Another Manhattanite convinced of his uncanny ability to relate to flyover country.
Posted on 08/13/2015 4:02:19 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
Democrats are worried that the furor over Hillary Clinton’s private email server will be prolonged and intensified after her sudden move to hand it to the FBI.
The Clinton campaign’s decision to give up the server and a thumb-drive containing back-up copies of emails left Democrats scratching their heads as to why the former secretary of State had resisted turning over the server for months.
Coupled with new polls that suggest Clinton is vulnerable, Democrats are nearing full-on panic mode.
“I’m not sure they completely understand the credibility they are losing, by the second,” said one Democratic strategist, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “At some point this goes from being something you can rationalize away to something that becomes political cancer. And we are getting pretty close to the cancer stage, because this is starting to get ridiculous.”
“Look, this is a classic example of the cover-up being ten times worse than the so-called crime — though in this case there wasn't a crime,” said another progressive strategist.
“The culture of secrecy that has surrounded the Clintons — understandably in some cases — has now yielded a situation where she did something that wasn't necessary and looks nefarious.”
The former secretary of State remains the odds-on favorite the win the party’s presidential nomination. But the pattern seen in the email controversy — months of stonewalling followed by an eventual concession — has stoked worries about her flaws as a candidate.
The slew of unimpressive poll numbers is exacerbating the situation. Some have shown slippage against her main left-wing rival, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). Others have indicated her losing swing states against possible Republican opponents. Still others have revealed continuing weakness in her ratings on trustworthiness and favorability.
Hank Sheinkopf, a New York-based Democratic strategist who has worked with Clinton in the past but is not doing so in this campaign, argued that the general suspicion that the former secretary of State is concealing something is much more damaging than the specifics of the email matter.
“It’s hard to imagine Americans in the heartland wondering about whether Hillary Clinton gave up an email server or not,” he said. “But [it adds to] this constant battering she's taking, which is that people don’t trust her. It increases the feeling that something is not being told to them.”
Joe Trippi, who served as campaign manager for Howard Dean’s 2004 presidential bid, concurred.
“The thing that’s hurt has been losing the ground she’s lost on trustworthiness and honesty. It’s on trust, not on the specifics of emails or anything like that,” he said.
A new Franklin Pierce University poll from New Hampshire on Tuesday showed Clinton losing to Sanders by seven percentage points in the Granite State. Another survey from the Democratic-leaning Public Policy Polling (PPP), also released Tuesday, indicated Clinton getting the worse of hypothetical match-ups with four separate Republican opponents in the swing state of Iowa, which President Obama won in both 2008 and 2012.
The margins in all those polls were within the margins of error. But the same cannot be said of findings indicating voter skepticism about Clinton personally.
The PPP poll showed 52 percent of Iowans holding an unfavorable view of Clinton and only 38 percent holding a favorable view. In a Quinnipiac University poll released at the end of last month, a clear majority of voters nationwide said they did not consider the former secretary of State honest or trustworthy — 57 percent to 37 percent. It was only the latest finding that indicated deep trouble for Clinton on that issue.
Still, Clinton's most adamant supporters insist she has done nothing wrong.
“Everybody is just looking for a ‘gotcha’ moment,” said long-time Clinton loyalist Lanny Davis. “They're ignoring what the inspector general said, which is that there was not one single accusation of wrongdoing alleged against Hillary Clinton and her use of email.”
The Clinton campaign and its allies are also pushing back hard at their critics. The campaign’s communications director, Jennifer Palmieri, sent a mass email to supporters Wednesday, warning that “you might hear some news over the next few days about Hillary Clinton's emails.”
The Palmieri email went on to assert that there was “a lot of misinformation” around the issue, that “Hillary has remained absolutely committed to cooperating” and that “this kind of nonsense comes with the territory of running for president.”
Separately, Media Matters for America — the liberal watchdog group founded by Clinton ally David Brock — sent out a statement under the subject-line “Myths and Facts about Hillary Clinton’s email.” The first fact it listed was that “none of the emails sent to Clinton were labeled as classified or top secret.”
But concerned Democrats keep coming back to the same question: Why did the Clinton campaign not simply hand over the private server when the controversy first erupted in March?
“It’s bizarre,” said the Democratic strategist. “Let me give you some simple strategic communications advice: Put everything out first, on your terms. If you wait, or you are forced to do it, you always lose and look bad…That is exactly what is happening here, and I find it inexplicable.”
Clinton’s problems are stoking speculation that another candidate could, even now, get into the Democratic race. The two most-often cited potential contenders are Vice President Biden and progressive icon Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.). Others suggested that Sanders could expand his support even further.
Robert Borosage, co-director of the liberal Campaign For America's Future, said that while Clinton remains “very popular amongst Democrats,” there remains an opening for another Democratic alternative to emerge.
“If Hillary continues to sink in the polls and is beleaguered by all of this stuff, there will be more and more interest in other candidates — including and not limited to Sanders,” Borosage said.
Charles Chamberlain, executive director of the progressive Democracy for America, said that liberals believe Republicans are amplifying the issue. Still, he argued that Sanders appears to be exciting the Democratic base more than Clinton.
“Sanders is holding huge events with big crowds and engaging in a two-way conversation with voters — these are things Clinton isn't doing,” Chamberlain said.
Even if Clinton is vulnerable, she remains the overwhelming favorite to win the Democratic nomination.
Trippi said another Democrat might well get into the race, but that beating Clinton was a very different proposition.
“I don’t think Joe Biden has given up on his desire to run for president and I’m sure there are others out there who want to get into this race. I just don’t see a path yet for how you get to the nomination,” he said.
Trippi also raised the issue of whether a more left-wing candidate such as Warren could end up making a Clinton coronation more likely, rather than less likely, given that she would almost certainly divide the progressive vote with Sanders.
“Why is he now going to bow and curtsy to Elizabeth Warren?” Trippi asked. “And if he isn’t going to move aside, doesn’t she actually divide that 30 or 40 percent?”
That leaves many Democrats in a painful place: believing that, in the end, Clinton will be the nominee but worrying that her vulnerabilities could negate the many advantages — from demographics to the electoral college map — that they believe the party nominee should enjoy.
The progressive strategist wondered “how much longer this drip, drip, drip” of controversy surrounding the emails would continue.
“There's a hesitance that emerges in terms of her trustworthiness,” the source said. “At some point, people will start to ask whether this hurts her electability in the general election.”
Sheinkopf insisted that, at a minimum, the Clinton campaign needed to set aside any set of complacency.
“There are no guarantees. The ship has to get righted. You need to deal with the email issue very differently, by tackling it head-on.”
How confident is he that such a direct approach will be adopted?
“Fifty-fifty, at best,” he replied.
-— left Democrats scratching their heads as to why the former secretary of State had resisted turning over the server for months. -—
Anyone? Anyone?
Is it possible that liberals are even more stupid than previously imagined?
It was probably in several locations.
Interesting that Clinton and Obama showed no interest in negotiating with Qadaffi. You would think that two peaceniks like Obama and Hillary would have agreed to negotiations to remove Qadaffi.
It’s like they wanted him dead, not just removed from governance.
But, that would only happen if they had a personal interest in Libya. Like if they wanted Qadaffi’s fortune.
Not only his fortune, but the opportunity to shift his wealth and weaponry to the genesis of ISIS.
Why did we get NATO involved in Africa?
there was no security interest at stake?
They both colluded to get ISIS off the ground. On the heels of the Morsi ascension in next door Egypt, they were putting in place the first building blocks of the Caliphate.
And they are both guilty of treason.
Which countries have no extradition treaties with the United States?
http://www.answers.com/Q/Which_countries_have_no_extradition_treaties_with_the_United_States
~~~~~~~~~~
Does the DoJ have her passport? Is Mali nice this time of the year?
How is classified information marked? Cover page? Stamps on each page? Disclaimer on each page? How easy/difficult is it to remove the markings?
It should be simple to determine if the information was tampered with at the source of the transmission or after it was received. It should also be simple to determine who/what the source was.
Remember, we know money was sent to the Clinton Foundation from the Government of Qatar to compensate for the USA losing the 2022 Men's World Cup bid; the Swiss government in its investigation of FIFA's Zurich headquarters operation could find out that the Clinton Foundation was used to launder bribe payments to and from FIFA officials, and that would put the Foundation in major violation of national and international finance laws.
That server was scrubbed with Clorox.
Its time for Biden, the lesser of two evils. Maybe Nancy Pelosi will be his VP? With a back bench like that, how do the Dems ever look in the mirror? I know, Obama stares at the mirror.
Come on Cruz, I gave you a near perfect score on a survey yesterday. Win this thing!
Spinning furiously but this isn’t a matter of parsing words.
This ‘progressive’ probably knows it or is merely carrying out his programming.
Another Manhattanite convinced of his uncanny ability to relate to flyover country.
Hillaryous
Oh really? If I did what she did, I would (1) lose my security clearance (2) lose my job (3)and be facing prosecution and probably a stay at Leavenworth.
Old Joe indeed. He's seventy-two and has been showing signs of dementia for the last ten years.
Yep, we’ll be told to “move on”, and those who don’t will obviously be at war with a woman.
Surely you don’t think those things will matter any more than the PDF fakery behind Obamas BC, do you?
Turning over the server is one thing, but establishing a chain of evidence is impossible, even assuming the hard drives now in it bear any resemblance to the real ones (which I’m confident were melted into slag long ago).
Haven’t we learned by now not to underestimate the evil power of the Clinton’s?
So having TOP Secret classified emails with information derived from spy satellites on a private server is not a crime?
The liberal view is that this is not a crime, due to Hillary being the perpetrator.
It would be a crime if a Republican were involved. But since it’s a good Democrat, it’s not considered a crime by these liberals.
“Our girl Hillary did some very bad things concerning Libya.
Things so bad that she was afraid to let her co-workers in the government know about them.
She had to have her own privately financed spy operation in Libya because she was doing something so bad that she couldn’t let her government co-workers know what she was looking for.
What was she after in Libya?
Qadaffi’s fortune.”
Hell, I just typed a reply as to why Hillary was in Libya, but, being an American citizen in a foreign country, my communications are scrutinized closer than most, so I don’t want a visit from INTERPOL.
Just do some really deep research into Hill’s involvement in gunrunning, guns for dope, Castaway, Benghazi Annex, etc. If you can find unscrubbed information from the time, it might be an eye-opener. Qadaffi’s fortune might have been an interesting side trip for her due to her innate greed, but not the main show.
Hillary is not a nice person.
Emails are forever. If they were sent to her or from her, they are out there somewhere.
They already have a backup candidate waiting in the wings, no one most Americans have heard of, no more than most had heard of Obama. Wait until the first Democrat Party debate in October in Nevada, and see if I'm right.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.