and voting for Tim Canova do not need to be connected.

I dont know what has happened to people who call themselves liberal when they come up with this right wing garbage.

NO liberal

NO progressive

uses fox for anything but toilet paper

The words are hers. She is allegedly a Democrat.

Deal with it.

She was not saying that what Hillary was doing was allowed, except for the private server.

She was saying that what Hillary was doing had also been done by previous secretaries of state, except for the private server. She was answering Wallace's interruption. And he followed up accordingly.

Which blows up Hillary's constant argument that she was doing with her emails exactly what Rice, Powell, etc. had done.

She didn't. She transmitted and saved her emails via a personal and unsecured server. And that's why she is in trouble.

I think it's perfectly fair. Like I said, if it's HER words and the clip is unedited it's irrelevant that it's from FOX. Those are HER words, NOT Chris Wallace saying she said that.

Now if you were showing a clip where you were cheering on one of the hosts of FOX or made them look good, that's another factor entirely.

Last edited Mon Apr 25, 2016, 03:40 PM - Edit history (1)

I agree that Fox is a despicable right-wing propaganda arm (and that MSNBC, is largely a tool of the Third Way establishment), but DWS's remarks were her own.

Fox didn't make them up or put them in her mouth. She actually said them.

Because that is an interview of the Chair of the DNC.

She's bucking for a cabinet position so we are stuck with her until they blow the election in November.

the sooner you all realize the peril this poses to the general election, well.. I won't be holding my breath. Your candidate could shoot someone on fifth avenue and you'd still be defending her.

Same goes for politicians who embrace the likes of Henry Kissinger, Robt Kagan, and the Koch Bros.
However, it appears that a number of DUers are strong supporters of neo-liberal economics, neoconservative foreign policy, and other extreme RW views.

If you are complaining that it's Fox News, what is wrong with the content? It doesn't appear edited, sound doesn't appear to have been replaced, it is a Democrat speaking and it is her own words.

So what is it that you have a problem with?

.

You really want to call her that?

DWS' words? She said it right there on video! Does the truth burn?

-- the loss of 100s of Democratic seats in federal, state, and local elections
-- failure to provide a slate of viable Democratic candidates for POTUS 2016
-- support for GOP candidates over Democrats in her home state of FLA

but DWS is really creepy.

Why does Democratic Party leadership support this person as head of DNC?

DWS unwittingly made HUGE news yesterday, and Chris Wallace missed it. Holy crap.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511830490

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Dammit more sourcing of Fox News for the purpose of baselessly ripping on Democrats. In the last 10 days I've seen more links to FN and the NY post and even the Washington Examiner.
I thought RW OP hit pieces were not allowed at here.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Apr 25, 2016, 02:52 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I don't find the post disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: What a whiny alert. DWS clearly said it in the clip, so why is this 'baselessly ripping'? Jesus, grow up.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It's not a smear or a hit piece if its video and the candidate or surrogate's own words are being held up in front of us in plain sight.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Give it a rest. Go outside and get some fresh air.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This is essentially true and FOX is the only network giving coverage to this issue. So if you want broadcast news on the subject, this is the source where you might find it.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This is an interview with the chairwoman of the Democratic party.

Juror 7 is right.

An interview with the chairwoman of the Democratic Party is fair game, no matter who recorded it.

This admission is a first.

Exploit it.

It is now time for other news people to ask follow up questions of DWS.

Koch brothers, Fox News, Republicans, World Net Daily...

All allies of Not Hillary.

Why is there a propensity for Hillary to get photos taken with scoundrels?

greets the "Compassionate Conservative"

How sweet.

Last edited Sat Apr 30, 2016, 05:28 PM - Edit history (2)

I guess you have a problem with her own words. The same way you all have a problem with quoting Clinton when she's changed her stance on something for the xteenth time.

It's insulting and absurd for you to claim that her appearances there are somehow sacrosanct and off limits for Democrats to discuss. She's an official in OUR Party. She goes to yammer on Fox News by her own choice and free will. She does not get some free pass by choosing right wing media to do her turns for.
Debbie supports Republicans over Democrats at times, is against cannabis reform and has many other qualities and positions I do not at all support. I hope she loses her seat in the Congress.

Compassionate Conservatives! Ha! They are trying to court he otherwise and it backfired. Their problem is they really think they can win over a few republicans!

What kind of alliance and help is that?

You act like this is some twisted, editorialized version of events.

And stating that a private server was not used by previous SOSs. When you're on camera, it's easy to get your thoughts jumbled a bit. Plus, even if it was outside protocol, in case none of you have been paying attention, that does not mean it was anything illegal.

The cackling glee of some of you -"Oh! We've really got her now!"- is pathetic to behold.

There is a reason why you have to go to youtube for your gotchas and no one else is as clever as you are to have caught this -it's because you didn't catch anything.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Precision and concision. That's the game.[/center][/font][hr]

So you and DWS confirm that she used a private server.

This server, located in her home, a physical piece of hardware that houses the email client and stores all emails that pass through the client, contained highly sensitive and classified information from State, NSA and CIA. This server was maintained and backed-up by individuals and companies without security clearances and had next to no security on it for the first three months she was SoS and was vulnerable to hacking.

You see no issue with this?

I see a lot of issues. But mostly I'm trying to figure out who lead her, or any of her predecessors to believe this was a good idea. Everything that has happened was predictable ahead of time and to the most casual of persons who handles this kind of information. Heck some COMMERCIAL companies prohibit the use of personal/private communications systems for basically the same reasons, loss of control of the information.

by the way, her predecessors did not use a private server. Only HRC.

The first several months, the server was unsecure. Wide open. And she was on a trip to Asia. Surely she was hacked by foreign entities.

Are you suspecting that someone set her up for this? Or just that someone was exceptionally careless.

I am still astounded that no one noticed or called her on this, or that the intelligence agencies did not pick this up and report it to the WH.

I tend towards the theory of never attributing to malice, that which can be explained by stupidity.

I tend to believe that her interest was in maintaining control of her correspondence. And some knuckle head who should have told her not to do it somehow decided it would be permissible. The strange part of the story is that this person has never been identified to my knowledge.

She was at the start when the Internet created and the Secret Service didn't teach her that stuff?

and stammered.

hmmmm.....

Perhaps she has been, or will be, "interviewed" by someone.

This "permission" is a blatant lie that they have been telling. Looks like it just got real for DWS. What we also see is that she isn't willing to put her own foot in the trap for Hillary.

The first rat to leaing the s(t)inking ship. Good catch, indeed!