I'm deeply saddened that so many people I look up to and admire, publicly support Clinton. People like Brian Cardarella, DHH, Zed, Katz, Tom Dale...

Even pg, for some reason! https://twitter.com/paulg/status/786511993855352833

"These people are so smart, how can they be so blind?" Then I start second guessing myself, "maybe I'm the one who's wrong here?"

But the closer we get to election day the more it becomes clear that Clinton _is_ a poor choice and has successfully framed a great choice for president as a "racist mysoginist xolyphone polymorphy demoagog facist archanite."

So now I ask, "why do they still support her"?

Edit: This was flagged, I vouched for it. Nothing controversial about it. It's black and white.

> Clinton _is_ a poor choice

I agree, but the other choices are even worse.

It could have been Bernie if Podesta's email had been spear-phished earlier [1], before the DNC was able to backstab Bernie [2].

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12826552 / https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/34899

[2] http://heavy.com/news/2016/07/wikileaks-emails-clinton-berni...

There may still be time depending on how quickly Comey moves ;)

>racist, misogynistic, Islamophobic bigot named Drump

You forgot to call him a spectre, a ghoul, a cheeto and a xylophone.

>“One of the questions directed to HRC tomorrow is from a woman with a rash,” Brazile writes in the subject line of an email to Jennifer Palmieri and John Podesta. In the body of the email, she adds: “Her family has lead poison and she will ask what, if anything, will Hillary do as president to help the ppl of Flint.” The description matches what Flint resident Lee-Ann Walters asked at the debate.

Couldn't the question be reasonably estimated based on the fact that the woman is from Flint and that her family has lead poisoning?

Imagine somehow Brazile gets the drop not on the question itself, but the name of the person that the question is coming from. She Googles this person's full name. What comes up when you google "Lee-Ann Walters"?

http://michiganradio.org/post/mom-helped-uncover-what-was-re...

Gee, I wonder what she's going to ask at the debate?

As Matt Drudge wrote on twitter recently, "Media CAN'T cover WikiLeaks Podesta shitstorm - because so much of it involves them! Will take a generation to recover from this corruption."

This is being downvoted. I guess it's people who don't trust Drudge, especially without sources, which certainly isn't unreasonable.

However, there have been some very disturbing items involving the press other than this story of the CNN leaks. For example, here's what appears to be evidence of an illegal joint fundraiser between the DNC and the Washington Post:

http://heavy.com/news/2016/07/wikileaks-emails-clinton-berni...

Note how the DNC lawyers are against this plan.

Clinton has been handed such an easy election- her opponent has made every mistake in the book, and then even made up new ones no one expected- and still, Clinton resorts to dumb things like this to try to get ahead. Why? For what purpose?

If this is for real and she loses, she'll deserves it.

There are so many dirty things coming out about Clinton every day, it's hard to keep track. In a normal campaign cycle this would be huge news.

It depends if the Clinton campaign encouraged her or ignored her. It changes it a lot for me how Clinton actually responded to the emails. Those questions seemed kinda obvious so it doesn’t look like it would’ve made any difference in the campaign but if she was actively trying to cheat then it’s a big deal to me. It bothers me that the article doesn’t really give context to the situation.

Read Wikileaks on this. The emails are DKIM validated, so the charges of modification are bogus (and I think they stopped floating that one).

Yes, it's hard to put it all into context, but there are several emails that give debate questions before the debates.

You're right that there was no good reason to cheat, but I've read the emails myself long before this article and they're damning on that point.

Ya, my main problem is I feel like I'm just being manipulated this election. Hillary supporters try to convince me that Trump is the devil and Trump supporters are trying to convince me that all Hillary has ever done is scheme against the American people

To some extent, they're both right.

Podesta's emails definitely show a lot of rotten things, loads of scheming, backstabbing everyone (especially Bernie). Nobody trusts each other and for very good reason. The scandals are bad, but one of the things I find the worst is just how much they hate each other and the honest truth that they appear to spend all their time backstabbing. They've faked a ton of stories as well.

As for Trump, well, you know.

Well, she was appointed as interim chair of the DNC right after, so I would say it wasn't exactly frowned upon.

Here's the other one they link to in passing, just for reference:

=====

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/38478

Subject: One of the questions directed to HRC tomorrow is from a woman with a rash

Her family has lead poison and she will ask what, if anything, will Hillary do as president to help the ppl of Flint. Folks, I did a service project today. It's so tragic. And what's worse, some homes have not been tested and it's important to encourage seniors to also get tested. Sent from Donna's I Pad. Follow me on twitter @donnabrazile

=====

Reading /r/wikileaks has been fascinating this year. There are all sorts of things going on, like Tim Kaine having been assured of the VP nomination a rather long time ago and speculation that this was why he stepped aside so that Hillary could pass the top DNC spot over to DWS and effectively take control.

There were also emails showing how early they planned to backstab Bernie. One Bernie "supporter" appears to have doing it for the sole purpose of being in a position of drawing the Bernout vote back to Hillary afterwards. Not to mention how they planned to make people feel like he "won" something in the end:

"So if we "give" Bernie this in the Convention's rules committee, his people will think they've "won" something from the Party Establishment. And it functionally doesn't make any difference anyway. They win. We don't lose. Everyone is happy."

https://www.wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/5423

There's a good, long list of the Bernie/DNC-related emails here if you want more with links to the original emails.

http://heavy.com/news/2016/07/wikileaks-emails-clinton-berni...

I am not American, but really feel for you guys.

Here in Europe they advertise Trump as the Devil and Clinton as the best for the job etc.

Its very controversial, while I believe that Trump says things that no human being should be saying, you have Clinton on the other hand that seems like she should be in a pending trial for breaking the law.

It will be very hard for you to choose in between, I think though that whoever comes out to be the winner its not going to be a good outcome.

> they advertise Trump as the Devil

When all this blows over, the guys holding the bag will be the "reference" media.

The Clinton voters know how much they turned a blind eye.

The Trump voters know how much they smeared.

The amused (or horrified) onlookers will know what a worthless lot of liars they are.

Guarded prognosis, but probably "journalism" is dead.

Related thread, NYT article: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12840068

I'm not sure why this would be flagged and tagged dead, I vouched for it.

As a matter of respect for the HN medium, you don't flag articles you simply "don't like". That said, this seems like important and relevant discourse.

While this article is technically "Off-Topic" [1]; with all the discussion over YC's Peter Thiel supporting Trump, I'd expect something as black-and-white as this to be non-controversial.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

It's becoming very clear that no matter who wins, we all lose. I can't possibly express enough disappointment that the American political process has co-opted the tagline from Alien vs. Predator.

No. Trump is much better than someone who will be arrested.

The article mentions two instances where Clinton received questions before a public appearance, yet in both appearances those questions weren't asked. I think we need some more evidence before pitchforks come out.

You are incorrect. From Bloomberg:

>A day before the March 6 debate sponsored by CNN in Flint, Brazile allegedly wrote Podesta and Jennifer Palmieri, the Clinton campaign’s communications director, that a woman from the town “has lead poison and she will ask what, if anything, will Hillary do as president to help the ppl of Flint.” During the town hall, Lee-Anne Walters, who had a son who had stopped growing and a daughter who lost her hair, asked Clinton and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, her primary rival, whether they would “make a personal promise” to make the removal of lead a requirement for public waters in their first 100 days in office, according to transcripts of the debate provided by CNN. Both did.

Sorry, I didn't read Bloomberg. I read the Washington Post article which is linked here.

I think it's also worth considering that given both candidates were talking to people in Flint, of course they are thinking before hand about the problems in Flint and how they would address them. What else would they talk about?

The Washington Post is a very partisan source this election, given that they appear to have been things like holding illegal fundraisers with the DNC:

http://heavy.com/news/2016/07/wikileaks-emails-clinton-berni...

While the questions might not have been asked verbatim, they were very inline with the topic that was hinted.