Clinton supporters: what, if anything, would convince you she should voluntarily withdraw?

[Lemur866]

@foolsguinea

Bernie? We’re not talking about Bernie. Bernie lost, and endorsed Clinton. That does not make Clinton a viable general election candidate.

It does if her opponent is Donald Trump.

If you think there was a better candidate for the Democratic nominee, who should it have been? It’s not enough to say “not Hillary”, you have to actually put up an actual human being, who would also have to deal with the Rovian smear machine.

The good thing about Hillary is that she’s been under attack by the vast right-wing conspiracy for the last 20 years, and so it doesn’t matter what “scandal” comes up, it’s all more of the same. She’s pre-disastered.

Yeah, I wish I could vote for another 4 years of Obama rather than Hillary. But that isn’t happening. Yeah, I wish there was another experienced centrist with an impeccable reputation who had the Democratic nomination. This person does not exist. Yeah, and I wish I had the same option on the Republican side. Instead I’ve got Trump. And if it wasn’t Trump, it would have been Cruz, or Rubio, or Jeb Bush.

If you think Trump is easily going to win over Hillary, you’re fucking delusional. Sure, it could happen. But if you think people hate Hillary, have you met Trump? Trump’s negatives are huuuge, bigger than any other candidate you’ve ever seen, believe me. And if you think Rubio or Cruz would be mopping the floor with Hillary, well, those guy’s couldn’t beat Trump, so how are they supposed to crush Hillary?

Hillary is winning the race. If you think she should quit and put another candidate in her place, name the candidate. If you can’t name the candidate she should endorse after withdrawing, then what exactly are you going on about?

Yeah, you hate Hillary. We get that. That’s different than saying she’s sure to lose.

[Ravenman]

@foolsguinea

That does not make Clinton a viable general election candidate.

The viability of Clinton as a presidential candidate in the general election is better gauged by opinion polls of how many Americans intend to vote for her; as opposed to her favorability ratings or even your personal opinion of her.

[Buck_Godot]

There are actions she could have taken relative to her current “scandals” that would in my opinion disqualify her, but they are pretty far fetched.

-If she was actually directly involved in murdering Vince Foster
-If she orchestrated the attacks on the Benghazi embassy.
-If she knowingly gave classified documents to foreign enemy power.

@foolsguinea

Bernie? We’re not talking about Bernie. Bernie lost, and endorsed Clinton. That does not make Clinton a viable general election candidate.

Ok, then.

**Hillary won, friend. **
Polls seem to indicate that she will be our next president, and so is a viable candidate. Get over it.

[DrDeth]

@Lemur866

If you think there was a better candidate for the Democratic nominee, who should it have been? It’s not enough to say “not Hillary”, you have to actually put up an actual human being, who would also have to deal with the Rovian smear machine.

The good thing about Hillary is that she’s been under attack by the vast right-wing conspiracy for the last 20 years, and so it doesn’t matter what “scandal” comes up, it’s all more of the same. She’s pre-disastered.

Yes. They have tried* everything and only one thing stuck a little (yeah, she screwed up on the email thing. If she had been a Civil Servant she would have been reprimanded*. meh.)

Think of the ammo they have stored up for Bernie. I shudder to think.

[ElvisL1ves]

@foolsguinea

Bernie? We’re not talking about Bernie. Bernie lost, and endorsed Clinton. That does not make Clinton a viable general election candidate.

Then you must have somebody else in mind, right? Who?

Either Clinton or Trump is *going *to win this election. If Clinton is “nonviable”, then you’re telling us it’s going to be Trump. Unless somehow this mysterious not-Bernie you’re hoping for emerges from the mists …

[Chihuahua]

Winning the party’s nomination is pretty much the definition of a “viable candidate.”

Also, I’d like to point out that all of the criticism and “scandals” have been the product of a party which believes you can illegally sell missiles to Iran and still be the greatest president of our age.

[GIGObuster]

@foolsguinea

Bernie? We’re not talking about Bernie. Bernie lost, and endorsed Clinton. That does not make Clinton a viable general election candidate.

What Digby said:

Friday Night Soother - Digby's Hullabaloo

Reality check: Clinton is a mainstream Democratic politician and not particularly dishonest or corrupt by mainstream politician standards. Compared to Trump she is a saint. He is literally a conman. She is smart, experienced and knowledgeable and he is … not. She’s also imperfect and will probably screw up in ways that will make us very unhappy. They all do, some more than others and she may end up being one of the bad ones. But she is not a mentally unbalanced, nationalist, authoritarian demagogue.

Just saying.

[elbows]

Republicans have turned themselves into The Boys Who Cried Wolf, no one can hear them any more, because of the non stop, shrill, disingenuous, creating of mountains out of molehills. It didn’t work with Obama, and it’s not going to work this time.

I suspect rather spectacularly. Maybe they’ll catch on this time.

[Little_Nemo]

@DrDeth

Think of the ammo they have stored up for Bernie. I shudder to think.

Now that he’s withdrawn, let’s admit it: Sanders was vulnerable on race. That’s where the Republicans would have targeted him.

[Chronos]

Clinton wasn’t my first choice, either. But she won, fair and square, and there is no plausible circumstance or event under which she should step down.

[Procrustus]

@Chihuahua

Also, I’d like to point out that all of the criticism and “scandals” have been the product of a party which believes you can illegally sell missiles to Iran and still be the greatest president of our age.

And lie about it. And then confess to lying about it, but say you still don’t believe you lied.

[asahi]

@astroidea

To suggest that Clinton’s smears is anywhere comparable to Obama is disingenuous if not seriously delusional. The only people who called Obama a communist, fascist dictator might’ve been right wing extremist news hosts with the likes of Rush Limbaugh.

Clinton, on the other hand, has the director of the FBI calling her extremely careless with top secret classified information. :rolleyes:

Like many members of the Bush administration were. Not to mention lying about Saddam having nukes and terrorist connections. Democrats let that one go, even though they probably could have had Dick Cheney, Condy Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, and George Tenet locked up for life if they’d wanted to.

Next.

[asahi]

@Procrustus

And lie about it. And then confess to lying about it, but say you still don’t believe you lied.

Sperm on a dress > Selling missiles to terrorists.

In Republican world.

[sleestak]

@elbows

The very same people who were able to see past the “born in Kenya, he’s a Muslim, his pastor is a radical, it’s socialism (ACA), etc, etc”, on endlessly, will also see past the current generated scandals, I’m confident. To ignore that obvious reality is an error on the Rep side, in my opinion.

She’s seems like clearly THE most qualified candidate ever to aspire to the job to most Dems. And they are mature enough to comprehend that so much experience comes with errors, missteps, and well, history. Such is the nature of the beast.

post snipped

Hillary, and Bill, certainly learn from their ‘missteps’. What they learn is that when they get caught doing unethical and shady shit is that, after bunch of drama, they get away with it.

A rational and ethical person who, having done some of the stupid shit that the Clintons have pulled over the years would stop and think “Hey, last time I did somehing like this there was a shit storm. I got out of it but it was ugly and it was close. Better not do anything like that again.”

The Clintons apparently only get to the “I got away with it” part.

Most politicians work the same way, the Clintons are just better at it.

Slee

[coremelt]

Ok so none of you think that a criminal charge for Perjury would be sufficient cause for her to withdraw? The FBI is currently investigating this and it could happen before November.

Congressmen ask U.S. Attorney’s Office to investigate Clinton for perjury

It’s a pretty open and shut case, she lied on video under oath to a congressional committee. And yeah it’s not just my “biased view” from the article “56 percent — disapproved of the FBI director’s recommendation not to charge Clinton, and 57 percent said the issue made them at least somewhat worried about how she might handle her responsibilities as president.”

[Lord_Feldon]

@coremelt

It’s a pretty open and shut case, she lied on video under oath to a congressional committee.

Making an incorrect statement is not the same as lying.

[Little_Nemo]

@sleestak

A rational and ethical person who, having done some of the stupid shit that the Clintons have pulled over the years would stop and think “Hey, last time I did somehing like this there was a shit storm. I got out of it but it was ugly and it was close. Better not do anything like that again.”

A rational and ethical person who, having repeatedly tried to bring criminal charges against the Clintons and having repeatedly had it blow up in their face would think “Hey, last time I did something like this there was a shit storm. I got out of it but it was ugly and it was close. Better not do anything like that again.”

But then again, we’re talking about what rational and ethical people would do. Conservatives, on the other hand, just launch a new investigation.

[D_Anconia]

@Lord_Feldon

Making an incorrect statement is not the same as lying.

“I only used one device”, when she used multiple devices, IS lying. The FBI Director has already said that her statement wasn’t true.

Unless we get into Clintonian word parsing, which, as you know, has happened before.

[elbows]

The FBI director said no charges, she didn’t lie, and there is nothing actionable.

Thinking person’s accept that and move on. And we can all see through endless attempts by the right to just keep investigating until it comes out the way they want! But that’s not how it works in the real world. The percentage of people who disagree with his decision matters about as much as how many people want a do over on the Brexit!

What’s really astounding, to me, is how tone deaf they truly are, as to believe they are convincing anyone other than those having already drunk the Koolaid. They think it’s working! They believe it!

In its own frightening way, that’s an impressive amount of disconnect from reality, in some ways.

[coremelt]

@elbows

The FBI director said no charges, she didn’t lie, and there is nothing actionable.

This is incorrect, the FBI director said they would not bring charges for improper handling of classified information. The charge of Perjury is a separate issue which is now being considered. Read the Wapo article I posted.