I believe the investigation also concluded that while it was a Bad Thing to use a private server in this way, it was also something her predecessors did. So if Clinton was indicted on criminal charges but previous Secretaries of State weren’t then it would smack of partisan political agenda rather than equal enforcement of the law.
1 Like
Pathetic? How? Seems realistic to me. For example:
The 22 Top Secret emails on a private server (something that should disqualify anyone running for president) are either completely ignored by party faithful, or rationalized by twisted logic. Nothing is taken seriously anymore; everything is viewed through the belief that Republicans are worse, therefore Clinton’s indiscretions are meaningless.
This should tell you something about the state of our Republic. This should also tell you something about the rule of law in our country. If anyone else in the U.S. government owned a private server storing Top Secret intelligence, for the sake of “convenience,” they’d be in jail.
While a Sanders fan, the author also offers this acknowledgment:
The entire nation is waiting for you to disclose the details of your year-long email investigation. Whether or not you recommend indictment, and whether or not you’ve found criminal wrongdoing pertaining to Clinton, should be known before the end of the Democratic Primary. Democrats can’t nominate a person who could potentially face indictment on November 7, 2016.
The whole piece makes a very practical point – if Clinton is indicted, please do it soon, because the Dems would need to get behind Sanders (who after all, polls better than her against Trump). And if she’s not, then this particular cloud hanging over her needs to be removed so voters can make a clearer decision about her.
2 Likes
Just a few generalizations of arguable accuracy…
That doesn’t strike me as “pathetic.”
Wait, where does “pathetic” come into the picture?
I brought the whole issue of pathos in.
Maybe it was the headline,
1 Like
Yes, all those non-white voters in Alaska and Hawaii and Washington and Colorado and all the other states outside the deep south (that, let’s face it, aren’t going blue any time soon( who voted for Bernie don’t count.
1 Like
[quote=“jerwin, post:41, topic:79070”]
Something about this article seemed so pathetic to me.
[/quote]Agreed. It’s like the electoral equivalent of Tonya Harding - we don’t feel like we can beat them the regular way, so let’s try sending someone to put a billy-club across their knees instead, see how that works out.
Seriously, it’s a pathetic, foolish demand that is literally just regurgitating republican propaganda and political powerplays, but in support of a democratic candidate because they didn’t get what they wanted.
[quote=“Brainspore, post:42, topic:79070”]
I believe the investigation also concluded that while it was a Bad Thing to use a private server in this way, it was also something her predecessors did. So if Clinton was indicted on criminal charges but previous Secretaries of State weren’t then it would smack of partisan political agenda rather than equal enforcement of the law.
[/quote]That’s about the size of it.
I mean, let’s be honest, it’s not like the people demanding this give a shit if she stored her email on a seperate server or in a fucking knothole of a tree tattooed on a dead squirrel, if she didn’t have any classified documents, or if she was secretly a bigger leaker than Edward Snowden. They don’t about previous secretaries of state, or what they did. Her crime, to them, is not anything to do with what she actually did with her email, her crime is that she’s winning against their preferred candidate, and they want her gone.
5 Likes
Thanks, you captured my sentiments exactly.
1 Like
Except the media has only rarely included superdelegates in their tallies of the race.
Most of the time they show the pledged delegates. I think it’s more likely that people got confused into thinking Bernie was winning the popular vote but Hillary was leading only due to superdelegates.
Bernie is getting crushed with non-white voters.
There are some non-white ethnic groups he does well with (and has possibly won, particularly in those states). But blacks and Hispanics, the majority of the non-white vote, are heavily pro-Hillary.
There’s a bit of an uglier subtext to this as well. One of the core criticisms of Hillary is that she’s really ambitious and really wants to be President. Well that’s literally true of everyone who runs for the Presidency.
I’d say that’s true of Bernie at this point. Why is he still running when the race is clearly over, and starting to turn divisive, if he hasn’t gotten a taste of power and really wants to be President?
One of the big reasons women don’t end up in leadership roles is people view ambition a lot more negatively in women then men. They basically need to be massively overqualified to even be considered.
Hillary is ridiculously experienced and competent, has overwhelming support from the party establishment, overwhelming support from minority voters, has senior support (traditionally a tough Demographic for democrats), and yet there’s a movement that keeps resisting her nomination like it’s the end of the world.
If Hillary Clinton can’t win the Democratic primary then I don’t know when the US is going to get a female president.
3 Likes
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a count that didn’t include them. The media almost never bothers to differentiate them, either.
She can and will. But I continue to think someone like Warren would have won the Primary at a canter but I guess that’s easy to say because we’ll never find out.
I just continue to find Clinton a deeply uninspiring candidate and that isn’t going to change.
7 Likes
The plan is for our grassroots movements to systematically unseat obstructionists whether they be bluedog Democrats or typical Republicans. This has been the plan since well into last year. That’s why Bernie repeatedly says he cannot do this all by himself. He correctly states that we need revolutionary involvement of average Americans in the political process that includes independent voters and/or new voters along with people who haven’t voted in a long time.
It’s a long-term process. People looking for a quick-fix don’t really understand our grassroots dynamic.
9 Likes
If it hasn’t happened now, it won’t happen.
I wonder what favors she has to be able to dodge that kind of heat. Was actually kinda hoping the email thing would sink her.
1 Like
I’m sure the EFF will be briefing you at regularly intervals as they come due.
Clinton: part of the deep state, with delusions of reforming it from the inside
Sanders: wants no part of the deep state.
Trump: hasn’t a clue what the deep state is, but once briefed, would probably find it an excellent alternative to the façade.
I don’t think this is a valid criticism of Clinton; as you say, it is true of all candidates, aspiring to be president is an essentially arrogant activity. The problem is that she seems to be willing to compromise adapt her principles to fit the needs of the day for the campaign (or let her campaign managers do it for her) in order to achieve this ambition. It leaves us unsure of what those principles are. For example, in 2008 she was all about how she loved hunting with her father (in Glenview??) and how Obama would take everyone’s guns away. Now, to woo progressive voters, she’s all about gun control. How do we know what she’ll hold firm on? The one thing she’s been most unwavering about is her unwillingness to release the Goldman-Sachs speeches.
Surely Sanders is ambitious as well, but he doesn’t seem as willing to adapt his fundamental positions in pursuit of the presidency.
[quote=“daneel, post:54, topic:79070”]
But I continue to think someone like Warren would have won the Primary at a canter[/quote]
As much as I like Warren, I think Clinton is a better candidate.
1 Like
It’s possible we’ve been following different media.
Maybe Warren but she still has a relatively low national profile, many politicians falter at that level of exposure.
I think every candidate learns to compromise/adapt when they have to. Sander’s was willing to compromise on the F35 so it would bring jobs to his state
http://gui.afsc.org/birddog/bernie-sanders-lockheed-martin-f-35-jets-vermont
And I feel like he’s compromised on the legitimacy of the superdelegates when they became his path to winning. It’s not saying it’s a particularly bad thing, I just don’t think he’s as incorruptible as people believe.
I agree the Goldman-Sachs speeches are bad for Hillary, she was probably saying nice things to keep their support (and of course, since it was a paid gig).
Though with gun control I think it’s more an issue of packaging than inconsistency. Depending on the context a different label might work for the same policies.
That’s essentially her core weakness, the degree to which she panders or at least plays nice. She’s not inconsistent with her policy but she’s inconsistent with her image which tends to be more important.
I feel like Hillary Clinton will be slightly left of Bill Clinton’s administration, particularly on health care and women’s issues. That and she’ll be very wonky with an honest attempt at campaign finance reform that will probably fail since she won’t extend sufficient political capital. The only real big question is if she ends up facing the same legislative branch as Obama.
I’m actually quite unclear what Sanders will do, he’s been very consistent but in the role of a senator without serious opposition from the right. I don’t know what that looks like on the national stage. Is he still non-interventionist when a group like ISIS is trying to create a new Taliban? Does he cease the drone strikes after the CIA shows him a photo spread of terrorist leaders, evidence of their active plots, and requests for help from the host nations? What is his plan B when his more audacious policies get shot down, what’s his compromise look like?
Quite possibly it was on political economy. Perhaps even its sensational aspects.
MISS PRISM. That would be delightful. Cecily, you will read your Political Economy in my absence. The chapter on the Fall of the Rupee you may omit. It is somewhat too sensational. Even these metallic problems have their melodramatic side.
2 Likes
Yes…no. That is a compromise in order to serve your constituents, not a compromise as a campaign strategy. If Clinton argued that her soft track record on banking as Senator was to serve her constituency, then that would be interesting, and I think less problematic than pretending it didn’t happen.
[quote=“aluchko, post:59, topic:79070”]
And I feel like he’s compromised on the legitimacy of the superdelegates when they became his path to winning.[/quote]
His campaign does seem to have changed their story here, but how do you see this as Sanders changing fundamental principles? Do you really see this as the same type of change as a reversal on gun control or fracking?
1 Like
