Isn't it...odd, to insist the email/server "scandal" is nothing, but the DNC dustup is...everything?

[villager]

I even saw some posts comparing the putative Bernie "coverup" to Watergate!

Which is very strange, after you've spent several months insisting that your own candidate's email server wipes etc., are absolutely nothing, and only being played up for politics.

There's something not...consistent, about that.

For the record, I think they are both molehilly mountains, for distraction. Especially given all the actual/legit GOP lawbreaking that, mysteriously, never seems to get any traction...

[randys1]

1. What is pathetic is the endless threads and posts on DU about Hillary and her emails

I mean ENDLESS

And I can solve this problem about Bernie, real simple.

Bernie Sanders is easily the most honest politician in America today, if his staff fucked up, punish them, but Bernie would not knowingly do or allow this and ALL good democrats know that.

[villager]

2. Good post, randys1. And I agree -- endless threads about either are ridiculous. nt

[MH1]

3. The thing people forget about the email server thing

(just hanging this here because I want to put it out there but do NOT want to post the 1 trillionth OP on this topic at DY)

When Clinton made the decision to go with a private server, the thinking and knowledge on cybersecurity was much different than it is today. I'm not saying it was a great choice, just that the standards were different, so the calculation was different. I believe that by the standards of the time, her decision was not particularly outrageous and in fact may have seemed like a safer route than using government servers. (She and her team might not have been qualified to make that decision but given all the leaks, where could they have turned for an ironclad solution? Security by obscurity has always been a valid approach, as one piece of a larger security strategy.)

The problem is that as innocent as it may have been, or not, but at least as reasonable a decision it might have been at the time, or at least not downright crazy and suspect (at the time) -- the vast majority of the electorate will NOT be thinking in terms of how things were then, they will be thinking the way they have been taught to think NOW. That could be a problem for Hillary and Dems, even if it is unfair. We can only hope (and work towards), if she is the nominee that any discomfort this issue raises with a voter, is outweighed by her positives.

(please keep in mind that I am undecided. I see positives and negatives in all our candidates. Any one of them is light years better than any of the republicans. We cannot take the GE for granted; and that means not completely blowing off issues like this, even while trying rightfully to downplay them.)

[Skittles]

4. they're both bullshit

[villager]

10. agreed! nt

[LanternWaste]

5. It appears to run in two directions.

It appears to run in two directions. Many supporters of candidate A defend action Y when done by candidate A, and denounce it when done by candidate B, while many supporters of candidate B engage the same justification, but in reverse.

Candidate A engages in 'outreach', while candidate B, doing the same thing, is simply 'triangulating'. Yet no one person will admit to doing as much, as we are all far too righteous.

[Skittles]

7. I am so sick of them whining about each other

enough already

[Aerows]

9. It's gotten absolutely

ridiculous.

[LanternWaste]

11. My motto for primary season: “I like your candidates

My motto for primary season: “I like your candidates, I do not like your candidate's supporters. Your candidate's supporters are so unlike your candidate.”



(I honestly do dig both Sanders and Clinton)

[MohRokTah]

6. Not if you know anything about IT, data, and the state of the State Department IT infrastructure

Not odd at all.

[Bluenorthwest]

14. Yes it is. Both 'scandals' are bogus constructs that avoid a rather important central issue which is

that the persons whose skills are suited to cabinet level positions are mostly going to be IT experts, should not be, should not need to be and should be able to find strong protocols in place to be followed when any protocol is expected. The idea that any cabinet Sec is supposed make such process decisions on the spot and be personally responsible for complex issues of data security and communications systems is detrimental to the very idea of citizen service in those positions. Why the fuck should a diplomat be tasked with or even allowed to make decisions that are in fact technical? They should not. Those departments and protocols should be up and running and any changes should be made by those expert in the area, not by the person the President appointed to some post.
I can imagine qualified people rejecting jobs that are presented as 'you have to do it legally but you make up the process, later if what you did was illegal, that's on you'.

Same goes for candidates. None of these candidates actually know about IT, and they don't need to. That should not be central to the gig. They should not feel the need to hire lawyers to check the processes they have to use to do the job. 'Ooops, you did it wrong, you are now a criminal!' Fuck that. To the last, fuck that.

[Aerows]

8. I love the Democratic Party, and DU

but it seems to have gone so strange that I do not recognize it anymore.

DNC - Do not care

What in the heck has happened to our party!?

[Kingofalldems]

12. I think both 'kerfuffles' are peanuts.

[pnwmom]

13. Hillary didn't break any law, she used the account openly and Obama knew about it,

and she didn't send any classified info on it.

But I agree -- this situation isn't Watergate because there's no indication Bernie is involved and he acted correctly by firing Uretsky.