2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumPlease Don’t Pretend Hillary’s Negatives Are the Same as Trump’s
...
Hillary has been subjected to an avalanche of disgraceful and destructive personal attacks. She is called a monster, a witch, a criminal, a liar, corrupt, dishonest. None of these accusations are supported by evidence. All of them are based on innuendo and insinuation. And the attacks hit her from all sides.
The wonder of 2016 is that Hillary is winning — that she has more votes than anyone in the race. But just because Hillary’s voters see through the lies doesn’t mean we should let the media get away with telling more lies about her.
Trump’s negatives are ten points higher than Hillary’s. They should be 50 points higher. And they would be without the relentless misrepresentations and mischaracterizations that Hillary endures.
http://bluenationreview.com/dont-pretend-hillarys-negatives-are-the-same-as-trumps/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
randome
(34,845 posts)He can't keep his big mouth shut.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
Armstead
(47,803 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)That just makes a journalist's sense of smell all the more acute.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/duckin-donald-the-great-phone-skedaddle
Muslim-smashin', Mexican-bashin' tough guy Donald Trump seems to have been caught red-handed denying that he impersonated a non-existent spokesman to tell reporters how awesome he is. (Meet Trump Organization spokesman John Miller, who you can't meet because he doesn't exist.) Trump denied this notwithstanding the fact that he admitted to doing this in a legal deposition years ago. The story was bubbling all day. But when The Washington Post (attack organ run by Trump Arch-Nemesis Jeff Bezos) confronted him with the deception on the phone, he first went silent on the reporters and then hung up.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
Armstead
(47,803 posts)
Baobab
(4,667 posts)Trump is just a very boorish rich guy with lots of clueless opinions but some qualities that people actually find endearing, unfortunately.
HRC is a would-be "globalist" who is pushing a morally bankrupt scheme that is basically a huge con game on the whole world.
Especially us. We are paying the biggest price.
She's likely to be seen by history very differently than her advocates see her now.
larkrake
(1,674 posts)
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)Who did the sniper story to her?
Who did the $225K speech fees to her?
baldguy
(36,649 posts)Same people who gave Sanders his vote to dump toxic nuclear waste on poor Hispanics children, and protecting gun manufacturers when they sell to mass murderers, and his support of the trillion dollar MIC.
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)That has nothing to do with your OP
baldguy
(36,649 posts)hobbit709
(41,694 posts)Caca del toro.
But you knew that
kstewart33
(6,551 posts)That's Bernie's rap sheet and it ain't pretty.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Bernie is irrelevant now, right, since Hillary won? So saying that Hillary's negatives are deserved has nothing to do with Bernie.
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)Only on DU would someone make a comment about Bernie when the OP is comparing Trump and Hillary. This has nothing to do with the primaries.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)persons who are using it on Bernie this time. I also notice that the affectation of concern about those communities extends only so far as the making of a negative swipe at either Obama or Bernie, depending on the year. The facts are never mentioned.
Sierra Blanca Texas was never used for dumping nuclear waste, that never happened. What did happen is that New York City dumped endless tons of sewage sludge in Sierra Blanca. NYC had previously dumped their sewage in the ocean. Feds made them stop that. So NYC loaded up their sewage onto trains called 'The Poo Poo Choo Choo' many times a day for many, many years.
"After the ocean dumping ban became effective, New York City’s sludge went by train (45 per day) on the “Poo-Poo Choo-Choo” to Sierra Blanca, Texas, a town close to the Mexican border. According to Ascher, “There, 90 miles southeast of El Paso, roughly 250 tons of waste would be spread atop the fields, at one of the biggest sludge dumps in the world."
http://untappedcities.com/2013/08/23/cities-101-what-was-poo-poo-choo-choo-an-overview-sewage-treatment-nyc/
Sierra Blanca, the Nation's
Largest Sewage Dump
http://www.txpeer.org/toxictour/merco.html
Progressive dog
(6,900 posts)Bernie ushered the bill through congress.
NYC dumping sludge on the same town doesn't make it right for Bernie to try to get low level nuclear waste from Vermont dumped there.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)The toxic waste issue is a red herring. The much admired Gov. Ann Richards was a prime mover in that -- and it was an attempt to find the least bad solution to a horrible environmental issue that there are no good answers for.
the gun manufacturer thing one can legitimately disagree with. But it was not blanket immunity from suits based on wrongful behavior...simply establishing the same standard for a legal product ad any otehr manufacturer....And look at the relationship between some of Clinton's big backers and the gun industry.
His "support" was merely diverting some of the jobs for a weapons program into his home state. Not high minded but the same kind of basic pork barrel politics that EVERY elected representative does to bring home the bacon for constituents....Totally different matter than corruption to pad one's own nest.
Progressive dog
(6,900 posts)what is or isn't a red herring. The facts are Bernie worked for a bill to ship low level nuclear waste from Vermont to one of the poorest towns in Texas. Bernie voted for an NRA supported bill, removing gun manufacturers and dealers from liability laws that apply to other products. Sanders supported the F-35 program that brought jobs to his home town.
He answers these facts with innuendos about Hillary accepting money for favors but he can't name the favors.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)The choice was not to store nuclear waste in an environmentally sensitive and very interconnected region where the air and watersheds affect one of the largest concentrations of population in the US including NYC, Boston and many otehr cities -- which also have huge poor and minority populations.
Gun manufacturers? Okay, but it is a distortion to use that one point to claim that Bernie is not very close to Clinton on overall gun control issue....And I would not be surprised to see Clinton downplay gun control in the General.
Porkbarrel is porkbarrel. It's as American as apple pie...for better and worse.
Progressive dog
(6,900 posts)A man who proposed a 50% cut in the military budget should not be supporting $400 billion military programs because some money goes to his home state.
A special law to benefit gun manufacturers and sellers is a very big deal.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Maine, NH.......and cities like NYC, Boston, Albany, Hartford, Springfield...etc. etc. etc. you might have a point.
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-Bernie-Sanders-ushered-a-bill-that-allowed-Vermont-to-dump-nuclear-waste-in-the-poor-Hispanic-community-of-Sierra-Blanca-Texas
.
Kristian Høg, Bernie Sanders Supporter.
Technically correct.
But the problem is that this was "low level nuclear waste". That sounds dangerous right? Well it really isn't.
"items such as scrap metal and worker’s gloves… as well as medical gloves used in radiation treatments at hospitals"
Yeah this "nuclear waste" is really just gloves and metals that have been in low radiation envoirnments. They are not dumping plutonium or something of that sort.
Parts of it is literally something that has been approved by doctors to WEAR on your skin.
And this would obviously not be dumped in highly populated areas but rather in an actual pit/landfill for the purpose:
Now while this lying around isn't going to actually harm anyone (even if you stood by it for a good long while but especially when buried) the local community was opposed to the project (even if it was for irrational reasons) and maybe there should have been more diplomacy.
Lastly you can hear what Bernie Sanders had to say about it:
"Let me address it from the perspective of someone who is an opponent of nuclear power, who opposes the construction of power plants and, if he had his way, would shut down the existing nuclear power plants as quickly and as safely as we could.
One of the reasons that many of us oppose nuclear power plants is that when this technology was developed, there was not a lot of thought given as to how we dispose of the nuclear waste. Neither the industry nor the Government, in my view, did the right thing by allowing the construction of the plants and not figuring out how we get rid of the waste.
But the issue we are debating here today is not that issue. The reality, as others have already pointed out, is that the waste is here. We cannot wish it away. It exists in power plants in Maine and Vermont, it exists in hospitals, it is here.
No reputable scientist or environmentalist believes that the geology of Vermont or Maine would be a good place for this waste. In the humid climate of Vermont and Maine, it is more likely that groundwater will come in contact with that waste and carry off radioactive elements to the accessible environment.
There is widespread scientific evidence to suggest, on the other hand, that locations in Texas, some of which receive less than 12 inches of rainfall a year, a region where the groundwater table is more than 700 feet below the surface, is a far better location for this waste.
This is not a political assertion, it is a geological and environmental reality. Furthermore, even if this compact is not approved, it is likely that Texas, which has a great deal of low-level radioactive waste, and we should make the point that 80 percent of the waste is coming from Texas, 10 percent from Vermont, 10 percent from Maine, the reality is that Texas will go forward with or without this compact in building a facility to dispose of their low-level radioactive waste."
From a pragmatic or realist point of view Bernie Sanders really did nothing to hurt that latino community or the envoirnment.
The only real critique i could think of making is that he wasn't awfully diplomatic with that community! But then again it wasn't even Bernie's bill so i am not sure how much you can expect of the guy!
Edit: By the way the landfill was never actually created in that location. Instead the landfill was placed somewhere in western Texas!
Updated 4 Mar • View Upvotes
Progressive dog
(6,900 posts)I'll bet there are a lot of people too. You should include the whole northeast. From a pragmatic point of view, Bernie refuses to own up to anything he has done.
The reality is this, there are higher level nuclear wastes stored at Indian Point. The pragmatic point of view is Vermont doesn't want it and Texas wants the money. I'm wondering if Jane is still being paid as an alternate commissioner of the Texas low-level radioactive waste disposal compact. Nothing like profiting from dumping your garbage on others.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Just prefer to not see it distorted or made more of than deserved.
It may be a legitimate issue to bring up, but not with the relentlessness and exagerations that it is brought up like it was some terrible crime. I think there are few enough things like this in Bernie's background that the comparatively small number get blown way out of proportion.
How do you feel about Comast having a major role in the Democratic Convention? How do you feel about pushing environmentally destructive policies on overseas populations as US policy? etc.
Progressive dog
(6,900 posts)that allows Comcast to have a role? Corporations are not really people, even the RW SCOTUS didn't go that far.
The US is the one that finally got some action on climate change out of the world's countries. You should look up the Paris Agreement. It's delusional to think that the US must be responsible for all bad stuff that happens anywhere.
Baobab
(4,667 posts)These deals are attacks on:
http://www.pnhp.org/sites/default/files/Nick%20Skala%20GAT%20and%20Health%20Reform.pdf Healthcare
http://www.eua.be/Libraries/publication/EUA_Statement_TTIP.pdf Education
http://action.sierraclub.org/site/DocServer/Analysis_of_EU_Energy_Proposal_for_TTIP-Final_-_Sierra_C.pdf Energy and therefore Affordable Housing
This isn't some little thing.
Progressive dog
(6,900 posts)so I think you mean the deals that I would like people to believe happened but I can't prove.
kstewart33
(6,551 posts)Amstead, thank you sincerely for your honesty. That's a rare occurrence on this forum.
Human101948
(3,457 posts)Spending on defense (as Bernie did) is fine. Nations are entitled to defend themselves.
Voting to go on offense in violation of international laws forbidding aggression is not.
brewens
(13,575 posts)you for the most part, they just thinks she is much closer to tRUMP's level.
Baobab
(4,667 posts)Are you in some other country?
Who made her support the TPP?
Who made her support NAFTA?
Who made her say those things regarding the crime bill?
Who made her do anything or take any bad position she's taken over the past 30 years?
Is she her own person or not?
Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)There's a world of difference between them.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)
FlatBaroque
(3,160 posts)they were being attacked by the VRWC. And notice, the VRWC never seems to attack them for their actual criminal activity. Wonder why...
cali
(114,904 posts)
BootinUp
(47,141 posts)Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)
Dem2
(8,168 posts)I have no idea how he gets past the scandal that ran all night on MSNBC. If that was his only screw up, maybe, but he's got material to last every night until election day, without repeating!
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)A majority of people don't like or trust her. That is set in stone and a GE campaign doesn't offer enough time or opportunity to try and reverse that. Many of her woes have been self inflicted, not the result of a vast right wing conspiracy.
trumps negatives are not deeply set. They are more recent and can be somewhat turned if he can run a more controlled GE campaign. Whether he can or not is the big question.
Pretending that Hillary doesn't have a serious problem with independent voters is laughable and dangerous.
Progressive dog
(6,900 posts)In the US, elections are not decided by polls and they are not decided before campaigns have even started.
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)That's where Hillary is incredibly vulnerable. They don't like her to a very large extent. She can't change that in a short election cycle.
Her only hope is to convince independents that trump is so extreme, so dangerous, and so coarse that he cannot be president. That, in a vacuum, wouldn't be too hard to do. They problem is, while she is doing that, he's going to be attacking her as well.
Progressive dog
(6,900 posts)because they're secretly a party. LOL
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)Progressive dog
(6,900 posts)as they do from independents, so it is delusional to continue to claim that independents decide elections.
brush
(53,771 posts)BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)She was in essentially a two person race for the Democratic nomination. So, being better known, better financed, and with a base of support she got the biggest share of the 30% of the electorate voting for a Democratic nominee.
Trump was running against almost a dozen opponents, then half a dozen, then two others fighting for the republican nomination among the 30% of the electorate voting for a republican nominee.
It would be shocking if Hillary didn't have the most votes of anyone in the primaries.
Her problem is that the election will be decided by the 40% of the electorate who are independents, not the Democrats, not the republicans. That's where her negatives are going to be a real problem.
brush
(53,771 posts)Stop spinning. Independents come in all political stripes — some right-leaning, some moderate and some left-leaning.
We're heard that argument over and over about the independent vote, but most of us know it is not a monolith block just frothing at the mouth to vote against Clinton.
Trump will get his share, mostly the right-leaning ones, and Clinton will get her share, mostly the sensible moderate and left-leaning independents who don't want a repug appointing the next 2-3 SCOTUS justices.
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)I never said ALL independents are anti-Clinton. But most of them are according to polling over a long period.
The variation in independent's political leanings doesn't change the overall statistical number. She's a net loser with independents.
brush
(53,771 posts)Sensible, progressive whites who don't want a repug appointing the next 3 SCOTUS justices, Latino Americans, African Americans, women, Asian Americans, Native Americans, gays, sensible moderate and left-leaning independents who also don't want a repug appointing the next 3 SCOTUS justices — these are the voting blocks who elected Obama TWICE and will elect the next Dem candidate to the presidency, all but certain to be Hlllary Clinton.
All of the above ARE NOT VOTING FOR DONALD TRUMP.
We outnumber the angry white guys and/or racists who support Trump.
You can't win the presidency anymore with just the white vote. The demographic of the country has changed.
2012 showed that as Romney won a huge majority of the white vote and still lost handily.
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)Would have expected (three if you include Webb who dropped out before the first ballot was cast)
Trump had something like 15 or 16, several of which who hung on much longer than they should have.
The reality is that Republicans have cast more votes than Democrats have and have expanded their party, none Of which is good news for Hillary.
IF Republicans manage to get their shit together and get the old guard inline with the new people trump has brought to their party, then Hillary is in for a very rough election cycle.
brush
(53,771 posts)Romney got a y-u-u-u-g-e majority of the white vote in 2012 and still lost handily.
The Obama coalition: Sensible, progressive whites who don't want a repug appointing the next 3 SCOTUS justices, Latino Americans, African Americans, women, Asian Americans, Native Americans, gays, sensible moderate and left-leaning independents who also don't want a repug appointing the next 3 SCOTUS justices — these are the voting blocks who elected Obama TWICE and will elect the next Dem candidate to the presidency, all but certain to be Hlllary Clinton.
All of the above ARE NOT VOTING FOR DONALD TRUMP.
The days of carrying the white vote only to win the presidency are over.
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)As they did for Obama in 2008.
Truth be told, many life long Democrats are not thrilled about another Clinton becoming president. Several in my family will not vote for her, and I come from a very large and long family of lifetime Democrats. It's caused deep divisions in my family, and literally tearing my hometown apart down ideological lines.
This a scene playing out in many parts of America, and Hillary's high disapproval numbers are hard to overcome when your only support is the establishment insiders while isolating your base.
Contrast that Trump who has huuuuge support among his base, but little support within the establishment.
Eventually the republican establishment will support trump, but I really don't see the democratic base supporting Hillary.
brush
(53,771 posts)Latinos, Blacks, Asians, gays, most women, Native Americans, Progressive whites — that's the Democratic base and they will turn out ast in '12 and '08.
They outnumber angry whites and racists and they are voting blue not for a guy who has pronounced over and over again his hatred.
But keep wishing against the Dems if it helps you get through the night.
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)The base is the truly progressive wing which doesn't vote based on racial or gender identity. It's the people that understand the range and depth of issues across the board and not just the microcosm of their world.
These are the people who help get people to the polls, hold the community meetings and educate others on the issues and how they effect their lives. Their not party loyalist, but their the backbone of the party.
brush
(53,771 posts)others I mentioned are the base of the party.
We are the ones who turn out and vote regularly. Just the fact that Clinton is ahead in votes and delegates should tell you that.
The "truly progressives" that you mentioned, aren't they the ones who are threatening to not vote if Sanders doesn't win?
How the hell do you call people who threaten to withhold their vote the base?
The base are people you can depend on.
larkrake
(1,674 posts)brush
(53,771 posts)
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)That's not to say he won't be in the future, but he's not right now. She is.
brush
(53,771 posts)Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)She is NOT under a security review. And the FBI investigates crimes. It's in their mission statement. Stop spinning.
The FBI's major priorities are to:
Protect the United States from terrorist attack;
Protect the United States against foreign intelligence operations and espionage;
Protect the United States against cyber-based attacks and high-technology crimes;
Combat public corruption at all levels;
Protect civil rights;
Combat transnational and national criminal organizations and enterprises;
Combat major white-collar crime;
Combat significant violent crime;
Support federal, state, county, municipal, and international partners; and to
Upgrade technology to successfully perform the FBI's mission.
https://www.justice.gov/jmd/organization-mission-and-functions-manual-federal-bureau-investigation
brush
(53,771 posts)and you need to stop spreading that lie.
And btw, put your prayer beads away. An indictment is not going to happen.
Sanders has lost, and Trump, the self-publicist who masqueraded to media outlets about his sexual conquests, will lose spectacularly to her.
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)brush
(53,771 posts)the link that says it's a "criminal investigation".
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)No one inside the investigation can discuss it publicly until there is an indictment. You know that.
But, FBI director Comey, when asked if the FBI was doing merely a "security review" as stated by the Clinton team, said the FBI is an investigation agency, we don't do reviews. The FBI and a team of prosecutors are working the case. That alone should tell you all you need to know. FBI and prosecutors.
Comey made it as clear as he could within his guidelines that this is a criminal investigation.
Take your head out of the sand for change.
brush
(53,771 posts)We talked to experts in federal criminal investigations, and they told us that the FBI doesn’t look into issues just for the heck of it. They assess cases to find out whether criminal activity occurred.
"We don’t do these because we’re curious," said Ellen Glasser, a retired FBI special agent who worked on cases regarding mishandled classified information. "There’s a potential that a criminal violation took place."
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/may/12/fbis-investigation-hillary-clintons-emails-recap/
The game you're playing is one of semantics. The FBI, known for their tight-lipped response to inquiry, has said, flat-out, that the investigation isn't a "security review." What they've left up to the observer without stating it outright is that it is a criminal investigation. The FBI investigates activity to determine if a crime occurred. In other words, they are performing a criminal investigation.
It's in their mission statement.
And, if I asked any John or Jane Doe on the street what the FBI does, their first response would probably be, "They investigate crimes."
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)Anyone who is a target by the FBI is under a CRIMINAL investigation. That doesn't necessarily mean they'll be charged, but during the process, the investigation is CRIMINAL.
Prayer beads aside, I have worked with FBI agents for 23 years. I spent the first 13 years of my adult life covering crime for a newspaper and that included covering a number of federal cases in which the FBI was the investigating unit. I've also worked the past 10 years in the cyber security industry. My company housed an FBI testing facility for the first five years I was there. I am also required to know the law regarding the handling of sensitive data. My educated guess is probably a bit more advanced than yours and I think the only way she's NOT indicted is because of political pressure. What she's admitted to doing (mishandling national defense data) is enough to at least get her stripped of a security clearance. What president can be effective with no security clearance?
And, no, Sanders has not lost. Neither he nor Clinton have enough delegates to win the nomination. The Super Delegates do not vote until the convention and they'll be needed to carry one or the other over the threshold. If Clinton continues to slip in the polls against Trump and if the FBI indicates that she's very much in legal trouble, they can always change their stated pledge when they actually vote.
Get your head out of the sand.
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)Is your head really buried so far in the sand you don't understand this?
brush
(53,771 posts)BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)They can not comment on the nature of the investigation until an indictment is produced. You know that don't you?
The fact that the FBI and Federal prosecutors are involved is all the proof an intelligent person should need. It's criminal.
brush
(53,771 posts)Stop praying. It ain't gonna happen know matter how hard you clutch those prayer beads.
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)Just as I thought, you've got no clue.
brush
(53,771 posts)BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)FlatBaroque
(3,160 posts)HAHAHA...just kidding.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)TipTok
(2,474 posts)The Clinton MO has been to batten down the hatches and weather the storm while claiming the status of the victim whenever one of their scandals broke.
Minimize transparency and wait it out.
It's worked so far but the baggage remains.
BootinUp
(47,141 posts)TipTok
(2,474 posts)... She claims to be.
karynnj
(59,502 posts)The reason is that while people who support Hillary take "monster, a witch, a criminal, a liar, corrupt, dishonest" to be "disgraceful and destructive personal attacks", they are really just name calling - unpleasant name calling, but name calling.
This Brock controlled article then says that none of these things are "supported by evidence". Yet look at the "charges". Neither monster or witch (which is sexist) would ever be things meant LITERALLY, they are characterizations and subjective. Other than the leaked 2008 Samantha Powers comment I have not read anything in MSM that calls HRC a "monster". I have never seen a MSM article or even a fringe article call HRC a witch. Unless I am missing a lot, this refers to things said by the fringe to the fringe. Seriously, no one questioning who to vote for will take her maybe being a monster or witch into consideration.
Now, "dishonest" and "liar", they are charges that have been levied in most campaigns. In this case and others, they are made giving examples - which obviously blue nation rejects. It is done by comparing 2 things said - in reasonably close time - and arguing that someone could not believe both at the same time. In reality, what has often happened is that each of the two statements has been taken stripped of any nuance -- where the nuance on each is what allows both to be honest, but incomplete versions of the candidate's believes. ( Look at the minimum wage comments to see this)
A good counter to the dishonest argument is the Jill Abrahmson article ( http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/28/hillary-clinton-honest-transparency-jill-abramson ) It is a good analysis from a former NYT executive editor that her reporting over decades finds that she is honest, but has a problem with transparency. Far better than the OP which simply dismisses the charge out of hand.
As to "corrupt and criminal", this is what he may REALLY be addressing by adding it to the ludicrous (witch, monster) and to the omnipresent in various campaigns (liar dishonest). These charges actually are rarely unsupported -- in fact, they often have VOLUMES of "support", some of which is completely bogus. Criminal can be dismissed by the fact that she has never been charged with breaking any law.
Unfortunately for the Clinton team, the Clinton's own actions have opened legitimate inquiry on her server and the fact that Bill Clinton violated the agreement with the Obama administration designed to avoid a conflict of interest between HRC running the State Department and the Clinton Foundation. While there is an open FBI investigation, the media MUST report developments. Here, most of the MSM has reported that neither of these are likely to result in any charges for Clinton.
However, given that there is an open FBI investigation and more shoes drop all the time, to expect everyone to follow Sanders' lead and not use the problem politically is not going to work with the Republicans. As we have seen here, there are Democrats honestly concerned that this could explode after she gets the nomination. Here, though the investigation is being done independent from the President and other administration partisans, Obama likely was informed by the State Department before they sought Clinton's email. He likely has as good a view of what happened in 2009 ... and 2014 as anyone not on the FBI/IG investigations. I would assume that if he thought this was criminal, he would have put his thumb on the scale backing an alternative -- rather than being incredibly supportive of Clinton.
My point here, is just as Abrahmson makes a good case that HRC is essentially honest - with problems on transparency, the Clinton campaign will have to at some point counter that there was anything corrupt or illegal on the issues that MSM has covered. It may be that they will wait for the FBI investigation to end. If there is a misunderstanding on other issues, they can be explained.
What galls me is that this OP simply dismisses ANY negative view of Clinton using proof by intimidation - just belligerently stating that it is not so and implicitly attacking the integrity of anyone still having questions. To put it mildly, I think that might push those people further against Clinton because they personally may feel bullied.
larkrake
(1,674 posts)Indies, the largest voting block, liberals, environmentalists, half the minorities, and Bernies supporters as well. Congress may fear her, but will not work with her, the Pentagon will put her on ignore and do their own thing, and the Bankers will assist her in stealing even more from the people
karynnj
(59,502 posts)I did not support her this year or in 2008. I never bought that she "got things done" - in the Senate. As to groups not supporting her if President, that will be true for everyone.
MariaThinks
(2,495 posts)the republicans have made up a lot of shit to defeat Hillary. To many on the left have been fooled into believing it. sad and self destructive
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)Why do you think the FBI is investigating Hillary Clinton's email setup?
Is it because the FBI is a pawn of the right wing?
Why do you think Clinton's aides are being questioned about those emails and their content?
Because the FBI, a criminal investigation organization, is just reviewing security procedures not possible crime?
Why do you think the FBI will, after all that, question Hillary Clinton about the server, her emails and their content?
Because the FBI is just on a fishing expedition for the right wing?
If you actually thought about it, instead of reflexively boosting the poor Hillary is a victim spin, you'd know that something very serious and possibly criminal occurred.
BernieforPres2016
(3,017 posts)I'd think even David Brock would be embarrassed to write something like "Hillary is disliked because of what has been done to her." And you should be embarrassed to post such tripe.
Vote2016
(1,198 posts)negatives almost daily; Trump has shown some indication that he at least understands he needs to change. Hillary shows no similar self-awareness.
EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)Redwoods Red
(137 posts)Peace Patriot
(24,010 posts)...when we have an excellent alternative who has been demolishing the nazi impersonator in national match-up polls since January, and is still doing so, and who has very high trustworthy and favorability numbers?
I'm sorry, but Clinton's negatives are mostly about her corruption--for instance, Wall Street handing her half a billion dollars in pocket change for 20 minute private speeches--her support for "free trade for the rich" and her support for the Iraq slaughter and destabilization, as well as her flip-flopping on issues of social and economic justice.
Bluenation is a Clintonbot site anyway. They're going to spin, spin, spin. That's what they're doing now. They have a weak candidate to promote and they know it. It's almost laughable to say that Clinton's negatives are less than Trump's and all because of RW morons. It wasn't true in 2008 and it isn't true now. She has her own negatives. She's earned them herself.
So, hey, California and Oregon, let's nominate the candidate who is LIKED by the American people, who is considered honest and trustworthy by the American people, who advocates New Deal policies and who will beat the pants off of Trump?
BERNIE SANDERS! WE CAN DO IT!
longship
(40,416 posts)I will support and vote for Hillary if she gets the Dem nod. However, there are two things.
First, it will be the most difficult vote of my life, and I was born in the 1940's.
Second, I think that she will lose to Donald Drumpf.
Then, we will truly be in deep shit.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)that's unforgivable!
oasis
(49,376 posts)not you. 
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)
amborin
(16,631 posts)bvf
(6,604 posts)Grow up and deal with it.
