danivon wrote:You know what, find me your favourite GOP hopeful, and I will find a lie (or evasion, or fudging, or whatever) - Unfortunately, it is almost impossible to get national political prominence without having to dissemble on something. Hillary has been prominent for longer than most.

But this isn't about the GOP. It's about the Democratic nomination: the Dems actually have some good people running for the nomination: Bernie Sanders and Lincoln Chafee come to mind. Both have reputations as being honest, upstanding and principled. One is more left, the other is more right. Both are vastly more attractive candidates than Clinton if you care about character, and the general election is largely about character. Dems are being foolish lining up behind Clinton. She couldn't win in 2008, why is she a better candidate today? I really don't get it.

There is no other viable Democratic candidate out there. Sanders and Chaffee would get trounced in a general election. She lost in 2008 because there was a strong alternative out there--Obama. Not this time around. Why do you think Republicans are trying so hard to get her?

Geojanes

you just get named Secretary of State. So of course yoyour official business? Of course not. Who does that?u decide to set up a private email account to do

Colin Powell.

geojanes

In my mind it's less about the particulars of the situation and more about the person who thinks that this is OK

There was not an explicit, categorical prohibition against federal employees using personal emails when Clinton was in office, said Daniel Metcalfe, former director of the Department of Justice’s Office of Information Policy, where he administered implementation of the Freedom of Information Act. High-level officials like Clinton need the flexibility to sometimes use a personal email, such as responding to a national security emergency in the middle of the night.

If you are Hillary Clinton, and you have been hounded by conspiracy nuts and fanatics trying to find any particular instance which can be twisted into another "scandal" (or attempt at a scandal - you might opt for something you think is going to provide some privacy.
I think she made a bad decision ... But it isn't a failure of character. Its a failure to consider all the potential pitfalls. She got some bad advice and her explanations have been lame.

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/a ... er/387841/

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/26/politics/ ... index.html


freeman3

Sanders and Chaffee would get trounced in a general election

.

There's evidence that Sanders might win. The poll I'm linking came out Friday and in match ups Sanders beats Bush, Trump and Walker. Trump and Walker by double digits.
Its on page 18 of the poll.

Sanders is the most interesting thing about the race so far. He's actually making detailed proposals that are resonating with the middle class and the working class...And he's out performing expectations.
(Trump is too, but he's interesting in the way a car wreck is interesting).
The thing Clinton has going for her is the sense of inevitability, not just of her nomination but of a Bush Clinton match up.
But what Sanders has done is push Clinton to the left. Perhaps if she takes up some of his polciies with some gusto, it might just excite an electorate not so far enamored with the inevitable choice they expect.

rickyp wrote:Geojanes

you just get named Secretary of State. So of course yoyour official business? Of course not. Who does that?u decide to set up a private email account to do

Colin Powell.

You are technically correct, but that is because Geojanes didn't go far enough. So, let me help.

What other Secretary of State set up his/her own private email SERVER, maintained complete control of it, then destroyed it after receiving a subpoena?

Go ahead. I'll wait.

What other Secretary of State told all Americans none of her email had classified info in them, then had to modify her statement to "had information that was classified at the time?"

Hillary is not the victim of a vast, right-wing conspiracy. She is a dishonest person.

The heart is for Sanders, the head is for Clinton. Really liberal Democratic presidential candidates have not fared well--McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis. Sanders will not survive the mountains of money spent to defeat him by Wall Street and corporate America, regardless of what the poll numbers say now. A northeast liberal (socialist ) Democratic candidate would be a dream come true for Republicans. As much as I like Sanders, one has to be pragmatic. He would have no chance in all but very blue states.

freeman3 wrote:There is no other viable Democratic candidate out there. Sanders and Chaffee would get trounced in a general election. She lost in 2008 because there was a strong alternative out there--Obama. Not this time around.

What does that even mean? When did Barak Obama become "viable?" Because there was a long period of time when he was not viable, gradually he became viable, won the nomination and won the election. Why can't other candidates follow the same path? I find your line of reasoning so puzzling. Do you actually believe you know, in the summer of 2015, who is viable for an election in November 2016? Clearly, you do, but what makes you so certain?

fate

Hillary is not the victim of a vast, right-wing conspiracy

She is the target of a hectoring, pestering pack that seek to find massive fault in insignificant blandishments.
Consider the way the Wall Street Journal headined the story
and its actual content.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/investigati ... 1437714369

The headline obscures the number and the actual content of said emails. Plus there is no acknowledgement of the fact that the emails were a mistake caused by incorrect labeling..
What the woman has to deal with is both excessive, intrusive scrutiny and a hostile press. Hostile from the right, acquiescent from the left. There being, apparently, little that can be called objective press anymore. And then there are the fabricators like Brietbart...
She is far from blameless. But she does have a uniquely vicious mob tailing her.

freeman3

He would have no chance in all but very blue states.

If those initial match up numbers are right, he might have a chance in a head to head... I think Elizabeth Warrens popularity is also an indication that perhaps there is a swing demographically, and a swing politically due to a realization that republicans are offering the same solutions that they have for 30 years - despite the evidence that the solutions were part of the problem for the middle and working classes...
Bernie's campaign has no chance, but its against Clinton that he stands no chance. Hopefully she adopts some of his more popular proposals in her eventual campaign run.

A Clinton Story Fraught with Inaccuracies: How It Happened and What Next?

http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2 ... next/?_r=0

At the heart of this report on itself is a question about the responsibility of the press to report accurately.
It appears that the original source for the story on the criminal investigation of Mrs' Clinton was an anonymous source of the Gowdy committee.
Since he story turned out to be largely bogus, and nothing at all what was originally reported the Times they've retracted in the piece above.
But are other news sources retracting? Fox and Breitbart are they doing the same justice to the story as the Times?

fate

Hillary is not the victim of a vast, right-wing conspiracy. She is a dishonest person

Turns out the dishonest person in this is some member of the Gowdy committee.
And Hillary is victim of that dishonesty.
And it does seem like the same wash rinse repeat cycle of all the other "scandals" that Clinton has endured. Big claims. Much speculated upon. Not much fact.

rickyp wrote:

A Clinton Story Fraught with Inaccuracies: How It Happened and What Next?

http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2 ... next/?_r=0

At the heart of this report on itself is a question about the responsibility of the press to report accurately.
It appears that the original source for the story on the criminal investigation of Mrs' Clinton was an anonymous source of the Gowdy committee.
Since he story turned out to be largely bogus, and nothing at all what was originally reported the Times they've retracted in the piece above.
But are other news sources retracting? Fox and Breitbart are they doing the same justice to the story as the Times?

fate

Hillary is not the victim of a vast, right-wing conspiracy. She is a dishonest person

Turns out the dishonest person in this is some member of the Gowdy committee.
And Hillary is victim of that dishonesty.
And it does seem like the same wash rinse repeat cycle of all the other "scandals" that Clinton has endured. Big claims. Much speculated upon. Not much fact.

Oh please. If you want to match bias stories, I can come up with 10x as many anti-Romney stories. I suspect there will be 10x as many anti-Jeb or anti-Rubio stories. The ones on Rubio have been laughable.

If Hillary gets the nomination, the press will be in full attack mode--on the Republican. The zeal to have the first woman President will consume them.

rickyp wrote:Since he story turned out to be largely bogus, and nothing at all what was originally reported the Times they've retracted in the piece above.

Not true. The NYT has made some corrections, but they are standing by their story, the corrected version is here: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/24/us/politics/inquiry-is-sought-in-hillary-clinton-email-account.html

To me, it seems the issues with the original story is largely one of semantics. It was not a criminal inquiry, it was a security inquiry. A security inquiry may lead to a criminal inquiry, but they're not there yet. The difference matters, of course, but it's still news and the NYT hasn't retracted the substance of the story.

geojanes

Not true. The NYT has made some corrections, but they are standing by their story, the corrected version is here

Here's what their own ombudsman says about that...

[quote]First, consider the elements. When you add together the lack of accountability that comes with anonymous sources, along with no ability to examine the referral itself, and then mix in the ever-faster pace of competitive reporting for the web, you’ve got a mistake waiting to happen. Or, in this case, several mistakes.

Reporting a less sensational version of the story, with a headline that did not include the word “criminal,” and continuing to develop it the next day would have been a wise play. Better yet: Waiting until the next day to publish anything at all.

Losing the story to another news outlet would have been a far, far better outcome than publishing an unfair story and damaging The Times’s reputation for accuracy.

What’s more, when mistakes inevitably happen, The Times needs to be much more transparent with readers about what is going on. Just revising the story, and figuring out the corrections later, doesn’t cut it.[/quote]
http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2 ... next/?_r=1

I would like to see more of Martin O'Malley. But What current Democratic candidate is creating any buzz, George? Obama had since 2004 when he gave a speech at the convention. I can only say that no one else is coming in with any sort of excitement with regard to their candidacy. Could that change? Sure. So probably I should not have stated that there is no viable candidate other than Hillary but rather there is no one identified as yet . But Hillary is a strong candidate now and we're uncertain that voters are going to like any other candidate nearly as well. Thus, I am not going to ditch Hillary (based on minor stuff) in the hope that another strong Democratic candidate will come along. She has shown plenty of character in helping women and children, which I certainly think has to be remembered at looking at these e-mail allegations. I would be more concerned if people were complaining about how she ran the department , if people were pushed aside that she did not like. I have heard nothing like that.

freeman3 wrote:I would like to see more of Martin O'Malley. But What current Democratic candidate is creating any buzz, George? Obama had since 2004 when he gave a speech at the convention. I can only say that no one else is coming in with any sort of excitement with regard to their candidacy. Could that change? Sure. So probably I should not have stated that there is no viable candidate other than Hillary but rather there is no one identified as yet . But Hillary is a strong candidate now and we're uncertain that voters are going to like any other candidate nearly as well. Thus, I am not going to ditch Hillary (based on minor stuff) in the hope that another strong Democratic candidate will come along. She has shown plenty of character in helping women and children, which I certainly think has to be remembered at looking at these e-mail allegations. I would be more concerned if people were complaining about how she ran the department , if people were pushed aside that she did not like. I have heard nothing like that.

Sorry, but that's funny. Anyone who did that would effectively be resigning from ever serving in government again. Disloyalty to Hillary = career suicide.

Look, if you want to be an unprincipled pragmatist, that's your right.

(Okay, that was more than a little hyperbole, but you have admitted that all you really care about is winning)

I can honestly say I would rather have a liberal who is not bought and paid for than Hillary. Now, will I be supporting said liberal? Well, no, I don't agree with their principles.

Likewise, there are a number of Republicans I won't be supporting, starting with the Huckster. I also won't support Trump, Jeb, Kasich, and there may be others.

freeman3 wrote:I would like to see more of Martin O'Malley. But What current Democratic candidate is creating any buzz, George? Obama had since 2004 when he gave a speech at the convention. I can only say that no one else is coming in with any sort of excitement with regard to their candidacy. Could that change? Sure. So probably I should not have stated that there is no viable candidate other than Hillary but rather there is no one identified as yet . But Hillary is a strong candidate now and we're uncertain that voters are going to like any other candidate nearly as well. Thus, I am not going to ditch Hillary (based on minor stuff) in the hope that another strong Democratic candidate will come along. She has shown plenty of character in helping women and children, which I certainly think has to be remembered at looking at these e-mail allegations. I would be more concerned if people were complaining about how she ran the department , if people were pushed aside that she did not like. I have heard nothing like that.

It seems like Bernie Sanders is getting a lot of attention, creating a lot of real buzz out there, especially among people who are disaffected, and who may not vote at all if Hillary is the nominee. (At least he's the only person that my Facebook feed promotes. Small and biased sample size, I know.) But whatever, you don't think he's been identified as viable yet. I don't doubt that political wonks knew who Obama was at this time in 2007, but most of America had no clue until Iowa.

As a Democrat, you get to choose who you want to be your nominee, though that will likely be decided by the time you're asked. Nevertheless, I hope you decide to back the best person as your candidate, as opposed to the least offensive, or most electable.