I think it’s obvious the time to move on has arrived for even the most fervent of partisans, whether they will or not will determine whether the issue becomes one of those urban legends like a “faked” lunar landing and “Reptilian” aliens in government and the general population.
When the party making the most noise also publicly admits a political strategy to discredit an opponent all things then become suspect.
Could the security issues at the compound in Benghazi been handled better? Undoubtedly so, but then just about anything the government does could be handled better couldn’t it?
Conservatives won’t let go without a lot of whimpering and liberals will attempt to gain traction in the investigation into Hillary’s private server and emails – they’ll attempt to cast it in the same light.
The interesting thing about Hillary’s private server for me isn’t so much that she had one but that she and her adivsor/assistants took it upon themselves to delete literally thousands of emails and wipe hard drives.
Not just that but that at least one has said they will take the Fifth if questioned by the feds.
Does this sound a little familiar? If so it should as the same “cleansing” was done during the Bush administration – but there’s an even better example …… those missing tapes during the Nixon Watergate investigation.
The Dems had a field day with that and rightfully so. Ultimately it became an anchor around the neck of Nixon and in great part contributed to his resignation.
Well, technology has advanced to the point people no longer need to destroy physical pieces of recording tape, which is actually pretty effective – now all that’s required is to wipe a hard drive.
But unlike destroying a piece of tape or attempting to erase it the contents of servers and hard drives can be recovered short of taking a blow torch and melting them into a puddle of slag.
I think from the moment Obama was elected Hillary Clinton became the nominee of choice to succeed Obama and the DNC has had years to gear up and promote her nomination.
Being appointed Secretary of State was probably meant to add to the resume, a nod to support following Obama’s nomination, and facilitate the end game. A little something to keep Hillary’s disgruntled supporters in the fold.
I don’t believe the DNC ever saw Biden as a truly electable candidate but viewed him as the back up in case the first stringer went down.
She’s the one as far they are concerned come hell or high water notwithstanding a particularly egregious revelation even the most die hard of supporters couldn’t swallow.
Hillary, in fact the dynamic duo of Hillary and Bill have more baggage associated with them than Samsonite – but America contrary to all the talk about no royalty, no kings or queens, seems to feel a need for a royal bloodline from the Kennedys, to the Bushs’, to the Clintons.
So much so they will liken an incumbent or candidate as being “like” JFK or Reagan, and candidates or those holding office will adopt that comparison and run with it.
As I said in an earlier blog if Hillary is clean well and good, that should be made abundantly clear, and likewise if she isn’t.
The results of any determination should be evenhanded devoid of the corrupting influence of partisanship from any direction.
An independent commission is what’s needed in such matters – if you viewed any part of the proceedings in Clinton’s current appearance it became pretty obvious it broke down along party lines with the by now obligatory sniping at one another. Not the best climate to conduct any sort of hearing.
Biden is out of the picture and in effect it comes down to Clinton or Sanders – Sanders doesn’t have the machine nor the corporate alliances and funding Clinton does, doesn’t have the allegiance of those whose primary concern seems to be focused on electing a woman as though the mere thought that a woman, any woman, is the answer and probably wouldn’t make a difference if the candidate were Ma Barker or Lizzy Borden.
Not true, as character or the lack of it is what defines a person, not gender, and while I can think of women I would support for the presidency Hillary ain’t one of them.
Polls, for whatever value they may have indicate that even among supporters of Clinton she doesn’t score high marks for being seen as trustworthy or honest.
That to me is amazing – you’re willing to support someone you don’t really trust or believe to be honest? What does that say about the American electorate?
Is it that lesser of two perceived evils thing? If so people should understand it isn’t actually about choice but coercion and they should engage in the election process with eyes wide open.
I was talking with someone I know the other day who told me they really liked a certain candidate but weren’t going to vote for them because they wouldn’t win the primary and therefore their vote wouldn’t count.
Is that what’s it’s all about, the coercion of voting for the likely winner as opposed to conscience and choice?
This is akin to a strategy that admits there will be collateral damage but also finds a way to somehow validate it and exonerate themselves.
If so then the machine which relies heavily on such perceptions has won and all the rest of it is little more than theater.