HilarEmail

    That the cover-up is worse than the crime is a Washington truism I've never fully believed. In 2013, Republicans chastised former IRS director Lois Lerner for subjecting groups with the words "tea party" in their name to additional scrutiny when they sought tax-exempt status. Subsequently, conservatives alleged Lerner was covering up her "crime" because emails that could have shed light on the IRS practice had been deleted.

    My response was that "tea party" groups are nominally political in nature and therefore most likely do not deserve 501(c) status. Therefore, the complaints against Lerner did not set forth any wrongful or illegal act for her to hide. Simply put, if there's no crime, there can't be a cover-up.

    Still, legitimate suspicions may be raised when a politician or her supporters refuse to explain actions that may have been innocuous but nevertheless violated applicable laws or regulations.  The aggressive response of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her supporters to a March 2 New York Times story describing her reliance on a private email address rather than a State Department account falls into this category.

    Michael S. Schmidt leads "Hillary Clinton Used Personal Email Account at State Dept., Possibly Breaking Rules" with the following two paragraphs:

    Hillary Rodham Clinton exclusively used a personal email account to conduct government business as secretary of state, State Department officials said, and may have violated federal requirements that officials’ correspondence be retained as part of the agency’s record.

    Mrs. Clinton did not have a government email address during her four-year tenure at the State Department. Her aides took no actions to have her personal emails preserved on department servers at the time, as required by the Federal Records Act.

    Schmidt's piece raised hackles in Clinton circles. Clinton herself has not responded to media requests for comment on the email practices she followed while at the State Department except to say that she wants the public to see the emails. Media Matters CEO and Hillary Clinton ally and fundraiser David Brock, however, has been front and center demanding that the New York Times apologize to Mrs. Clinton for wrongly suggesting she violated the law.

    Brock makes several arguments: 1) The Federal Records Act (FRA) was amended in 2014 after Clinton left the State Department so the provisions she allegedly violated weren't in force. 2) Clinton recently provided emails to the State Department upon request. 3) Previous Secretaries of State also used private email addresses so it doesn't matter that Clinton did. 4) Republican governors like Jeb Bush used private email accounts too. 5) Attorney James Baron, whom the Times relied upon in the story, says that Clinton didn't violate the law.

    After considering Brock's arguments as well as the relevant facts and law, it is clear the Times is right on all counts:

    1) While the FRA may have been most recently amended in 2014, the federal government's record retention policy was changed in 2009 shortly after Clinton first took the reins of the State Department as follows:

    Agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency record keeping system.

    36 CFR 1236.24 (Oct 2, 2009) (emphasis supplied).

    2) There is no dispute that Clinton did not have, or at a minimum never used, a State Department email account. We know too that she did not ensure that her pertinent emails would be preserved in the State Department's record keeping since she volunteered emails that she was maintaining. Had the emails been preserved at the State Department, it would not have needed Clinton to provide them. Additionally, Clinton has not confirmed that she turned over every email that she sent and received while Secretary of State.

    3) The practices of previous Secretaries of State are irrelevant to this matter. As noted above, the pertinent regulations were tightened up in 2009 shortly after Clinton took office and after both Colin Powell and Condi Rice had long since left the building. Moreover, any failures on their part wouldn't excuse Clinton's rules violation.

    4) Likewise, federal records retention rules do not apply to Florida state officials like former Governor Jeb Bush. Additionally, Bush, like Powell and Rice, was out of office before the federal rules were changed.

    5) Even if, as Brock claims, Baron did say (and I could find no record of such a statement) that Clinton didn't break the law, he has been very critical of Clinton's email practices on several occasions over the past few days.

    Brock appears to be playing a role similar to that of the late Geraldine Ferraro during Clinton's 2008 Presidential campaign. Ferraro tarnished her political legacy as a female trailblazer when, as a Clinton supporter, she made the quasi-racist claim that Barack Obama would not be enjoying as much success if he were white.

    Certainly Brock's recent defense of Clinton doesn't contain a noxious overlay of racism. But, by feeding wholly absurd arguments to media, Brock has adopted Ferraro's persona as an attack-dog for Hillary.

    Brock came to prominence as the "Right-Wing Hit Man" whose 1990 book The Real Anita Hill was a series of dubious claims against and outright smears of the government lawyer who alleged Clarence Thomas had sexually harassed her. In the mid-90s, Brock became a Democrat. Since 2004, he has helmed the estimable Media Matters which does essential work documenting the endless stream of falsehoods emanating from right-wing hate radio and Fox.

    In a July 1997 Esquire article, Brock noted that the more outrageous and unsubstantiated the claims he lodged against Hill the more popular he became among right-wing Republicans. Brock's combative approach seems to work well with hard-core righties.

    But he and Clinton (if she's pulling his strings) have miscalculated here. Brock and Clinton cannot expect Democratic voters to line up against the New York Times the way most Republicans delighted in his slanderous attacks on Anita Hill. In truth, the paper is viewed with at least as much reverence as Clinton in many progressive circles. Moreover, a significant portion of the Democratic base has never been sold on Clinton. Her failure to follow record retention protocol and the inappropriately aggressive response of an intimate supporter reinforces her image as prickly and defensive.

    So what could Clinton have done differently? She could have forthrightly admitted her failure to follow federal regulations. Several very plausible explanations come to mind. She could point out that the regulations were changed after she took office and had set up and was using her private account. She could note further how busy she was with a seemingly endless number of international crises that marked her term as Secretary of State. Accordingly, she relied on subordinates for the less emergent task of archiving records.

    If it's true, Clinton could say, despite her faith in the State Department's email servers, she had reason to believe that a system outside the Department might be more likely to avoid the notice of cyber-attackers. Again, if it's true, Clinton could say, that she did comply with the spirit of the rules by maintaining every email she sent while Secretary of State and by transferring control over all of them, including purely personal ones, to the State Department as soon as she realized the rules required the State Department to keep them.

    Clinton may prefer not to divulge personal correspondence. Giving records to the State Department, however, isn't tantamount to publication. Obama administration attorneys will presumably protect Clinton's interests by holding back from the public or Congress embarrassing but irrelevant documents. Clinton could even petition for the right to have her counsel review her emails before any are publicized beyond the State Department.

    A transparently honest course of action would look far better than an aggressive secretive one. My guess is that Clinton is not trying to hide anything. I doubt she'd leave a smoking gun in an email. But by breaking rules and then attacking the messenger, Clinton is raising anew questions about her honesty and temperament.

    Hillary Clinton remains the prohibitive front runner for the Democratic nomination and her Presidential ambitions may yet be realized. It's possible that this latest bump in the road will have no lasting effects. But it ain't gonna help.

    -----

    Personal note: I hope the Dagblog team doesn't think it's poor form for me to promote another website but I have been posting at my personal site halginsberg.com so if you're interested in my thoughts on various issues you may want to check it out.

    AttachmentSize
    Image icon HRC.jpg13.24 KB

    Comments

    Well, I just have a question...if the requirement re email was in place, wasn't it some IT person's job to set it up for her?  I can't imagine that the Secretary of State would get the equivalent of a sticky-note with:  

    Your email address is hillary_clinton.gov. Pick a password with one capital letter, a number, an ampersand, and  at least 6 characters (make sure it isn't obvious like a hubby's name for example). 

    State obviously knew about this, and it's hard for me to believe it wasn't approved at some level; if not, (ESPECIALLY since no previous SofS had ever used government email, nor was it a requirement) a procedure to assign email and other parameters would have been put into place at the time that the rules changed. Do you have any ideas about this, simply from a procedural point of view?


    Hal, thanks for posting. It's a worthy subject. I just don't want to put this on my worry screen right now. Just as I was getting comfortable with Hillary, now my brain has to throw this into the mix and it hurts to think about it.

    Crap, let's have a primary with Warren, Webb, and Bernie.


    I'm with C'ville on this one.  Hillary wasn't sending those emails in secrecy or in a vacuum.  The only thing different about them is that they were being sent through a server that wasn't owned or sanctioned by the State Department.  The emails were no doubt going to State Department officials who must have noticed that the email address wasn't one of theirs.  Other higher-ups must have been receiving them.  Didn't anybody wonder about the address?

    I don't see a scandal here, but it'll become one.  Full-blown.  And it won't end until after November, 2016.

    (You can add a cross-post at the bottom of your posts to include a link to your website.  Perfectly okay.  BTW, I've added your website to my own website blogroll, too.)


    FWIW, I agree with both you and Cville as well. While I do think she clearly violated the regulations, I think numerous people from both parties must have received e-mails from her and their failure to bring it up at the time makes it seem a bit like pettifogging now. It's often said that ignorance of the law is no excuse, but if you're violating the law in full day-light, and no one is calling you on it, then I do think that's a mitigating factor.

    Consider, if she'd sent a single e-mail from that account (or a small number), and a Republican who had received that e-mail called her on it, would she have changed her behavior? Probably so, since she was required to by regulation. Why didn't they, because they were also ignorant of it.


    You charmingly jumped the shark when you dove into the Geraldine Ferraro and Anita HIll stuff.

    Of course Hillary was tainted with all kinds of crap during the 2007 election, and "quasi-racist" means in practice "not racist but some schmuck went ahead and smeared her with it anyway", like Bill Clinton's "racist" observation that Obama's speech on Iraq was a "fairly tale" - proven by Obama's following a very conservative approach to the Mideast ever since he got into office, along with his cracking down on whistle blowers, expanding the NSA & CIA's dragnet, etc. Of course Obama wouldn't have gotten the attention he got in 2007 had he been white - nor likely would he have gotten the Nobel Peace Prize, etc. Historically being black would have been a detriment, but after Jesse Jackson's 2 rather successful bids and the attempt to recruit Colin Powell and the demographic shift in America, a black candidacy was seen as much "it's about time" rather than "no way", and the bigger impediment was his (at that time) paltry 3 years in federal office. Certainly a lot of rules were bent for Obama - bring 2007-2008 back up to slam Hillary is not welcome, and re: Anita Lane, David Brock of course has apologized for that unseemly GOP phase of his career as of 1997 - treating this period as same scum, different side is way too much of traditional Beltway "they all do it" relativism.

    Re: Hillary actually using private email, I'm just way apathetic (though I think I accept the validity of your arguments - a bit tired/rushed to mull over in much detail) - the GOP hacking Democratic mail servers, the Bush White House covering up political hatchet jobs like the attorney filings and the typical Congressional witch hunts like Benghazi whenever a Republican gets a committee makes me think breaking some laws makes common sense. I'd rather we get picky about laws pertaining to the independence of the press and whistle blowers, and consistent about leaking national secrets (how did Petraeus end up with such a wristslap while journalists go to jail for much less?). If we're going to dig into history, it's like Martha Stewart getting busted for $40K of inside trading while the whole financial industry went tits up and we paid out trillions without anyone else going to jail. If you look a bit closer, you'll probably see a bit of sexism along with other forces at work.


    Thanks for such an interesting response, PP;  I always enjoy your take on things. I must say it disappoints me when people who have their own website come here and cut & paste and then don't respond to comments.  Maybe I'm being impatient, but if the goal is simply to get more readers to the original site, it doesn't work on me. 


    smiley


    It's early yet, though the lack of replies seems to be his way. Out of curiosity I checked his history - looking at his last six posts, he replied a total of four times. But isn't that his choice?

    This particular post makes some strong points that I agree are troubling. However, he does seem to be reaching beyond arm's length to make them.


    Hi CVille. at Hal's site some clown who calls himself RJB posted the following:

    Good article, Hal. I will be checking back here for more. I first saw it at Dagblog.com where there is also good blogging on politics as well as other subjects along with spirited discussions among well informed people.

    Is there anything to be said about that response, one way or another?


    C'ville Dem - I'm replying to your post tardily I admit but replying  Frankly, I had no idea there were so many responses to what I posted until a friend mentioned to me in conversation that the post generated interest.  In any case, I don't really have much to add to what I wrote here.  But I will post several more articles here that are on point as well as a follow-up to one I posted a few months ago.


    If I understand your reply correctly, it appears your preference is to post-and-run. While that is entirely your prerogative, it is also blatantly dismissive of Dagblog readers and commenters. Frankly, I'm insulted by your flippant admission of disinterest followed by a promotion for future posts. I'll read them - because I think you produce thoughtful and well-written pieces worth a few minutes of my time. But I'll also be aware that my opinion and/or response will be of no importance to you.


    About the time of Hal's first posting here I listened one night to a travel blog. Its main subject  for the night was how to travel and make it pay. The guest was a young woman who had done so with a fair amount of success. She described her business plan intended to keep her traveling the world and which had three main pillars. One was freelance writing, mostly about travel, which she had developed the ability to do well enough to make some money at. She had also donated lots of writing to well known magazines in order to build a resume of published work part of building her name. Each publisher put he internet site info at the end of the article.
     Second was building a widely read internet sight of her own with a big enough following such that she could make some money off advertising. Third was part time work on the side where ever she could get it.
     The second part of her strategy is the one pertinent here. She said she cross-posted her blog pieces everywhere she could that was devoted to similar interests and also linked to good content on other sites to return the favor. As far as the interests of the various site owners was concerned, this seemed to be a win-win for them all. Her interviewer who had her on for the very reason of making his own site more interesting, and to increase his following, agreed.
     I don't know if that same logic applies here for the same reasons. Dagblog doesn't seem to be intended as a business but maybe if its following grew to large enough it would be a welcome bonus.  I also don't know if the same attitude towards others cross-posting is held by the owners here but I decided that turnabout was certainly fair play and I posted a complimentary comment at Hal's site, it was an honest compliment, and added that a lot of smart and interesting people interacted at Dagblog and posted a link there in hopes that it might bring in some fresh voices and perspectives.
     I do see where MW just put up a blog requesting 'likes' at Facebook. I also hear Chris Hayes do that every time I listen to him. I can only assume that is to increase the number of viewers who check to see what there is to like.  That is actually a guess but if there is any other reason, besides vanity which I doubt is why, then I hope someone explains it to me.
     So, just sayin', maybe Hal's way just goes with the territory and isn't really rude or dismissive. It's not really that much different than if some regular here linked to Hal's article and he didn't even know about it and so didn't join the conversation. It might still be a good addition to the conversation whether he participates or not.


    I'm sorry that you felt dissed. Absolutely no disrespect was intended. In fact, I am quite flattered that my post generated so much interest. I didn't know protocol obligated me to reply at various intervals. Honestly, I am comfortable with what I have written and none of the posts made me feel as though I had to clarify or expound on what was already posted.

    I didn't mention protocol since if there is such a thing in the blog world I've no idea what it might be. Reply or not as you choose, Hal, I'd never presume to say otherwise. (nice to see this one, though ... thanks)


    Your construct on the racial aspect or 2008 seems to be that it was a black person's "turn' to be President seems condescending. The demographics changed but Blacks and Latinos had previously voted for white candidates with no problem. Is your argument that Blacks and Latinos suddenly became racist voters when Obama came along? There were ads from the Clinton campaign labeling Obama as not being ready to tale the 3 A.M. phone call. The backdrop of the ad with little white children asleep at home the ad could be interpreted as carrying the message that a Black guy was putting your children at risk, a suggestion with racial overtones. Hillary had a story about coming under fire when she and Chelsea landed in Bosnia that was not true. This opened up questions about Clinton stretching the truth.

    White voters cast votes for Democrat Obama in essentially the same numbers as they did for Democrat Kerry. If the white vote for the GOP remained the same for Obama as it was for Kerry, Obama would still have been elected President. The idea that Obama won because he was black overlooks the votes that he lost because he was black. Obama could have been defeated because he was black. we are not post-racial. The fact is that Obama beat Clinton, McCain, and Romney. George Will argued that Obama beat Romney because Americans didn't want to admit that a black President they elected was a failure a strange argument.

    Blacks and Latino voters favored Obama. are these minority voters racist, or did they merely see their interests more in tune with Obama then the GOP? Keep in mind that the tone sent out by the GOP on job creation, immigration, race and voting rights is not friendly to minorities.

    Hillary is still the likely Democratic nominee. She should be able to get past people bringing up the Bosnia airport bombing fantasy or the private email non-scandal. Obama has nothing to do with whether her current campaign is successful or not. If she wants to run on continuing most of Obama's policies, Obama will give her support. If she decides to run away from Obama policies, he will stay in the shadows. This is a Hillary Clinton issue, not a Barack Obama issue.

    Have we ever had a President who won merely because he was white?


    Race and gender still play a role in voting choices. Let's not pretend that's not so. I'm sure that some people, both black and white, voted for Obama because they felt it would be good for the country to have a black president. Whether those people equaled or exceeded the numbers that voted against Obama because he was black is an open question. Just as some people, both male and female, will vote for Hillary because she's a woman. I'm one of them. I think it would be good for the country to have a woman president. I think it was good for the country to elect a black man. That doesn't mean it's the only thing I consider or that I'd vote for Carson because he's black or Bachman because she's a woman. But race and gender are one of the factors I consider when I vote.


    I think the idea that the Clinton's were racist was contrived as a political tactic. It was a hard fought primary and vicious on both sides to the end. Your example is just one of the many stretches as surrogotes bent over backwards to accuse the Clintons of racism.

    I could easily claim Obama's many attacks were misogynistic but I won't because I don't think Obama is a misogynyst. But he did run a equally vicious campaign. The slimiest point in the campaign imo was Jesse Jackson jr's tv interview after Hillary fought back tears in NH.

     

     

    So let's lose the pretense that Obama ran such a fair campaign and Hillary was the bitch. Obama rolled in the mud to get elected same as any other politician.

    I was glad when Jackson didn't get the senate appointment he so desired and equally happy when he was sent to jail.  I had a party to celebrate.

     


    It was a vicious campaign. There was PUMA

    https://heroesforhillary.wordpress.com/tag/party-unity-my-ass/


    PUMA was not part of Hillary's campaign and she spoke out vehemently against it. Jesse Jackson jr was Obama's campaign co-chair and part of the inner circle of decision makers. If that's the best you've got we can agree that Obama by far ran the more vicious sleezier campaign.


    Jesse Jackson Jr. was not a personal favorite, but I did not celebrate when he and his wife were sentenced to jail. FYI, Hillary Clinton's first public event in 2014 was hosted by vocal PUMA Lynn Forester de Rothschild. de Rothschild was so offended by Obama's nomination that she voted for John McCain. 

    The post that originated this thread implied that rules were bent for Obama. Could you elaborate on the rules that were bent?

    Edit to add: The other argument was that Obama would not have gotten the attention he did if he were not black. This argument is somewhat condescending because we start off with the realization of the low number of recent black Senators. Obama had a prior spotlight with a convention speech, he capitalized on the opportunity.

    Carol Moseley Braun flamed out despite having media focused on her. Being black and female did not help her. Corey Booker has not broken out of the Senate herd despite being a popular Mayor. A white Democrat who made a stirring convention speech and began working with John McCain was likely to have drawn some attention in the 2000s. A smart white politician could have seized the moment just like Obama.

    Elizabeth Warren is a short-term Senator who many see as a viable presidential candidate. I don't think you can argue that this is because she is a woman. Warren stands out because she appears different than her counterparts. She stands out in the 2010s.

    Obama took advantage of an opportunity. How much of a boost did the last DNC speaker gain?

     

     


    That's just silly, there was no PUMA when Hillary's first campaign event was held. Sure some Hillary supporters, even some who hosted campaign events, were so upset when she lost they went on to form PUMA. Some may have held onto the grudge so long they might have voted for McCain. But to say it was part of Hillary's campaign is not just ignorance it's a lie since you know it's not true. Hillary repudiated PUMA and worked tirelessly to convince them to vote for Obama.

    I stand by my posts and will discuss them but just because I joined a conversation doesn't mean I have to defend every post by other people in that conversation. resistance often complains when you join a conversation he's having with another. Of course you have a right to do that and I support you. But I don't assume that since you're disagreeing with resistance you agree with everything that person said to resistance before you joined that conversation. Nor do you, or I, have any obligation to defend other people's posts. Take PP's comments up with PP.


    The original post was about Hillary Clinton's faux email scandal. Another poster brought Obama into the discussion. I detected condescension in the post about Obama. I think that any astute politician could have taken advantage of the opportunity Obama had thrown in his lap. 

    During the Obama-Clinton campaign. blacks were told they voted for Obama because he was black. In South Carolina in particular black Clinton supporters managed to piss off the black community and things feel down from there. I understand that Hillary supporters were pissed off. The bottom line is that Obama won. Obama made Clinton SOS. If Clinton wants Obama's help, she will have it. The black community will support Hillary. There is no one on the GOP clown car will siphon off the black vote.

     


    The black community and the Black Caucus stood solidly behind Bill Clinton during the Lewinsky scandal. Black support for Hillary will be higher than white voter support for Hillary if she runs in 2016.


    Some Hillary voters were pissed. The vast majority simply and easily switched their vote to Obama. I was surprised how little controversy there was when out of 35 million votes the spread was only about 40 thousand. If Michigan and the caucus state votes were included Hillary won the popular vote. Given that reality PUMA hoped Hillary would embrace them. She did not. They thought she would make them part of her campaign at the convention. She didn't. She could have and it's possible she could have brokered a deal.  Instead she repudiated PUMA and worked to get them to vote for Obama. So your statement that PUMA was part of the campaign is unequivocally false. As well as your statement that white men are immune to the argument that they won because they are white. Also your claim that the 3PM ad was racist. You're not having a good day and it's caused by your knee jerk response to any criticism of Obama.


    I'm having a great day. the Clinton campaign made several missteps in South Carolina that created a rift with the local black community. The Clinton campaign had to pull a misleading attack ad against Obama, creating an opportunity for Obama to attack Hillary. James Clyburn advised Bill Clinton to tone down his rhetoric on Obama because it might not go over well in the black community. David Axelrod admitted that the Clintons were attacking Obama from a "good cop, bad cop' position. Political scientist Peter Drier noted that the Clintons argued that Obama could not win the white vote. the Clinton comments had a ripple effect. I provide the links to point out the dynamics that occurred at the time. Clinton had her staunch black supporters, but the waters were soured.

    Additionally, there was an annual celebration planned by black legislators. Obama had been invited to be the keynote speaker. As I recall the invitation had been made much earlier. The Clintons wanted a role in the event and her local black SC supporters in the legislature threatened other legislators to get Hillary a speaking invitation. In can track down that link if you want.

    The bottom line is there were fireworks in South Carolina and word of the fireworks spread throughout the black community nationally. I don't live in SC but I did receive emails about the turmoil. Those events are in the past

    We are in 2015. If Hillary is the Democratic nominee, let's hope she can deal with what faces her in 2015-2016.


    Rotflmao, wow Axelrod, Obama's top manager blames Clinton. That's a real surprise and he's such an objective observer. That's a real convincing reference. I aactually blame Axelrod for the slimy campaign more than Obama. Just as I blame Rove for the slimy campaign Bush ran against McCain. But Obama signed off on the tactics just as Bush did so neither can claim innocence.

    You're grasping at straws as you always do when there's the slightest criticism of Obama. You were the one to bring up the canard about the 3 AM phone call being racist. If you weren't peddling that bullshit I probably wouldn't have weighed in. But yeah, it's 2015 so you can let this crap go and when you do I'll have no reason to point out Obama's slimy attacks like the Jackson interview.


    Regarding the 3 am ad and racism, Here is an op-Ed from the NYT.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/11/opinion/11patterson.html?_r=0

    You may not agree with the finding of racism, but others did. You may not agree that there was anything wrong with saying Obama couldn't win the white vote others did. I supplied links to support that position, Your feeble response is calling me a liar. You ignore what drove the divide. There was slime from the Clinton campaign as well, you choose to overlook that fact.

    Edit to ad:

    I supplied you with comments from James Clyburn and Peter Drier. You ignore them and call me a liar. Salon did an analysis on how Hillary botched the Black vote. Bill Clinton's attacks played a major role. You tell me I'm grasping at straws. I am still searching for the article that I rember about black Hillary supporters like State Senator Robert Ford trying to push Obama out of a speaking engagement and replacing him with Hillary. That ruffled feathers. The link to the original AP story in an SC paper not longer works but I did find a post mentioning the attempt and citing the AP story. There was sleaze on the Clinton side as well.

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1798882/posts

     


    You also overlook the fact that Hillary has no problem appearing at an event hosted by a PUMA supporter who voted for McCain and then Romney. The PUMA stated that Obama was too liberal for her tastes. What does that imply the PUMA thinks about Hillary's leanings?


    There was slime from the Clinton campaign as well, you choose to overlook that fact.

    One of the many problems you have when you get into these must defend Obama frenzies is your reading comprehension goes to zero.  From my posts above. "It was a hard fought primary and vicious on both sides to the end." "But he did run a equally vicious campaign."

    You get into this crazy space where you say any nonsense to defend Obama. You claimed PUMA was part of the campaign as an example of how vicious Hillary's campaign was. Was PUMA part of Hillary's campaign or did she repudiate them and work to convince them to vote for Obama? Is that true or false? I addressed that comment several times and you never replied. The evidence is overwhelming that Hillary did not embrace PUMA so you are either ignorant or lying. Is there a third possibility? Can you actually make the case that Hillary used PUMA as part of her "vicious" campaign?

    I could go over this discussion point by point with your ridiculous statements, my counter, and you changing the subject. Are white men immune from the argument that they won because they were white or has there been prodigious discussion from all sources that they not just won but were the only ones considered because they were white men? No response from you. You just change the subject.

    It's no surprise that you get into these endless nitpicking discussions about the bible with resistance. You're a lot like him. Like him you have your ax to grind, voter id. Like him you bring your ax up on thread after thread no matter what the original topic is.  But your main purpose in coming here is to spin i.e. lie when ever anyone makes the slightest criticism of Obama.

     


    See reply below


    First off, I don't lie, I may be zealous or PRO  Biblical, but I don't lie. 

    Secondly; By now it should be clear to all honest hearted folks, smiley who Really is...the antagonist.


    We have only had white male Presidents. They are essentially immune to the argument that some or all were elected because they were white. Whites voted for Obama in similar percentages as they did for Kerry. We can argue he won despite being black.

    If you looked at how Republicans discuss blacks and Latinos, it makes sense that both groups would flee the GOP. Suggesting that Obama won "because" he is black is a lazy argument. One dataset suggests that he lost 3-5 of the vote because he was black. If Hillary wins, it will be because she defeated Democratic and Republican opponents. She will win by overcoming the fact that she is a woman.

     


    They are certainly not immune from that argument. There are numerous articles, discussions and whole chapters in books that state the reality that the main reason there were two white men up for election was because all the black men and all the women were excluded from consideration. While that is changing there are numerous articles bemoaning the slow pace of that change today. Your arguments are getting ridiculous because I'm sure someone as well read as you has certainly read many of them. Are you really suggesting that you are the first person in the history of the US that has made the argument that white men were elected because blacks and women were excluded?

    edit to add: The argument that Obama was elected "because" he was black is a straw man argument. Perhaps some racist on the far right say it but most who discuss this issue merely note it as a factor that plays both ways. Just as Hillary's gender will be a factor that plays both ways. It's still an open question how it played out for Obama. I'm guessing that gender issues will play slightly in Hillary's favor. While both are still problems racism is still a larger force in our society than misogyny.


    I'll let your responses fill in for mine.

    I'd only add "it's about time" does not equal "it was a black person's 'turn' to be President". The latter smacks of obligation and presumptiousness, the former is just something that's been a long time coming.


    Just to add to what you wrote.  Women have been beat over the head with their right to choose if they have a baby or not.  95% of it has come from the GOP.Because women are fed up with it, GOP has lost the majority of women voters. So the GOP has also a gender problem baked into their ideology.

    There are states that have removed reproductive health care for poor women because of the GOP control. It will be a kitchen table issue for some families in 2016. 


    You are always so optimistic, I, not nearly so. Republicans have been passing more and more onerous restrictions on a woman's right to choose for years and mostly they keep getting elected as more state houses and governorships fall to republicans. If reproductive rights was such a kitchen table issue that wouldn't be happening.  I hope that sooner or later it will produce a backlash but I haven't seen it yet.


    To the imperialists capitalists who REALLY do control our Nation  

     it was a black person's "turn' to be President

    “Obama is, indeed, merely a more charming face pasted on the imperial monster – with the same teeth (weapons), appetite and ambitions.”

    Obama is near-identical to Hillary Clinton on virtually every policy issue .......

    But crises of capitalism do occur, and we are living through one of them. Capitulationists are also real, and reveal themselves at the worst possible junctures. One great tragedy of the current episode is that the crisis occurred at a moment when the remnants of the Left and Black movements in the U.S. have been

    neutralized by the “uncommonly steady hand” of imperialism’s Black champion

    'Left' Obamites Prefer Kool-Aid to Struggle | Black Agenda ...


    Thank you PP.  You covered everything that I was thinking about this latest RW attack. They seem to be very afraid of her running. 

    GOP has such a weak field of candidates.  The general public is all ready rolling their eyes when one of them opens their mouths.  What people do remember about the years that the Clintons were in the Whitehouse, is how well the economy did.  There were better paying jobs. The bottom half of the population has not recovered from the depression. There are some real economical pain in this country.

    Only the crazy far right cares about what server she used as SOS for her emails.  If this and Benghazi are the kinds of things that keeps the MSM air time filled then they are wasting their time and will continue to lose more viewers and listeners because it is irrelevant to their lives.

    She was a very good SOS and people saw how hard she worked at it. The picture that comes to mind is the one with her in the room at the moment that Ben Laden was killed. Very strong optics of her being part of that Whitehouse team.  Voters are going to chose based on kitchen table issues.  The Democratic Party has a good bench that are a good fit for these issues. 


    Someone recently made the argument to me that the opinion of the general populous about this, or any other mad-dog issue, only matters if they vote. Republicans are well aware that revving the engine occasionally will drive their base to the polls. Legitimacy is irrelevant - they aren't trying to convince anyone of anything. They don't expect democrats to vote for their nominee, they just want them to be outnumbered.


    Very true.  The President did a good job in his speech at Selma yesterday driving the point home that we owe it to the ones that fought so hard for the right to vote by always  going to the poles and voting in each election. 


    While generally speaking I'm in favor of all government business being done on government servers I'm just so tired of Hillary being held to a different standard than other politicians. Jeb Bush is "baffled" as to why she would do such a thing.  Is he baffled as to why he set up a private server for his emails? I'd guess her reasons were the same as his when he did exactly the same thing. So it's a baffling scandal for Hillary and irrelevant for Jeb. It's typical Clintonian behavior that feeds into the "narrative" but it's not Bushian when the whole Bush administration did the same thing and Jeb did it too in his state.


    While I was researching for my 2nd part to Emily's list I found this. 

    Jess McIntosh, VP of Emily's list, was on Tweety's show last week. Tweety was in his usual form of being a village know it all. He was beating the drum about Hillary's private email and Ms McIntosh made the point that there was no real issue to be made of this.  But she dug her heels in after he would not let go of the bone and warned him that if the media keeps pushing this meme that voters are going to flock to a 3rd party.  She ended it with voters don't care about this. I agree.  Liberal media needs to back off and not play into the hands of Fox news. I don't give a crap about the private email but I will still vote Democratic.  Beside his wife is running for a House seat and he needs to stop pissing off women if he wants her to win. 

     


    I saw that.  He was being especially stupid that day.  And she's right--the media can sway minds and it's their obligation to keep things straight.  He loves a good scandal and he's the first to admit it.  That ends any hope of credibility on his part.


    I just want to counter that I do "give a crap about the private email", but I see it as an education opportunity for our older politicians (where that includes many who are my age), rather than as a reason to chastise Clinton.


    Controlling illegal acts was the original intent of these laws, not just "we gotta have records of everyone".  While no one's proposed any unethical or illegal activity that Hillary would have carried out on this other server, let's try the deliberate widespread illegal circumvention of ethics laws that the previous administration carried out - probably just the tip of the iceberg, since of course Dems don't investigate Repubs the way Repubs investigate Dems.

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/06/19/whitehouse_cogr_emails/

    Investigators find secret White House email accounts

    88 senior officials implicated

    The Register, 19 Jun 2007 at 12:12, John Oates

    The Committee of Oversight and Government Reform has released its initial findings after investigating the use of parallel email accounts by officials in Bush's White House.

    According to the Presidential Records Act, White House officials are obliged to keep and preserve all communications which they send on official government business. But some 88 Bush officials ignored this law. Instead, they used addresses supplied by the Republican National Committee (RNC), which raises funds and promotes the Republican Party.

    It also appears that White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales knew officials were using these accounts for official communications but did nothing about it.

    The committee first learnt of the parallel email system when investigating which White House officials had contact with disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Karl Rove's PA, Susan Ralston, sent an email to Abramoff's associate Todd Boulanger, which said: "I now have an RNC BlackBerry which you can use to email me at any time. No security issues like my WH email."

    In March 2007, the White House said only a handful of officials had such accounts. That number has now risen to 88.

    Many of these emails have been destroyed. The RNC has no emails for 51 of the accounts, although it has saved over 140,000 emails sent or received by Karl Rove. But there are big gaps - only 130 emails to or from Rove exist from the first Presidential term - the first Rove email the RNC preserved dates from November 2003. For many other officials there are no emails dated before autumn 2006.

    In total the RNC has preserved 674,367 emails of which 36 per cent were sent or received from .gov addresses - suggesting the mails related to government business.

    The committee also dismissed the claim that officials acted out of ignorance. White House Counsel issued "clear written policies" in February 2001 that White House staff should only use the official White House email system for official communications.

    Named officials included Andrew Card, former White House chief of staff, Ken Mehlman, former director of political affairs, and Scott Jennings, special assistant to the President.

    The White House spokesman yesterday said the accounts were set up to avoid violations of the Hatch Act - designed to stop officials using government systems for party political purposes.

    The next step in the investigation is to discover whether other copies of these missing mails exist. The committee has written to 25 government agencies to see if they have copies, and initial responses are encouraging.

    It is also asking the White House for more information on why these emails were not preserved. And it is considering taking further action against the Bush-Cheney 2004 campaign which is refusing to identify the full list of officials with RNC email addresses.

    The committee said of the campaign's refusal: "This recalcitrance is an unwarranted obstacle to the committee's inquiry into potential violations of the Presidential Records Act."

    A great clip of Bush talking about "The Google" and why he doesn't send or receive emails is availablehere.

    The report, with names of all 88 officials, is available as a pdf here. ®


    ocean-kat the original post was about Hillary's emails. I said that the scandal is ridiculous. One response to the original post said that the rules were bent for Obama and mentioned the charge of racism from the Clinton campaign. I noted that there was a sense of racism noted by the black community. I gave links to advice given by Rep. James Clyburn for rhetoric to be toned down. I also provided an analysis by Peter Drier. Both noted a harsh message against Obama from the Clinton campaign. Drier noted that the Clintons said Obama could not win the white vote. I provided an article from Salon noting how Hillary lost the black vote. The Salon article also mentioned the attacks on Obama. I provide you with links to support what I said and you respond by calling me a liar. I gave sources to support my contentions and you hurl insults.

    You don't think that the 3AM ad was racist. I provide an analysis of the ad by Orlando Peterson that appeared in the New York Times. Peterson was interviewed on shows like Chris Mathews and Melissa Harris-Perry. It was a topic of discussion in the black community. You respond by saying that I am in a frenzy. You ignore the source that I gave you.

    I provided a link to mention of an AP article that noted that black Clinton supporters in South Carolina attempted to replace Obama with Hillary at a speaking engagement. Do you deny this occurred?

    Regarding the PUMA issue. Like Reverend Jeremiah Wright is tied to Obama, the PUMAs are tied to Hillary. The PUMAs caused anomosity. Obama publicly rejected Wright and Hillary said she was voting for Obama and called for party unity. There was still ill will after the primaries because of the PUMAs. The PUMAs were identified as angry Hillary supporters. If you had asked about the PUMAs in the black community, you would have been told that they were Hillary's people. I linked to Lynn Forester de Rothschild because she was a vocal PUMA, voting for McCain and Romney. de Rothschild hosted Hillary's first public event in 2014. Is that frenzy? Is that a lie? Or is that truth?

    You appear to have come across more books and articles dealing with incompetent white guys getting elected President because black guys were not allowed in then I have. I admit that is a gap in my knowledge base.

    I gave you sources. You resort to name-calling. I said the campaign was vicious. I also note that Hillary became SOS. From a political standpoint she is in a much better position than VP Joe Biden.

    You deny the attacks that came from the Clintons aimed at Obama. Why? Did they not happen?


    James Clyburn was telling Bill Clinton things Clinton did not want to hear about how the campaign's message was being received. After Hillary's loss, Clinton called Clyburn at 2AM. Bill Clinton personally blamed Clyburn for Hillary's loss. He called Clyburn a male dog according to Clyburn. After the loss Bill Clinton stated that the result was essentially a black vote dependent event. This is the message the black community received. It is the opinion that Clyburn gives of voters' feelings. Clyburn and Bill Clinton later reconciled. http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/02/11/bill-clintons-2-am-phone-...

    You deny the attacks that came from the Clintons aimed at Obama. I said the campaign was vicious.

    Oh god, what a fucking waste of time. I do not deny the attacks made by the Clintons. "It was a hard fought primary and vicious on both sides to the end." "But he did run a equally vicious campaign." Are you intellectually capable of understanding "both" and "equally vicious"? Do you need me to find you a link to dictionary.com? You said the campaign was vicious? I said the campaign was "equally vicious" in my first post and several times later. Are you actually capable of reading, understanding, and retaining what you read? Do you even bother to read people's posts before you spew out nonsense? How many times do I have to fucking say it before you stop misquoting and misrepresenting me? Frankly you have no good arguments so you resort to lies.

    I linked to Lynn Forester de Rothschild because she was a vocal PUMA, voting for McCain and Romney. de Rothschild hosted Hillary's first public event in 2014.

    I addressed that above and you declined to respond. Now you're simply repeating the same bullshit I've already directly responded to.

    Is that a lie? Or is that truth?

    Oh it's the "truth." But more specifically it's called a lie by omission as I pointed out above. There's a reason why a person in a court of law swears to not only tell the truth, but the whole truth. There's a reason why you didn't respond to my reply to this crap above. You knew it was a lie by omission.

    Like Reverend Jeremiah Wright is tied to Obama, the PUMAs are tied to Hillary.

    Sure some right wing extremists continue to tie Obama to Wright. In fact a dialog with you feels like a discussion with a right wing extremist. Same disregard for honest dialog in favor of spin, same avoidance of dealing with any point they are unable to effectively counter. Do you think it's fair, just, and intellectually honest to tie Obama to Wright even after Obama severed all ties and repudiated him? I don't. Your reaction to Hillary after she severed all ties with PUMA and repudiated them is exactly the same as right wing nut case's reaction to Obama after he severed all ties with Wright and repudiated him. They are your brothers in intellect and spirit in this discussion.

    As for the 3 AM ad. It was a fairly standard attack ad. They all claim the opponent would not protect or care for voters. If it becomes racist simply because Obama is black and the children are white than any attack ad with white people in it becomes racist, because they all would imply the black man would not protect or care for in some way the white people. That would neutralize Hillary's ability to run any attack ads on Obama. Which of course was the purpose of the political move to call it racist.


    The 3AM ad came from a university professor not the Obama campaign. The ad was viewed as racist, not a standard attack ad in the black community. I have given you sources that point to the feeling in the black community. You yell at me.


    I'm having a conversation with you, not the black community. Perception is not always reality and can be manipulated. White people can be manipulated by political propaganda. Black people are not immune to manipulation. Do you think republicans have some obligation to push back when some republicans take far right positions that are not based on reality? When Giuliani said Obama doesn't love America should sensible republicans speak out? Or when many republicans claim Obama is a Muslim or won't release his birth certificate due to his birth in Kenya? If so isn't it then appropriate for democrats to speak out truth to other democrats as well?

    The 3 AM ad would have been a standard attack ad if the opponent was white. If it becomes racist simply because the opponent was black than all attack ads with a white person in them against a black opponent are racist. I don't accept that premise.


    The best way to describe my reaction to the Clinton campaign in South Carolina was disappointed. I wondered how she could be that dumb. Someone should have pulled her coattails and tell her how the ad may come across to the black community. Hillary Clinton was looking for votes. It really doesn't matter if she or you think the ad was OK. The bottom line was how the voters she was trying to attract would react. She failed miserably.

    The attempt to replace Obama at a celebration for black South Carolina legislators was also a disaster. The attempt identified the two main black legislators behind the attempt as willing to drive Miss Daisy and Hillary as a bully.She would have had plenty of other opportunities to speak. Hillary Clinton gave Barack Obama a big gift. All Obama had to do was sit back and watch the crash occur. I was shocked by the attempt to replace Obama.

    People like Orlando Peterson and Peter Drier delivered the message they got from the actions of the Clinton campaign. The word spread. Salon reviewed the Clinton campaign's missteps. Hillary is set to address the emails on the same day that Bill Cosby is releasing a video message for his fans fan.Let's hope Hillary is received in a better fashion than Mr Cosby.

     


    The past is the past. It is 2015. Hillary was absent from the 50th anniversary Selma events. There would be questions about being a political opportunist but there was also a chance to meet young voters who had no connection with her. She also could have met the new black activists. The Republicans gave her an open field. As it stands now, she is open to criticism for not going.

    http://hotair.com/archives/2015/03/09/ny-times-clintons-conspicuous-abse...

    An astute politician could maneuver around the traps or minimize the pitfalls. In the past Clinton made a statement suggesting that LBJ was more important than MLK. This could have been an opportunity to simply praise MLK. Hillary will need every black vote that she can get. Can she learn from past missteps. Name-calling does not change that fact.

     


    She is open to criticism by walking and breathing

    Damned if she does, damned if she doesn't. Clinton derangement syndrome. Probably will follow her to the tomb.

    As the book says, "Never give a inch".

     


    Welcome to politics. Obama walked into traps with Jeremiah Wright, "cling to their guns, supporting Henry Gates, mentioning Trayvon Martin, etc. If Hillary "doesn't give an inch" she may wind up losing an election or find that a Democrat is bold enough to run against her. Voters have to be energized to turn out. Younger voters only know her as Obama's SOS, not as an individual. She cannot assume that she will be coronated.


    It all started when Bill introduced her as his partner and equal in '91 campaign.  They have never let up since.  Some one even wrote a book about it. 

    There is a joke floating around on face book.  "The GOP promises a smooth transition of hate from Obama to Hillary in 2016."


    Last Sunday was International Woman's Day.  The Bill, Hillary and Chelsey Foundations was involved in No Ceilings # We are not there.events in New York,   Check out NoCeilings.org 

     


    I heard she was in Miami. The weekend events in Selma were on both Saturday and Sunday. There was a chance to have her presence noted by a younger crowd of black activists. Hillary will likely draw similar numbers of whites as Kerry and Obama, she needs to get a foothold in minority communities to form a coalition that can bring her victory.

    Edit to add: 

    An analysis by one white reporter was that Hillary could not rely on waiting for the GOP candidate to make a mistake to win her election. This would be laughable for many black reporters because they realize that Scott Walker is a union buster alienating blacks with family members in teachers unions, etc, Rabnd Paul has his Civil Rights Act quotes and the Southern Avenger, Chris Christie is no longer the guy who worked with Obama and Booker, Jeb is George's bro and GW is known for having conned black preachers with his faith outreach. In other words in the black community, the GOP clown car has already taken off and is speeding down the highway. Most glaringly, even for those tired of hearing about it, the GOP is the party of voter suppression. Voting rights was the message of Selma. Any appearance or videotaped presentation would have helped Hillary. It could even have been That she not there because she was fighting for women's rights elsewhere. She could have brought up ties to Ella Baker, Fannie Lou Hamer, etc.She could have mentioned the ties between Frederick Douglass and the Sufffragettes. This was a layup for Hillary.


    I'm sure you'll find a way to feel bitter & betrayed no matter what.

    Coulda, shoulda, woulda...


    I am noting the articles that are appearing in black media. Many black voters don't rely on MSM for their news because many times issues involving the black community bare not considered important. Tom Joyner is a man with a daily radio show. He sponsors scholarships to HBCUs. He has a news website. He is influential. One story on his news website yesterday posed the question of why Hillary was not in Selma.

    http://blackamericaweb.com/2015/03/10/hillary-clinton-wants-our-vote-so-...

    You can attack me for reporting things that you don't want to hear, but your opinion is not important to me. It may be that since she hasn't declared her candidacy, she doesn't have a rapid response team in place to quash articles like the one above. By the way, in a response to Ramona I noted that Hillary did comment on Selma from Miami.

    Finally, I can state openly that if Hillary is the Democratic candidate, she has my vote and my support efforts locally. Are you voting for Hillary if she is the candidate? I am reflecting what black media reports. Hillary may have problems getting out the vote in the black community. I can tell you that Melissa Harris-Perry, for example, is not a big Hillary Clinton fan.


    "your opinion is not important to me" - coulda fooled me - you spend enough time retorting.


    I spend time correcting


    You might tell yourself that as a sop to your ego but it's not true. You spent a lot of time in this blog "correcting" me for denying that Hillary ran a vicious campaign even though my very first post and several subsequent posts clearly stated that I thought both sides ran a vicious campaign. That type of misrepresentation is common in your "correction" of others in other blogs. /shrug You have your schtick and you'll run with it no matter what people post.


    The events in Selma weren't set up for political expediency.  I'm glad Hillary wasn't there.  it would, in fact, have smelled of opportunism.  This was a celebration of the beginnings of the Civil Rights victory.  That's where the emphasis should have been, and for the most part, it was.


    Actually both Obama and Hillary marched in Selma in 2007!when they were candidates.

    http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/selma-50th-anniversary/flashback-presid...


    I continued searching for Hillary commentary on Selma and found that she did comment on Selma from Miami. Bill sent out a tweet.

    http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hillary-clinton-speaks-out-selma-miami

     


    Thanks for all the links.  


    You are welcome. Hillary recently commented on the injustice of the GOP Senate holding up the appointment of Lorretta Lynch. I think she realizes she needs to make sure that minority voters have a reason to come out and vote.


    Well, so much for an in-depth discussion on Hillary's email snafu.


    Kinda makes me pine for a primary ... good times.


    Too bad the software doesn't give the poster of the diary the right to blow away comments & wayward threads. Or at least push them to their own little corner for the zombie topics that never die nor get resolved, walking among us as the living dead....


    Oh this blog was likely a stunt to draw people to his site. He probably didn't and never had any intention to read the comments anyway.


    Oh come on now;  the writer spent a lot of time preparing this blog  and the last thing the writer needs, is folks commenting negatively.

    You reading their work and the likes they receive is the attention they desire.


    I agree, no off topic comments

    The original post was about Hillary Clinton's faux email scandal. Another poster brought Obama into the discussion.


    The original diary brought in Brock, Ferraro and the quasi-racist claims about Hillary. The response still was re Hillary derangement syndrome and the second set of rules for Clinton's, not to re-fight the 2008 campaign. Never mind.

    One thing that flows from the email discussion in the press is the "here we go again" sensation. The news media will be retracing Hillary's missteps, including the Bosnia airport story from 2008. I don't see how the email story won't be tied to prior events. The  media is already writing that script. Can she do a better job of dealing with these issues this time around? The derangement syndrome for (insert name of Democrat) is a feature of modern news reporting

    On the other side of the aisle, we may have Jeb Bush, Jeb has GW's foreign policy geniuses as his advisers. If Bush is the candidate, he will be trying to prove that he is not GW. Granted he will have an easier time than Hillary. MSM tend to overlook things for the GOP. Hillary will have to fight the GOP and the MSM.

    How would you rate her handling of the email "scandal"

     


    I have noticed all the old cogs and wheels of the Clinton Conspiracy Machine getting together again.

    I think she handled it fine.  She turned it in to the State Dept. and they actually aren't able to archive it because they are not up to date with technology. Besides there is no way you can please the CCM.    


    smiley

    Though warning - this is the old thread.
     


    I don't think it matters.


    Latest Comments