General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWould you approve of Hillary's primary opponents using the Benghazi incident against her?
Obviously Hillary is a formidable candidate and it will take a lot to stop her. The temptation to exploit the Benghazi incident might be too much for a Martin O'Malley (for example) to resist.
7 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited | |
Yes. I want Hillary stopped, and if a primary opponent chooses to exploit Benghazi, so be it. | |
3 (43%) |
|
No. That issue should be off-limits to Hillary's primary opponents. | |
4 (57%) |
|
0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided. | |
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll |
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)because there's no there there. All it would do is make them look like birthers.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)We don't need Democrats beating up on Democrats and copying the Republicans in their primary, especially when there's never been a "there, there" regarding Benghazi. That would only validate Issa and the other Teapublican obstructionists in Congress.
So ... HELL no, it's not okay to "use" Benghazi against Hillary Clinton. I, for one, would like to see the WH remain in Democratic Party hands.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)If a case can be made against Hillary Clinton, there are plenty of legitimate arguments to be made.
Benghazi isn't one of them.
.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Theres plenty to go after Hillary on. There's no "there" there with Benghazi.
NightWatcher
(39,343 posts)LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)If a Republican can use it in the general, it SHOULD be used in the primary. Better to let it burn itself out in the primary than have a conflagration in the general. That goes for all of our primary candidates, not just Hillary.
The worst outcome is that one Democratic contender is defeated and another Democrat takes his/her place. In the general, the worst outcome is that a Republican wins the White House. That's an easy choice for me.
demwing
(16,916 posts)Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)No (D) should accuse her of allowing Americans to die (or anything similar).
scheming daemons
(25,487 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)What if someone likes Hillary and thinks Benghazi is fine point to dwell on. (and/or) What if a Hillary supporter thinks using Benghazi would backfire, and ultimately help her win?
Gman
(24,780 posts)will lose credibility immediately across the board and take him/herself out as a serious candidate due to intellectual shortcomings.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)on the incident while she stayed out of the media is a legitimate issue.
The Sec. of State should have been the one to go on the Sunday shows and announce what had happened. Sec. Rice never should have had to go through that.
Benghazi is bullshit and should be treated as such by one and all. Sec. Clinton's behavior after the incident is fair game.
Snipergate is also fair game.
As is her not only voting for the Iraq war but calling on others in The Senate to do so also.
She is going to have real problems clearing the Commander In Chief hurdle in the general and it should be an issue in the primary. It isn't wise to ignore the entire subject until it is to late.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)Hillary did not send Rice to do the TV rounds, neither did she give her the talking points. As for why she didn't go herself, because she simply does not care much for going on those shows. She seldom did the rounds.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)Whisp
(24,096 posts)None of the officials was willing to speculate on why the secretary wouldnt make an exception after such an extraordinary event or whether Clinton had wanted to avoid a controversy that could have compromised her political future.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)Hillary would choose not to use it?
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)in the last debate in 2008, she's set the precedent that anything goes in a Democratic primary.
brooklynite
(94,571 posts)...certainly none with the clout to be listened to about an issue like Benghazi.
arthritisR_US
(7,288 posts)Beacool
(30,247 posts)The SOS serves the president. A primary candidate bringing up RW talking points would anger many Democrats, including the WH.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)Another protester, 78-year-old Frances Minkowitz, didnt mince words on her sign with a call to impeach Obama that also alluded to Benghazi.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014641493
If there's an idiot who brings up Benghazi during the primaries, he will not be looked upon kindly by other Democrats. The whole bogus "scandal" is catnip for the RW.
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)As things stand there is no there there... no legit scandal in sight.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)It's right-wingers trying to make political hay out of the deaths of four people.
There's no "incident" because no one did anything wrong. Hillary didn't cause that attack.
JI7
(89,249 posts)who brings it up.
If any Democratic candidate is getting their news from Fox that speaks volumes more about them than it does HRC
BootinUp
(47,148 posts)remains to be explained in a way that includes a realistic view of how to win a national election.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)Like when she injected the Rev. Wright into the 2008 primaries and gave the right wing and the gullible media the opportunity to pile on Obama.
But then, she's so "tough" I'm sure she can stand up to whatever a primary opponent throws her way.
But it isn't just Benghazi, she has several boxcars full of baggage that opponents can bring up. The republicans won't hesitate to do it so she may as well get used to it.
I'm not advocating that somebody should dump on her but I wouldn't be surprised if somebody does.
Phlem
(6,323 posts)who are her primary opponents?
-p
PS. I'm still not convinced it won't be another 3rd way presidency where the citizens of the country end up giving up their best interest for the sake of bipartisanship. We need a strong turn left, not more of this "I'm a new Democrat" bullshit.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)Are they Democrats?
Warpy
(111,261 posts)and even right wingers got bored with it within the first couple of days that Pox hyped it.
It's one of those "issues" that never gained traction with anybody because it was completely bogus. Anyone who tries to use it in a primary race is going to get laughed out of it.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)If she wants to get in the mud and start the fun, anything goes then. I have no idea how Benghazi can be used tho. Maybe just the syllables are enough.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)Her record as a senator and other things when she was SOS. She should be asked on what issues she disagreed with Obama.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)I have a general rule in elections regarding this kind of tactic...I want everything thrown in the primaries that can be thrown because the further from Election Day the revelation, the less it hurts you in the GE. I approve liberal use of this type of tactic in the primary because it leaves nothing in the barrel for the GOP to use in October, nothing to attack on after the conventions.
I don't think there's anything there on Benghazi...but if there were something there, I'd much rather get smacked with it in March than October.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)and have it be "old news" by the general election.
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)Whisp
(24,096 posts)and had Rice sent out to the wolves instead.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)I thought Hillary was inevitable?
PeteSelman
(1,508 posts)What exactly is there to use against her? She didn't do anything wrong. No one really did. It was just one of those war things.
backwoodsbob
(6,001 posts)what a stupid fucking poll
Bandit
(21,475 posts)Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Or is the fact that they voted "yes" my fault for asking a stupid question?
backwoodsbob
(6,001 posts)stupidest poll I have ever seen here