Hillary Clinton, e-mails, & Emily's List

I believe that MSNBC plans to provide live coverage of her speech. And, of course, there will be coverage of it afterwards.

...I'd expect that she wouldn't allow her presidential ambitions to appear dominate (which, at least, from her detractors' pov, is mostly what this controversy over her emails is all about). Rather, I'd expect her to speak on the issues at hand (as she has at other political issue events) as if her concern was all about the subject at hand; posturing as oblivious to any implication her remarks were related to a presidential bid.

Because it appears likely that she will be running, I think that she has to address the issue. Otherwise, it builds. The media would run with it, should she not mention it.

I expect that she will, though I would wager that she will not do so in a highly detailed manner.

...and that trademark laugh of hers at her own joke.

She should use humor per the right-wing folks on the attack; but a short, serious comment directed at the democrats.

...just how many stories on her appearance led with speculation that she might address the issue, just as you thought she might.

What a circus! I caught the live feed late and was only able to watch her greeting supporters and others in the crowd. I was struck by her ease and engagement with those greeting her. She will be a formidable candidate, if only for her ability to posture as 'Hillary Clinton;' more of an icon to admirers and critics alike, than a slate on which to influence with new ideas or transform with dissenting views. She is politics personified; an organ of elections, as opposed to a movement politician, all organization and networking cloaked in a seasoned guile for the ebb and flow of our democratic system of elections. Every cynical, hapless attempt at scandalizing her just feeds and enhances Hillary's own sense of omnipotence.

I think this is why so many folks view Elizabeth Warren as a natural foil to Hillary Clinton. Warren is as accessible and fluid in her populism, as Clinton is remote and practiced in her establishment politics; actual movement over mere ascension. We desperately need someone as dynamic as the senator from Mass., if we have any hope of shifting the status quo of politics beyond the current compromising standard.

Being rather simple-minded, I tend to view politics much in the same way I do the Great Sport of boxing. Recently, we've had difficulty in securing any bouts for my son. (In fact, we have a problem getting him sparring.) We looked into the Golden Gloves this year: usually, our state has been divided into four districts; each would hold a tournament, and then the final four would compete for the state-wide title. There are two classes in each weight division -- novice and open -- and the winner of the open class moves on to the nationals.

This year, due to decreasing numbers, there was only one, state-wide tournament. And there was no one else my boy's weight in the novice class. So we looked at open class; again, no one.

We could have entered him in one or both, and he'd have "won" the title(s). If I put him in open class competition, he'd be on his way to the nationals, as we speak. But he doesn't yet have that level of experience.

I think that the progressive wing of the Democratic Party is in a similar position. We need to get more experience in running candidates on the local, then state level, before we are in a good position to have our type of candidate try to win the presidency. That's why in 2016, I'll be investing a heck of a lot more effort on the other elections, than the presidential race.

I want to see a female President.

But just because Hillary is female doesn't mean she will represent my interests as President. I wouldn't want to see Sarah Palin be the first female President, either. So being female should be a strong consideration, but not the only one.

For the record, I prefer Bernie's policy stances, but I haven't been throwing my support behind his run because I'd rather see a female President. But on the other side, Warren hasn't revealed a whole lot of social justice cards, either. This next election is probably going to be a reluctant vote for me no matter what.

Anyway, Hillary has enormous resources. What I would like to see is her use those resources to back a BETTER FEMALE CANDIDATE. She can be the bigger woman by not insisting on first place in line and acting generously to promote the cause of all women instead.

Currently, I'm serving as a mentor for a young lady who works in the field of human services. She is currently the VP of her local union. I was the VP in my local union, before retiring; although it's a different union, I'm able to provide some assistance to her.

Because life allows me to travel in some interesting circles, I've been able to hear the the president and vice president of the board of directors she deals with think of her. And they despise her. More, I recently was at a function where I overheard their legal counsel speaking about her. He, too, despises her. The three of them far prefer to deal with the union president, an older man, and they definitely are not looking forward to his retiring -- as she will become president of the union.

Her positions are almost exactly the same as the union president's. So, I ask myself: why the anger aimed towards her? Now, she's my older daughter's best friend. A young female. It really is that simple -- these guys resent her because she's a young female. There is no other rational explanation -- only this irrational one.

That same irrational thinking is entrenched in far too many men in America.No denying that it is there. At the same time, it doesn't make me want to support a Margaret Thatcher. A candidate's sex can be an important factor -- and I believe it is important that the USA elect a female president. But I'm hoping it will be one that shares my democratic values.

It's going to be very interesting watching the debate over the next 16 months between groups 1 and 2.

As to if Hillary will address the issue tonight, I expect there will be a small mention of the matter without giving it too much attention. Just the right mix of humor and sarcasm to acknowledge she's aware of it, but not the least bit concerned by it.

Days like today I think about what political discussion must have been like before the internet. Back when a seed could be planted, grow roots and sprout before it could be countered. I wonder how many honest people, people who could have changed the world for the better were taken out of the mix by such tactics and where we'd be today if they hadn't been. I'll have to add that to my list of things to look into. There has to be some recorded incidents of such having taken place out there someplace.

One of the things I find myself wondering about, here on DU:GD, is illustrated in the OPs of one fellow who is rather vocal about his support of Ms. Clinton. His posts tend to be as aggressive as they are shallow. They reflect no insight into the dynamics of actual campaign strategy -- which always includes an understanding of the relationship between those three groups mentioned in this thread's OP.

I find myself wondering if he is actually a Clinton supporter, sincere but lacking insight? Or is he purposely trying to offend those who are undecided at this point?

I think it's more than to offend.

I admit I've not given the discussions much more than cursory glance so far, but it may be worth looking closer to see what's going on. I usually shy away from things that seem to me as if the main purpose is to generate inflammatory comments. I don't really have the stomach for arguing for the sake of arguing.

Then there is the group that will vote for whoever is the final candidate for office.

What I don't get is how does the US SOS not have one excellent IT team at work for him/her 24/7?

That one kind of shocks me.

From what I've gathered in watching the news on MSNBC, it's not as bad as some of the anti-Clinton folks had hoped, but not as trivial as some of the pro-Clinton folks were claiming. No surprise there.

all kinds of classified information (and then getting off almost scott free, because he is former CIA?). This is a quasi-HRC scandal that imo will have no impact on her chances as POTUS.

It could -- at very most -- have some impact upon a potential primary contest. But it will have no effect on a general election.