Would you approve of Hillary's primary opponents using the Benghazi incident against her?

[Nye Bevan]

Obviously Hillary is a formidable candidate and it will take a lot to stop her. The temptation to exploit the Benghazi incident might be too much for a Martin O'Malley (for example) to resist.

7 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes. I want Hillary stopped, and if a primary opponent chooses to exploit Benghazi, so be it.
	3 (43%)
	No. That issue should be off-limits to Hillary's primary opponents.
	4 (57%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[winter is coming]

1. I think her primary opponents would be dead stupid to use Benghazi,

because there's no there there. All it would do is make them look like birthers.

[JoePhilly]

8. +100

[BlueCaliDem]

35. + 200

We don't need Democrats beating up on Democrats and copying the Republicans in their primary, especially when there's never been a "there, there" regarding Benghazi. That would only validate Issa and the other Teapublican obstructionists in Congress.

So ... HELL no, it's not okay to "use" Benghazi against Hillary Clinton. I, for one, would like to see the WH remain in Democratic Party hands.

[NYC_SKP]

2. Never. That stategy is beneath us, and counterproductive in the end.

If a case can be made against Hillary Clinton, there are plenty of legitimate arguments to be made.

Benghazi isn't one of them.

.

[HooptieWagon]

11. Agree 100%.

Theres plenty to go after Hillary on. There's no "there" there with Benghazi.

[NightWatcher]

3. someone, popcorn! NOW

[bunnies]

20. ...

[LittleBlue]

4. Yes, absolutely

If a Republican can use it in the general, it SHOULD be used in the primary. Better to let it burn itself out in the primary than have a conflagration in the general. That goes for all of our primary candidates, not just Hillary.

The worst outcome is that one Democratic contender is defeated and another Democrat takes his/her place. In the general, the worst outcome is that a Republican wins the White House. That's an easy choice for me.

[demwing]

9. Survey says.....#1 answer! /nt

[Motown_Johnny]

15. but it gives legitimacy to an illegitimate issue

No (D) should accuse her of allowing Americans to die (or anything similar).

[scheming daemons]

5. The moment they tried, their candidacy would be down the tubes

[hrmjustin]

6. No and I would be very angry at the candidate.

[ZombieHorde]

7. Your choices are a bit strange.

Yes. I want Hillary stopped, and if a primary opponent chooses to exploit Benghazi, so be it.

What if someone likes Hillary and thinks Benghazi is fine point to dwell on. (and/or) What if a Hillary supporter thinks using Benghazi would backfire, and ultimately help her win?

[Gman]

10. The Dem candidate that tries to do that

will lose credibility immediately across the board and take him/herself out as a serious candidate due to intellectual shortcomings.

[Motown_Johnny]

12. Not the incident itself, but the fact that Sec. Rice was put out front

on the incident while she stayed out of the media is a legitimate issue.

The Sec. of State should have been the one to go on the Sunday shows and announce what had happened. Sec. Rice never should have had to go through that.


Benghazi is bullshit and should be treated as such by one and all. Sec. Clinton's behavior after the incident is fair game.


Snipergate is also fair game.

As is her not only voting for the Iraq war but calling on others in The Senate to do so also.

She is going to have real problems clearing the Commander In Chief hurdle in the general and it should be an issue in the primary. It isn't wise to ignore the entire subject until it is to late.

[Beacool]

16. Are you aware that the WH made the decision of who to send to the talk shows?

Hillary did not send Rice to do the TV rounds, neither did she give her the talking points. As for why she didn't go herself, because she simply does not care much for going on those shows. She seldom did the rounds.

[AtomicKitten]

22. here's what happened

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/hillary-clinton-benghazi-91285.html

[Whisp]

32. That did stick out like a sore thumb...

None of the officials was willing to speculate on why the secretary wouldn’t make an exception after such an extraordinary event — or whether Clinton had wanted to avoid a controversy that could have compromised her political future.

[oneshooter]

13. If the situation was reversed, do you believe that

Hillary would choose not to use it?

[AtomicKitten]

19. After pulling Farrakhan out of the air

in the last debate in 2008, she's set the precedent that anything goes in a Democratic primary.

[brooklynite]

14. Trick question...there won't be any Primary opponents...

...certainly none with the clout to be listened to about an issue like Benghazi.

[arthritisR_US]

17. I won't like it but of course they will use it. nt

[Beacool]

18. Going after Hillary on Benghazi is akin to going after the president.

The SOS serves the president. A primary candidate bringing up RW talking points would anger many Democrats, including the WH.

[Beacool]

36. As I was saying................

Another protester, 78-year-old Frances Minkowitz, didn’t mince words on her sign with a call to impeach Obama that also alluded to Benghazi.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014641493

If there's an idiot who brings up Benghazi during the primaries, he will not be looked upon kindly by other Democrats. The whole bogus "scandal" is catnip for the RW.

[cthulu2016]

21. Absent some development to make it a legit issue, no

As things stand there is no there there... no legit scandal in sight.

[Warren DeMontague]

23. No, because the idea of a "Benghazi Incident" itself is pure RW bullshit.

It's right-wingers trying to make political hay out of the deaths of four people.

There's no "incident" because no one did anything wrong. Hillary didn't cause that attack.

[JI7]

24. Benghazi has become a right wing joke, i would question the seriousness of any candidate

who brings it up.

[Rstrstx]

39. Exactly

If any Democratic candidate is getting their news from Fox that speaks volumes more about them than it does HRC

[BootinUp]

25. Why anyone who is a Democrat would want to stop her

remains to be explained in a way that includes a realistic view of how to win a national election.

[tularetom]

26. Maybe prospective opponent should take their cue from Hillary's own actions

Like when she injected the Rev. Wright into the 2008 primaries and gave the right wing and the gullible media the opportunity to pile on Obama.

But then, she's so "tough" I'm sure she can stand up to whatever a primary opponent throws her way.

But it isn't just Benghazi, she has several boxcars full of baggage that opponents can bring up. The republicans won't hesitate to do it so she may as well get used to it.

I'm not advocating that somebody should dump on her but I wouldn't be surprised if somebody does.

[Phlem]

27. Please excuse my ignorance but

who are her primary opponents?



-p

PS. I'm still not convinced it won't be another 3rd way presidency where the citizens of the country end up giving up their best interest for the sake of bipartisanship. We need a strong turn left, not more of this "I'm a new Democrat" bullshit.

[Agnosticsherbet]

28. I wasn't aware that she would be running in a primary with Republicans and Tea Party folk.

Are they Democrats?

[Warpy]

29. It's a non issue

and even right wingers got bored with it within the first couple of days that Pox hyped it.

It's one of those "issues" that never gained traction with anybody because it was completely bogus. Anyone who tries to use it in a primary race is going to get laughed out of it.

[Whisp]

30. Depends on how dirty She wants to fight.

If she wants to get in the mud and start the fun, anything goes then. I have no idea how Benghazi can be used tho. Maybe just the syllables are enough.

[davidpdx]

31. No, but I think going after other issues would be fairgame

Her record as a senator and other things when she was SOS. She should be asked on what issues she disagreed with Obama.

[Chan790]

33. Neither.

I have a general rule in elections regarding this kind of tactic...I want everything thrown in the primaries that can be thrown because the further from Election Day the revelation, the less it hurts you in the GE. I approve liberal use of this type of tactic in the primary because it leaves nothing in the barrel for the GOP to use in October, nothing to attack on after the conventions.

I don't think there's anything there on Benghazi...but if there were something there, I'd much rather get smacked with it in March than October.

[hughee99]

34. I'd RATHER see it taken care of in the primaries

and have it be "old news" by the general election.

[TheKentuckian]

37. No, but Madame 3 am phone call and fans have little room to whine.

[Whisp]

40. Madame 3 am phone call was too tired to do her job

and had Rice sent out to the wolves instead.

[Fumesucker]

38. There's going to be a primary?

I thought Hillary was inevitable?

[PeteSelman]

41. I don't want Hillary but what is there to use?

What exactly is there to use against her? She didn't do anything wrong. No one really did. It was just one of those war things.

[backwoodsbob]

42. without even reading the comments

what a stupid fucking poll

[Bandit]

43. Best response yet

[Nye Bevan]

44. Do you consider the 5 DUers who voted "yes" to be "stupid"?

Or is the fact that they voted "yes" my fault for asking a stupid question?

[backwoodsbob]

47. I stand by my post

stupidest poll I have ever seen here

[frogmarch]

45. No. I'd hold it against anyone who did. nt

[HereSince1628]

46. There are so many better targets pasted to HRC, unless you are another conservative dem.