Anyway, the I was trying to make three points with the comparison:
It’s not the existence of one scandal, it’s hard to be in politics and not have SOME scandal. It’s the establishment of a pattern of behavior that matters.
If this was just something in the right’s imagination, then the right would be able to whip up scandals against Obama as easily as against Clinton. Yet Obama’s scandals are far fewer, and of a totally different nature. And in both case, all the important ones didn’t come from the right: they came from the mainstream media.
It’s not the scandal itself that matters most of the time, but how it’s handled. If you are hiding things, then it’s because you have something to hide. If you are avoiding responsibility, it’s because it would be bad to be responsible for whatever went wrong. Coming clean is the best approach when you’re innocent or you actually screwed up but there was no intent to be corrupt. See: McCain and the Keating Five. That’s how you handle a scandal.
Are you familiar with the grid illusion? A grid of black squares on a white background creates an illusion of gray blotches at the intersection of four squares. But if you focus on any single intersection, the blotch disappears. It doesn’t matter how many blotches you think you see: focus on any one blotch, and it proves illusory.
I would find that more persuasive if his “defense” wasn’t the same every time. Leaders don’t plead ignorance or blame subordinates.
And now Clinton has brother troubles again, related to the Clinton Global Initiative. Who knew that charity could be so profitable?
Reading this story, I’m hesitant to find any actual wrongdoing, but as with any Clinton scandal, it sure looks like it skates awfully close to shady. So now we’ve got three or four of these negative stories in just one month, and she hasn’t even officially entered the race yet. This is what her campaign and Presidency are going to be about. and this isn’t the right wing. All of this stuff is coming from the mainstream media: NY Times, Washington Post.
Did you not get the point about seeing what you want to see? You’re admitting you don’t find any wrongdoing, but you want so badly to maintain your view of the Clintons that you’re counting it anyway. Time to give that shit up and be guided by facts instead, whaddaya say?
You’re missing the point. The point is that she’s always operating shady, so ends up with a constant stream of unfavorable media stories. Things don’t have to rise to the level of a serious scandal to give one second thoughts. Heck, there are a lot of people here who tried to seriously argue that Scott Walker should be disqualified by lack of a college degree. I’d say being unable to avoid scandal for oh, about one week, is a much more serious problem.
No, the point is that you want to believe she’s “always operating shady”, so badly that for you it becomes fact. The reasons you want to believe it so badly are best explained by you, but are still pretty damn obvious. And it’s about time you dropped that shit.
No, friend, it didn’t originate there either, now did it? The MSM is reporting that there’s talk, not that there’s a real situation present. You do understand that, now don’t you?
Again, you’ve already stipulated that you see no wrongdoing. Remember that? It was just minutes ago. So explain to us, in your own words, why you insist on adding it to your little list of Clinton wrongdoing anyway. Give it a little thought first if you need to. When you come to the point of realizing it’s because you’re trying to make facts fit a preconception, do please let us know, will you? The laughter will continue unabated meanwhile.
It doesn’t have to rise to the level of wrongdoing to be a problem. If Cheney and Haliburton was an issue then the Clinton Global Initiative certainly is. And there’s a heck of a lot more “there” in the CGI than there ever was with Haliburton. Cheney actually kept his agreement with the administration. Clinton did not.
Except there is a real situation present. She deliberately and with advanced planning put together an email server to isolate herself from FOIA. When this became public she spent weeks coming up with her reason for doing it and that reason was “phones are hard”. This despite multiple interviews by her discussing the multiple phones/tablets she carriers.
She’s a liar who has demonstrated her disdain for transparency. If the party doesn’t cut her loose now she will take people with her going over the cliff.
She is the gift the Republican party is looking for. The cost savings of putting up a candidate against her can be spread out among other seats open. Not only will she go down in flames she will take people with her.
From a voter perspective I’d like to see both parties put up real candidates so there’s a good choice. But for those people bent on rooting for their favorite team no matter what… by all means, ride that pony through the desert and see where it gets you.
Hillary was free to answer these questions at any time. Or she could ignore the questions and questioners until she was forced, by law or circumstances, to respond.
Hillary chose not to release her files.
Hillary chose to delete the files, that she alone determined, were no one else’s business.
Hillary chose to keep government emails on her personally owned server.