Did Hillary Tell Her Email Critics to Go to Hell?

     I hope that's what she did. It's what this politico piece claims. I hope they're right:

     "Hillary Clinton was likable enough, answering questions calmly though with a weary smile. She even offered a feint toward humility, allowing that, “looking back,” perhaps there was a “smarter” way for her to have handled her correspondence as secretary of state besides bypassing official government email entirely."

     "Beneath the politesse, however, was an unmistakable message in her 21-minute news conference in New York on Tuesday, easily distilled into three short words: Go to hell."

      Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/03/hillary-clinton-press-conference-115958.html#ixzz3U2coqxZR

     Let me just make a quite note: I hate the way there's this undercurrent that she's not humble enough. It always makes writers like this one sound like they're just at the edge of their seats hungry for some 'humility' from her. Why does she have to be humble? Name me the last male politician who to be constantly chided for not being humble enough. 

    Still, 'go to hell is good.' It's appropriate:

    "No, Clinton said, she did not violate the law or rules when, for reasons of “convenience,” she used a private email account in her years as the nation’s top diplomat."

     "No, she said, this matter does not need to be turned over to some outsider who can examine the Clinton family’s private email server and independently assess her assertion that she has already given to the State Department any correspondence that might conceivably be of public interest.

And no, she clearly believes, even if she did not explicitly say, she’s not going to pretend that this latest uproar is on the level, that the reporters and politicians second-guessing her judgments and clamoring for more answers have anything but self-interested motives in fanning the controversy."

     This is a key point. I get so tired of these phony reporters feinging that this is all about a pressing issue of the national interest when all it is anything but. When you read a piece like this from a GOPer you tell me what they're so smug about is that this is their chance to really serve the public interest?

    http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/03/clinton-emails-gop-115884.html

    Yet, you keep getting liberals like Greg Sargent and Paul Waldman who want to dignify this self interested mud slinging with some earnest long winded public explanation. 

     http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2015/03/sigh-hillary-clinton-and-much-ado-about.html

      James Carville gets it right while Waldman quibbles:

     "The Clinton email story heralds the reemergence of James Carville:

“Look, the problem here isn’t about the emails, you guys are never going to be satisfied with whatever answers she gives,” said former Bill Clinton adviser James Carville. “Y’all are just going to go out there and say, ‘She raised more questions than she answered.’”

      "He may not be wrong about that, but believing it can be a justification for some extremely unwise decisions."

     http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/03/10/happy-hour-roundup-558/

     So since Waldman is so smart maybe he can explain the 'wise way' to go forward? To let the GOP sidetrack the conversation in another feeding frenzy aided by liberals like him who keep insisting that there's something important here though he can't explain what?

    So if Hillary told her email critics to go to hell, then good, and let's hope they do.