HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » I'm very sorry Hillary Cl...

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 12:54 PM

 

I'm very sorry Hillary Clinton has a sad today.

She voted for the PATRIOT Act.

She voted for the Iraq War Resolution.

She is snuggled up good and tight with organized crime crews like Goldman Sachs that stole our future.

She got the Keystone XL pipeline ball rolling at the State Department.

Personal liberty...unjust war...Wall Street crime...climate change.

Gosh, seems to me those are the signal issues of our time...and every chance she's had to cast a vote or exert influence, she's gone in absolutely the wrong direction.

Now, it seems, she's disinterested in following the law when it comes to governmental data collection. A poster here who claims to have worked at State says it's because she's a Luddite working within a calcified bureaucratic technology, and she's just more comfortable with her Yahoo account, or whatever it is.

If the Bush administration had unspooled that line, this place would have erupted. And rightly so.

So maybe the trick isn't to try to elect the most "electable" Democrat. As Democrats, maybe the trick is to wrestle this party back from the abyss and rediscover a few DNA-level values.

Like protecting personal liberty...and avoiding unjust war...and holding Wall Street to account...and thwarting climate change.

I'm sorry she has a sad today, but my unavoidable conclusion is that Secretary Clinton - based on her black-letter record - does not strike me as the avatar for that change.

Oh, and P.S.: I'm not being divisive. This is the cold, hard truth. Deploy your coping mechanisms as you will. The facts are on the wall. Read them or don't; you're still free, for now.

Let the million flowers bloom.

298 replies, 18607 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 298 replies Author Time Post
Reply I'm very sorry Hillary Clinton has a sad today. (Original post)
WilliamPitt Mar 2015 OP
wyldwolf Mar 2015 #1
merrily Mar 2015 #108
wyldwolf Mar 2015 #205
TheBlackAdder Mar 2015 #203
Autumn Mar 2015 #2
still_one Mar 2015 #3
wyldwolf Mar 2015 #5
DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #11
wyldwolf Mar 2015 #28
wyldwolf Mar 2015 #31
DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #40
wyldwolf Mar 2015 #42
Hekate Mar 2015 #58
leveymg Mar 2015 #60
wyldwolf Mar 2015 #76
G_j Mar 2015 #72
dbackjon Mar 2015 #212
WilliamPitt Mar 2015 #74
still_one Mar 2015 #87
merrily Mar 2015 #116
cui bono Mar 2015 #179
grasswire Mar 2015 #224
awoke_in_2003 Mar 2015 #284
Buzz Clik Mar 2015 #82
still_one Mar 2015 #85
LondonReign2 Mar 2015 #79
Codeine Mar 2015 #95
still_one Mar 2015 #127
awoke_in_2003 Mar 2015 #285
merrily Mar 2015 #112
one_voice Mar 2015 #171
sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #201
demwing Mar 2015 #268
LittleBlue Mar 2015 #4
Buzz Clik Mar 2015 #83
freebrew Mar 2015 #110
Buzz Clik Mar 2015 #128
WilliamPitt Mar 2015 #135
Buzz Clik Mar 2015 #136
Bugenhagen Mar 2015 #144
merrily Mar 2015 #147
Buzz Clik Mar 2015 #208
merrily Mar 2015 #210
Bugenhagen Mar 2015 #220
Buzz Clik Mar 2015 #178
demwing Mar 2015 #269
Buzz Clik Mar 2015 #278
demwing Mar 2015 #288
Buzz Clik Mar 2015 #289
demwing Mar 2015 #290
Buzz Clik Mar 2015 #291
demwing Mar 2015 #293
L0oniX Mar 2015 #231
cui bono Mar 2015 #182
Buzz Clik Mar 2015 #184
cui bono Mar 2015 #197
TiberiusB Mar 2015 #272
Buzz Clik Mar 2015 #279
tularetom Mar 2015 #6
merrily Mar 2015 #120
bigwillq Mar 2015 #7
nichomachus Mar 2015 #8
jeff47 Mar 2015 #17
nichomachus Mar 2015 #19
Go Vols Mar 2015 #157
nichomachus Mar 2015 #177
TiberiusB Mar 2015 #275
merrily Mar 2015 #148
cui bono Mar 2015 #193
merrily Mar 2015 #198
merrily Mar 2015 #204
cui bono Mar 2015 #209
merrily Mar 2015 #211
cui bono Mar 2015 #222
cui bono Mar 2015 #191
dbackjon Mar 2015 #213
cui bono Mar 2015 #216
dbackjon Mar 2015 #233
cui bono Mar 2015 #234
dbackjon Mar 2015 #236
olddots Mar 2015 #9
RufusTFirefly Mar 2015 #35
merrily Mar 2015 #149
Fred Sanders Mar 2015 #10
WilliamPitt Mar 2015 #14
Fred Sanders Mar 2015 #18
DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #21
Fred Sanders Mar 2015 #26
DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #32
Fred Sanders Mar 2015 #34
DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #36
rhett o rick Mar 2015 #47
Fla Dem Mar 2015 #75
cui bono Mar 2015 #186
Fla Dem Mar 2015 #246
cui bono Mar 2015 #249
Fla Dem Mar 2015 #281
WilliamPitt Mar 2015 #27
Fred Sanders Mar 2015 #33
WilliamPitt Mar 2015 #37
Fred Sanders Mar 2015 #38
uppityperson Mar 2015 #55
WilliamPitt Mar 2015 #70
rtracey Mar 2015 #88
uppityperson Mar 2015 #146
greyl Mar 2015 #262
uppityperson Mar 2015 #263
greyl Mar 2015 #298
DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #237
Major Hogwash Mar 2015 #253
DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #255
Major Hogwash Mar 2015 #256
DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #257
Major Hogwash Mar 2015 #260
DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #270
Major Hogwash Mar 2015 #294
DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #295
DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #239
Cha Mar 2015 #252
Logical Mar 2015 #140
dbackjon Mar 2015 #12
nichomachus Mar 2015 #16
radiclib Mar 2015 #45
LiberalLovinLug Mar 2015 #119
dbackjon Mar 2015 #122
merrily Mar 2015 #126
dbackjon Mar 2015 #139
merrily Mar 2015 #141
dbackjon Mar 2015 #161
merrily Mar 2015 #162
LiberalLovinLug Mar 2015 #241
merrily Mar 2015 #123
Indepatriot Mar 2015 #13
merrily Mar 2015 #131
karynnj Mar 2015 #165
merrily Mar 2015 #166
karynnj Mar 2015 #173
merrily Mar 2015 #175
Indepatriot Mar 2015 #261
H2O Man Mar 2015 #15
Dreamer Tatum Mar 2015 #23
Yo_Mama Mar 2015 #20
jeff47 Mar 2015 #25
Autumn Mar 2015 #41
jeff47 Mar 2015 #43
Autumn Mar 2015 #50
jeff47 Mar 2015 #53
merrily Mar 2015 #132
Yo_Mama Mar 2015 #159
merrily Mar 2015 #160
ND-Dem Mar 2015 #219
leveymg Mar 2015 #265
randome Mar 2015 #22
merrily Mar 2015 #134
NYC_SKP Mar 2015 #24
KoKo Mar 2015 #64
merrily Mar 2015 #138
mike_c Mar 2015 #29
calimary Mar 2015 #30
Cleita Mar 2015 #39
johnnyreb Mar 2015 #137
merrily Mar 2015 #145
guillaumeb Mar 2015 #44
Maedhros Mar 2015 #61
guillaumeb Mar 2015 #67
Rex Mar 2015 #46
denbot Mar 2015 #48
WilliamPitt Mar 2015 #49
denbot Mar 2015 #57
brooklynite Mar 2015 #63
sendero Mar 2015 #242
brooklynite Mar 2015 #243
daredtowork Mar 2015 #99
Rex Mar 2015 #51
denbot Mar 2015 #69
cui bono Mar 2015 #195
Mnpaul Mar 2015 #229
Logical Mar 2015 #143
cui bono Mar 2015 #194
Orsino Mar 2015 #52
bigtree Mar 2015 #54
Enthusiast Mar 2015 #55
randome Mar 2015 #66
Rilgin Mar 2015 #59
leveymg Mar 2015 #62
Name removed Mar 2015 #65
stevenleser Mar 2015 #68
WilliamPitt Mar 2015 #73
stevenleser Mar 2015 #78
Bugenhagen Mar 2015 #154
Bluenorthwest Mar 2015 #167
Number23 Mar 2015 #199
Bugenhagen Mar 2015 #218
DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #238
emulatorloo Mar 2015 #258
Logical Mar 2015 #105
Dawgs Mar 2015 #71
Buzz Clik Mar 2015 #84
Dawgs Mar 2015 #89
Buzz Clik Mar 2015 #92
rtracey Mar 2015 #77
Buzz Clik Mar 2015 #80
hopemountain Mar 2015 #163
Buzz Clik Mar 2015 #180
hopemountain Mar 2015 #287
cui bono Mar 2015 #190
Buzz Clik Mar 2015 #200
alcibiades_mystery Mar 2015 #81
Dawgs Mar 2015 #91
alcibiades_mystery Mar 2015 #96
Android3.14 Mar 2015 #217
alcibiades_mystery Mar 2015 #225
Android3.14 Mar 2015 #226
AtomicKitten Mar 2015 #106
alcibiades_mystery Mar 2015 #117
AtomicKitten Mar 2015 #118
joanbarnes Mar 2015 #86
Capt. Obvious Mar 2015 #90
Cryptoad Mar 2015 #93
neverforget Mar 2015 #189
juajen Mar 2015 #94
Tierra_y_Libertad Mar 2015 #97
Mr. Mustard Mar 2015 #98
closeupready Mar 2015 #100
Octafish Mar 2015 #101
KamaAina Mar 2015 #102
Sheelanagig Mar 2015 #103
asjr Mar 2015 #104
Indepatriot Mar 2015 #124
asjr Mar 2015 #133
hifiguy Mar 2015 #107
AtomicKitten Mar 2015 #109
dissentient Mar 2015 #111
MBS Mar 2015 #232
Myrina Mar 2015 #113
George II Mar 2015 #114
rosesaylavee Mar 2015 #115
Adenoid_Hynkel Mar 2015 #121
Carolina Mar 2015 #125
hootinholler Mar 2015 #129
Jackpine Radical Mar 2015 #130
Left coast liberal Mar 2015 #142
maggies farm Mar 2015 #150
MineralMan Mar 2015 #151
WilliamPitt Mar 2015 #155
MineralMan Mar 2015 #169
emulatorloo Mar 2015 #259
Bobbie Jo Mar 2015 #158
daleanime Mar 2015 #152
Agnosticsherbet Mar 2015 #153
McCamy Taylor Mar 2015 #156
dbackjon Mar 2015 #214
Dr Hobbitstein Mar 2015 #282
Duppers Mar 2015 #164
WilliamPitt Mar 2015 #170
Duppers Mar 2015 #192
Buzz Clik Mar 2015 #181
LineReply .
stonecutter357 Mar 2015 #168
Mike Nelson Mar 2015 #172
MaggieD Mar 2015 #174
WilliamPitt Mar 2015 #185
MaggieD Mar 2015 #221
Corruption Inc Mar 2015 #240
MaggieD Mar 2015 #247
Major Hogwash Mar 2015 #248
MaggieD Mar 2015 #273
Buzz Clik Mar 2015 #207
MaggieD Mar 2015 #176
Rex Mar 2015 #183
Thespian2 Mar 2015 #187
randys1 Mar 2015 #188
NotHardly Mar 2015 #196
stonecutter357 Mar 2015 #202
misterhighwasted Mar 2015 #206
WillyT Mar 2015 #215
Sarcastica Mar 2015 #223
840high Mar 2015 #227
L0oniX Mar 2015 #230
L0oniX Mar 2015 #228
Autumn Mar 2015 #235
eridani Mar 2015 #244
wolfie001 Mar 2015 #283
Beausoir Mar 2015 #245
blkmusclmachine Mar 2015 #250
bullwinkle428 Mar 2015 #251
geek tragedy Mar 2015 #254
whereisjustice Mar 2015 #264
Rex Mar 2015 #266
MADem Mar 2015 #267
DesertDiamond Mar 2015 #271
greenman3610 Mar 2015 #274
Historic NY Mar 2015 #276
Buenaventura Mar 2015 #277
amuse bouche Mar 2015 #280
mylye2222 Mar 2015 #286
Owl Mar 2015 #292
woo me with science Mar 2015 #296
woo me with science Mar 2015 #297

Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 12:57 PM

1. "it seems, she's disinterested in following the law when it comes to governmental data collection."

What law?

she's just more comfortable with her Yahoo account, or whatever it is.


I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. A private email address is more secure than a free one. I've set up private accounts that would be extremely difficult to hack. Yahoo accounts are quite simple to get into.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #1)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:55 PM

108. The Federal Records Act.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #108)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 06:35 PM

205. Show me where that applies here

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #1)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 06:33 PM

203. Law or not, she did the EXACT SAME THING SARAH PALIN DID! HRC acted deceptively.



There is NO difference in the motices between Sarah Palin's use of private emails and HRC's.

HRC even saw the crap that Palin went through using them (I wonder if she even commented on it?) and, instead of deing disuaded, chose to follow Palin's lead--so she could control the content and document destruction.


===

Yet, no one knows how secure that account was, what's Yahoo's internal practices (not what they say, but what they do) regarding these accounts, who else hacked into her account (like Palin's), etc.. A foreign country might have detected his account and hacked into it--and no one would be the wiser.

HRC placed confidential emails in the hands of a 'free' email system that might have jeopardized the USA.

It was stupid... and the only justification for this was to be deceptive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 12:57 PM

2. Will, you have a gift. Thank you for your words.

They are a gift to me and others.

Now I'm gonna sit here and watch because you just hurt the feelings of those who are still not over your last righteous rant. BRACE YOURSELF

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 12:58 PM

3. maybe you can swear her out just like you did Obama on the ACA

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #3)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:00 PM

5. I remember that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #5)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:10 PM

11. I missed that...

What happened?

Thank you in advance.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #11)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:21 PM

28. Trying to find it for you. Until then, here's another top 10 hit:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to wyldwolf (Reply #31)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:32 PM

40. It seems like a misreading of the ACA while not perfect has been a godsend to many people.


It seems like a misreading of the ACA while not perfect has been a godsend to many people, including me.

The abundance of recommends are chilling but not unexpected.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #40)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:34 PM

42. Night and Day

The Will Pitt of 2001 - 2007 vs. Will Pitt 2008 - present is like night and day. Almost two different people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #42)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:59 PM

58. +1

not happy about it myself

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #42)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:02 PM

60. When you run out of facts, is personal attack your default setting, ww?

You're on that line, and moving over it here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #60)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:14 PM

76. Interesting you think it's an attack. Will thinks it's evolution



You've probably been waiting for the perfect time to use my line. I guess you'll have to keep waiting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #42)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:10 PM

72. yea, lets make it personal

and avoid addressing any of the substance of the post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to G_j (Reply #72)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 07:02 PM

212. Which was? Will is happy that a fellow Democrat was unjustly smeared?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #42)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:12 PM

74. Evolution.

 

It's a real thing.

Give it a try.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Reply #74)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:26 PM

87. Obviously you don't accept what she wrote in her book. That could be considered evolution

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Reply #74)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:07 PM

116. It's posts like this that make me wish that "Oh, Snap" were still an "in" saying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #42)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 05:48 PM

179. Disagree, but while we're at it, there's a whole slew of DUers who changed their stances on a dime

in 2008.

Topics:

NSA spying on American citizens
warrantless wiretapping
whistleblowers
Wall Street execs appointed to the White House
Drones

The list goes on.

But it's clear why they changed. Whether or not Will changed is up for debate, but when I read his posts they are based on policy, not a person.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cui bono (Reply #179)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 08:52 PM

224. EXCELLENT!

And very, very regrettable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cui bono (Reply #179)

Wed Mar 4, 2015, 12:48 PM

284. a-fucking-men

 

It is funny how some people's views changed once a dem was in the White House

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #31)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:22 PM

82. +1.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #31)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:24 PM

85. Actually that was kind of a mea culpa. The original post was far worse

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #3)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:18 PM

79. "maybe you can swear her out just like you did Obama"

As long as no one swears her in I'm good

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LondonReign2 (Reply #79)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:35 PM

95. As much as I disagree with you,

that was fucking clever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LondonReign2 (Reply #79)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:20 PM

127. Lol. I like your sense of humor

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LondonReign2 (Reply #79)

Wed Mar 4, 2015, 12:49 PM

285. DUzy. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #3)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:03 PM

112. Swear her out of what?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #3)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 05:26 PM

171. I haven't heard that expression...

swear her out


in forever.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #3)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 06:32 PM

201. And maybe you could comment on the OP rather than attempting to discredit the messenger, a tactic

has grown here to a frightening degree, apparently the last resort when there really is no denying the facts??

There ARE some issues that are way, way more important than a few words on an internet forum. Well to most of us I suppose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #3)

Wed Mar 4, 2015, 08:59 AM

268. Good plan!

 

she certainly deserves it.

Maybe you could address the message instead of the messenger?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 12:59 PM

4. Flawless

Well said

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LittleBlue (Reply #4)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:23 PM

83. Actually not. Like so much he puts out...

 

... it's riddled with bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #83)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:57 PM

110. Seems that the facts bear out for Will.

She did everything he stated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freebrew (Reply #110)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:22 PM

128. You know, there is a thread of truth in everything Limbaugh and O'Reilly say, too.

 

Is it 100% factual? Is the context perfect? No hyberbole or wild extrapolations?

It's clear you and I will disagree...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #128)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:44 PM

135. So I'm Limbaugh and O'Reilly now.

 

You people crack me up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Reply #135)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:47 PM

136. Paranoid much?

 

Read it again.

I was not implying you were acting like Limbaugh and O'Reilly ... until your comment to me. Nice self indulgence, Rush.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #136)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:56 PM

144. Anyone can read what you implied.

Why would you run from it on an anonymous discussion board? Unless it made you feel like an ass.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bugenhagen (Reply #144)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 04:04 PM

147. +1 The meme that left of center is more rightist than the center right is ludicrous on its face.

At about the same time that the Koch Brothers donated to the DLC and sat on its Executive Council, they conceived of the Tea Party. One was a rightest faction within the Democratic Party; the other would come to be a rightist faction within the Republican Party. However, the establishment of the Republican Party had the sense to fight their right wing faction. Democrats allowed their right wing faction to take over and transform the Party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #147)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 06:41 PM

208. Does it faze you at all that Pitt has now been shown to be incredibly premature in passing judgment?

 

Just curious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #208)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 06:51 PM

210. Odd reply to my Reply 147, which had zero to do with Hillary's emails.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #208)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 08:39 PM

220. Loaded question

I understand what you mean, but answering the question head on implies agreeing with the "incredibly premature" part.

Personally I don't care what email government officials use as long as it is open to FOIAs and public archiving. In the Bush white house, IIRC, staffers and officials were given privately supplied "off of radar" laptops to use with unofficial email addresses and so forth. We weren't angry because they broke the 2014 law. We were angry because we didn't trust them to not hide all kinds of nefarious skullduggery by bypassing official email. I think it is safe to say that the republicans are going to accuse Mrs. Clinton of N.S. as well.

To me that is the same issue as Hillary's unofficial email use. I.e. now a private party gets to decide what gets turned over in a records search, which leads to the "missing minutes on the Nixon tapes" scenario.

To me, the things done by our government in our names must be available to the public. If national security is an issue, a FOIA can be denied, but at least the record is there in case a later president changes his mind or 100 years go by or whatever. But I am skeptical when any public servant has the ability to erase the past.

So from my perspective (if you'll allow me to paraphrase your question my own way), this is an issue and I think it needs to be discussed. The republicans are going to use it against her, so even if you are a Hillary supporter you ought to want to be out front discussing it and putting it to bed, if you can, before she announces her candidacy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bugenhagen (Reply #144)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 05:47 PM

178. Speaking of ass...

 

Why are you speaking for Pitt? Do you feel he's incapable?

And I DID NOT compare Pitt to Limbaugh or O'Reilly other than his selective use of the truth.

If you and your baby bird feel that I have somehow harmed Pitt's fragile ego, well ... who really cares?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #178)

Wed Mar 4, 2015, 09:09 AM

269. Well, YOU care, apparently

 

otherwise why craft a response?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demwing (Reply #269)

Wed Mar 4, 2015, 10:47 AM

278. No, but I really enjoy throwing salt in the wounds.

 

Keep coming back.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #278)

Wed Mar 4, 2015, 03:17 PM

288. So you're a troll?

 

yeah, that's much preferable to caring.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demwing (Reply #288)

Wed Mar 4, 2015, 04:14 PM

289. Sweet jeebus.

 

Too many people at this place just jump in anywhere making dorky statements out of context and think that's the equivalent of being profound.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #289)

Wed Mar 4, 2015, 05:40 PM

290. look in the fucking mirror

 

I've had it with people who "really enjoy throwing salt in the wounds" and think that doing so somehow ads a measure of quality to the discourse.

If you can't see that this is the behavior of a troll, then not only are you trolling, but you're oblivious to your own negativity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demwing (Reply #290)

Wed Mar 4, 2015, 08:40 PM

291. There's a "fucking mirror"? Sounds kinky.

 

Listen, pal -- you injected yourself in the middle of a conversation with a snarky comment, and you want me to "add a measure of quality to the discourse"? I see -- do as I say, not as I do.

And calling people trolls is a big, fucking violation of DU rules -- not to mention a huge dose of outrageous hypocrisy on your part. If I were a run-of-the-mill DU prick, I'd alert this. But, I'll leave that to you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #291)

Wed Mar 4, 2015, 10:07 PM

293. Oh my heart, it's breaking

 

every one of your posts in this thread is slathered in snark. You admit you like to piss people off, but I make a comment and suddenly you're all "listen, pal-- you interjected yourself" as if DU were your private venue

You can troll all you like, but expect to catch hell now and then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Reply #135)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 09:16 PM

231. ...and Hitler, Putin luv'r.

 

Just thought I'd help out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #83)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 05:50 PM

182. And yet you didn't rebut it at all. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cui bono (Reply #182)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 05:55 PM

184. Oh, but I did

 

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6305719

My comments deal only with Keystone, but a rebuttal is a rebuttal.

I don't blame you for not finding it. Pitt generated such shitstorm with his little turd bomb that no one is reading the whole thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #184)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 06:22 PM

197. I was replying to your unsubstantive post that merely claimed bullshit. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #184)

Wed Mar 4, 2015, 09:57 AM

272. Really, that was your response to Keystone?

Your exact words:
My favorite is Keystone -- the make-believe problem. The two most ridiculous aspects: a) Keystone will add about 1% to the domestic, total length of petroleum pipeline and b) the filthy shit the Canadians are ripping from the ground will be (and is) part of the global petroleum market no matter what sort of empty, symbolic gesture we make.

Your rebuttal amounted to "get over Keystone, it ain't that bad and even if it is, if it ain't us, it will be somebody else".

In other words, be fine with Democrats that do nothing, or worse, actively encourage the destruction of the environment.

Nice.

http://www.tarsandsblockade.org/about-2/why-oppose-kxl/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TiberiusB (Reply #272)

Wed Mar 4, 2015, 11:00 AM

279. Opposition to Keystone is a symbolic gesture.

 

Nothing more.

Spend your energy and contributions (assuming you put your money where your mouth is) on something that will make a difference.

Keystone is just another Tea Party Moment for progressives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:00 PM

6. I'm not sure we can handle that much cognitive dissonance

A party platform that advocates all the good stuff you cite and a nominee who, at one time or another, has actively opposed every item on the list.

It's been hard at times coming to grips with it in the Obama era, it will be orders of magnitude harder with Clinton as our nominee.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tularetom (Reply #6)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:13 PM

120. She ain't "our" nominee yet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:00 PM

7. K and R

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:04 PM

8. Oh, for heaven's sake

All they have to do is ask the NSA for copies of all her emails. You know they are all in the data center in (I said Utah, but I've been corrected -- thank you) wherever they're storing all your, my, and Hillary's emails.

Or, they could just ask Bibi for copies. I'd be very surprised if Israel didn't have them. Very surprised.

Or maybe Putin, except he's probably not speaking to us right now.

Or we could ask the Germans, British Intelligence, the French -- in fact any major power.

And, as a last resort, Anonymous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nichomachus (Reply #8)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:15 PM

17. Pedantic mode on!

All they have to do is ask the NSA for copies of all her emails. You know they are all in the data center in Utah.

The datacenter in Utah is still under construction.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled snark.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #17)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:17 PM

19. That's what they want you to think.



Well, you know they're storing them somewhere. The data isn't on a bunch of flash drives in a big cardboard box under Obama's desk. And they have lots of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nichomachus (Reply #19)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 04:39 PM

157. Utah Data Center was completed in May 2014 at a cost of $1.5 billion ....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Go Vols (Reply #157)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 05:45 PM

177. Thank you for your service

Appreciate the update

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Go Vols (Reply #157)

Wed Mar 4, 2015, 10:12 AM

275. Now witness the firepower of this fully armed and operational datacenter!

It had to be said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nichomachus (Reply #8)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 04:06 PM

148. Were you that dismissive of violating the Federal Records Act when Bushco did it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #148)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 06:14 PM

193. Not to mention the scarier part of the post that is sayingn go ahead and break the law

because Big Brother's got everything it needs anyway.

DU gets scarier every damn day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cui bono (Reply #193)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 06:22 PM

198. I assumed the post was at least half tongue in cheek.

NSA is supposedly protecting us from terrorist attacks. Having to dig through billions of emails to isolate Hillary's public business emails would be a distraction from their vital mission, no? I didn't think anyone would seriously suggest excusing Hillary from the law because, given enough manpower, the NSA can drop everything else and come up with Hillary's emails.

Besides, are we really sure the NSA has hers?

Wasn't there some flap when Merkel was supposedly shocked to learn that her personal phone was being surveilled and not just her German Government phones? Hmmmm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cui bono (Reply #193)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 06:35 PM

204. P.S. Please post whatever nonsense, true or not, you must post to protect the anointed one

from DU's looney left and its even loonier conspiracy theory that the DNC has been trying to avoid a primary challenge to Hillary, and most especially to avoid a primary challenge from the anointed one's left.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/chuck-schumer-elizabeth-warren-2016-elections-99869.html#ixzz3TAVO0MoF

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #204)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 06:47 PM

209. Wow! Schumer doesn't believe in Democratic primaries???

Jesus.

So it's not just DUers who think there shouldn't be a primary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cui bono (Reply #209)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 07:01 PM

211. More rhan that, he admits that avoiding primaries has been official DSCC POLICY since 2005.

“When I took over the in 2005, we instituted a new policy, we tried to avoid primaries, because primaries are really a killer,” Schumer said Thursday at The Atlantic’s Washington Ideas Forum.


I wonder if he copied that from Rahm's stint as head of the DCCC?

So much for silly illusions of democracy.

I wish I had a nickel for every time some DUer or another told us to find our own wealthy candidates to run and insisted everything the Party does is a product of things that happen naturally and organically.

You know, just a lack of "electable" candidates with enough millions to finance their own campaign (!) coming forward, etc. No one discouraging anyone, etc. I knew it had to be bs every time it was posted to me, but it's nice to have a link isn't it? We have one Manny Goldstein to thank for this link.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #211)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 08:44 PM

222. Yup. We get to vote on who TPTB allow us to vote on.

And they seem to REALLY want us to vote for Hillary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nichomachus (Reply #8)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 06:13 PM

191. Wow. Really? Ask the NSA for the emails???

So everyone, go ahead, break the law, it's fine because Big Brother has got the goods on you anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cui bono (Reply #191)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 07:05 PM

213. What law did she break?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to cui bono (Reply #216)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 09:28 PM

233. Be specific. And use real source

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dbackjon (Reply #233)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 09:42 PM

234. Follow the link provided.

The info in there is very specific and sourced.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cui bono (Reply #234)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 09:48 PM

236. No they were not

HRC broke no law

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:06 PM

9. I believe alot of Hillary supporters

 

can't admit they made a mistake .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to olddots (Reply #9)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:26 PM

35. Give her a break! I bet she was just "sleep deprived." n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to olddots (Reply #9)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 04:08 PM

149. What mistake? Most of them are simply supporting the anointee of the Democratic Party.

Therefore, she is blameless in all things, including this.

Violation of law? No problem. It's probably a foolish law. Besides, as I just read in a post on this thread, the NSA has her emails.

So, in all. Nothing to see here. Tempest in a Tea Pot Dome.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:08 PM

10. Flowers blooming are always helped along by sowing turds. And white hat/black hat logic.

Set up your armed camps, folks, pick your hat and let the simian play begin.

Corporate media knows exactly how predictable left wing politics can be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fred Sanders (Reply #10)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:12 PM

14. So tell me...

 

Do you support the PATRIOT Act?

Did you support the Iraq war?

Do you support Wall Street crime run rampant?

Where are you on Keystone and tar sands oil?

...what color hat are you wearing?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Reply #14)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:15 PM

18. Demanding comment board answers...no reply?..declaring victory! Save you the trouble..you win. White hat, always.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fred Sanders (Reply #18)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:17 PM

21. Mutually exclusive thinking is stinking thinking.

"You're either with us or the terrorists."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #21)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:20 PM

26. Exactly my point...nuance invites debate, choosing hats invites prattle and turd flinging.

Personality over policy, a lot of pundits make a living on the Two Armed Camps approach, each weaponized with....nothing at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fred Sanders (Reply #26)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:23 PM

32. Never stand in front of someone with an ideological axe to grind./NT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #32)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:25 PM

34. Does not concern me much, cyber-axes are blunt instruments.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fred Sanders (Reply #34)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:29 PM

36. I would be a hypocrite, at least in my own mind, if I held ...

fundamentalist Jews
fundamentalist Christians
fundamentalist Muslims
fundamentalist right wingers
fundamentalist left wingers


to different standards...


If somebody tells me they have it all figured out I'm running.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fred Sanders (Reply #26)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:39 PM

47. How does that explain her betrayal via selling the Bush lies?

 

You know we have Democrats that don't have her baggage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #47)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:14 PM

75. And how many of them are willing to step into the fray and challenge her?

I'm serious. Give us a good Democratic challenger that has the ability to win the Presidential election. For those that continue to hold on to the hope Elizabeth Warren will run, that just isn't happening. So who? Joe Biden? Bernie Sanders? Martin O'Malley? Jim Webb? Please tell me which of them are more progressive than HRC and if they won the primary could win the general. I would love to see them all run, just so she would be challenged and perhaps be forced more to the left. My concern is the General election.

I like Hillary. Am I in-sync with all the positions she had taken........No. But if I have a choice between Marco Rubio, Scott Walker, or Jeb Bush, by God Hillary will get my vote. There's too much at stake (like Supreme Court appointments) to give the White House to the Republicans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fla Dem (Reply #75)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 05:56 PM

186. There were quite a few last time. Why do you think no one will now?

Why does anyone think she has to be the next candidate? I'm tired of her being shoved in my face. It only makes me want her less, if that is at all possible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cui bono (Reply #186)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 10:38 PM

246. I don't know that there'll be no one. That's my point. Who's it going to be that will

be a more acceptable candidate for those that are against HRC. It fine bashing her, if that serves a purpose, but who do you suggest as an alternative? And will that alternative have a chance in the general?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fla Dem (Reply #246)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 11:28 PM

249. Why do I need to have the alternative handy? If I don't, does that mean it has to be HC?

That's a disingenuous question/requirement I hear on here all the time.

And even if Warren or Sanders don't have a chance to win - and I don't concede that point - having them in the race will shift the conversation to the left where it needs to be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cui bono (Reply #249)

Wed Mar 4, 2015, 11:35 AM

281. I agree, would love to see the conversation shift more to the left, but

all the wishing for a candidate left of Hillary isn't going to make it so. And it's not a disingenuous question or requirement. I'm seriously asking you if not Hillary, who in the Democratic party can we support that has some chance of winning the general. After all it is all about winning. I don't want some "they make me feel good" left leaning nominee to run in the general and lose just so we can say we stuck to our principles. Yes we may have won the battle, but we lost the war.

Secondly it is sort of a requirement to have a candidate in the race in order to win said race so yeah, you sorta do have to have an alternative if you don't want HRC. Or else just don't bother voting at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fred Sanders (Reply #18)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:21 PM

27. Does she have your vote?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Reply #27)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:24 PM

33. Is there an election? Let me get out my calendar...nope, none on my calendar. What about yours?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fred Sanders (Reply #33)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:30 PM

37. Pretty slick with those tap shoes.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Reply #37)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:30 PM

38. Thank you, I keep them in tune.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Reply #27)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:52 PM

55. if she runs and wins the primary, does she have yours? I am truly curious.

If she becomes the Democratic nominee, who will you vote for?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uppityperson (Reply #55)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:10 PM

70. I honestly don't know.

 

My pattern has been to be confronted with the wild swirling eyeballs of the GOP nominee, swallow my bile, and pull the 'D' lever...

...but the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results.

The results of my voting habits - always vote, and always vote 'D' - are not inspiring, to say the least.

So I don't know. The 'D' legislative slate will get my vote straight down the line. For president, I may write in Fozzie Bear, or Hunter Thompson, or Who, because he's on first.

Wakka wakka.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Reply #70)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:28 PM

88. There is not

There is not going to be change as long as there is just a 2 party system in this country. True liberal democrats are not the majority in our party. Many of us are liberal, but we also have too many blue dogs, moderates, ultras and socialists. Right now, March 3, 2015...do you see any democrat out there that can with this upcoming election besides Clinton? I don't....now, yes we are still a good year and some away, and no democrat has even began to form their circle the wagons approach to politics like CPAC, and such, but the democrats who may run are not the answer. My thinking is maybe the "D" lever is better then the Jeb Bush, Chris Cristy, Ben Carson lever....."For president, I may write in Fozzie Bear, or Hunter Thompson, or Who, because he's on first." jest.....I'm sure but that will kill us in November 2016

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Reply #70)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 04:00 PM

146. That is not really the correct definition but instead an Einstein quote. Insanity is

much more complex and often "doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results" has nothing to do with it.

But to your answer, giving away your presidential vote to those who will hurt us? I hope that is hyperbole. I wish we had a good multiparty system but fail to see how voting for Fozzie will accomplish that.

Next serious question. Have you considered running for office? I considered it briefly but choose not to, do not have the energy for much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uppityperson (Reply #146)

Wed Mar 4, 2015, 02:31 AM

262. It's not an Einstein quote, either. Could be Rita Mae Brown.

From a page called "9 Albert Einstein Quotes That Are Totally Fake":

1. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

Einstein never said that. And neither did Benny Franklin. Salon has a good round-up of people using this quote in various political contexts, because politicians really love this quote. The Ultimate Quotable Einstein traces the quote to Rita Mae Brown‘s 1983 book Sudden Death, but it’s almost certainly older than that. Also, that’s not the definition of insanity.


http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2014/03/9-albert-einstein-quotes-that-are-totally-fake/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to greyl (Reply #262)

Wed Mar 4, 2015, 02:34 AM

263. huh. I was wrong and learned something here today. Thanks for the info.

It is in no way the definition but I always thought it was Einstein. The dice one isn't either?. Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uppityperson (Reply #263)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 08:21 PM

298. It's funny,

I was going to say that I think I first heard it from Deepak Chopra (and believed it at the time), then I just saw Sheldon say it on a Big Bang Theory repeat. Not just the "definition", the Einstein attribution, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Reply #70)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 09:54 PM

237. You had no problem voting for John Kerry, the pro IWR and Patriot Act senator from Massachusetts

And you even urged DU to support him in the 04 primaries when there were anti Patriot Act and anti IWR candidates in the fray.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #237)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 11:52 PM

253. Gawd, I hate to break it to you, but the President is elected by the Electoral College.

In 2004, I'm pretty certain the members chosen by Massachusetts to represent them in the Electoral College voted for Kerry.
It's that ol' "red state, blue state" thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Hogwash (Reply #253)

Wed Mar 4, 2015, 12:05 AM

255. You lost me...

Mr. Pitt is urging posters not to support Ms. Clinton because she voted for the IWR, the Patriot Act, and takes Wall Street Money but he had no problem in 2004 when he supported Mr. Kerry who voted for the IWR, the Patriot Act, and took Wall Street money.


To add to the irony Mr. Pitt urged posters to support Mr. Kerry in the 2004 primaries when there were candidates who didn't vote for the IWR, the Patriot Act , and didn't take Wall Street money.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #255)

Wed Mar 4, 2015, 12:17 AM

256. How Will voted in 2004 didn't matter, Massachusetts was a blue state that was going to vote for

. . Kerry in the Electoral College anyway!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Hogwash (Reply #256)

Wed Mar 4, 2015, 12:20 AM

257. What matters is he is criticizing someone for behavior he countenanced for another./NT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #257)

Wed Mar 4, 2015, 12:37 AM

260. Will is older and wiser now. What's the problem?

Seriously, you don't think people grow and change over time?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Hogwash (Reply #260)

Wed Mar 4, 2015, 09:15 AM

270. Eleven years in the life of a quinquagenarian makes one older and wiser?

It reminds me of the Clinton impeachment brouhaha when it was discovered Henry Hyde while in his thirties had made a cuckold of his best friend and he attributed it to a "youthful indiscretion".


A gentleman with your moniker should see right through such "hogwash".




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #270)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 01:45 AM

294. Yes. 11 years can be a long time for some quinquagenarians.

It's not really all that complicated to figure out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Hogwash (Reply #294)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 09:26 AM

295. I will never countenance hypocrisy.Like Christ I would rather suffer the cross./NT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Reply #14)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 10:02 PM

239. Your 04 candidate John Kerry voted for the IWR, the Patriot Act and Citi and Goldman Sachs...

Your candidate John Kerry voted for the IWR, the Patriot Act and Citi and Goldman Sachs were among his top five donors.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Fred Sanders (Reply #10)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:53 PM

140. Lol, nice try, we have higher standard, well, maybe not some of us! nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:11 PM

12. The only thing sadder would be a President Cruz, Jeb Bush etc

Nominating Justices to the Supreme Court.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dbackjon (Reply #12)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:14 PM

16. You're not supposed to trot out that turd of an argument until October 2016. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nichomachus (Reply #16)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:37 PM

45. ..which will be the ONLY argument by then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dbackjon (Reply #12)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:12 PM

119. That used to be a big concern for me

But with her increasing snuggling up to Goldman Sachs and corporate mindset, and silence on Wall Street abuses, I don't really see that her appointment(s) would make that much difference. Perhaps it would more likely be a pro-corp woman instead of a pro-corp man. There used to be a big argument for social issue rulings, but the zietgiest is shifting with a new generation of Republicans on things like marriage rights and drug laws etc.. In fact it seems like the 1% and their servants in Washington, including Hillary, have decided to throw the 99% a bone to wrestle with in the social rights yard so that they can concentrate bolstering their defenses on the really important issues of enriching themselves even more at the expense of those dirty wretched peasants (with dismantling of "entitlements").

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalLovinLug (Reply #119)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:15 PM

122. If you don't think there would be a difference in a Clinton appointee or a Republcan appointee

Then there really is no hope for you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dbackjon (Reply #122)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:20 PM

126. She hasn't even announced yet, let alone won both the nomination and the general.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #126)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:51 PM

139. Agreed - but that still doesn't stop a good portion of DU

From declaring that they would never vote for her in the General Election, and that there is no difference between her and any Republican.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dbackjon (Reply #139)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:54 PM

141. Nor does it stop a different portion of DU from posting as though she already won the nomination.

Maybe even the election, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #141)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 04:42 PM

161. She is the front runner if she declares

And her positions versus any other declared candidate in the primary are fair game.

But whomever wins the nominations deserves our full support.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dbackjon (Reply #161)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 04:47 PM

162. But you were discussing her SCOTUS nominations, not her her positions.

And she had a 30 point lead over Obama in 2008, and still lost. So I'm not declaring anyone a front runner. Polls this far out are attempts to shape opinions, not to reflect it. In 2012, polls showed Obama losing to about 10 different Republicans, including Romney and the ever popular Generic Republican. And this is not even the election year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dbackjon (Reply #122)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 10:18 PM

241. Its still a concern

But do you honestly think she'd appoint anything but a judge that had the blessing of Goldman Sachs? So, yes, maybe on social issues, a Republican appointee may cause some trouble, but IMO the tide is turning and most Republicans even are now more accepting of socially liberal laws, so that position wouldn't be sustainable. Its on the much more important issues like Wall Street regulation, tax laws, foreign investment, things that affect Americans on a much deeper long term economical level where I don't see much difference.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dbackjon (Reply #12)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:15 PM

123. Great argument for next year around this time, but very premature before the primary even begins.

Assuming the Party is inclined to allow the hoi polloi a say in who the nominee will be.


I've been called a conspiracy theorist for saying I suspect the Party does not want a primary (which, of course, is yet another misuse of the term conspiracy theory), but

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/chuck-schumer-elizabeth-warren-2016-elections-99869.html#ixzz3TAVO0MoF

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:12 PM

13. I'm a Luddite myself....

But I'm smart enough to know that were my eyes on The White House I'd have to get up to speed or have someone working for me who could help me out. I'm no Hillary fan and believe she's a corporatist at her core. In the 60s/70s her positions on the issues you raise would mandate she still be a Republican. She might be the "Lesser Of Two Evils" but I have serious doubts about her ability to win the general election. In 08' she hired Bob Shrum to manage her campaign. I listened to Mr. Shrum explain on the TV just before Super Tuesday that California was a "winner take all" state in the primaries. It is not. He and Mrs. Clinton got their asses handed to them by Obama's California ground game (of which I was a part of) and her defeat was all but assured. If she couldn't hire a competent campaign manager what will her cabinet look like? No Hillary. No Third Way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indepatriot (Reply #13)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:35 PM

131. Not only did she not know about the Texas Two Step, but she was "savvy" enough to announce that to

Texas when she went there to campaign. I believe her words were "I'm just learning about this Texas Two Step of yours."

When Shrum's book came out excoriating Edwards, I was posting on a board where Republicans also posted. I expressed some dismay at Shrum's retelling of something he learned of while supposedly working for the Kerry Edwards ticket, which made both men Shrum's client, in my eyes. I thought he should have kept the story to himself. A Republican replied, "I don't know why Democrats keep hiring him. He never wins them the Presidency."

Those were not the only missteps of her campaign, however. The race issue was a huge one. Accepting donations from China, not paying vendors. Using Chelsea as a surrogate but acting as though she was off limits to reporters and on and on. Lots of rookie mistakes, which was very surprising for a couple that has worked campaigns since law school or ever earlier.

But was Shrum her top campaign guy? I don't recall that. I remember the names Penn and MacAuliffe coming up a lot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_presidential_campaign,_2008

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #131)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 05:08 PM

165. To my knowledge Shrum did not work for Clinton - her top person at first was Patti Solis Doyle

She was replaced by Maggie Williams. I think her top strategist was the ever delightful Mark Penn.

I don't think that Shrum should have forever not spoken of the 2004 campaign -- and in fact, he worked for Kerry along with Mary Beth Cahill in his primary campaign. That Kerry hired him did not mean that he was forever "owned" by Kerry --- and certainly not by Edwards, who became a major problem for the campaign. Per people I know it is true that he would accept tasks (like either defending Kerry or attacking Bush) and not only not do it, but go to the media telling them the campaign thought him to valuable to use as an attack dog.

The NYT in 2007/2008 had an article where Edwards prided himself on refusing to use the campaign slogan "help is on the way" using his own "hope is on the way" --- he considered this something that showed he stood on his principles! Actually it let to questions as to why the campaign could not decide on a slogan. I think Kerry's made more sense, but that is irrelevant, either one was better than both -- and it should have been Kerry's choice.

I think that Shrum was actually kind to Edwards - when you consider not one of the Finance or strategy people who were still with Kerry in 2006 decided to move to Edwards when Kerry opted out. It is reasonable for them to think that Edwards was offered a gift of the VP slot in 2004 - it was not something he was entitled to --- and proceeded to act like a prima donna. Kerry had the grace to keep any of this from being public in 2004, but I can't help believe that he soon regretted that he gave in to all the people pushing Edwards on him - even though his own impression of Edwards was not that positive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to karynnj (Reply #165)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 05:15 PM

166. Thanks, karenny, but I did link to a wiki article that covered Doyle, Williams, Penn, et al.

The exchange I had was intended to be about the Hillary campaign. My comment about Shrum was an aside. It really has nothing to do with this thread, except that the other poster happened to mention Shrum. The bit about Kerry's campaign slogan is really far afield from the thread topic, so I am not going to go there.

That said, I still think Shrum's retelling in his book of something Edwards said to Kerry in confidence was unprofessional on Shrum's part. If Kerry wanted to repeat it publicly that would be different. I understand that you disagree and that is certainly your prerogative.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #166)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 05:31 PM

173. I brought up the other things to suggest that Shrum was trying to demonstrate in

a pretty graphic way that Edwards - then running for President - was not an honest person. If anything the confidence violated was Kerry's. While it is true that Edwards told Kerry he was speaking in confidence - he also spoke of how this was something he had never told anyone. Kerry was shocked, because Edwards had previously told Kerry the exact same thing earlier. What shocked Kerry was that Edwards was obviously in the habit of telling this intensely personal story as a device to get close to them. Kerry had never been a close friend and didn't even share any committees with Edwards.

That Kerry told Shrum the story when Shrum, Clinton, and Kennedy all pushed for Kerry to select Edwards. This event had soured Kerry enough on Edwards that he told Shrum he needed to meet with him again before even considering him. Kerry felt he had to explain while in his gut he was not for Edwards. (As Edwards, thanks to the gaga media coverage polled the best and many in the media were already arguing that the only reason he might not be chosen is that Kerry did not want the charismatic Edwards to outshine him. In fact, in the general election that was NEVER close to reality.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to karynnj (Reply #173)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 05:42 PM

175. As I said in my prior post, Shrum was an OT aside to begin with. Sorry, but I am not going down

that path with you on a thread about Hillary Clinton.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to karynnj (Reply #165)

Wed Mar 4, 2015, 01:15 AM

261. I stand corrected about Shrum heading her campaign.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:13 PM

15. I think that she

is scheduled to give a speech this evening, that will be covered -- at least in part -- by MSNBC. I suspect that she will be addressing this most recent e-mail issue. I'm curious as to what she might have to say; likewise, I'm looking forward to reading various DUers' responses.

Good OP. Recommended.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #15)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:18 PM

23. "It's OK, because a Republican did it. But it's not OK if Republicans do it. But it's OK, because

a Republican did it. But it's not OK if Republicans do it..."

and the tail-chasing will never end.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:17 PM

20. I don't think the Luddite explanation holds water, because it was a new domain

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/03/02/hacked-emails-indicate-that-hillary-clinton-used-a-domain-registered-the-day-of-her-senate-hearings/
Examining the registry information for "clintonemail.com" reveals that the domain was first created on Jan. 13, 2009 -- one week before President Obama was sworn into office, and the same day that Clinton's confirmation hearings began before the Senate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yo_Mama (Reply #20)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:19 PM

25. Luddites can employ technologically savvy people. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #25)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:33 PM

41. If she's a Luddite* she sure keeps that phone handy in her world wide travels.

To say she's not tech savvy on that Blackberry or whatever her phone is would be bull* cough* shit.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #41)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:35 PM

43. A blackberry does not make one technologically savvy.

The claims she is a luddite come from insiders like this one: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026304514

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #43)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:44 PM

50. I think that the claim is that she isn't tech savvy is just silly IMO.

A lot of people use their phones instead of a computer. Especially computers with old antiquated technology. I have even seen the claim her staffers do emails for her. I should have written down where I saw that post

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #50)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:47 PM

53. People have different measures of "savvy".

Just being able to operate a smartphone does not reach most people's definition of savvy.

Point is, the poster above claimed registering the domain proved she was technologically savvy. It doesn't. It means someone was technologically savvy, but it does not have to be her.

Is she? No idea. I don't know the woman.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yo_Mama (Reply #20)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:40 PM

132. I don't get why using one kind of email account is easier than using another.

Besides, I have to believe that Hillary is sufficiently educable to learn to switch from yahoo to hotmail to a government progra. Kindergarten kids and elders in nursing homes and everyone in between have learned to use a computer for basic word processing and emails.

With all due respect to proud public servant, the Luddite excuse is makeweight. Emailing ain't that hard. Neither is switching from one email program to another.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #132)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 04:40 PM

159. Well, it wasn't even what she was used to using, so????

She's smart. Love or hate her, or anything in between, no one has ever called her stupid.

She's a lawyer, she should have understood the implications. This woman worked on Watergate investigation, for heaven's sakes!!!

I'm not buying any of it. NONE of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yo_Mama (Reply #159)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 04:42 PM

160. I ain't buying the Luddite thing, that's for sure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yo_Mama (Reply #20)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 08:36 PM

219. I don't believe clinton is uncomfortable with email. she's an intelligent woman and not that

 

old, and has undoubtedly been using email and other technology for some time. she has the money and the position to have tutors and the brain to catch on easily.

the official cover story is bs, imo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yo_Mama (Reply #20)

Wed Mar 4, 2015, 02:37 AM

265. Note that account was hacked yet she continued to use it.

Astonishing level of hubris and risk taking by HRC. That really is her hallmark.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:17 PM

22. Who says she's sad?



No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #22)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:44 PM

134. And people say I'm overly literal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:19 PM

24. "a nice warm purple space where we're trying to solve problems." The Onion? No.

 

Nope, it was real. Ewwww. http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/run-2016/2015/02/24/hillary-clintons-warm-purple-place

I'd like to know what those problems would be.

How to squeeze even more work for less pay and lower benefits from every corner of the earth or bomb them into submission?

Poor thing, all those purple problems.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #24)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:06 PM

64. "..Clinton must be tempted to forego any genuflecting to progressives."

Last edited Tue Mar 3, 2015, 10:21 PM - Edit history (1)

Oh my....that "purple place" will really be a winner...reminds me more of an "ostrich with head in the sand" since she seems to be oblivious to the serious issues facing our country and the world. ME Wars/Serious Conflict with Russia/Inequality at home caused by War and Corrupt Banking Practices (since her husband put the finishing touches on Bank Deregulation) and Criminality of Wall Street involved with the Bankster Robbers (for which there has been ONE prosecution leading to Austerity Programs causing suffering for the 98-99% of the people causing the building unrest and in both USA and Eurozone. So...we go for the "Purple Zone" of compromise for the Democratic Candite for 2016. But at least she isn't promising "Hope and Change," which turned out to be "Compromise to the Right."

Haven't we had enough of that "Purple Zone" already? Aside from ACA are we better off?

From the article:


"Even without the threat of a formidable primary opponent, liberals are hoping to pressure Clinton to gravitate toward the left as she builds a governing agenda. But the embrace of "purple" America suggests she remains most comfortable in the center, embracing common sense, collaborative ideas that aren't polarizing. With a 45-point lead over the primary field in the latest CNN survey, Clinton must be tempted to forego any genuflecting to progressives."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Reply #64)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:49 PM

138. A Wall Street Journal article about all the financial advisors her campaign has hired so far to

address wealth inequality (for want of a better term) put the issue as address inequality without seeming too combative and without making the wealthy feel as though they are being attacked.

Sounded pretty one sided to me. And a lot of familiar names were in the article. The article said there was a mix, but most of the ones named were Third Way.

Handwriting, meet wall.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:22 PM

29. the K and the R...

...are in order.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:23 PM

30. Well, okay then. I'm sure you'll like the results a whole lot when you decide to stay home on

Election Day, if she winds up being our nominee. I'm SURE you'll like the results of another CON in the White House.



And I'm as big a Luddite as ANYBODY here, maybe even the biggest of them all. So I totally get that part of it. And it's very real. I'd guess you're probably a lot more sophisticated in that regard, so you might well be expected to be impatient with, and less forgiving of, that kind of thing. I'm sure most DUers here are. But I'm not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:30 PM

39. And now she's pals with Henry Kissinger, the same creep who

staged a coup in the country of my birth, Chile, turning what was often the only democracy in SA into a banana republic dictatorship. Thousands were disappeared, tortured and murdered because of this in a country that once was a model of true free speech.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #39)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:49 PM

137. I am sorry for what happened in Chile, Cleita.

I know a little, but only from my reading. I am interested, and I try to tell people enough to spark their interest in the things that our tv doesn't tell us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #39)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:57 PM

145. Not only now.

Google images of Hillary and Kissinger.

You'll get lots of cosy and/or jovial pics of the two of them over the years.

I am so sorry about your country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:35 PM

44. One could write a similar post about President Obama

and how he is not the perfect progressive. Issues like drone warfare, NSA spying, the Chelsea Manning affair, the Edward Snowden affair, the fact that the majority of the President's campaign donations came from Wall Street.

And perhaps you have made such a post in the past. I am new here and do not know your history.

But in spite of the fact that the President is not my perfect candidate, I voted for him. Twice, as a matter of fact. I do not regret the vote. He is far better than a President McCain or Romney would have been.

HRC has been intensely scrutinized since William Clinton was running for office.
She is described as strident, where a man would be called opinionated.
She is described as a bitch, where a man would be described as tough.
She is described as cold, where a man would be described as professional.

What motivates the wording? Sexism.
What motivates the relentless scrutiny? Sexism, because an intelligent woman is seen by many as threatening.

Change for the better must come from us. I believe that HRC could be the face of that change. I will vote for the best available candidate during the primary process and the general election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #44)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:03 PM

61. Yes, I get it.

 

I'm a sexist for opposing Hillary's policies, just like I'm a racist for opposing Obama's.

New talking points are needed. The old ones are wearing thin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maedhros (Reply #61)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:08 PM

67. you do not get my point

perhaps I was not clear, but I do not accuse you personally of sexism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:38 PM

46. LOL the only people I notice being divisive are the ones saying we should not be divisive.

 

Then they go an make a divide and conquer thread while yelling at people for having an opinion!

She's not my first choice. I like Sanders, but I do not know if he can win it all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:39 PM

48. I guess Scott Walker would make a better choice.

It worked out so well for us in 2000, and 2004.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to denbot (Reply #48)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:42 PM

49. OMG REPUBLICANS YOU GUYS

 

Are you - are we - so timorous that we cannot even abide a discussion about wanting something better than HRC...who, by the bye, has VOTED WITH THE REPUBLICANS on every major issue since 2001?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Reply #49)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:53 PM

57. I'd prefer Saunders, Biden, and if Warren were running she would top my list.

I will give time and the few dollars I can afford, to a progressive in the primary, but it looks like Clinton will end up the nominee. If she is I won't hesitate to vote for her.

What I won't do is poison the well for any democratic candidate, as we will need every vote possible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Reply #49)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:05 PM

63. Either you're incredibly ignorant of the facts or were too lazy to check them...

"HRC...who, by the bye, has VOTED WITH THE REPUBLICANS on every major issue since 2001?"

Hillary Clinton voted against the Bush tax cuts in 2001

Hillary Clinton was a co-sponsor of the Lilly Ledbetter Dair Pay Act in 2008

Hillary Clinton was a co-sponsor of the Washington DC voting Act in 2008

Hillary Clinton voted against a Bill to prohibit partial-Birth abortions in 2003

Hillary Clinton voted against a Bill to fast-track ANWR drilling in 2003

Hillary Clinton voted against a Constitution Amendment to bar same-sex marriage in 22004

Hillary Clinton voted in favor of raising the Federal Minimum Wage in 2006

Hillary Clinton voted to override a Bush veto on Medicare expansion in 2008



And that's what I found in 10 minutes of searching.

But searching for facts would have potentially gotten in the way of your preconceptions, wouldn't it?







Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #63)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 10:20 PM

242. Social issues?

Sure, HRC will give you those because her banker masters don't give a shit about any of that stuff.

Economic issues, including war which is just an economic device now, not so much.

I wouldn't vote for HRC if she were running against Satan himself but you do what you have to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sendero (Reply #242)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 10:26 PM

243. Funny, I was told that she ALWAYS voted with the Republicans...

...and last time I checked, voting against Bush's tax cuts constitutes "economic".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Reply #49)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:42 PM

99. Hillary=Democrat

Take the loyalty oath or get out of the party!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to denbot (Reply #48)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:44 PM

51. 2000 and 2004 were both stolen elections so maybe you should try a better canard.

 

So you can't debate the issues in the OP, just more FUD and less discussion?

Typical.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #51)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:09 PM

69. Your damn right they were stolen, and now they are history.

2016 is yet to be written, but one lesson that was learned was that it is easier to steal a close one.

If we end up with a candidate that is not ideologically to our liking, and don't support that candidate, or even worst, cause others to stay home, we are working for the other side in fact, though I am certain in Will's case, not with intent.

Will pulls as much weight here as any DU'er since this site launched, and if anyone could influence others to reject a democratic candidate, he could.

One single democratic voter abstaining equals two plus votes for republicans, and will make it easier to steal in 2016.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to denbot (Reply #69)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 06:19 PM

195. No one is rejecting a Democratic candidate in the general. You keep glossing over the fact

that there is going to be a Democratic primary. And in that primary there will be a lot of us who will absolutely NOT vote for Clinton, because she is not a good Democrat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #51)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 09:06 PM

229. and what happened in 2004 when Conyers investigated the election?

His investigation was upstaged by some Senate Dems who vowed to fix the problem.

I would love to find the video of that presser. If I remember correctly, a certain presidential wannabee was front and center.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to denbot (Reply #48)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:55 PM

143. Typical hillary supporter, we need hillary to beat the GOP, lol! nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to denbot (Reply #48)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 06:16 PM

194. Hmm... so we're not having a Democratic Primary any more?

Wow.

Can you help me remember what happened in 2008? I can't recall President McCain's term for some reason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:45 PM

52. In fairness, she has not yet run on a platform of change.

In 2008, she appeared the rough equivalent of Obama, corrupted by a few more years in the Senate and a family fortune, plus the extra saber-rattling she seemed to feel was necessary to compensate for her gender.

She's got the charisma to promote progressive change, but so far I doubt her will to do so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:50 PM

54. I'd be impressed with this 'scandal' if it had anything at all to do with any of those complaints

...which I wholeheartedly agree with.

I view this controversy as yet another equivalency ploy which isn't designed to, as some have offered, to say that she isn't wrong because republicans do it, but, rather the other way around; to provide insulation in the next presidential contest for republicans (Jeb) over actual crimes and abuses by Bush/Cheney, et.al. - maybe even for something in Jeb's past. This has Rove stink all over it.

I actually don't think Clinton gives two shits about it, past whatever political advantage it might deny her. If focusing on this nonsense get us any closer to addressing issues like privacy rights, war, or corporatism, I'm all for it. I doubt Democratic voters will care a wit about it; Benghazi ghouls, more to their liking. From where I sit, it looks like a complete waste of time and energy, basically watering the ground for the next Bush.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:52 PM

55. I believe the Bushies did far far worse than anything they are accusing Hillary of.

Believe isn't strong enough. I know what they did. The whole world knows what they did.

But, because the Obama Administration looked forward they never had to answer for a damn thing. Including torture!

But that darn Hillary! Of course you know I am no Hillary fan. But I am a real fan of the equal application of justice.

This country sucks, clear to the bone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Enthusiast (Reply #55)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:08 PM

66. You really think Obama single-handedly is responsible for all post-Bush-era consequences?

Or is he a savvy politician who knows better than to tilt at windmills? You think Congress is gridlocked now? We wouldn't even have ACA if Obama did the right thing and tried to jail the torturers. Instead, he did the 'right political' thing, which should be unsurprising since he is a politician.

Give yourself the same benefit of a doubt you'd give anyone else. It's only fair.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:02 PM

59. The only Argument for Hillary

Laaa laaa laaa. I can't hear you. Nope. Not listening. Refuse to hear you. When you point in a direction, I will look the other way. After all, she says she is a democrat and loves and supports women and children. But, to support Hillary, I don't even have to do that. It is even easier to just put blinders in my ears and ignore any arguments against her.

If you pin me down, I will say she is not running yet. But if you say another candidate is better, Hillary turns inevitable. The trick is supporting her without any discussion of what she would do that would actually change our world. So just say "experience" "fund raising" "supports women and children".

You might ask for actual policy reasons I am ready for Hillary. Well in a reasonable world I could give you the reasons but that would require me to actually examine reasons and come up with a solid reason. This will not do because it might be harder to come up with reasons to support her specifically rather than any democrat.. So I will point to Bush. I will point to the Supreme Court. I will point to her bankroll. I will point to her sex. I will claim she is experienced without looking at her actions during that experience.

So la la la I am ready for Hillary and will ignore anything else. Because I am ready for Hillary Yep Ready for Hillary ....... ready for Hillary ....... ready for Hillary ..... ready (etc etc etc)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rilgin (Reply #59)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:04 PM

62. is inevitability. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)



Response to stevenleser (Reply #68)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:11 PM

73. That explains the IWR vote, the PATRIOT Act, Keystone and Goldman Sachs?

 

Must be written in invisible ink.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Reply #73)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:18 PM

78. Yep, it does.

- Goldman Sachs: Besides slurring Hillary with a name to demonize her, what exactly did she do regarding Goldman Sachs that is deserving of scorn?

- Iraq War Vote: As I have said many times, the attacks on Democrats who voted for this is revisionist history that does not take into account the fact that, among other things, at around the same time the UN Security Council voted 15-0 to put similarly put pressure on Iraq to get the weapons inspection teams into the country. That was the point of UN Sec Res 1441 and IWR.

- Patriot Act: Was an overreaction to 9/11, but not a particularly damning one

- Keystone: Really? Again, I was against it, but this is what is so horrible?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #78)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 04:25 PM

154. that is one lame list

Hillary is indistinguishable from a republican except on wedge issues. Wedge issues are important issues. I totally get that. they can totally ruin or save people's lives and existences.

However the country isn't being destroyed or fixed based on wedge issues. It is being destroyed by the MIC, Archer Daniels Midland, free trade agreements, Wall Street, and the 1%. Hillary is well paid to exploit our wedge weaknesses on behalf of the 1%.

The thing about wedge issues is that our guys never make much progress on them when we win elections, and the enemy never makes much when they win.

The 1% doesn't give a wet fart about wedge issues except as tools to win elections. They invest a lot of money to make sure that one of their water-carrier wins either way. That is why there is such strict control on debates and why the news simply ignores unwanted candidates. They can fly their mistresses to France for an abortion if necessary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bugenhagen (Reply #154)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 05:18 PM

167. Calling Civil Rights, Voting Rights and reproductive rights 'wedge issues' is very 2003

 

It's also very Republican and no way to attract voters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #167)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 06:26 PM

199. Oh my God, I am running to high five your post!

Could not do so fast or hard enough. What's wrong with me???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #167)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 08:20 PM

218. I doubt we could be any more in agreement on any issues than on those you list

Those are some of the hugest issues of our day. I am totally in favor of election reform, getting money out of politics, women having sole authority over their own bodies, equal rights for all... you name it. If we met, I don't believe you'd think I was a republican of any stripe. Seriously, there aren't many democrats that I know of who come down on the wrong side of issues like civil rights and reproductive rights. If that was all we had to worry about, Hillary would be golden with me.

What makes an issue a wedge issue isn't moral rightness or wrongness (my working definition of repub vs democrat). A wedge issue is one that defines the sides in an election. Wedge issues fuel voter excitement and donations. In America the election will be fought over wedge issues at the expense of other huge issues like Wall Street reform, taking on the MIC, TPP and other trade issues and so forth. Those are also huge issues that won't get discussed in any meaningful way during any debate or interview or what have you.

In my opinion (and here we probably disagree) big money wins either way if Hillary wins or a republican wins.

What we need is a candidate who is not only going to be on the right/ethical/moral/human side of what I called wedge issues, but one who is on the right side of the other big issues such as big money and foreign policy and so forth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #167)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 09:58 PM

238. To a white heterosexual everything civil rights related is a wedge issue./NT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #167)

Wed Mar 4, 2015, 12:22 AM

258. If I could rec your post I would.

Thank you for posting this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #68)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:52 PM

105. Lol, gullible much? No wonder fox keeps inviting you back! nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:10 PM

71. Now that's a WPitt post I can rec.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dawgs (Reply #71)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:23 PM

84. Not a Hillary fan, but I'll rec this thread when hell freezes over.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #84)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:29 PM

89. Why? n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dawgs (Reply #89)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:33 PM

92. Couple of reasons. One rational, one personal.

 

Here's my more "rational" version http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6305719

The personal reason relates to the amount of shit the author of the OP has spewed in my face over the years. He absolutely does NOT have my respect. I differ ideologically with a lot of people, but I find scant few to be quite as repellent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:15 PM

77. well

Come back too me in 2017 when the Chief Justice is swearing in President Jeb Bush.....because as of now....and I do preface NOW, I dont see another democrat that can win.....oh yes Sanders..... hmmmm independent turn democrat, then there is the stand-by Elizabeth Warren, who has said repeatedly no..... Biden...come on... O'Malley?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:20 PM

80. Welcome to the Democratic version of the Tea Party

 

Purity is the key, the only litmus test.

My favorite is Keystone -- the make-believe problem. The two most ridiculous aspects: a) Keystone will add about 1% to the domestic, total length of petroleum pipeline and b) the filthy shit the Canadians are ripping from the ground will be (and is) part of the global petroleum market no matter what sort of empty, symbolic gesture we make.

So, damn it! Fall in line! Carry the pure water or get the hell out!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #80)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 04:51 PM

163. and those who think it is okay to poison our food supply and

feed americans toxic substances that are outlawed in other countries can fucking move, too. but they'll have to go to mars because no one else wants them anywhere else on this planet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hopemountain (Reply #163)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 05:48 PM

180. More hysteria. Christ, Pitt. I hope you are reading this with glee. More attention for you.

 

By the way hopemountain -- just what the hell are you whining about?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #180)

Wed Mar 4, 2015, 02:20 PM

287. why are you attacking me?

whaaaahhh

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #80)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 06:11 PM

190. Not allowing criticism is the same thing, worse actually, because it takes our party farther right.

"So, damn it! Fall in line! Carry the pure water or get the hell out!"

That is the attitude of those who won't allow criticism. We see it every day here, but it is said with smarm and smileys rather than policy critique.

I don't think Will puts out a litmus test at all, but he stands for what he believes in. Lock step is the furthest thing I see in his posts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cui bono (Reply #190)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 06:27 PM

200. I guess it boils down to whether or not you agree with him. I don't. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:21 PM

81. You'll vote for her in the end

A million pretty words don't matter much. You'll pull the lever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #81)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:30 PM

91. Already giving her the nom, huh?

 

I guess 2008 didn't learn you a thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dawgs (Reply #91)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:38 PM

96. Ha!

I supported Obama in 2008.

Obama announced at the end of January, 2007 (on EDIT: February 10, 2007). We're past that point in this cycle. Who's going to beat her?

She's going to win the nom, and Will Pitt's going to vote for her. And so are you.

Let's bookmark this thread and see what happens, pal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #96)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 08:14 PM

217. I do believe your post just cost her some votes

 

Way to go. I wonder if it was intentional.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Android3.14 (Reply #217)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 08:53 PM

225. ROFL

Oh yes, sure. Speaking the honest truth that all these grumblers are going to go out and vote for Hillary Clinton is - gasp - trolling!

You fucking guys are hilarious.

All these cats above are gonna vote for her. They'll fuss and grumble and throw their little fits, but they'll vote for Clinton in 2016. You know it and I know it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #225)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 09:00 PM

226. I dunno, kid

 

The more you spout, the more it seems you are just trying push people into a corner. It wouldn't be the first time I've run across the "other motivated" on DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #81)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:53 PM

106. Give Democrats somebody else to vote for and they will.

Hillary's support has been described as a mile wide and an inch deep. Her ham-handed attack on Elizabeth Warren (hush up your tone, li'l missy) recently via tag-team surrogates was misogynistic and a clue as to the type of campaign Hillary intends to run. She will repel voters when she needs to woo them.

No, I won't pull the lever for Hillary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtomicKitten (Reply #106)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:08 PM

117. Sure you will

November 2016 you'll be so repulsed by the GOP challenger that you will march down to your polling place and pull the lever.

Anything else is bluster and nonsense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #117)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:12 PM

118. No, I won't.

Democrats need to drive a stake into the heart of the so-called centrist Democrats/Third Way/New Democratic Coalition once and for all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:25 PM

86. You are correct on all points, as usual, WilliamPitt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:30 PM

90. You don't understand Will, she had to get a new account

She couldn't get past her security check.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:34 PM

93. More Negative Hateful Spin on Democrats

No need to tear down other Democrats just because you done agree with them,,,,, save it for the Rethugs....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cryptoad (Reply #93)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 06:00 PM

189. when they do stuff you, I or we disagree, we should just

keep our mouths shut. That way we won't be helping Papa Paul.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:35 PM

94. Bah, humbug and all that other stuff!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:38 PM

97. Yep. Very sad. Tsk. Tsk. Millionaire politician suffers embarrassment. Tragic.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:38 PM

98. I couldn't agree more.

Secretary Clinton also voted for the credit card companies, when she voted in favor of making it harder for average Americans to file bankruptcy.

Thanks Ms. Clinton, for nothing.

Thanks for the post. I agree with everything you said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:46 PM

100. In light of this, I'm going to have to reconsider you, William, as someone to ignore, lol!

 

Happy to K&R.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:47 PM

101. Like little flowers' terrific feelings for it, Young Guy.

Well said sad. Tells America's story.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:49 PM

102. Won't somebody please call her a

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:50 PM

103. Thank you.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:50 PM

104. "I'm not being divisive." "This is the cold, hard truth."

This is a reason some people--Democrats especially will remember this post and will not vote for a Democrat no matter who it is. Another problem for me is you seem to be following some Republican garbage monger's words. I do not care who you vote for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to asjr (Reply #104)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:17 PM

124. If you Honestly think that a post on DU would cause someone who believes Mrs. Clinton

to be a good candidate for the Presidency to change their mind on voting for her I've got a sweet bridge in Brooklyn I'd love to sell you at a bargain price. Call before noon or the offer is rescinded....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indepatriot (Reply #124)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:42 PM

133. You may keep your bridge. That is a very juvenile response. I did not mention Mrs. Clinton in my

response to Will. I have been on DU since 2002. I have read quite a few responses to posts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:54 PM

107. Bravo, Will. Bravissimo!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:56 PM

109. Spot on. Thank you.

k&r

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:03 PM

111. Why this story is even worse than it appears

 

Good article, I thought.

Hillary Clinton's personal email account looks bad now. But it was even worse at the time.

The New York Times report that Hillary Clinton used a personal rather than governmental email account during her four years at the State Department looks bad. In addition to creating a security risk, this practice circumvented (though may or may not have outright violated) federal record-keeping regulations that are meant to keep government business transparent.

But this story looks even worse if you transport yourself back to early 2009, when Clinton first became of Secretary of State and, according to this story, initially refused to use a governmental account. The Bush administration had just left office weeks earlier under the shadow of, among other things, a major ongoing scandal concerning officials who used personal email addresses to conduct business, and thus avoid scrutiny.

The scandal began in June 2007, as part of a Congressional oversight committee investigation into allegations that the White House had fired US Attorneys for political reasons. The oversight committee asked for Bush administration officials to turn over relevant emails, but it turned out the administration had conducted millions of emails' worth of business on private email addresses, the archives of which had been deleted.

The effect was that investigators couldn't access millions of internal messages that might have incriminated the White House. The practice, used by White House officials as senior as Karl Rove, certainly seemed designed to avoid federal oversight requirements and make investigation into any shady dealings more difficult. Oversight committee chairman Henry Waxman accused the Bush administration of "using nongovernmental accounts specifically to avoid creating a record of the communications."

That scandal unfolded well into the final year of Bush's presidency, then overlapped with another email secrecy scandal, over official emails that got improperly logged and then deleted, which itself dragged well into Obama's first year in office. There is simply no way that, when Clinton decided to use her personal email address as Secretary of State, she was unaware of the national scandal that Bush officials had created by doing the same.

That she decided to use her personal address anyway showed a stunning disregard for governmental transparency requirements. Indeed, Clinton did not even bother with the empty gesture of using her official address for more formal business, as Bush officials did.

www.vox.com/2015/3/2/8138203/clinton-emails-bush

The article is worth a read.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dissentient (Reply #111)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 09:23 PM

232. good article, thanks.

And I too am baffled that HRC chose to handle her email this way, especially given the Bush email scandals-- and, yes, that it went on for 4 years without anyone raising public objections.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:04 PM

113. Kick and Rec

n.t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:05 PM

114. Here we go again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:06 PM

115. lol

I truly heart you Will... This made me laugh out loud. Common sense is still alive. I am comforted!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:14 PM

121. the Mark Rich pardon alone should disqualify her from consideration

her brother basically sold that one and Bill's actions to Rich.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:17 PM

125. K&R!

Loathe HRC for all the reasons you cited and thensome.

Love:"trick is to wrestle this party back from the abyss..." and I might add, wrestle it back from abysmal, turd way leadership!

Well put, Will, as always.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:23 PM

129. "If the Bush administration had unspooled that line, this place would have erupted. And rightly so."

They did.

We did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:30 PM

130. Hillary aside, one line inyour post alone ought to earn it some sort of immortality:

"So maybe the trick isn't to try to elect the most 'electable' Democrat. As Democrats, maybe the trick is to wrestle this party back from the abyss and rediscover a few DNA-level values."

Precisely what those values ought to be, and how to inculcate them, is a primal matter to which we need to give deep attention. As for me, if I could embed one single value/trait/capacity in our culture, it would be empathy and compassion (the former being necessary for the existence of the latter).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:55 PM

142. I am with you on this one... NT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 04:12 PM

150. My vote counts and I am voting!

 

I am still going to vote for the warmonger corporate whore regardless of her using notransparencyforu@peon.com

Seriously do we really expect Republicans and Democrats to have ethics?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 04:14 PM

151. Way to go, there, Will. Pile on.

Join the rest in finding as many negative things as you can say about Hillary Clinton. You're in excellent, fine company, and right on cue, too.

But, you're not being divisive...of course not.

A fine job of hatcheting, you've done. And so many approve of what you're saying. At least on DU.

Bra-fucking-vo, dude!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #151)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 04:38 PM

155. Tell me about how you supported the war.

 

And the Patriot Act.

Funny how the truth becomes a "hatchet job."

Like I said, dude...coping skills. Embrace your cognitive dissonance. Love it. Live it. Be it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Reply #155)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 05:19 PM

169. I'm not telling you anything, Will.

You're the one doing all the talking. Carry on. Ignore the positive and concentrate on the negative, whenever possible.

Bra-fucking-vo!

If have something for an OP, I'll write it. Otherwise, I'm just replying to your one-sided OP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Reply #155)

Wed Mar 4, 2015, 12:31 AM

259. Shoving words in people's mouths? I thought you were better than that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #151)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 04:39 PM

158. Bread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 04:24 PM

152. Honesty deserves a few flowers....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 04:25 PM

153. Daily Beast proved the story is not true.

DU thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11071930#post1

Link to the Daily Beast

Well, this might be the explanation: The new regs apparently weren’t fully implemented by State until a year and half after Clinton left State. Here’s the timeline: Clinton left the State Department on February 1, 2013. Back in 2011, President Obama had signed a memorandum directing the update of federal records management. But the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) didn’t issue the relevant guidance, declaring that email records of senior government officials are permanent federal records, until August 2013. Then, in September 2013, NARA issued guidance on personal email use.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 04:39 PM

156. Ooops. Looks like someone got punked by the NYT.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to McCamy Taylor (Reply #156)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 07:09 PM

214. Yes - William Pitt and the rest of the Hillary Haters

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to McCamy Taylor (Reply #156)

Wed Mar 4, 2015, 11:46 AM

282. Will is rarely right

Still waiting for Karl Rove's arrest (any day now), and the fallout from the massive TurboTax hack (that still hasn't been anounced).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 05:02 PM

164. are you calling the poster a liar?

"A poster here who claims to have worked at State says it's because she's a Luddite working within a calcified bureaucratic technology, and she's just more comfortable with her Yahoo account, or whatever it is."


You're very sure of your inference?


(on edit: I'll support Elizabeth Warren any day over Hillary but I do not like the inference that posters are lying w/o sufficient proof. That's all.)




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duppers (Reply #164)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 05:23 PM

170. No

 

But it's an anonymous forum. "Claims" is a wise term to use when quoting someone who doesn't post under their own name. I believe them, but I have no basis for that belief aside from my choice to believe them. They sound credible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Reply #170)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 06:14 PM

192. Thanks!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duppers (Reply #164)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 05:50 PM

181. +1 -- on all aspects of your post.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 05:19 PM

168. .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 05:31 PM

172. The Republican candidate would...

...provide a much greater change of direction for the US and world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 05:41 PM

174. Will Pitt - you are ALWAYS divisive

 

And I think you know it. I'm not going to pass judgment on your for that fact. I guess you think it's good to be divisive and that is a whole other topic to explore.

I will say this - you remind me of my days as an activist on LGBT issues in Seattle. When I moved here in 2001 I could not believe a progressive, blue state like WA still did not have a single law on the books to protect LGBT people from discrimination in services, housing, jobs, etc.

I soon found out why. It was because the liberals spent all their time running each other down and fighting amongst themselves instead of focusing on the issue and our opposition. The solution was pretty simple. We figured out how many reps and seats we needed in the legislature supporting our issues; we found people willing to run that did support our issues; and we worked our asses off to get them elected (all the while ignoring the divisive types).

We raised money, ran ads for supporting candidates campaigns, knocked doors, made phone calls, did GOTV, etc. It worked.

You know what had NOT worked for 15 plus years? Cutting our own people down.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #174)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 05:55 PM

185. Hillary Clinton is not "my people"

 

The 'D' does not endow sainthood.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Reply #185)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 08:43 PM

221. Let's be clear then

 

You ARE being divisive, and you are being divisive by design. As far as the extreme left and their divisiveness - what else is new? My personal view is that many of the extreme left are naïve and not politically mature. You can find fault with every politician with a D. Every single one.

For instance, I knew damn well that Obama would wussy up to the republicans long before he was elected. I was not surprised by that a bit, because I pay attention to what candidates say and their past history. But I did not slam him to all my neighbors. I knew he would do many good things as President. And he has, even though I do not agree with EVERYTHING he has done.

The SAME could be said for HRC. I don't know how old you are, but she damn sure pulled her husband to the left. And one of the greatest issues she did that on when she was first lady was SCHIPS. And she was a damn good senator and sec of state.

But there is always a contingent of people on the left that will focus on denigrating Democrats. Day in and day out. For what reason, I have no clue. I wonder if you do.

Edited to add: your OP is pretty much full of lots of crap.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #221)


Response to Corruption Inc (Reply #240)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 10:48 PM

247. No - it reads mostly of repub talking points

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Reply #185)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 10:51 PM

248. But, would you buy a used car from her?

I wouldn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Hogwash (Reply #248)

Wed Mar 4, 2015, 10:09 AM

273. I wouldn't buy a used car from ANY politician

 

But that's just me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #174)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 06:40 PM

207. +1

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 05:43 PM

176. It WASN'T the law when she was Sec State

 

Congrats for taking your talking points from republican idiots.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 05:53 PM

183. K&R for pissing off all the right people!

 

You are like an authoritarian bug zapper!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 05:56 PM

187. k&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 05:57 PM

188. And while you are wrestling the party back from the abyss, what happens to the Women

and minorities and Gay folk?

Let me guess..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 06:20 PM

196. Coming to bat...

Like in baseball as it refers to who might be up next.

For all the Hilary bashing, I see nothing but smoke and mirrors, period. SO, take a minute and look around the US political spectrum that is not Republican and tell me who, just who might be capable of beating the Republican nominee, money machine and experience base. Go ahead, scan the federal level, scan state governors and tell me who out there has the chops to do, get or be anything close to a Hilary. And, by the way, try to back it up with some real info (something more than a lot of the chest beating & whining I see here)..you know, research, links to reputable sources, the kinda stuff Republicans hate to do (or cannot do).

The deal is still 2 years away but we always begin this soon in this new era of corporate political money... long hard slog from now on. So, who is it going to be? Who has the chops ... national and international ... non-buffoonery, political and donation backing???

I'll be waiting over here while the crickets choruses sing.

I eagerly await some ideas beyond bashing, for a change.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 06:33 PM

202. Always ready to believe the worst.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 06:37 PM

206. Sad, What? She's having a GREAT evening however. Anxious to hear her speak at the Emilys List Honor

Hear about the great progressive work she continues to do for women, LGBT, minorities, young adults & children's education & health care agendas.

Why the Rabid Right & Teabillies & Fundy KKKristians want to keep her out of the White House.
She will undo all they've built towards their dreams of a KKKristian Nation (woman submit!!) & patriarchial society.

After the Right wing smear of today, she deserves her place of honor among friends to night.
Well earned Mrs Clinton, well earned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 08:00 PM

215. HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!!

 


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 08:51 PM

223. So yo Clinton had a bad day? William Pitt has forced me to think about who Jeb Bush will name to

 

replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Now that is a bad day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarcastica (Reply #223)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 09:00 PM

227. oy vey. Not that shit again.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 840high (Reply #227)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 09:09 PM

230. ^^^this^^^

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 09:01 PM

228. How dare you defy the will of the pragmatic centrists!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 10:30 PM

244. Except that the law did not apply until after she left office

Can we please deal with the important stuff like cuddling with banksters and let the trivia go?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Reply #244)

Wed Mar 4, 2015, 12:38 PM

283. You're correct. She did the same as Colin Powell.

Is the controversy over this bs because she's a viable female Presidential candidate?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 10:30 PM

245. Jesus, Pitt. You're ahead of the news cycle again.

 

Again.

Once again....to use your vernacular...you have "made in your pants".

A dozen years ago you were just barely relevant on this site.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 11:34 PM

250. TRUTH.

 

Not Ready for Hillary 2016

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 11:44 PM

251. She's not a control freak, Will - she's merely a control enthusiast!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Mar 3, 2015, 11:55 PM

254. Shorter OP "Benghazi!"

"Secretary Kerry is the first Secretary of State to rely primarily on a state.gov email account."


http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/03/03/390429337/hillary-clinton-s-use-of-personal-email-account-at-state-draws-scrutiny

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Wed Mar 4, 2015, 02:35 AM

264. The resultant ass covering scramble from the custodial team

is a warm up for the apologies, excuses and categorical bullshit we'll have to deal with on a daily basis from President Hillary Clinton.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Wed Mar 4, 2015, 02:41 AM

266. 197 people give her good friends a sadz. You think they take applications at the State department?

 

200 million plus a year for budget and yet Kerry is the first SOS to use govt email! WTF? What the hell do they waste money on then? I need to get in on this cash cow. I had no idea the tech was so antiquated and backwards...again what the FUCK do they waste the money on!? I doubt the are buying 1000 dell servers a year.


Dude! You're getting a government email account!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Wed Mar 4, 2015, 04:30 AM

267. You ARE being divisive.

But look--here are the facts...in less than 24 business hours, too:

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-03-03/hillary-clinton-camp-pushes-back-on-email-story

“We don’t care how many accounts you have as long as those on which you’re doing federal business are captured for the record.”

David Ferriero, National Archives and Records Administration



You might want to "cope" with that. Apparently she WAS following the law. Try to not "haz a sad" over that, now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Wed Mar 4, 2015, 09:33 AM

271. I agree

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Wed Mar 4, 2015, 10:10 AM

274. "Because there's not a dime's worth of difference between Al Gore and George Bush"


We've been here before.
It got us George Bush, 911, the Iraq War, the Supreme Court, and Citizens United.
Thanks ideologically pure people!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Wed Mar 4, 2015, 10:34 AM

276. Sure makes one wonder why the NYT went with a story knowing it wasn't

exactly truthful. Was it to divert the Netanyahu stench with the GOP Congress?

Throwing shit on the wall to see if it sticks isn't journalism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Wed Mar 4, 2015, 10:45 AM

277. Spot on! Bravo WilliamPitt! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Wed Mar 4, 2015, 11:09 AM

280. "I'm very sorry Hillary Clinton has a sad today"

Your sorry seems like a lie so don't care what you have to say

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Wed Mar 4, 2015, 12:53 PM

286. K&R. In 2016 a lot of DUers will have to go to polls

 

in sorrow and tiggrly hold their noses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Wed Mar 4, 2015, 10:04 PM

292. K & R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 11:21 AM

296. kick

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 06:51 PM

297. kick

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread