Whether or not you think the email stories significant, news story after news story has been confirming negative impression of one kind or another.

This one is way too reminiscent of her law firms billing records allegedly having been missing for almost two years, then suddenly appearing in the dining room of the private quarters of the White House, where, I believe, an aide supposedly happened to find them.

It's about honesty and credibility. Can we, should we believe her campaign rhetoric? If we do, will we get burned?

It's about whether and how you comply with the law or whether you think laws apply to you in the same way they apply to peons. What do want in someone whose Constitutional duty is to execute the laws of the United States faithfully?

Saying no one gives a shit about her emails is beyong disingenuous, in my opinion.

And I can't speak for the rest of the human race, or even the rest of the American electorate. But I know that *I* don't give a shit about Clinton's email accounts, and I don't think they reveal anything particularly significant about her character.

funny, but what is/are your reason(s} for supporting her in the primary (if you do).

since she is the only candidate in the primary??,,,,,,,, who are you supporting?

Also, more than a bit disingenuous to suggest (a) that people are supporting Hillary because she declared Sunday and no one else has; and (b) that no one else is has indicated a run is a possibility if they can raise the money.

I saw a Clinton supporter on a thread yesterday call someone a "troll" for questioning her policy position. Apparently that's what we are.

That was me and if you call that a "policy position" you might be one of those too.

I really only remember the person who did it.

Democrats are in positions of leadership. This is particularly important given that the Republican Party -- which used to be full of sane people with whom I disagreed -- is now full of insane people who need to be kept away from sharp objects.

I support Clinton because I think she'll win, and thus prevent seriously scary people like Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, Scott Walker, etc., etc., etc. from doing more damage to the nation and the world than wingnuts have done to date.

Do I wish that Clinton looked at Wall Street through my eyes? I do. Do I wish that she was less ready (following the loosey-goosey policies much loved by her husband) to cozy up to people who shouldn't be cozied up to? I do.

But will I support Clinton and vote for her without holding my nose? I will.

If there were Powell wouldn't have used a private email and deleted all of them when he left. All the emails related to the Iraq war are gone. Thousands of soldiers died. A million innocent Iraqis died. No congressional outrage. No charges of being disingenuous. The rules came into play in 2014. Prior to that there were reminders if you were using private servers to make sure you save all work related correspondence. The Republicans are trying to get her to lie about anything and everything so they can say she's just like her husband. Some here are helping them.

Really inexcusable in terms of political strategy, especially for someone with top-flight legal training, with long experience with the ways of Republican opponents, and the workings of both the executive and legislative branches of the federal government. Also poor operational/logistical judgment, too,IMO.
I hope that whoever suggested the phenomenally bad idea in the first place of using private email exclusively no longer works for HRC or her campaign, and that this incident has served as an indelible lesson as to how NOT to operate moving forward.
Her new campaign is promising in tone, suggesting that HRC and her people may have learned something from this and other earlier missteps.
I hope so, because it's vital that Dems win the White House, and win back at least one house of Congress, in 2016. (Only one acronym need serve to explain the obvious: SCOTUS)
Yes, I will vote for HRC in 2016 if she (as seems likely) is the Dem nominee.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/state-department-email-rule-hillary-clinton-115804.html

I've thought the "convenience" excuse pretty weak rationale, at best, and the fact that her people rather than the State Dept., filtered the emails before release is almost impossible to justify.
Given the clarity and consistency of federal executive-branch policy on this issue, I would have thought that she would have had to make an explicit, compelling case to someone official, such as the state dept t inspector general or legal counsel for use of a private system. Did she ask permission from anyone? Perhaps secretaries can be an exception to policy, but , again, why would she WANT to conduct her business this way?

I'm SO pleased that Sec. Kerry chose to handle ALL his email correspondence, through government email and phone systems, from Day One. THIS is the way to do it, IMHO.

I am disgusted that HRC WAS asked about this specifically and she and her team did not answer.

From all accounts most of her top people left before or soon after she did, leaving this mess for the State Department as it struggled to staff up. Note that the response was from someone labeled "acting" -- probably a career state department person, who responded with the written State Department procedure. It is a little surprising that Issa did not PUBLICLY (and maybe even privately) push to get the answer concerning Clinton explicitly.

What I wonder is whether he intended to drop this - maybe NEXT year. The fact that she did have everything on a private server came out because the State Department got the emails after negotiating with her to get them. From the NYT timeline in the original article on this, it was the SD that started that process and this started last spring.

The fact that Issa WAS stonewalled on that question (by HRC) also makes the innocent - "I did it for convenience story less believable. Why didn't she answer the question? What makes this dumber is that it would have better to get this out in 2012/2013 than in 2015.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/state-department-email-rule-hillary-clinton-115804.html

is ginned up from whole cloth. SoS's before her did it and no one said a word. She followed precedent to the letter. Further, she does not have to disclose personal emails, and finally she did disclose relevant emails already. And Ms. Clinton did the right thing by ignoring Issa - she had no obligation to respond to his witch hunt. So quit flogging this dead horse - it makes those looking for an email "scandal" look stupid.

Her personal email address was on all her emails. If the republicans have something they would have charged her. She did nothing wrong and they know it. She has requested her meeting with Gowdys committee be held in public. He wants it behind closed doors. Recorded to "protect her".

It's pretty obvious that this was an attempt to avoid FOIA requests.

If it wasn't, it was just stupid and a poor decision, in that it sure can be credibly argued that it was an attempt to avoid FOIA requests.

And then the deletion of the emails gives the Repugs the ability to argue against an empty chair --- "deleted documents just have to be bad, don't they" they will argue. Heck, she was involved in prosecuting Richard Nixon and his 15 minutes of tape. She should have known better.

I'm not a Hillary fan. I'd prefer an actual liberal instead of Jeb Bush Lite, so take this post as evidence of my bias.

Ms. Clinton followed precedent and the law. You knew that before you posted. Or you should have.

I know he is a jerk and a scandal monger, but he asked a question that he had the right to ask and have answered.

For one thing, how could anyone who was a lawyer and/or a politician then forget Watergate? Second, it was after the Bush email flap. Third, it was against Obama's policy.

That makes me all the more reluctant to dismiss this as "Of course, her reasons for using a private server were innocent. Of course, she delivered to State all she was required by law to deliver to State. Of course, nothing in that category was wiped. And, based on those three huge assumptions, of course, no law was broken."

I think it is just like her alleged failure to find subpoenaed documents for over two years. Namely, suspicious and an indication that the Clintons believe laws do not apply to them in the same way that they apply to hoi polloi like me.

We now have a candidate that has a proven liberal track record and who is in a manifestly winnable position.

However, it baffles me to see some on DU jumping through hoops like rabid animals high on PCP to tear the candidate down because she is not as liberal as someone they prefer.

Is this tearing down over penny-ante stuff really necessary? HRC broke no laws and what she did was done by a lot of public officials at the time.

I really wonder which side the so-called "democrats" are. I can fully respect Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren and I'll support them if they are the nominees although I prefer HRC. I wouldn't even think of tearing down Warren or Sanders because they are not my first choice. Why can't Hillary get the same respect?

My biggest fear is that this tearing down may result in Ted Cruz being POTUS and we'll hear endless whining that "only if Bernie had been the nominee" it wouldn't have happened.

So to all those who are tearing down Hillary day in day out, ask yourself if you're doing your party a service and is your candidate so bad that the only way to get ahead is by tearing down HRC.

The primary hasn't even started, but anyone who criticizes Hillary before a primary is probably a Republican and must be shamed? See any flaw in that logic?

So to all those who are tearing down Hillary day in day out, ask yourself if you're doing your party a service

I think I am. My country, too.

For one thing, I think one of the worst things that happened to my party and my country was that the DLC co-opted it my party. Republicans got less pushback from Democrats, the one thing that was keeping them and the rule of rich in check, even a little.

Another of the worst things to happen to my country--and is still happening-- was the Iraq War, a war of choice. Hillary advocated for it.


Another of the worst things to happen to my party was giving primary voters less and less to say about who the candidates are--and even whether there will be any kind of meaningful primary at all. Not all Hillary's call, by any means but I have been pushing back against that on this board for at least a year.

Another awful thing that has happened to my party, if DU is any indication, is that people think anyone who opposes Hillary should sit down and shut up, like a Stepford Republican obeying St. Ronnie's Eleventh Commandment--for politicians. This is a far cry from Will Rogers' "I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat."

Moreover, I don't go around posting Ops about how awful a President I think Hillary will make. However I do see a lot of hyperbolic bs posted in her favor sometimes blatant lies. Am I going to feel free to challenge that, if I choose and have facts and sources? You bet.

There are two possibilities. What we post here affects no one. If so, all the hysteria about message control could not be sillier. Or, it does have an impact beyond this board. If so, I hope someone gets a message.

Either way, I am in no way ashamed of my posts, my reasons for them or my objectives. I am, however, ashamed that some posters are attempting to silence others and waving away Hillary's advocacy for the Iraq War and the DLC-type philosophies and tactics.

Is your candidate so bad that the only way to get ahead is by tearing down HRC.

Hillary has a personal fortune and tremendous advantages in this run, yet her supporters throw up post after post and thread after thread insulting the rest of us for not supporting Hillary, demanding loyalty oaths months before she announced, and attempting to silence any and all criticism. So, is your candidate that bad?

It goes right over their heads. What is really funny is people like you and I saw this coming a mile away.

I greatly, greatly appreciate the positive responses like yours, but I would post exactly as I if I didn't get any. (I don't remember getting many earlier on. I believe the systematic silencing of DU's left was working much better when I first joined.) I love them, but I don't post for applause or to become a member of any clique.

I will either respond to or ignore the negative responses, but they don't affect my posting content. If they are honest and not ad hom, I will respond in kind. If not, I can be as snarky as anyone who posts to me, if I choose and pointing out bs is a sacred DUty.

You are spot on with the post, I will give my opinion on why I do not support HRC and it is simple one, I simply do not trust her.

I have had the distrust in her for many years, call it a gut feeling.

There are exceptions--I doubt I need to name them--but most of them leave me counting my fingers after I shake hands with them.

I have to LOL at that one, and you are correct.

It is perfectly respectable to support another candidate andnot support HRC.

However, in supporting your candidate, you don't have to tear down another democrat. You can sing positive songs about the virtues of Sanders, Warren, O'Malley, Biden all day ... I respect all of them and would have no issue.

It seems that seeing that your candidates are either not running or faring poorly in polls, you have resorted to cutting down HRC with repuke non-issues. Needing to cut her down shows the bankruptcy of ideas for your candidates and doesn't reflect well on them.

There is the question of character--is Hillary the sort of person you choose to support? How does the email mess relate to that?

And then there is the pragmatic question: How much is this email flap going to affect her electability in Nov 2016?

Personally, unless someone discovers something very damaging in the emails, I don't think it speaks to her desirability as a candidate. (I have lots of other grounds…)

However, as to the second question, I think it is of concern. Even if she did nothing wrong, nothing illegal, nothing immoral, she did do something stupid. It's not about winning in a court of law. It's about winning in the court of public opinion.

She left her opponents a gratuitous opening for attack and she then let little bits of it drip out over a period of--what? A month now? She really needed to be out in front of it. Crises happen, unexpected revelations happen to every politician. What distinguishes the winners from the losers is often a matter of how they handle the crises, whether they appear to be engaging in a coverup, etc.

As it happens, Hill's many years in the public limelight have made her a very large target. She can't help that. But she had better be prepared to withstand the assaults. For me, the major issue at the bottom of the email fiasco is not the issue itself, but how effectively she spikes it. So far, she's not doing well. Dribblings from this sorry mess should not still be in the news.

"some on DU (are) like rabid animals high on PCP"

Even if their choice isn't running, or is polling below the margin of error. Support your choice of candidate, bring positive ideas to the discussion. Corporate media already gives the GOP enough free attention.

If all one has is negative RW talking points with no ideas of one's own, how is that materially different than being a republican?

Last edited Wed Apr 15, 2015, 11:50 AM - Edit history (1)

If not, I don't know why you've missed them.

Edited to add Sanders to the subject line.

I said that I dislike like posts with nothing more that RW talking points. I said I would like to see more posts talking up other candidates and their ideas, I did NOT say I haven't seen any.

I'd also like to see more posts on candidates that are running (Warren isn't) and candidates that can generate more interest than the margin of error in the poll (O'Malley). Sanders is good, although an independent but he has said that if he runs, it will be as a Democrat.

Seriously, selling a
candidate known for
drama and scandal is
serving us how exactly?

here to spread doubt, smears and innuendo. They are easy to spot because their posts are specious at best, fact free smears at worst. Like this one....

- neither of whom are the ones who decided to take the risk of having their own private email for their work -- and then ignore questions on it.

Even worse is that it may harm people whose names we don't know at this point - if the question becomes if this was covered up. (It may be the smartest thing the SD did was to - on their own - demand the emails back. They can't be blamed for HRC wiping her server.)

More:
The Making of Hillary Clinton-- Secrecy, Intransigence and War

Basically the Clintons have been dealing with political opponents that will stop at nothing to ruin them since they were in Arkansas.

Bill Clinton did good things as president and helped people but think of all that could have been done if the GOP hadn't been hellbent on getting SOMETHING on him. Hell, when Fisk couldn't find any wrongdoing in the Whitewater investigation they dumped him and put Ken Starr in and basically allowed "mission creep" so they could keep it alive and try to find SOMETHING they could remove him from office on. They tried, but it didn't work.

So I have no doubt that Hillary Clinton, seeing how Obama basically had NO shady dealings or other stuff that could be probed was still being attacked and blocked by the GOP, and decided that she would control all her own emails so that she could prevent another fishing expedition like was done on Whitewater.

I think it was a calculated decision. She will take crap for it, but it wasn't illegal and basically prevented the GOP from obtaining ALL of her emails, scouring them for anything they could get the right wing noise machine to attack her on, or at the very least keep leaking any unflattering emails to the press all during the election cycle.

So I think she basically knew what was going to happen, and chose the lesser of 2 evils politically. I'm glad she is driving the GOP insane with this and I hope she opens up an attack on them too, unlike Obama.

the issue, though, transparency is necessary for any accountability whatsoever and "Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants." Justice Brandeis.

Brandeis was following the words of a book entitled the American Commonwealth, by James Bryce (1888). As you read, bear in mind that, in 1888, skies in American cities were not hidden by smog or skyscrapers, and pencillin was not being used to kill "germs."

Public opinion is a sort of atmosphere, fresh, keen, and full of sunlight, like that of the American cities, and this sunlight kills many of those noxious germs which are hatched where politicians congregate. That which, varying a once famous phrase, we may call the genius of universal publicity, has some disagreeable results, but the wholesome ones are greater and more numerous. Selfishness, injustice, cruelty, tricks and jobs of all sorts shun the light; to expose them is to defeat them.

Basically, people who want privacy shouldn't run for public office, especially for the Oval Office.

I remember reading in a book by Sidney Blumenthal, written on the Bill Clinton years, that soon after Bill became President and the Whitewater nonsense started up, a group of important Democratic Senators privately went to the Clintons. Their advise was that because they did nothing wrong, put everything on the deal right out in the open immediately. Their view was this would nip everything in the bud and they could then work unhampered on their agenda. After they left, he reports that it was Hillary who was absolutely furious at both the idea and the Senators.

Now, you never know what would have happened had you taken the other path, but it is clear that the other path led to Ken Starr, Paula Jones, and Monica. It is possible that they could have done what the Senators spoke of and all the other charges would have surfaced as well.

Here, there was nothing that anyone has found that makes Benghazi anything other than a tragic incident in a very dangerous place. The Congress did have the right to Clinton emails pertaining to work, redacted as needed.

What this article changes is that she WAS asked for what private emails she used and did not provide it.

a steaming load of bullshit.

when the crap hits the fan, just laugh and say I tried to tell them but they wouldn't listen".

And in a way, four years of Clinton scandals, lies, half truths, arguments over the meaning of is, questionable friends, shady financial dealings, subpoenas, hearings, impeachment threats and maybe actual impeachment, would be good for a few chuckles, but I'm not sure the institution of the presidency and perhaps the stability of the union, would survive.

So I'll probably just keep bitching and moaning, get myself pissed off and not change anybody's mind in the end anyway.