2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumIs anyone else surprised at how suddenly important email and national security is to Progressives?
What used to be important to us:
- jobs
- climate change
- health care
- fairness in elections
- equal pay/equal work
- female rights.
with Hillary running, the two things that seem to be defining are:
1. Benghazi - which was the most important criteria to judge Hillary, until the republican insiders spilled the beans and admitted it was a made up scandal.
2. email.
If only it wasn't for the email server, we could all be happy. It seems to be the biggest foreign policy blunder of all time. Not Iraq, Not 911. Email server with retroactive top secret attributions.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)floriduck
(2,262 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)Ned_Devine
(3,146 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)National security has always been important to Progressives.
In fact, your community memory is very short, indeed.
TheBlackAdder
(28,211 posts).
This OP gives the impression that backs up RW propaganda, that Progressives don't care about security.
.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Life hasn't been the same, and justice still hasn't been done. These continuous acts of official wrongdoing and the utter lack of accountability at the top vex us deeply.
scscholar
(2,902 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
Aerows
(39,961 posts)in 2006 in regards to Bush/Cheney documentation that "disappeared", then it should not surprise you that someone named Aerows is concerned about it now.
It's funny how a private citizen can keep better records than public servants that are required by law to keep such records.
This has as much to do with Edward Snowden as a fart in a tornado, but drag him into it anyway as some lightning rod that has nothing to do with public servants being unable to maintain the records that they are by law supposed to maintain.
Maybe you can yell something about the Pope, chairs being thrown and a Senator being afraid for her life (but not due to sniper fire).
randome
(34,845 posts)The intense interest in government record retention policy, however, directly mirrors the mood of that long-ago sojourn of Edward Snowden. And by 'mirrors', I mean reflects an image that is the exact opposite of the original.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
That's the best response you have to my statement?
Wave that Snowden lightning rod, randome, maybe someone will try and help you make that dog ... hunt.
G_j
(40,370 posts)seems there was a lot of concern about that also..
randome
(34,845 posts)Deliberate outing of a spy versus giving national security documents to foreign corporations versus a SOS not following all the rules.
What do those 3 things have in common? Nothing. Only 2 of them have any illegality -and proven consequences- attached to them.
Clinton may not have been very 'clever' in using a private server but no one can demonstrate that any harm was caused. Yet because Sanders might benefit from seeing her as a criminal, her situation merits just as much outrage as the Valerie Plame leak. smh.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
G_j
(40,370 posts)and national security concerns.
R B Garr
(16,975 posts)You sure told me about duplicity on full display!
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)Clinton was hiding emails from FOIA requests.
Two very different things.
To be honest, if we had better whistleblower laws, Snowden could have made those poor practices public without having to run for his life.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Personally I don't have an emotinal investment in the email thing.
But there are procedures for a reason, which is in part to protect security while also keeping officials accountable for their actions.
The e-mails are symptomatic of the "above the normal rules" assumptions of the Clintons.
highprincipleswork
(3,111 posts)results in those areas.
The e-mail server. No, I wish she would be defeated in terms of the issues you discuss, but I will not ignore the fact that she is under serious FBI investigation. Do I care so much about this? No, but I care about national security, and it doesn't take much investigation frankly to see that what she did was wrong, unauthorized, and likely put government secrets in jeopardy. Also clear is that any ordinary person would probably already be in deep, deep trouble.
Frankly, I worry about her becoming the nominee and then having her candidacy trashed by this along with Democratic chances.
I worry about this even if she is not indicted, because it doesn't take much of a negative report to smear her campaign.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)and telling the truth. They reflect on her views about government transparency and world peace.
We have actual laws in place to hold government officials accountable, which include keeping government records accessible to FOIA requests and classified information safe.
The Benghazi hearings happened because she had a staff member repeat lies on national television slamming a movie as the cause of an attack on an embassy. When they started the scold campaign, they opened up a can of worms that provided data on a person with zero clearance emailing NSA and CIA reports, and it appears that we were holding prisoners for transfer to facilities that allow torture, and oh, it turns out the Secretary of State was breaking a few laws, too. Finding these things out is what is supposed to happen in a two-party system.
And YES, it would have been lovely if the Democrats had done their jobs and held the Bush folk accountable for everything you mentioned. I am not sure why they didn't, which leads to the suspicion of cronyism and corruption.
My two cents. Yours may vary.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)It has to do with all of the items on your list because a person can TALK all day long and not DO a darn thing about them.
pengu
(462 posts)We do care about Iraq, war in Libya, pushing for war in Syria, a coup in Honduras, and bellicose rhetoric towards Iran.
And we've cared about those for a long time. A great many of us were at the Iraq war protests.
cali
(114,904 posts)And hill supporters look silly lecturing the rest of us about Iraq.
Bob41213
(491 posts)Transparency......
cali
(114,904 posts)MariaThinks
(2,495 posts)should look in the mirror.
I've read your stuff, some of it is actually good, but some is terrible. I think dialogue should be encouraged and attacking people the way you're doing is nasty and mean spirited.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Someone should be looking in the mirror @ being nasty and it's not cali
MariaThinks
(2,495 posts)QC
(26,371 posts)and freedom of information/transparency are to Clintonites?
We used to care a lot about such issues around here--back when we actually discussed issues.
QC
(26,371 posts)libtodeath
(2,888 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)to write to Patrick Leahy regarding activity that took place under Bush/Cheney, so not a single person should be surprised that I'm just as concerned about it now.
But do throw out accusations that nobody ever took any of this seriously before now, maybe that will make it less serious.
I am quite certain that floating around somewhere in my own email and in different places that I posted my inquiry you can find records of exactly what I wrote. Some of us apparently keep better records than others, even if we are just private citizens.
It seems some of our public servants could learn from such examples.
840high
(17,196 posts)1 issue can be important.
Dem2
(8,168 posts)And it's a hopeful way to get a 2nd place finisher into the nomination, disqualify the one who's earned the majority of the votes thus far.
MariaThinks
(2,495 posts)Dem2
(8,168 posts)that never happens, right?
They say if you're getting inflammatory responses, you're doing something right. Lol.
MariaThinks
(2,495 posts)Beacool
(30,251 posts)They even compare in the way that they attack them, similar talking points.
Therefore, I don't really care what either side thinks of Hillary, or Bill for that matter.
cali
(114,904 posts)MariaThinks
(2,495 posts)Tarc
(10,476 posts)This is a convenient political football for them, nothing more.
cali
(114,904 posts)MariaThinks
(2,495 posts)wanted to slander Hillary. That line of attack is gone so it's all emails now.
NightWatcher
(39,343 posts)Hillary's biggest weakness is that people see her as dishonest.
Now she's under investigation for lying and attempting to mislead.
Do you see the problem there?
MariaThinks
(2,495 posts)in all her time serving the public.
Throd
(7,208 posts)MariaThinks
(2,495 posts)you may not like it and that's fine. don't vote for her.
But to spread rumors of bribes is wrong.
Throd
(7,208 posts)MariaThinks
(2,495 posts)Throd
(7,208 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)dchill
(38,532 posts)in Hillary's camp should ever have to be concerned about secure State Department emails. But there it is. Spectacularly flawed logic maims this OP.
4139
(1,893 posts)Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)I've been a Democrat for 28 years.
Is that too sudden for you?
BTW, I can also walk and chew gum. I can be concerned with good-paying jobs, climate change, healthcare, etc. and still not want the person who may or may not lead on those policy goals (IMHO, she won't do much on those, btw) to not be a criminal who makes poor decisions.
Demsrule86
(68,667 posts)She is a liberal. And is better on women's issue, guns and honestly most liberal issues...all he ever talks about is banks.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)No. She is not a liberal stalwart.
And he talks about a lot of things. That you aren't listening is on you.
BTW, she isn't better on women's issues unless you're a wealthy woman.
MariaThinks
(2,495 posts)alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)Some of these people are shameless
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)And if the dem nominee is HRC and she manages to squeak out a GE win, only some of that will happen. For example "fairness in elections" does not appear to be something she would favor.
The_Casual_Observer
(27,742 posts)It's been this way for years.
Bad Thoughts
(2,531 posts)You've been around the Democratic Party, I assume.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)of national security and jobs, as well as the big one in that list.. CIMATE CHANGE.
You might want to study how climate change was partly, and in large part, responsible for Syria.
Vinca
(50,303 posts)Press Virginia
(2,329 posts)which HRC is to be judged.
frylock
(34,825 posts)phleshdef
(11,936 posts)I really don't think she did anything terrible or intentionally wrong. But at the end of the day, we have to keep the White House and this is starting to become very damaging, whether its fair or not.
frylock
(34,825 posts)drip drip drip
HumanityExperiment
(1,442 posts)HRC lacks it, this is clearly and strongly shown in polls
Feel free to add that to your 'list'
Attorney in Texas
(3,373 posts)violating the FOIA by using private email, but I should drop those concerns when Hillary actually moves a step further away from compliance with FOIA than what Bush, Cheney, and Perry did.
If only we had a word for someone whose values were as flexible as you want them to be.
Gothmog
(145,554 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Bettie
(16,124 posts)The only people I know who talk about feminism or Women's Rights as "Female Rights" are right wingers.
As to national security, most of us are interested in it as well as the other issues on your little list.
One can be concerned about more than one issue.
Benghazi is a red herring. That is one situation where Clinton is not at all at fault. Bad things happen sometimes.
CorkySt.Clair
(1,507 posts)Based on some of the bleating in this thread, it hit the mark. Well done.
MariaThinks
(2,495 posts)hobbit709
(41,694 posts)BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)I am glad you agree that Iraq, WHICH Hillary SUPPORTED, was the biggest foreign policy blunder of all time. At least you are making progress.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)In fact, some soi-disant progressives have gone beyond downplaying it and now actively oppose it.
Funny that.