There’s some smoke, too.
Buzzzz. He’s not going to be the nominee. Try again.
Hope springs eternal.
Well if Clinton did the right thing and withdrew, the field would be wide open for Sanders.
More seriously, the field would be wide open to *any *Democrat, including any number who’d make more plausible nominees than Sanders.
I’m glad to see OP has decided to abandon this tactic. Listen, the stuff Clinton has really done that’s bad are:
-
State Department email scandal – undeniably bad, she was doing a slimy politician move to avoid her emails being subject to FOIA requests. It was standard practice and Colin Powell did the same thing (maintaining her own physical server was somewhat unique, but Powell used a private email address for State Department business–John Kerry is the first Secretary of State to use his state.gov email address for his job as SecState.) However this is also something where it’s being made out to be more than it really was, many many politicians have done this, Republicans and Democrats. They shouldn’t do it, but they have. To me it’s slimy, but it’s “low grade slime.”
-
She takes donations from big business and gave lucrative speeches to big businesses. To me this one is only “perceived slime.” I guess in a “shining city on the hill” politicians wouldn’t need to raise money to run for political office and would never attempt to become wealthy while out of office by doing things like speaking at corporate events. But I don’t view this behavior as immoral, it’s just not a “shining example of a fictionalized world in which politicians are loftier ethical beings, come down from the heavens to rule us with wisdom and grace.”
Honestly, that’s about it. And just about every President we’ve ever had has been guilty of number two, at least in the last 50-60 years. Further, I just reject the concept that a close relationship between business and politicians is a bad thing. Businesses, and their employees, are valid stakeholders in the economy and deserve some measure of influence. I simply don’t buy that it is corrupt for them to be able to influence a politician. Corruption is when a politician, while in elected office, engages in tit for tats in exchange for cash and other such things, there is no evidence Clinton ever did this.
The rest of the stuff people talk about as negatives for Clinton are almost entirely unsubstantiated rumors the far right has just been making up about her, for literally 30 years.
Or now.
Let us be very clear. You have in multiple threads accused Sec Clinton of “high crimes” and worse. You are convinced that such have occurred. So convinced that you would just as soon stand idly by while this country put an authoritarian thug into the Presidency.
And your proffered evidence for this “ethics thing” is the same tired GOP blog crap, things that well people say and that is not actual evidence but might possibly “look crooked” and the fact that the GOP will trot out all the same canards they have before.
I take it back. This is the proper version as it demonstrates so conclusively how empty and specious the “thing” is.
Clinton has two options at this point: win the election, or be convicted of unlawful handling of classified information. Anyone who’s ever had a security clearance can see that what she did would get the ordinary person jail time.
No, it wouldn’t.
I understand what you’re saying but couldn’t the Democrats have put up a moderate candidate without all the seedy baggage that Clinton has? If the best rejoinder is “[s]he is better than [other side]” then we’ll end up with poor candidates. I say this with the knowledge that I will almost certainly be voting for Clinton in the national election.
I’ve heard she wears Depends.
Cite that “the Democrats”, as an entity that possesses free will and the power to put that will into motion, and are thereby capable of proposing a candidate to be nominated for the presidency, exist.
Very seriously, anyone who has been a major player at the national level for more than a few years will have baggage that can be portrayed as seedy. Sanders? Has never been at that level, has never been targeted by the professional oppo teams. What is there that would be used to Swiftboat him? Who knows? But it would all be fresh and his ability to handle that sort of attack has never been tested. You would have wanted Biden? The man has more than his share of seedy baggage too, you just forget about it because he has not been the oppo target.
She’s been the heavy target of oppo work for decades. It has succeeded in manipulating some to have a bad taste about her and have led some to believe that she must be actually guilty of something even though every charge consistently is shown to be another bunch of hooey. The result is however that she is stress tested and the public has learned by now that her opposition creates charges about her whole cloth.
There is no there there.
If you think that Clinton pushed bad arms deals because she was essentially being bribed, can you explain why Congress signed off on every one of those deals?
And has cankles. That’s why the pantsuits.
Who do you have in mind?
Like Martin O’Malley for instance?
Lincoln Chafee had even less baggage.
This is really quite excellent. You should trademark it and sell it to a T-shirt company!
What law did she break? Using a private email server for work was perfectly legal.
No one is actually investigating Clinton. Two agencies are just investigating whether her private email server was hacked.
Do you know something that the FBI or the State Department doesn’t?