Explain this to me like I'm a second-grader

It's as plain as the nose on her face.

 

Any call it disqualifying? Any call for her to be dumped at the convention?

They might be criticizing her "carelessness" by they're also celebrating her getting away with it.

 

So basically, if they don't react *exactly* the way you want them to react, they're celebrating.

I *am* celebrating. It was a minor IT hiccup made to sound worse than it is by heavily partisan witchhunters, preying on people who don't understand how rampant overclassification is and people who just want to see anything stuck to Clinton.

 

If they aren't calling for her to be removed from the race, they're celebrating that she got away with it? Is that what you're saying?

Seems like there might be a little space there to say this is not a feather in her cap and yet not disqualifying. But I don't know, maybe a non-indictment/non-prosecution is a disqualifying matter.

 

And, what was their call to action?

Did they call on her to drop out of the race? Did they call on superdelegate stop dump her?

 

If anything, the left (even the non-Sanders left) is being too hard on her in a futile attempt to seem more centrist.

It was bullshit that never should have been the subject of an FBI investigation. The only person who should be on the table for getting dropped right now is the FBI director who chose to go for a walk against her in a press conference, something he had no right to do.

 

It's been one day.

 

Rickstain's progression from dispassionate, logical observer, to hard core partisan, spinning more ardently than even the Clinton campaign, all while pretending to still be a dispassionate observer has been fascinating.

 

So you expect a movement to develop on the left to dump her?

 

All of those incarnations were and are entirely products of your consistently muddled mind.

 

It wasn't a rhetorical question.

What was the conclusion of these scathing editorials?

Is there a single editorial board that will even withhold an endorsement of her in the fall over this?

No. They'll ring their hands, site her long service, the "lack of intent", and endorse her historic election, as the first female president.

 

As they should.

The right's deep, deep concern for the IT practices inside the executive branch are as transparent as their veiled references to Vince Foster.