home

Sunday Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Sun Mar 08, 2015 at 06:55:00 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Don't forget to turn your clocks ahead one hour tonight. (Spring forward, Fall back.)

Our last open thread is about full, here's another one, all topics welcome.

< Selma and "Bloody Sunday" 50 Years Later | Iran's Battle for Iraq >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Sunday Open Thread | 205 comments (205 topical)
    Let it never be claimed that there is nothing good (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Peter G on Sat Mar 07, 2015 at 10:21:08 PM EST
    to be said about Rudy Giuliani.  He has signed an amicus brief to the Supreme Court in support of marriage equality, along with a long list of other prominent conservative public figures and former public officials and political types, including David Koch, Mary Cheney, Tom Ridge, Meg Whitman, Paul Wolfowitz, and many, many more.

    Paul Wolfowitz....really Peter? (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Mar 08, 2015 at 09:41:58 AM EST
    Such humanitarians :). All their previous actions would indicate this comes right from their beating hearts and the seat of their souls

    I see politics

    I'd rather eat a bowl of.........you know what I would say here, than start shaking hands with this bunch of brown shirters.

    I am glad that they have all come to heel on this issue.  That's all the gratitude I can muster :)

    Parent

    I certainly don't disagree that (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by Peter G on Sun Mar 08, 2015 at 03:44:48 PM EST
    getting on the right side of history before it's too late can be self-serving, at least as likely as genuine insight or change of heart that at least is better come late than never at all. I sympathize with the difficulty you are having in giving most of these folks the benefit of the doubt for sincerity.

    Parent
    Get Mary's sister signature on that (none / 0) (#6)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat Mar 07, 2015 at 10:47:26 PM EST
    then you'll have something to talk about.

    Parent
    Rudy Giuliani's always been pro-gay marriage. (none / 0) (#14)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Mar 08, 2015 at 03:52:50 PM EST
    But the rest of his policies are not people-friendly, regardless of whether they're gay or straight.

    Parent
    Andy Borowitz on the Clinton emails (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Mar 08, 2015 at 09:33:50 AM EST
    The Borowitz Report

    And from his Facebook


    Republicans Promise Smooth Transition of Hate from Obama to Clinton
    WASHINGTON - Republicans today promised that there will be a "seamless transition of hatred" if President Obama is succeeded in office by Hillary Clinton. "Like many Americans, we will be saddened to see our lawsuits, investigations, and general harassment directed towards President Obama come to an end," said House Speaker John B...


    This thing (none / 0) (#12)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 08, 2015 at 03:33:45 PM EST
    is now to the point of making me laugh. The bottom line is the GOP can do anything they want but Democrats cannot. Democrats will get impeached about lying about an affair but Republicans can get away with lying to entire country about Iraq and have no consequences. Republicans can have private servers but Democrats cannot. On and on the list goes.

    Good thing is they're making sure they're going to lose in 2016. It's as if they are even TRYING to lose.

    Parent

    I can't believe what they get away with (none / 0) (#35)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Mar 08, 2015 at 08:52:16 PM EST
    And Fox News leads in the ratings.  I feel like I live in a lunatic asylum :)

    Parent
    What's the big deal about email? (5.00 / 5) (#10)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Mar 08, 2015 at 12:56:25 PM EST
    There is no need to archive emails that the NSA has archived already.

    Amnesty Int'l considers cutting links with Cage (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by jtaylorr on Sun Mar 08, 2015 at 01:06:46 PM EST
    The issue is particularly sensitive for the charity given that, in 2010, the human rights activist Gita Sahgal was suspended from Amnesty after criticising its links with Cage

    On Gita Sahgal's firing:

    The explosive falling out in one of the world's leading human rights organisations took place after the publication of an e-mail Sahgal sent to the leadership, complaining that Amnesty had become too closely linked to a "pro-jihadi group"

    Looks like she's been proven right:

    Cage director Asim Qureshi, who provoked outrage when he described the Islamic State (Isis) militant known as Jihadi John as "beautiful", repeatedly refused to condemn stoning adulterous women to death.

    I have zero respect for someone who uses his privileged life in a liberal democracy as a platform to promote hate, intolerance, and irrationality. Many of his core values are diametrically opposed to those of western society. Glad that larger organizations are starting to question their legitimizing of his fundamentalist group.

    The NYTimes Public Editor, (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by KeysDan on Sun Mar 08, 2015 at 05:20:56 PM EST
    Margaret Sullivan, criticized her paper's story on Secretary Clinton's emails.  Reacting to many comments, the public editor disagreed that the story was a "smear" but acknowledged that it was not without a "fault."  Ms. Sullivan agreed with a reader named Catherine Bemis,  who wrote..." the Times should have been responsible enough to include the actual laws or regulations that were broken, what date they were amended to apply to the official, to clearly show that there was a violation."  

    In discussion of reader comments with the reporter for the story, Arthur Schmidt, and his Washington editor, Ms. Sullivan determined that the article could be much clearer about what regulations might have been violated and when they took effect, since the references were too vague.

    Moreover, she admonished the cavalier handling of a politically charged story advising that. ..."the Times can do itself and its readers a lot of good by making sure that every story is airtight, solidly sourced, written with particular clarity and impartiality and edited with a prosecutorial eye."

    White the Public Editor provides a modicum of defense of the story, it is a strong indictment of the story's "fault."   Ms. Sullivan's defense includes the argument that, after all, the story did get legs.  True, but the legs are planted firmly on that quaking base.

    Furthermore,  her advice for editing with a prosecutorial eye seems to be at odds with her advice for impartiality.  The Times readers would get a "lot of good" out of articles that do no more than strive for good journalism.

    As opposed to some of Sullivan's public (none / 0) (#60)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 08:02:47 AM EST
    columns, this one did not tell me she thought Times was wrong to run Schmidt's article, especially since other news media jumped on board.

    Parent
    Jeb (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 08, 2015 at 05:44:40 PM EST
    Bush Bush confronted by dreamer compares Obama's orders to a Latin American dicator

    1. So the bozo was lying when he said he wasn't going to pander to the pin heads. No surpise there.

    2. There goes any hope of gaining the Hispanic vote if he's the nominee. '

    And his answer to every question was "read my book". One questioner said I read your book and the Jeb shoots back well apparently you didn't understand what I said in the book.

    What a putz.

    Jinx (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 08, 2015 at 08:31:58 PM EST
    i hope people are watching this.  It is absolutely gripping.  

    Yes. I have been staying off the web (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 11:59:49 AM EST
    about it because I only want to see it unfold as the doc tells the story.  Last night did make my blood run cold. It is one thing to kind of sort of suspect something was likely true...and quite another to get some evidence.

    Parent
    Yes, Robert Durst (none / 0) (#125)
    by KeysDan on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 12:55:08 PM EST
    has come across as unflappable under the worst of accusations.  But, his response to time movements in California with "California is a big state,"  followed by a cat-ate-the-bird grin, was revelatory.

    Parent
    Beverley Hills (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 01:06:42 PM EST
    oops.

    Parent
    previously.tv reviewer (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 01:29:53 PM EST
    calls him "Blinksy". Trips my gallows humor funny bone.

    She pointed out a lot of flaws just with the narrative flow of the documentary that really did not bother me - like not picking up with the semi-cliffhanger at the end of last week's episode, spending a lot of time with different people this time that did not have much to add, and the attempted 'Michael Mooreing' of the Durst Brother, that didn't really add up to much either.

    I was little more forgiving, I find it all fascinating.

    Parent

    I thought Robert Durst (none / 0) (#147)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 02:22:42 PM EST
    Was going to start peeing on buildings. He seemed to insist on stalking his brothers home, indicated that he previously didn't know it was his brothers home.  Why would he want to do that on film?

    Parent
    Noticed their childhood photos too (none / 0) (#150)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 02:27:36 PM EST
    They built pretend Manhattan buildings as children?  Who does that :)?

    Parent
    Yes, his grin that drooled...ugh (none / 0) (#149)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 02:24:08 PM EST


    Parent
    I've been watching but my (none / 0) (#145)
    by McBain on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 02:11:12 PM EST
    short attention span makes it difficult to follow all of the details of a slow moving show like this.  It looked like the BEVERLEY letter was telling.

    One thing for sure, I can't stand Jeanine Pirro.  Based on this show, her show, and other things I've read/seen, she was one of those DAs/Judges where everything was always about her career.

    Parent

    Terrifying (none / 0) (#146)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 02:16:48 PM EST
    I cried when the stepson found the envelope in real time, as they shot the documentary.  I have goose bumps typing this.  Soooo creepy.  Very creepy and sad and horrifying how the Durst family silence has certainly assisted coverup and has spiritually harmed younger Durst family members too.  Two families in pain, while the Durst organization controls Freedom Tower.  CRAZY

    How has Robert Durst seemingly enlisted such a severe loyalty from two separate women now in the wake of his first wife's death?

    And he often refers to himself in third person or we, but wicked smart guy.

    Parent

    Director (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 03:41:27 PM EST
    of the sunlight foundation explains problems with email security link

    I'm not sure if that was intentionally (none / 0) (#199)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 05:40:10 PM EST
    misleading but that person is not the director of the sunlight foundation.  that would be here

    And they have no idea what they are talking about.  There has been a ton written about this.  I just linked to one below and there are other links in the other thread on this subject.

    That was complete bunk.

    Parent

    Try this from wired (none / 0) (#200)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 05:43:44 PM EST
    why Clintons server was such a security fail

    Parent
    Garbage in, garbage out. (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by KeysDan on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 04:22:49 PM EST
    A garbage man working in the affluent Atlanta suburb of Sandy Springs, was reported for collecting garbage before 7 am in violation of the city's ordinance.  The collector, who is an employee of Waste Management, pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 30-days in jail and probation.  The prosecutor felt the  "law and order" sentence was right since fines against Waste Management did not work.  The particular employee had only been with Waste Management for a few months. Perhaps this prosecutor could be put to work on Wall Street and bank misdeeds.  

    Residents of the suburb are reported to include executives from CNN, Delta, professional athletes, rapper Akon, and former Republican presidential front-runner, Herman (9-9-9) Cain--maybe that 9-9-9 unexplained policy meant serious times for garbage pick-up.

    The (none / 0) (#189)
    by KeysDan on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 04:24:31 PM EST
    link.

    Parent
    This has (none / 0) (#191)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 04:28:40 PM EST
    been all over the news here and it's patently ridiculous. The employee gets put in jail because Waste Management won't pay their fines. Maybe in an embarrassment way this might get them to pony up but again maybe not and they will let the poor guy sit in jail so they won't have to pay.

    And to boot the guy was doing what Waste Management TOLD him to do. Ugh.

    Parent

    Sunlight Foundation (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 06:13:15 PM EST
    i now see what you did up there.  That person was formerly associated with the SF.   For the record what they are currently saying-

    Five questions about Hillary Clinton's secret email

    Hillary Clinton's use of personal email while serving as secretary of state raises serious questions about transparency and accountability.
    HRC email-Crowley to Hillary (none / 0) (#1)
    by Politalkix on Sat Mar 07, 2015 at 08:30:55 PM EST
    link

    Ginger pie (none / 0) (#2)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Mar 07, 2015 at 08:46:55 PM EST
    I was about to watch the 5 1/2 hour ending to the "Depression Trilogy" and then I thought what the hell is wrong with me.  Like I need this right now.  So instead i decided in a different direction and I watched Harold and Maude.  
    You may remember that on one of their first meetings Maude offers ginger pie.  I thought that sounds great so I looked for recipes and found one.

    Ginger Pie, a Rescued Recipe
    Harold and Maude--Colin Higgins' black-humored 1971 film--once inspired me to bake a pie. If I'd known how much research eventually would be involved in making the simple dessert, I'd've said to hell with it. The perseverance paid off.

    Let you know hoe it turns out.

    Young (none / 0) (#3)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Mar 07, 2015 at 08:52:50 PM EST
    ginger

    Parent
    That movie (none / 0) (#7)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 08, 2015 at 07:26:15 AM EST
    is a friend of mine's favorite all time movie. I watched it and just thought it was okay.

    Parent
    I Eat Raw Ginger All the Time (none / 0) (#70)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 09:06:27 AM EST
    Not for any particular reason than it takes sweet and spicy at the same time.  My GF takes if to help with issues related to a medication she takes that gives her an upset stomach.

    I am very curious as to how it would taste in a pie.  Not even sure if I like the taste, I think I like the oddity, sweet and spicy, more than the actual flavor.

    I watched Bird Man last night, all I can say is WTF ?  The acting is first rate.  I can't imagine there is anything harder than acting in a story that has actors, acting.  But I still don't know it was about.

    Parent

    Question (none / 0) (#73)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 09:45:11 AM EST
    is it "young ginger".  Which I had never heard of until that recipe.  It's clearly not the crusty brown roots I see in the supermarket.  I have never seen it in a store here.  I suspect it might have a very different taste.

    Yeah, Birdman.  ??

    Parent

    HEB.... (none / 0) (#102)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 11:53:28 AM EST
    ...sells crystallized ginger in cubes in their bulk food area.  It's coated in sugar and the color of gasoline, light golden.  The GF tells me the lighter it is, the better it tastes.  It is soft, like gummy candy, but not sticky.  THIS is what it looks like.

    I always get a couple pounds when it's that color, because it darkens with age and my gf says it's not as good.  I have a little here and there and never really noticed a difference.
    ----------------

    Birdman, like ginger, has an appeal but I can't pin point it.  The acting is phenomenal, but the story line is odd in that it's hard to know what was reality.  Worth the $6, but I wouldn't watch it again.

    Parent

    My ISIS boyfriend (none / 0) (#4)
    by Slado on Sat Mar 07, 2015 at 10:00:35 PM EST
    Interesting article about how young girls are lured to Syria.

    NY Post

    From our "Not a River in Egypt" file: (none / 0) (#17)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Mar 08, 2015 at 06:35:35 PM EST
    Although Gov. Rick Scott's media spokesperson has claimed otherwise, the terms "climate change," "global warming" and "sustainability" have apparently been banned from use in official communications at the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, per verbal directives issued to agency personnel.

    Rick Scott's position on (none / 0) (#117)
    by KeysDan on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 12:25:28 PM EST
    climate change, although his state is vulnerable to becoming at one with the ocean, should solidify his position with Florida's low information voters (i.e, Republicans) just as his record of fortune making as CEO of his corporation was fined a total of $l.7 billion for Medicare fraud.   Involvement  with the nation's largest Medicare fraud not only unruffled the senior demographics of Florida, it seemed to endear him to those voters helping to give him a second term.  

    Maybe, it was Rick Scott's aura of integrity, if you overlook everything, including the 75 times he took the fifth amendment in a civiil case deposition fearing that it might impact the federal investigation of his former company for fraud.  

    Parent

    Russia More Anti-US than During Cold War (none / 0) (#18)
    by RickyJim on Sun Mar 08, 2015 at 06:39:03 PM EST
    Link  I am usually ready to blame the US for its bad reputation abroad but this seems to be an unjust rap.  

    Ok I'll (none / 0) (#19)
    by FlJoe on Sun Mar 08, 2015 at 06:52:28 PM EST
    bite. They must hate us for our freedoms.

    Parent
    Funny... (5.00 / 4) (#71)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 09:24:31 AM EST
    ...but I just watched something about how the latest US/Russian developments having real impacts on our space program.

    Why people are actively trying to reinvent the cold war is beyond me.  Without Russia, the space station will be useless as they are the ones launching Soyuz rockets that transport people and supplies.

    Parent

    Gail Sheehy on HRC (none / 0) (#20)
    by Politalkix on Sun Mar 08, 2015 at 07:11:10 PM EST
    Gail Sheehy has known HRC for a long time and even written a biography about her....

    Many Democrats are treating HRC as "Too Big to Fail (TBTF)" like the big banks. I have very severe doubts about the strategy, but that is my opinion.

    link

    "On the day after Hillary Clinton went on "60 Minutes" to hide the lies of her husband -- 21 years ago -- I rode knee-to-knee with her in a small plane and listened to her rehearse her war strategy: "Pound the Republican attack machine and blame the press."

    The events of the past week have confirmed a nagging fear: Those of us who'd hoped the controlling, deceptive, defensive Clinton of years past had grown into a more mature kind of leader are wrong.

    She has reacted to a series of legitimate press reports raising serious questions about her use of a private email server to conduct the public's business while secretary of state by going into bunker stance and attacking the messengers. We have seen this face on Hillary too often before, and it is deeply unappealing.

    If Clinton wants to rebuild trust with voters and win the White House, she needs to sideline her arrogant instincts. She must show humility. It's time she speaks candidly about her mistakes and what she has learned from them.

    While the official Hillary camp hid out, surrogates stepped up. One of her few defenders was David Brock, the shape-shifter who morphed from a right-wing hitman in the early 90s into a left-leaning apologist for the Clintons as founder of Media Matters.

    I am not a Hillary hater. In fact, I would be overjoyed in 2016 to see the first face in the Oval Office that looks like the other half of the American population. And I believe Hillary Clinton has the intellect and the experience to be a good President.

    She has earned the respect of leaders all over the world. As a tireless diplomat, she did her best to restore trust in the United States while George W. Bush's unnecessary war and futile occupation of Iraq wound down.

    But even those of us who might support her candidacy have to face a painful question: In at least one serious way, is her character flawed?
    "

    The headline (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 08, 2015 at 07:34:21 PM EST
    says it all: she needs a primary challenge from Warren. Why do people keep shopping that kind of discredited theory? Warren is not running. And if she did she'd get rolled by Hillary. She's got primary challenges already lined up whether anybody likes them or not is another story.

    Is Obama's character flawed because his biracial and never fit into either world growing up? Sheesh. These stupid handwringing statements need to quit. What are people so afraid of? Are you afraid she'll get better numbers than Obama? It looks like she might.

    Jim Messina: It's too early for bedwetting Dems.

    Parent

    character flaws??? (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by christinep on Sun Mar 08, 2015 at 08:02:24 PM EST
    That's a crock, politalkix ... whatever it means, its a crock.  Unless, of course, you are looking for a saint; other than that, I've never seen the perfect politician.  In terms of a woman becoming President in the next generation or so, the best candidate going is Hillary Clinton.

    Parent
    They ALL (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 08, 2015 at 08:04:38 PM EST
    have character flaws!!! Obama has them. W. had them. Reagan had them. There's never been a president that did not have character flaws. Elizabeth Warren has them too. Sheesh.

    Parent
    IMO... (none / 0) (#105)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 11:58:21 AM EST
    ...the position, in itself, beckons for character flaws.  But then again, human beings are all flawed, the few that aren't are canonized and I doubt very interested in having Fox News slander them for a decade should they not tow their line.

    Parent
    So whats the problem (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by FlJoe on Sun Mar 08, 2015 at 08:05:31 PM EST
    Pound the Republican attack machine and blame the press
    More of that please! Does anyone think she should do the opposite?

    This article is a tabloid worthy bs.

    Hillary Clinton went on "60 Minutes" to hide the lies of her husband
    Referencing  the BJ in the first sentence is a sure sign of the hackery to follow.
    sideline her arrogant instincts. She must show humility. It's time she speaks candidly about her mistakes and what she has learned from them.
    Meow! Just apologize for being a powerful, successful politician and world leader (AKA b**ch if you are female).

    This writer questioning of Hillary's tactics in the face of Republican attacks is akin to me giving advice to George Patton.

    In at least one serious way, is her character flawed?
    Questioning her character is a strong indication she has contracted CDS.


    Parent
    Apparently (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 08, 2015 at 08:09:43 PM EST
    the weenie dems have a problem with that. Good grief when it came out that Bush tortured people the GOP started attacking Obama. Where has this lady been for 25 years? She must be stuck in some liberal echo chamber the alternative universe to what the GOP crazies operate in.

    Parent
    Yeah, what gets me are the constant calls (5.00 / 3) (#100)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 11:51:56 AM EST
    for HRC to "show humility'. After she gets done showing humility for her husband's mistakes, of course.


    Parent
    I am not a Hillary hater. (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 08, 2015 at 08:31:10 PM EST
    Please
    Obviously you are or you would just down the koolaid.  What's your problem. It's blue koolaid.

    Parent
    What I still don't get is why, after (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Anne on Sun Mar 08, 2015 at 08:47:29 PM EST
    all these years, Clinton still doesn't get that stonewalling the media, then doling out information piecemeal, doesn't work.  It doesn't kill the story - it keeps it alive and keeps the media working harder than ever to exploit all their sources.

    It didn't work when the media raised questions about Bill's zipper problems, it didn't work for Whitewater, or the law firm billing records, or the travel office firings.  

    I know the GOP is chock-a-block with far worse.  But the other thing I know is that they just don't care about that.  They don't care if we all think they're a big bunch of hypocrites.  They figure the upside for them in chiseling away at Dems is greater than the down.

    The thing that just slays me is that she plays right into their hands.  Every.  Single.  Time.

    And every. single. time. the people who are supposed to "handle" these things don't seem to know how to do anything but do the flamenco on their own weenies.

    I really don't give a flying fig about the Gail Sheehys or all the other writers and media people for whom Clinton has provided - again - a reason to leap out of bed in the morning with a song on their lips.

    I'm just sick of the oxygen getting sucked out of the room - and she's not even officially in the race.

    Parent

    A voice of reason (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 08, 2015 at 08:57:39 PM EST

    as usual.  here is an interesting piece on some of the things you mention.
    That is, the why.

    It's clear it's going to be impossible to have a reasonable discussion about this or probably any related Hillary subject here.  Which is sad.
    IMO what she did with the email of the SoS is very bothersome on the subject of transparency on govt.  you are correct when you say republicans could care less about this but I do.  
    And the fact is that if a republican had done what she has done with the communication if the SoS, restricting access to it, possibly deleting important information the people posting multiple comments ridiculing what was a reasonably stated opinion, would be wetting their beds.  
    It doesn't bode well for the coming months.

    Parent

    Best quote (none / 0) (#38)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 08, 2015 at 09:07:28 PM EST
    Chris Lehane, who managed the Clinton White House's response to Whitewater and the Monica Lewinsky scandal. "Having lived through many of these, including many that were far bigger and far more serious, I would say it makes sense to settle in a little bit ... people have very short memories."


    Parent
    But the problem is...people do not (none / 0) (#103)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 11:56:04 AM EST
    have short memories regarding the Clintons. I used to follow LeHane's blog, and really like most of his work, but if he thinks he did a good job managing the Clintons' PR...

    Parent
    Exactly (none / 0) (#119)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 12:28:25 PM EST
    what planet......?

    Parent
    Carville (none / 0) (#165)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 03:03:27 PM EST
    is doing this one and he pounded Andrea what's her name today about how the NYT allowed Dick Cheney to lie to them.

    Agree with you on Lehane. He's the one that was on the Gore campaign in 2000.

    Parent

    I don't know (none / 0) (#54)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 07:16:21 AM EST
    whether that is good or bad. It might work out to not say anything now since she's not a candidate yet but it is true that the media and the populace does have a short attention span and likely something else is going to come up. I don't think some sort of soul searching groveling though is the solution either.

    Parent
    The NYT Public Editor has (none / 0) (#21)
    by christinep on Sun Mar 08, 2015 at 07:24:12 PM EST
    a good evaluation, as KeysDan notes above.  

    What is surprising about your comment, politalkix, is that you waited so long to jump ... given your typically negative comments of the I-don't-hate-Hillary-but ABC variety.  (In the long run, we both know that emails are not going to upend her.  The political WH journalists long antagonism toward the Clintons is bit by bit turning in on itself ... so much so that the "journalists" themselves are mentioning it on the several media political updates on Fri-Sun.)

    Parent

    The emails (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 08, 2015 at 07:38:16 PM EST
    are not going to do anything. The only way the GOP can make a case about it is 1. they completely call the Bush Administration a bunch of lawless idiots. 2. They tell Scott Walker and Jeb Bush and maybe even more of their candidates to drop out due to their email situations. We all know 1 nor 2 is not going to happen. Sheehy is just using the situation to bang Hillary and promote Warren.

    Parent
    By the time it is determined - if it is (5.00 / 4) (#37)
    by Anne on Sun Mar 08, 2015 at 09:00:21 PM EST
    determined - that Clinton did nothing wrong, the damage will be done.  And make no mistake, there will be damage. There's always damage - this is just the latest breadcrumb of damage in a trail that goes back 20+ years.

    If you've learned nothing, you have to know that the GOP doesn't care that its people are up to their necks in things far worse than Clinton.  They will do nothing to prove they are even aware their possible candidates have filthy dirty hands.

    And for what it's worth, if Clinton's going to run, I want SOMEONE to challenge her in the primaries.  It doesn't have to be Warren - I'd be happy to see Bernie Sanders give it a go.  The absolute worst thing is for Clinton to treat this race as already won.

    Parent

    Self fufilling (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by FlJoe on Sun Mar 08, 2015 at 09:30:05 PM EST
    prophecy here
    make no mistake, there will be damage.
    You seem almost eager to gobble up and follow this
    breadcrumb of damage in a trail that goes back 20+ years.
    a trail that has always led nowhere. I just don not understand why people are in such a rush to go that  path again.

    Parent
    If you can't see the pattern, I can't (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by Anne on Sun Mar 08, 2015 at 10:08:07 PM EST
    help you.  We both know, don't we, that nothing would please the GOP more than to convince Clinton that it's just not worth the non-stop efforts to scandalize everything she says, may have said, said 20 years ago, and so on.  

    It's not that I'm eager for this sh!tshow - what I'm eager for is for it to stop.  It won't, because it's all the GOP knows how to do, and it works.  Who's asking about Scott Walker and his little criminal enterprise?  Does anyone care about Jeb Bush and his e-mail situation?  Not that I can tell.  It's all-Clinton, all the time.

    Ugh.  

    Clinton fulfills her own prophecies; no one needs to do that for her.  

    I guess the next thing is that I must be a Hillary-hater; seems to be all anyone's got these days.  Sorry to disappoint.  If I hate anything, it's that this is what our election process has been reduced to: a bunch of bought-and-paid for corporatist lackeys all jockeying for the right to be the leader of the free world...


    Parent

    Look at it this way (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 07:06:48 AM EST
    Can you imagine what they would do to someone like Elizabeth Warren? She would be completely destroyed in short order and it doesn't matter if she has a pristine record they will make something up. At least Hillary is battle hardened and the fighting back got the NYT to back down on their story. But yes, she's not going to be a media darling like Obama and George W. but have you considered that maybe that's a good thing?

    Parent
    Of course (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by FlJoe on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 08:15:36 AM EST
    I see the pattern, I choose not to fall into line with it.
    nothing would please the GOP more than to convince Clinton that it's just not worth the non-stop efforts to scandalize everything she says, may have said, said 20 years ago, and so on.  
    It seems you and many other Democrats would be just as "pleased" as the GOP for Hillary exit the race.
     
    it's that this is what our election process has been reduced to: a bunch of bought-and-paid for corporatist lackeys all jockeying for the right to be the leader of the free world...
    I agree that corporate lackeys have come to rule our politics, but we must fight that process not succumb to it.  
    It won't[stop], because it's all the GOP knows how to do, and it works
    So you think they will never stop because it works. Well apparently it is working on you. Personally I refuse to let it "work" on me.

    Parent
    Well, aren't you just so above it all? (3.50 / 2) (#69)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 09:03:16 AM EST
    So, you see a pattern but are just going to close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears and sing "la-la-la-la-la" for the next couple of years?  

    Even though I ended up supporting Clinton through the 2008 primary season, I initially didn't want Clinton to get into that race, precisely because of the drama and the baggage that surrounds her, always.  

    Do I want her to exit the race?  Well, she's not officially in the race, is she?  Did I miss that announcement?  So it would actually be a matter of choosing not to run.  What really kind of ticks me off is all this saving-the-seat-for-Clinton has kept the Dems from deepening their bench, which means they are not in a good position with a selection of viable candidates should she stop toying with everyone and decide not to run.

    Which makes me think she's way too invested in this being about her.  I want it to be about us, but apparently, that's not how it works anymore, if it ever did.

    In order for the GOP's game to be working on me,  I think I'd have to already be a Hillary supporter who is now feeling more and more tepid about that support.  I'm not a Clinton supporter, actually, but I can see that their game is having an effect.  The media's doing its usual crap job of "reporting," and when I listen to and talk with people, I can hear that they're scooping up what the media's dishing out because they think they are getting the facts.  I'm happy to disabuse them of the idea that the media wants them to know the facts, but that doesn't mean I support Clinton as much as it means I support the truth.

    I also know your game, which seems to be one of putting people on the defensive for failing to be reflexively loyal to the Democrat, in this case, Clinton.  Several election cycles ago, I decided that I was over being guilted or bullied into voting for someone just because there was a (D) after his or her name, and would either not cast a vote for a particular office, or I'd vote third party.  I'm done with voting for anyone just because he or she is "not as bad as the other guy."  All that has done is make sure the bar for quality candidates can go lower and lower; as long as you keep voting for the corporate lackeys, those are the kinds of candidates you're going to get, and it's the kind of representation you'll get, too.

    I happen to think that the people who want to represent me and lead me and who have the power to affect my life need to be held accountable, and that goes for Clinton, too - I don't care how long she's been waiting to make history.

    Parent

    My game is (5.00 / 4) (#74)
    by FlJoe on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 09:48:38 AM EST
    to identify the "pattern" and fight it. Your game seems to be to identify the "pattern" and surrender to it. Personally I have often been disappointed if not downright disgusted by many Democrats, but the pragmatic side of me knows that the bigger enemies at this time are the Republicans and their media enablers.

    You are the one with your fingers in your ears waiting for a mythical, flawless candidate to appear on a white horse to lead us to the  promised land while ignoring the barbarians who are at the gate, who certainly will not change their tactics or lose their barbarity no matter who our standard bearer is.

    Parent

    FlJoe (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Politalkix on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 11:21:52 AM EST
    FlJoe wroye
    "My game is to identify the "pattern" and fight it. Your game seems to be to identify the "pattern" and surrender to it. Personally I have often been disappointed if not downright disgusted by many Democrats, but the pragmatic side of me knows that the bigger enemies at this time are the Republicans and their media enablers."

    If you wrote this after the Democratic Party convention and before the 2016 GE, it would make some sense to me. There is a chance that I would even support this statement.

    Bur what you wrote does not make any sense to me at this time (1.5 years before the convention). It really does not.

    Parent

    If what Joe says makes no sense to you, ... (2.00 / 2) (#154)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 02:36:24 PM EST
    ... that's because you're likely one of those  Democrats he's talking about, whose fluency in Beltway-speak renders them part of the overall problem.

    Parent
    Exactly (none / 0) (#163)
    by FlJoe on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 02:57:14 PM EST
    If you want a better Democrat(and I do), you don't proceed by using Republican tactics and following stale media memes.

    Parent
    So, Joe - how are you fighting the (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 02:08:22 PM EST
    pattern?  I mean, you can't rewrite history, so whatever has happened in the past is where the pattern comes from, right?

    So, when we learn that Clinton has her own special e-mail account and server, what happens?  Well, the NYT writes garbage that's supposed to serve as a recitation of the facts, but it's kind of short on those and very long on innuendo. [Scccrrrratch! - that's the sound of the match being lit].  A bunch of people inside and outside the administration weigh in on whether she was or wasn't in violation of any laws/policies/regs, but there's zero official comment from within the State Department that would shed any light on how Clinton came to this arrangement and what the security protocols were.

    Clinton chimes in, but only to say she wants the e-mails released.  That will take some time as they first have to be reviewed.

    The pattern is that whatever Clinton did or was alleged to have done or said, is met with silence from the Clinton camp.  Speculation grows, imaginations soar, the long knives come out.  Meanwhile, no one's paying the slightest attention to the Republican field and their issues.

    How do you stop that pattern, Joe?  Are you going to go have a little come-to-Jesus meeting with Hillary and tell her how to put an end to this stuff?  Something tells me that's not in the cards.

    I get that the last thing she should be doing is asking "how high?" every time the media says, "jump!"  I get that she doesn't want to tap dance for them.  So forget the media - forget doing the media's bidding - how about responding to the people?  How about addressing the people's concerns?  

    If it's all on the up-and-up, why can't someone just say so? Why can't someone at State say this was all vetted as to procedure, that the system was inspected and monitored and parameters established to maintain the highest level of security?  Because isn't that what we want to hear?  Wouldn't that confirm there was nothing hinky going on?

    Look, I know the Republicans are essentially insane, that their ideas, their agenda, their worldview, their tactics, their war-hunger, are all wrong for America.  But I don't know why we aren't raising the bar for Democrats, instead of lowering it each time the GOP dives to a new low.  Why are we using the GOP as the metric for where the bar is, Joe?  What are you doing to change that - continuing to vote for Dems who are thisclose to being Republicans themselves isn't cutting it.

    I don't want mythical; being better than where they are now would be a start.  Changing the metric would be good.

    As for Clinton, I'm just tired of the drama. I don't have Clinton Derangement Syndrome, I have Clinton Fatigue Syndrome.  I'm over her, I'm over the Dems just sitting on their hands while Clinton takes her sweet time deciding what she wants to do.  

    Make of that what you will; you do what works for you and I will do the same.

    Parent

    Well (3.50 / 2) (#168)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 03:14:06 PM EST
    if you want the state department to say something that is on Obama who btw lied about knowing this was going on because he apparently knew for a while.

    Parent
    Oy (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by sj on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 02:32:24 PM EST
    Reflexive "D" supporters seem to always fall back on this outright lie.
    ... waiting for a mythical, flawless candidate to appear ...
    Except in your case you doubled and tripled down, throwing in white horses, promised lands  and barbarians.
    ...mythical, flawless candidate to appear on a white horse to lead us to the  promised land while ignoring the barbarians who are at the gate, who certainly will not change their tactics or lose their barbarity no matter who our standard bearer is.


    Parent
    I am having a sad (3.50 / 2) (#173)
    by FlJoe on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 03:32:14 PM EST
    You took my pretty little fairy tale and turned into a mean old "outright lie". Are you and ogre by any chance?
     For the record I do have a mythical candidate; Mix the economic populism of Warren with the FP/military chops of Wesley Clark add in Bills political savvy and Hillary" tenacity garnish with dash of JFK's youthful charisma and voila, perfection. As soon as my Ronco Clone-o-Matic arrives I will start building my dream candidate.

    Parent
    Poor you (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by sj on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 04:15:41 PM EST
    I didn't realize it would crush you to have your fantasies brought out into the light of day.

    But maybe it really doesn't. Here you are -- right in the light of day -- providing your own mythical candidate for your own mythical voter.

    Parent

    Sorry (2.00 / 1) (#190)
    by FlJoe on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 04:24:44 PM EST
    you will have to wait on the mythical voter, the construction of the re-education camps is way behind schedule.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 07:26:20 AM EST
    it's ironic that Bill left office with the highest approval ratings of any modern president and that is despite everything the GOP threw at him. Yes, the GOP is up to their necks in garbage and I would hope that Hillary would be pointing that out since obviously you can't rely on the press to do their job when it comes to that.

    Parent
    And that (none / 0) (#24)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 08, 2015 at 07:41:56 PM EST
    is very bad advice from Sheehy. She wants another John Kerry and apparently someone who goes on the offensive is bad and someone who curls up in a ball is good.

    Parent
    Adding to your mention of motive (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by christinep on Sun Mar 08, 2015 at 07:57:46 PM EST
    Ga6th: I did a quick Google look up about earlier commentary/articles/books by Ms. Sheehy.  In a matter of a few minutes, one thing about Sheehy's approach to the Clintons can be seen in her continually referring to the Clinton approach as the "Clinton attack machine" in her 1999 writings and subsequently.  I would say that Sheehy is known for operating with an anti-Clinton motif ... where she is going with it is hard to decipher other than the slice & dice.  Apparently, after "Passages," she got a bit Lucy-goosy with descriptors of relationships to fit her own theme (per several interviewees after Sheehy's 2007 book.)

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#27)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 08, 2015 at 08:03:16 PM EST
    she's definitely not someone to take political advice from I'm sure.

    I think people must like weenies. Look at all that has happened to Obama a lot of it largely his own fault because he failed to realize who the enemy is these days. He's gotten rolled so many times it's not even funny the latest being with Bibi. The GOP absolutely has no fear of him and fear is the only thing that keeps them in line. If you extend a hand they will cut if off.

    Parent

    Dear Gawd (none / 0) (#31)
    by Yman on Sun Mar 08, 2015 at 08:15:15 PM EST
    This silly nonsense is like pron for you, isn't it?

    Not sure if it's more funny than sad, or the other way around ...

    Parent

    The irony is just too hilarious. (5.00 / 6) (#44)
    by NYShooter on Sun Mar 08, 2015 at 09:54:41 PM EST
    Here's a woman who, successfully, navigated the Whitewater Nothing-there Scandal. Served with honor and distinction as first lady for eight years, with the Republican Hate Machine in full-out assault mode every minute of those eight years. Fought back, and, survived, stronger than ever, the Monica embarrassment.

    Was elected Senator in New York, and, re-elected in a landslide, winning all but two counties, including, virtually all of Republican Upstate. Served two terms in the senate, and left with unanimous, bipartisan admiration and praise from all her colleagues. Conducted a spirited primary campaign, getting better, and, stronger as it went on, ending up winning virtually all the big populous States.

    Served distinctively as S.O.S, again, gaining accolades from all sides, domestically, and internationally.

    All in all, her stature and popularity, in spite of an unrelenting, hostile press, and vicious Republican Party, is greater now than at any time of her career.

    So, right; let's listen to Gail Sheehy tell us how everything Hillary is doing is wrong.


    Parent

    Beautifully stated (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by christinep on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 11:56:48 AM EST
    IMO, this pre-test is all part & parcel of the campaign.  Ultimately, it has very little to do with emails ... hers, Bush's, Walker's, Christie's or any candidates ... as is becoming clear from the focus on the person in the form of the hook using a trumped up issue to gather in everything else ... as the re-writes of the stories flag and time and everyone else moves on, so will the political reporters to await another day to bat their collective heads against the wall again.  (Maybe a new tale about Vince Foster's relatives or a new recipe for brownies!?!)

    Hillary Clinton is a fighter.  We must all know that by now.  And, because she is so smart, seasoned, and strategic, I am confident that--if anyone can--she, more likely than not, will define the terms of when and how she will announce and what she will say.  The press sure does love one who kowtows; but, then that same gaggle dispenses quickly with them; and, strengthened by the very things you describe, she is well aware of the minefield.  

    As Anne has counseled: The campaign can be expected to be rough, ugly, and similar adjectives. Count on it, tho, that Hillary knows that and is prepared to be the spirited survivor--the prevailing woman--that she has shown so often before.  Thinking about what Ga6th suggests about not flinching, about not backing down: Hillary Clinton has the heart and the grit for it.

    Parent

    Of course, (none / 0) (#198)
    by NYShooter on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 05:37:46 PM EST
    I can only speak for myself, and so, the first thing I have to admit is that I don't have a clue regarding the controversy being stirred up. So, what do I do? Simple, I trust that Hillary is way smarter than I am regarding this email business, and, I accept, yes, on faith, that she didn't, suddenly wake up an imbecile, discovering that she inadvertently committed some sort of sinister, illegal action whereby she somehow damaged the United States. I trust that she and Bill, two of the most experienced, smartest, and successful statesmen of my time, didn't attain their heights accidently, or by doing stupid things.

    If, and, when, something is turned up, something that I consider wrong, or hurtful to the country, trust me, I'll be heard. Until then, I'll go with the notion that Hillary Clinton (and Bill) are, simply, too smart to do something stupid, much to the chagrin of those who've made a career of looking stupid trying to nail the Clintons.

    Parent

    If that's true, ... (none / 0) (#39)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Mar 08, 2015 at 09:25:24 PM EST
    Politalkix: "I am not a Hillary hater."

    ... then please give whatever it is you're doing a rest, because you've sure had me thinking otherwise.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Clearly not a fan (3.00 / 1) (#42)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 08, 2015 at 09:36:06 PM EST
    do you think I'm a Hillary hater Donald?

    Parent
    In case any one is wondering (4.00 / 2) (#43)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 08, 2015 at 09:46:44 PM EST
    im not.  You know what I do hate?

    Koolaid.  Can't stomach the stuff.  Never could.  


    Parent

    Well, what's pissing me off about this is ... (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 12:32:43 AM EST
    ... how some people are now seeking to use the disclosure of Hillary Clinton's e-mail address as some sort of political barometer of the woman's character.

    This is such an absurd non-story, dripping with sanctimonious hypocrisy and riddled with contempt for the average citizen's intelligence, that it could've only been concocted by those self-styled elitists whose parallel universes revolve solely around the foibles and follies of the Beltway crowd.

    Before they continue to flog this foul nonsense any further, they ought to seriously pause for a moment and consider how their own vehemence and vitriol on this subject might be seen by the rest of us as a direct reflection of their own personal character -- not unlike what one may see in a funhouse mirror about an hour after dropping acid.

    They really need to get a life.

    Parent

    Oh, for heaven's sake, Donald... (3.80 / 5) (#50)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 07:03:56 AM EST
    could you draw yourself into more of a snit?

    I only have one question: why?  Why did Clinton need to run all her unclassified State Department communication through a personal e-mail account on her own server?

    The answer to that may very well make this a non-story, but here's another question: if there's a common-sense, oh-okay-that-makes-sense answer to the "why" of all this, why hasn't it been put out there?  Why are Hillary's "people" allowing this stew to get more and more toxic, and allowing more negative speculation and by their unsatisfactory response, keeping it all alive?

    It's the "why" that is making this a story, Donald.  It's the lack of an explanation that is rendering her "release the e-mails" response inadequate.

    Of course the media is being hypocritical. Of course the GOP is pretending they don't have far worse problems in this area.  But the longer it takes for her to answer the "why," the more difficult it is for her to turn the spotlight on those who actually do have some dirty laundry hanging on the line.  The longer it takes for her to make this a non-story, the more any effort on her part to turn the tables on the GOP looks like deflection and distraction.

    Just tell me one thing, Donald: why should Clinton be assumed to be above it all and not subject to the same kinds of accountability and transparency we've been demanding of everyone else?  After six years of secrets and lies, which came after eight years of secrets and lies, why are people treating Clinton as if she doesn't look pretty well on her way to giving us more of the same?  Why do we have to trust her?  Because, the media?  Because, the GOP?  Because, the vast right wing conspiracy?

    Well, how about, because: fk all that.  Fk pretending that Clinton is special, that we can have different standards for her.  I'm just sick of it - tired of blind hero worship and accusations of "hater" whenever people ask questions that deserve answers.

    How long do you think it will take Clinton to answer that one question, Donald?  How long should we have to wait?

    Parent

    How is she supposed to deny a negative, Anne? (4.00 / 3) (#139)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 01:55:14 PM EST
    Why isn't the media saying anything about Scott Walker's past attempts to circumvent public disclosure laws in Wisconsin with private email accounts, or the Bush administration's use of private e-mail accounts at the RNC to avoid going on the electronic record in the White House?

    It's a crystal clear case of a double standard being applied to Hillary Clinton and the Democrats, while the boys in the GOP get a free pass for having done essentially the same thing for years.

    There was no law or rule in place during the time Mrs. Clinton served as Secretary of State that prohibited her from having and using a private email account. She was only required to forward all emails concerning official business to the department for preservation as part of the public record.

    Given the fact that nobody else in any presidential administration (as of yet) has been held to similar account for using private email for official business, this story is bull$hi+. Period. And no amount of explanation on Hillary Clinton's part is ever going to satisfy the selective outrage of her critics, which include you. All that -- and you -- have is innuendo.

    So why should she even bother? Her critics will simply move the goal posts on her again, just like they did once the original premise of the initial New York Times article was exposed as flawed, because no law was broken or circumvented.

    And Anne, of all people, who are YOU to be chiding and berating others around here for having a snit?

    :-(

    Parent

    Donald (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 02:08:32 PM EST
    the problem is, as usual, legitimate concerns expressed by thoughtful people are lumped in with republican hysteria.   It's worked well for the Clintons.  That's the bullsh!t.
    In fact there was a rule in place that she ignored.   A rule that was supposed to promote transparency.  
    Personally I don't give a sh!t about Scott Walker.  He will not be my standard bearer.  For my part I am happy to have democrats held to a higher standard.

    Parent
    Agree (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 02:35:23 PM EST
    In general, any defense of Hillary that goes the 'But Jeb did it', or 'But Walker did it', etc route, loses me immediately, and I am on her side.

    I know it is a dilemma - no amount of explaining why what she did was not against the law, or maybe  not even a violation of rules that were in place at the time, will shut the usual suspects up, but some kind of a white paper or statement of what they did and why they did it, what the mail server security precautions were, how they transferred data to the archives, would at least arm her defenders with facts instead of finger pointing.

    It is entirely possible all of that is already released and I have missed it. I just tune this stiff out when the usual chicken littles start squawking. I won't know when the sky is really falling until BTD tells me.

    Parent

    But it's not just abou you, Cap'n, ... (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 03:17:22 PM EST
    ... any more than it's just about me. Rather, it's about us as an American people.

    Ethical standards are indeed vitally necessary, not just in politics but in most all facets of life generally. But that said, such standards need to be acknowledged by all and applied equitably to everyone, and not just to one specific group or individual. We should no more tolerate a double standard in our political ethics, then we should have to endure watching a basketball game where only one team is getting whistled for fouls and rule violations by the referees.

    As a policy wonk myself, I'll be more than happy to have that rational conversation about laws and rules for government communications, provided that I'll be having it with rational people. Give me a call when the shouting dies down.

    But right now, those who are stomping their feet and screaming the loudest about this issue aren't really concerned about the rule of law. For those in politics, it's all about politics and gaining a perceived edge over a potential rival. For those in the media, it's about drawing attention to themselves.

    And that's why this entire email story is bull$hi+ right now. You can't hold a policy discussion in the midst of a political gunfight. All you'll accomplish by attempting to do so is risk getting shot in the crossfire. Therefore, you best either arm yourself accordingly, or steer clear of the maelstrom altogether.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    There is concern and there is Concern, Howdy (none / 0) (#164)
    by christinep on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 02:58:23 PM EST
    Little "c" concern is where interested individuals can talk/discuss/and maybe cuss ... because it involves the issue itself across the board.  The bigger "C" concern in the secular world is where it is professed to be end-of-the-world and/or major-flaw-in-character, etc.  When those "concerned" jump quickly to character critique, it hints at something entirely different from what the stated initial concern was stated to be.

    So ... two things: (1) This is not about kool- ade or powerade or bourbon for me or many others who, in the first instance, considered the matter overblown in terms of degree of concern and--based upon the pattern--quickly discerned that the hoopla limited to Hillary only (ignoring similar practices of top Repub candidates and historical, actual practice) was intended to lead to witch-hunt techniques.  And, supporters fight against the witch-hunts. (2) As for your remarks in this thread and elsewhere about why most others did not share your real concern about the issue, maybe it wouldn't be unreasonable to ask yourself if you might have jumped to conclusions about the matter even moreso than those you consider the unblinking Hillary followers.  (My Dad reminded me periodically--when I couldn't imagine why everyone/most didn't agree with me--that "If everyone is out of step but my Johnny ... well, maybe, Johnny ought to take a second look."  That was from a true story when then 6 year-old Dad was at a parade of returning war veterans, and heard the older woman nearby saying to her neighbor about her son. Love it!)

    In many ways, a genuine issue of this age--protection of together with transparency of government documents--is an issue all its own.  We all need to deal with the heretofore transitional challenge presented by the issue, of course. But ... when the multi-layered issue that the matter really is becomes intermingled with the presumptive candidate phrased and pointed as a campaign attack spear, that is a different question.  The procedural practice in our country will be addressed ... because it has to ... separately from any particular candidate.  (Herein endeth my sermon!)

    Parent

    It's so good to know that our (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 02:55:06 PM EST
    standard is that it's okay as long as someone else is doing it, too.  I don't know, that never worked for me with my parents, and it didn't work for my kids when they'd make that argument, either.

    Is that who we are now, Donald?  Are we the party of not caring whether something is right or wrong?

    The whole did-she-break-the-rules thing seems kind of murky to me: some say she did, others interpret things to indicate she didn't.  

    I still have no idea what made it necessary for her to have a system no one else had ever used, and while I can come up with all kinds of common-sense, not nefarious reasons, I'm just guessing.

    I am not requiring that she prove a negative - in fact, I called out some people for making it about proving a negative.  I haven't asked what she used it for, I haven't insinuated or suggested she was up to no good, either.  I just feel like it was such an unusual arrangement that I think she needs to tell us why she had to do it this way.

    I've also pointed out that the GOP's hands certainly are not clean on this - not now, and not in the past.  I agree that if Clinton is going to be called to account, those on the other side of the aisle need to be subjected to the same scrutiny.  My issue/problem is that I don't think "but, but...Scott Walker!  Jeb Bush!" is an explanation, as much as it is a deflection.  I don't like deflections.

    If Clinton is the fighter she seems to be, she doesn't need anyone to defend her, especially not when we don't really have enough information to know whether defending her is the right thing to do.

    You remember what that is, don't you, Donald?  The right thing, that is; it used to be something we did just because it was the right thing.  Maybe what Clinton did with her special system was the right thing - but right now, the way she's being defended, it feels like people are worried it wasn't, and are using the "but they did it, too" excuse to try to neutralize it.

    Does that ever work?

    Parent

    This is a political fight, Anne, ... (4.00 / 3) (#186)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 04:22:15 PM EST
    Anne: "You remember what that is, don't you, Donald?  The right thing, that is; it used to be something we did just because it was the right thing."

    ... regardless of whether or not you care to acknowledge it, and the GOP has come loaded for bear. Right now, all you, Politalkix and several other Democrats are doing is pointing in Hillary Clinton's direction and saying, "The bear, she went thataway!"

    From everything I understand at this present time, Mrs. Clinton broke no current law and violated no standing rule with her private email account. This is about politics, and in that regard she should ignore the bedwetters in her own party. They've long been lousy prognosticators of political fortunes anyway, since they are self-absorbed creatures who tend to operate without an internal compass, and live only to react to Republican initiatives.

    There will be more than enough time for a rational and much-needed policy discussion on the issue of internal and external government communications when all the shouting subsides.

    And it will blow over, because as Gertrude Stein once famously quipped about the city of Oakland, there's really no there there. But we're never going to have that discussion in the present environment, so right now I'm not even going to bother to try.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    et al (none / 0) (#148)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 02:23:50 PM EST
    Modiggian - Speaking of morals,  I am not the one claiming that two wrongs make a right.

    Ga, I am not trying anything. Remember that "one swallow a summer does not make" but a whole flock of them speaks loudly.

    Donald, what Reconstructionist wrote:

    The rules in place when these communications occurred required that no sensitive information be contained in "external" account AND that any such communications be disclosed and made available for proper storage and archiving within a reasonable period of time. The most recent of such communications were withheld from 1/13 until 11/14 and the oldest of them from 2009 -- or over 5 years. We can quibble about what "reasonable" means, but good luck with the argument even the shortest period is reasonable.

    That only applies to the communications that were turned over in November. We have no reason to believe that even as we speak ALL communications subject to the regs have been turned over.  It's also possible some of the communications no longer exist because Clinton or people acting at her direction eliminated them.

    Hillary's actions persuade me that she violated the rules. The question is, shall she be held to the same standard as Petraeus?

    You obviously are frightened of what a true, vigorous and unbiased investigation will bring and are vehemently opposing one.

    Parent

    Clearly, you know nothing about the law, Jim. (5.00 / 2) (#172)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 03:31:42 PM EST
    JimakaPPJ: "Hillary's actions persuade me that she violated the rules. The question is, shall she be held to the same standard as Petraeus?"

    David Petreaus broke the law and further, he acknowledged having done so by pleading guilty. So do tell, oh sage one, what specific law did Hillary Clinton violate here? You can't, because there isn't one.

    Therefore and as always, Jim, despite your repeated assertions to the contrary, you're simply a water carrier for the Republicans in what is obviously a political argument.

    At least I'm up front about my political leanings.

    Parent

    Of course (none / 0) (#152)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 02:34:29 PM EST
    they persuade you. You think we found WMDs in Iraq too. Frankly though I doubt she cares what you think because it's not like you're ever going to vote for her no matter what. So really your opinion is just that and you'll vote for even the insane Ted Cruz if he's the nominee.

    Parent
    Tell me where I stated that (none / 0) (#166)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 03:08:04 PM EST
    proposition, Jim.  

    I don't think there is anything to it, but lets investigate Hillary and everyone else up the old wahzoo, Democrat, Republican, whatever, who so much as sent one official e-mail while holding some sort of public office from a personal account in the last 20 years, and then let the chips fall where they may.

    And at was a nice snark about my not understanding how e-mail works in the last thread.  😇

    Parent

    We haven't heard (none / 0) (#56)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 07:33:46 AM EST
    The last of the Clinton Foundation and its donors.  Wanna bet there's a connection between that story and the email accounts?  That's what especially concerning.

    Parent
    I will take that bet (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 02:38:42 PM EST
    I'll give an extra $25 to TL this year if any donor improprieties are uncovered via the e mail account investigation.

    Parent
    I thought (3.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 07:37:19 AM EST
    we went through all that back in 2008 with Obama talking about it constantly.

    Parent
    Recent foreign donations (none / 0) (#58)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 07:56:32 AM EST
    are being questioned - including from HRC's time at State too.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 08:01:20 AM EST
    now they're criticizng Bill for being transparent.  And he took no foreign donations while she was SOS. There comes a time when no one is going ot listen to this kind of stuff anymore. The old crying wolf comes to mind.

    If you do something the goal posts are moved and what you did is not acceptable and then if you do the second thing, the goal posts are moved again. Maybe all of this will be dissected and discussed and be done and old news.

    Parent

    What this does (none / 0) (#62)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 08:16:42 AM EST
    Is feed the narrative that the Clintons are secretive and can't be trusted.  It doesn't matter if anything was illegal, but it sure shapes a narrative - and one that isn't a crazy conspiracy one.  It is perfectly legitimate to ask why she exclusively used an email account that was hosted in her own house, then by someone she paid, to avoid using a secure one provided by the government.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 08:29:31 AM EST
    first of all the government one wasn't all that secure. Remember the SOS office was hacked albeit after Hillary left. So you think the press should be deciding who are the nominees for the parties? Press narratives need to be fought and not succumbed to like you want to do. And that is what she did and then got criticized for. I'm tired of all the weenie stuff about narratives. Remember the press narrative about George W. was he was wonderful and honest and Obama was awesome! And hmm, what has that gotten us?

    Parent
    I doubt there are more secure places (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 02:44:55 PM EST
    for an email server in the state department than the Clinton home, that no doubt has just as good security as the White House at this point. It is not just some house on the block, it is the home of an ex-POTUS, with around the clock guards. That server may as well be in the West Wing.

    Parent
    Nope (5.00 / 3) (#196)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 05:19:12 PM EST
    wrong about that.  It's already been demonstrated that the server security is for sh!t.  What we do not yet know is if t it had the same secutiry while she was SoS.  But in a way it doesn't matter because she still had all the stuff on it she is now turning over.

    read about it.

    Parent

    Yes, Ga6th (none / 0) (#116)
    by christinep on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 12:23:10 PM EST
    The "crying wolf" image, exactly ... and, that is what will happen with these "issues" as they become relegated to the molehill of ennui.  Going back to the '90s and, apparently, continuing today, what the CDS types (whether Repubs or a portion of the political press who don't get their way) haven't figured out: If you keep yelling/shouting/remonstrating about a crisis or a horrible wrong, you better be able to show it.  Why? Because there is a reason for the admonition about "crying wolf" and the public--somewhat impatient, as we all are--moves on.  BTW, the loser in "crying wolf" situations tends to be the accuser because--with each accusation--the accuser loses credibility.

    Parent
    A parking ticket has more details (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 01:22:08 PM EST
    of an alleged infraction than we've heard of any rules or regulations that Hillary violated with using her private E-mail address.

    Parent
    Well, (none / 0) (#132)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 01:28:22 PM EST
    the new twist is that the GOP is trying to tamp down on the jihadi because the jihadi always blow themselves up with regards to the Clintons. Honestly I think she put this out there and that's the reason why she's not responding. And then there's going to be a simple answer.

    Might be too late though to try to damp down on the Jihadi. Gowdy has already opened his mouth. I'm sure the main goal was smoke that idiot out of his hole and I guess it worked.

    Parent

    Probably not, but you should (3.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 08:21:59 AM EST
    go to work for the GOP, your ability to make up a smear out of whole cloth is most impressive.

    Parent
    And your sense of logic (3.50 / 2) (#65)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 08:39:09 AM EST
    Is tiresome.  Like a 5 year old.

    How dare we question politicians we like!  And if you dare disagree or question, then of course you must be a member of the GOP.

    Logic fail.   But typical from you.

    Parent

    There is a difference between (none / 0) (#66)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 08:48:13 AM EST
    questioning politicians and making things up for sh*t and giggles like you have with your mention of the Clinton Foundation and her e-mail problems.

    Lee Atwater is probably grinning in hell right now, saying, "You go, girl!"

    Parent

    Making what up? (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 08:55:32 AM EST
    The Clinton Foundation donations have been all over the news - including the emails.  Maybe since you only read Tiger Beat and Highlights, you may have missed it, even though I just posted an article from the NYT.  Why shouldn't they be looked at?  If there's nothing there, then there's nothing there, but why wouldn't you demand accountability? What are you afraid of?  And isn't it better to get this out now before we are just weeks out from the general election?

    When you have no argument - resort to misdirection. As you have thoroughly demonstrated here.

    But again, I know logic is beyond your level of understanding.  

    Parent

    Clinton foundation donations (5.00 / 4) (#106)
    by nycstray on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 11:58:45 AM EST
    have been news since day one, in case you haven't noticed. And do you really think that they have done something shady since the last time she ran for president and they went through their sh!t with a fine tooth comb? Kinda funny from a "supporter" . . .

    Btw, don'tcha think the NYT has a bit of a credibility issue when it comes to HRC? Are they really any better than TB in this case?

    Parent

    What you wrote earlier about linking (none / 0) (#68)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 09:00:36 AM EST
    the Foundation to the e-mail "problem" as you did above.

    Don't try to play the innocent, as you're not very convincing at it.

    Parent

    Demand Accountability (none / 0) (#93)
    by vicndabx on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 11:20:05 AM EST
    sounds like purity test.

    How does one "demand accountability" from a private organization?

    Parent

    Maybe you'd feel better about (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 11:27:23 AM EST
    "comply with any legally-mandated disclosure requirements."

    Parent
    What specifically are you referring to? (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by vicndabx on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 11:52:19 AM EST
    What hasn't been disclosed?

    Parent
    What would we do without Anne (none / 0) (#72)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 09:39:42 AM EST
    why should Clinton be assumed to be above it all and not subject to the same kinds of accountability and transparency we've been demanding of everyone else?

    Thank you.
    You know the thing I find most astonishing is that I have not seen anyone here, with a couple of Hillary Hater exceptions, find any problem whatever with the construction of a system who's entire existence seems to be to subvert the whole concept of transparency. If there is another reason please, for the love of God, tell us what it is.  
    I have a big problem with this and I don't honestly don't understand why others don't.  But no one seems to.  Very little if the news coverage except the far left has mentioned it.  We hear about violating some vague rule.  

    Let me be clear.  I am a Hillary supporter.  I always have been.  I'm even willing to concede that she is clearly the lesser of evils even if the worst I suspect is true.  But cults creep me out.  I didn't like Obamas and I wouldn't like Hillarys.  

    One more thing, that Bloomberg article I linked to was creepy.   Just creepy.  I do not appreciate on the record statements from people apparently speaking for her that they know how to handle us and they know if the stall long enough we will become distracted and forget about it.  Seriously?

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 09:51:58 AM EST
    here's the thing. She's not a declared candidate yet. I think that when she is she should answer it. Do you think that she should explain it when she's not a candidate yet?

    Yes, no one is discussing transparency and maybe if the papers were that would be different but they're not and Colin Powell says he has zero emails from his time at state. So why is he given a pass on that and not Hillary?

    Obama promised to have the "most transparent administration ever" and has fallen short on that account. I think he was naive to promise that because it seems that the GOP just uses it to throw up in his face everytime he doesn't bend down and hand everything over they want.

    But you can have a reasonable discussion on transparency I would think.

    But I also have to say that transparency isn't high on the list of a lot of voters. There are a lot of people stuggling to make ends meet these days and are more concerned with other things. And that might be why you only see it discussed in certain quarters.

    Parent

    Seriously? You think that because she (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 10:12:50 AM EST
    hasn't yet declared her candidacy that she's exempt from having to explain her actions while Secretary of State?  That's just insane.

    I know...maybe we should just wait for the book she'll inevitably write with the 7-figure advance; I mean, why give out the information for free when you can make money off of it, right?

    A lot of people are discussing transparency.  For a lot of people, it is important, especially after a decade and a half - at least - of there being less and less of it, and more and more prosecutions for those who dare to expose some of what has been happening.

    Parent

    I was talking (none / 0) (#85)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 10:20:41 AM EST
    as a political situation. A lot of people might be talking about transparency but for people who are stuggling it is way down the list of concerns whether you think it should be or not.

    She has said she will answer the question when she declares her candidacy. So there's going to be an answer forthcoming and it's not going to be 7 years from now.

    Parent

    Are you suggesting (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by Reconstructionist on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 03:48:36 PM EST
     that if a public official resigns that his conduct in office should be immune from investigation unless he subsequently seeks another office?

      If so, wow, just wow.

     

    Parent

    It sure (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by FlJoe on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 03:51:53 PM EST
    worked for Bush/Cheney et. al.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 2) (#182)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 03:53:28 PM EST
    Obama gave them a pass.

    Parent
    It (5.00 / 2) (#183)
    by FlJoe on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 04:00:55 PM EST
    often seems that Dem's are harsher on their friends then they are on their foes.

    Parent
    What annoys (5.00 / 2) (#184)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 04:14:43 PM EST
    me is the delusion that if Hillary would just quit everything would be fine. It's not going to be fine no matter what. Elizabeth Warren would be Eva Braun the socialist nazi who was going to take all their money away from them who is a pathological liar. Put the next candidate up and the next and the next and it's going to be another false story, lather rinse and repeat.

    Parent
    NO (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 03:52:14 PM EST
    I'm not talking about an investigation. I'm responding to the demand that Hillary say SOMETHING RIGHT NOW. Good grief. But frankly there is also a limit to the effectiveness of investigations after someone leaves office. And there's also the statute of limitations etc.

    If she announced she was not running tomorrow do you think this would even be a story? You and I both know it would not.

    Parent

    The impetus to say something right now (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by Reconstructionist on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 04:39:30 PM EST
      is political and I would wager it is Democrats who want to see her respond promptly because Republicans (regardless of what they say) would like nothing better than for unresolved questions to linger.

      Questions will linger until the server is in the hands of someone other than her or her agents and can be forsensically examined.

      She should immediately offer to make the server available to the State Department and the archivist, setting only the conditions that purely private communications should be protected from disclosure and that she should be permitted to retain an image of the drives because she needs for legitimate purposes.

      Handing over paper copies of selected messages chosen by her or her agents is never going to satisfy anyone who cares about anything beyond protecting her. Providing selected digital files is likewise going to prevent any of the important questions from being resolved.

      Only if relinquishing the server would in fact show worst sins than untimely disclosure and unwise security measures does she have anything to gain be delaying.

     

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#193)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 04:55:08 PM EST
    the bedwetting dems who think what the GOP thinks is more important than anything else. And no, the GOP is trying to tamp down on the jihadi though it might be too late for that.

    Are you kidding? Handing over the server will do nothing. If she hands it over to the state department they'll say Obama is covering up. If she hands it over to a private company they'll say they are being paid by the Clintons therefore they can't be trusted either. If she hands it over to the jihadi and there's nothing there they will say that she erased stuff even if she didn't.

    Parent

    Uh, (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by Reconstructionist on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 05:09:44 PM EST
      so you are saying that Dems concerned about what the Repubs will say if she stonewalls are bedwetters, but you who is worried about what they will say after she relinquishes control have superfuman continence? Not sure I follow that logic.

      Obviously, the persuasive  weight of what Repubs can say as long as she continues to prevent an examination is much greater and requires casting aspersions at only one person.

      If State and the Archivist are permitted to conduct an examination under their supervision and control and find everything  has been retained and the only problem is the untimeliness in order to make a strong case the Repubs would necessarily have to accuse third parties of willful dishonesty and make the case.

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#197)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 05:20:20 PM EST
    because she has been out of office for two years and since the GOP is yelling they are demanding that she answer the GOP right now.

    Actually the persuasive sway of the GOP lessens the longer it goes on because they start piling on conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory. They just can't seem to help themselves and shoot themselves in the foot when it comes to this kind of stuff.

    The Repubs will accuse people of willful dishonesty. It's what they do all the time. And yet they will have to do the same with Hillary.

    Parent

    If transparency is not (none / 0) (#77)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 09:54:23 AM EST
    "high on their list" IMO they are sadly and deeply misguided.

    Parent
    Maslow's (none / 0) (#78)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 10:04:35 AM EST
    heirarchy of needs.

    Parent
    You are very mistaken (none / 0) (#80)
    by FlJoe on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 10:08:23 AM EST
    if you think voters are sadly and deeply misguided.
    by their lack of interest in transparency issues. Any political scientist  will tell you the average voter is mostly interested in results, ie. money in their pockets and a safe world in which to spend it. Most of them want a nice juicy bratwurst on the bun, they have very little interest in watching it being made.


    Parent
    I also don't think we've heard from (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 10:06:06 AM EST
    the State Department as to the integrity of her personal system and server, and whether or to what extent State was involved in making sure it met all the proper security requirements, including secure monitoring.

    Doesn't that seem odd to anyone else?

    Initially, I thought this was going to be a big nothing-burger, but as the days go by, and I've had a chance to mull over the whole thing, I'm less sure about that.  I just want to know why - and I think I have the right to have that question answered: why did she need her own server, separate from State's system?  

    So far:  [crickets]

    I don't like the idea that I'm being "waited out," that "talk to the hand" is considered acceptable from someone who conducted the people's business.

    Imaginations have been known to run wild in the absence of answers, so if this sends reporters digging and talking heads speculating, that's on the Clinton camp, not on the people with the questions.

    Isn't there already enough secrecy in government?  Doesn't anyone else wonder what this foreshadows for the kind of president she'd be?  

    I don't know where she gets the people who are supposed to be managing these crises - however real or imagined they are - but her loyalty to people who don't seem to be serving her well also bothers me.  

    Parent

    The Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 10:08:49 AM EST
    camp I'm sure wants people to speculate because usually the answer is an Occam's razor type thing but the more they speculate and the more frenzied their theories are the more discredited they are when the truth comes out. It's not like this hasn't happened a bunch of times but the speculators never seem to learn.

    Parent
    Don't you get it? By the time the (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 10:19:25 AM EST
    "truth" gets out, it will be too late to unring the bell.  The toothpaste is already out of the tube.

    It's a terrible tactic, if in fact that's what's at work here, and the proof of that is what people still believe about all the other things they had time to speculate about because the Clintons thought they could stonewall their way around it.

    Parent

    This has (none / 0) (#86)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 10:23:17 AM EST
    happened time and again and that's like saying the majority of Americans still believe there was something to Whitewater. It's not going to be too late. I would agree with you if this was June 2016 but it is not.

    Parent
    What you don't seem to be getting is (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 11:18:09 AM EST
    this isn't just about getting the "W" on election day.  

    Well, I guess it is for you - and for a number of people here -  but I just don't get why you are so willing to allow her to avoid accountability, to dictate when she will answer to the people, to send the message that she can and should do whatever she wants and feel no compunction to justify it to anyone on anyone's timetable but her own.  And that was State Department Hillary, who didn't have near the power she will have as President Hillary.  

    It does not give me a good feeling.  In fact, it appalls me how much effort  is going into trying to convince people that nothing matters because it's March, 2015, and not September, 2016.  Yes, because the calendar always dictates what's important and what matters, right?

    How do you ever get them to stop things you object to if you can't or won't hold them accountable?  "Oh, that's okay, Hillary...you just do what you want, and we'll be here to vote for you, no matter what!"

    That always works out so well, doesn't it?


    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#96)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 11:26:14 AM EST
    here's the thing. Should she appear weak and cave and do what the press wants her to do? It could also be seen that way too.

    It's not like there's never going to be an answer to the question and I guess that's where you and I differ. You seem to think that she's never going to answer the question because she's not doing it right now.

    And frankly we should all be fighting back against the press narrative whether it is Hillary or not. Do you realize that they have a narrative ready to go about Elizabeth Warren that she's a massive liar?

    Accountability comes at voting time. But here's also the thing: Obama failed to hold the Bush Administration accountable and let them off the hook and the GOP also failed to hold them accountable and let them off the hook so the only accountability comes with voting.

    Parent

    Yes, again, Ga6th (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by christinep on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 12:44:26 PM EST
    Add to the comment about the strategy in allowing speculation:  Hillary Clinton is not afraid of setting her own agenda ... timing of announcement, timing of responses about procedure (as opposed to time crucial substantive issues.)  
    Example: For quite awhile now, the press has acted as if they must determine when Hillary announces and how she should respond ... and, some individuals in that profession are now pointing out that the longstanding "hostility"--several have used that word--between the Clintons and the Press is surfacing strongly.

    The situation resembles a push me-pull you one ... and, in the early going, this makes sense. After all, this is a political campaign, THE political contest, and the presumptive first woman presidential candidate must define herself.  That translates to: Respect.  To do otherwise ... to hop when told, to announce when told, to respond when & how told, is a matter for (as you might say) "weenies."  To be seen as a weenie soon leads to write-ups about riding in tanks with weird hats, duck-hunting in new clothes, who is a better beer companion AND, in the case of a woman, it likely would lead to format articles about dress, make-up, and the hair.

    Parent

    You know (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 12:53:36 PM EST
    Gore and Kerry did what they were told to do by these same people and (not excusing some of their other problems) but as soon as they did it, the press turned on them and ridiculed them.

    Parent
    I am NOT (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by Reconstructionist on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 10:08:43 AM EST
     a Hillary Clinton supporter, but I would not condone such actions by someone I support. My agreeing with,  liking or perceiving someone as the best (or even only viable) candidate does cause me to grant him  carte blanche to conduct government business however he  chooses. Things that are wrong are wrong regardless of who does them.

      The deflection is not going to work. This issue is going to be, and should be,  fully investigated. Will the anti-Clinton agenda of many influence the investigation? Yes, but that is not a valid reason to suggest we should not have an investigation.

      The rules in place when these communications occurred required that no sensitive information be contained in "external" account AND that any such communications be disclosed and made available for proper storage and archiving within a reasonable period of time. The most recent of such communications were withheld from 1/13 until 11/14 and the oldest of them from 2009 -- or over 5 years. We can quibble about what "reasonable" means, but good luck with the argument even the shortest period is reasonable.

      That only applies to the communications that were turned over in November. We have no reason to believe that even as we speak ALL communications subject to the regs have been turned over.  It's also possible some of the communications no longer exist because Clinton or people acting at her direction eliminated them. Thus, even if the server itself (I'm puzzled no one is yet talking about subpoenaing the physical object rather than just the data taken from it) is turned over we might be limited to learning that some unidentifiable and unclassifiable files were erased. We might never learn what they contained and would have to rely on self-serving assurances that nothing relating to "official business" is missing,, let alone that none of the missing information was of a nature that even the older regs prohibited from being transmitted on an external account.

       

    Parent

    I will have a problem with this (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by nycstray on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 12:15:28 PM EST
    When they have proven she has done something wrong. I'm guessing there is a perfectly valid (and perhaps even boring!) reason since this went on from day one with everyone's knowledge . . .

    Way too early to start playing the outrage game the media would like . . .  for me anyway.

    Parent

    fine (none / 0) (#120)
    by Reconstructionist on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 12:36:38 PM EST
      but the arguments here seem to be that only one with some evil motive would want an investigation which would let us know the full extent of her actions and the potential problems caused by those actions.

     Not that I would ever dream of accusing Clinton supporters of being disingenuous, but attempting to foreclose proper investigation by arguing that prior to investigation you are convinced she did nothing wrong is tautological at best. It obviously suggests  the motives of those making such claims are as, or more, blatantly partisan as Clinton's enemies.

    Parent

    Here's the (none / 0) (#123)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 12:50:37 PM EST
    problem I have with an investigation. So far the only investigations have been by the jihadi who are not on a hunt for the truth or any accountability or anything remotely honest. Why would you trust the same people who falsified emails they sent to the press among other things to conduct an investigation?

    Parent
    I was responding to Howdy (none / 0) (#181)
    by nycstray on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 03:53:21 PM EST
    And of course you would never accuse Clinton Supporters . . . Btw, do you have a list so you an keep those  non-accusations aimed at the right people? Cause it looks like you might need one, lol!~

    Parent
    Why shouldnt those in private life not (none / 0) (#99)
    by vicndabx on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 11:36:29 AM EST
    have some privacy? There are other Clintons that use email. I won't go into the rules again....

    It's not about any cult. I wish all of us could stoo making this about factions within the party. Fact is for me at least, the email setup seems perfectly reasonable. Maybe some of us have experience in IT, maybe some of us are looking at a different big picture, maybe transparency isn't the most important thing for some of is, for others it is.

    What we should all remember and should apply evenly to members of all parites is one of the founding principles of our legal system, innocent until proven guilty.

    If you are worried about this "looks" then you understand political optics. If you do, and you understand how we get change incrementally, well, let's just say each of us needs to do our own soul searching for what is most important.

    I don't think there's anything wrong with wanting privacy and protection from those that would do you and yours harm.  

    Parent

    Vic (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 12:41:40 PM EST
    i respect your opinion.  If you would like it to not be about factions direct your reprimand to those jumping on any comment that in any does not fully and completely support the former SOSs right to do whatever whenever with no oversight or accountability whatsoever.   I think it's safe to say everyone here thinks private citizens deserve privacy.  The SoS is not a private citizen.

    Straight question, do you have any problem at all with an email system that seems to have been created to subvert transparency in govt?  There is very strong evidence that information about Banghazi, fer gods sake, was deleted.  Who knows what else was deleted.  If you think her enemies are not going to jump on it and publicly assume information about the foundation and God knows what else was deleted.  

    This is a big sh!t sandwich.  And it did not need to be on the menu.

    Parent

    Dude (5.00 / 2) (#155)
    by nycstray on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 02:37:24 PM EST
    Benghazi? Created to subvert transparency?

    Really?

    Parent

    Nystray (none / 0) (#195)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 05:11:26 PM EST
    im not making it up.  Heres a link to the Benghazi story from the Atlantic if you haven't please read it.

    And yes created to subvert.  So she had the right to determine what inquiries like FIOA requests are responded to and how.   This is as clear as can be.  If you have another reason please share it.

    Parent

    those people (none / 0) (#107)
    by Reconstructionist on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 11:59:46 AM EST
     who are worried about others viewing truly private communications they had with Hillary using her external email; account have a beef with HER, no one else.

     Has she maintained a private account for purely private communications and used proper means for exclusively for public communications then they would have no worries. It's HER decision to "mingle" that's created third-party privacy concerns.

     That said, the server should be either voluntarily submitted for examination or obtained through process and the review of communications on it should be done under conditions where the people doing that work are expressly forbidden from disclosing or publishing any private communications.

    Parent

    And the answer is... (none / 0) (#88)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 11:05:05 AM EST
    Because the facts will be huge problem...

    It's the "why" that is making this a story, Donald.  It's the lack of an explanation that is rendering her "release the e-mails" response inadequate.


    Parent
    Jim (none / 0) (#98)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 11:29:25 AM EST
    to republicans like you it would not matter what she said or did. You guys would just keep moving the goal posts and making up conspiracy theories.

    Good luck with your pretzel putz Jeb Bush.  

    Parent

    Nice try at misdirection (none / 0) (#113)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 12:13:52 PM EST
    But making up and assigning fake party affiliations doesn't change the facts.

    If there is nothing to hide then why hide?????

    Remember. Hillary made $100,000 in one year trading cattle futures and then quit. She had no prior experience and was allowed to trade over her account  limit.

    A close examination of her individual trades underscores Blair's pivotal role. It also shows that Robert L. "Red" Bone, who ran the Springdale, Ark., office of Ray E. Friedman and Co. (Refco), allowed Clinton to initiate and maintain many trading positions - besides the first - when she did not have enough money in her account to cover them.

    snip

    Blair, who at the time was outside counsel to Tyson Foods Inc., Arkansas' largest employer, says he was advising Clinton out of friendship, not to seek political gain for his state-regulated client. At the time of many of the trades, Bill Clinton was governor.

    And of course all that money now coming from the ME is just "friendship money."

    Move along here folks, nothing to see. Trust us.

    WaPost

    Parent

    You guys (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 12:26:27 PM EST
    always scream misdirection when you can't argue with facts.

    That old conspiracy theory has been around forever. No one wants to hear it anymore, Jim.

    And if you think you can rehash this kind of stuff that has been disseted along time ago, well the GOP is even more insane than I even though.

    Parent

    Still making up false stuff, eh?? (none / 0) (#126)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 12:56:19 PM EST
    Oh well, nothing new from you.

    But for heaven's sake. Quit claiming that every response to Clinton's actions are a conspiracy or that every thing she did was a conspiracy.

    a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.

    The people involved knew that if they did favors they would get favors. No one had to have meetings. No one had to write or say anything.

    It is the way of the world for all half way smart people.

    My guess would be that Hillary mentioned to someone that the Governor's pay was terrible... That got mentioned around and the rest is history.

    And try to focus on the fact that she was allowed to trade above her account level. That's like you establishing an account with a broker for a $1000 dollar trading max and then calling them up and buying $20,000 worth of stock on margin... Who's gonna pay if the stock goes down??

    And quit being so thin skinned. People on both sides do it.

    When I was a boy if a person was elected sheriff the "joke" was that he became so smart that he managed to buy a 400 acre farm on a $2000 a year salary.

    Parent

    Jim (none / 0) (#127)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 12:59:53 PM EST
    let me put it to you in basic terms. You tried this in 1992. It failed. You tried this in 1996. It failed. You tried this in 2000. It failed. You tried this in 2006. It failed.

    What's the definition of insanity? Trying the same failed strategy time and again.

    Your guess would be? So you even admit you're guessing. This is beyond ridiculous.

    Parent

    Funny how he says both sides do it (none / 0) (#137)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 01:45:23 PM EST
    But wants to question the morality of anyone he sees as a Hillarybot defending her at all costs.

    Parent
    I'm sick (none / 0) (#138)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 01:49:52 PM EST
    of this junk. Let the GOP jihad rage on.

    Parent
    From TPM, to brighten your day (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 02:55:58 PM EST
    Lindsay Graham on why he never uses e-mail:

    Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) revealed on Sunday that he has never sent an email, but he insists his aversion to it does not make him a luddite.

    "What I do, basically, is that I've got iPads, and I play around," Graham told reporters this weekend, according to Bloomberg News. "But I don't e-mail. I've tried not to have a system where I can just say the first dumb thing that comes to my mind. I've always been concerned."



    Parent
    You keep talking about "Koolaid" (none / 0) (#45)
    by Yman on Sun Mar 08, 2015 at 09:56:23 PM EST
    Who is it that you think is drinking this imaginary drink?

    Parent
    What are you talking about? (none / 0) (#48)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 12:02:56 AM EST
    My comments were addressed to Politalkix, not you.

    Parent
    Don't get your fur up D (none / 0) (#75)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 09:49:23 AM EST
    just clarifying that skunk at the picnic doest not equal Hillary Hater.  It's just a skunk.  Doing what they do.

    Parent
    Why should I give it a rest? (none / 0) (#51)
    by Politalkix on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 07:06:33 AM EST
    If it comforts you to think that I am a "Hillary hater", so be it. I am not going to change my posting habits. This bunker mentality is getting more amusing by the day. And while you are at it, just start calling the NY Times, Washington Post, etc as the "lamestream media" and get done with it.

     

    Parent

    No (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 07:13:03 AM EST
    you want to play by the rules set up by the GOP like Obama. You don't see getting rolled by the GOP as a problem and it seems actually would prefer that.

    Parent
    I Would Remove 'Hillary'... (none / 0) (#110)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 12:09:05 PM EST
    ...from that statement and say you are just a plain ole hater.  You don't come here to find fault in people you dislike, aka hater.

    As some wise man/woman once said, 'Haters gonna hate'.

    Parent

    I for one (none / 0) (#89)
    by FlJoe on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 11:05:41 AM EST
    would love to see this phrase banned forever.
    "I am not a Hillary hater."
    it almost always is a prelude or afterword to some serious Clinton bashing. If I start my next post with "I am not a Hillary lover but ........" please shoot me.

    Parent
    The reason people are using that (5.00 / 4) (#95)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 11:23:16 AM EST
    caveat is because the Hillary-hater label is being flung at anyone who criticizes or questions what she says or does.

    Parent
    Methinks (3.00 / 3) (#134)
    by FlJoe on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 01:36:55 PM EST
    you "doth protest too much". Sure her policies deserve scrutiny and in many cases disapproval, but this whole "she creates her own self fulfilling prophecies" is so much bunk.  Yours and others arguments always start out with, "sure the GOP are relentless scandal mongers" and the press "are duplicitous fools" but then it ends up with "if only Hillary would quit being Hillary it would go away". Attacking her for her policies is one thing but attacking her for being a lightening rod is just playing right into the scandal mongers hands.

    Parent
    Any woman (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 01:44:52 PM EST
    is going to get the same treatment she gets like it or not. Apparently women are all evil and duplicitous unless they are submissive

    And the fact that she's not submissive and won't do as she's told to do by the press is a problem for them apparently. It was the same story back in 2008 even though there was no email thing going on.

    Parent

    Slado? (none / 0) (#41)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 08, 2015 at 09:34:32 PM EST
    poor Buttons!

    And (none / 0) (#47)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 08, 2015 at 10:09:46 PM EST
    child Psychology ala Carol.
    Omg.

    Parent
    GOP taking (none / 0) (#87)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 10:58:31 AM EST
    orders from a foreign leader now:

    "WASHINGTON, March 9 (Reuters) - Republican senators warned Iran on Monday that any nuclear deal made with U.S. President Barack Obama could last only as long as he remains in office, in an unusual intervention into U.S. foreign policy-making. The letter, signed by 47 U.S. senators, says Congress plays a role in ratifying international agreements and points out that Obama will leave office in January 2017, while many in Congress will remain in Washington long after that. "We will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei," the letter read. "The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of an agreement at any time," it read.""
    Evidently neither you or Obama (none / 0) (#90)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 11:09:12 AM EST
    have heard of "advise and consent."

    Parent
    I have a problem with how (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Reconstructionist on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 12:13:48 PM EST
     the Republican Senators have addressed their concerns.

      "Advice and consent" does not grant the Senate the power to conduct negotiations with foreign governments. By addressing the "open letter" to the  leaders of the Republic of Iran and making it appear the contents of the letter are deliberately intended to influence negotiations, I believe they have intruded on powers reserved to the executive branch.

      Had essentially the same thing been said in an open letter to Obama or "to the American people" or in any communication not specifically addressed to the Iranian government, it would not implicate such issues.

    Parent

    We (none / 0) (#91)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 11:14:14 AM EST
    all know the GOP apparently takes their marching orders from some strange people in this world. Remember Bibi was also shopping the lie that Iraq had nukes. But hey if the GOP wants to be useful idiots for another country have at it.

    Parent
    Nice try at misdirection (none / 0) (#109)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 12:02:31 PM EST
    but the facts are that Obama is willing to take any deal and the Congress is saying, "Hey! The people have a say in this!"

    Parent
    Congress (none / 0) (#111)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 12:11:36 PM EST
    does not control foreign policy despite their deluded belief that they might.

    Frankly I think the whole episode is funny and shows that the GOP cannot govern as if anybody needed any proof.

    Parent

    By 'The People'.... (none / 0) (#115)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 12:21:19 PM EST
    ...are you referring to 47 Senators, which isn't even a majority in that body, much less a representation of the people.

    And if I could find a poll, I would imagine more people would like peace in the middle east than not.

    Obviously they have approve treaties, but Jim they don't have to write letters to Iran to inform them of how the US political systems works.  I am pretty sure they don't need republicans reminding them what party want to bomb them and what party wants to make peace with them.

    Parent

    Is 47 senators like 57 states??? (none / 0) (#128)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 01:01:49 PM EST
    And that would be a dishonest poll.

    Everyone would like peace. The question is, what are we giving up to get the false peace Obama wants to claim.

    And the radical islamists in control of Iran don't give a flip what the Demos or Repubs want. They just want nukes to aid them in their quest to control the world.

    Parent

    They Why in F Are... (none / 0) (#141)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 02:06:40 PM EST
    ...Republicans sending them letters ?

    Parent
    "Their quest to control the world" (4.50 / 2) (#188)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 04:23:22 PM EST
    like Lex Lothar or Ming the Merciless or George Soros..

    They barely have control of Iran and are a few thousand nukes in the U.S, Russia, China, and the Un-Holy Land away from controling the world and leaving you permanently cowering under your bed in a puddle of urine.

    Parent

    Because in a democracy (2.00 / 1) (#157)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 02:42:59 PM EST
    it is their right to do so?????

    Or sauce for the goose? Turn about fair play??

    DAMASCUS, Syria, April 4 (2007)--Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, met here today with President Bashar al-Assad of Syria...Ms. Pelosi, who left Damascus this afternoon on a flight to Saudi Arabia for the next stage of her trip to the region...On Tuesday, President Bush said the visit sent mixed signals to the Middle East....

    Earlier this week, before reaching Syria, Ms. Pelosi met with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel. She said today that she passed on to President Assad word from Mr. Olmert that Israel sought peace with Syria.

    Israel quickly issued a clarification of its message, posting a statement on Mr. Olmert's website saying that its policy had not changed ...



    Parent
    When in (none / 0) (#130)
    by FlJoe on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 01:18:18 PM EST
    the name of Hades have the "people" ever had a say in delicate negotiations with a foreign country? There is a reason the constitution leaves diplomacy mostly in the hands of the executive, any other way leads to bedlam. Why not let Louis Gohmert in on the action.
    facts are that Obama is willing to take any deal
    Wow, you sure got quite a scoop there, I didn't know you were privy to the negotiations, please tell us more. Hey everyone Jim has all the "facts" at his disposal, and he is quite willing to part with them, no charge, what a deal.

    Parent
    Benjamin Netayahu is a warmongering fool. (none / 0) (#140)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 02:04:20 PM EST
    As are those people who still listen to him.

    Parent
    I Say Let Him... (5.00 / 2) (#144)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 02:09:43 PM EST
    ...monger some wars then; if only the republicans cared about us as much as them, we could stay out of it.

    Parent
    Troubled Bridge over Waters. (none / 0) (#135)
    by KeysDan on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 01:43:12 PM EST
    Over the Edmund Pettus Bridge to Selma, Alabama  was a commemoration, this past weekend, marking the fiftieth anniversary of "Bloody Sunday."  President Obama gave a masterful  speech that balanced celebration of past achievements in civil rights with realities of work remaining.

    Set-backs by the Supreme Court to the Voting Rights Act that Bloody Sunday helped to pass, mar the results, but do not diminish, the heroic display of patriotism of those who marched over the bridge.

    Encouraging words, too,  were spoken by Robert Bentley, Governor of Alabama,  who lauded Alabama's progress and hoped the anniversary could heal wounds.   Nice words by the governor that should be matched by some actions--perhaps just a small recognition--renaming the Edmund Pettus Bridge. Edmund Pettus, a Confederate Brig. General,  became the Grand Dragon of the KKK of Alabama in 1877 and a US senator in 1896.  His political career owed its successes to the KKK along with his virulent opposition to amendments to the constitution  that elevated slaves to free citizens.  

    If renaming this historic bridge is just too giant a step toward progress in Alabama, perhaps adding a second name, taking a cue from  Washington's Reagan Airport, and make it the Edmund Pettus Martin Luther King Bridge.  Although, a more realistic updating of  the bridge name would be the Edmund Pettus Roy Moore Bridge.

    Do we want the bridge renamed? (none / 0) (#159)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 02:45:57 PM EST
    Gotta tell ya, there's something incredible about a black President walking that bridge while it clearly reads Edmund Pettus.

    Bentley hates Obama with a white hot passion.  He looked like his bowels were full of bricks standing up there talking.  He hated every second of it.  He despised it.

    Alabama hasn't evolved enough, Saturday and Sunday shamed some citizens because they still haven't evolved.

    If Alabama was ready to rename that bridge, Selma would be a beautifully maintained tourist attraction.  Most Alabama leaders want to run and hide from Selma and that's why Selma suffers so much, not all, but a signicant majority want to run away from Selma and everything it says about Alabama today and Alabama's history.  They still want to ponder how happy the Africans were before Yankees complicated their simple happy lives.

    Parent

    Did you see the speech? (none / 0) (#160)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 02:54:41 PM EST


    Parent
    Oh yeah (5.00 / 2) (#167)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 03:10:58 PM EST
    If we had known it was going to warm as well as it did on Saturday we would have gone to see the President and John Lewis.  But yes, in this house the speech was on and watched,

    Parent
    But everyone else was at Chik fil A (none / 0) (#169)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 03:15:58 PM EST
    And I'm not joking.

    That is where local residents all ate the first Monday that gay marriage became unstoppable here too.  It is how they peacefully protest everything Liberal or Obama, they eat Crap fil A :)

    Parent

    Oh, man (none / 0) (#171)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 03:27:46 PM EST
    too funny but I like their chicken sandwich, the fried one that is really bad :)

    Parent
    I'm getting to where I can't eat fast food (none / 0) (#174)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 03:32:38 PM EST
    Anymore.  It makes me gag for some reason.  The meat textures are too unreal to me I think.  Josh will not eat there though.  You can boil him in oil and he will not touch it, he does not care how delish anyone tells him it is.  They ostracize people who were born different and he was born different and Chik fil A can rot forever :). The kid is adamant.  He will eat Zaxby's :)

    Parent
    He came home from school sick today (none / 0) (#175)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 03:36:38 PM EST
    It is our first go with Tamiflu.  His doctor has seen too many hospitalized sick kids this year.  Josh said the school nurses office was packed this morning, they had to call in extra staff.

    Parent
    Youngest (none / 0) (#177)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 03:44:53 PM EST
    son that the flu either last year or the year before. The doc gave him tamiflu which really seemed to help. So i hope it works for Josh too!

    Parent
    Jinx reopens Durst case (none / 0) (#202)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 09, 2015 at 08:29:58 PM EST
    L.A. D.A. Reopening Case Involving Robert Durst as Doc Reveals New Evidence (Report)

    @157 (none / 0) (#203)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 08:21:45 AM EST

    "Is anyone surprised? The speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, visits Syria, in a seemingly-uncontroversial attempt to promote `dialogue' between the two countries, and Republicans get upset. At a press conference yesterday, presidential candidate Mitt Romney couldn't resist an unprompted attack: `Frankly, the decision of Nancy Pelosi to go to meet with Assad in Syria is one which I find outrageous.' The National Review says Pelosi `could hardly have chosen a better way to undermine US foreign policy'. Hardly?

    "It isn't surprising. Attempts to score political points usually aren't. But it is confusing: the conservatives' fury comes in two flavours, and neither makes much sense. First, the right seems to be upset because Pelosi wore a headscarf when she visited a Syrian mosque. Like clockwork, the conservative blogosphere has transformed itself into an army of feminists and taken to the battlements. `This picture disgusts me. What message is Nancy Pelosi trying to send?' writes the New Editor. `The modern Democratic leadership,' telegraphs Little Green Footballs, over a picture of Pelosi's sartorial choice. `How ... quaint.'

    "They're grasping at straws. For one, Pelosi's critics ignore the inconvenient fact that First Lady Laura Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice have also, on several occasions, worn headscarves while visiting mosques. I suppose you could make a fetish of consistency and say that all of these women are wrong for engaging in flights of multiculturalism. But why? No one would argue that elected officials should indulge every cultural peccadillo on a trip abroad. (Genital mutilation? Cannibalism?) But it would be equally foolish to argue that culture is totally non-negotiable: Sometimes the benefits outweigh the harms, and, in the grand scheme of things, the headscarf seems trivial. It's both silly and desperate to say, as one blogger did, that she could have just worn a hat.

    "The second flavour of conservative ire is that Pelosi's trip makes for bad foreign policy. National Review argues that the speaker's congressional majority is doing `its best to raise the white flag over the Middle East' by indulging a murderous regime like Assad's. `We can't believe that a majority of Americans - impatient though they are with the Iraq War - thought they were voting for this last November.'

    "Well, believe it. In a poll released in December 2006 - just after the election the National Review cites - the Program on International Policy Attitudes found that three out of four Americans - including seven in ten Republicans - supported holding talks with both Iran and Syria. And, of course, diplomatic engagement with the two countries was also the centrepiece of the Iraq Study Group's report - an exercise in ostentatious bipartisanship if there ever was one.

    "You can still make the argument that engaging with Syria is a mistake, or that the message of Pelosi's visit is the wrong one. But please, don't pretend that most Americans agree with you, or that the trip is the work of a crazed radical.

    "...partisan football isn't a game that's played with facts. `Nancy Pelosi tends to forget that there is an executive branch,' chortles the National Review. Well, America's executive branch tends to forget that there's this thing called diplomacy. Which is worse?"

    Link

    Pelosi took the trip (none / 0) (#204)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 10:17:58 AM EST
    just months after the Democrats won control of both Houses.

    And yes the Repubs moaned.

    Just as the Demos are now moaning.

    And I love that last sentence.

    Well, America's executive branch tends to forget that there's this thing called diplomacy. Which is worse?"

    What a perfect example of hypocrisy.

    Yes, because working for peace (none / 0) (#205)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Mar 10, 2015 at 10:34:22 AM EST
    in the ME is just like telling the Iranians that they shouldn't rely on Congress supporting the POTUS.

    Thanks for the incoherent rant!

    Sunday Open Thread | 205 comments (205 topical)