General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI am off the Hillary bandwagon
E mail gate has me depressed about the Democratic party.
rock
(13,218 posts)have convinced you, eh? And by 'solid', I mean as in 'solid waste'.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)Indeed.
brush
(53,475 posts)Last edited Sat Mar 7, 2015, 12:33 PM - Edit history (1)
does Hillary always, and I'll use a tennis term here, make these unforced errors that negatively effect her campaign? Is this going to be deja vu 2008 all over again where the clear front runner blows it over not adhering to a .gov email account?
No way should any Clinton, especially one looking to run for higher office, give the repugs such red meat to pounce on. I mean she has to know that the repugs are hyper scrutinizing her family's every move.
They're still yelling "Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi" all over the place for God's sake.
Now they'll be digging through here emails for months and cherry picking every little factoid they can exploit to damage her.
A totally self-inflicted error.
TheCowsCameHome
(40,163 posts)Can't wait to see who the right offers up to save America.
Romeo.lima333
(1,127 posts)sacasm ,for the sacasm impaired
TheCowsCameHome
(40,163 posts)He has the uncanny knack of pissing everyone off.
A real consensus builder.
TheNutcracker
(2,104 posts)IT's the shit and shittier syndrome.
left-of-center2012
(34,195 posts)I'm hoping for a Cruz/Huckabee ticket. (Send in the clowns)
TheCowsCameHome
(40,163 posts)My sides are already aching at the possibility of them in the Big Top.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)No Colbert or Stewart to report on their campaign?
Man from Pickens
(1,713 posts)and any Democrat with an ounce of independent thought vomited at the idea
Response to Man from Pickens (Reply #72)
Name removed Message auto-removed
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)She didn't do anything illegal. But I think what she did was stupid and irresponsible. If others have done it, they're stupid and irresponsible too.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)because the federal system sucked for my purposes. So did many others.
Were we "stupid and irresponsible?"
sendero
(28,552 posts)... supposed to be officially archived? If so then yes, you were stupid and irresponsible.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)It was incredibly slow, difficult to log on to remotely, did not work with mobile devices, and you couldn't attach any file larger than 1 MB to it (I think the limit is now 10 MB, still too low).
It made doing the job difficult to impossible at times.
If they want us to use a system it's got to fucking work, and not be the product of some shitty contractor who spends as little as possible in order to maximize profit.
... I applaud you for having the honesty to admit it.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)If the Democratic Party is all about making government work for people and have it be viable to do its job instead of tearing it down which is a REPUBLICAN notion, those Democrats in government with legislative roles are ceding power to the Republicans when they use private email instead of making it public that IT infrastructure should be fixed so that it does its job, so that there is no excuse for government personnel to not use publicly owned, controlled, and accountable systems to do their work on to be responsible and accountable government servants.
If we just say that there's no way to fix government systems to do the right thing and make it so that employees don't "have to use private email" to do their jobs, then we're taking the DINO and Republican approach to government of privatizing everything so that we can't provide proper scrutiny to those who are abusing and corrupting it.
Hillary Clinton was in the Senate with responsibilities to ensure legislatively that IT can function properly in its role to provide publicly accountable means for government employees to communicate with each other and the outside world. As a member of Obama's cabinet, rather than just use her own email surreptitiously instead of government provided infrastructure, she should have made it a documented concern in cabinet discussions with the Obama administration that government run IT infrastructure should be fixed to address any problems that might exist that she might have used as a rationale for using a private email solution.
If we allow this to continue, we're just enabling further corruption of our system, rather than fixing government to work properly and provide more incentive for decent politicians to be the ones that want to do their work properly to succeed and survive instead in their positions, and keep corrupt politicians from being able to carry out their agendas.
Just claiming that "she didn't do anything illegal" is like us saying that the NSA didn't do anything illegal based upon corrupt laws passed since the FISA court, etc. was set up to reform the system after a corrupt Nixon administration abused it to the point of failure as well. It's a copout and I would rather have a politician that wants to fix these problems instead of work around them in the way a corrupt Republican might want, even if she didn't have any corrupt intent in what she was doing.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)But the idea that we should just live with crappy, unresponsive, inadequate systems is kind of silly, IMO. I also used a private cell phone for a while, because the Gubmint wouldn't provide me with one, and I needed to be able to talk to co-workers while in the field.
So long as the records are available, this is a non-issue.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)Many emails that she doesn't want the public to see could have been deleted by now on her own private server, which she wouldn't have been able to do had they been publicly owned and run servers.
That is what had our governor Kitzhaber forced to resign. It was when he requested that certain emails be purged in the face of an investigation of his fiancee's activities that probably left many Democrats who would otherwise have supported him no choice but to recommend that he step down. If Hillary had her mails all on public servers and had tried to delete them like Kitzhaber did, instead of having privately run servers, where we DON'T KNOW if she's already had some emails purged that she doesn't want seen that is the big difference. If she had publicly owned servers and her emails were shown to be not a problem, then there would be no issue. There likely wouldn't even be any effort to try and get them made public, if Republicans had no meat in anything they might have found out trying to spy on her.
Now if she's concerned that there will be some partisan spying on her email content by Republicans or those with agendas counter to hers, even if what she's doing is proper, then she and other Democrats should be working to prevent that sort of spying and abuse, instead of trying to work around the system to hide from it and in so doing also hide from accountability, that the right wing will use (and likely is using) against her later. I'm willing to wait and see, like I was with Kitzhaber, before he ordered that mails be destroyed, but with Hillary, at this point I'm disappointed that she preferred to work around the system in a way that can be deemed improper instead of getting it fixed so that it couldn't be abused, if that's her rationale for working around it.
Response to Adrahil (Reply #58)
Name removed Message auto-removed
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)the issue of whether all this privatization of Government work, shouldn't be aboloshed.
I am not certain, but I believe Private Contractors were responsible for Congress' IT system and for the system Hillary would have been using.
So rather than focus on her, as she is probably not the only one to use their own email (I believe Jeb Bush did also and Colin Powell) how about focusing on the privatization of EVERYTHING in this country including the Privatization of our National Security Agencies, like the NSA.
IF we were to do that, make a huge deal of this, which escalated under Bush/Cheney, they might shut up about Hillary, (I am not a supporter of Hillary for the WH btw) and be kept busy trying to defend the system they have put in place.
Eg, if the National Security IT system was in the hands of the Government, rather than, as we found out during the Telecom debacle, foreign Corporations in some instances, I would think that American Govt workers would be far more concerned about our security.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... but I won't give her a break in not exercising leadership to fix the problem instead of taking a way out that promotes suspicion, and will be suspicion that the right wing will try to capitalize on too.
And I'm not excluding that she's doing bad things either, but I'm not going to go so far as saying that her using these external servers is proof that she has been doing bad things with this lack of scrutiny.
For someone that wants to be our president though, I would have liked to see someone taking LEADERSHIP in taking the time to have the email services fixed so that there will be no excuse for anyone who is saying they "can't use them" for whatever reason. That way, we put decent politicians above suspicion, and provide less reasons for those that aren't good politicians to find a way to hide stuff here.
sammythecat
(3,568 posts)and totally understand your frustration with it. It reminds me of an NFL player on my favorite team who got suspended for an entire season because he smoked some marijuana and failed his drug test. Totally ridiculous. You can smoke some Saturday night and fail a test weeks later and suffer severe consequences. Be hungover on gameday; no test for booze, no penalty. Absurd. The rule needs changed.
However, until the rule IS changed players need to abstain from marijuana if they want to play in the NFL. Simple as that. There is no argument. Same with Hillary's emails. She was required to use the government system and she decided not to. It just doesn't work that way. No matter how good your reasons, no matter how absurd the rule, until the rule is changed you MUST abide by the rules of the workplace. That's really all there is to it. There is no excuse to break the rules and go your own way. No employer puts up with that.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)I don;t wanna split hairs, but I will.
It was the same with cell phones when I was a Fed.
We were "discouraged" from using personal cell phones for official business. It was "policy" to conduct official business using only Government resources. But since the Government wouldn't issue cell phones at the time (this was the late '90's, and getting one issued was a big deal), many of us used personal cell phones, since not doing so hampered our work. Not that it was POLICY. It was not illegal.
The same was true of accessing email remotely. The government system could not be accessed except on the internal network, or through the use of special fixed IP modems (that were limited in number, and didn't work well). So we used personal email instead. If we really needed some info distributed on the Government network, we'd have a guy back at the office echo the info.
Now this was 15 years ago. I assume things were better in 2009-2013, but from my continued experience with Government employees (whom I work with daily), there are still major issues. I can't tell you how many times I've been told, "Oh, the attachment got stripped because it was too big," "the file was filtered because the it contained filtered words," or my personal favorite, "your email arrived 4 hours after you sent it."
That's happening in 2015.
sammythecat
(3,568 posts)that the federal system may very well suck horribly, just like that NFL rule that cost a player an entire year. Absurd.
But the player knew the rule and broke it. No matter how stupid or anachronistic the rule is it just doesn't matter and the player would have zero argument in any kind of court. I "thought" this was the case with Hillary. Now you ask if the rule was required or just policy(which I'll take as "suggested" . I have to confess I don't know the answer. I should, but I don't. If it was required, as I thought it was, then I'll stand by what I said. If it was just customary, or just expected, then I take everything I said back and defend Hillary. If she broke no rule, then this whole thing is just another horrible, lying, reprehensible attack by republicans which is completely in character for them.
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)Adrahil
(13,340 posts)HappyMe
(20,277 posts)I never used my personal account for work.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)I guess I could have done some sort of "I can't do my job because the system won't let me," but I decided to "adapt and overcome" instead. I happen to think the latter is better than the former.... ESPECIALLY in Presidential candidate, so long as all her emails are now available.
If they were mysteriously "lost" I might see how some of the suspicion is justified. As it is, I think opinions here are driven by the fact that some here want to defeat Hillary no matter what. This won't do it.
But it is amusing to see the anti-Hillary crowd... both the righties, and the anti-Hillary forces here, united in their positions.
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)Hillary will defeat herself.
She knew she wanted to run. Rather than dealing with the system as it is, she did this. She played right into republican hands. As far as some being lost - how the hell would we ever know.
As far as anti-Hillary here - meh. People are entitled to their opinion.
I wonder how she would have done that, change the entire federal email system as Sec. of State. Or how she would have restructured the entire network to suit the sensibilities of those who don't understand a lot about gov't. networks that are significantly different than what the average citizen, including many IT folks, so that this whole ruse could have been avoided.
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)I was talking to the other poster about their situation.
She should have used the system. Period.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Work can't just stop in the mean time.
And it's not like government servers don't lose data all the time.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)private email instead of federal, State Dept. email sucks, etc. As if you are anywhere near the same universe that Hillary Clinton operated in. Whatever piddly shit you get away with at your desk in your cubicle is neither here nor there.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)No. I wasn't near what Hillary Clinton was. But I don't see your point.
Are you saying that peons just don't matter?
Maybe not. But often, I was in a situation where hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars were on the line. Maybe not SoS level, but I considered it a big responsibility.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)State Dept. or other federal system with computers or email has any bearing on this situation.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)It matters because people will tend to do what works best for them. And in fact, in my experience that's MORE true as you go up the chain of command.
Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #24)
Name removed Message auto-removed
brush
(53,475 posts)and you aren't a Clinton who should know wa-a-a-a-y better (as much as the repugs scrutinize that family) than to give them that kind of red meat to pounce on.
The head of the BENGHAZI, BENGHAZI, BENGHAZI committee has already subpoenaed her emails.
They'll be milking this all the way through the campaign season, as will FOX and Limpbutt and all the rest. They're gonna cherry pick those emails and whatever they can make hay over they will dribble out piece by piece and keep it in the news for the next year and a half so the negatives on Hillary will build. And those negatives don't just influence the repug base, independents and some dems fall for it as well.
Have a private email account for personal messages okay, but as Sec. of State she should've used her State Department account primarily, especially if she had an eye on running for president.
dissentient
(861 posts)How much ammo does the GOP need, Hillary is providing them with shells already.
Not to mention, how could she have done this right in the midst of the Bush email scandal, which was a big story at the time.
justhanginon
(3,287 posts)"Billions and billions"
fredamae
(4,458 posts)but I Do encourage those who do--to Wait for Credible and Factual evidence before bailing on her. Take a moment and reflect upon the people who are trying to make this "nothingness" to a Big Mountain of crap and what they themselves could be guilty of and just not caught yet...
At this juncture, there is only speculation that has taken on a "non-factual" life of it's own sans any proof of crime.
Hang in there-watch this...and remember...those who are Trying to find the "magic bullet" to ruin her chances are "making shit up"...at least, imo...and at this juncture.
If any of us are going to reject HRC...please keep it real and based upon facts. You'll Never get that from MSM.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)is replete with wisdom. This 'email-gate' scandal carries the whiff of a manufactured outrage du jour. HRC's faux pas pales in comparison to the Walker administration's corruption, about which the MSM says absolutely nothing! If I've been reading correctly, HRC did not even violate the regulations that governed email while she was SoS. It just seems like a lot of noise and dust thrown up to distract people from issues and policies. You know, the stuff that really matters. In fact, seeing the cheap shots directed in Ms. Clinton's direction makes me more inclined to support her, not less, probably out a sense of wishing to see her treated fairly and resentment that she's having to respond to this total B.S.
War Horse
(931 posts)TM99
(8,352 posts)to know that while she did nothing 'illegal' as of yet, she most certainly acted with intention to avoid government sanctioned and monitored systems. She did not simply use her Gmail account, she had a damned email server with her own fucking domain setup in her home!
That is unethical, inappropriate, and is replete with potential negative consequences from the very difficult questions that now must be asked. Who managed this server? Did they archive all emails? Were all of these emails turned over as they are legally required for archiving? Were emails deleted? Was this server ever hacked or in any other way compromised? Who else had access to the server and its administrator password?
Now let's discuss the political ramifications. Hilary Clinton unfortunately has a bit of history with 'expedient' lies. Two huge ones were being under fire in Bosnia(she wasn't & had to admit it) and that her daughter Chelsea was jogging near the Trade centers on 9/11 (she wasn't & had to admit it).
Now this? Do we believe her? Do we trust her? Yes, the Republicans will use this to fight her, and they should. It is a damned good political strategy and she sets herself up for this shit. And now Democrats are rallying to her defense in predictable "party before personality style".
Weiner was pilloried for his unethical yet not illegal behaviors. Edwards was disgraced because of inappropriate, unethical, and illegal actions. Has Hillary violated any laws? We don't fully know yet, and it may take months to find out. But she is unfortunately the front runner in the primary season that has not even started, and she already has a scandal brewing around what is assuredly unethical and highly inappropriate behaviors. This does not bode well for 2016, and I am surprised more here do not think that far ahead when looking at this situation objectively with the current facts.
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)I just don't like her.
mylye2222
(2,992 posts)blm
(112,920 posts)the pretense that what she did is unprecedented, when apparently, it is NOT, and, also that the same characters who saw nothing amiss in the wholesale destruction of MILLIONS of WH emails during the Bush years, are now appalled that HRC has only turned over 55,000 pages of her State Dept. emails.
Fournier is a wellknown Bushie, and now he's being viewed at DU as a truth teller? Were any of you reading his cr@p from the NYT, especially his constant protection of Bush WH during the 2004 election?
mylye2222
(2,992 posts)Anyway I cant help but Im not sad to see her in troublein some way, and not only by personal dislike of her and her politics After all both Clintons also were Bush protectors...
So maybe the scandal is just a show to get her pass for a "better liberal " Yes it was not the first time private mailboxes were used. But on some way that story shows how much Dems need a REAL primary....not something already set up.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)including, if that turns out true, to involve a server in her residence.
The post-mortem on this cabbage peels things back in unusual ways, imo, and leaves way too much room for speculation of people for chinks to plunge daggers into.
The problem of government/public sector IT technology lagging behind improvements is decades old and very well known. Its a problem for many institutions who discount spending money on "clerical" items.
If crumby equipment/software impeded the Sec from doing her job, and she wanted to fix that with private equipment or service at her own cost, that's not a problem, per se, I know many people do this at their jobs particularly in higher education.
But she didn't have a job with the same security concerns and archiving requirements like the people I know in higher ed...
This problem wouldn't exist "if only" she had gotten a Cover-Your-Ass memo authorizing the private system to be created and used for her job including things like criteria for security, back-up archiving etc. Indeed, she could argue, from a strong position, that she donated her own money to make herself more effective in her job and that system probably did do that, among, unfortunately other tin-foil possibilities.
I know that's an 'if only'. But now we are going to waste money, time, and credibility trying to prove to people who don't want to believe that she has turned over everything that meets the definition of a federal record.
TheCowsCameHome
(40,163 posts)Look carefully for code words when he emails are released.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)It's unclear however if and what she might have shared with T.H.R.U.S.H. and S.P.E.C.T.O.R.
TheCowsCameHome
(40,163 posts)Now I'm really worried.
Hekate
(90,202 posts)I'm very concerned that she didn't abide by rules that were not in place until after she left office, and especially concerned that she scoffed at rules that SOS Powell likewise failed to heed. That didn't exist then.
The significance of all of this concerns me. That is all.
still_one
(91,965 posts)Congress, and governmental office be investigated if they have ever have or currently using any personal email using non-government email services. If we do this right, we could prolong this until the next election, and these government officials can proudly tell their grandchildren exactly what they accomplished and who they helped when they worked for the government
2naSalit
(86,061 posts)still_one
(91,965 posts)2naSalit
(86,061 posts)besides, I'm going to need a job next fall so I could be recruited to work on this project! Think of the JOBS it would create! Most would be temporary but such a project should require ongoing monitoring for all incoming office-holders and, therefore, several permanent positions thereafter.
blm
(112,920 posts).
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)They're out in force, aren't they? That can only mean that Hillary is pretty strong even in the Republican internal polling.
randome
(34,845 posts)Maybe you should try reading more than one article on the subject.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font][hr]
kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)I see what you did there.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)Never on the Hillary bandwagon, of course.
B2G
(9,766 posts)Jim Webb.
I. Do. Not. Want. Hillary.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)B2G
(9,766 posts)And I don't understand the arrows being slung at people who don't want Hillary as the nominee.
I mean, would I vote for her if she was? Yes. Would I be happy about it. No.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Here is a hug.
Autumn
(44,762 posts)Orsino
(37,428 posts)Plenty of time for Clinton to woo support once she officially begins campaigning.
Sarcastica
(95 posts)Clinton Foundation Fundraiser that was held last night. According to internet news reports, the headliner was Carole King. Carole King for Cryin' Out Loud!!! What the hell has that dried up old hag done since "Tapestry" in the early 70's. How can anyone consider voting for someone who pals around with has been musicians.
On the other hand, rumor has it that Sen. Elizabeth Warren sat in on an Avett Brothers session and plays the the jug and washboard on a cut of "Tom Dooley". Further, a YouTube clip recently uploaded on the net shows Sen. Bernie Sanders doing a live, on stage cameo with Beck, and when Sanders rips off his shirt, he exposes his nipple rings!!!!
Sure, that Clinton e-mail thing is probably bad, but I make voting decisions based on more substantive matters.
Jamastiene
(38,187 posts)Geez, who pissed in your cornflakes?
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]
Sarcastica
(95 posts)leader of the free world, give me someone who doesn't need three Aleves to make it through the show.
Skittles
(152,966 posts)Carole King has aged very gracefully, I think
Annoying_Ashley
(25 posts)Pretend to just have left the "bandwagon" after every major Hillary news.
MosheFeingold
(3,051 posts)But we may have no other choice, unless a certain Senator from MA steps up.
I don't care for any members of the Uniparty -- Bush, Clinton being the two sides of the same coin, with just enough difference to get us to hold our nose and vote.
I am very tired of voting for the lesser of the two evils.
Hekate
(90,202 posts)"I don't care for any members of the Uniparty -- Bush, Clinton being the two sides of the same coin"
MosheFeingold
(3,051 posts)And, yes, given the choice between Hillary or Jeb, I'd vote Hillary.
But, again, she is the lesser of two evils. But still pretty crappy.
The Clintons are out for themselves first and foremost. Don't kid yourself.
Warren needs to run.
Hekate
(90,202 posts)Sorry, Mo, but that simply does not fly.
And Warren is not running. Come up with someone else, preferably with a D after their name and not an I.
MosheFeingold
(3,051 posts)She's just so damn fake.
Hekate
(90,202 posts)... someone who can fake sincerity, try a Republican or attend a beauty pageant.
libodem
(19,288 posts)So tiresome.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)jeebus.
Time for a heavy dose of perspective: http://thedailyshow.cc.com/full-episodes/fbpacs/march-4--2015---viacheslav-fetisov
Watch the first segment.
Take a deep breath. There are excellent reasons to not like Hillary. This isn't one.
wyldwolf
(43,865 posts)Jamastiene
(38,187 posts)She's trying to fix it, I think.
What depresses me the most about the Democratic Party is party leadership bending over backwards to appease Republicans. In order for us to get anything done, we have to have a supermajority but Republicans can get everything they want because so many conservative Dems jump ship and vote with them. It's not that the two parties are the same. It is that we have enough of a portion of our party who really seem like they would rather be with the Republican Party. They swing important votes to the Republicans too much.
This email thing? It'll blow over before the primaries actually begin. I know the Republicans will try to use it, but if Hillary hires the right people, they can frame the debate and neutralize that tactic. The Republicans have used that tactic for decades now. It looks like that would be priority #2 in the Democratic Party, find people who will frame the debate better. Priority #1 should be listen the left. Those two things, alone, would bring in enough disaffected voters who normally don't vote at all to change at least some outcomes of some elections. It might just be enough to turn the tide back away from the rightward trend.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,110 posts)LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)China, North Korea and Russia have sophisticated armies of hackers. Then you have the smaller groups with some hacking capabilities. Some are relatively harmless, like Anon. Some are very harmful, like Al Qaida.
She set up an email system in her fricking basement. No way in hell was that secure. Half the world's spies could have been reading her email and/or selling the info to our enemies.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)Otherwise, she should get at least a misdemeanor and two years' probation like Petraeus. Doubtful she is that stupid. However, as SoS, what ISN'T considered "sensitive"? Everything she had on there would have to be so completely innocuous in order to avoid any true hacking consequences.
mmonk
(52,589 posts)brooklynite
(93,873 posts)Why does she believe the rules don't apply to her??????
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)City Lights
(25,171 posts)Hekate
(90,202 posts)And "-gate"? This is Nixonian? Good thing the fake-Benghazi committee has never been disbanded. They are hot on the job addressing your concerns.
That strained credulity from the start.
You got that right!
B Calm
(28,762 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)... the extremely poor judgment HRC and her staff exercised in this, "illegal" or not, with regards to this, IMNSHO, disqualify her for any public office, let alone the most powerful one on the planet. I for one, have been beyond tired of having to defend the drama that seems to follow the Clintons in all they do. Add in HRC's support for a multitude of things that HURT working people and embrace corporatism, the fucking rotten corrupt banksters, and the MIC, and it's a no-brainer for me.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)After everything Clinton has done and said over time, THIS is what gets you 'off' her bandwagon?
I really expect very little to come of this electorally, so I think you're in a tiny minority.
And, btw, no one politician is 'The Democratic Party'. You can be 'off' Hillary while supporting a number of other great Dems.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)but I have never been on the Hillary bandwagon, and odds are I won't ever be there.
I will vote for our nominee, but (odds are) I won't vote for her to be our nominee.
Response to Harmony Blue (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Rex
(65,616 posts)There will be a primary. HRC doesn't have the WH seat tied up by any means. Sure she is polling way above her GOP opponents, but they are all village idiots so that is to be expected.