“You Know I Can’t Hear You With All Those Ethics Alarms Ringing”: Hillary Clinton’s CNN Interview

Hillary_Clinton_2016

The frightening thing—it should frighten Democrats more than anyone, but if they have let Hillary get this far, they may be beyond frightening—is that Hillary Clinton had a long time to prep for this interview—her first substantive one since announcing her candidacy, about five or six scandals ago—had a hand-picked, friendly interviewer, was not pressed to clarify any of her non-answers, obfuscations or incomprehensible blather, and she still came off looking defensive, evasive, and basically like Tommy Flanagan in drag.

Ethics Alarms were ringing so loudly that the interview was almost inaudible. My observations in bold….

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN SR. WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT:  Secretary Clinton, thank you so much for talking to us today.  You’re here in Iowa for a couple of events.  You’re the front-runner in this state but we’re also seeing Bernie Sanders attract a lot of attention.  He has had big crowds here, 10,000 people in Wisconsin last week, 7,500 people in Maine last night. Why is it, do you think, that someone who is a self-described Democratic socialist is really attracting this organic interest that your campaign seems to be struggling a little bit with?

HILLARY CLINTON, FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE:  Well, first of all, I always thought this would be a competitive race.  So I am happy to have a chance to get out and run my campaign as I see fit and let other candidates do exactly the same.

Non-responsive. Also a lie: Clinton has always assumed she could get the nomination by just showing up.

I feel very good about where we are in Iowa.  We are signing up thousands of volunteers, people committed to caucus for us.  We have a committed supporter in every one of the 1,600 precincts.  And one of the things that I learned last time is it’s organize, organize, organize.  And you’ve got to get people committed.  And then they will follow through and then you bring more people.

Non-responsive.

So I feel very good about where my campaign is.  It’ll be three months and a few days that we’ve been at this.  I think I’ve learned a lot from listening to people in Iowa.  And it’s actually affected what I say and what I talk about on the campaign trail.

Non-responsive.

So I couldn’t be happier about my campaign.

Non-responsive. Pretending to open yourself to a candid question and answer session and then refusing to answer the very first question while pretending you did: Dishonest. Disrespectful.

KEILAR:  Senator Sanders  has talked about how, if he’s president, he would raise taxes.  In fact, he said to CNN’s Jake Tapper, he would raise them substantially higher than they are today, on big corporations, on wealthy Americans. Would you?

CLINTON:  I will be laying out my own economic policies.  Again, everybody has to run his or her own campaign.  And I’m going to be telling the American people what propose and how I think it will work and then we’ll let voters make up their minds.

“I refuse to answer on the grounds that I might incriminate myself actually let voters know what I stand for. After all, I’m a vagina. That’s what really matters.”

KEILAR:  Is raising taxes on the table?

CLINTON:  I’m going to put out my policies and I’ll other people speak to their policies because I think we have to both grow the economy faster and fairer so we have to do what will actually work in the short term, the medium term and the long term.  I will be making a speech about my economic proposals on Monday.  And then I look forward to the debate about them.

If Clinton made a speech Monday (July 7) about specific economic proposals, she did it in her closet, because all anyone actually heard was this.

KEILAR:  I’m wondering if you can address a vulnerability that we’ve seen you dealing with recently.  We see in our recent poll that nearly six in 10 Americans say they don’t believe that you’re honest and trustworthy. Do you understand why they feel that way?

CLINTON:  Well, I think when you are subjected to the kind of constant barrage of attacks that are largely fomented by and coming from the Right and –

The vast right wing conspiracy again! Ironic, because one very good reason people shouldn’t, and  many sane people actually do not, trust Hillary is when she made teh same accusation on the Today Show to Matt Lauer, claiming that the Monica Lewinsky scandal had been “largely fomented by and coming from the Right,” when in fact she knew otherwise and was lying for her husband.

KEILAR:  But do you bear any responsibility for that?

CLINTON:  – well, I – you know, I can only tell you that I was elected twice in New York against the same kind of onslaught.

“I got away with it before, didn’t I?”

I was confirmed and served as secretary of state and I think it’s understandable that when questions are raised people maybe are thinking about them and wondering about them.

Dissembling. People don’t  distrust Clinton because of questions. They distrust Clinton because she has shown herself to be untrustworthy repeatedly.

But I have every confidence that during the course of this campaign people are going to know who will fight for them, who will be there when they need them and that’s the kind of person I am.  And that’s what I will do, not only in a campaign but as president.

Translation: “As for telling them the truth, being transparent, showing integrity, and all the markers of actual trust, no, of course not.”

Ann Althouse writes regarding this “answer”:

“And I suspect that when she talks this over with her advisers, a central idea is: Politicians are dishonest. Everyone knows that and everyone thinks that. It’s trifling that it shows up in a poll that people think Hillary is dishonest. It’s like a poll showing people think the sky is blue. The important thing is, people are familiar and at home with Hillary’s dishonesty. It’s a comfortable old friend. We know all about it. It’s acquired a transparency of its own. But what is the dishonesty of all those other candidates? That is the mystery. That is what people should worry about — all the strange ways in which Jeb/Marco/Scott/Rand/Ted/etc. are dishonesty. So confusing and disturbing. Who knows how to begin to delve into that swamp? Best to stay with good old dishonest Hillary!”

Althouse is right: the Clinton campaign really is that cynical, and so is anyone who votes for her. Except the stupid people, of course…

KEILAR:  Trusting someone to fight for them and trusting someone, these are two different things. Do you see any role that you’ve had in the sentiment that we’ve seen, where people are questioning whether you’re trustworthy?

CLINTON:  I can only tell you, Brianna, that this has been a theme that has been used against me and my husband for many, many years.  And at the end of the day, I think voters sort it all out.  I have great confidence.  I trust the American voter.  So I trust the American voter 100 percent because I think the American voter will weight these kinds of accusations.

Back to the vast right wing conspiracy. And what does “I can only tell you..” mean? It is an inherently evasive phrase. Why can’t she tell us the truth?

I mean, people write books filled with unsubstantiated attacks against us.  And even admit they have no evidence.  But of course, it’s your job to cover it.  So of course that’s going to raise questions in people’s minds. But during the course of this campaign, just as in my two prior campaigns and in my other years of service, I have a lot of confidence that the American people can sort it all out.

A meta-lie. The lying for Bill is well-substantiated. Her ongoing denials—coming up!—regarding her e-mails, destroying evidence and the double dealing of the Clinton Foundation are substantiated. She flip-flopped on gay marriage and denied that she flip-flopped. She flip-flopped on the Iraq War and pretend she didn’t. The Clinton campaign depends on throwing up so much dust that the truth is impossible to sort out.

KEILAR:  Would you vote for someone that you don’t trust?

CLINTON:  Well, they – people should and do trust me.  And I have every confidence that that will be the outcome of this election.

Lie. People shouldn’t trust most politicians, and Hillary is worse than most. Polls say they don’t. Hillary means that there are some homo sapiens who do trust her–this is a Clintonism and deceit. Yes, not all people distrust you, Hillary. A lot of people don’t pay attention.

I cannot decide what the attacks on me will be, no matter how unfounded.  And I’m well aware of the fact that it’s your job to raise those and we’ll do our best to respond to them. But I think what people talk to me about – and that’s all I can go on – is the literally thousands of people that I’ve seen in the course of this campaign.  They want to know what I’m going to do for the economy, what I’m going to do for education, what I’m going to do for health care.  And they trust me to have a plan and to be committed to carrying out that plan and they should, because I will.

This ducks the question, intentionally, and falls back on the old Clinton defense: “Character doesn’t matter, only policies matter.” In leadership, character matters more than anything except competence.

KEILAR:  One of the issues that has eroded some trust that we’ve seen is the issue of your email practices while you were secretary of state.  I think there’s a lot of people who don’t understand what your thought process was on that. Can you tell me the story of how you decided to delete 33,000 emails and how that deletion was executed?

CLINTON:  Well, let’s start from the beginning.  Everything I did was permitted.  There was no law.  There was no regulation.  There was nothing that did not give me the full authority to decide how I was going to communicate.  Previous secretaries of state have said they did the same thing.  And people across the government knew that I used one device – maybe it was because I am not the most technically capable person and wanted to make it as easy as possible.

I have dealt with this in detail elsewhere, and so have many others. These are misrepresentations. How Clinton handled her e-mails violated Obama Administration policy, best practices, and her own department’s written policies. The practices of Colin Powell, a concocted talking point, are irrelevant: technology moves fast, and what was reasonable a decade ago wasn’t reasonable under Clinton. Under no interpretation of technological realities, her conduct and government requirements was her communication through private e-mails responsible, ethical, or competent, and literally nobody but Clinton hacks and mouthpieces maintain otherwise, because they can’t.

KEILAR:  But you said they – that they did the same thing, that they used a personal server and…subpoena deleted emails from them?

CLINTON:  You know, you’re starting with so many assumptions that are – I’ve never had a subpoena.

A lie. The House released a copy of the subpoena, which was sent to her in March after House investigators drew one up in March.

“This letter will respond to (1) the subpoena duces tecum issued by the Benghazi Select Committee to the Hon. Hillary R. Clinton and served by agreement on March 4, 2015,” read the letter addressed to House Select Committee on Benghazi members. Clinton’s paid spinner now argue that she understood the question Keilar asked to relate only to December, when that subpoena was only pending and when the emails at issue were deleted. Classic Clinton. 1). She stated a falso, open-ended generality intended to deceive the CNN audience, which she knows will interpret “I’ve never had a subpoena” to mean “I’ve never had a subpoena.” Even if she hadn’t received a subpoena, she knew her e-mails would be subpoenaed, and destroyed many of them anyway. This is spoliation, often illegal, always unethical.

There is – again, let’s take a deep breath here.  Everything I did was permitted by law and regulation.

Deceit. It “was permitted” because of loopholes, but it was not consistent with the intent of both the laws and the regulations, as Clinton well knew. No place was it written that “State Department officials can use personal e-mail for government business,” because they were not supposed to do this.

  I had one device.  When I mailed anybody in the government, it would go into the government system.

And when Clinton mailed someone not in the government but regarding government and even classified matters, it would NOT go into the government system. Which is why the practice was disapproved.

Commentary ran an excellent compendium of Clinton’s brazen lies on this whole topic. In light of her—hilariously—arguing that she was trustworthy and then immediately repeating the lies, let me quote Commentary’s Noah Rothman here:

“The server contains personal communications from my husband and me,” Clinton said of her private “homebrew” system on which she kept her emails. This, she contended, was one of the reasons why she summarily destroyed over half of the emails she sent to the State Department for vetting and eventual release. But according to Clinton’s husband’s spokesperson, the former president had sent a total of two emails in his entire life and both of those were fired off while Bill Clinton still occupied the Oval Office.

“Going through the emails, there were over 60,000 in total, sent and received. About half were work-related and went to the State Department, and about half were personal,” former Sec. Clinton contended before the United Nations lectern. Not so, according to emails provided to House investigators by longtime Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal. Clinton withheld emails from State related to Benghazi, oil contracts in post-war Libya, and the NATO-led intervention in that North African country. What’s more, Blumenthal’s correspondences indicated that some of the emails that she did provide to the State Department had been altered with some portions removed.

Hillary Clinton claimed that she only used one mobile device on which she checked her emails because it would be “easier” – a practice that is discouraged by the State Department due to the increased likelihood that foreign intelligence services can gain access to those devices. That, too, was not true. “Hillary Rodham Clinton emailed her staff on an iPad as well as a BlackBerry while secretary of state, despite her explanation she exclusively used a personal email address on a homebrew server so that she could carry a single device,” the Associated Press revealed in March.

“The vast majority of my work emails went to government employees at their government addresses, which meant they were captured and preserved immediately on the system at the State Department,” Clinton insisted. She had to be aware that the agency she led was unprofessionally lax about its archival practices. “[In 2011], Department employees created 61,156 record emails out of more than a billion emails sent,” a recent State Department Inspector General’s report read.

Clinton also insisted that her email communications contained no classified material. In the latest tranche of 3,000 emails State released last week in response to a court order, the department revealed that 25 of them were redacted because they contained information reviewers deemed classified. This should come as no surprise to reporters who cover the State Department and are regularly frustrated by the culture of over-classification in that agency that allows diplomatic personnel to skirt transparency laws.

Now I didn’t have to turn over anything.  I chose to turn over 55,000 pages because I wanted to go above and beyond what was expected of me because I knew the vast majority of everything that was official already was in the State Department system.

Expected by whom? She had an obligation to allow State to determine that no official e-mails had escaped their system.

And now I think it’s kind of fun.  People get a real-time behind-the-scenes look at what I was emailing about and what I was communicating about.

This is fick territory, lying and mocking attempts to hold her to reasonable standards of honesty and candor. Yes, isn’t it fun waiting to see what Hillary didn’t delete! Imagine how the media would react to Richard Nixon talking about the Watergate tapes like that. This is all just a game to the Clintons. Ethics, honesty, leadership, power: who can we trick, and what can we get away with. Fun! The sheer, rotten, awfulness of this woman is staggering.

KEILAR:  Wearing warm socks, you said to John Podesta.

CLINTON:  Exactly and – or, you know –

KEILAR:  Working a fax machine –

CLINTON:  – yes, a secure fax machine, which is harder to work than the regular. So yes, this is being blown up with no basis in law or in fact.  That’s fine.  I get it.  This is being, in effect, used by the Republicans in the Congress, OK.  But I want people to understand what the truth is.  And the truth is everything I did was permitted and I went above and beyond what anybody could have expected in making sure that if the State Department didn’t capture something, I made a real effort to get it to them. And I had no obligation to do any of that.  So let’s set the record straight.  And those 55,000 pages, they will be released over the course of this year.  People  can, again, make their own judgments.

Uh-Huh. The Commentary recap above shows how truthful and trustworthy this is. Meanwhile, what kind of interviewer is Keilar? All of the evidence discrediting Clinton’s lies and excuses are a matter of record: why didn’t she raise them on the spot? It’s her duty to do so, not to allow Clinton use her interview to misinform the public, but for CNN’s Keilar to use the interview to inform the public. Keilar should be fired for unprofessional conduct and incompetence. Since she was not, CNN must be judged complicit.

KEILAR: I know you say you were permitted.  I just am trying to understand some of the thought process behind it.  One former state attorney general, a Democrat, told CNN that they know of no lawyer who would advise someone, a client, facing the kind of scrutiny that you’ve been facing to wipe their server. I mean, what do you say to that?

CLINTON:  Well, what I say to that is turned over everything I was obligated to turn over.  And then I moved on.  People delete their personal emails, their work-related emails, whatever emails they have on a regular basis.  I turned over everything that I could imagine. Now being – sitting in a meeting in the State Department, asking for iced tea, may not rise to the level of negotiating peace, but I went above and beyond.  That’s why there’s 55,000 pages of my emails.

And so I think people have an interesting time behind the scenes.  And all I can tell you is that the law, the regulation did not in any way stand in my way of being permitted to do what I did.  And as I said, prior secretaries of state – I mean, Secretary Powell has admitted he did exactly the same thing. So I think both Secretary Powell and I are viewed as public servants.  We do our very best to serve our country and he’s – he has such a distinguished records.  You know, I have served my country as well.We both did the same thing.  Now years have passed, so he clearly doesn’t have anything left.  I did everything I could to make sure people got anything that was related that I had.

Same dishonest Powell rationalization, same false assertions, same lie, again and again, confident that the biased and inept journalist she picked to interview her won’t have the wit or the integrity to show her up and expose her.

KEILAR:  There has been a lot of controversy surrounding your family’s foundation, The Clinton Foundation, corporate and foreign donations that have gone to the foundation and the work that it does. Has it made you think, seeing this controversy, that it’s come about, has it made you think about if you are president, what will happen to The Clinton Foundation? Have you thought about perhaps shutting it down?

Unbelievable! How about asking about the signed promise not to accept foreign donations while at State that Clinton violated? How about asking about all the money pouring in from countries that had pending business with the U.S.? Shouldn’t Clinton be asked about whether the domestic corporations are giving to this slush fund as under-the table campaign contributions? What about the unreported donations to the Canadian affiliate of the foundation?  What about the high over-head costs that have non-profit watchdogs refusing to certify the foundation as trustworthy? No, Keiler asks about what will happen to the Foundation after she’s President!

Skip the next part—Keilar gave Hillary a chance to give a commercial for the Foundation without addressing any of the many, many reasons its activities stink of corruption and influence peddling.

CLINTON:  Well, let me start by saying I am so proud of The Clinton Foundation.  I am proud of the work that my husband started, that my daughter continued.  I’m proud of the very small role I played in being there for about a year and a half. And I’ll give you an example of why, what The Clinton Foundation has done is so critical. When I became secretary of state, the United States government was using our tax dollars to treat 1.7 million people around the world with HIV/AIDS.  I looked at the contracts that The Clinton Foundation had been negotiating to buy medicine and pass it through, working with foreign governments who provided the funding to buy the medicine to treat more people. So we negotiated lower prices.  By the time I left, thanks to contracts and work that The Clinton Foundation had done, the United States was treating 5.1 million people.  That’s just one example. Now maybe it’s because my husband knows so many people in the world and he’s so creative and he’s so smart.  But he was able to put together solutions to problems whether it was HIV/AIDS or childhood obesity in our country or expanding farm productivity in Africa, that was hard for others to do.  And, yes, did people say, that’s good work, that’s a charity we want to support – and they should have because it produced results. I have no – I have no plans to say or do anything about The Clinton Foundation other than to say how proud I am of it and that I think for the good of the world, its work should continue.

KEILAR:  Let’s talk now about Republicans.  There are so many of them.  Right now, the front-runner –

CLINTON:  It is a big crew.

KEILAR:  It is a big crew.  Right now the front-runner is Jeb Bush.Can you believe that a quarter century after your husband was elected, there could be another Bush-Clinton race?

CLINTON:  Well, we’ll see.  That’s up to, first, the Republicans on his side, the Democrats on my side.  What’s great about America is anybody can run for president.  That is literally true.  And you have to go out and you have to do what everybody else does.  You have to make your case.  You have to have your agenda.  You have to raise the money.  You have to work really hard. So whoever is nominated by their respective parties will be the nominee and then we’ll see who’s on the other side.

Soft-ball, inconsequential, People Magazine-level question from the interviewer, canned pablum from Clinton.

KEILAR:  Donald Trump is also creating quite a lot of commotion on the other side.  He’s a friend of yours, has been over the years.  He donated to your Senate campaign, to The Clinton Foundation. What’s your reaction to his recent comments that some Mexican immigrants are rapists and criminals?

CLINTON:  I’m very disappointed in those comments and I feel very bad and very disappointed with him and with the Republican Party for not responding immediately and saying, enough, stop it.

Foul. It is incompetent and misleading for journalists to keep leaving the “illegal” off the phrase “illegal immigration,” since it is the fact that ILLEGAL immigrants are breaking the law to come here that is at issue. Meanwhile, are either Keilar or Clinton seriously denying that some illegal immigrants are rapists and criminals? If that’s how Trump’s words are interpreted—that’s obviously what he meant—then why is Hillary “disappointed”? Whi should the Republican Party tell him “Stop telling the truth about illegal immigrants”?

But they are all in the – you know, in the same general area on immigration.  They don’t want to provide a path to citizenship.  They range across a spectrum of being either grudgingly welcome or hostile toward immigrants.  And I’m going to talk about comprehensive immigration reform.  I’m going to talk about all of the good, law-abiding, productive members of the immigrant community that I personally know, that I’ve met over the course of my life, that I would like to see have a path to citizenship.

KEILAR:  But what about Jeb Bush’s approach to that? It’s different, certainly, than Donald Trump’s and –

CLINTON:  Well, he doesn’t believe in a path to citizenship.  If he did at one time, he no longer does.  And so pretty much they’re – as I said, they’re on a spectrum of, you know, hostility, which I think is really regrettable in a nation of immigrants like ours, all the way to kind of grudging acceptance but refusal to go with a pathway to citizenship.

Intentional misrepresentation. No candidates, based on their statements, are hostile to immigrants, Mexicans, legal immigrants or legal immigration in any way. “Grudging acceptance” of illegal immigration means rejection of the rule of law, which every responsible candidate or elected official must revere, and open boarders, which every responsible candidate or elected official must oppose. Where does Clinton stand on the rule of law and open borders? Shouldn’t a competent immigrant ask that, given this answer?

I think that’s a mistake. I think that we know we’re not going to deport 11 million or 12 million people.

That’s called “grudging acceptance,” isn’t it? Isn’t “Well, we have no better options” the same as “grudging acceptance”?

We shouldn’t be breaking  up families.  We shouldn’t be stopping people from having the opportunity to be fully integrated legally within our country.

Translation: “We should be enforcing immigration laws, and thus should be telling all Mexicans that they can benefit from sneaking over the border and breaking our laws.” What else could it mean?

It’s good for us.

Hello? Brianna? Are you there? Illegal immigration is good for us? Allowing anyone to come here, breaking laws in the process, and benefit from it by having their children benefit as well as them, is good?

It’s good economically.  It’s good for the taxes that will be legally collected.  It’s good for the children, so that they can go as far as their hard work and talent will take them. So I am 100 percent behind comprehensive immigration reform that includes a path to citizenship.

Legal immigration has always included a path to citizenship. If illegal immigration permanently includes a path to citizenship, then it is no longer illegal. Why is Clinton allowed to spin such double-talk without being called on it?

KEILAR:  Last week an undocumented immigrant who had been deported five times killed a 32-year-old woman, Kate Steinle, in San Francisco, a sanctuary city where local law enforcement does not enforce federal immigration laws. When you last ran for president you supported sanctuary cities.In light of this terrible incident, does that change anything about your view on this?

CLINTON:  Well, what should be done is any city should listen to the Department of Homeland Security, which as I understand it, urged them to deport this man again after he got out of prison another time.  Here’s a case where we’ve deported, we’ve deported, we’ve deported.  He ends back up in our country and I think the city made a mistake.  The city made a mistake, not to deport someone that the federal government strongly felt should be deported. So I have absolutely no support for a city that ignores the strong evidence that should be acted on. However, there are – like if it were a first-time traffic citation, if it were something minor, a misdemeanor, that’s entirely different.  This man had already been deported five times.  And he should have been deported at the request of the federal government.

James Taranto on this nonsense:

Cities, of course, cannot deport aliens; that is exclusively a federal responsibility. Sanctuary cities are those that, by policy or practice, refuse to cooperate with federal authorities in enforcing immigration laws—for instance by forbidding police officers from inquiring about criminal suspects’ immigration status. It’s unclear if Mrs. Clinton is herself confused about all this or is cynically speaking in gibberish so as to confuse the voters.

Then the interview deteriorates into trivia and Clinton saying that she’s the “best Hillary Clinton” there is and calling herself “little me,” which would have any male candidate mocked from here to eternity.

 

44 thoughts on ““You Know I Can’t Hear You With All Those Ethics Alarms Ringing”: Hillary Clinton’s CNN Interview

  1. Her narcissism and attempts to gaslight gullible American voters is truly stunning. Hopefully Bernie Sanders who seems to be honest about his Socialist agenda will whip her good in the forthcoming primaries.

    • Leaving the Democrats with Joe Biden or Elizabeth Warren, neither of whom have any executive experience, one of whom is a dunderhead and the other got affirmative action teaching posts by falsely claiming to be a native American. Both are definitely preferable to Hillary, though.

      • “preferable to Hillary” that’s a low bar, isn’t it? I might actually take Trump over Hillary, although I’m fairly hopeful neither will pass the primaries. The Mexico comments or the obvious overreaction thereof seems to have given him a spike in at least one poll.

  2. I wonder if it’s possible to convince people who just want to vote for any vagina that they need to make an exception in the case of a STUPID vagina.

      • “That part of the anatomy has no bearing on ability, plus or minus.”

        Sure it does. If common cant says it is possible to “vote” with one’s vagina, then one assumes that area of the genitalia to have the special power to cast that vote for one of its own: another vagina.

        The fact that that part of the anatomy only connects with the brain via pelvic splanchnic nerves, thus by relatively slow local transit (traveling first to other plexuses to make deposits in its private bank) suggests to me — and Tim too, I’m sure he’s seen it in his lab — that while vaginal pulse amplitude (VPA) can be increased by the very idea of having a vagina in the the Oval Office, the cries of the voters are only responding to a falsely sympathetic nervous system supporting an atrophying, greed-infected, functionally incapable STUPID candidate. The only hope now is for the parasympathetic system, though also nervous, to erect a suitable candidate strong enough to arouse the VPA in another direction.

  3. You know… you look at the female democratic bench and it’s just cringe worthy. Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren, Nancy Pelosi, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, Wendy Davis…. Why is the group generally so inept? I’d say that a lot of the newer faces were pushed in before they were ready in order to fill a vagina quota, but that doesn’t explain Hillary or Nancy. Is there something keeping actual strong, intelligent women out of the democratic rank and file?

      • Touché. If nothing else, the choice between Clinton and Sanders shows how shallow the bench is generally. But there are at least Democrat men that I don’t think are blatantly inept, even as I disagree with them…. It might be a matter of numbers, but I can’t think of a single high profile and competent woman in the Democrat lineup.

  4. Jack, Jack, Jack, you can stop cracking your whip, the pony isn’t moving. Hilary’s got more money than all other candidates combined, more rolling in every day, 240 electoral votes safely in her pocket, and what media isn’t solidly in her pocket discredited. She will BE the 45 president, and the sooner we all come to grips with that, the better.

    • You are completely, completely wrong. I know of many, many Democrats who have told me they are through with Hillary. Money doesn’t elect Presidents that nobody wants to vote for. Every time she is exposed, she loses support. Unless the GOP nominates Bozo, or Trump, who will be excited about voting for Hillary? Please drop that silly 240 votes nonsense—it is media manipulation, based on the absurd assumption that this old, dim, crooked white woman with no record of accomplishments will energize blacks, Hispanic and the young like hope-and-change huckster Obama.

      I think Biden would beat her in a primary. If Bernie does, he’ll get in the race. He can’t win either, but he can beat Hillary.

      • Am I now? I know many, many Democrats who say they can’t WAIT to vote for Hilary and that she will put this country on the right track to full equality, peace, and prosperity. Trump is actually #1 right now, although that won’t last. I am not sure the 240 votes thought is just manipulation, although perhaps it would be better applied to the Dem nominee generally than to her specifically.

        Let’s look at the map. You know the Dems have big-city-dominated NY, IL, and CA safely in their pockets, even if they put a cardboard figure up at the podium, and that’s 104 votes right there. Take the rest of the Left Coast and that brings the total to 123. Throw in the reliably blue NJ, MD, and DE and that’s 150. DEEP blue New England brings us to 183. Add in the in-play-but-not-really-in-play CO, PA, and MI, and that’s 228. Assume Scott Walker isn’t on the ticket and it jumps to 238. HI always votes Dem so that’s 242, and so does the District, so that’s 245. NV, IA, and NM all went blue last time but only account for 17 votes between them. OH, FL, and VA are the only real question marks, and VA I think is slipping to the reliably blue side. NC may be turning purple too. No matter who the GOP nominee is, once he misses one of those states, all in the Eastern time zone so they will be called early, and you know he will, he is out of the running.

        I’d like to believe you, Jack, but what makes you think any of these places will turn red?

        • Steve-O, your look at the map is almost identical to mine. One can’t help despairing (when one is opposed to T. Revagina ascending to Dictator*).
          *That’s the new title I use, for the office I used to call “POTUS.”

        • You’re wrong right at the start. NY, sure. Illinois has a GOP governor, and that whole strip of states is in play. And see how California plays after a few more illegals kill people, and the state continues to implode from bad progressive cant. The whole argument is predicated on the assumption that the candidates don’t matter. Of course they do, and so does the state of the country after one party has screwed things up, and no incumbent is running. Romney came closer to winning than people think: essentially conservatives–stupidly—didn’t come out to vote for him. If Obama’s fake recovery collapses at the end of his term, do you really think the electorate will respond any differently than it did to the GOP in 2008? If Hillary comes off in a debate like a senile Cruella deVille? If ISIS his a domestic target? I have a list of ten eventualities that will sink the Democrats, and while the odds are against any one of them, the odds in favor of one coming to pass are strong.

          • I cannot stop suspecting that the 2012 election count was rigged for Obama, somehow, and not by lack of turnout for Romney. I am similarly suspicious that we are going to see similar rigging for a Democrat Party “win” of the White House in 2016.

            • How rigged? It’s always hard to beat an incumbent in two way race. The last one was Reagan—Carter was an awful campaigner, and had the hostage crisis, and before that, Hoover. Before THAT…Benjamin Harrison, who had lost the popular vote when he was elected. The only rigging was the mainstream media coverage, and yes, that will be similarly biased.

              People basing Hillary’s chances on Obama v. McCain—huge recession, two wars, awful candidate, young black Messiah and Obama vs Romney—race-baiting incumbant vs. weird liberal/conservative rich dork are deluded.

              • I meant to say the rigging I suspected (and suspect is forthcoming) is a high-tech kind. I just don’t trust those damned electronic ballot boxes at all. I will blame Romney for not really wanting to be elected, too. But overall, the Republicans blew their 2012 chances from the outset by not nominating a white woman. Yep, “racist America:” White woman beats the black man, every time, still. We saw it in the bar video this week.

              • You forgot Bush the elder, knocked from power by a weak economy and a halfhearted campaign against Slick Willie.

          • I don’t believe the candidate matters for a lot of voters on the Democratic side, especially Boston Brahmins and Upper East Side and Hollywood gentry who think the GOP is something to make jokes about at cocktail parties, and minority voters who are convinced the GOP wants them either dead or shipped back to the land of poverty. The Democratic Party could run a plastic statue and they’d vote for it. Young women are another lost group, they aren’t interested in starting businesses or growing the economy, they’re interested in fine things with not much cost, fun without consequences, and thinking of themselves as six degrees of awesome.

            California and Illinois last went for the GOP in 1984 and did not flip the last time a GOP President was decisively reelected in 2004. They are permanently blue and not flipping back, no matter how many murders happen or even if California teeters on the brink of bankruptcy (when it will be bailed out by the Federal Government). Illinois had a GOP governor in the form of Ryan, and he didn’t cause it to flip, and Massachusetts didn’t flip when it had GOP governors (also last went for the GOP in 1984). California had a GOP governor and it didn’t flip.

            Yes, maybe Romney came off as a RINO and the far right decided to stay home. The far right is still staying home in 2016 unless the GOP runs Ted Cruz, which isn’t going to happen. I don’t think Romney was ever close to winning, I just think the media played it up that he had a chance because no one would watch debates when the result was already decided. They may play it up a little this time out, for the same reason, but in reality all those GOP candidates are just jockeying for second place.

            If Obama’s recovery collapses I think he will play his usual game – claim he could have prevented it but the GOP Congress got in the way, and the low-information voters will buy it hook, line and sinker. Hilary is probably going to dominate any debate because the moderators will lob her softball questions and the media will only show her opponent’s gaffes. ISIS is a wild card, because, like al Qaeda, they work on their own timetable and no one else’s, but this nation is war-weary, and I think might be just fine with launching a few rockets and declaring victory. What are the other seven eventualities?

            • The pessimism just isn’t warranted. After 2012, I read about 20 essays about how the GOP was dead. It currently has a majority of the statehouses and both houses of Congress. That kind of dominance just doesn’t translate into Presidential year hopelessness…makes no sense, especially with a terrible candidate, and all the Democratic candidates are terrible. I know who will get the GOP nomination, and he will be a very strong candidate.

                  • Steve, really, this hints of mental illness. When Obama tanked the second debate, it had immediate impact. As a debater, Obama looks like old Abe compared to Hillary, even at his worst. If Hillary were wildly popular, then you would have something, but she’s not. Nor does she have a group ID advantage like Obama’s.

                    • Wildly popular she isn’t. She still is polling ahead of everyone else, in a lot of cases by double digits. Whether or not that’s simple name recognition or dilution of the field due to the GOP clown car I can’t say. I think she IS going to play up her gender, maybe even characterize herself as the only true woman in the race. That said, I don’t know if she will bring out the little old ladies in droves to vote for a woman president in their lives.

                    • 1. I really hate the clown car metaphor: its demeaning, unfair, and dishonest: the GOP have over a dozen candidates, almost every one of them more fit to serve than Hillary, and that’s something to praise, not mock.
                      2. Of course she polls higher, because she’s much, much better known. That’s also why Trump polls high. It’s meaningless.

              • You know who will get it out of the 14? I mean, some candidates you can winnow away, but I am down to four. Yes, I read a lot of essays in 2012 and in 1992 about how the GOP was dead too. I don’t think the party is dead, it clearly isn’t, but I do think it might be dead at the presidential level with too many vote-rich states dominated by big cities that are midnight blue. That said, with gay marriage off the table, that might change the equation.

                • Yeah, that surprised me too, when Jack said he knows whom the GOP will nominate. (But he didn’t give a name.) I still tend to think of the 2016 GOP strategy as a kind of cowardly, safety-in-the-herd approach: No matter whom gets nominated, he will lose, so they all want to be able to point to internal party strife as the reason for their loss. Instead of uniting early behind one candidate, and instead of that candidate leaving no doubt about his non-Democratness and non-Revaginaness, they all want to take the “noble, honorable, dignified” path to defeat. The office of Dictator is tailor-made for Democrat Party candidates, and vice-versa. Since Clinton the Guy, for the Democrat Party it’s been all about who is most like a rock star, whose is the personality best fit for a worshiping cult – EVEN GORE.

  5. “Is raising taxes on the table?”
    Answer: “I’ll be making a speech on Monday”
    ***A perfectly reasonable response, if the speech on Monday answers the question. It did not, of course.

    This reminds me of the “Karate Kid” when the dojo master challenged Machio to a fight and Machio’s soon-to-be trainer suggested they would fight in the tournament several months later. Machio asks him later “why did you do that?” The trainer says “I just spared you from a beating for three months!”

    Hillary is like what the “Karate Kid” would have been if he had skipped town before the tournament…

    • But of course, she’s trustworthy.

      I am going to do all I can to make sure that anyone who keeps supporting this disgrace of a candidate and human being is thoroughly mocked and derided for being a fool, a dupe, and a tool. There is no defense for it.

      • Now that we have heard her go-get-Wall-Street-and-shake-it-down speech, I am “coming out” like nobody who ever had “kinky sex:” I am going to tell anyone and everyone – but especially, to their faces, if they say they support T. Revagina to my face – that to desire to cast a vote for her reflects severe cognitive impairment. Neurological dysfunction. Mental incapacitation. To an extent that they should not be allowed to vote. So I exhort such sick persons to stay away from the polls in 2016 – for their own good, too. Because, true to the Clinton tradition, given her chance, eventually she will hurt them – her supporters and enablers – the most.

  6. When I leave the United States in a few years, most likely for good, I will be able to sum up my reasons for leaving by simply stating “Hillary Clinton”. Knowing that we’ve devolved so much that she is even a viable candidate (win or lose, many millions will vote for her), I just don’t want to be here anymore.

    • Joe, I don’t mean this snarkily at all: I would be fascinated to know what destination you want to leave for.

    • Maybe not. Hidden below the smug narcissism is probably a desperately insecure woman who knows that she would be nothing special if she wasn’t married to Bill. Not to say that I feel sorry for her in the least. She will probably go into a rage if she doesn’t win the primaries and get elected prez.

  7. Certainly the Clinton News Network reliably delivered the goods. I’m not sure where her next stop is. MSNBC’s Marxists are out to get her. Maybe a Salon web cast? Maybe Katrina Vanden Heuvel is available? What a joke. Eight more years of Lanny Davis. I can’t wait. It’s deja vu all over again. Don’t stop thinkin’ about tomorrow. Ugh. Two Clinton libraries. His and Hers.

  8. Never trust a (former) Young Republican.

    I dunno… I think she went off the rails around 1979. There’s always a good excuse, “the end justifies the means”, it’s a trap anyone can fall into. Only by constant introspection – and having friends who will give you honest critique – can you avoid it.

    She didn’t. There but for the Grace of God…..

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.