(Kick & )

Different people, different things.

I really don't give a damn if she was 'trying to hide' any emails.

I think it was managerial incompetence to 'solve' the problem by setting up her own personal servers (as anything more than a temporary stopgap), rather than updating and fixing the servers for State as a whole. And that applies to every former SoS as well, who let the servers get in such a 'state', pardon the pun.

but it's really the Administration's mistake in allowing such a situation. An Administration that is so obsessed with controlling leaks that it uses the Espionage Act more than all previous Administrations combined should take better measures to secure State Department communications.

a luddite thing. Really now. She has staff and IT out the wazoo. How hard is it to open and email on one email program or the other? I think her judgment sucks. She opened the floodgate for stupid people to beat her up and no one is to blame but her. I am amazed at it.

and from where official communications can be sent. Were those rules in place (and followed), this incident would never have happened.

No matter if those actions are smart and approved or stupid and criticized, this is a discussion board. People will discuss. There is a big difference between smears and criticism and criticism does not equal hate. Yeah 2008 was nasty. I remember some of the nasty and vile in things they said about Hillary. Now if you mention emails they and a few posters are all over people who are not supportive of this and are questioning Hillary's actions.

should be construed as a smear. Valid criticism is fine. I do think that some people choose to take it as a smear though.

The IWR vote is fair game. So are her actions as SoS in Libya and elsewhere.

But the stupid stuff is also pretty big here. Last week it was "some of her donors banked with HSBC!!!!". And then there's the speeches she gets paid for. Now there's this email thing.

But the other thing is, a lot of this isn't about the primary, it's about the GE. People claiming Hillary is no better than a Republican and it's not worth voting for her are just plain idiots.

There have been all sorts of crazy attacks by the opposition party. There have been legitimate questions raised by those who aren't rightwing crazy as well. The campaign will have to address it. If the Clinton campaign has any disadvantage, this is where it lies. Not with the Benghazi madness as such, but more an accumulation of fronts.

I don't particularly like Clinton, either, but I won't whine about it and I won't try to subvert her. People, please say something positive about someone!!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

If no one criticizes her it is more likely that she will win the primary. I think the criticism should be fair, though.

They sure do know an awful lot about hate. I try and save all mine for epic assholes like Rick Perry and Jeb Bush.

None that I can see have any substance.

favoring the surge in Afghanistan, etc. have no substance?

That is correct. Without substance.

More generally, when someone has held public office and made a specific on-the-record decision, and other people give reasons for contending that the decision was an error, I don't see how any fair-minded person can say that the criticism is without substance, even if you disagree with it.

1) She did a bad thing;
2) She admitted to doing a bad thing;
3) She apologized for doing a bad thing;
4) She's human?

You stated that all the criticisms of Clinton that you had seen on DU were without substance.

One criticism of Clinton that you must have seen on DU is that she voted for the IWR and she shouldn't have.

If you now join her in admitting that that vote was a mistake, than that's a criticism that has substance.

Your point #4 is a straw man. No one has said, "I refuse to vote for anyone who's ever made a mistake." Given the likelihood that all the candidates will be human, that would be silly. Nevertheless, we certainly are entitled to consider each candidate's history. You're free to conclude that some of us are giving too much weight to the IWR vote, but you have no basis for describing that criticism as being without substance.

You appear to be tying to make some substance (weight) out of the fact that she went along with a lot of politicians in supporting the president for the war. If this is not severe enough to make it as a reason to vote against her then it does not have any significant substance. That is what I mean by not having any substance. None of significance. Many, many of Hillary's criticisms here on DU are without substance of any kind and essentially boil down to , "She stinks!"

Yes, she went along with it. The Bush administration was blatantly lying and stirring up a jingoistic fervor. Plenty of people of intelligence and principle saw through the deception and voted No. It was a test of intelligence and/or character, and she failed it. The result (not the result of her vote, because it would have passed with or without her, but the result of the passage of the bill) was an unmitigated disaster.

You write: "You appear to be tying to make some substance (weight) out of" that vote. Absolutely I am. It's part of looking at her record. Clinton's partisans aren't shy about promoting her candidacy based, in part, on pointing to decisions she's made that they condone. She's tried to improve our health care system, she's fought for women's rights, etc., etc. Those are perfectly legitimate arguments -- substantive arguments, in your terminology. We assess candidates based in large part on their records, on the decisions they've made. We leave it to the low-information voters to support the candidate with the best teeth or whatever.

If it's substantive to point favorably to some of her past decisions, then it's also substantive to point unfavorably to others.

People will of course differ in the weight to be given to competing considerations. For me, the IWR is a big one. I'll add that she compounded her mistake by taking so long to admit to it.

I don't go so far as to say that I would never vote for a candidate who supported the IWR. I voted for Kerry in the general election in 2004. I would have voted for Clinton if she had been our nominee in the general election in 2008. As you say, people make mistakes, and I've never yet had the opportunity of voting for a perfect candidate for any office.

But that's a far cry from saying that it's not even a "substantive" argument to fault Clinton for getting horribly wrong on one of the most important decisions she had to make as a Senator. That so many other people got it wrong, also, doesn't somehow make it OK.

I do not disagree with anything you say except your assessment of the severity of her vote. It's not the way that I would have voted and I wished that she had voted the other way. But it would have made no difference and it is trivial - her vote would have changed nothing. You might as well be arguing that she spit on the sidewalk and then jaywalked. This is what I mean by lacking substance.

and a bit of smear tactics. I'm ok with both.

If folks want to smear, fine by me. If folks want to criticize, fine by me. If folks want to express their love for Candidate X or Candidate Y, fine by me.

It's a message board. I feel that folks on both sides of any issue take this place way too seriously.

At the end of the day, smearing someone or criticizing them or praising them on a message board really means little.

I actually like the smears and criticism. It makes this place FUN!

in the bucket of the public discourse, but collectively the many drops in that bucket do make a difference.

then they're crossing over the line, IMO.

Sid

just not giving or being parsimonious with the benefit of the doubt which might not be charitable, it may be mean spirited but it isn't a smear.

As much as supporters love throwing BENGAZI!, there was about zero people on that at all.
I think some people are so used to arguing with dittoheads that any argument is with one in their minds. Quick to say criticism of the favored politician is a "right wing attack" but when pressed cannot show the right wing making such attacks because they are right wing and have very different "concerns".

Best way to catch a right wing attack on a more conservative Democrat, especially something they are serious about pushing is that it will be utterly detached from reality and/or completely irrelevant to anything having to do with governance. Blue dresses, birth certificates, communism, random murders, and BENGAZI! all the way.

They might pick at something of any remote substance just in hopes of a paper cut or two in but the shit that goes to the wall is nonsense because actual dirt or anything that might even remotely look possibly like actual dirt opens up all the wicked shit they do daily.
They won't be taking these records to the wall, I don't imagine. Not unless they have too forced by media pressure which also seems unlikely.

Criticism is perfectly fine and healthy. Several posters have posted things that are not helpful but we will survive.

Hillary and the other possible have to earn support for the nomination and this discusxion is a part of that.

I have trashed threads that bothered md because I feel myself getting snarky and I don't care to be snarky.

What one peson sees as honest criticism is a smear to another.

Some things are just smears.

I have seen two different polls asking if Hillary should be held responsible for Bill Clinton's affair with Lewinski.

To me, that goes so far down the sexist rabit hole that the only possible answer is "Fuck No."

But there were peole in those polls that voted "yes."

I think the current email stories are important. I've seen information that indicates that what she did was legal, but others see it as proof of a monumental Clintonite conspiracy with their Corproate overloards.

I see almost no evidence of people who are weighing both sides before they come to a conclusion, or willing to change sides if proven wrong.

To me, DU looks like armed camps ready to go to war in defense of their chosen narrative.

Whether it is a smear or honest criticism depends on where a person stands on the side of the discussion, not on the evidence.

Democratic Party as the Progressive Wing fights to wrest control from the corporatist wing. The progressives are desperately looking for a challenger for the perceived corporatist heir apparent. Some progressives believe that the middle and lower classes will not survive another eight years of Wall Street domination. We must end the continuous wars, cut defense spending, and get corporate influence out of Washington the DC. If we can't the social gains we've made will evaporate.

and control of the White House.

The Legislature sets the legislative agenda.

The Executive Branch is critical for a Supreme Court (Judicial Branch).

I think whether the centrist wing or a more liberal wing is in power, the social gains will survive. Continuing Republican Domination of the legislative branch will destroy it.

Electing a government that will really withdraw us from the Imperial reach is, I think, a pipe dream. Even if they did, it would have to done carefully and slowly if we do not want to collapse our economy. for at least a decade.

Also, in order to control the Legislative branch, it will not be possible to elect all middle left and beyond legislators. There are states where they just won't be elected.

A true move to the left will require a decade or more, and will be impossible if Democrats do not control a majority of state legislatures in 2020. Republicans can win with a small minority because they won in 2010.

we can hope for is slowing down (by supporting Conservative Democrats) the inevitable slide into tyranny. I believe that we are past the point of no return to bring about progressive change peacefully. I don't advocate violence but how far into poverty will the people slide before they lash back? Conservative Democrats (The Third Way) may allow or even support social changes but their economic policies will break us and our social gains will disappear quickly. Sadly some think that we should stay with the status quo just a little longer. It's a good thing our founders didn't think that.

If we elected a Warren/Sanders ticket and Republicans continued to control the House and Senate, nothing will change. it is likely that Republicans would not even approve a President Warren or President Sanders cabinet appointments in the current poisonous political atmosphere.

The executive Branch can not pass legislation, and legislation is what is needed to fix the ills of society. If the ACA loses in the current court case, it would only take a four word amendment to fix it. Republicans in the House and Senate will not fix it. They will use that loss to repeal the whole thing, and continue until they elect a President that will hold a pin and sign the bills they send.

To fix the ACA, improve it, or replace it with Medicare for all or single payer, you will have to control both Houses of Congress, and have people in leadership positions who will go to the mat for those changes.

Obama has just about reached the limit of what can be done by any President with Executive orders.

There is no quick fix. It will require far more candidates than a dream in the executive to do the job. Change will require at least a decade, and probably more.

There are 20 Democratic Senate Seats and ten republican seats up in 2016. I see the left is gearing up for fight for the most liberal candidate in that seat. Barbara Boxer is leaving in California. I prefer Kamala Harris to Gavin Newsom. What are progressives doing in those other 28 seats.

Progressives need to take a long view, not wish for a miracle.

When I take a "long view" I see things only getting worse. I fully understand that it would take a miracle to turn this around, but let's go for it. We need to make the Oligarchs realize that they are better off letting us have some cake. How many of our children living in poverty to wake up Americans?

Let's go to the videotape:

a majoirty of total delegats.

It can be because a hard contested race spreads delegate totals around and no one wins. It can be, as with Bobby Kennedy, an unforseen even takes a candidate out of the race.

The primary isn' over till someone has won enough delegates.

And she was write about it not hurting the party. Obama won handily after a hard fought primary. Clinton won his candidacy though it took him a long time.

A: I don't..

At 0:35

and will use ANYTHING to smear her. I think some here on "Democratic" underground would vote for another Shrub before they would vote for Hillary.

but, as someone who would rather not see Hillary as the Democratic candidate, I do get tired of valid criticism being misrepresented as smears and strawmen about "Hillary haters" and "disloyal Democrats" and "stealth Rovian fake Leftists" constantly trotted out. Hillary is not a convincing victim. She was pushed as "inevitable" in a barrage of posts. The posting for the other candidates does not seem to me to match the posting for Hillary.

So after such a strong come on, it seems petty to constantly mischaracterize proponents of the underdog candidates. I suppose this is just politics and Team Hillary needs to cover all the angles. But it is annoying nonetheless and makes me like her even less as a candidate for the style of "war room PR marketing" that her followers regards as "winning".

criticism of Hillary will be. It is far easier that way, rather than trying to explain why Hillary may have acted unethically or done something wrong.

My take on this situation is I would like to hear Hillary's explanation why she decided it was a good idea to use private email, when the Bush email scandal was in full swing and part of recent history when she took office as Secretary of State.

Maybe she had a good reason, but I think she needs to answer these questions. "I want everyone to see my emails now" doesn't cut it. That is easy to say now that this is blowing up in the news, and it doesn't answer the question of, why?

We need to see where the overlap of the Putinistas, the Clintonistas, and the Obamabots actually lies on this forum.

There's some very fair criticism, but there's also some over-the-top stuff every time she so much as sneezes. It's getting hard to take the critics seriously.