Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Wednesday, March 11, 2015

Ooooh, SCARY!

We've seen this slime-ball tactic before. Plenty of times.

First, the Republicans drum up silly charges against the Clintons. The charges are either unproven or trivial. Nevertheless, the Clintons are forced to respond. When that response comes, the major media do not run stories headlined "Those GOP smear-masters are at it again." Instead, the writers direct all of their cynicism and sneers toward Bill and Hillary: "Ah, those scandal-prone Clintons are playing defense -- AGAIN. How evasive. How slick. How disingenuous."

Such pieces create an aura of scandal even when there's no actual scandal.

Nobody in this country truly cares about the email thing. Even the conservatives don't care, although they do see the political advantage in pretending to care. Facts don't matter when the intent is to create a sense of unease, of foreboding. And the mainstream media always does its part to create a spooky atmosphere, churning up the fog machines and playing dark organ music in an attempt to convince us that the Clintons are scarier than Jack the Ripper and Ted Bundy combined.

Here's an example from Politico...
How essentially combative was Clinton? The main piece of news to emerge from the session was her confusingly worded disclosure that she has already deleted the emails that she believes are no one’s business but her own.

Go to hell is not typically a sentiment expressed by politicians on the brink of a presidential campaign. But in Hillary Clinton’s case, it reflects a sincerely held belief that has been nearly a quarter-century in the making.
Here's a slimier example from the Daily Beast...
“There has been a pattern of good and bad behavior going back to the mid-1980s,” said National Journal editorial director Ron Fournier, who got to know the Clintons as a reporter in the state capital of Little Rock.
“It’s not enough to give a couple of brief comments and talk her way out of this,” Fournier said. “She can’t spin her way out of this. She can’t explain her way out of this.”

Thus the Clinton-press clash shows no signs of abating.
Also from the Daily Beast: "Hillary Gives Us the Full Clinton."
And it is perhaps only a Clinton, a family that made answering questions by not answering questions into an art form, a family whose patriarch famously parsed the word “is,” that could have pulled off a press conference quite like the one Hillary Clinton did Tuesday.
Actually, that "is" thing made sense in context. It did not anger the public (despite what the GOP rewriters of history will tell you): Bill Clinton's approval ratings went up that day.
Give no ground. Drop personal details about the emails you want to keep under wraps—your daughter’s marriage, your mother’s funeral, your yoga routine.

Insinuate that you are being targeted.

“You would have to ask that question to every single federal employee,” Clinton said in response to a question about the American people could be expected to trust her in determining which emails were private and which were personal.

Why Hillary Clinton is not just like any other bureaucrat is, of course laughable on its face...
Do you think this writer was similarly outraged when Cheney had that infamous secret energy meeting?

Here's the WP:
But Tuesday ended up feeling more like a throwback to the darker side of 1990s politics, when — with just two hours to spare before her U.N. address — Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill announced that Clinton would hold a “brief press conference” after her speech.
Since that violation became public, the airwaves have been filled by a familiar cast of characters who have stirred uncomfortable memories, even as they have leapt to her defense.
On Fox News Sunday, former Clinton White House lawyer Lanny Davis attempted a clumsy, legalistic rationale on her behalf, only to be asked by moderator Chris Wallace, “Do you ever get tired of cleaning up after the Clintons?”

On CNN, designated wise man David Gergen — who had been brought into the Clinton White House in 1993 to help its image — ruminated that Hillary Clinton had been “badly damaged” because she was reminding voters of “some of the worst aspects of the 1990s.”
She was reminding voters? That's like blaming Sharon Tate for the Manson murders.

Another WP opinion piece: "The Insiders: Perfunctory and uncomfortable, Hillary Clinton did not end the story"
For those who are now expected to defend her, they can say she has answered the questions and her opponents are just hounding her. But in a move that everyone knows will keep the controversy alive, she directly challenged her critics, saying that her server will remain private. That is an open invitation for subpoenas and hackers to come and get it.
And then there's the ever-reliable HuffPo:
Tuesday afternoon, the first act of "Hillary Clinton Email Dämmerung" concluded, with the former secretary of state providing an eager mass of reporters with a brief press conference, in which she "Addressed The Controversy For The First Time" and, as you might expect, "Raised More Questions Than She Answered."
And then there's the NYT...
"Convenience.” “Convenience.” “Convenience.” “Convenience.”

Hillary Clinton’s reliance on that word during her news conference at the United Nations on Tuesday minimized the exemption from standard procedure that she allowed herself when she decided — all on her own — to use only a private email address for both personal and government business.

She told reporters that she hadn’t wanted to be weighed down by a second electronic device. It wasn’t secrecy that motivated her. It was purse space and pinkie strain.

And behind her forced smile, which was practically cemented in place, she seemed put out by all the skepticism and all the questions. She shouldn’t be. This latest Clinton controversy is not the work or fault of Republican enemies or a ruthless, unappeasable press corps. It’s her doing.
Nope. It's Republican enemies and a ruthless (or purchased) press corps. They ran exactly the same sort of bullshit stories during the Whitewater investigation. They should have been ashamed of themselves then, and they should be ashamed now.
Thank you for the post. I get similarly irked by the anti-Clinton forces, especially since they have no grasp of reality. SOS Clinton may not be Jesus-Christ-Incarnate but she is by far the most competent human being to get within spitting distance of White House since Bill occupied the Oval House. She may not fit everyone's imaginary ideal political profile but she fits the moderate range well and is the only ELECTABLE moderate who does so.
And you'd think, after all the times the Clintons have gotten their sketchy, sketchy asses caught doing something wrong, Hillary wouldn't have done something that Bushco got reamed for and was forbidden for all her State Dept. employees. The possibility that she will become president horrifies me.

NO WAY should the Secretary of State, also a member of the President's national security team, be using anything other than the government's secure mail servers. Not for "her convenience" or any other reason. If I were the president and found out, I'd have given her a serious talking-to - AND fired the IT wimp(s) who let her get away with it.

Which brings me to the why. One possibility is that she's too stupid to understand the significance, which makes me question whether she's ready for the prez job. Another possibility is that she's an arrogant narcissist. A third possibility is that she wanted to ensure direct-access for her memoirs. None of these possibilities bodes well for a future presidency.

NOTE: I did not say I suspect her of hiding anything.
This is same old, same old--let's create a scream fest because . . . Benghazi was getting lukewarm and we [the Republicans] need something, anything to make Hillary go away.

Is HRC perfect? No. Is she formidable? Absolutely. And the GOP is completely unhinged, scrambling to bring her down with whatever they can grab. Meanwhile back in the halls of governance, we have 47 blowhard, right-wing maniacs writing letters to Iran's mullahs in order to sabotage a nuclear deal.

Hummmm. What carries more weight? Hillary Clinton's emails or seditious behavior on the part of one freshman senator and 46 Republican legislators?

No contest.

I predict the GOP and their media flunkies will ultimately blow themselves up. Because anyone who was around in the 90s remembers how thoroughly demented these people truly are. Charles Pierce is right--these are the Mole People!

We forget so easily. In 2007 the Bush White House tried to sack eight US attorneys who refused its overtures to bring fabricated corruption charges against Democrats running for political office. Congress then subpoenaed White House emails only to be told that most of their emails had been sent via a non-government domain host and an email server not controlled by the federal government but by the Republican Party. This was a violation of several US laws and had clearly been set up by the Bush administration so as to defeat any Congressional oversight. Over 5 million emails were lost or deleted in this way. It was a concerted effort to conceal every activity of the Bush admistration. It was an attempt to run government 'off the books' and to the advantage of the Republican crime syndicate.
I am a Hillary person. So much so the last time I voted was Democratic primaries of 2008. However this time I think there are some issues that doesn't sit right with me. The first one where does she find her staff because competency is not one of the criteria. What about the IT department in the state shouldn't that be their job. Also may be my biggest problem is that she thinks she can do whatever the he'll she wants rules and regulations be damned. I don't believe for a second the WH didn't know she must have received something from her in four years. Having said I still she is the one I would rather see in the WH or her husband
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is 

powered by Blogger. 

Isn't yours?

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Image and video hosting by TinyPic