Team Biden throws a blow.
Dick Harpootlian, a former Democratic Party chairman in South Carolina, home to an early and important presidential primary, said recent reports about Clinton’s use of private e-mail to conduct government business and her family’s charitable foundation accepting donations from foreign governments while she was secretary of state could be damaging to her likely 2016 presidential campaign.
“There’s always another shoe to drop with Hillary,” Harpootlian said in an interview Wednesday. “Do we nominate her not knowing what’s in those e-mails?… If the e-mails were just her and her family and friends canoodling about fashion and what they’re going to do next week, that’s one thing. But the fact that she’s already turned e-mails to the Benghazi committee because she was doing official business on it means she’s going to die by 1,000 cuts on this one.”
I’m not convinced that there’s a hill of beans here, but it’s good to see that someone thinks there could be some profit in putting up a fight for the nomination. If nothing else, it will keep me from dying of boredom.
It seems that Snowden proved the Federal Government computers were not secure. Perhaps, Clinton was correct to do this. Still, I would think that even though the work was on a private account, it could still be deemed Federal Government property/work.
Then shouldn’t she, or the people who work for her, make sure their computers and systems are secure?
There’s about $10 billion a year betting that they can’t.
Still the widespread public awareness has not dawned of the institutional problem this creates in constitutional government.
Don’tcha get it yet, Phil?
They cannot “make sure their computers and systems are secure.” Not even close. Too many smart people out there.
Principled people who initially worked inside of the system like Edward Snowden.
Principled people who work outside of the system like Julian Assange.
Criminals who work totally outside the system like the now imprisoned (and thus quite likely working for the Deep State) Romanian hacker “Guccifer” …the one who actually broke this story in 2013 if we can believe anything whatsoever that the media tell us.
Bright teenagers and millennials who know more about the internet than do most pros and are just having fun fucking with the so-called grownups.
The list is endless.
All of the sorcerer’s apprentices done opened a can of worms that will not be closed until the entire internet system is scrapped, and the controllers cannot do that (much as they would like to right about now, I will guaran-damned-tee) because it would the tank the entire world economy.
UH oh!!!
Clinton got sloppy…par for the course with War Babies and computers.
Par for the course.
I think maybe she’s gonna have to pay for it, too.
Watch.
AG
The federal government computers are probably more secure than the server she used. But that does give me an idea. If anybody wants to know what’s in those e-mails, all we need to do is ask the NSA.
NSA?
What NSA?
It doesn’t exist.
Not for us, anyway.
Bet on it.
AG
Dick Harpootlian, a former Democratic Party chairman in South Carolina, …
Should I look up when he was Democratic Party chair in SC? I hope it’s not any time recently since the party there is such a joke.
…it’s not very pretty.
Not exactly a modern view of the world.
I did. He doesn’t have a Wikipedia page, and most of the results when his name is Googled lead to RWNJ websites. And I gave up after about 4 pages.
Have you noticed the state of the South Carolina Democratic Party recently?
How can anyone forget the Alvin Greene fiasco? Was he still party chair then? That’s just the thing. People don’t realize the Democratic Party is a huge mess in much of Dixie. Whether South Carolina, Alabama or other states. Not fielding candidates for statewide office. Party elites openly feuding with one another. I could go on.
Did anyone ever figure out how “they” did that Alvin Greene thing? I recall Tarheel Dem posing that question in this commentariat
No. I never heard how Greene got the $10,000 or so to get on the ballot. Yes, the filing fee was, and maybe still is, approximately $10,000 to get on the ballot for the US Senate.
there was also something about how his filing escaped notice for so long
And he is clearly running.
But, I think reading the latest news about the emails, Hillary has a serious problem. She had all of her emails go through a private server in her house and had her senior staff using the same private email system too. Plus, the email server also house two other Clinton non-government emails. That’s hinky.
The Media Matters guy just tried to throw the WH under the bus by saying they knew exactly what Hillary was doing with emails while the State Dept. spokesperson walked back the statement that there was no classified info in those emails.
Then, we have the WH press secretary who has been saying for two days straight that all admin officials were told to use government emails for government work exclusively and they couldn’t say whether or not Hillary and her team were in compliance with regulations/laws or not..
This could get ugly.
The thing about the Clintons will be that they always force anyone Liberal to fend off the blows as if they are aimed at us personally. I’m tired just watching the gin up now. And I’m more than a little cranky that the media has already dubbed her the nominee.
Good for Joe’s crowd.
Good for Joe’s crowd.
Too bad all they have to offer for the next POTUS is a septuagenarian.
Hey! As an almost septuagenarian, I have to protest that.
That means you’re several years younger than Biden. Do you have the physical energy and stamina for a presidential campaign? A big new job with massive responsibilities and quickly changing issues and priorities?
No. Of course not. I don’t even have the physical energy and stamina to repair machinery any more, which is why I retired at the beginning of February.
I was just in an impish mood. Should have used a smilie to indicate it. Not too much to smile about though. It’s three degrees wind chill. SS is giving me a hard time applying for Medicare. OPM is stonewalling my pension and did I mention that it’s C-O-L-D? It’s 72 in Alabama, or so my daughter called to say, along with “Wouldn’t you really like to here nice and warm, low taxes, near your grandkids?” Sounds enticing, but I’m afraid the reality is more like Hell.
Hope the weather is better by you. Climatologists used to say that Chicago was going to get as warm as Miami. I suppose now that they know about the Polar Vortex, it’s going to be more like Anchorage.
Well, at least you still have most of your marbles. But losing a few every year seems inevitable.
Climatologists used to say that Chicago was going to get as warm as Miami.
They meant to say as warm in summer not winter except for an odd day here and there.
Out here, plenty of cloud activity. Almost as if it’s going to rain. Then the clouds dissipate to reveal a lovely blue sky. But we need rain. Not too optimistic we’ll see a March Miracle as we did many years ago during a dry spell. Water management systems for the drought are better today than they were during the 1976-77 drought years, but probably not robust enough if this one goes on much longer. If I were a wingnut, I’d blame CA droughts on Governor Jerry Brown.
I thought you were in California, but forgot for sure. I’d love to be there and wanted to move there for the last forty five years. Never could afford a house. I’ve been thinking of Northern Oregon and Western Washington.
One grandson lives in a small town near Seattle. They are having (relative) drought too. He tells me that means the rainfall is like a normal year in Illinois. Next year I plan to take Amtrak (can’t stand flying anymore, like an aerial cattle car) out to see him and his girlfriend.
As an almost septuagenarian,I’m amazed that Biden thinks he can do the job. What does he put in his Wheaties?
let’s hope he’s a stalking horse for O”Malley
Viagra.
Desire doesn’t wane with age and blinds us to certain age related realities.
Ain’t that the truth! Left hip and right knee almost dysfunctional but still a teenager in between. Well, pre-teen anyway.
Biden lives clean, no drugs no booze. He is a force of nature. I see him as the political version of Lemmy Kilmister.
LOL, makes a big difference when you don’t have to mow your own lawn, drive to the hardware store to get tools to maintain your own house and all the little things that exhaust one’s day. A herd of helpers goes a long way to give one energy to run the Country. LOL, of course we all still need a nap!
What does he put in his Wheaties!!!???
Oh man…!!!
C’mon…
You do know that all of these people carry a doctor with them at all times, right? Part of the crew. Dr. Phineas Feelgood, Esq. Bet on it.
If there were mandatory drug tests for politicians and world leaders I flat out guarantee that the entire world political system would change overnight. Most of them are so medicated up that it’s a wonder they survive…a testament to ego over physicality, I think. They believe that they are the hottest thing ever, that they are important, irreplaceable parts of the system, that they are so needed that anything they do is for the good of the universe. Left, right, center, kings and queens, theocrats of all persuasions…they really do, almost all of them. Need a little booster to make that hottest thing ever speech in wherever after flying however many hours on a daily basis for however many days? Need a little relaxer to get to sleep under the pressures of the job? Feeling a little…depressed…at the state of the world? A little…fearful…at the scope of your responsibilities? A little…guilty…at the vast amounts of blood on your hands?
Call Dr. Feelgood. He’ll fix you right up!!!
Whadda woild!!!
Whadda buncha maroons!!!
AG
Me too. I’ve got a good mind to run for president now.
And how old was Dick when he took over the Cheney
Administration?
at least a couple centuries, maybe 400 or so according to my recollection of The Highlander
Might as well post here as well:
Can we now get the Bush-Cheney emails?
Didn’t think so.
Can you say that this exposes once again a huge double standard in political coverage. IOKIYAR
Just like the sweet kiss of a plea bargain DOJ gave David Petraeus while sending Jeffery Sterling to 40 years of jail. Was Paula Broadwell “read in” to everything that Petraeus was doing in his duties?
Let’s talk serious exposure of US necessarily confidential war plans here.
If the secrecy laws are not going to be taken seriously for Gen. David Petraeus (ret.), they need not be taken seriously for Hillary Clinton either.
If the accountability for archiving emails is not going to be taken seriously for Bush and Cheney, they need not be taken seriously for Hillary Clinton either.
When the secrecy laws become only a tool for holding ordinary citizens and the little guys punishable for whatever, maybe it’s time for those secrecy laws and the insulation they give from the courts need to be repealed.
The corollary for Petraeus getting a slap on the wrist isn’t Clinton, but others that have released USG classified documents and been given harsh sentences. They should now all be pardoned and released and Snowden should be allowed to come home without threat of ever being locked for exposing the NSA spying.
Would you say that because Nixon got away with his crimes that it’s okay for any Democrat (or Republican) to get away with similar crimes committed after 1972?
Rove was busted, at least in the court of public opinion, for his use of private email. Shouldn’t that served as a warning lesson for all federal public officials serving after 1976?
Zoe Baird’s formal penalty for not paying employer Social Security taxes for her household employees was only $2,900. The larger penalty was that it blew her chance to become AG. At a national level, it was a warning message to anyone employing housekeepers, etc. that employer taxes are due. (Technically it is federal and state employer and employee payroll taxes, employee withholding taxes, and work comp insurance.)
It is interesting that the Hillary-email controversy seems to be dying before someone asks who else has been doing this and an end is called to the game.
The comparison with Petraeus is not the act but the level of outrage over really serious matters.
The comparison with someone like Kiriakou is the sensitivity of the information and the scale of the crime.
It seems that there might be something about Paula Broadwell that we do not yet know that mitigates the charges.
The Hillary emails are stuff she doesn’t want going to the US Archives. It is always good to ask why. Is there clear evidence that she was using it for government business?
It is interesting that the Hillary-email controversy seems to be dying …
How many times did Bill Clinton’s dick rise and fall as an issue until it climaxed in his impeachment and trial? And is less direct language, it remained an issue for another two years after that.
Have no idea about Broadwell. Her threatening emails to Kelly were bizarre. OTOH, we wouldn’t be the first women to sense or imagine a rival for the affections of a man she was involved with.
Other than her long-standing penchant or habit for secrecy, also have no idea why Clinton set up a private email system. Her affiliation with that rightwing religious group was also kept under wraps.
We don’t know what was in those e-mails and we never will. I think that’s the point.
A campaign issue that will bring voters to the polls in droves: “My missing e-mails were not as bad as your missing e-mails.”
Er … sorry, I meant “not as bad as your brother’s missing e-mails”.
If they continue with “Where are the emails” it is going to start sounding like “Where is the birth certificate”…and becomes the perfect issue for the Donald.
And they’re all Donalds in that party.
….when they start recycling rightwing Benghazi crapola, referencing Whitewater,talking about her “calculating Machiavellian character” and don’t even have a clue about what it is she’s supposed to have done wrong, just that it doesn’t “pass the smell test”, I’m going to be ornery. This is the Village in all its glory and I’m sad to say that a new generation of Villagers is just as willing to chase the shiny object for the Dark Ops wingnuts as their forebears.
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2015/03/process-server-emaildump.html
You sure like to paint with your broad brush.
As someone who not once criticized Ms. Clinton for anything she did or didn’t do wrt to the attack on the Benghazi compound — actually defended her — and consider those obsessed with Benghazi to be loons, how and who discovered her exclusive use of a private email service while she was SOS is irrelevant to me. Don’t care if it was technically not illegal either. SOP was to use government servers. Wrong when Rove and his team did it. More wrong for Ms. Clinton because her activities were after the exposure of Rove’s.
Wrong in several senses, but the one that’s most important is that in so doing she painted an indelible sign on her ass reading “kick me here”.
You mean there’s room on her ass for even more “kick me” signs than there are already plastered all over it?
Maybe…it is indeed a substantial girth of ass.
I actually feel sorry for her. The world has changed and she is beginning to find herself…maybe for the first time in her life…out of her league. A tick slow on the uptake. Lost some speed on her fastball and her curve isn’t getting people out as easily as it used to.
So it goes.
I wouldn’t be surprised if she eventually beats as dignified a retreat as possible and goes home to play with her grandchild.
I wouldn’t blame her, either.
AG
It’s never too early to start looking for a new Democratic candidate, one who will promise to seize the commanding heights of the economy in the name of the workers and appeal to white, Southern, working class men.
There’s got to be half-a-dozen of them out there.
So just pick the one that’s a person of color, or a woman, or both, and get on with it. In the event of a tie, sexual orientation will serve as the tiebreaker. Heteronormativity has had its day.
Then it’s just sit back and wait for the Democratic landslide, because our time has come.
Do I detect a note of sarcasm here?
Democrats considered this bid deal or evidence of corruption or possible criminality .
Any and all Republicans that defended Rove’s behavior, may now proceed to defend Ms. Clinton. Any and all Republicans that were silent wrt to Rove’s disappeared emails may continue to remain silent wrt Ms. Clinton.
Democrats that defended Rove on this matter may do the same for Ms. Clinton. Democrats that attacked Rove on this matter have the choice to be principled or hypocritical.
attacked Rove and company for exactly what she did while at State.
Me too. So much easier to be principled and avoid the stress of cognitive dissonance. Defending the indefensible for no reason other than it was done by one on “my team” corrupts the individual and the team.
But…but…Marie!!!
That’d be the end of politics as we know it!!!
Oh.
That’s what you had in mind.
Right.
Nevermind.
Yore freind…
Emily Litella
Hey Arthur,
do all these postings mean you are having a snow day in Da Bronx? we are having one here, So far I’m the only one here on my floor of the building.
No, not exactly. There have been many other snow days here inna Bronx this winter. What it means is that there has been a real blizzard in Chappaqua, where the Clintons claim to live.
Bet on it.
Climate change ain’t only about weather.
Bet on that as well.
AG
very nice!
Have to apologize for not noticing that you’d changed the subject line and reading it before posting a response. Misread your comment as you criticized Rove and are also criticizing Clinton.
Are you sure that Hillary attacked Rove for the private email service? If so, she going to have some high hurdles and hoops to jump through now.
Yeah, the rightwing people were posting her comment from 2007 saying secret emails shredded the constitution.
Hillary has enough surrogates pushing back on these stories now that she has David Brook who is part of Media Matters in her back pocket that she may get by without addressing this scandal or the questions about foreign donations to the Foundation while she was at State. We’ll see.
It’s interesting that there aren’t a lot of elected Dems running to defend her. I expected to see more pushback from her ex-Sen colleagues.
Not so many elected Dems are quick to jump on any issue – pro or con. As professional politicians they tend to be slow and/or weak at how to read public opinion in light of a new issue without a back-up poll. Even when they speak up, they’re not all that skilled at good articulating or framing on the fly and have learned the hard way that’s it’s better to wait for a written talking point memo. Within her area of expertise, Elizabeth Warren is uncommonly good at reading and articulating. A reason she stands out from the crowd.
Would also guess that there are a few elected Dems that are savvy enough politicians and have working long-term memories to be concerned about a Clinton nomination. Many went through hell during the 1990s defending Clinton’s self-inflicted wounds. They can see that Hillary did the same thing in 2008 and has been doing it again in the past year. Should make them a bit nervous about the party’s early coronation of Clinton.
I cut Brock a lot of slack for honesty when he came to see how wrong he’d been during his first, strident rightwing foray into national politics. Too much slack because what I overlooked is that what made him such a true believer for the right is the same psychological reason why he’s become a true believer for Clinton.
The GOP doesn’t need to make these Clinton issues stick at this point. Poking around for soft spots and testing with selected audiences is what they’re doing. Don’t know how early the Swift Boat operation began — but publicly it was in May 2004 and appeared to go nowhere. Reprised in August and was effective. Expect them to drop Benghazi in the next couple of months because there’s no there there and to keep beating that dead drum risks having the public tune out any negatives about her.
In politics, nobody really likes a winner, twodollars. They just go along to hitch onto the winner’s wins. And they really, really don’t like a winner who’s beginning to look like a potential loser.
I personally think that the fix is being reexamined.
Watch.
AG
How could she somehow think it was going too be overlooked? Arrogant unprofessional and unethical. Standard Clinton.
Nobody noticed for six years. The GOP may be disappointed that it didn’t remain a secret until 9/1/16.
Edwards didn’t expect his “love child” to be discovered anytime before he was inaugurated as President. Democrats — Edwards’ supporters and non-supporters — shudder at the thought that the exposure could have come after he was formally nominated.
Maybe its because I have a lot of exposure to the tech sector but it just seems like such a huge unforced error. Just such a transparently bad plan.
Inquiring minds ask why do something so seemingly stupid. Clinton-enemy minds know it was to hide nefarious activities.
Nobody noticed that she wasn’t using the federal e-mail system? Somebody noticed. But nobody said anything because she wasn’t running for president yet.
This is the greatest scandal since some haircut or other.
In retrospect wasn’t the John Edwards’ haircut flap a warning sign?
The point is not that it’s a scandal.
It’s a self-inflicted, not-going-to-go-away, vulnerability.
No, it’s a press-inflicted wound based on Republican bullshit, like most of the Clinton “vulnerabilities.”
It’s the same press environment that has existed for at least the last 20 years that she, of all people, should know intimately. That’s what makes it a self-inflicted, not-going-to-go-away, vulnerability.
yes, indeed. NY Newsday researched the Bill Clinton haircut “outrage” and discovered that the reality was as Bill Clinton said he’d thought, the plane was sitting on an unused runway.
and this was months after the Clinton haircut scandal, and the reality never made a dent in the media narrative
Thank you, Oscar, that’sd it exactly. Mrs Clinton ought to be aware of that more than anybody.
I hope VP Biden does make a run for President. I don’t think Ms. Clinton is leaning any further to the left than her husband did. Times have changed, but Ms. Clinton has not.
Is Biden more than a millimeter to Clinton’s left? He too voted for the IWR and was a major force in the 2005 bankruptcy “reform” act that has helped to screw over people who have taken out student loans.
I trust Joe Biden more than I trust Hillary Clinton.
Good point.
He also doesn’t appear as eager as Clinton to start another war or two.
He opposed Obama’s Afghanistan plan, arguing smaller scale shit to save face in order to get out. Though I think Obama opposed his own plan, too.
May 10, 2014
several Democrats at the event were struck by one remark [Biden] made about Bill Clinton’s presidency: Three sources there told CNN that Biden said the fraying of middle-class economic security did not begin during President George W. Bush’s terms, but earlier, in the “later years of the Clinton administration.” Biden, of course, could face off against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination in 2016 if they both decide to run.
Biden’s speech was described, to a person, as “populist.”
“He gave a stem-winding, almost revival-type speech today,” one Democrat said of the vice president. “I have never seen him this good. He was on fire. Sometimes when Joe gives a speech that goes on for 30 minutes, people are kind of drifting off or looking at their watches. But he was more enthused, more passionate. He was a preacher delivering a sermon.”
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/05/10/biden-delivers-elizabeth-warren-type-speech-at-fundr
aiser/
…Three sources there told CNN that Biden said the fraying of middle-class economic security did not begin during President George W. Bush’s terms, but earlier, in the “later years of the Clinton administration.”
True at an aggregate economic level. But it’s not fact a that most Democrats know or will accept.
Can he go further and say why its true and why the public didn’t perceive and/or experience less economic security until several years later?
Interesting to consider that if Obama hadn’t been in the 2008 race would Biden have been able to slice, dice, and filet Clinton on economic issues? How good was his voting record in those years? On one significant issue, Gramm-Leach-Bliley, , he got it right. However, so did the other 43 Senate Democratic Senators (and that includes several that were/are DINOs).
He supported the bankruptcy bill. Disqualifying imo. Obama voted no. Clinton wasn’t there to vote.
He was the senior senator from Delaware/MBNA. Expecting him to do otherwise would be like expecting a senator from Iowa to vote against a farm bill.
True, but do we need another POTUS that was actively engaged in protecting banksters in 2005 to the detriment of ordinary working stiffs? Was easy for me to rationalize Harkin’s support for farm bills because he was trying to look out for small farmers even if he had to accept that protecting corporate farmers was part of the price to do so.
I’m certainly open to suggestions.
That’s a biggie IMO as well. Along with his IRW votes. In all honesty neither Biden nor Clinton are acceptable and parsing this or that in their records is tiresome.
Like I’ve been saying here…the fix is presently being reexamined by the fixers. It looks like maybe one of the fighters suffered an injury while training that will not heal in time…maybe even a career-ending injury.. But…the fight must go on. They need another trustworthy marquee fighter to step up and take the bout. Joe’s in the mix. Bet on it.
AG
So far this is playing out as I expected months ago — the MSM will go after Hillary with whatever trivial Whitewater non-issue they can find and try to make it into a major scandal.
Even Once Librul MSNBC has joined in, with ratings-poor host Chris Hayes giving it major coverage, and Lawrence O’Donnell acting almost like an outraged federal prosecutor — She violated clear NARA rules! Oh dear.
The one surprise is how slow the Clinton camp has been in responding. A three-day bashing in the media on a story that should have been put to rest in half a day.
If her team doesn’t get better, we could possibly see either Biden or Walter O’Malley gain ground. And how exciting would that be!
The reflexes tend to slow down with age, Brodie. That is what we are seeing here. Losing bat speed. As above, so below.
AG
Have to disagree. Not that reaction times don’t slow down with age, but what we’re seeing is a function of the greatly increased speed of “information” dissemination. The “younguns” in both political parties aren’t any swifter, faster, and/or more effective at responding than the old folks.
No, Marte. They are faster, by and large.. They are “faster” because they are much more at ease with the technology that is running things if for no other reason.
AG
Which younger politicians have you seen that are faster? And I’m speaking of a comment, remark, or tweet that is so outrageous or stupid that it lights up the internet and cable TV talkies within seconds. But even there, the olds and youngers offer amendments or apologies at about the same rate of speed.
…MSM will go after Hillary with whatever trivial Whitewater non-issue…
Is such media treatment exclusive or limited to the Clintons? Yeah sure. Muskie shed a tear (even if he didn’t). Thomas Eagleton served in the US Senate from 1968 to 1987, but in 1972 he was too psychologically impaired to be VP. Mondale, horrors, chose a woman for his running mate. Dukakis looked silly riding on a tank. Gore wore the wrong color trousers and taking credit for his early support for development was deemed delusional. Obama met Ayers, his pastor said something that offended white people, and he was born in Kenya (despite the HI hospital record, birth certificate, and real time newspaper birth announcement).
All sleazy financial dealings of Presidential candidates should be exposed during the campaigns. Whitewater was a multimillion dollar, no money down, land flipping deal. Sleazy. It went south (unlike Clinton’s earlier similar but very small deals). As sleazy, but likely on a smaller scale, as multiple business deals the various members of the Bush family are known to have engaged in. Several of which ended up sticking the USG with the bill. Legitimate campaign fodder. However, once elected and as long as there was no pre-existing and open criminal investigations or obvious and egregious criminal activities if the facts had been known earlier, it’s best to leave it to the historians for later review and investigation. (Note: Watergate was an open criminal investigation before Nixon was re-elected and Nixon’s participation was obviously criminal although those facts weren’t known until later.)
Same with Clinton’s dalliances. A plurality chose to overlook that when voting for him. GWB’s TANG records were fair game in 2000 and 2004 but overlooked by his opponents and practically all the MSM. It would have been inappropriate for Democrats in Congress to open post-election investigations of that subject. Had Kerry won, it would have been similarly inappropriate for Republicans in Congress to mount an investigation of his military record. Not that Republicans actually give a hoot about behaving appropriately.
Back in 2008 when Biden said that “Obama is clean,” he meant that there were no skeletons in his closet or enough fudging (all politicians fudge) in his bio that could come back to bite him. IMHO that’s not a trivial matter for voters who I think are somewhat exhausted by the decades of sleaze attached to major political candidates in both parties. In 2008 and 2012, voters didn’t have to weigh “sleaze factor D” against “sleaze factor R” in deciding who to vote for. “Zero sleaze factor” against “an unknown but more than zero sleaze factor” won both times.
Democrats are foolish to bank on “less sleazy” than the GOP nominee’s “sleaze factor” because the GOP is much more skilled at making mountains out an opponent’s molehill. And Democrats tend to act as if an opponent’s sleaze mountain is only a molehill.
The Clintons are a broken record. Change, development, principles, none of it is there and never will be They demand attention at every turn and know how to get it; she can’t stop gloating for the camera. The NYT has the email story on the frontpage online today. Has it decided that its bread might be more thickly buttered on the other side, I wonder? I’m always amused by how that newspaper insists on referring to her as HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, as if royalty, Rodham being a label of distinction; no other news outlet seems to do it. That paper is so fossilized anyway: every name is preceded by the eminent title Mr./Mrs./Miss. no matter how many time the name appears in an article. The Clintons have a retro fifties image of white people of the upper middle class with a tinge of good-old American personality mixed with a respectable haze of old-time religion. Their PR agents are brilliant. Loads of money too, succes. It’s really shame that we’ve been reduced to sitting around talking again about a Bush and a Clinton. It’s the dregs!
Stay tuned, Quentin.
The 2016 fix looks like it’s being reexamined as we speak.
Watch.
AG
Yes.
“every name is preceded by the eminent title Mr./Mrs./Miss. no matter how many time the name appears in an article. “
That’s actually one of the (relatively few) things I like about the Times. I still haven’t reconciled myself to the switch from 8 columns a page to 6 columns in 1976, much less the introduction of color photographs in 1993. But worst of all is the reduction of page width from 13.5 to 12 inches since August 6, 2007.
Note: this is NOT snark.
It would never have occurred to me that your comment might be snark. And to clear up any possible misunderstanding, mine isn’t snark either, which will be soon be confirmed by a high-placed source who cannot be identified for reasons for national security.
The Right is just getting started on Clinton. And though they are so ginned up on the malinformation for the moment, eventually someone will ask about Clinton’s judgment.
Did she choose her own privacy and control at the expense of national security? By doing so did she compromise both?
I absolutely detest those kinds of questions and it makes me all the more sure I was right to vote for Obama.
Dare I say Rand Paul? Yes. I dare.
He is very successfully branding himself the only real “New Generation” politician with a national standing by his…or quite possibly of course his handlers’ and his…internet presence. He is doing this quite consciously. Just look at his his jeans and sports coat/slightly rumpled hipster look. You think he doesn’t own some sober national pol business suit6s? He just doesn’t want that to be part of his brand.
When other politicians have tried similar moves over the last decade or so…John Edwards comes to mind immediately…they were so blatantly faking it that it plainly stood out to the audience at which they were aiming and actually ended up hurting them. But Rand Paul? He’s not acting. That’s the beauty of it. That’s him up there, warts and all. And the potions of the mainstream media that are potshotting at him because…because that’s their job, really…they are actually doing him some good with his prospective younger audience because that audience has just about lost all faith in the GMC…the Government Media Complex. Bet on it. I’m not saying he’ll win this time, nor am I necessarily saying that he would make a good president. I am saying that he is the new face of politics in America, and others will follow his lead as far as image is concerned.
Watch.
AG
LOL
If a legacy, fundie-lite Christian Republican with foot-in-mouth syndrome is the answer, why would I choose the dumber, racist, misogynist one with bad hair?
He’s not looking for you, Marie. You…and people like you…are not even on his radar. He thinks he can build a winning coalition of the young, the conservative, the disaffected minorities, the anti-surveillance state/anti-big government, anti-big finance and the peacenik movements into an electoral steamroller.
Who’s to say he’s dead wrong? Only time will tell.
AG
Oh, 30% of CPAC folks (1) and Arthur Gilroy. (You didn’t actually get my question but will leave it.)
The young? Too square and creepy for all but (1).
The conservative? It only coalesces as a single entity at general election time and then is still nationally a minority and concentrated in too few states to win. Before then is breaks down into the known factions but the voters in those factions aren’t rigid in who they fancy from one election to the next.
Disaffected minorities? You mean white guys? Those seem to be the only ones that can’t see or see and deny that the Pauls’ appeals to racists.
anti-USG, etc. It’s the old Buchanan isolationist, etc. schtick. Deeply cynical and dishonest.
Peaceniks? Only those that have consumed too many drugs for too many years would mistake either of the Pauls for being anti-war, anti-MIC. Hell, they aren’t even half-baked libertarians with their personal disapproval of same-sex marriage and women controlling their own reproductive health without interference. The “let states decide what’s best in their territory” (includes drug legalization) is repulsive because it’s rooted in racism, misogyny, homophobia, etc.
Like I said…only time will tell. I wouldn’t bet real money on any of them from either side of the UniParty right now. I’m waiting until the Government media Complex hype machine really tips its fix hand.
Watch.
AG