O'Malley is right about this: "Clinton email controversy threatens to define Democratic Party"

[99th_Monkey]

O’Malley: Clinton email controversy threatens to define Democratic Party
By Jonathan Easley * September 27, 2015 * The Hill

Martin O’Malley said Sunday that “legitimate questions” remain about fellow 2016 Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email account and server from her time as secretary of State, and warned that the issue threatens to define the Democratic Party.

“I believe that there are a lot of legitimate questions still to be answered about this particular controversy – the email, the email server, the FBI investigation and the like,” O’Malley said on CNN’s "State of the Union.”

O’Malley has been fighting for the party to expand the debate schedule beyond the six that are currently on the docket.
He argued Sunday that more debates are necessary, particularly in light of Clinton’s email controversy, because the issue threatens to swallow the race for the Democratic nomination.

“It’s so important that as Democrats we start having debates about other issues as well,” O’Malley said. “I’m not saying there aren’t legitimate questions to be answered here by Secretary Clinton, but for our part as a party, we need to talk about the things that will actually get wages to go up rather than down, that people care about around their kitchen tables…that’s why we need to have debates.”

“Otherwise, our party is being defined by Hillary Clinton’s email scandal, and it’s not good for our country,” he added.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/255094-omalley-clinton-email-controversy-threatens-to-define

[TM99]

1. O'Malley is dead to rights on this one.

With no debates still for almost 3 weeks and the daily drip drip drip of the Clinton email scandal, the only thing that is said the MSM about the Democratic Party is Clinton and the way this scandal is dropping her in the polls.

[Motown_Johnny]

3. But when our party rejects her and Bernie is our nominee

it will reflect well on the party..... right?


Hope springs eternal.

[RBInMaine]

10. Email scandal? It is corporate media BULLSHIT.

[TM99]

11. The email issues are real.

The media may be running with it and the GOP is taking it to 'bullshit' conclusions, but Hillary Clinton brought this on herself with her actions.

But hey everyone else but her, that's what she is doing.

[elleng]

2. 'we need to talk about the things that will actually get wages to go up rather than down,

that people care about around their kitchen tables…that’s why we need to have debates.”'

[artislife]

5. Yup nt

[99th_Monkey]

18. Ditto nt

[jeff47]

4. Wait, "drip..drip..drip" isn't the best way to handle something?!?!

What a surprise.

I'm sure the candidate that interrupted the shitstorm over the Iran letter to remind everyone about her email server is totally handling the situation well.

[roguevalley]

6. O'Malley is doing a lot of good out there. I hope he keeps it up.

[elleng]

7. Looks like he's going to keep it up, roguevalley:

O'Malley, supporters confident in retail approach.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12813503

I'm glad you appreciate his effort!

[roguevalley]

23. I do, elleng. Anything that smacks of integrity is my thing. :D

[Maedhros]

29. I would love to see a tight race between Sanders and O'Malley,

in which they talk issues instead of image.

That would be a primary! Instead we're bludgeoned with Hillary's vapid posturing.

[delrem]

40. They're going to stonewall it. Wait it out.

Hillary's campaign, in tandem with DWS and the Dem establishment, has decided it.

What I mean is, it's now October. We can't recoup time lost. That's time that these fuckers have won.
They'll keep on winning, too, because the Dem party has ceded them total control.

[eridani]

8. Only if we let it. More debates could cover many other issues n/t

[RBInMaine]

9. This just gave me EVERY reason NOT to vote for O'Malley. This email bullshit is manufactured

NONSENSE by the corporate media. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. Shame on O'Malley.

[RiverLover]

15. Er, no....HRC spin is what is manufactured. FactCheck.org~

Hillary Clinton directly addressed questions in recent interviews about her exclusive use of a personal email account and server to conduct government business as secretary of state. But her answers only reveal part of the story:

*Clinton said her personal email account was “allowed by the State Department.” It was permitted if work emails were preserved. Federal rules required Clinton to preserve work emails before she left office, but she did not turn over her emails until 21 months after she left office.

*Clinton said “turning over my server” to the government shows “I have been as transparent as I could” about her emails. But she did so in August after the FBI opened an investigation. In March, she rejected calls to turn over the server to a neutral party, saying “the server will remain private.”

*Clinton said “everybody in government with whom I emailed knew that I was using a personal email.” But that ignores those — including President Obama — who did not know that she used it exclusively for government business.

.....very large Snip...

The Clinton campaign told us there was no point in turning over the server earlier because there were no longer emails on it and the State Department had printed copies of all the work-related emails. The FBI security review is different, it said, because the review is a security issue. The campaign referred us to a Sept. 3 Bloomberg News story that said the FBI is examining the server for signs of security breaches.

There is a difference, but she cannot delete emails, refuse to allow her server to be examined by an independent third party, and then accurately claim she is being “as transparent as I could.”......

Read MUCH more at http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/FactCheck_More_spin_on_Hillary_Clintons_emails.html#UlgcXXUcAJ2wljMv.99

[delrem]

41. I wonder whether such a cold appraisal of the actual facts is even understood,

by Hillary's supporters?
I wonder if they are capable of processing information that isn't pre-spun by correct the record, David Brock, and the machine?

I tell you, it's weird politics. Denial of fact. Of history.
Invention of some puff-ball history where Hillary has shone w.r.t. cutting edge social issues, where she has "evolved" to actually be a "leader" now. Where she can sternly rebuke Xi Jinping and win acclaim in the MSM. So fuckin' EASY, while not having to do a bloody thing.

Where discussion of her term as SOS is verboten, because it's indelibly linked to PNAC and to the worst war mongers and war profiteers in recent history, and to the existing ME hellscape. Where discussion of her take home pay (and her husband's), in the hundreds of millions of $ for nothing more than rubber chicken dinner speeches to groups who profit from buying politicians, is verboten. Where discussion of past scandals and mindfucks w.r.t. her husband's administration, from actual policy betrayals happening in a rat-a-tat manner to "can't keep the fuckin' zipper up" crap, is all verboten. To be forgotten, to go down the memory hole.

What a weird campaign. What a weird primary,

[elleng]

19. Seems like you missed this part of what he said:

'for our part as a party, we need to talk about the things that will actually get wages to go up rather than down, that people care about around their kitchen tables…that’s why we need to have debates.”'

[RufusTFirefly]

30. Yup. Speculation on Hillary's e-mail is filling the vacuum left by so few debates

The important issues need to take center stage. And the best way to do this is with more debates.

[elleng]

32. Right, 'we,' and the msm, have nothing else to fill our time with,

unlike the olden days when we used to READ stuff!!! Imagine what Abraham Lincoln would think about us today!

[840high]

33. You are so wrong.

[Cheese Sandwich]

12. O'Malley is right. Legitimate questions remain.

All the legitimate questions should be answered.

[Uncle Joe]

13. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, 99th_Monkey.

[bigtree]

14. I disagree

...O'Malley likely senses some sort of political fallout from the email nonsense which will advantage his campaign; at the very least, he doesn't want to be in a position of an apologist or defender of Clinton if there's any chance this issue will be important to voters.

I've seen the polls, but it's hard for me to believe that most Americans give two shits about the email story, outside of some concern for responsible government operations; not something disqualifying or eclipsing other important issues which actually affect voters. That's what O'Malley is ultimately pushing for - more focus on issues which he believes should or will define the candidates and provide choices for voters in this election.

The more people blather on and on about the emails, the less I believe they actually care about the issues which are critical to our survival and well-being. You want to play political games? Go long and hard on the email stories. You want to make a difference in average people's lives? Start talking about the issues and initiatives that will make that difference.

[99th_Monkey]

17. I partly agree with you bigtree. I don't really care about the email thing.

I took O'Malley's meaning to be more about how this issue -- for whatever reasons, media obsession, the way Hills has handled it, etc. -- is becoming a huge distraction from real issues.

I've never personally been too concerned about it, and have said so numerous times on DU.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=586478

However, I do feel that it's become a HUGE distraction from issues voters reallyDO care about. These are two distinct "concerns" i.e. if the email thing means Hillary was in the wrong v. if the email thing is serving to distract from other truly important issues. I don't have the first one, but do have the second one.

Additionally, the more this thing drags on and on, it can have a cumulative corrosive effect on voters general impression of the Democratic Party (the party of "scandal&quot and as Hills recently admitted, the issues isn't going to go away any time soon. So it could really hurt Dems in the GE.

[elleng]

20. Exactly, Monkey, and some here, on this thread at least, are missing his point.

[apnu]

16. I think the Emails are only a distraction to people who watch politics like they're sports.

Mainly us and some Republicans.

The average American voter, regardless of political leaning, doesn't give a hoot about the Emails. They don't understand it and they have other, more pressing issues they are worried about.

The email scandal is simply political hay. Its bad, sure, it shows how leaky of a boat our government is, but the average voter isn't concerned with it.

They're concerned with jobs, health, and local security. That's it.

[restorefreedom]

21. if there were no legitimate questions,

I suppose it wouldn't be under investigation by federal agencies .....It may turn out to be a big pile of nothing, but in the meantime, it gives the Republicans a lot to talk about, while we continue to fail to get our messages out on a national stage because of Debbie's blinding and undemocratic loyalty to a losing candidate.

[Cheese Sandwich]

22. This is the best explanation of the issue that I've seen

[RufusTFirefly]

31. +1,000. Really, really good. Level-headed and comprehensive

Everyone should check out this summary. (Unfortunately, I fear the people who need to watch it most won't.)

Thanks so much for posting, Cheese Sandwich!

[99th_Monkey]

36. All I can say to this is

yep.

Thanks Cheese Sandwich. She speaks my mind.

[delrem]

42. That was really well said. I recommend people listen to all of it.

I'm so happy that people like her are out there who can put it together like that, showcasing an important issue by connecting the dots, some essential elements -- explaining it and not sensationalizing it.

[Cheese Sandwich]

46. Me too

Cuts through the noise of the TV news a little bit.

[TumbleAndJumble]

24. To me, this is the height of disloyalty to any Democratic candidate, using a fake Republican and

conservative think tank talking point scandal lie to attack a Democratic candidate.

I also see this as only more evidence Marshmallow O'Malley is a disruption candidate only and used to make the Democratic look like silly air head liberals, and right now to promote conservative Republican talking point fake scandals.

[elleng]

25. Not too informed, are you?

Martin O'Malley:

1. Ended death penalty in Maryland
2. Prevented fracking in Maryland and put regulations in the way to prevent next GOP Gov Hogan fom easily allowing fracking.
3. Provided health insurance for 380,000
4. Reduced infant mortality to an all time low.
5. Provided meals to thousands of hungry children and moved toward a goal for eradicating childhood hunger.
6. Enacted a $10.10 living wage and a $11. minimum wage for State workers.
7. Supporter the Dream Act
8. Cut income taxes for 86% of Marylanders (raised taxes on the rich).
9. Reformed Maryland’s tax code to make it more progressive.
10. Enacted some of the nation’s most comprehensive reforms to protect homeowners from foreclosure.

Mother Jones magazine called him the best candidate on environmental issues.
Article here:
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/12/martin-omalley-longshot-presidential-candidate-and-real-climate-hawk

“'It’s so important that as Democrats we start having debates about other issues as well,” O’Malley said. “I’m not saying there aren’t legitimate questions to be answered here by Secretary Clinton, but for our part as a party, we need to talk about the things that will actually get wages to go up rather than down, that people care about around their kitchen tables…that’s why we need to have debates.”

“Otherwise, our party is being defined by Hillary Clinton’s email scandal, and it’s not good for our country,” he added.'

[99th_Monkey]

26. Exactly how is it, that EVERY inconvenient set of facts that come to light about Clinton

are ALWAYS "just RW talking points", so should be completely ignored, factual or not,
all "for the good of the Party", of course. Give me a break.

And since when is The Hill a "RW think tank"?

BTW - I've never given much credence to the email 'scandal' but I DO care about this aspect
of it: i.e. how the cumulative drip, drip, drip (along with the fact that the M$M pretty much
ignores Bernie Sanders and the real issues), is BRANDING the Democratic Party as the
'party of corruption', which couldn't be further from the truth; esp. compared to the GOP
pack of entitled criminals.

But this branding IS taking place, and needs to be short-circuited if possible.

[RufusTFirefly]

27. David Brock? Is that you?

I think O'Malley makes some excellent points, so I guess that makes him a right-wing nut. And me, too. (Although I also get accused of being a "far leftist." Whatever suits the occasion, I guess.)

[MisterP]

37. yeah, y'all said Libyan unrest in 2012 was "a fake Republican and conservative think tank talking

point scandal lie" and in 2013 doubts about Syria were "a fake Republican and conservative think tank talking point scandal lie"

yap yap yap

the whole "the Democrats' left is putty in the GOP's hands" thing got old when the Dems kept scratching the Pubs' backs while both of them sat on ours: this isn't 2002 any more, nobody's falling for that

[Evergreen Emerald]

28. He is not right, he is using the RW talking points to get ahead in the polls

I have no respect for him. Instead of calling the BS attacks for what they are, he joins in.

He is allowing the republicans to define the democratic party. The lies, BS, RW attacks are not good for the country. But, instead he blames Clinton?

[840high]

34. Clinton is responsible for the

drip-drip.

[Evergreen Emerald]

45. No

The republicans are responsible for the drip drip. The media is responsible for assisting rather than doing actual news. The dems who join in are responsible for sleeping with the enemy. The electorate is responsible for the lazy ass willingness to believe what they are told if they hear it enough.

[Aerows]

39. The fact that we still have 2 weeks

to go before we even have a debate is the real problem. We all know what our party platforms are, and where the candidates stand on most things, but the vast majority of Americans do not.

[delrem]

43. Those fuckers don't give a shit about that.

They have a purely mechanical strategy, built on the notion that the candidate that can overwhelm with $$, wins.

They don't want some fucking debate!

At least up to now, on their schedule, they don't.
Now get back into line, peasant.

[Aerows]

44. "Now get back into line, peasant"

LOL! That does seem to be the attitude of DWS and the DLC.

[WillyT]

35. K & R !!!

[Aerows]

38. So true

that's why it is so ridiculous that we haven't had any debates yet, and we still have 2 weeks before the first one.

Epic fail by DWS and the DLC.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

47. We have turned a corner

The man set to take the job as the top Republican in the House just made a crucial admission about the true nature of the wild goose-chase known as the House Select Committee on Benghazi — its aim is to take down Hillary Clinton.








While the revelation may come as no surprise, its source should. Outgoing House Speaker John Boehner recently warned his party of “false prophets” and after Fox News’ Sean Hannity worried he’d been wrongly labeled as such, he somehow elicited a confession from Boehner’s would-be successor that is heresy to right-wing orthodoxy on Benghazi.

“Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right?” House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy offered as “one example” of a Republican win in Congress. “But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today?” the California Republican asked. “Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she’s untrustable.”


http://www.salon.com/2015/09/30/kevin_mccarthy_lets_gops_benghazi_mask_slip_its_all_about_derailing_hillary/