this New York Times article ("After Mining Deal, Financier Donated to Clinton Charity") either then, I take it?

I wasn't quite sure what to make of it. Like so much media coverage of the Clintons, IMHO, it raised a specter of wrongdoing that seemed to exceed its actual content.

I think Josh Marxhall got it right though -- whatever the heck is going on, it won't be able to continue if Hillary is elected.

Clearly, El Jerko's comments were distorted.  He was not saying we have to slow down the economy.  I do give him credit for understanding economics.  That is one of the things that made his cheerleading for globalization so confounding.

But, you know, the media distorts everyone.  And, El Jerko has gone out of his way to distort and lie when it comes to Barack Obama's record.  Whats up with that?

Anyway, I think that whining about this is relatively small potatoes.

and before you know it, the whole world thinks Al Gore said, "I invented the Internet."

Are you affiliated/employed by the Clinton campaign?

I don't mean to be disrespectful, but you sort popped up in September on the largest Democratic blog in Virginia and began rooting for Clinton.

Makes me wonder . . .

I am not affiliated with the Clinton campaign, or a political professional of any kind.

I've been lurking for  awhile because I am getting more and more interested in Virginia politics, and was looking to learn more.

I stumbled upon the Hillary-Obama debate sort of by accident.

At first, I was just bothered by the increasing view that were Hillary to get the nomination, many people wouldn't vote for her. It just disturbed me, and so f you look at my first diary, it was about understanding Hillary hatred for that reason.

That I have been so active in commenting since then is because, IMHO, the Clinton's get a raw deal from the media. I saw it happen in the 90s, and I am seeing it now. I understand how they help it along, but it still bugs me.

BTW, if I were affiliated with the campaign and didn't disclose it, I would consider that highly unethical.

after considering voting for Hillary is that she found that Hillary is hated a lot. Many conservatives don't want to vote in the general in this cycle. They said that they will vote for Ron Paul or not show up at the polls at all unless...

Hillary wins the Democratic nomination. My wife wants a Democrat in the White House, and she felt that more people were willing to vote or let Obama become president than Clinton.

Raw deal? Maybe, but a reality nevertheless.

Lots of people discover RK all the time and start by lurking and then posting.  And being a new member is certainly not a crime.  

Aznew has never been disrespectful.  And Aznew is certainly entitled to his/her opinion.  To imply that he/she is somehow behaving iappropriately simply because he/she is new and is supporting a different candidate from you - or for having a minoirty opinion - is not appropriate of you.

Just because somebody is new doesn't make his or her comments and diaries any less desirable on here.  Some of us come to RK to get all points of view on the progressive side. And we also like that more people are joining the discussion.

but I didn't take the question as a suggestion that I was behaving inappropriately.

I could certainly understand that I sort of pop up from nowhere, then we get on this Hillary thing, and I'm everywhere, mainly because 80% of the folks here support Obama. So I thought the question was okay.

And, lastly, it is "he," which all else being equal I am sort of happy about, because otherwise I would be a short, middle-aged, bald Jewish woman. :)