That is the logic of the Hillary bashers: let's face it in the 23 years her and her husband have been in the public stage we've been subjected to an awful lot of Hillary bashing and most Hillary bashers are just shockingly illogical: think of someone like Christopher Hitchens and he was allegedly on the Left.
It's not surprising to see the GOP use such tortured logic-their the party that prides itself on 'sticking to its guns' no matter how wrong it is and how many times ti shoots itself in the face. However, even the New Republic is using this same illogical argument to claim that this shows Hillary is not ready for primetime.
"Late Monday night, the New York Times’ Michael Schmidt reported that Hillary Clinton, when she was secretary of state, only used a personal email address for conducting official business. It’s just the latest in a string of negative stories that have put Clinton on the defensive—and should make Democrats extremely concerned about her uncontested path to the nomination."
"The Times claims that during her time at the State Department, Clinton broke federal regulations about email use. “Her aides took no actions to have her personal emails preserved on department servers at the time, as required by the Federal Records Act,” Schmidt wrote. That may not be precisely true: The Daily Beast's Michael Tomasky discovered that the Federal Records Act only required Clinton to preserve copies of her emails, which Clinton appears to have done. It wasn't until October 2014—a year and a half after Clinton left office—that the State Department finally issued specific instructions for employee record management."
"Still, it's a serious problem when government officials conduct business with personal email accounts because any messages sent and received are not archived on government servers. Those emails would not surface in Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests and subpoenas, creating a dangerous lack of transparency. That's why, also in October 2014, the State Department asked all former secretaries since Madeleine Albright to turn over any records from their time in office. “Mrs. Clinton’s advisers reviewed tens of thousands of pages of her personal emails and decided which ones to turn over to the State Department,” Schmidt writes. “All told, 55,000 pages of emails were given to the department.”
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121208/hillary-clintons-email-use-shows-shes-unprepared-election
It's a serious problem that she broke the law-even though she didn't break the law. Got it. I guess we better draft Elizabeth Warren right? There's just this real desire to see this uppity woman brought low. Some on the Left as well. They just don't like how much she wants this-other politicians want it this bad but others are women.
I get that there's this narrative that Elizabeth Warren is more of a 'real liberal'-I get so tired of that word 'real.' Yet part of why people like Warren better maybe because she has such a saintly image. She's in a way more like what we expect in a good woman should she choose politics: an absolute fastidiousness about doing what's right. Hlllary has principles and values as well: but she also is ambitious and the people that hate Hillary really hate that about her.
It's not surprising to see the GOP use such tortured logic-their the party that prides itself on 'sticking to its guns' no matter how wrong it is and how many times ti shoots itself in the face. However, even the New Republic is using this same illogical argument to claim that this shows Hillary is not ready for primetime.
"Late Monday night, the New York Times’ Michael Schmidt reported that Hillary Clinton, when she was secretary of state, only used a personal email address for conducting official business. It’s just the latest in a string of negative stories that have put Clinton on the defensive—and should make Democrats extremely concerned about her uncontested path to the nomination."
"The Times claims that during her time at the State Department, Clinton broke federal regulations about email use. “Her aides took no actions to have her personal emails preserved on department servers at the time, as required by the Federal Records Act,” Schmidt wrote. That may not be precisely true: The Daily Beast's Michael Tomasky discovered that the Federal Records Act only required Clinton to preserve copies of her emails, which Clinton appears to have done. It wasn't until October 2014—a year and a half after Clinton left office—that the State Department finally issued specific instructions for employee record management."
"Still, it's a serious problem when government officials conduct business with personal email accounts because any messages sent and received are not archived on government servers. Those emails would not surface in Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests and subpoenas, creating a dangerous lack of transparency. That's why, also in October 2014, the State Department asked all former secretaries since Madeleine Albright to turn over any records from their time in office. “Mrs. Clinton’s advisers reviewed tens of thousands of pages of her personal emails and decided which ones to turn over to the State Department,” Schmidt writes. “All told, 55,000 pages of emails were given to the department.”
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121208/hillary-clintons-email-use-shows-shes-unprepared-election
It's a serious problem that she broke the law-even though she didn't break the law. Got it. I guess we better draft Elizabeth Warren right? There's just this real desire to see this uppity woman brought low. Some on the Left as well. They just don't like how much she wants this-other politicians want it this bad but others are women.
I get that there's this narrative that Elizabeth Warren is more of a 'real liberal'-I get so tired of that word 'real.' Yet part of why people like Warren better maybe because she has such a saintly image. She's in a way more like what we expect in a good woman should she choose politics: an absolute fastidiousness about doing what's right. Hlllary has principles and values as well: but she also is ambitious and the people that hate Hillary really hate that about her.
Warren is basically a saint who has deigned to engage in dirty politics. Hillary is at heart: yes an actual politician. How vulgar!
Man they'd like to see her pay for this!
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2015/03/elizabeth-warren-begs-off-for-netanyahu.html
So they dream that this is 2008 all over again. And that Warren is going to beat her like Obama ended up beating her and she will again have egg all over her face: this is what the Hillary haters crave.
The NR writer wants 2008.
"The Times doesn't say why Clinton didn't turn over all emails. If she and her advisers selectively chose which emails to hand over, we need to at least know the selection process. Otherwise, who knows what she left out?"
Man they'd like to see her pay for this!
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2015/03/elizabeth-warren-begs-off-for-netanyahu.html
So they dream that this is 2008 all over again. And that Warren is going to beat her like Obama ended up beating her and she will again have egg all over her face: this is what the Hillary haters crave.
The NR writer wants 2008.
"The Times doesn't say why Clinton didn't turn over all emails. If she and her advisers selectively chose which emails to hand over, we need to at least know the selection process. Otherwise, who knows what she left out?"
"The Clinton camp adamantly denies that it’s trying to hide anything. "Like Secretaries of State before her, she used her own email account when engaging with any Department officials,” her spokesman, Nick Merrillsaid. “For government business, she emailed them on their Department accounts, with every expectation they would be retained.” Hillary had every expectation, they say, that all of her communications from her time at the State Department would become public."
"Clinton herself isn't speaking. As a still-unofficial presidential candidate, she doesn't feel compelled to answer questions about this latest damaging report. But she should—because it’s starting to appear that Clinton is far less prepared for a presidential run than anyone expected."
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121208/hillary-clintons-email-use-shows-shes-unprepared-election
I don't know why she needs to speak about it-I guess it will humble her which is the whole goal of this excercise. I mean Merrill explained pretty clearly what happened. Why is the NR not satisfied? Does author Danny Vinik fail to understand the point that this is what previous Secretary of States have done-prior to the brand new rule implemented after she left State? How difficult is this to understand?
I mean did he drink the same obtuseness coffee the GOP evidently drinks every morning where points very simple to understand are somehow not understood?
"First, she made multiple gaffes about her own wealth, saying her family was “dead broke” after Bill Clinton left office. At the same time, she has given numerous speeches for hundreds of thousands of dollars. And over the past few weeks, the Wall Street Journal and Washington Post reported in separate investigations that the Clinton Foundation had accepted donations from foreign countries both during and after her time as secretary of state. Many of those countries, like Saudi Arabia, do not have stellar records on human rights."
Oh please. That's the scandal? She has money? Fine, elect Jeb Bush-he doesn't have any money.
As for Saudi Arabia they may not have a stellar record on human rights but they are a US ally. If Virik has a problem with that it goes beyond Hillary-his problem is with official US policy. Why should it be ok for both parties in the WH to be friends with Saudi Arabia but she should refuse to accept donations from them?
Listen-money really is money. If Charles Manson donates money for a good cause, the money is just as well spent. Why turn it down? Again, if the Saudis are Manson, they are our allies. This is nothing to do with Hillary not being ready for prime time but rather Virik doesn't approve of US policy.
I doubt he's ever written about changing that before. That's because he doesn't really care about the Saudis-they're just a convenient club to beat Hillary with.
Sure, let's try to sink her campaign. I'm sure a President Jeb Bush wouldn't be friends with the Saudis. Of course, we get to the real point at the end:
"The best way for a party to vet a candidate, and get all of the dirt out of the way, is in a primary. But the Democratic Party is not going to have a competitive primary. At best, former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley and former Senator Jim Webb will be her challengers. That’s not a particularly tough primary."
"The wild card is Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, whom liberals have long wanted to run for president. Warren has basically ruled out a presidential run. She has made no moves to indicate she is considering one. But as she sees Clinton struggle before even hitting the campaign trail, Warren—and other party leaders—has to be thinking about it more every day. She probably wouldn't win, but it would still make for a far more competitive primary, take some of the heat and press coverage off Hillary, and make her a far more battle-tested candidate for the general election. That’s exactly what the Democratic Party needs."
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121208/hillary-clintons-email-use-shows-shes-unprepared-election
Yep. It's all about Warren, the Liberal Lion. Listen, what can I tell you? Every presidential campaign has a different character. True the uncompetitive primary is unprecedented and may have some pitfalls. Yet, it obviously also conveys some real benefits.
Like getting to watch the GOP going after itself for months before offiically putting her hat in the ring. If she does this in June as per her plan this should still give her ample time to campaign.
What are you going to do? People are always going to want a reason to hate Hillary, but the best move with them has always been to take them in stride as Hillary hatred has never been about logic.
P.S. I get that running essentially unopposed can carry certain pitfalls, still, overall I will argue it's a feature not a bug. The positives well outweigh the negatives.
No comments:
Post a Comment