It's like there's something in the air which makes even good, thoughtful writers and journalists become creatures of the Beltway taking on all its mores and manners and obediently following the pack mentality.
So when the fake email scandal was written about in the NY Times, Greg Sargent played along. He admitted that there were in fact Clinton rules and that the press doesn't cover them like other politicians.
But he also seemed sure that there is something they do to cause this. The victims are to blame! Ok, so the Clinton scandals always prove to be smoke and no fire but surely there is something the Clintons to explain why there is always smoke?
He seemed convinced at the outset that Hillary had done something wrong-ok, maybe she didn't break the law. But isn't that the Clinton way to be legalistic?
Ok, many other government officials have used private emails but surely she should have known better? At the least he-and his buddy at the Plum Line Paul Waldman-seemed to feel that it showed that her and her husband have a propensity for secrecy.
Now the truth is quite different. You can argue that if anything she has been too transparent and cooperative here, even apologizing for doing nothing wrong.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/08/ok-heres-what-hillary-should-have-said.html
These silly quibbles She should have known better; she craves secrecy; she's just not likeable; in a way such jibes are pathetically small beer. But small beer was used to destroy Al Gore as well.
If Hillary is defeated it will be on such small beer personal grounds.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/09/matt-yglesias-has-very-important-post.html
Such small beer was used to elect Bush-Cheney. So it's a shame when even a quality, liberal journalist like Sargent-or Waldman-talk this puerile Beltway speak.
This morning Sargent is at it again. Yes, he admits that her poll numbers are ok-not in 'free fall' as every headline gleefully announces-but, he adds, her numbers on trustworthiness are awful.
"HILLARY STILL LEADS, BUT PERSONAL NUMBERS ARE AWFUL: The new Quinnipiac poll poll finds Hillary Clinton with 43 percent of Dems and Dem-leaning independents nationally; Bernie Sanders has 25 percent; Joe Biden has 18. Remove Biden and Clinton leads Sanders by 53-30."
"But Clinton’s numbers among Americans overall are upside down on favorability (41-55); on honesty and trustworthiness (32-63); and on caring about people like you (43-53). Yet they say by 55-43 that Clinton has strong leadership qualities."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/09/24/morning-plum-no-donald-trump-isnt-really-telling-it-like-it-is/
So when the fake email scandal was written about in the NY Times, Greg Sargent played along. He admitted that there were in fact Clinton rules and that the press doesn't cover them like other politicians.
But he also seemed sure that there is something they do to cause this. The victims are to blame! Ok, so the Clinton scandals always prove to be smoke and no fire but surely there is something the Clintons to explain why there is always smoke?
He seemed convinced at the outset that Hillary had done something wrong-ok, maybe she didn't break the law. But isn't that the Clinton way to be legalistic?
Ok, many other government officials have used private emails but surely she should have known better? At the least he-and his buddy at the Plum Line Paul Waldman-seemed to feel that it showed that her and her husband have a propensity for secrecy.
Now the truth is quite different. You can argue that if anything she has been too transparent and cooperative here, even apologizing for doing nothing wrong.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/08/ok-heres-what-hillary-should-have-said.html
These silly quibbles She should have known better; she craves secrecy; she's just not likeable; in a way such jibes are pathetically small beer. But small beer was used to destroy Al Gore as well.
If Hillary is defeated it will be on such small beer personal grounds.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/09/matt-yglesias-has-very-important-post.html
Such small beer was used to elect Bush-Cheney. So it's a shame when even a quality, liberal journalist like Sargent-or Waldman-talk this puerile Beltway speak.
This morning Sargent is at it again. Yes, he admits that her poll numbers are ok-not in 'free fall' as every headline gleefully announces-but, he adds, her numbers on trustworthiness are awful.
"HILLARY STILL LEADS, BUT PERSONAL NUMBERS ARE AWFUL: The new Quinnipiac poll poll finds Hillary Clinton with 43 percent of Dems and Dem-leaning independents nationally; Bernie Sanders has 25 percent; Joe Biden has 18. Remove Biden and Clinton leads Sanders by 53-30."
"But Clinton’s numbers among Americans overall are upside down on favorability (41-55); on honesty and trustworthiness (32-63); and on caring about people like you (43-53). Yet they say by 55-43 that Clinton has strong leadership qualities."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/09/24/morning-plum-no-donald-trump-isnt-really-telling-it-like-it-is/
He makes it sound like this is new but for a few months her trust and favorable numbers have been down. However, a few points
1. This is due to him and his Beltway buddies going on about how she doesn't play it straight, she is addicted to secrecy, she has shown terrible judgment, she's just not a good campaigner.
2. Still, her numbers among Democrats are higher. What's happened is the mushy middle of independents have been taken in by the Beltway baloney. That Sargent is particularly guilty as Republicans can gleefully declare Even liberals like Greg Sargent are shocked by her lack of transparency, her tendency to engage in secrecy when it's not even needed.
3. In any case, such character gauges aren't that predictive of who wins elections-Bill Clinton had low numbers in 1996 but still won resoundingly.
True, you'd rather not see these numbers upside down but then if this bothers Sargent maybe he ought to stop contributing to it. As Hillary has no such penchant for secrecy-often she has been almost too transparent for her own good-the fact that so many independents now think she does is not s sign of her failure but of Sargent and his Beltway buddies.
No comments:
Post a Comment