She just won the election. Deal with it.
Do you remember when the Republicans were actually competent at assaulting the Clintons?
Do you remember when the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy made everyone think Hillary was nuts for saying there was Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy?
Do you remember Vince Foster and the Clinton Death List?
These days we have a Massive Right-Wing Clusterfuck full of chucklefucks who outright admit they’re going after her for purely political reasons, and who give her a wonderful podium on which to act all strong and competent and possessed of more faculties than a hyperactive chipmunk. Certainly draws a strong distinction between her and the alternative, wouldn’t you say?
I never thought I’d see the day when the GOP was unable to mount a good honest dishonest smear campaign against Hillary Clinton.
It’s the ‘Boy Who Cried Wolf’. They’ve been after her for nearly 25 years without coming up with any substance. The GOP relies on simplistic jingoism for their smear campaigns, they have no patience for an in depth analysis that shows how disastrous Hillary’s administration will be, without a simple three word mantra like ‘Benghazi’ that actually has some teeth they won’t get anywhere. They don’t need something big, just enough that the public hasn’t gone deaf to the charge. This is another sign of how disorganized the GOP has become, they can’t get their operatives to agree on the next phony scandal to push which makes all the years of shouting Benghazi a waste. This race ain’t over, but it may as well be.
There is also a lot of boy-who-cried-wolfism in the fact that Bernie Sanders hasn’t been laughed out of serious consideration from his self-description as a democratic socialist.
I didn’t watch all 11 hours of her testimony (did anybody?), but from what I saw I think she did well. All that nonsense about Sidney Blumenthal would have made me want to roll my eyes or snap, “For God’s sake, what the hell are you talking about?” Trey Gowdy sounded like a raving loon.
Your ignorance is showing (again). You have zero idea how the Department of State (or any other huge bureaucracy) works. It’s highly compartmentalized, with hundreds of contact points. Diplomatic Security (who I worked for over a four year period) is one such department. They are tasked with providing all aspects of facility and personnel security at hundreds of overseas consulates and embassies. As such, they have a budget to work with, and that budget is determined by Congress. Requests for things like physical upgrades or additional personnel are usually generated from the post’s Regional Security Officer (RSO), after discussion with the post’s ambassador.
ALL official messages from an embassy or consulate are addressed to the SECSTATE, but very few come to his/her direct attention. That’s because they have a tag line that routes them to the appropriate department or office that deals with the subject issue. If that were not the case, the SECSTATE would be inundated with every mundane issue on the planet. Posts routinely ask for more money for things like security. That doesn’t mean the SECSTATE sees them, or even that the post necessarily needs the money.
A truly urgent security situation would be the subject of a phone call between the ambassador and the Secretary. Since this never happened, she likely would have been unaware of the cabled requests.
Now to the notion of ‘additional security’. What, exactly, do you think that would have entailed? The only additional security that could have helped in Libya would have been personnel, and those personnel would have to have been military, since the DOS doesn’t have a paramilitary force at their disposal. Do you really think that the Libyan government would have allowed the US to send military troops into their sovereign nation as part of a permanent embassy staff? It’s hard enough to get countries like this to allow the Marine Security Guard detachments (which are minimally manned) in.
Now I’m sure that you will not let facts sway your opinion, but perhaps your uninformed rants would be better suited to a different website, where others share your lack of understanding.
She look like she will be our next President.
I think her performance just clinched the election for her. The Republicans on the committee looked like what they are: totally partisan political clowns without a brain cell among them. Hill should send Trey a box of candy as a thank you when she gets (re-)settled in at 1600.
I can understand Hillary would not pay attention to emails from the embassy in Burkina Faso. But Libya? I mean, the CIA had some important operations there, and the ambassador had requested help. Of course, maybe these issues were too trivial for her highness.
She looked presidential, possibly for the first time in her campaign. The committee was a hysterical, flailing, pathetic mess, and Gowdy had a terrible case of the flop sweats, which served to make Clinton look even better. It was a good day for her overall.
And you KNOW she did well because FoxNews stopped broadcasting the hearing halfway through the day. If she was struggling or looking bad they’d have been running it throughout with constant commentary.
ralph124c, if you want to make a compelling argument perhaps referring to Clinton as “her highness” is not the way to establish credibility. Also, honorifics should be capitalized (“Her Highness”).
ol’ Hillary’s early email to Chelsea proved that ol’ Hillary knew that the Benghazi attack was not the result of some movie but an actual terrorist group’s assault on the compound.
ol’ Hillary didn’t seem to want to share that same information with the voters???
I happen to agree with ol’ Hillary that all of her emails should be released to the voters/public.
I agree. I usually find her appearing more insincere, rehearsed, and stiff. Yesterday she looked confident, and personable, and definitely in command. The “questions” were stupid, and–of course-- not questions at all.
Is anyone else just embarrassed for the GOP at this point?
More like delighted in.
Nope. They deserve every bit of the scorn and derision they are getting. And more.
She looked like someone who will chew up and spit out any candidate the Republicans send against her.
Perhaps if you genuinely want answers rather than just more opportunities to say “Ol’ Hillary”, you might read this article. Here’s a relevant excerpt:
There’s much more but I don’t want to break the board rules on overquoting. It’s quite a long article and this part is a fair ways down. But it explains why Clinton said different things at different times in a way that makes more sense than any conspiracy theory about why she might have lied about it to the voters.
OK, you’ve convinced me. There’s no way I can vote for her now. So I must vote for someone else. Is there anyone that you would suggest?
ralph, serious question. Do you work in a large organization? If so, let’s say you want something important - it can be a raise, or your computer is broken and you need a new one otherwise your work stops, or if there’s a fire in your office, whatever - do you email your CEO asking for that important thing?
Or do you ask HR, your office manager, or whomever it is that deals with that issue?
That’s right. You ask the person who does that thing that you want done. And if you can’t live with the response, then you elevate it.
This is the complex way of saying that those 650 emails (if that is indeed the number) were not addressed to Clinton. The literally only two new things that came out of the hearing was that Chris Stevens didn’t have Clinton’s email address, and Clinton didn’t do most of her work by email.
(Shocking!! Let’s get to the bottom of why Clinton had six million emails trying to sell her V!@gara and cheap home loans, but the AMBASSADOR TO RUSSIA never emailed her!!!1! Call a new committee together, the “House Select Committee on Hillary Clinton’s Electronic Work Ethic!”)
Clinton did fine yesterday. The Republicans, particularly Gowdy, Pompeo, and Jordan, were outright embarrassments. I await the SNL spoof of Gowdy asking why Dominos Pizza knows Clinton’s home address, but an important person like Trey Gowdy does not. (Cut to Gowdy filling up Halloween basket with TP and raw eggs)
(post shortened)
Since ol’ Hillary’s honesty and trustworthiness has been an ongoing problem with the voters in swing states and across the nation, maybe ol’ Hillary should consider telling the truth the first time she’s requested to answer a question.
*Poll: Clinton’s honesty and trustworthy problem extends to swing states
Swing state poll: Clinton not honest, trustworthy
(CNN)—A majority of voters in three key presidential swing states view Hillary Clinton as not honest and trustworthy, according to a new poll out Wednesday.
The Quinnipiac University Swing State Poll finds that by margins of 8 to 14 percentage points voters in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania are skeptical of Clinton’s trustworthiness.
In Florida, 51% of voters hold the negative view of Clinton, compared to 43% who feel she is trustworthy. In Ohio, 53% of voters find Clinton not trustworthy, compared to 40% who do. And in Pennsylvania, 54% of voters don’t find her honest, while 40% do.
…Clinton’s early state honest and trustworthy numbers follow what a CNN/ORC poll released earlier this month found: 42% of Americans consider her honest and trustworthy, while 57% don’t.*