As soon as one important Democrat disavows Hillary Clinton, I will buy into the notion that this has anything to do with a particular party.
Hillary Clinton has revealed herself to be a subpar candidate. Her examples of poor judgment, and her poltiical errors are rendered ‘insignificant’ only because the opponent is Trump and most especially because it is dangerous for any fellow Party member to stand for principle and call her out for her transgressions.
Politics, and the fear of guilt by association is what prevents the sitting politiicians from standing on principle, honor, and ethics. A sitting GOP senator, for example, has received and still receives money, support, and manpower from his Party. His Party has nominated a flawed candidate. The process may well be flawed, but that process has yielded a candidate who is not aligned with all the core values and positions of the Party.
What is the Senator to do? Standing on one principle (rejecting a flawed candidate) conflicts with another principle (supporting the Party that has supported you). Losing the support of your Party has concrete, tangible consequences that may or may not be mitigated by the value of the Senator’s display of honor, or dignity.
Those who charge that it is not right to equate the unfitness of Trump with the dubious judgment of Clinton are simply rationalizing their complicity and their own lack of purity to principle.
Not only has none of the leaders of the Democratic Party denounced the actions of Secretary Clinton, rather, they have opted to perpetuate a lie that Clinton’s history is one that renders her the most fit and most qualified candidate in history. To make that assertion is disturbingly hypocritical and reprehensibly disrespectful to the soldiers killed in the conflicts that escalated during her term as Secretary of State, whether in Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Libya, Ukraine, or any other.