“Guess it indicates that Bernie is scaring them.”

One can hope! 😉

I have a love/hate relationship with the NYT.

I agree that it’s premature Diane. Guess it indicates that Bernie is scaring them.

I don’t know, but I think Hillary would have been beatable in 2008, even by Romney. But if she looses to Trump, then I agree retrospectively 🙂

Well, you’re older than me … 😉

You’re right about the lack of choice though. You’d think among the millions of Democrats and thousands of politicians they could find a few more decent candidates. It’s the problem of Clinton privilege I think.

I’ve been saying it since 2007 – Clinton should have been president then, with Obama as her deputy or at least in her cabinet, and then I think he would have easily won this year for another eight years, especially given the changing demographics of the country.

Surely I’m not that old! But ok, reasons for distrusting Hillary vary with age. It’s a shame there are that many to choose from.

Historically you’re right, and there are many who distrust her for those reasons. But there are a whole lot of new voters who know nothing about what happened in the 90s. They’re bombarded by the e-mails story and the Benghazi story, and if you asked them why they don’t trust her, that’s what they’d say.

Distrust of Hillary, and I don’t mean the ideological kind from the right wing that would exist no matter what, goes back to the Clintons’ infamous triangulation on almost any issue and which led in many instances to them taking up right wing policies because they thought it would make them popular. She is distrusted because she is known to have “flexible” values. This is why Sanders is gaining on her. It has almost nothing to do with emails.

Going rogue on e-mail was an incredibly dangerous move by someone with a perpetually guilty and devious mind. Everybody who guessed her password gained valuable intel by downloading her inbox before she did. To say nothing of messages they stealthily edited, deleted, or redirected.

While no security is absolute, it is not the case that a computer sitting in Clinton’s basement between the freezer and the washing machine is just as good as the hardened official system she was supposed to be using.

Yes, Clinton should be held to the same standard as everybody else running for president. Any other presidential candidate guilty of a similar “error” should get the same scrutiny. But neither should Clinton get a pass just because she’s a liberal Democrat, or the lamestream media’s candidate, or a hero of old-school feminists. Clinton is unfit to serve for many, many reasons, but this one’s a doozy.

I agree with their assessment of her, but I worry about what could happen because of the e-mail thing down the road. The NYT barely mentions this, but it’s the reason she has bad “honest and trustworthy” figures and that will hurt her with swing voters.

I agree it was a stupid move to use unsecured communications. However, she is not the only one SoS etc who’s done it, which is no excuse, but too many are talking like she’s unique in her error. Also, communications being secured is no bar to them being hacked these days. It’s public knowledge that China knows everything is certain “secure” servers.