Will Michigrim get Berned today? Stay tuned......

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

And the next day Bernie edged ahead for the weekend in Maine.

Good catch! He picked up four on her.

I think it's coming down to Michigan. If he loses by more than 5 percentage points, its over for him; if he stays within 5, it goes to at least next Tuesday's result, but if he should win, it could mean the beginning of the end of Clinton. Tonight could be the night.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

I agree that post-classification is greatly abused. And futile. We need to remember that things like access to a high official's email to be able to divine intentions is something that intelligence agencies live for. Scraps of this kind of info. are pieced together in intelligence reports all the time. No Drama Obama has always been much less penetrable.


That sounds very ironic. The way people talk about Trump actually. It's the same kind of authoritarianism--which the Clintons played to in their heyday in the 90s, a time in which they were the Great Ones and Republicans had mainly conservatives and scurried around trying to prevent the Clintons from being above the law.
I'm sure Donald Trump if elected will be just as full of himself as Hillary. And if the Dems can build a real Left Movement that can recapture Congress, they will be in a position to do to The Donald as the Republicans are doing to Hillary. Which by the way they have never been able to do to Obama because Obama is FAR more careful and yes, secretive than the Clintons know how to be. I guess being raised by a retired CIA Station Chief (Beirut) grandfather will do that to you.

There is big difference between being a real estate developer and the Secretary of State for the United States. But yea, if Trump becomes President, there are actual reasons why Trump would be "full of himself;" you do understand the powers of a sitting US President? If you don't, it might explain how you can be so nonchalant as to who actual gets put in that position.

For a Secretary of State, not only handling, but deciding how to handle, top secret information is her job, 24/7. That's not being "above the law" that is doing what is required by the law. If you want to conflate her daily required dealing with top secret information as being above the law, then you have to do better than throwing out GOP talking points of 'Clinton 90s heydays.' I laid out pretty clearly that there has been no evidence whatsoever of her being out of step with Executive Branch orders let alone any relevant statute so why keep spewing the innuendo and GOP talking points? Trolling?

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

I agree that post-classification is greatly abused. And futile. We need to remember that things like access to a high official's email to be able to divine intentions is something that intelligence agencies live for. Scraps of this kind of info. are pieced together in intelligence reports all the time. No Drama Obama has always been much less penetrable.

The best security is that the Bad Guys (or assumed Bad Guys) have no idea of the value of information that they have yet to get.

That sounds very ironic. The way people talk about Trump actually. It's the same kind of authoritarianism--which the Clintons played to in their heyday in the 90s, a time in which they were the Great Ones and Republicans had mainly conservatives and scurried around trying to prevent the Clintons from being above the law.

This is no longer the 1990s.

I'm sure Donald Trump if elected will be just as full of himself as Hillary. And if the Dems can build a real Left Movement that can recapture Congress, they will be in a position to do to The Donald as the Republicans are doing to Hillary. Which by the way they have never been able to do to Obama because Obama is FAR more careful and yes, secretive than the Clintons know how to be. I guess being raised by a retired CIA Station Chief (Beirut) grandfather will do that to you.

Donald Trump is a textbook example of pathological narcissism. He demands, and will not share, the limelight even with those who made an achievement possible. He would upstage a general or admiral who won a decisive victory. He would try to draw attention away from the winner of the Miss America contest, the Oscars, or the Emmy Awards. He might insist on wearing the green jacket at the Masters Tournament.

That sort is a pest.

Originally Posted by playwrite

"she knew" exactly what? What did she know that you believe disqualifier her?

This should be fun.

She knew, and still knows, that she is was and will always be a target, yet she pulled a lame stunt like this anyway. Why? Is she that much of a control freak that a classified email account wasn't secure enough?

We both know this is an issue of trustworthiness (one of those 'soft' standards that can't be quantified), yet she did it. People will believe her or not, but she has no chance to change minds on this.

Originally Posted by playwrite

There is a separate email system to send classified and sensitive information. Someone who used any system, whether State's non-classified system, commercial email servers, or their own computers, should be subject to whatever legal consequences that would entail. So far, there is no evidence that Clinton did any of that. And before we throw a lot of hard working, many in dangerous jobs, people who are trying to protect this country, maybe we should take into account the convenience by some to POST classify information, i.e., information that no one knew at the time should be classified.

Your beef is with her private email server, but there are some problems with that argument as well. What evidence do you have that would show her private server was less secure than State's non-classified system (which was hacked) or a commercial server (which is what Colin Powell and Condi Rice turned to)? What law or even federal regulation did she actually violate at the time (guidelines for Obama's executive order came out 6 months after she left State)? Some say she violated "the spirit" of the regulation, but that is in regard to going the extra step to make sure her emails became part of the public record - that has nothing to do with classified information; so what's the beef exactly?

The entire beef is based on Clinton doing something special because she thinks she's above it all - and then comes the usual GOP hate derangement syndrome of her being nefarious, secretive, calculating, and most important of all, "above the law!" - which, as noted above, is pure horseypoo. And a lot of people, who otherwise would be Progressives, buy into the GOP dribble because they see that Clinton thinks of herself as more special than themselves. They simply can't take the fact that as a Secretary of State, alone, she was very very special and could do just about whatever the hell she wanted, answering only to one man, the President, because that's the way it works - it is the BIG LEAGUE that most of us will never even get a glimmer of. And that's even before she becomes the first woman President, which will especially piss off a whole lot of the less special people.

One of the elements of resolving this issue is a lot of people need to get over themselves - I hate to break the news to them, they're really not that special - at least in comparison to Hillary Clinton.

Understand this. Clinton owns this. The burden of proof lies with her, fairly or otherwise. The GOP can beat her senseless with this, because there is no argument that looks and sounds reasonable to average Joe and Jane. We're not in a court of law. This is the court of public opinion.

Originally Posted by TnT

After all the release of all kinds of classified emails by the hackers, does anyone really give a flying f*** about Hillary's so-called indiscretions?

They only speak to temperament and wisdom. Do people trust her? Not so much, apparently.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

She knew, and still knows, that she is was and will always be a target, yet she pulled a lame stunt like this anyway. Why? Is she that much of a control freak that a classified email account wasn't secure enough?

We both know this is an issue of trustworthiness (one of those 'soft' standards that can't be quantified), yet she did it. People will believe her or not, but she has no chance to change minds on this.

Kind of like why a woman shouldn't wear a spring outfit around a bunch of rapists? And if she dares, well, it's really her fault.

But let's break this down a little -

- used a classified email account instead? There is a classified email system but ITSs PURPOSE IS TO BE USED FOR CLASSIFIED EMAILS, in the course of her work; it wasn't for the non-classified emails that have nothing to do with work - funny how that works. Bill sending an email to Hillary asking if he should make dinner or was she going to stay at the office is not what you put on State's classified email system. Your are NOT suppose to clutter up the classified email system. Now there is a lot of unclassified work that goes on and for most people, it's pretty typical to mix their work and life emails together on the same system at work. At State, you could use the state.gov intranet but others, including Condi Rice and Colin Powell used commerical email service - you know that. It wasn't until Obama came in and by Executive Order put generally an end to that (at the time, to assure a public record as opposed to security) but the guidelines to agencies for doing that didn't come out until 6 months after Clinton had left the State Department.

Moreover, it was OTHERS that sent her emails on her system that NOW someone has decided to POST classify. You could argue she used poor judgement in not making it clear to people not to send such material that, some day in the future, might get classified. Maybe she should have used the State Department's time machine and send a couple staff to the future to see what would eventually be classified. The problem with that is how to account for all that overtime.

With everything a SoS has to deal with, others having used alternative email methods, and the whole tech policy in flux, its only easy to look back retrospectively and say it was inappropriate. And she has owned up to that, even in the face of all the 'rapists' sitting around waiting to pounce.

trustworthiness Now here is where you go off the rails. How do you walk it from an issue of appropriateness or even competence to trustworthiness? What exactly do you mean by trustworthiness - is it trusting that she will be competent in email usage or trusting that she's not doing something nefarious like actually working to make a Kenyan become a 3rd term President??? I mean, what specifically is it you don't trust her to do based on her flubbing the email issue - can you get past the provided GOP talking point? Will I need to put my tin foil hat on?

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Understand this. Clinton owns this. The burden of proof lies with her, fairly or otherwise. The GOP can beat her senseless with this, because there is no argument that looks and sounds reasonable to average Joe and Jane. We're not in a court of law. This is the court of public opinion.

Yea, that's what the Benghazi Committee thought as well.

Mufasa! certainly got them to see otherwise.

Originally Posted by marypoza

Will Michigrim get Berned today? Stay tuned......

Whoa. My fiancé, who is from Battle Creek, almost smacked me when I used that term. (Not really, we don't smack each other. But that expression does, pardon the pun, give him the burn.)

Then, he has lived in the DMV (DC area -- DC, Maryland, Virginia) since 1983 or so...

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Understand this. Clinton owns this. The burden of proof lies with her, fairly or otherwise. The GOP can beat her senseless with this, because there is no argument that looks and sounds reasonable to average Joe and Jane. We're not in a court of law. This is the court of public opinion.

With Trump as their nominee? Donald Trump is as old as Clinton, has lived a colorful life, none of which has been made public. Who will care about Clinton's e-mails when there will be much more juicy stuff about Trump? With plenty of ex-wives and I am sure girl friends we will learn the actual size of his dick. This race has already gone there and its only March.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Good catch! He picked up four on her.

I think it's coming down to Michigan. If he loses by more than 5 percentage points, its over for him; if he stays within 5, it goes to at least next Tuesday's result, but if he should win, it could mean the beginning of the end of Clinton. Tonight could be the night.

Well turnout in my wifes's precinct (she's a poll worker) was 100 as of 11 AM with 4 GOP ballots. She's in a pretty Democratic precinct, all the places she has been at including our own precinct are pretty Democratic. They usually try to have poll workers from both parties and for a time they had assumed she was a Republican because she was white. Nope, Republicans are pretty thin on the ground in our neighborhood. West Michigan is full of Republicans, and we know plenty of them; they just don't live in our neighborhood.

Will be going to pick up my wife and vote in about an hour. I'll be Bernie for me. Always wanted to vote for an American Socialist, and now I will

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Can you elaborate on what you mean by this?

Sanders, like Trump, is unexamined. Sanders will not win the nomination and so there will be no need to roll out the oppo on him. But if he did win somehow then his previously unexamined life will come out. You do know he was a pro-Soviet communist dupe, right? He also advocated revolution. Sanders was a young man (of an age to do stupid stuff) in the 1960's and 1970's and he was a leftist activist. Won't be hard to find links to Ayers-type figures, if not some dicey stuff he might have said back then.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Well turnout in my wifes's precinct (she's a poll worker) was 100 as of 11 AM with 4 GOP ballots. She's in a pretty Democratic precinct, all the places she has been at including our own precinct are pretty Democratic. They usually try to have poll workers from both parties and for a time they had assumed she was a Republican because she was white. Nope, Republicans are pretty thin on the ground in our neighborhood. West Michigan is full of Republicans, and we know plenty of them; they just don't live in our neighborhood.

Will be going to pick up my wife and vote in about an hour. I'll be Bernie for me. Always wanted to vote for an American Socialist, and now I will

I reckon Hillsdale College would go for Cruz more than Trump, based on their past writings. Interestingly it's been radio silence from Hillsdale of late.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Sanders, like Trump, is unexamined. Sanders will not win the nomination and so there will be no need to roll out the oppo on him. But if he did win somehow then his previously unexamined life will come out. You do know he was a pro-Soviet communist dupe, right? He also advocated revolution. Sanders was a young man (of an age to do stupid stuff) in the 1960's and 1970's and he was a leftist activist. Won't be hard to find links to Ayers-type figures, if not some dicey stuff he might have said back then.

It's probably true he was a Red Diaper Baby based on his background. However I doubt Millies would hold that against anyone. Really, amongst Dems and Indies, there probably are not many who would hold that against him, a far cry from even 10 years ago. Demographic shifts, these are ....

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Whoa. My fiancé, who is from Battle Creek, almost smacked me when I used that term. (Not really, we don't smack each other. But that expression does, pardon the pun, give him the burn.)

Then, he has lived in the DMV (DC area -- DC, Maryland, Virginia) since 1983 or so...

Reference to the bad economy for forty years and to dreary winters.

Michigan got Berned and proved that the polls sucked.

Originally Posted by Odin

PRAIRIE POPULISM rises again!

Originally Posted by Odin

Michigan got Berned and proved that the polls sucked.

-- well I would say MI got singed since only 1/2 the Michiganders felt the Bern. But hey, 1/2 a Bern is better than no Bern @ all. Bernie got his 4 states & 4 outta 6 is damn good. As for the 2 losers, well there worthless red states whereas MI is a nice big 130 delegate purple state. So, all in all it's been good. And it should be getting better- Hillary's Southern firewall is almost spent (only NC & FL to go) & she has not been performing well outside the South @ all (& even the 3 states she got there's been allegations of cheating) so hopefully we'll be Berning it up from here on out

The only polls I put any stock in are the ones taking place on certain Tues in various months, like yesterday

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Whoa. My fiancé, who is from Battle Creek, almost smacked me when I used that term. (Not really, we don't smack each other. But that expression does, pardon the pun, give him the burn.)

Then, he has lived in the DMV (DC area -- DC, Maryland, Virginia) since 1983 or so...

-- then don't let him see any of Brower's posts, he's where I got it from

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Reference to the bad economy for forty years and to dreary winters.

--well things shouldn't be so dreary there now.... Bern baby Bern! :d

Originally Posted by playwrite

Good catch! He picked up four on her.

I think it's coming down to Michigan. If he loses by more than 5 percentage points, its over for him; if he stays within 5, it goes to at least next Tuesday's result, but if he should win, it could mean the beginning of the end of Clinton. Tonight could be the night.

Congratulations to Bernie supporters for the surprised Michigan win last night, a very narrow win, but still a win.

Just note that the tangible result from last night is Clinton increased her lead in pledged delegates by another 18 on net, to a total of 214 over Bernie. She is likely doing to him what Obama did to her in 2008.

But enjoy the bern for now, it may or may not be pretty extinguished 6 days from now.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Congratulations to Bernie supporters for the surprised Michigan win last night, a very narrow win, but still a win.

Just note that the tangible result from last night is Clinton increased her lead in pledged delegates by another 18 on net, to a total of 214 over Bernie. She is likely doing to him what Obama did to her in 2008.

But enjoy the bern for now, it may or may not be pretty extinguished 6 days from now.

Clinton - Sanders
2016

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

Clinton - Sanders
2016

Or Sanders-Clinton?

They need to get this over soon; the Trump train is getting ready to come barreling at them. Once the RNC comes to accept him, they're going to put all that oppositional research money to work particularly on the relatively unknown Sanders (although they may strategically hold back on that hoping he gets the nomination before springing it).

Originally Posted by playwrite

Kind of like why a woman shouldn't wear a spring outfit around a bunch of rapists? And if she dares, well, it's really her fault.

Oh yeah, it's just like that.

Originally Posted by PW ...

But let's break this down a little -

- used a classified email account instead? There is a classified email system but ITSs PURPOSE IS TO BE USED FOR CLASSIFIED EMAILS, in the course of her work; it wasn't for the non-classified emails that have nothing to do with work - funny how that works. Bill sending an email to Hillary asking if he should make dinner or was she going to stay at the office is not what you put on State's classified email system. Your are NOT suppose to clutter up the classified email system. Now there is a lot of unclassified work that goes on and for most people, it's pretty typical to mix their work and life emails together on the same system at work. At State, you could use the state.gov intranet but others, including Condi Rice and Colin Powell used commerical email service - you know that. It wasn't until Obama came in and by Executive Order put generally an end to that (at the time, to assure a public record as opposed to security) but the guidelines to agencies for doing that didn't come out until 6 months after Clinton had left the State Department.

But those purely personal messages aren't at issue here. These were clearly work related. In that environment, classification is assumed until proven unnecessary. After all, the cost of handling classified email is in the system, not the incremental cost per email. She avoided the secure system simply because it was a PITA, and that's all. A piss-poor excuse, and all the ensuing hassle amplifies how stupid it was.

Originally Posted by PW ...

Moreover, it was OTHERS that sent her emails on her system that NOW someone has decided to POST classify. You could argue she used poor judgments in not making it clear to people not to send such material that, some day in the future, might get classified. Maybe she should have used the State Department's time machine and send a couple staff to the future to see what would eventually be classified. The problem with that is how to account for all that overtime.

You can't abuse what doesn't exist.

Originally Posted by PW ...

With everything a SoS has to deal with, others having used alternative email methods, and the whole tech policy in flux, its only easy to look back retrospectively and say it was inappropriate. And she has owned up to that, even in the face of all the 'rapists' sitting around waiting to pounce.

If the avoided system was a .mil account, would that be different? Sorry, but this is foolish. If she needed two accounts for people she had professional connections with, they could have been handled on a secure and an unsecure DoS account. Secure accounts must terminate on equipment that is itself secure, and the information must be kept within the secure enclave. Of course, that restaurant reservation can be copied by pen to a piece of non-secure paper, unless the dinner involves more than food and fun.

Originally Posted by PW ...

trustworthiness Now here is where you go off the rails. How do you walk it from an issue of appropriateness or even competence to trustworthiness? What exactly do you mean by trustworthiness - is it trusting that she will be competent in email usage or trusting that she's not doing something nefarious like actually working to make a Kenyan become a 3rd term President??? I mean, what specifically is it you don't trust her to do based on her flubbing the email issue - can you get past the provided GOP talking point? Will I need to put my tin foil hat on?

Trustworthiness is not an objective parameter that can be graded from A to F. It's subjective, and personal. If I don't trust someone, I don't trust him ... period. Clinton rings that bell for a huge number of people. Fair or not, it is what it is. Worse, she knows she' not fully trusted, which in a politician should trigger the Caesar's Wife syndrome. For some reason, neither Clinton seems to feel that's necessary. OK, then they should live with the results.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Yea, that's what the Benghazi Committee thought as well.

Mufasa! certainly got them to see otherwise.

Just being a dick is no guarantee of success.