If I cared enough, I’d love to fight with the SDMB search engine to see if you felt the same way about the Bushies (near-treasonously) outing Valarie(?) Plame. “Oh, it’s no big deal. Just didn’t follow government policies regarding state secrets. Ho hum.”
I must have missed where Clinton deliberately leaked top secret information to attack her political enemies. Could you please find me that article?
I must have missed the news the day that Clinton was shown to have deliberately leaked top secret information to attack her political enemies. Could you remind me what day it was?
Yawn. A sad attempt at sarcasm coupled with the classic Dope technique of pretending that an attempt to nitpick a small part of a comparison overrides the bigger point* isn’t worth responding to.
*which is “not following government policies”.
I’m not sure that’s a nitpick - you’re claiming that the reason people were angry over the Palme thing was “not following government policies.” If that was not, in fact, why people were angry over the Palme thing, then your comparison falls apart entirely.
That’s a valid point.
A federal judge, by the way, who was appointed by her husband.
And your point is?
I mean, I’m a government employee, and I know there are times when I have failed to follow government policies in some minor ways.
Guess my future Presidential campaign is doomed, doomed!
Sarcasm aside, I think the burden’s on Hillary’s accusers to demonstrate that a ‘failure to follow policies’ was a big deal, rather than a triviality that’s only in the news because of (a) the government’s tendency to classify a lot of documents just because, and (b) Hiiiiiiiiiiiillllllllllllllllllllllllaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrryyyyyyyyyyy!!!
Just staving off the inevitable question as to whether this was just some right-wing judge appointed by Bush who’s clearly out to get her.
I just answered the rest of this in the unfork Hillary thread, so would you mind going there to see it so I don’t have to repeat myself? Thanks mucho.
She ordered the Olof Palme assassination too? :eek:
I think this is it. Some politicians have it coming, even Hillary, arguably. But Sanders’ approach has been more of “Here’s a truth sandwich, take a bite if you dare.” And his targets are larger than a political candidate or party. He throws rocks at giants. You throw a rock at him, then you must be one of the giants. If Hillary takes a nasty swing at him, she may as well take a swing at the (current, totally awesome) Pope.
I think Non-Republicans don’t feel like they have to be too picky–they just have to vote D in the main election to keep the meth-addled baboons out of the big house. Her best bet is to let us liberals get all our simpering adoration of Bernie out of our system and then come in strong with her qualifications while saying, “Yes, he’s a nice guy with an admirable moral compass. Now let’s get real about keeping the reins of power out of Republican hands.”
ETA: Ruthless is actually one of my favorite qualities in a leader, and Sanders’ apparent lack of it makes me doubt him as a POTUS.
‘Vote For Me, Because I’m Not A Republican’ doesn’t seem a particularly strong program.
But it’s generally sufficient.
It’s certainly not a particularly strong program in the primaries.
Doesn’t matter. Whether he is or isn’t, failing to follow government policies is hardly a kiss of doom.
You mean the thread with over 1,100 posts in it, that I haven’t looked at in months? No, I’m not going there to find your needle in that haystack. Sorry, but even if I had the time, I just don’t care enough to do so.