“Trouble” then. I’ll bet Clinton thinks it’s a problem worth dealing with now. Might be a first day priority if she’s elected.
- Lookit the newspaper it’s from. Never heard of the op-ed writer, but she worked for Nixon, so there’s that.
- It’s an editorial, not a news report
Dubious is right. The Washington Times has no more credibility than Fox.
I think Hillary’s problem is that we’re all thinking “Aw Christ, do we really want her?” Uncle Joe is looking awfully good to me. I still think she’s going to win it all, but damn I wish Joe would jump in.
Heh–I didn’t say it had credibility, I said it was fun. 
I love the idea of President Obama, secretly plotting Hillary’s demise. “Yes…YES! Let her gather momentum. Let her her come to believe that this is her turn…that she is unstoppable…this is her opportunity to be the first female president! Then…mwahahahaha! we will CRUSH HER LIKE A BUG!”
Still not remotely a Biden fan. I’d take Bernie (or Martin) over Joe anyday.
One of Clintons IT goons is refusing to testify, and will plead the 5th if he is compelled, about his involvement in his work with her servers and IT systems even though Hillary wants him to.
“Clinton “has made every effort to answer questions and be as helpful as possible, and has encouraged her aides, current and former, to do the same, including Bryan Pagliano,” a campaign aide wrote in an email.”
That may be the first time in history that the words IT and *goon *have been juxtaposed.
That guy should do the right thing and [del]repeat “I don’t recall” endlessly like Alberto Gonzalez[/del] [del]completely ignore the subpoena like Dick Cheney[/del] help Congress with their investigation.
You would be mistaken. It is a common term at my workplace that we IT goons call ourselves when we have to do something dumb because management wants us to even after we explain to them that it is dumb.
You’d think someone as smart as Clinton would recognize the difference between a strategy that works well for weathering scandals once in office vs. a strategy that works terribly when running for office.
I think/hope the approach is more nuanced not less: there is a different strategy for dealing with a “scandal” in the pre-game hype period than when actually getting close to the first round starting.
To me this e-mail bit is not much of a story: her biggest problem in my mind remains her lack of a well expressed and vigorously defended vision. By the time the primaries actually start people need to know what she actually stands for and wants to accomplish, not in broad advertising mantras that don’t really mean much, but in stands that we actually believe she believes.
Bill was able to win despite essentially no one thinking he was honest in general because he was not only able to express such a vision, but he could make the case in a way that those who heard it left thinking that of course that was how they had thought all along but just hadn’t ever said it out loud: he didn’t really think it out for me with superior smarts; he just expressed what I already knew it for me! We didn’t trust him on much but we believed that he honestly understood our issues and was committed to helping us with them.
Hillary so far not only lacks that gift but has not given a sense of what she really believes in. Again, the opening round is a way aways yet, there is time. But by then she needs to out there convincingly expressing her vision and getting (enough of) us believing that that is where this country should be heading … of course!
The best strategy for early scandal is to just put it behind you. Clamming up and hunkering down just insures that it will continue to be a story as news dribbles out slowly.
Her aide not testifying will not look good and it will insure that whatever they find out will just come out later.
Hillary now at -11 on HuffPo; this includes an outlierish -19 from PPP but the other numbers are bad enough and would probably put her at -10.
Her collapse to this point from around 0 five months back is pretty remarkable. As a point of comparison, Romney was also around 0 in April 2007 and remained the same in September. His numbers only started falling sharply in November when the primary really heated up and they bottomed out at -13 in February.
It makes sense that when your primary opponents are beating up on you every day your numbers will fall sharply. But nothing like that is happening to Hillary. She is being attacked a bit by Republicans but they are mostly focusing on each other and she is not being attacked by other Democrats at all.
(Bolding, mine)
I know! Remember how Benghazi died away when Sec Clinton testified and the 7 or 8 investigations were over? Or after the Fast and Furious investigations were complete, remember how the Right-wing echo chamber let it drop? Since pushing the email kerfuffle as a “scandal” isn’t politically motivated, I’m sure that any questions she answers will put the scandal “behind [her]”.
Mrs Hillary Clinton has a whole lot more problems coming down the road.
These email server in home problems are just speed bumps for the ones to come.
VP Biden is thinking or has already made up his mind to run. The party sees Hillary threading water and may give the nod to VP Biden to run against the present front runner on the GOP side Donald Trump.
What a contrast that would be, uh?
Hillary is already in a hole and when VP Biden decides to run he will throw on the dirt.
Biden can’t afford to play Mr Nice guy.
Biden’s little talk with Elizabeth Warren may or may not have included a request to be his VP of the POTUS.
Like many here, I’m not a fan of Hillary’s, but will almost certainly vote for her over any of the Republicans. I honestly don’t know much about Biden, but are their politics all that different?
Benghazi died as an issue that anyone cared about. As did Fast and Furious.
Republicans don’t matter. Clinton can win without Republicans. She can’t win without independents.
This despite Hillary’s ever-changing claims from “It was only so I could use my Blackberry and (other device) at the same time” to “Ok, SOME business use, but also personal stuff which…jeepers…I deleted all by myself. Oversight? Appearance of impropriety? Those are words that happen to other people. Nothing classified though.” to “Ok…maybe some stuff that was classified retroactively. But nothing classified as such at the time it was sent.” to…where they are today when the FBI says
Of course the Hillary’s machine and the State Department say “It’s really sooper dooper hard to tell if something’s Top Secret or not.” Which is miles off from “It was only for personal use” when she started.
And if it comes to believing President Obama’s FBI or Hillary’s State Department…I’m goin’ with the FBI.
*So…not a “right wing conspiracy” unless you see President Obama as a righty.