He said it.

I guess that this is something new under the sun, your opponents experiencing delight when you screw up?

Wow, so we are going to get upset, not with the guy who said it, but with the guys who report what he said.
Tribalism.

I guess that, as a democrat, I should give Hilary a pass on her email problem, and just ridicule those who report it as a "machine" that is out to ruin her.
How would you feel about that?

I guess that it's no secret that American political discourse is in a sorry state.
And I don't think that we should round up the usual suspects, (money and the rich).
On the contrary, the problem is, well, us.
The nation is nearly equally divided ideologically. And we have politicized everything.
In other words, team identification now trumps all.

Two recent examples. The first, Hilary Clinton's mishandling of her email accounts ( her intentional mishandling, to be precise.). The second, Scott Walker's ridiculous claim that dealing with a labor dispute qualifies him as commander in chief (along with the comparison of unions to terrorists)

At the end of the day, these events will little consequence. Those who love Hilary will still love Hilary.
Those who like Walker will still like Walker. Clintonistas will blame  the "right wing conspiracy".
Conservatives will spin the story from what Walker actually said to an Attack on the NYT, or "gaffe warriors".

Then, at the end of the day we will complain that our candidates are secretive, dishonest, stupid or uninspired.
But the blame lay with us. Until mainstream progressives say that Clinton is guilty of wrong doing, PERIOD, and until republicans say tha Walker's remarks were stupid and offensive, PERIOD, we aren't getting anywhere.

Please read my post above. I think that it will answer your questions, and fully explain my concerns.
BTW, when did I say I was going to support Hilary Clinton? I've said the opposite, that I want a contested primary with other candidate in the race. 
Let's stick with the positions that people have actually taken, shall we?

Tell me, is there anything that you could imagine reading about Scot Walker that would change your opinion of him, or would it just always be explained away as the conspiracy to destroy him? Please take a moment to think about this question. I'm not trying to be a smartass. I'm asking you to image that you are having your coffee tomorrow morning and you see a negative story about Scott Walker in the NYT. What would your immediate thoughts and feelings be? If your reflex is to defend Walker, then you really can't criticize those who would reflexively defend Clinton. True?

I would agree, it's a bit much.
BTW who are "they",   American Bridge?
American Bridge is just a PAC, and they are reporting on Walker's gaffes.
True enough, but there are plenty of people who are disappointed by Walker's remarks on ISIS, his flip-flopping on immigration, and his remarks about the president's religion who have no affiliation with American Bridge at all. It's unfair to characterize any criticism of Walker as some sort conspiracy.

Heck, I didn't even know who American Bridge is until I googled them a moment ago.

Walker's best shot at avoiding being ridiculed for saying stupid things is to up his game and stop saying stupid things.