I find it very hard to believe
that many people could defend Hillary Clinton's email shenanigans.
Something doesn't compute.
I find it to be both bizarre and disturbing.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)There are a lot of folks who have already decided they support HRC. Having made that decision, anything that would go against it must, of a necessity, for them to minimize cognitive dissonance, be a creation of 'the Right', a 'distraction', a 'lie', etc etc. Rather than simply taking 'Hillary' out of the equation and asking themselves how they would feel about a Republican Secretary of State doing the same thing, they twist themselves into pretzels by actually pointing out that Republican SoS's have done similar things, and thus, therefore, it's somehow ok that she does it too. It's not about fixing what people in government have done and are doing that is wrong, it's about defending HRC, because if they don't, they have to admit they might be wrong to support her.
I can't remember who said it, but to paraphrase, if you focus on people, rather than on policies or actions, you find yourself defending things that those people have done that you wouldn't have defended if someone else had done them, or attacking them for things they did they you have cheered others for doing.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)There are a lot of folks who have already decided they oppose HRC. Having made that decision, anything that would go against her, no matter how fallacious, must, of a necessity, for them to minimize cognitive dissonance, be true and correct.
(I'm certain someone will let me know if "Populist Reform of the Democratic Party" is long hand for the "Anti-HRC" group)
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)I think it's the Pro-Warren group, if we take it that Warren is a populist. But I could be wrong too.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)compared to the pro-Warren rhetoric, right?
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Note I say 'does', not simply 'attempts to co-opt the rhetoric'.
At this moment in time, she's in the news, and for doing something very much 'self' oriented, rather than 'for the people' oriented.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)apply to. Or maybe anti-corporatist.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)We're supposed to be the better party, transparent & open. This was very deliberate on her part, and you can't help but wonder what is she hiding? That is a bipartisan question for all of us.
This is an interesting article from ABC on the timeline of what rules were "allegedly" ignored~
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-emails-timeline-rules-allegedly/story?id=29442707
It reflects VERY badly on us Dems. Its not a little thing that will go away. How can this person lead our party? How can she run for president now? She certainly can't run on transparency.
840high
(17,196 posts)Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)I just think she wanted her own email working well, and didn't actually consider that just maybe it would be a better idea to fix State Dept's email systems for everyone. Self-centeredness, and lack of executive ability is more Occam's Razor than nefarious plotting.
Warpy
(113,130 posts)There was plenty of defense, pointing out that there is enormous precedent for government people in general and secretaries of state in particular to use generic email.
If it seemed a bit lukewarm, then that's the temperature of support for a coronation, even chillier than it was in 2008.
I won't support Clinton or any other DLC/Wall Street/Third Way Democrat in the primaries, just not going to happen. Primaries are when we remind the conservatives that progressives are still in the party.
However, it won't be because of this particular non scandal. If this is the worst she's going to face, she should have a smooth primary season.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)and getting the privilege of choosing which emails to turn over?
It's nowhere the level of voting for war in Iraq, or turning Libya into a failed state (and cackling with glee over it), but...
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)republicans cheering that the trigger was pulled on this "scandal" ... 2 years before the election, (and before she has even announced) seem to forget how notoriously short the public's memory proves to be.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)It was always lose-lose for them. Either, as you point out, it's two years before they face her in a general, or else if it had blown up into something that resonates better with voters and manages to keep her from running, they lose their favourite punching bag. They all know how to attack Clinton. None of them is ready to face any other potential Democratic nominee.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)republicans do know how to attack HRC ... and they are spending their money wisely ... tapping and promoting the Left's HRC concerns.
HRC is their strongest opponent (outside of liberal activist circles) ... Just about everyone knows her name and those that know her name, know she's a Democrat (and, the vast majority of the American public - again, outside of liberal activist circles - do not make a/the centrist/populist distinction).
But make no mistake, the republicans know how to attack any other Democrat ... in fact, the easiest way to figure that out is to spend about a day on any liberal/progressive site and look at the attacks, er ... criticisms ... posted.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)The 'attacks, er... criticisms' against Dems on liberal/progressive sites are all about how those people are doing things like Republicans.
They can't simply go out and complain about Dems being too much like themselves, that points out that what they're doing sucks too.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)notice republicans are attacking HRC over email-gate ...using the same arguments as found here on DU ... without saying, "they're acting like us" ... and guess what ... the vast majority of DUers AREN'T saying HRC is doing things like Republicans.
Remember ... for better or worse ... only the left give a damn about consistency in political arguments.
whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)I think we are at a transition point where people are so cynical and Washington is so CORRUPT that no one gives a fuck.
Hillary is corrupt. So is her husband. But, they tell me its for my own good.
Hell, the Democratic Party can't even rally on a situation like Ferguson.
Instead, the trolls rally around TPP, NSA and our fucked up police state. They salivate over the opportunity to put Social Security on the table.
A Democrat is now someone who opposes abortion and then fucks up the opportunity for 100 of millions of people and their children to improve their lives by using Republican-lite economics. You know, the pragmatic compromise.
It isn't enough to be better than Republicans. We've lowered the bar to their level.
Our two political parties are even closer than they appear.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)And Michael Brown.
This was a shocking & sad disappointment for me.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)
eridani
(51,907 posts)
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)RiverLover
(7,830 posts)while she held that post? And there is no way any shady emails will come to light at some point?
Its like a grenade out there, just waiting to blow Democrats up.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)They were not-so-affectionately dubbed the "bed-wetters" by then-Obama senior adviser David Plouffe. The definition: Democrats who run to the hills every time there's a bump in the road. The Chicken Littles. The woe-is-us crowd.
Well, they're at it again. Not surprisingly, it's because of the Hillary Clinton email brouhaha, an unforced error that is now ricocheting around the political world. And the home team stands in place, just watching, somewhat stunned.
But Democrats don't actually have the luxury of standing by and seeing how this all plays out. Hillary Clinton is their candidate; their putative nominee. "Their only viable plan is to make her the best candidate possible," says one senior Democratic strategist. "And from time to time, this may require an intervention."
Now might be a good time.
But while the anxious Democrats shake their heads about the state of affairs — and the lack of serious alternatives in the presidential lineup — they might do well to look at themselves. Over the past six years, there's been a sharp structural decline of elected Democrats everywhere below the presidential level.
Sure, we all know about how the Republicans regained control of the Senate in 2014, but what about the fact that blue-state governors fell like tent poles?
Or that GOP governors now outnumber the Democrats by almost two-to-one, 31 to 18. Or that Republicans have complete control of nearly three times as many state legislatures as the Democrats, 30 to 11. And down the ballot, Democrats under Obama have lost more than 900 state legislative seats: the worst showing of any modern president.
That's eye-popping.
So, the conventional judgment that the Clinton behemoth is just too big — too well funded, too well supported, too historic — all helps account for the paucity of alternatives, to be sure. But there's much, much more to it than the phenom of Bigfoot Hillary. It's the phenom of Barack Obama, too — and the very strong counterforces he's generated around the country. The gains at the presidential level have not been cost-free: The country is polarized, the Democrats are often on defense and they're losing ground. One result: a thin presidential bench, which is painfully evident. ...
http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/05/opinions/borger-democrats-defend-hillary-clinton/
pscot
(21,037 posts)to the Republicans is a gut punch for Democrats, no doubt about it. But that follows naturally from the collapse of organized labor as a political force. The broad Democratic coalition that ruled for half a century is dead. If Hillary's economic and foreign policy goals are no different than the Republicans', why should people vote for Hillary? Jeb could probably run the country just as well.
CrispyQ
(38,269 posts)mostly by the media. And again, a media that takes dems to task for the same thing they let repubs slide on.
I think they realized that their ad revenue will be down if HRC is the hands down winner of the dem nomination, so hey, let's stir things up. I do not put it past the media to realize a good dem fight would be good for their business.
on edit: That's not to say that I think what she did was right, just that I'm sick of the old IOKWRDI.
Demeter
(85,373 posts)March 5, 2015
LAWS AND RULES ARE FOR THE LITTLE PEOPLE: Hillary Clinton’s State Department Fired Ambassador For Using Private Email. “State Department policy was very clear. Using a private email outside the State Department’s secure system was completely unacceptable. If this applied to ambassadors, one would think it was sensible policy for the Secretary of State as well.”
http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/203217/
RANKS RIGHT UP THERE WITH ANOTHER QUEEN BEE:
"We don't pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes," billionaire hotelier Leona Helmsley famously (and allegedly) sniffed.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/04/taxes-richest-americans-charts-graph
I HOPE ALL YOU PEONS...I MEAN, LITTLE PEOPLE, ARE CLEAR ON THIS NOW...
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)Despite the obvious national security concerns,
the blatant attempt to control her official records,
and the hubris, the coming revelations could be
the most damaging to the Democratic party.
"Guccifer" hacking the AOL email account of Blumenthal's
emails to Hillary is the first crack in the national security breech.
Does anyone think that Guccifer was an isolated incident?
That the hacking community didn't look closer and possibly
exploit Hillary's server?
Did foreign Government hackers breached the SoS emails?
North Korea, China, Russia had access to the information
about Guccifer, but didn't exploit the situation?
YEP, both bizarre and disturbing
pscot
(21,037 posts)Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)North Korea was blamed for hacking Sony.
It's been pretty clear that Sony servers had
better security and encryption than Hillary.
Did North Korea gain access to Hillary's servers?
If she has NOTHING TO HIDE she should turn over
the server in the interest of national security.
Her server needs a forensic examination,
and archiving of public property created by the SoS.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)aspirant
(3,533 posts)have a complete HRC SoS email file just like they do for all private citizens?
What again is HRC's stance on privacy and spying on American citizens?
mwrguy
(3,245 posts)Response to mwrguy (Reply #26)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)Remember these same yahoos applauding NSA wiretapping and deriding whistleblowers?
They are the same folks who just luuuuuuuv anything with a D attached to it.
Bunch of rudderless unethical non thinking members of a personality cult.
whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)Rules protect the big people like Hillary from the little people like us. The Democratic Party has no interest in cleaning itself up, instead it chooses to play the game just like Republicans using cheat codes built into the system. Power continues to be concentrated into the hands of a super-rich minority.
2000
Hillary Clinton was recorded telling a donor that she didn't like using email.
Home video footage from 2000, shot at a fundraiser by a donor, Peter Paul, showed then-Sen. Clinton talking about how she had chosen to avoid email for fear of leaving a paper trail.
"As much as I’ve been investigated and all of that, you know, why would I?-- I don’t even want-- Why would I ever want to do e-mail?" Clinton said.
"Can you imagine?" she asked.
2005
The Foreign Affairs Manual was codified by the State Department, which ruled in 2005 that employees could only use private email accounts for official business if they turned those emails over to be entered into government computers.
That ruling also forbade State Department employees from including "sensitive but unclassified" information on private email, except for some very narrow exceptions.
2007
In the midst of the 2008 presidential race, Clinton took a jab at the Bush administration's use of non-governmental email accounts.
"Our Constitution is being shredded. We know about the secret wiretaps. We know about secret military tribunals, the secret White House email accounts," Clinton said in a 2007 campaign speech.
2008
Much of the mystery surrounding Clinton’s emails came from the fact that an IP address associated with the clintonemail.com domain she is believed to have used was registered to a person named Eric Hoteham on Feb. 1, 2008. No public records matching that individual can be found and it is possible that it was simply a misspelling of the name Eric Hothem, a former aide to Clinton while she was first lady. An Eric Hothem is now listed as an employee at JP Morgan in Washington, D.C.
The IP address for clintonemail.com, along with others registered in Hoteham’s name, are all connected to the Clinton’s address in Chappaqua, New York.
2009
Justin Cooper, a longtime aide to former President Bill Clinton, registered the clintonemail.com domain on Jan. 13, a little more than a week before Hillary Clinton took office as secretary of state on Jan. 21.
It was also a year when another rule went into place regarding the use of private email. According to the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations in 2009, if an agency allows its employees to use a personal email account, it must ensure that the emails are “preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system.”