First, let me say I do not want Hillary Clinton to be our next President. Back in 2008, I was (foolishly) first an Edwards supporter because he touted himself as a populist and I didn't think either Clinton or Obama were progressive enough. After Edwards showed his true colors, I became an Obama supporter and I've continued being an Obama supporter, although not without sometimes being disappointed in and critical of him.
I'm certainly hoping someone more progressive steps into the Democratic primary. I'm also hoping that person might win. I haven't yet seen anyone who is showing both interest and promise, but I'm not giving up the hope. We need a real liberal, both in order to increase our chances of winning and to get this country heading back in the right direction. While I'd hope that Hillary might be a tad better than Bill, she is far, far from who I think we need leading us against the crazy right. However, I will also say that, in the unfortunate event she does end up being the Democratic candidate, I will end up supporting her, albeit relunctantly.
All that being said, the last couple of days have been some of the most frustrating for me as I read comment after comment by the Hillary Haters of this site, making downright false and foolish accusations against Hillary Clinton. I can fully understand opposing her; I can't understand the absolute vitriol that's directed toward her, the eagerness to grab any club that can be used to bash her, and the determination that any criticism some rightwing hack makes against her will be grabbed and used in the way that's being done right now.
I've noticed, of course, that there's a core group of people that are jumping into every diary addressing the e-mail situation, and they're all repeating the same claims over and over and over, regardless of how many times those memes are dismantled. They simply ignore the facts and keep repeating their memes, as though if the words are repeated often enough, they'll become true. Anyone that attempts to point out the facts are told they either don't know what they're talking about, that they're ignoring facts, that they're willing to say anything to support Hillary. They'll happily misinterpret the laws that existed in order to support their attacks.
Those memes are:
-The fact that the law didn't require the SoS to use a specific form until 2014 is irrelevant because the law required that all communications be (and I'm using their language here) "archived" on "public servers" and she used a private server and didn't "archive" them, just saved them.
The law in existence at that time was quite simple. It was that all communications be "properly preserved" so that they would be available. There was virtually nothing in the law that required that a public server be used for this purpose. Had the legislature thought that a public server was necessary, it would have quite simply included the language "on a public server" in the bill. They did not do so.
Furthermore, the author of the article has admitted he made the claim that a private server was used by Hillary when he had no basis for making that claim. So attacking her for using a private server requires the acceptance of a lie as the truth.
-The fact that former Sos's used the same type of system is irrelevant because technology and the law changed since then.
Actually, not. Yes, technology has changed in a myriad of ways, but not in a way that's relevant to this situation. Furthermore, the law did not change between the time Hilary's predecessor took office and when she did. It didn't change until 2014.
Oh, and of course, then they argue that this is different because Hilary used a private server and her predecessor used a public one - again treating an accepted lie as the truth in order to have an avenue to attack Hillary.
I really don't want to have to defend someone I don't support, but the level of dishonesty and just downright nastiness that is being directed at her by a core group here on this site is just horrendous. While I hope she's not the Democratic candidate, there's certainly a good chance she will be. Do we really want to be part of the reason our candidate goes into the general elected horribly wounded if she does end up there?
I know those making these concerted attacks are hoping they can head off her being that candidate and that's why they're doing this. But, certainly petty attacks based on half truths is not the way to prevent it. What will prevent it is bringing forward a better candidate - one who actually wants the job. Not Bernie Sanders, who is not even a Democrat and who has never indicated a desire for the job, but at most an interest in stirring up some debate against the corporate wing of the party. And not Elizabeth Warren unless she retracts her quite unambiguous statements that she will not run.
Let's not destroy the most likely candidate we have with made up shit if we don't at least have a reasonable alternative in place. Or we might just be looking at a President Walker or President Cruz if we're not at least a tad bit careful. Plus, aren't Democrats supposed to be above this kind of dishonest, misleading, nasty crap?
I really and truly do not want to be saying nice things about Hillary Clinton. So I'd appreciate if the group who thinks they can destroy her with false memes just stops the bullshit.