2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forum66% to 39% approval -- Nothing's changed except Sanders' smears.
When Hillary was Secretary of State, she had a 66% approval rating. She's the same person. All the Republican smears had been tried. Only when Sanders began beating the drum that she's beholden to Wall Street did the approval begin to slip. Sanders' charges are unfounded.... not even made directly, just innuendo. Even if he "supports" her after the convention, he runs the risk of becoming another Nader. I hope he makes a 180 degree turn soon.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)But the fake email scandal also contributed.
karynnj
(59,475 posts)She herself says that what she did was a "mistake". What is crystal clear is that her intent was to not provide ANY of her email to either Congress or the media if she could help it.
If the issue was really convenience, at minimum, she could have had a system that sent all incoming and outgoing State Department email to a State.gov account that would have existed just to archive her work product. (In fact, the current Secretary has his private account reviewed by State Department staff and any work related emails archived along with all the state.gov ones.)
In fact, had the emails been available, it is likely no one would ever have realized that she had an unusual process. (The fact that they were not even separated into personal and work folders suggest that she never intended to give them to State Department.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Its my understanding the mishandling of classified information is a common issue with high ranking officials in the government.
karynnj
(59,475 posts)And she really wasn't trying to thwart legal oversight. I do not think she will be charged, but I think it hurt for reputation because she was already seen as secretive. It does not have to rise to a crime to hurt.
eastwestdem
(1,220 posts)be remembered by the Democratic establishment for years to come.
Response to eastwestdem (Reply #2)
artislife This message was self-deleted by its author.
eastwestdem
(1,220 posts)Response to eastwestdem (Reply #15)
artislife This message was self-deleted by its author.
panader0
(25,816 posts)There are hundreds here that joined mid April.....
Response to panader0 (Reply #21)
artislife This message was self-deleted by its author.
panader0
(25,816 posts)Dozens and dozens joined right around the middle of April. A few have over 1000 posts already.
It seems to be a mystery......
Response to panader0 (Reply #23)
artislife This message was self-deleted by its author.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)He has amassed a very, very large donor list.
Shandris
(3,447 posts)...that her numbers slid!!"
"The problem isn't her being beholden to Wall Street, it's that some mean MAN dared to point it out!"
Sure thing, Felicia.
cali
(114,904 posts)Go back to 2008 and look how bad her favorable were. It's Hillary that is the problem. And Bernie's attacks on her have been largely mild. Trump will not hold back.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)All Bernie has done is tell the truth about Hillary.....
Rational people used to believe that taking enormous sums of money from corporations corrupted a politician.
Then along comes Hillary, the first incorruptible politician.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Most Presidents wait until *after* they hold office to cash in, Hillary's premature eagerness for the lucre is a bit unseemly.
AirmensMom
(14,600 posts)And if she can't stand up to Bernie, she has no hope against Trump. You think this stuff is new? SMDH
TransitJohn
(6,932 posts)How could he be 'another Nader' if he is stumping for her. That literally makes no sense.
frylock
(34,825 posts)Vinca
(50,170 posts)I don't know who wouldn't. In any case, Bernie hasn't come close to "smearing" Hillary. You'll be seeing real smear in the months to come and I'm sure you'll be able to discern the difference.
LAS14
(13,749 posts)... people and the money they can legitimately make on the circuit. And if you're worth the millions that Hillary is worth, $250,000 is way less than 1% of what she gave to charity. And don't tell me she gave it to the Clinton Foundation. It rates as one of the highest in terms of administrative costs (ie, low) and does great work. Citation in a post elsewhere on DU. And if it's given away, it's given away.
Vinca
(50,170 posts)to average people of modest means? She can't . . . and that's one of her problems. Her entire campaign has been like a scripted play and she's playing the part of caring politician when in fact her primary goal is a page in the history books.
LAS14
(13,749 posts)... people can relate to the rest of us. Besides that, she grew up firmly middle-class and has been working for the disenfranchised her whole life. Anyone who has been a president or a first lady can be expected to acquire millions from books and speaking engagements. That's just the way it is.
karynnj
(59,475 posts)1) Her damned email - There are many who were appalled and think it pretty obvious that she did so to avoid the legal oversight of the media and Congress. Bonus - it did not help that she had to change her story a few times.
2) Her book and the interviews from it, defined her as being more hawkish than Obama. It was Clinton herself who defined herself as having wanted to do more to arm the Syrian rebels.
3) Her interviews on that book included many gaffes - like saying she and Bill were dead broke when they left the WH - ignoring her large advance on her book and his likely even bigger advance. Not to mention, when one is "dead broke" one can not buy two expensive homes - one in NY state and one in DC.
4) Accepting big bucks to speak to Wall Street and banks, in a year when they are hobgoblins. It was not just Sanders who made this an issue.
He is not running as an "independent", so no he is not a "Nader". In fact, if you want to speak of 2000, consider NO ONE argues that the fault was Bill Bradley's for running against Gore and arguing that he had negatives from having been part of Clinton/Gore.
If you think the Republicans would not have raised the issue of the talks, you are deceiving yourself. Note that Sanders did not go after her on the lack of judgment in mixing her private and government email on her own server and not bothering to archive any of it -- in spite of inquiries that should have had access to it even before she left office. Note that he has not brought of anything about the fact that they violated the agreement to prevent conflict of interest between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department.
Hillary WORKED to get those negatives.
Response to karynnj (Reply #11)
artislife This message was self-deleted by its author.
hellofromreddit
(1,182 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)LexVegas
(6,005 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)vintx
(1,748 posts)pmorlan1
(2,096 posts)Sure he does...um hmm...right. Tell us another funny story.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)tazkcmo
(7,286 posts)What would a Clinton supporter know about integrity?
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)NT
Logical
(22,457 posts)tabasco
(22,974 posts)Thanks.
Broward
(1,976 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
bahrbearian
(13,466 posts)CobaltBlue
(1,122 posts)Last edited Sat May 21, 2016, 08:35 PM - Edit history (1)
chascarrillo
(3,897 posts)amborin
(16,631 posts)at state, etc.
even the pro-HRC NYT had front page account of her disastrous Libya regime change
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)...are different things.
For example, if I were asked if I approve of the job Joe Biden is doing as VP, I'd say Yes.
But if he were running for president and I were asked if I viewed him favorably, then I might think about his pro Drug War policy in the Senate and say No.
aikoaiko
(34,127 posts)Attorney in Texas
(3,373 posts)timmymoff
(1,947 posts)So she does have that vote of confidence in her corner.