And so ServerGate continues, this time with a new govrnment report that Donald Trump will surely make hay from. The State Department’s Inspector General has been looking into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private server to handle her email when she was Secretary of State, and has issued a severely critical report. The Washington Post article has a link to the Inspector General’s report (you can see the whole thing here)—a report commissioned by John Kerry—and notes this:
The State Department’s independent watchdog has issued a highly critical analysis of Hillary Clinton’s email practices while running the department, concluding that she failed to seek legal approval for her use of a private email server and that department staff would not have given its blessing because of the “security risks in doing so.”
The inspector general, in a long awaited review obtained Wednesday by The Washington Post in advance of its publication, found that Clinton’s use of private email for public business was “not an appropriate method” of preserving documents and that her practices failed to comply with department policies meant to ensure that federal record laws are followed.
The report says Clinton, who is the Democratic presidential front-runner, should have printed and saved her emails during her four years in office or surrendered her work-related correspondence immediately upon stepping down in February 2013. Instead, Clinton provided those records in December 2014, nearly two years after leaving office.
Among the dissimulating things that Clinton and her associates said about this were:
- No sensitive material was sent from her server (WRONG)
- The use of the server was approved by a lawyer’s review (NO EVIDENCE FOR THAT)
- All official emails from the private server were turned over to the government (NOT TRUE)
The Post also notes that Clinton refused to speak to the commission investigating her emails, which looks pretty shady.
The FBI has a separate investigation going on, and that will take some time. The upshot? I don’t see any deliberate malfeasance here, just poor practice, and, most important, post facto lying about what had happened. Hillary Clinton is not an honest person, and we knew that starting from her lies about being under sniper fire in Bosnia. I think Americans sense this, one reason why her approval ratings are so low.
I’ll vote for her—what choice do we have?—but I won’t do so happily.
I’ll vote for a chimpanzee running on a third party ticket and feel happy about it rather than vote for a dangerous moron who very closely resembles an orange-haired orangutan.
Oh, I would vote for Dr. Zaius. He may have been orange-haired, conservative and an orangutan but he wasn’t a moron!
He also seems to have been born in the US. 😉
I have to think that if you are interesting in becoming a first class spy for any foreign governments, just become a cabinet level person in the executive department. Hilary proves that you can do just about anything you want after you get there. Really makes you feel good about security issues, eh.
The lesser of two evils, eh? (Or lesser of two emails??)
/@
“Instead, Clinton provided those records in December 2014, nearly two years after leaving office.”
E-vengeance is best served cold.
The sniper fire in Bosnia remarks were misspoken speaking, like calling a child by the wrong name, except instead of a single word or phrase the misspeaking goes on for sentences and conveys a wholly wrong version of the truth that, incidentally, makes the misspeaker appear heroic. So, calling it a lie is a misstatement, to put it charitably.
“Misspoke”? Making up an entire scenario is not like getting a name wrong. In addition, she said the same thing at least TWICE MORE during her campaign, so I guess she “misspoke” several times in an identical way.
Peter Jennings got fired from NBC news for saying essentially the same thing, and you’re telling me that she didn’t distort the facts?
I call it a lie. She knew better.
You’re right. I should have ended with /sarcasm.
And I should have known it was sarcasm–IO responded too fast. Sorry.
I think you’re referring to Brian Williams, not Peter Jennings. Jennings worked for ABC and died in 2005. Also, Williams was not fired, but he was relieved from anchoring the evening news. After a period of suspension, he was assigned to MSNBC where he hosts breaking news stories. It’s a sad comedown for him.
I still could not care less about her emails. The reason her staff used the private server is because government IT stinks and always has. They sent documents via the private server because they actually wanted to get the documents sent. Colin Powell has said as much re: his reasons for doing the very same thing. When does the investigation of Powell or Condeleeza Rice (her staff did similar) start? Will never happen, wonder why?
Well some of us care about the honesty of candidates. When Bill Clinton committed adultery as President, that was his business. But when he lied about it repeatedly thereafter, that was OUR business. Hillary has constantly dissimulated and stonewalled on the email stuff. Had she just told the truth I wouldn’t have cared nearly that much. But there’s something in the Clinton genome that makes them lie post facto. I want a President that will come clean about this stuff.
“I want a President that will come clean about this stuff.”
Unfortunately guaranteed not to happen this cycle.
Hillary has the “Rodham” genome actually. Sorry couldn’t resist. I like honesty too, but honesty is a relative concept, and I guess I don’t find her stonewalling all that concerning since it was done to resist rolling over for the despicable Benghazi committee.
Well, maybe:
Marge: The police have such a strong case against Homer! Mr. Burns said he did it, they found his DNA on Mr. Burns’ suit.
Lisa: They have Simpson DNA; it could have come from any of us! Well, except you, since you’re a Bouvier.
Marge: No! No, no. When I took your father’s name I took everything that came with it, including DNA!
—
So, because Hillary uses both names, is she now tetraploid? 😉
Does this mean that we should place our trust for Oval Office security with Hillary’s IT consultant?
I must be missing something, repeat the question.
What question?
No, the reason she used her own server was to avoid FOIA requests. The fact that she exposed sensitive information to foreign hackers is only one of many reasons not to vote for Crooked Hillary.
Enjoy your honest, truth-telling President Trump.
Credible evidence for those assertions?
And now I’ll stop as I’ve misbehaved terribly.
The avoidance of the FOIA is well-documented. A quick Google turns up http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/04/02/396823014/fact-check-hillary-clinton-those-emails-and-the-law:
‘That means “she managed successfully to insulate her official emails, categorically, from the FOIA, both during her tenure at State and long after her departure from it — perhaps forever.” He called that “a blatant circumvention of the FOIA by someone who unquestionably knows better.”‘
As far as exposing classified information, you can Google “Guccifer” yourself.
You should have read your linked article more carefully, the source was:”Dan Metcalfe, who was the head of the Justice Department’s Office of Information and Privacy from 1981 to 2007″ = a retired Republican appointee – who was offering his “opinion”. I say that’s weak stuff, as is evidence free claims of some sleaze that the right wing media is all too happy to swallow hook line and sinker. The FBI has officially stated there is no evidence to suggest her server was hacked.
There are certainly times when it is worth voting against one’s usual party to force them to improve on policy & performance. This is not one of them.
You come up with that clever sobriquet all by yourself, didja? Or you get it from Dimwit Donald?
Just because I’m not voting for the guy doesn’t mean he doesn’t know how to turn a phrase on occasion.
The choice isn’t just the bloviating billionaire or the disingenuous Democrat (see, I can make up names by myself). There are other options, and I’m picking one.
Thing is, those other options have zero chance of ever being called Mister or Madam President.
Donald Trump, OTOH, has a puncher’s chance heading into a heavyweight championship bout against a flawed #1 contender. The priority is preventing his ever becoming president.
If you think “Crooked Hillary” (or “Lyin’ Ted” or “Little Marco”) constitutes “turn(ing] a phrase,” you might want to explore the western literary canon, see how the masters did it.
Aside from anything else, given the proven incompetence of government agencies to prevent the intrusion of hackers into their computer systems, it could well be that Hillary’s email system might well have been at least as impervious to hacker intrusions as the government systems unfortunately are. Admittedly, that’s a low bar but a bar nonetheless.
“The reason her staff used the private server is because government IT stinks and always has.”
Yes. NPR reported today that the Pentagon still uses floppy discs!!!
I think if trying to adhere to truthfulness is at one’s core you don’t go into politics. You’re probably more suited for a career in science…
I’m not surprised. When I last worked for the USDAFS our information and email system was the DG (Data General) the company that made Ross Perot a billionaire. It was complete crap. Windows was of course dangerously new and forbidden and it was 1994!
Well, it’s not the very same thing. While some others (Like Powell) have used their private email address for state-related work, Clinton went to the trouble of setting up her own private server to route everything through, which is unprecedented, and which might indicate a deliberate desire to avoid scrutiny. It’s much easier to say “Hey, sorry, I was working from home and wanted to get the email out so I sent it from my home address.” It’s much harder to explain why you went to the trouble of routing everything through a private server.
Seems the only clear reason to vote for Hillary is appointments to the supreme court.
… rights for immigrants, unions, workers, women, non-whites, freedom of the press, (not having an egomaniacal loonie with his finger hovering over “the button” while facing off against Putin – “believe me!”), abortion rights, same sex marriage rights, income inequality, global warming, universal healthcare, Mexican walls, carpet bombing the Middle East, and, and, …
You forgot possible trade war with China….
It’s over. Bernie was waiting for this. Any doubts?
Failure to comply with Department, security, and legal protocols…Really? Interesting that her campaign was actually moving forward as if she was qualified to be President.
Let the games begin.
Imagine “Hail to the Chief” playing with Trump strutting in front of the US Capitol in January. I’ll bet he’ll even study films of Mussolini to get his poses right. Or rather his minions will do the studying.
Sarcasm?
Clinton is qualified in the electoral sense, which is what matters for being able to be elected. Which is what her campaign works after.
Over? Not a chance. Careful what you wish for; if Sanders gains the Dem nomination, welcome President Trump. The only person LESS likely than a Socialist to win in the general election would be an avowed atheist. We will have to hold our collective noses and vote for Clinton.
Anyway, you should read the report you’re commenting on. It concludes that Clinton (like all four other secretaries investigated on this matter) did “comply with Department, security, and legal protocols”. Some of those policies were evolving and some were not applied consistently, but all of the Secretaries complied with requirements in place at the time.
The reason this is problem for those of us who have no choice but to vote for her is that Clinton, as always, has been dissembling in her response to the issue. It is just another example of her style and it is appalling.
Yes, exactly, to your last paragraph.
Have to disagree. Not sure of the basis for your second paragraph statements concerning compliance with evolving policies.
From the report:
“Secretary Clinton: By Secretary Clinton’s tenure, the Department’s guidance was considerably more detailed and sophisticated. Beginning in late 2005 and continuing through 2011, the Department revised the FAM and issued various memoranda specifically discussing the obligation to use Department systems in most circumstances and identifying the risks of not doing so. Secretary Clinton’s cybersecurity practices accordingly must be evaluated in light of these more comprehensive
directives.”
I do not believe that the comments unfairly characterize the candidate or what we know of the events. To some it would appear a serious lapse in judgement and disregard for the consequences.
Take another look at the report, surely you find sufficient phrases such as “she did not comply with the Department’s policies” to cast doubt on her judgement, regardless of the legal outcome.
Yes, my comment was short and sarcastic, no apology forthcoming, especially in this thread, or the campaigns in general. Like religion, politics can be crude and dismissive of the facts.
If this report in the Torygraph is even half-true then Trump could be in deep legal trouble of his own.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/25/exclusive-donald-trump-signed-off-deal-designed-to-deprive-us-of/
Oh please, oh please.
Unfortunately, the USian electorate (by and large) doesn’t have the attention span to read such an article.
It reminds me of the question I had when all the “birther” nonsense happened. Apparently the US has no independent body to verify the legal status of candidates for President. So could we have a race where both mainstream candidates are under indictment for a crime? 😉
Actually, if I recall, at least sometime even being in prison doesn’t stop the candidacy – didn’t Eugene Debs run from prison?
I was afraid of something like this coming out late in the game.
So how serious is this in legal terms (as oppose to reputational terms)? (Asking as a non-American.)
Perhaps this is among the reasons Al Gore has refused to endorse Hillary.
And no former president has endorsed Trump.
Not exactly an equivalent scenario. It’s not like Trump was a vice president under Bush.
Anyway, there is a very ugly game being played, and at the moment, Trump is the beneficiary.
Full agreement with your last paragraph. Trump and the GOP-meisters are laughing.
This is an extremely depressing election cycle.
Several online “friends” are claiming to sit it out and/or vote green.
I just keep saying: Remember 2000.
And, if there are significant numbers doing them same, enjoy 8 years of President Trump (vomiting …)
Oh, don’t worry, he’ll get us into another war or two to ensure reelection (following the W playbook). Believe me! It’ll be Yuge!
All that’s required for the US to be saddled with a President Trump (gak, vomiting) is for the Democrats to no show up.
If we show up, we avoid that abomination.
Does anyone (anyone?) think Trump is honest — in any way? He’s only honest in as far as he let’s fall from his mouth whatever lie is passing through his head at the moment.
He’s authentically dishonest.
Trump’s bluster and bloviation doesn’t excuse Clinton’s failure to maintain classified information on secure servers.
I’m not saying it does.
I’m saying that Trump would be worse — much worse, in every possible way.
How would you know? Clinton has flip-flopped on nearly every policy she’s ever addressed. She’s as much of a liar as Trump.
A pox on both their houses.
And how do you know?
In case you think the polls about Bernie are realistic: Having Bernie in the game still is a golden gift to Trump and the GOP. Why on earth would they say a single bad thing about him? He’s a dream come true for them.
And Hillary doesn’t want to go after Bernie — she wants his voters in the fall.
Bernie hasn’t had a swing taken at him yet. And he won’t release his taxes either (one year doesn’t really cut it).
Between Bernie and Trump, they’ve flipped the election: It was a clear path for the Dems with Hillary to the Whitehouse and a GOP slugfest of midget clowns, right through the convention, maybe even a contested convention, handing the Whitehouse to the Dems.
Now, the opposite is true. Be careful what you wish for.
I remember 1968, 1972, 1980, 2000.
I remember those years too, but I don’t see a clear analogy between any of them and this election cycle.
Also, it’s unfair to fault Bernie for Hillary’s current problems. Those are of her own making; she should be running away with this election. Hillary’s problem is Hillary, and her lack of sincerity. She has never seen a fact that couldn’t be improved by bending; she’s never told the hard, unvarnished truth when she didn’t have to. Nor has she or her husband ever taken a principled political stand that could in any way stand in the way of their own political ambitions.
All that notwithstanding, once Bernie is officially out of the race, I will actively support Hillary’s candidacy. And I will cast my vote with alacrity for her against Donald Trump. I hope against hope that, come next January, we will be welcoming a woman to lead the way in the west wing of the White House.
Maybe I am naive, but has anything classified ever amounting to something profound? Snowden? Wikileaks? Any surprises there? Now if they had a Tesseract in a CO mountainside, that would be interesting.
He’ll let loose a firehose of crazy in the morning and then lie about it in the afternoon.
Polls show that Americans think he’s more honest and trustworthy than Hillary, but I’ll admit that’s not saying much.
I used to have a security clearance. I would have been fired and brought up on charges for far, far less mishandling of classified information than what we already know Clinton has done.
If the FBI doesn’t complete their investigation before the Democratic convention, they may have an incarcerated candidate at the top of their ticket.
Don’t worry, the system is fair. If you were powerful, rich, and famous, you’d get away with it too. 🙂
By appointing Israel basher and gay basher Cornell West to the Platform Committee, Bernie has forfeited any claim to being a white knight. West is a good buddy of Princeton Professor Robert George, a two fisted anti-gay bigot.
I think I will go into deep Pyrrhonic pretend mode and just force myself to believe the following for the next eight years:
Frank Zappa – pres
Miles Davis – vice
Jeff Buckley – sec of state
and seven pink unicorns – supremes
This election is not about Democrats and Republicans but about intelligent people and ignorant people. Intelligent voters will choose the answer that is closest to correct – Hillary.
How did “intelligent” voters select Hillary. We have two leading presidental candidates each with >>50% unfavorability ratings. Both Trump and Hillary claim the other is unqualified to be president, and, on this particular point, both are correct.
Why does the thought of “third party” and “two evils” rule out voting for Bernie Sanders? Why is he not a good choice as “last man standing”?
The polls about Bernie are not realistic: Having Bernie in the game still is a gift to Trump and the GOP. Why on earth would they say a single bad thing about him? He’s a dream come true for them.
And Hillary doesn’t want to go after Bernie — she wants his voters in the fall.
Bernie hasn’t had a swing taken at him yet.
[Sorry for the repeat; but it’s to the point I think.]
How do you figure?
Every poll shows HRC losing to trump, and Bernie beating him.
Stop believing the corporate newspeak
You addressed none of my points, actually.
This would play, 24/7, in every major media market in the US, right up until Nov. 8, if Bernie were nominated. Among other things.
Seriously, give it a rest. You may choose not believe *every major poll* for the last several months showing that Sanders has higher national favorability, lower national unfavorability, and crushes Trump in head-to-head voter preferences compared to Clinton, but posting it several times in this thread over and over is not going to make it untrue, or convince any of us.
Once would be sufficient to make your point.
You failed to address my point: Which is: No one has gone after Bernie yet.
Hence, those polls are not realistic.
If the same weak points are being made here over and over, I’m not sure how it’s an issue for me to counter them repeatedly.
Or should I just STFU?
I’m still waiting for someone to demonstrate that I’m wrong about Bernie having not been tested yet, that the “I am a socialist” video, or the “Breadlines are good” video are not deadly political poison (in a US general election for President).
Please do so.
Trust me (or should I say, “Believe me!” we might have to get used to that phrase), if I thought Bernie had a realistic chance to win in the general election, he’d be my man. I don’t think he does. I don’t think those polls are meaningful for the reasons stated.
Your mileage may vary.
From an article yesterday on Fairness and Accuracy In Media’s website:
As FAIR noted two weeks ago, the Clinton campaign directly coordinates online media with its Super PAC Correct the Record which has been attacking Sanders with an online troll army, text messages, videos, infographics and talking points for months.
Online troll army? Hmmm…
The core of the argument is that Sanders has never been asked about his “socialist ties” from the ‘70s and ‘80s.
Sounds… familiar?
But this isn’t true. In nine debates, Sanders has been asked questions about his socialism a total of ten times…
The refrain that the Clinton campaign hasn’t run a negative attack on Sanders, thus protecting him from the sort of criticism that lies ahead, is just a lie — one that normally reserved PolitiFact (5/22/16) deemed Clinton’s claim to this effect “false.”
Read the rest! It’s a direct response to your coordinated misleading repetitive messaging.
http://fair.org/home/the-myth-that-sanders-hasnt-been-criticized-wont-go-away/
Bernie makes socialism respectable. Trumps monkey shines would seal the deal.
Sanders, whatever his qualities, on a third ticket would guarantee Trump the presidency. Nader 2000 is the precedent.
Oops …meant in reply to Linda K above.
Yes, the problem with the Democratic Party is that it has a “weak bench.” Why is is that the only two viable candidates was a person of dubious character and a 73 year old socialist who until announcing his candidacy had never identified as a Democrat? For some reason the Democrats lack attractive candidates in their 40s and 50s who have gained national prominence. Even Elizabeth Warren, who could probably unite the party, is 66 and will be 70 if she should run in 2020.
With that being said, of course I am voting for Hillary. It’s a no-brainer. Nothing is more important than stopping Trump. If Hillary wins, we can expect at least four years of deadlock. But, under the circumstances, deadlock is far preferable to the catastrophe that a President Trump would create.
If they have a “weak bench” the GOP had the “theocratic crazy bench”. At least Trump or Clinton have never, in self-believing earnest, sat a knee to the earth in prayer to baby Jesus.
Actually, Hillary professes to be a strong Christian, although I am certain she would not call herself a fundamentalist. See this New York Times story.
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/01/25/hillary-clinton-gets-personal-on-christ-and-her-faith/
I suppose one could question if Hillary actually believed what she said, but I’d be willing to give her the benefit of the doubt. On the other hand, Bernie, who was born Jewish, probably has never uttered a prayer since at least he was 13. Trump has probably never prayed out of genuine conviction. But, since he will say anything, he has tried to gain evangelical votes by professing religious belief. I wonder how many fools actually believed him.
I doubt any evangelicals believe Trump…they fear the alternative more. For them its either a slap on the wrist from St Peter or full on damnation.
The most cringe-inducing 30 seconds in American broadcast politics comes when Hillary addresses what-being-a-Methodist-means-to-me in response to an audience question at a town-hall meeting.
I think you will find that Hillary was active in the evangelical bench of the Senate. She seems very at ease campaigning from church pulpits.
Yeah, when she’s standing next to a black minister who endorsed her from the get-go, after he’s warmed-up an already converted congregation.
Not so much otherwise.
I must stand with you on this question. Bernie is a disaster for many reasons and people do not remember he is an Independent from Vermont. He is also a socialist and while that really does not bother me it is sure death in national politics in this country.
His political run is full of promises that are impossible to keep, unrealistic and almost crazy. Free education and free medical care for all and no tax increase. Sure the kids like him but lets be honest, insuring that the idiot with bankruptcy for a brain cannot be something anyone really wants. No Trump…
I’m sure you can make a compelling argument without saying things that are completely untrue. He’s been consistently clear that free public university tuition – which we used to have in this country – would be paid for by “a tax on Wall Street speculation” and single-payer health care would be paid for by a tax increase on both the wealthy and the middle class.
Your belief concerning the political inviability of Sanders is not backed by polls (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/). Sanders wins consistently against Trump and almost always by much larger margins than Hillary does. Hillary and her pacs have time and again gone negative against Sanders but seem unable to dent him. She has now reneged on her agreement to debate Sanders one last time.
Sanders wants healthcare in the US to be like Britain, France, and Canada and government run universities to be tuition-free like France, Germany, and Britain; similar to what the US was in the 1960s. Clearly these are unworkable cracked communist ideas. [sarcasm]
In the Senate Sanders caucused with the Democrats, fund-raised for the Democrats, and had his candidacy as a Democrat validated by the DNC, although this may be because Debbie and the Clinton people thought Hillary had it all sewn up. In the primaries, Vermont Democrats, those who know him best, gave Sanders more than 85% of their votes.
The Bern will be 75 on Sept. 8th. Let’s not minimize his experience.
“If Hillary wins, we can expect at least four years of deadlock.”
I dunno. Hillary was surprisingly good at working with both sides of the aisle when she was a Senator. And currently I think there’s at least some realization in the GOP that the Tea Partying refuseniks brought the party to its deathbed. Something has to give.
Hillary is a Republican at heart. Seems Romney may endorse her. She should have a lot of success working with “the other side.”
http://itk.thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/281073-romney-should-endorse-clinton
Hillary can trend toward the neocon in foreign policy. But I doubt there will be a plank in the Republican platform on domestic policy that Hillz could sign on to. So calling her a “Republican at heart” isn’t really fair.
I think it depends on what one means by the word “Republican”. I tend to agree with W.Benson but do so with an expansive definition of the name… She’s “Republican at heart” in the old liberal Republican way. I think she could be comfortably lumped in with Nelson Rockefeller and Lincoln Chaffee. Of course that kind of Republicans is extinct in the wild. Maybe some can be found in a zoo somewhere. The others are now DLC-style Democrats.
Yes, I’ll agree with that, GBJ. There remains a tiny relict population of moderate Republicans in New England, their range limited to the wilds of New Hampshire and Maine, with senators Kelly Ayotte and Susan Collins, and former senator Olympia Snow. They bear the founder effects of their broodmare, Margaret Chase Smith.
Since they are limited to the distaff side, they are doomed to imminent extinction.
Instead of voting for the lesser of two evils, I choose to vote for the greater good, which is Bernie Sanders.
Plus he is the only one who can beat trump, HRC always loses to him in polls.
A vote for HRC is a win for trump
Wishful thinking. Sanders stands no chance in the general election against Trump, irrespective of polls conducted so far out. He will not win the Dem nomination anyway. It’s over.
Evidence free comments are also welcome.
No one’s taken a serious swipe at Bernie yet. (Do you really think so?) The GOP are keeping their powder dry and laughing at every such comment. Bernie is a dream come true for the GOP.
It’s been 62 years since Joe McCarthy was censured by the United States Senate, and over four decades since the House Un-American Activities Committee was disbanded. Isn’t it time already that our nation overcame its Red-Scare-era phobia over the word “socialism”?
Every day by cocktail hour Donald Trump talks and tweets nonsense that ought to disqualify him from holding any public office in this land. Though he won’t get the chance, Bernie would beat Trump like an orthodontically-challenged stepchild.
Sure it is (time). I have no issue with it. I’m in favor of single-payer health care and was disappointed (at first, when I put on my fantasy hat) by Obama-care.
However, the US has not gotten over its allergy to the “S” word (or the “C” word). It’s simply a fact. Do you think otherwise? Calling someone a Liberal these days is a slur in US politics.
And it’s not a hangover from the 1950s. This has been assiduously fomented by the conservative political structure for decades. And they are winning, so far. Look at the position on the Left-Right continuum of Presidential Candidates in the 1960s and 1970s and then in the 2000s and 2010s.
No argument about Trump. He’s an embarrassment.
However, do you think Bernie has been tested or attacked in this election? Not a bit. Many on this thread are bashing me for repeating this; but no one is countering the actual point. (Those polls don’t mean much. The GOP wants Bernie to stay in.)
He’s continued candidacy is a boon to Trump and Hillary doesn’t want to alienate his supporters.
Bernie’s been challenged over the course of this campaign. What he hasn’t been, is subjected to attack ads. But the only claim I’ve heard regarding his vulnerability concerns his having the scarlet S hung round his neck.
If it came down to it, I’m confident (or at least hopeful) that the country’s aversion to demagoguery, misogyny, nativism, and know-nothing-ism is greater than its aversion to the specter of democratic socialism. Aren’t you?
Not me. Most Americans hear the word “socialist” and they shit their pants.
Bernie hasn’t been subjected to 1 billion dollars in Republican attacks. After that, I fear at least 51% of the electorate would think Bernie is the biggest commie since Joe Stalin. After all, look how they swift-boated John Kerry… and it worked.
Repubs will attack Hillary, of course. But after doing it for 20 years, that well is relatively dry. Her poll numbers already reflect 20 years of attacks.
Her poll numbers are low largely because of those years of attacks. (And partly because of disappointment from more progressive types like me who recognize the failure of DLC-style politics.) But I think it is a mistake to think that the “well is dry”.
I’m not convinced that a majority of voters these days would run in terror from “Socialist”. Most of those who would are already right wing Republicans who wouldn’t vote for any Democrat. But I could be wrong. In any case, we aren’t likely to find out in this year’s election cycle. Sanders can’t win the nomination at this point although he can have a lot of influence on the platform.
Well, pants-shitters get the government they deserve, I suppose. Americans didn’t shit themselves after Lexington & Concord, or after the Brits burned the White House in 1814, or after the Rebs fired on Fort Sumter, or after the sinking of the Lusitania or the bombing of Pearl Harbor. So I have faith we wouldn’t climb on a chair screaming “eek!” at the sight of our first social-democrat presidential candidate.
I think you’re confusing the hardcore support Trump has among a minority of the GOP for the mass of the American polity. Trump has yet to demonstrate that he can reliably win a majority of his own party in a contested election, let alone carry the sane and rational American electorate.
Anyway, the rightwing has brandished the scare label “socialism” to oppose every piece of progressive legislation ever to come down the American pike — including in unsuccessful opposition to women’s suffrage, child-labor laws, the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, the 40-hour work week, the National Labor Relations Act, social security, and Medicare, to name just a few.
I for one would be willing to dig in and fight my final battle on a democratic-socialism hill, if it came to that.
This will play well too:
Bernie praising bread lines in Nicaragua.
Saw the video through. If I interpret things correctly, Fox News condemns socialist bread lines and declares starvation of the poor more ideologically correct. [this time, not being sarcastic]
They won’t play those parts …
Hilary Clinton has not just been dishonest but has also shown very poor judgement in her actions and then in the subsequent attempt to cover up. That doesn’t bode well for someone who intends to lead the most powerful nation on earth.
How on earth did this election end up with such a poor set of alternatives for the voters to choose between?
As a citizen of elsewhere I don’t have to worry about who I should vote for but I (and every other citizen of the world) do have to worry about who runs the US.
It’s not just the U.S.
Perhaps I’m misinformed, but I see similar political turmoil in Canada, Australia, England. Maybe the trend is not in synch with the United States, but the issues seem equivalent.
Is there anyone in those places as vile as Trump? (I’m probably just poorly informed …)
Perhaps so, but only the US fits the description “most powerful nation in the world”. The thought of Trump at the helm of the US does not fill me with confidence for the future. It is bad enough having Putin in the Kremlin but with Trump in the White House as well…words fail.
It’s not rocket science. Follow the instructions of the organisation you are joining. If you think the procedures are insanely lax, have that conversation (about procedures, not content) out of channel, while responding to in – channel messages with a bullshit “ur msg is V imp 2 uz” until both sides are satisfied.
A client ( no name, no pack drill) once REQUIRED me to use a gmail account to transmit data of real sensitivity in a continuing (we were buzzed by fighter – bombers, daily) border dispute.
I complied, AFTER covering my arse by involving my Ops Manager and IT bod on questions of the security of such practice. They noted my objection (CC’d to client) and ordered me to comply. Arse covered.
It was, regardless of that, an “interesting” job. The first ( and I hope only) time that I have sent orders “in voce Boss” about (our) life – threatening events, in preference to waking the Boss up from SERIOUSLY needed sleep.
Anyone wish to play “Name that 1st world country”? This was just before Macondo (quoth the raven, “There but for fuck went us”), and the ‘Civil’ servants involved are still in – place. My personal bridges were burned when I REFUSED to apologise to my senior fuck-wit excuse-for-a-geologist-who-couldn’t-differentiate-limestone-from-sandstone-when-given-a-bottle-of10N-HCL. And I refused in their open – plan office. With about 1000 of his subordinates listening.
That’s enuf. Poor Fucked Xd swords with me, and was publicly handed his balls. Ever so slight loss of face for the oxygen waste.
I’ll try to rant less. But that one was dangerous to me, my colleagues, and his staff. And despite claiming a PhD, not in any script I can read.
Voting for a lesser evil is undemocratic in my view. There are two shoes that fit this time.
You can blame it on a divided vote, and tell yourself how important it is to play along, even when Clinton is a terrible candidate nobody really seems to like, because at least you prevent Trump.
But it’s also clear that Sanders has overall better popularity ratings, seems to enthuse new people, especially many of whom should be the Democratic voters of tomorrow.
If the Democrats go with a candidate Clinton, with lesser popularity overall and who is viewed unfavourably, and how loses against Trump according to some polls, and who may be under investigation during a difficult campaign, and who could not be any more establishment – in this anti-establishment climate — and they botch that, well, they have to own it! It ridiculous and cynical to blame this on the other people who say all along that she’s a loser.
Of course it will be blamed on the Bernie or Bust voters, because that’s how your foul system works and how it preserves itself. You need more parties like other democracies, which would reduce corportate corruption, too.
I also refuse to vote for lesser-evil candidates. Here is an article by Stephen Unger arguing for this position, with some interesting links as well.
I’ve been voting for north of four decades now and have almost exclusively cast my ballots defensively for lesser-evil candidates. In a system such as ours, those motivated to seek elective office are almost by definition disqualified from receiving an unequivocal endorsement.
Such candidates are like moments of unbridled joy or true inner-peace — they come along on rare occasion. In the meantime, I do the best I can between high spots.
The Bernie or Bust people are new recruits who would never have voted for Clinton under any circumstances. I know; I am one, although I may vote for Hillary is she can convince me that she will push a significant part of Sanders’ agenda.
I have never supported a third party candidate before, but expect to this time.
Incidentally I still give Biden an outside chance. If the email server gets Hillary indicted, and it should, it’s his for the taking. He’d win big, carried along on a great collective sigh of relief.
If Biden were to be awarded the Democratic nomination, it would be through the betrayal of Sanders (who has so far received $180+ million in mostly small contributions). If betrayed by the DNC, Sanders and his Independent and Democratic following would no longer consider themselves bound to the party. Who knows what would happen.
Feel the Bern people, feel the Bern.
I’d be willing to bet that the rule Clinton violated is obsolete and was probably written, and never updated, prior to the wide scale use of computers.