Associated Press sues State Dept. over Hillary Clinton's emails

Possibly not. Her becoming stinking rich by peddling influence on Wall Street is what everyone ought to be talking about.

1 Like

Why can I only like this once? That is bullshit. This deserves all the likes and a heaping of internets.


Warren has come out in favor of reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank, one of the scummiest pieces of welfare for the 1% on our nation’s books.

Please. Obama won (both times) because black turnout was sky high and 99 percent Democrat. In what universe do you think a white candidate with a similarly scant CV would have gotten the same??

I should point out that white guy George W. Bush – whose CV was “oil speculator, draft dodger, failed Congressional candidate, and Texas governor” – was elected despite an incredibly poor approval rating and the lowest popularity of any candidate in decades. Compare that with someone who was a community organizer, constitutional law teacher, Illinois senator and US Senator with huge popularity regardless of skin color. I’m not seeing an issue with Obama’s CV.


That time we elected an actor president.

I’m intrigued by your “sky high” estimate when the answer is closer to “a 5% jump in 2008 and another 2% in 2012.” It makes more sense to blame the “plummeting” white voters who didn’t bother to turn out or those Asians who cranked it up 3%.

Let’s go ahead and bring some facts into the discussion: To see how much difference the higher 2012 turnout of minorities alone made in the final outcome, I conducted the same exercise assuming the “low” 2004 turnout rates for blacks, Hispanics and Asians, but with the actual 2012 white turnout rates. Under this scenario, the 2012 election is close with Obama ahead, but barely.


Regardless of skin tone, part of what helped Obama win was that his campaign was about the possible future of change and optimism that America really wanted as a whole. His melanin levels probably helped him represent as an outsider (hard to be seen as a wielder of power when you’re black in America), despite his political record, and people got hopeful that a little something could change. And a little something did - he’s a much better president than either of his competitors would be.

But Hillary will have trouble with that. She isn’t change. She isn’t new. She isn’t challenging the status quo. Which means that the role of “outsider” that Dubbya and Obama both played would be up for grabs if the Dems nominate her – and an “aw, shucks, I just don’t git these political shenanigans!” is not hard for them to pull off. The Reps have the skill of putting useful buffoons into office down to a science.

The Dems need to nominate someone critical of Obama, who can speak to the times where working-class folks got disappointed in him, and say, “We’re going to do better, and keep doing better,” and be believable saying that. A dysansty will stop Dems from voting – it won’t stop Reps from voting, though.


My concern is that while I like her policies, I’m sick of the Clintons. If she had never been First Lady I doubt I’d have any problem pulling the lever for her, but she needs to recognize that she missed her time and we’ve moved on, the same way I’d never vote for Jeb even if I agreed with any of his policies.

That doesn’t seem possible to me. There’s no way he can match her star power for donations, among other things, and he’s too…honest(?). I think she would steamroll Sanders, and I think the GOP would easily set up Sanders as a far-left radical despite not being one.

I doubt it was a situation involving hand-picking. There are likely tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of emails to go through. My guess is that they ran a somewhat comprehensive filter… along the lines of “If an email was sent to my Yoga instructor, or if it was a conversation only involving Bill & Hillary; filter it out”

Even if they wanted to use manpower to do it, that would risk exposing tons of private emails to… interns? who else would they get to do that much grunt work?

The State on the other hand, needs to go through and censor/redact sensitive information in the emails… which I can imagine is a long, painstaking process… which is why the AP is suing to light a fire under their asses.


Agreed. That’s part of the problem I described earlier–Hillary’s folks built the filter, instead of someone not associated with her. And IIRC, the Clinton camp released the emails in paper form, instead of as a digital archive, which will make discoveries by independent investigators take that much more time (which was likely the reason it was done).

1 Like

I agree. I’m sure Hillary would be a competent president. But I don’t like the idea of everyone just assuming she’s the candidate and, by extension, assuming that the GOP field is so incompetent that we can just kick back and let her sail into office. I want someone fiery and rabble-rousing to kick some ass and keep kicking.


Well, funny thing about that is that she was the assumed candidate back in 2008. Iowa was an upset for Obama and it was neck and neck for a month until South Carolina, even Super Tuesday left them 13 votes apart. His sweep to capture the primary was dramatic and exciting and what I consider the real power that helped sweep him into office.


We would be hearing exactly the same shrieking if she had had two separate accounts. Her problem is being a Clinton.

Would you mind expanding your thought? I ask because as shitty as out politics have become, and much as the GOP will use this to continue their Clinton Witch Hunt, it was the wrong thing to do. I think she needs to explain her actions, plain and simple, even though I don’t think we’ll get the real reason behind the move.
I’ve heard one pundit speak to State’s email policy to say that it allowed people to use outside email services in case of email service compromise, but that’s a red herring at best. And if that’s a reason for starting her email service, it’s an indictment of State’s IT practices/policies by the (one time) head of the organization.

i feel the need to point out that Bill and Hilary do not share any DNA so calling it a dynasty is kind of unfair.

I didn’t mean it literally.

The point is that they represent an embedded status quo. The same status quo that perpetuates wealth disparity, war mongering and a lack of upward mobility for average Americans. The same status quo that looks out for their wealthy acquaintances and overlords while shitting on everyone else.

I do think we are going to see two women go head to head for the job this time. That should be refreshing.

I want the best person for the job irregardless of gender. Too much is at stake. Warren isn’t running and Sanders isn’t going to perpetuate endless war, so he’s the person for the job right now. Hillary won’t slaughter as many people as most Republicans will, but I’d rather stop the dangerous, senseless killing and pandering to treasonous, aristocratic warlords altogether.

The Dem who gets the nomination has to be centrist and ready to at least say that they are willing to throw some missiles around in defense of “the homeland.” Just a fact, I believe.

A large part of Obama’s progressive promises was an anti-war agenda. He won in a landslide with the highest voter turnout in 40 years. When Obama didn’t follow through on that agenda properly, the eventual response was the lowest voter turnout in 70 years.

When Obama tried to hastily shove us into war with Syria, we saw a dynamic resistance from the public and a historic, unprecedented back-peddle from a ramp-up to war despite the pressure from a vastly profitable military-industrial complex. The corporate media would love for you not to notice that happened, but it did… it did… IT DID.

Most Americans are war-weary. We need to stop the chicken-hawk minority and those morons who are locked into hatred, induced fear and bloodlust from leading us all around like fucking idiots.

Our country is less safe from our aggressive foreign policies. Our foreign policies creates emboldened enemies like ISIS.

It’s time to stop this evil madness in the name of profits for the few.

The land between the coasts is full of people very concerned about their safety.

Safety is why most of the entire country (from coast to coast) is sick of endless war that only makes us more hated, less safe and drains our treasure towards a treasonous military-industrial complex that fights for the profits of these sick assholes.

You’re parroting what the corporate media (who answers to these sick assholes) wants you to think… what they’ve conditioned you to think. Not what the American public really thinks.

Every link above goes to this link:

Please think about why I did that.



I want to believe there is an angry and prepared pragmatist hiding inside Clinton. I am having a harder time believing it as time goes on, but isn’t THAT what the media is promoting? I will admit to not watching any news at all. I occasionally look at the online versions of NYT and LAT, but only venture off the front page to read art reviews. I see a lot of pointless arguing among my friends on Facebook where the main point seems to be to out extreme each other in the ideas they believe and the politicians they would like to see promoted. I am a big believer in Ockham’s insight. I look for the simple explanations. Why did Obama seemingly swing around on his promises of promoting peace? Because he has the intelligence, meaning information, not capability. The world is at its most peaceful in the history of man. Read Pinker. I won’t crowd the page with links you have no intention of following. Pre-historic life was brutal and short.

I am a naive man with few social skills, but I recognize a tendency among educated people to want to appear to see more deeply that the person they are talking to. To not be the fool. It is a vanity more than it is real skill. No, the world is really as it appears. There is not some cabal of evil men who will launch death across the world in order to line their pockets. (Except for Cheney and Rumsfeld, of course {a half-joke}) There are, still, parts of the world mired in tribal cultures that believe the village on the other side of the hill needs to be wiped out before the opposite happens. There is also a powerful urge/instinct in all of us to guard against just that possibility. Obama, Clinton are decent people trying to make a difference in the real world. The real enemies are indifference, ineptitude, and superstition. Operators, those who know how to work the world, aren’t going to look like heroes. They are going to look like compromisers and liars. I will support a good liar over a heroic do-gooder. Warren and Sanders have their place. More power to them. I think they are in the right place to make a real difference.

Forgive my naiveté, but it is a considered and, I believe, intelligent position.

1 Like

Completely agree on all points. Quite frankly, I think it’s disingenuous to paint Obama as a warmonger; if anything, he’s holding back the hawks in Congress and dealing with conflicts as they arise. I may be naive as well, but it certainly seems like the president uses conflict as a last resort rather than a default position. What I see is a frustrated liberal with big, adventurous ideas being squashed by a vindictive Congress, a president who intentionally tones down his tone and progressiveness to make it more palatable. He’s literally said that, for example, he wanted to push for a single-payer Canadian-style healthcare system, but knew it had zero chance of being accepted, which is where Obamacare came from. Warren & Sanders can make more change happen in Congress than they can as President.


Or Lizzie Warren.

We can always dream…

ETA: I see from the rest of the thread that you’re already on it – Warren/Sanders, now THAT’S a dream ticket.

[quote=“nungesser, post:43, topic:53477”]
What I see is a frustrated liberal with big, adventurous ideas being squashed by a vindictive Congress
[/quote]That’s exactly what the status quo wants you to see. That’s the narrative they’ve set for you. While it’s certainly true that Obama faced an obstructionist group of Republicans with filibuster power, the Republicans were also a nice excuse for a lot of his inaction and actions as well.

This way conservative Democrats like Obama can appease people like you and the corporatist right at the same time by using Republicans as scapegoats.

[quote=“nungesser, post:43, topic:53477”]
Warren & Sanders can make more change happen in Congress than they can as President.
[/quote]First of all, Warren isn’t running for president in this next election. Secondly, there’s no evidence that Sanders can do more in Congress than as president.

What Sanders will do as president is fight for the American people on issues like single payer, a living wage, make our country safer with a foreign policy that makes sense, and much more. Sanders can finally expose to the American public who their real enemies are in this country when the American public sees who fights against him.

If the Democrats resist him, the American public will know their enemy and will finally understand that we need to replace conservative Democrats with liberal Democrats and/or push for a progressive third party. At worst, Democrats will side with Sanders and the American public wins that way.

With Clinton, we’ll see the same old, same old. Blame Republicans for not even trying.

[quote=“nungesser, post:43, topic:53477”]
for example, he wanted to push for a single-payer Canadian-style healthcare system, but knew it had zero chance of being accepted, which is where Obamacare came from.
[/quote]No, Obamacare came from Romneycare. Obamacare is a Republican agenda gift wrapped as universal health care.

Obama did not fight for single payer and then concede with Republicans for Romneycare. Obama fought for Romneycare and then got Romneycare. A fucked up system where it’s now mandatory to purchase insurance from private insurance corporations like Cigna insurance.

Have you ever educated yourself on just who Cigna is and how we got to this point by both Democrats and Republicans working in concert for this massively corrupt insurance industry?

Please don’t speak from authority on the issue until you’ve watched this historic interview with an actual Cigna executive who turned whistleblower:

Bernie Sanders will fight for a fucking American-style single payer system for health care if only people like YOU would support him.

[quote=“timquinn, post:42, topic:53477”]
I want to believe there is an angry and prepared pragmatist hiding inside Clinton.
[/quote]Don’t get me wrong, if she’s up against the Republican party, I would vote for her. The Republican party is incredibly dangerous comparatively. Anyone can see that McCain, Romney, etc. (based upon their own words) would have already gotten us into outright war with Iran by now which would be even more disastrous than our complete and utter, deadly failure in Iraq.

I agree that Obama is holding back Republicans from destroying what’s left of our safety, economy, etc. who would be very obviously ushering us into more rampant wars right now. The Republicans are insane warhawks (mostly chickenhawks) from the depths of hell. But, we can do much better than what Obama is doing and what Clinton will perpetuate. Obama is still pandering to these evil assholes and so will Clinton. Obama’s hawkish foreign policies have exacerbated the situation in the Middle East.

It was GW Bush that first massively exacerbated the situation in the Middle East and it was Obama who then made hawkish decisions that has now made it even much worse.

Do you guys not know about this?

(with full transcripts)

Please don’t be fooled into thinking Clinton will be any less of a warmonger than Obama is. And, if you don’t think Obama is a warmonger, then you haven’t been paying attention (see above).

If you want “warmonger lite” who fights for aristocratic warmongers, go with Clinton. If you want someone who wants to fight for the American people and make this country a safer, more humane place, go with Bernie Sanders.

[quote=“timquinn, post:42, topic:53477”]
The world is at its most peaceful in the history of man. Read Pinker. I won’t crowd the page with links you have no intention of following. Pre-historic life was brutal and short.
[/quote]We can do better than the cromags.

Let’s do better than THIS:

I’ll do you one better and ask that you educate yourself and others for the sake of this nation and world.