See, there’s the problem. All the GOP needs is a partisan committee so they can make up the findings.
Hahahaha. Are you sure that it was the Congressional Committee’s finding that much of the RW media reporting was outright false, or is that what the DNC/MSNBC told you? The Congressional Committee isn’t investigating the LSM.
FYI - it doesn’t matter how many times you claim that Ol’ Hillary has already answered all of the questions concerning her time as Sec of State, or her involvement regarding all-things-Benghazi, she still has an invitation to the current Congressional Committee.
Hopefully, Ol’ Hillary meant it when she told a previous Congressional Committee, “It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator. Now, honestly, I will do my best to answer your questions about this”.
So, you don’t know that?
Here is some info on incorrect stuff you may belief based on RW media: PolitiFact | Fact-checking Benghazi: The rhetoric hasn't matched up with reality
Which is simply doing the same thing over again, to try to find something, anything they can hang on her. It’s nonsense. And you should know it.
It is their job. And they did it. Several times. That you are glad-handing a repetitive investigation, after many previous investigations have found nothing, suggests that you see this as a partisan attack, not as a question of facts.
http://pollingreport.com/hrc.htm
Scroll down to the third pollster, ABC.
Clinton gets strong marks as a leader with new ideas. She gets poor marks on honesty and people skill(understands my problems, shares my values).
In the top poll, only 29% think she was being honest about her emails. 53% said she purposefully deleted relevant emails.
Nonsense would be using your own server to erase the truth.
That just leaves the lies.
Looks to me like “they” already successfully hung this on her. Can anyone at this point dispute that this has done her serious damage?
A crushing blow, to be sure. Excellent news for the Draft Romney movement!
I’d say a 4-6 point drop in approval is a pretty hard blow. Not a knockout, of course, otherwise she wouldn’t have announced she was running. But now she has small leads on candidates no one even knows yet. What happens when voters get to know these guys better? Will they like them less than Clinton? I’d say that depends on how much honesty matters. At least in my experience, candidates that score badly on both honesty and “shares my values/cares about people like me” don’t get elected.
Deep, man. snap snap
I just don’t see the outrage in this having the legs to last until the election. It’s a small “scandal,” at most, and the only people who will continue to care are the people that likely wouldn’t vote for her, anyway.
THat’s a reasonable argument. So you think that her numbers will recover as time passes? Or are more things just going to keep on coming up?
There’s an awful lot of whistling as Doper Repubs sloooooowly walk past the graveyard here.
I’ll hedge my bets here. IF this is the worst that comes out of it, then I think her numbers improve. Or, at worst, her numbers stay the same, but look better when compared against whatever candidate the Republicans nominate.
I don’t think there’s anything to this “scandal” (I’m only using quotation marks for consistency, as I used them before). But I say that as a tried and true agnostic: I don’t think there’s anything, but I’m willing to be proven wrong should sufficient evidence turn up.
See, I’m a right winger. But even I was steering clear of a Breitbart writer’s book about the Clinton foundation that made allegations about quid pro quo. But guess who did give it credibility? The NY Times!
The Times does point out who wrote it, but still calls the book “problematic” for the Clinton campaign. And if the Times says it’s problematic, that’s probably a self-fulfilling prophecy. But why would they take this tack? There’s nothing credible about the book or the author.
She doesn’t have to run against all of them, just one.
And the other guys have to pick one. But just one. Wait a tick, maybe you’ve got something there! Run Ted Cruz, and Rick Santorum and Jeb Bush *and *Scott Walker, you’ll have all the bases covered!
Hey, listen, you want to steal that idea and forward it to the Republican leadership, I’ll understand. I can be very forgiving.
They take this tack because the best possible situation for any media outlet is the election being a horserace (otherwise how do you manage to 24/7 a freaking blowout?), and they know that Hillary needs some dopin’ to give the Republicans any kind of chance.
Presumably, the best candidate will be the one she faces. THe good news for Republicans is that we won’t be facing the best candidate, just the most famous.
And yet, oddly enough, you appear eager to draw our attention to it
You keep SAYING that, but it doesn’t appear that anyone not already convinced is converting to your viewpoint…
There’s another incentive at play here: the media really doesn’t like Hillary Clinton because she doesn’t answer their questions or give them the access they want. The media tends to reward the candidate who gives them better scoops and answers the questions they ask. Obama managed to escape this dynamic somewhat because of the nature of his candidacy, but Gore was certainly a victim and Clinton looks like she will be as well.