry about having their strings pulled by big money donors. Webb might have actually been the most sane candidate in this cycle, but the increased number of Millennial voters and the increasingly partisan nature of our culture guaranteed he wouldn’t get a sniff. Plus, the Dem power players lined up behind Hillary a long time ago. They know Obama won’t do shit about prosecuting her for her felonious behavior and the Clintons are using this cycle to cash in all their favors.

              1. Good points, but I don’t see Webb as a radical anti-SQ candidate. Under normal circumstances he’d be a lousy candidate. But if the alternatives are a craven, corrupt bitch who got nominated due to pure fear, and a right-wing showboater who likes to shut down the government to win ideological points, he starts looking attractive, even to status quo players who don’t want the apple cart turned over by either Clinton or Cruz.

        2. The USCoC is set to eviscerate Trump with attack ads if he’s still leading when we get closer to the real primaries. It really doesn’t matter who’s in front now, especially when that person has shown no ability to get much above 25% of the vote.

          My guess is it comes down to Rubio vs. Cruz.

          1. I suspect anything released by the Chamber of Commerce will have zero direct effect on Trump’s numbers. The CoC is considered part of the GOP establishment, and anyone going for Trump or Carson isn’t likely to consider anything the CoC has to say to be legitimate because they’re viewed as sellouts.

            It really doesn’t matter who’s in front now, especially when that person has shown no ability to get much above 25% of the vote.

            Part of that is due to the fact that so many candidates are still desperately hanging in there. Fiorina, Kasich, Jindal, Christie, Paul–they’re basically going through the motions right now. We’ll see how much support the candidates actually have after South Carolina, at the earliest, when the lower-tier folks start running out of money and are forced to drop out.

            1. I don’t see how anybody supporting Fiorina, Kasich, or Paul would switch to Trump after they drop out. Is there any candidate whose supporters are likely to have Trump as a second choice?

          2. It really doesn’t matter who’s in front now, especially when that person has shown no ability to get much above 25% of the vote.

            The same could have been said of Romney at this point in the previous cycle; and McCain before him.

            Besides, the latest polls have Trump at 42%.

            1. One poll has that figure. It would be a 17 point increase after he was trending down with no plausible explanation for such a surge, so let’s see if other polls back it up going forward.

              Before you try to say it’s in reaction to the Paris attacks, the poll you’re referring to happened before the attacks.

  24. Looks like Peter Bagge has competition for the mantle of greatest libertarian cartoonist.

    March of the Crybullies

    1. Needs moar labels.

  25. The worst part is, she is less dangerous than her prime rival for the nom or the GOP front runner or even some of the other GOP nominees.

    1. No way. Sanders and Trump, for all their faults, would not sell the presidency to the highest bidder as HRC has done with her previous offices.

      1. ‘The highest bidder’ is a hell of a lot less scary than what Sanders and Trump have in mind.

        1. You seem not to be familiar with who the highest bidders are likely to be. Bill Gates, George Soros, and T Boone Pickens are mere pawns compared to the money that nation-states can throw around in the bidding.

          Sanders and Trump would have a hell of a time getting their pet issues through Congress. The dangerous things that Hilldog would do would require zero involvement from Congress.

    2. Bullshit. You want to watch an actual tyrant in action, put Hillary and her desiccated vagina in the Oval Office for 4-8 years. She’ll make Obama look like Cato the Younger.

      1. Cersei Lannister in a pantsuit.

    3. She’s not less dangerous than anyone. She’s the absolute most vile person in American politics today. There’s no one even close to as bad as her. Bernie and Trump are both saints compared to Hillary.

      1. No they’re not. Hillary is just a crook. You two don’t understand the danger of bad ideology. There’s also the whole ‘GOP controls Congress’ thing.

        1. Yeah, whatever.

        2. I don’t give a rats ass about somebody’s ideology unless they can implement it in real life. Which Sanders and Trump don’t have a prayer of doing.

          You’re witnessing how much damage Obama is doing with no support from Congress right now, plus they are probably going to lose the Senate in 2016. It’s a very difficult map for the GOP to defend. Toomey and Kirk are dead men walking in blue state elections, and the Dems only have to pick off 2 GOP-held swing state seats to regain control.

  26. O’Malley should get some credit:

    “Let’s say it in our debate because you’ll never hear this from that immigrant-bashing carnival barker Donald Trump: The truth of the matter is net immigration from Mexico last year was zero. Fact-check me. Go ahead, check it out,” O’Malley said.


    Even someone from CIS admits his statement is basically true.

    1. O’Malley gets credit for being the biggest crony in the history of Maryland politics, and that is not an easy achievement by any means.

    2. That is kind of to be expected when his party have run the economy into the ground for 8 years.

  27. It occurs to me that Trump could be the GOP’s Corbyn. Scary.

    1. I was thinking about your stance on immigration last night. You must be commended for it (and do share your position) however, there’s a hole in your assertion that the statistical probability of a terrorist being among them and even so them proceeding to cause damage in North America is tiny compared to the benefits of what we’ll gain from new arrivals.

      Now. One of the principle roles of government as mandated by people is to ensure protection of its citizens correct?

      So how does it make sense that our immigration officials will make such a calculation? I just don’t see it as valid them conducting the screening process by saying ‘yes, there may be terrorists among them who will kill but look at the potential to society with the rest! Think big picture!’

      Seems to me they can’t make such a call. They need to block entry of any possible people aiming to do harm. Just like we don’t let people with criminal records in.

      It’s not an anti-immigrant position. It’s just common sense. It doesn’t make any sense to me what Europe did allowing 800 000 in with little and in some case no screening!

      Now you have situations like Germany where the number of refugees/migrants exceed the town they were sent to!


      1. There is an ‘optimum point’ of scrutiny where we are doing the least harm to people’s rights. I am not exactly sure where that point is, but keeping everyone out is nowhere near it. We just have to do the best we can. (It should also be noted that one (1) of the attackers came through Greece. The rest seem to be homegrown).

        You know apparently the attackers also used the PS4 internet service and BTC. Should we ban these things too in the name of ‘safety’?

        1. Yes. I’m hearing they went ‘dark’.

          And yes. Homegrown was always the concern. See Boston.

        2. There is an ‘optimum point’ of scrutiny where we are doing the least harm to people’s rights.

          But it’s only our rights we’re worried about. All those Muslim immigrants should be kept out, presumed guilty until proven innocent, because their rights don’t matter. The US government wrote the Constitution to grant its subjects certain rights, it did not give any rights to the subjects of other governments. It’s not like those are ‘human’ rights or anything that everybody is endowed by their Creator with.

          You think anybody gave a damn about those “Japanese-American” Japanese when we rounded them all up and stuck them in concentration camps during WWII? Hell no, and nothing makes me prouder to be an American than thinking of how, when push came to shove, we bravely ran away from freedom and fearlessly sought the security of the prison. Sure, people like my dad helped liberate places like Rome and Dachau from some pretty bad people, but it’s not like he ever had to face the horrors of literally dozens of Parisians being slaughtered by some heartless fearsome monsters. If he had, I’m sure he would have run and hid under the bed shitting his pants just like the rest of us.

          1. Please give up the Japanese interment analogy. There’s a difference between not letting immigrants in and forcing your own citizens (including native citizens) to live in interment camps and seizing all their property.

            1. But it’s easier to argue against than the actual points made!

        3. We don’t know how many of the “homegrown” terrorists got their training outside of France.

      2. The calculation appears to be off. Why let in refugees instead of highly skilled (esp. culturally homogeneous and similar) foreigners? The educational profile of refugees and costs that – for example – Germany occurs in a year alone do not promise monetary gain from this influx. (Contemporary migration overall isn’t profitable for them either.) Further, if you additionally account for social tension (over religion, culture, self-government, social housing, fear of terrorism, etc.) – and it doesn’t matter whether rational or irrational – the costs seem prohibitive. That’s utilitarianism, measuring only the well-being of current citizens. – The 800.000 you speak of, by the way, have already been exceeded for Germany alone — and that’s only counting those who were willing to be registered. Germany doesn’t make registration mandatory, it’s only necessary when people apply for asylum. Which they don’t need to do in order to get into the country. The rule of law is suspended there.

        1. Well, to the point of assimilating, they are taking the German and I believe Dutch (?) government to court for not getting their welfare checks quick enough. Not a good start. Now. Granted, all government give new immigrants some ‘cost of living’ allowances but I believe they’re demanding 2400 Euros per month which is basically, roughly a 30-33k salary.

          1. I don’t think the total is that high. Though confusion over numbers appears to largely be politically desired. A problem is that there are several groups of different stati, exacerbated by a backlog due to sheer numbers (which leaves people suspended at various points of the process). These groups and the disparate benefits they are entitled to make it easy to distort statistics. Then there’s the fact that law is applied inconsistently and revised frequently, these days.

  28. Carter Glass, a tax-happy prohibitionist, assured Americans their economy would be safe from crashes once his Federal Reserve Act was passed to “cure this evil” This was September 10, 1913.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.