Jim: I agree with you. The basic case for the Democrats to nominate someone other than Clinton concerns her ethics (and how they could cost the party in the general election), and it seems like a mistake for the other Democrats not to make that case. But I’ve seen a few interesting counter-cases.
James Taranto suggests that “Sanders reinforced the contrast. The implication: You won’t hear any more about those damn emails if you nominate me.” Liz Mair notes that Sanders’s remark, because it was the most memorable part of the evening, meant that the coverage of the debate had to mention the server story prominently. She adds:
There is an investigation by the Department of Justice and the FBI into Ms. Clinton’s emails. If this investigation finds fault in her actions or those of her team, the political consequences will be very, very bad–irrespective of any attacks other candidates, parties or entities have launched. On the other hand, if Ms. Clinton and her team are cleared of all wrongdoing, zero political capital will have been gained by any Democrat attacking her over the controversy. So why spend time on it?