2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumMediate: Hillary Supporters All Have Suspiciously Identical Feelings About Meet the Press Interview
Hillary Supporters All Have Suspiciously Identical Feelings About Meet the Press InterviewQuestions on @HillaryClintons emails on this mornings #MTP? Asked and answered. Time to move on.
Karen Finney (@finneyk) September 27, 2015
Questions on @HillaryClintons emails on this mornings #MTP? Asked and answered. Time to move on. Brad Woodhouse (@woodhouseb) September 27, 2015
Cannot wait to see @HillaryClinton on @meetthepress this a.m.! Sounds like she answered every email question ever. Now, time to move on!
Jennifer Granholm (@JenGranholm) September 27, 2015
Questions on @HillaryClintons emails on yesterdays #MTP? Asked and answered. Time to move on.Please. Hilary Rosen (@hilaryr) September 28, 2015
.@HillaryClinton responds to questions about emails on #MTP. Good answers, time to move on to substance please.
Buffy Wicks (@BuffyWicks) September 27, 2015
Now at first, it may appear that these responses were all coordinated in some fashion. However, it would be against the law for campaign officials to coordinate with a pro-Clinton Super PAC director like Brad Woodhouse. So clearly its a coincidence that his tweet was identical to Clinton staffer Karen Finneys.
Jennifer Granholm is also working for a Clinton Super PAC. On one hand, I agree that the press should drop its morbid fascination with the email server. Using a private server was sketchy, Mrs. Clinton has said all she's going to say about it, and beyond that there doesn't seem to be much of a story.
The coordinated Super PAC response is not unexpected, though for how much they cost, you'd think they'd be better at this.
riversedge
(70,047 posts)portlander23
(2,078 posts)I'm obsessed with the shady Super PAC stuff.
riversedge
(70,047 posts)and his panel --each day they pop in her emails and over and over yak about them. over and over.
portlander23
(2,078 posts)I do think that there is a legitimate issue with using a private email server. However I agree that the Republican witch hunt to manufacture something from Mrs. Clinton's emails is illegitimate. I guess we're going to disagree on that distinction.
However this post is about the unseemly use of Super PACs and brazenly coordinating with them. I'm going to continue to post about dark money, PACs, and the game both parties are playing walking up to the boundary of the law and tip-toeing over.
So, with respect to the email issue, I think we can mostly agree.
riversedge
(70,047 posts)as you say we will agree to disagree.
portlander23
(2,078 posts)So, putting aside the disagreement on the emails, what's your take on the use of Super PACs in this election and the open coordination with them? Bear in mind, as much as I find this distasteful and bad for Democracy, I am not entirely in disagreement with the Clinton camp's assertions that they may need to play in the Super PAC sandbox to compete. I hope they're wrong, but they may not be.
As a tactic and a trend, I find it very troubling. What do you think?
ish of the hammer
(444 posts)Android3.14
(5,402 posts)Her supporters know the PAC issue is pretty much a deal breaker. Even they know it indicates the corporations control her.
portlander23
(2,078 posts)It's not an attack, it's an invitation to a discussion. Maybe the respondent had to go to work and hasn't seen the question. Maybe they're not interested in a discussion. No need to pick on people.
aidbo
(2,328 posts)6chars
(3,967 posts)maybe it is coincidence, maybe there is some other perfectly good explanation, maybe it doesn't actually count as coordination, maybe someone (not her) just messed up or got confused, etc.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)You'll still get to tell people not to worry about it...
FOR MONTHS!
mhatrw
(10,786 posts)HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Probably through a secret email server...
nc4bo
(17,651 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)Oh noooooooo
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)I don't know whether it's tunnel vision, political naïveté, garden variety trolling, or simply nostalgia for those halcyon days of the McCarthy Era, but for all intents and purposes, there is no "far left" in the U.S. There hasn't been for at least 45 years. And you can be pretty certain that among the handful of people in this country who might actually still qualify as "far left" they have little or no interest in electoral politics and have almost equal contempt for Sanders as they do for Clinton.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)No, there aren't many far lefties in America, but DU is not an even cross-section of the nation.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)with having a candidate who can focus on the issues rather than a candidate who has to continually defend herself from attacks because of her poor decision-making and poor choices about the use of our technology.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)and speaking fees. Those are very important to them.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)to discuss issues like the TPP, wages, climate change, foreign policy, etc. either my comments don't get replied to or I get labeled as a Hillary basher. calling out a contrast between candidate A's policies and candidate b's policies is not hating on either one. But some people either don't see that or are not prepared to discuss policy, for whatever reason.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)and capable of rational debate.
But they choose, for some reason, to engage in shallow name calling and the use of ridiculous memes rooted in the McCarthy era and/or Niixonian appeals to the "silent majority."
haikugal
(6,476 posts)Snarf....
Thanks for that!
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)We know them as Bernie Sanders supporters.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Those are real issues.
Snap the Turtle
(73 posts)That's what I've noticed. I've heard a lot of talk about Bernie's issues which delights me, but nothing on Hillary's issues. Only that she must be elected, no matter what.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)But for knowing about such well known and published papers, none seem to be able to quote from any of them.
My personal feeling is that most Hillary supporters feel she is their last chance for a female President in their lifetime and damn the consequences. Gender based voting plain and simple, no other reason is logical.
yardwork
(61,533 posts)Those of us who truly care about progressive issues and want the country to move further to the left want a Democrat in the White House. I'll not disparage any of our candidates.
ish of the hammer
(444 posts)I''m a very sincere progmoderate... I'm insulted that you would think otherwise
jeff47
(26,549 posts)What we know so far:
1) Communications with her server were not encrypted for the first 3 months.
https://www.venafi.com/blog/post/what-venafi-trustnet-tells-us-about-the-clinton-email-server/
2) They left the default VPN keys installed on her server
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-04/clinton-s-e-mail-system-built-for-privacy-though-not-security
3) They were using, and continue to use, self-signed SSL certificates
http://gawker.com/how-unsafe-was-hillary-clintons-secret-staff-email-syst-1689393042
4) They set up a .com domain, enabling the typosquater who has registered clintonmail.com (no "e" before "mail" . Whoever registered that domain is in a perfect position to steal login information or perform spear phishing attacks.
5) Her ISP was repeatedly hacked by China
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=615632
NealK
(1,850 posts)The administrator login was:
User: Admin
Password: Password
jeff47
(26,549 posts)User: Administrator
Password: Password1
NealK
(1,850 posts)frazzled
(18,402 posts)I remember, because I joined back in 1998, when moveon.org was still an email list, created in response to the Republican attempt to impeach then President Clinton.
So connecting Republican scandal obsession to "move on" is not surprising.
I'd say: move on.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)The wording and ideas are too close for comfort.
And when you have people like David Brock working to smear her primary opponents, it raises questions about whether he's more than just a loose cannon
questionseverything
(9,645 posts)thru a technical loophole it opens up worry that hc is probably pushing the rules everywhere
to me it just makes bernie a much better candidate thru comparison
dorkzilla
(5,141 posts)Thats exactly what bothers me...when she pushes the rules, where does it end? Plus having a team behind you does tend to add some room for plausible deniability. Convenient.
I have no real vitriol for Hillary, I just know that there are people better suited for the job of POTUS.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)which has ties to Hillary Campaign that have been called into question.
starroute
(12,977 posts)Not a an association you'd think they'd want to remind people about.
0rganism
(23,920 posts)"The coordinated Super PAC response is not unexpected" - agreed
"his <SuperPAC director's> tweet was identical to Clinton staffer Karen Finneys" - this is going to be problematic
knowing Republicans and their pet media there's probably going to be some going-nowhere probe into whether Hillary's campaign staff coordinated with one of her SuperPACs.
portlander23
(2,078 posts)Breaking the rules on coordination with Super PACs is seriously bi-partisan.
New York Times : The Soaring Price of Political Access
0rganism
(23,920 posts)just like HRC wasn't the first SoS to use her private email server, she's not the first candidate to coordinate with a SuperPAC. but she's a Democrat AND a Clinton, so any impropriety on her part draws extra attention.
portlander23
(2,078 posts)I would disagree on the assertion that Mrs. Clinton wasn't the first to use a private email server. I believe Colin Powell used a personal email account, not a server over which he had total control, and I believe his use was to supplement the primary use of a government controlled email account and computer.
Honestly I don't even want to get into that because it gets into the weeds of the email thing that honestly aren't worth getting into the weeds over.
On the Super PAC side, it is mostly drawing attention because she's a Democrat. The Democratic Party is tending more towards denouncing and taking a stand against dark money, and it is dissonant that she is so heavily relying on them. Having Mr. Sanders in the race as a counterpoint is also not to her benefit.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)What Hillary did is different.
Please try to be truthful about what happened. We can't ever move on as long as the record keeps needing correction.
0rganism
(23,920 posts)i mis-spoke earlier. she isn't the first to have an additional private email account, the server is new and different and unusual. i'm not one to defend her on this, either.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)Powell had an additional private email account. This is what Hillary now admits she should have done.
Hillary had ONLY her private email account, that is very different.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)hacked by foreign governments or their agents.
Thank you.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)SwampG8r
(10,287 posts)Clintonsupporters.com
The whole site is conspiracies and how to enact them here
TheKentuckian
(25,018 posts)RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)Hmm.
https://m.
AppalachianAmerican
(42 posts)That's kind of creepy.
Dems to Win
(2,161 posts)All these Hillary supporters probably follow each other. If they see a good tweet, it's easy to cut and paste the words and send it out as their own tweet. I do it.
This is a silly non-issue, imho.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)over every little thing they can. Why give them more ammunition?
It probably was just a cut/paste type thing, but it's sloppy in terms of optics.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)How many journos or other campaigns likely subscribe to one or more of their Twitter accounts?
So if it were not orchestrated, it shows a fairly high level of incompetence to do something that dumb,instead of taking a minute or two to think of enough variances to not lead to an impression of coordination.
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)dorkzilla
(5,141 posts)Just smacks of incompetence. Not a good portent for someone who wants to be POTUS.
liberal N proud
(60,332 posts)What is that implying?
I, as most liberals, choose to form my on opinion and not be told what I think.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Or, the vacuum of power we left in the craters that were filled by ISIS? Or the tens of millions that the Saudis and Emirates have deposited in the Foundation? Or, her role as BCCI's lawyer? Or, Mena Airport? Or, the Arkansas National Guard leaving their equipment behind that found its way into the hands of the Contras? Or, how far back the CIA . . .?
zappaman
(20,606 posts)Vinca
(50,236 posts)Autumn
(44,972 posts)valerief
(53,235 posts)cyberswede
(26,117 posts)AzDar
(14,023 posts)still_one
(92,060 posts)PosterChild
(1,307 posts)Nitram
(22,755 posts)"Hillary Supporters All Have Suspiciously Identical Feelings." Sounds like Twilight Zone episode. But now that you mention it, Bernistas have suspiciously similar feelings about Clinton.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)Yes, it does sound like an episode of The Twilight Zone.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)I guess they are wishing it won't come up a couple days from now when more emails are released, but it will.
Or maybe they are hoping it won't be talked about in the run up to the debate, but it will.
They can't possibly believe that it won't come up during the debate, because it will.
They might be trying to keep the talking heads from focusing on it after the debate, but they will.
Then she will need to testify before a bunch of crazy House Republicans. Maybe they think they can keep the (R)s from attacking her on it, although we all know they will.
Then there will be another round of emails released at the end of next month. I suppose it is possible that the media won't be focused on it a month from now, but I think they will.
Having a bunch of cronies telling everyone to move on may just look desperate and foolish. In fact, it is a pretty good bet that it will.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)And yet, some don't.
I can't imagine why.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Beyond me. These questions should be pounded in on the likes of Trey Gowdy as to the reason he is wasting tax payers money on the Benghazi investigation in the first place. Elijah Cummings is asking the right questions, it is time to move along.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)I like it too.
If I tweet that out am I part of the conspiracy?
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)No reason to assume that it did.
But, wouldn't the steps in the argument would be pretty much the same if it had?
In this case I don't think parsimony helps the argument much.
On the otherhand joint probabilities based on a 50-50 chance that they were independent (each either is or is not) would reduce to being unlikely to be by chance pretty fast
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Back in the day it took time to coordinate. Now...boom