Mediate: Hillary Supporters All Have Suspiciously Identical Feelings About Meet the Press Interview

[portlander23]

Hillary Supporters All Have Suspiciously Identical Feelings About Meet the Press Interview

Questions on @HillaryClinton‘s emails on this morning’s #MTP? Asked and answered. Time to move on.
— Karen Finney (@finneyk) September 27, 2015

Questions on @HillaryClinton‘s emails on this morning’s #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 @HillaryClinton‘s emails on yesterday’s #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 it’s a coincidence that his tweet was identical to Clinton staffer Karen Finney’s.

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]

1. yes, time for you portlander23 to move on and get over your obsession with her emails.

[portlander23]

4. On the contrary

I'm obsessed with the shady Super PAC stuff.

[riversedge]

9. yet you post about her emails. you remind me of morning_joe

and his panel --each day they pop in her emails and over and over yak about them. over and over.

[portlander23]

13. I understand your point of view

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]

15. That it links to the emails is the problem. but

as you say we will agree to disagree.

[portlander23]

17. Fair enough

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]

47. crickets ... ???

[Android3.14]

63. Thought that would be their answer

Her supporters know the PAC issue is pretty much a deal breaker. Even they know it indicates the corporations control her.

[portlander23]

66. Come on folks, settle down

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]

76. Thank you for keeping it civil. I'm curious for an answer too..

[6chars]

78. you can't prove anything

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]

19. don't worry, it won't die down anytime soon the way she has handled things (poorly) from day one

You'll still get to tell people not to worry about it...


FOR MONTHS!

[mhatrw]

80. Yet another SuperPAC? n/t

[HooptieWagon]

2. It appears the Super PACs are coordinating with the campaign.

Probably through a secret email server...

[nc4bo]

6. Apologies in advance....

[DanTex]

3. The far left and the GOP have suspiciously identical feelings about the email nonsense.

[Armstead]

12. Ooops....We commies are busted for our secret alliance with the Tea Party

Oh noooooooo

[RufusTFirefly]

22. Please save this smiley for each time you use the term "far left"

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]

23. People who hate Clinton enough to obsess over the email nonsense are either right-wing or far left.

No, there aren't many far lefties in America, but DU is not an even cross-section of the nation.

[restorefreedom]

28. maybe people are just obsessed

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]

29. Hillary haters don't seem to care about issues very much. Except for issues like emails

and speaking fees. Those are very important to them.

[restorefreedom]

30. i have tried repeatedly

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]

32. Some people are actually quite informed and intelligent...

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]

61. Ah yes...the silent majority...that's the ticket lol

Snarf....

Thanks for that!

[Android3.14]

64. "Some people are actually quite informed and intelligent"

We know them as Bernie Sanders supporters.

[Comrade Grumpy]

37. I don't give a shit about her emails. It's her hawkishness and pro-corporate policies.

Those are real issues.

[NealK]

53. +1

[Snap the Turtle]

34. ...and avoiding talking about issues...

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]

62. Many can and will tell you that Hillary's positions are well known and papers have been published.

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.

[uponit7771]

39. +1

[yardwork]

44. Not quite. I'm "far left" and support Hillary. I also support the others.

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]

50. "the Far Left"

I''m a very sincere progmoderate... I'm insulted that you would think otherwise

[still_one]

57. Lol

[jeff47]

5. Yeah...she hasn't quite answered for the terrible security on her server.

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

Using those addresses, McGeorge discovered that the certificate appearing on the site Tuesday appeared to be the factory default for the security appliance, made by Fortinet Inc., running the service.

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&quot . 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]

52. I wonder if...

The administrator login was:

User: Admin
Password: Password

[jeff47]

54. No! It was totally secure!!

User: Administrator
Password: Password1

[NealK]

59. I stand corrected.

[frazzled]

7. You forget how "Move On" started

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]

11. I'd say if they are coordinating between Super PACS or PACS they should be called on it

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]

33. since we know the pac brock runs is openly coordinating with hc's campaign

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]

51. You hit the nail on the head

That’s 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]

45. Granholm works for Brock's "Correct the Record"

which has ties to Hillary Campaign that have been called into question.

[starroute]

21. You mean when the slogan was "censure and move on"?

Not a an association you'd think they'd want to remind people about.

[0rganism]

8. agree about the SuperPAC responses, but the campaign staffer?

"The coordinated Super PAC response is not unexpected" - agreed
"his <SuperPAC director's> tweet was identical to Clinton staffer Karen Finney’s" - 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]

10. I doubt it

Breaking the rules on coordination with Super PACs is seriously bi-partisan.

New York Times : The Soaring Price of Political Access

[0rganism]

16. yes, but IOKIYAR

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]

20. I mostly agree

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]

69. Powell also had a government email account.

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]

72. right, i get it about the server vs. account thing

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]

73. She did not have an "additional" private email account.

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]

14. I'll "move on" after we see if this blatantly unsecured server was

hacked by foreign governments or their agents.

Thank you.

[NCTraveler]

18. Isn't there a forum for conspiracy theories? nt.

[SwampG8r]

25. It's at

Clintonsupporters.com
The whole site is conspiracies and how to enact them here

[NealK]

56. Rofl!

[Phlem]

70. Nice.

[TheKentuckian]

83. Bang on!

[RufusTFirefly]

27. You don't believe in orchestrated talking points?

Hmm.

https://m.

[AppalachianAmerican]

24. Huh.

That's kind of creepy.

[Dems to Win]

26. Cut and paste in the Twitterverse

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]

35. Republicans are going to make hay

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]

36. If you're a high profile campaign staffer or PAC person, that'd be stupid

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]

48. ...or just fucking RETWEET

[dorkzilla]

55. Yep, at least that would somewhat acceptable. But come on...all these blunders

Just smacks of incompetence. Not a good portent for someone who wants to be POTUS.

[liberal N proud]

31. Suspiciously?

What is that implying?

I, as most liberals, choose to form my on opinion and not be told what I think.

[leveymg]

38. Would they rather we talked about arms and Jihadi transfers from Libya to Syria?

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]

40. Yes, time to move on.

[Vinca]

41. Well, it's nice to know they have an efficient system for distributing talking points.

[Autumn]

42. Or one supporter with no writing skills and a bunch of accounts working overtime

[valerief]

43. Funny! nt

[cyberswede]

46. Christ - don't any of them know how to Retweet? Would have saved time.

[AzDar]

49. Ugh.

[still_one]

58. Yawn

[PosterChild]

60. Yep. Time to move on. eom

[Nitram]

65. OK, the Bernistas have officially jumped the shark.

"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]

68. They all used the exact same phrase.

Yes, it does sound like an episode of The Twilight Zone.

[Motown_Johnny]

67. Bwahahaha!

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]

71. Move on...

[LondonReign2]

74. This is merely the Clinton campaign's 'planned spontaneity' in action

[senz]

75. Ah, the Astroturf! So pretty and "green." How could anyone not love it?

And yet, some don't.

I can't imagine why.

[Thinkingabout]

77. Why there is such a fascination with interviewers asking time and time again about the emails is

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]

79. Occam's razor: The other folks saw the first tweet, liked it and decided to say something similar.

I like it too.

If I tweet that out am I part of the conspiracy?

[HereSince1628]

81. True, the talking point didn't have to come from H>

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]

82. That is what is called a talking point

Back in the day it took time to coordinate. Now...boom