Can Clinton live up to pledge to learn from 2008 mistakes?

IMO, setting up her own server to handle her email just shows the Clinton craftiness. No Palin-style leaks here, that is for sure.

IMO, setting up her own server to handle her email just shows the Clinton craftiness. No Palin-style leaks here, that is for sure.

Which is her serious undoing. You have now a bunch of DEMS that want answers, even the liberal papers and even Mika on msnbc THE most liberal of all the networks said, where it Cheney or any other Republican, the media would go be seek. Unless she releases all the mails and makes everything public, she's going to be a huge liability for the Democrats and they'd better start looking fast for a replacement.

Now a cantankerous pompous old woman, nasty to subordinates and generally hated by 50% of the population and has at decades of scandal and mistakes on her back, remember hilarycare, travelgate, etc... to the scratch her toe across the NY state line and now she is a resident and senator, benghazi and an endless list of other insanity from her and she is who the democrat party is crowning the new empress?

Go for it, she is totally unelectable now, by all means democrats, make it easier to keep you incompetent parasites out of power for a decade or so. I could use a break from your recessions, inflation, marxism and wars.

Love her or hate her, she's just not that popular. She tried to release her memoirs a year or so ago and nobody bought it. Her publisher lost tons of money on the deal. Nobody came to her book signings. The average person just isn't interested in Hillary as much as the media is. Nobody sees her as anything other than another washington insider beholden to the wealthy elite.

If she DOES become president, it's pretty much proof that the whole idea of "democracy" is long dead.

Only her 2008 mistakes?

Himajin: Only her 2008 mistakes?

The expiration dates are much shorter if you're a Democrat and the inspectors are The New York Times and MSNBC.

Rather than promising not to make mistakes on the campaign trail, presumably for the sole purpose of winning, Clinton should be pledging not to repeat the mistakes of past and present white house occupants and improve America's dealings with the world.

the 2008 campaign, when she lost the Democratic nomination to President Barack Obama.

Oddly enough, she shouldn't have lost. It is hard to steal an election in America, but not hard to steal a nomination. If you go back to the caucuses held around America, you usually found that the results of the exit polls matched the official results. And in these polls, Hillary came out ahead of Obama. But a funny thing happened, those states in which the caucusing systems were lax or loosely regulated, Obama's results were somehow much higher than the polls suggested.

I am not a fan of Hillary Clinton, but between Obama and McCain, I thought she was the least bad choice. Having known her husband, I always thought of her as the boss one loves to hate, but who is a very effective boss nonetheless. Honestly speaking, the few good ideas Bill Clinton ever had while in office came largely from Hillary, and the chiefs of staff respected her far more than her husband.

Anyone who wants a little entertainment should visit the site wewillnotbesilenced2008.com

Hillary doesn't need all this aggravation.

A popular Who song just popped into my head. Something about meeting the new boss.

She ain't the same as the old boss, Fizz.

I'd hate to live in the US if she becomes president. In fact, I hate the thought of her international relationships being manipulated by her (still, but meagerly) husband. What a tragedy in the making, for all US citizens (I don't call them Americans because they usurped that now nominal identification from its proper use by the natives in both Canada and the US, and Canadians, to boot. Let the US suffer like a dying Roman empire, because that's where they're at, believe it or not.

What a big to-do over nothing.

There were no laws broken by having her own mail and server. So what??

She turned over her mails, when requested.

No one cares except those trying to still make hay over Benghazi.

Jeez -- give it a rest.

Heh, at least then Snowden couldn't leak it! LOL

No wonder she got fired from that position.

She was offered to continue the job, but she decided to leave.

She was offered to continue the job, but she decided to leave.

Faux news never lets the facts get in the way of a good story.

bass4funkMAR. 07, 2015 - 09:56AM JST IMO, setting up her own server to handle her email just shows the Clinton craftiness. No Palin-style leaks here, that is for sure.

A very poor choice strictly from a security standpoint. That being said, it was not against government policy at the time, which shows how much the government lags in this area.

Which is her serious undoing. You have now a bunch of DEMS that want answers, even the liberal papers and even Mika on msnbc

If MSNBC is so "liberal," why did Mika, who isn't liberal in the least (more the equivalent of a concern troll), migrate from "Morning Joe," which might as well be a Fox program?

Oh, and which "liberal papers"? Pretty sure we don't have any.

Policy in force since 2005.

Clinton ascended to the State position January 21, 2009 and remained in office until February 1, 2013.

And a 2011 cable from Clinton's office to State employees under Clinton's electronic signature re-emphasized the policy.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/state-department-email-rule-hillary-clinton-115804.html

http://nation.foxnews.com/2015/03/06/exclusive-internal-cable-clinton-state-department-office-barred-use-personal-email

turbotsatMAR. 11, 2015 - 07:56AM JST Policy in force since 2005.

Not according to the U.S. Government.

http://www.archives.gov/records-mgmt/bulletins/2013/2013-03.html

Neither CNN nor, especially, Fox "News" are reliable sources for anything.

Jeff Huffman: Not according to the U.S. Government. http://www.archives.gov/records-mgmt/bulletins/2013/2013-03.html

What, in that voluminous link, supports your argument? I only saw it supporting arguments against your position.

Secondly, if you find something you like in there, then how does National Archive policy, described at that link, relate to State Dept. policy, which is under discussion?