Hickenlooper Notes 800-Pound Gorilla in Room, GOP Loses Minds

CBS News reports: conservatives across the fruited plain are apoplectic this Memorial Day weekend after an interview on CBS News, in which Gov. John Hickenlooper of Colorado had the temerity, the effrontery, the gender-traitorous gall to suggest something we suspect about half our readership (give or take demographic samplewise) already know before he said it:

“Some people say, and you’d have to look at it, if she was a man all this stuff wouldn’t be at the same level,” [Pols emphasis] the Democratic governor said on CBS’ “Face the Nation.” “There’s an awful lot of criticism–literally millions of dollars of criticism against her every week, over things that really aren’t that, against a man, wouldn’t be brought up like that.”

“I think they’ve parsed this about as much as they can,” he said of the email issue. “I mean, she was trying to protect family and friends from unwanted scrutiny — she said it’s a mistake, right? Let’s move on.”

And then Hick lowers the boom on the right wing mediasphere’s obsession with Hillary Clinton’s admittedly undersecured private email server she utilized as Secretary of State–as criticized last week by a State Department report.

“It points out that previous secretaries of state had done roughly the same — had used their own servers, like Colin Powell, and no one had come out officially at the time and said, you know, this is a bad precedent,” he said. “Again, she’s admitted she made a mistake. I don’t understand, it’s not like the end of the world. I understand it’s been made a big deal because people have spent millions of dollars trying to blow it into this incredible flame.”

And folks, Hickenlooper is right–at least right enough that it’s a perfectly legitimate question to ask. In all of hand-wringing over Clinton’s private email server, the one obvious missing component is actual harm done–some demonstrable example of her use of a private email server as Secretary of State actually compromising American interests. Somewhere in the 24/7 obsession by conservatives with an issue that they didn’t care about when a (male) Republican predecessor made the same mistake, the obvious question presents itself.

Because there is no evidence of any harm, and Republicans have no good answer when confronted about former Secretary of State Colin Powell’s exact same mistake, you have to ask why this issue is the subject of so much attention. But that isn’t a new thing: the Clintons have been subject to the most extreme and relentless scandalizing by the conservative media, over the course of decades, that any American political family has arguably ever faced. Indeed, the right-wing media machine we know as an institution today cut its teeth on turning every Clinton molehill into whatever mountain they could conjure up.

Along with that relentless scandalizing, the personal assault on the Clintons since the 1990s set a precedent we see as normal today. Along with every new angle of attack comes a thick coating of personal animus about these two political figures that has effectively dehumanized them among consumers of conservative media.

For Hillary, it’s a bunch of sexist crap. This latest affected “scandal” over her email server is just the latest segue into 20 years of character assassination that freely makes use of every sexist trope in the book where it concerns Hillary personally. It’s likely that Bill would also be getting some of this had it been his email server, but with Hillary, the attacks are bitter in a way that evokes more than the usual political demonizing.

And as hard as it may be to admit, there’s an easy way to explain the difference.

50 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. mamajama55 says:

    It's pretty clear that there will be no criminal charges, because there is no criminality on Hillary's part. Misjudgement, mistake, lack of transparency, perhaps, but "The Indictment of Hillary!" remains a Trumper's wet dream. And Pols has a valid point – the condemnation is worse because of Clinton's gender. The whole "ditzy female" stereotype coming into play.

    Even as a Sanders supporter, I don't see the email "scandal" as helping my candidate, although I do think it damages Hillary slightly. Trump supporters are already convinced that she's "Crooked Hillary". No evidence, or lack thereof, will sway them one way or another. For the rest of us, we just need to calm the fuck down and keep on truckin' towards July.

    • Diogenesdemar says:

      Seems to me, that in this particular instance, it's the Clinton camp who's chosing to push publicly towards ditzy?? …


      • BlueCat says:

        OK. I agree with many of the points made by ColPols, though the situation with Powell isn't exactly the same in all respects. Still, the main points are valid. But the idea that she just couldn't face using a computer for e-mail?

        I mean how hard can that be for a woman many claim is smarter than her Rhodes Scholar husband?  Not only did I, to whom Computers for Dummies may as well have been personally addressed, have relatively little trouble figuring that out…. my mom, old enough to be HRC's mom, also managed. An hour with one of her associates teenage sons or daughters should have been quite enough for e-mailing 101.

        Of course HRC wouldn't be the first DC pol to find e-mail just too challenging to contemplate.  Is it so hard for some of these pols (I believe McCain said he'd never sent an e-mail) because they're so used to aides doing every little thing for them? Maybe the ability and willingness to use a secure computer for official e-mail communication ought to be included in the job description from now on.

        • JohnInDenver says:

          Dept of State has two systems – one for classified materials, one for other "business" email. The second is the one in question. As far as I can tell, no one is saying Clinton did not use the secured for classified materials system.

          All of this hoopla is, as far as I've read, more related to the fact that Clinton was used to using a Blackberry and did not want to carry two devices. What I find troubling is she was NOT listening to the aides or staff who were telling her to do it a different way.

          Of course, it isn't difficult to hear similar stories about the other remaining Democrat candidate, the Republican presumptive nominee, and hordes of other elective officials. Heck, it's even happened to me, and I've taught listening skills. And I listen well – ask anyone (except my wife … or my sisters … and I may not want you to talk to a co-worker or two).

  2. Pseudonymous says:

    Powell and Clinton did not do the same thing.  Both used private e-mail accounts.  Powell's was hosted by a service provider who does that sort of thing; Clinton's was on a rig in her basement.  Both are wrong.  Clinton was both wrong and reckless.  There is real harm done in both these circumstances, but we can't prove it, as e-mails that should have been the property of the American people were destroyed because the officials wanted them to remain unseen.  That a site that relies on information that comes to light through requests of public records would make a statement that there's no evidence of harm is fairly shocking.

    Does this make Hillary a demon spawn of Hell?  No.  Is some of the criticism directed at her because of her gender?  I expect so.  Did she just "do what everyone else did?"  Also, no, which is why Politifact rated this notion mostly false.  She did something that was particularly foolish.  I expect that people believe that harms her.  It may.  But stop pretending it didn't happen, because it did.  And that has nothing to do with her gender.

    • Diogenesdemar says:


    • BlueCat says:

      Completely agree and, belatedly realizing that, team HRC has finally come up with a response that includes HRC admitting it was mistake, that she would  do it differently if she had to to do it all over again and that she understands people's concerns.  A big improvement on her previous arrogant, flippant, slippery responses. 


      • JeffcoBlue says:

        Uhm, she apologized last September?


        “I do think I could have and should have done a better job answering questions earlier. I really didn’t perhaps appreciate the need to do that,” the democratic presidential candidate told Muir in an exclusive interview in New York City. "What I had done was allowed, it was above board. But in retrospect, as I look back at it now, even though it was allowed, I should have used two accounts. One for personal, one for work-related emails. That was a mistake. I’m sorry about that. I take responsibility.”

        Is there some reason we are joining Republicans in not accepting this apology? Because there it is.

        • BlueCat says:

          It's a matter of perception. You'll note that in the old apology she still claims that what she did was allowed and above board. That's simply not true. Now the Inspector General, not a Republican committee, has weighed in that it's not true.

          Everything she's said until now has been more along the lines of an apology for the way it may have looked rather than an acknowledgement that it was in fact a violation of the rules. Then there is the string  of shaky continually tweaked excuses centered on such things as convenience, none of which have proved very persuasive.

          In any case it's not a matter of joining Republicans in not accepting past apologies. Look at her approval numbers. Have the past apologies and explanations helped or hurt her? Do you think her team would have adjusted the message had they not realized that none of the past iterations were working? 

          You may disagree and only time will tell but I believe that if she sticks with this latest humbler apology, one that more unambiguously concedes that what she did was a mistake, period, not just because of the way it might come across (which is a little too much like the commonly used not quite apology "if I offended anyone"), it will do her more good than any of her previous statements on the subject. 

          This is the one she should use from now on. This is the best place for her to be coming from in the general election debates, every one of which will include questions and challenges about this matter. It's simply better than convenience, Johnny did it too or I really didn't do anything that wasn't allowed, none of which will bear close scrutiny.

      • mamajama55 says:

        Richard Wolfe, a pundit I respect, has some wise words for Hillary Clinton: work on your empathy.

        Stop blaming Sanders voters for being too idealistic and easily swayed; this will not endear you to them. Stop casting yourself as the inevitable, already-crowned nominee, and dedicate yourself to proving that you care about people's daily struggles, as Bernie has. Stop scorning Bernie as "not a real Democrat", and start showing why Independents and unaffiliated will be better off with you as President.

        Obviously, “President Trump” is a nightmare scenario. But that scenario should never be your closing argument.

        I’m including Polsters in this; please stay away from the character arguments and focus on policies. What does HRC have to offer on policies?

        • Voyageur says:

          Isn't there a bit of contradiction in a post telling Hillary to "work on your empathy" while telling her supporters to "stay away from character arguments and focus on policies?"  Does Bernie have a 12-part "empathy policy?"

          • mamajama55 says:

            The "Hillary should work on her empathy and connecting with working Americans" opinion column is from Richard Wolfe. I happen to agree with it.

            The "stay away from character arguments and focus on policies" is what I wish Polsters would do.

            Two completely different writers; two opinions. Not that hard to understand if there's a contradiction.

            • Voyageur says:

              But does that mean Hillary should focus on policies — which is exactly what she has done for 20 years?  Or does it mean her supporters should shun empathy and refuse to connect with working Americans in favor of being policy wonks like our leader?  You are giving contradictory advice, perhaps because you are more prone to reject Hillary and her supporters than to sincerely advance her interests.  

              And just to irk you, consider the possibility that Eugene V. Debs is reincarnated and shows up in Philadelphia at the head of an army of 10,000 Socialist angels and convinces the convention to dump Hillary and nominate Bernie.  What exactly would the Bernie or Busters say to the 55 percent of the Democratic party that they have assailed as corporate whores, and worse, to make us support Bernie?   Remember, by your own rules, you can't evoke the nightmare image of  

              Donald Trump to rally us behind Bernie.

              • mamajama55 says:

                Provocative. Fallacies: Straw men. False equivalence. Avoiding issue. Ignoring.

                • Voyageur says:

                  I take that to mean you don't actually think there is a chance that Bernie will be nominated?  You're probably right, and, yes, it is thus Hillary who'll have to court his backers.   But just as an exercise in"what if," I challenge you to say what you would say to centrist Democrats if Bernie did win the nomination and needed our support?

                  • mamajama55 says:

                    Ignoring all the baity nonsense except your last question:

                    I would say to centrist Democrats: Bernie Sanders has caucused with Democrats for 30 years. Most of the real achievements and progress in public health, protecting the environment, worker rights, and education have come with his votes and his canny behind-the-scenes arm twisting and coalition building as "the Amendment King".

                    I would say that if one truly looks at Sanders' scary "socialist" policies, they look pretty much like America looks today: Free education, public parks and highways, regulated utilities, "socialized" healthcare for veterans (VA) and the elderly and disabled. (Medicare and Medicaid).

                    I would say that Sanders is in the tradition of Democrats like FDR, LBJ, and JFK, and of Republicans like Dwight Eisenhower.

                    I would say to be pragmatic, to look at all policies with a critical eye and a long term perspective. And I would say to look at your kids and grandkids and vote for the kind of world you want them to live in.

                    • Voyageur says:

                      Not a bad litany.  But there is the fact that independent analysts have estimated that his program is far short of being paid for and would add about $18 trillion to the national debt in 10 years, $20 trillion if you include interest, thus doubling the current debt.  Add his complete misunderstanding of the banking system, and a Sanders administration would pretty much reduce America to a third world economy. http://fortune.com/2016/05/09/bernie-sanders-economic-plan-would-add-18-trillion-to-federal-debt-report/

                      The only way any economically literate American could justify voting for Bernie is  by invoking the reality you say we  can't — that Donald Trump would be even worse.  He would also double the debt, in his case by slashing taxes on the wealthy to the bone.

                      Under either Trump or Sanders, we face economic ruin.  In Trump's case, we also face the ruin of our civil liberties, the destruction of NATO and the loss of America's standing in the eyes of the world.  These things, which the Bernie or Bust zealots are willing to accept if Hillary faces Trump, are what would compel even the most ardent of Hillary supporters to vote for Bernie.  I would have more confidence in this country's future if I thought the Sanders wing shared at least that level of pragmatism with mainstream Democrats.  

                      Obviously, you do, as do about two-thirds of Team Bernie according to the polls.  But if the day comes when the Deportation trains are running full speed, that   

                      bloc that hated Hillary more than it feared Trump will have some explaining to do.   


            • marklane1351 says:

              Talk about sexist! No man running for office has ever been told to work on hi empathy. When a man says something insensitive, he. Tells it like it is! When a woman does the same she needs to work on her empathy

    • Blackie101 says:

      It seems that everyone is ignoring the fact that Conileza (sp) Rice did the same thing–use a unauthorized computer for emails and whatever.

      • mamajama55 says:

        If true, that would make the HRC email brouhaha less about gender than about party affiliation – the old IOKIYAR.

      • Pseudonymous says:

        Actually that's not correct.  From the PBS Newshour Rundown:

        …As for Secretary Condoleezza Rice (2005-2009), the inspector general concluded she did not use either personal or department email accounts for State Department business.

        Did Rice send classified emails on a private account? No. Did she conduct business on a personal account? Also, no, according to the report. The State Department said in February that some aides to Rice received classified information on email, but those were aides, not Rice, and the emails were received by, not sent from, private accounts.

        Of course, Ms. Rice bears some responsibility for the actions of those who work for her, but she did not "do the same thing."  Also, what's been left out of the discussion is what there's no dispute Ms. Clinton is unique among the Secretaries in doing– refusing to be interviewed by the inspector general.

        • JeffcoBlue says:

          I think that's right, I've always read that Powell's private email server, and the one used by the Bush White House in general, is a much more similar situation than what Condoleezza Rice personally did. And like I said I don't buy the "bigger problem" that the server was in Clinton's "basement."

          I still feel like I'm seeing Republican talking points coming from Democrats on this thread. It's distressing how good Karl Rove and company are at spreading their messages even among their adversaries.

          Then again, at this point Bernie is basically helping them too, so…

          • Pseudonymous says:

            I can understand why you might not think a server located, even on a protected premises, and managed, by all accounts, by a single individual would be insecure.

            I can only speak from my own experience in information technology, which includes a bit over 35 years working with computers, with 25 years of professional work in operations; systems administration; network administration; programming; systems; business; and data analysis.  Data centers run by major e-mail providers have large staffs with extensive experience in information security and systems in place to detect, evaluate, and resolve attempts to illicitly access customer data.  The Clintons had a guy.  An IT guy with good experience, mind you, more hardware-focused than my own, but with no indication that he has any particular experience in preserving system security beyond the basics.  According to his resume (forgive the Judicial Watch link, but they made the FOIA request), he spent several years as a system admin, likely with decent experience at basic security, but for a person who likes certifications, he's missing all the key security ones: CISSP, Security+, CEH, OSCP. CISM.  That doesn't mean he couldn't run an e-mail server well, but he has no apparent claim to any particular skills in securing them.

            Risk isn't about ensuring nothing is ever hacked, it's about doing everything possible to prevent that from happening.  One guy, especially one lacking critical security experience, as this one appears to, cannot manage down risk the way a team of professionals focused only on security can.

            As far as Republican talking points, the truth isn't a talking point.  The Republicans may make more hay than this incident merits, they may exaggerate or expand the narrative beyond reasonable bounds, but Ms. Clinton did this, she shouldn't have, and it's reasonable to criticize her for that.

            • Data centers, IMHO, don't provide one whit of protection above and beyond their redundant systems. I've never once in my career felt that the data centers I and my companies have dealt with provided anything more extensive than that. Not that that's nothing – it's exactly what I've always expected out of data center service – but it's not security support.

              Further, the offer made to Hillary when she was SoS of having a standalone computer for her day-to-day email – with no password access required – tells me that the people she was dealing with for IT at State weren't to be trusted any more than whoever maintained her server. The only thing that would have made an official State computer more secure would have been the overall government IT security infrastructure (which hasn't been as secure as we'd assume) and the inability of Clinton to access her email via wireless device, which no-one has suggested was breached.

              • Pseudonymous says:

                Some data centers may not offer much additional security– especially if they're not managing the servers and you're working in a colo or managed server environment in which the hosting provider isn't taking responsibility beyond basic security.  Of course, that's not the comparison I was making, as I specifically called out the problems of handling security on a private system versus professional management by commercial e-mail providers.

                As far as the standalone computer, I think the evidence could be read the way you have– as incompetence within the State Department IT regime.  I, however, read it a bit differently.  In the WaPo story I read, the offer of a standalone computer (located physically inside the offices of the Secretary), sounds much more like IT folks bending over backward to try to get a leader to agree to use internal systems.  This may be the result of having to make the same sorts of offers in my own career to business leaders who had power but refused to compromise convenience for security.  I think my interpretation is bolstered by the fact that Clinton's team refused even this, relatively hardship-free, method of e-mail access because the Secretary was not comfortable using a desktop computer and wanted to use her Blackberry.

    • JeffcoBlue says:

      Wait a minute. I don't think the physical location of the server makes any difference. That's not what counts for server security other than physical security, and I'll bet her "basement" was a pretty secure location. More so than mine anyway. 🙂

      I'm just saying, that's not a valid difference in my mind between Powell's private email server and Clinton's.

    • Kvothe says:

      Mistake Yes.  Harming the interests of the United States government like outing a CIA agent (cough cough Valarie Plame) for political purposes No.  Deleting 20 million emails without a trace No.  When Republicans complain about how onerous this mistake was, they always omit the actions of the last Republicans to occupy the White House.  That's the double standard in this affair and it has nothing to do with her being a woman or Hillary.  They always look the other way when their guys abuse power for raw political purposes.  Clinton probably had a right to be concerned that her email would be hacked by political goons or terrorists.  There is certainly a lot of evil in the world right now.

      • Voyageur says:

        Well put, Kvothe.  Exposing Valerie Plame was giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States in time of war, the exact definition of treason given in the United States Constitution.  Bush partisans excused it by saying she was no longer in covert duties when they outed her.  That merely added ignorance to their treason.   Here's how it works: Out a U.S. agent and the Al Qaeda crowd starts thinking "Isn't that the woman who used to hang out at Hamid's coffee shop?."

        The next step is that Hamid's wife and children are tortured to death before his eyes before he is himself murdered.   Exposing an agent imperils U.S. friends and assets left behind.  To do it to score cheap political points is the foulest form of treason.  

  3. debbielynnepaint says:

    As a former Government Employee with about 35 years of service, not much has been said about the archaic and insecure systems that the Government uses.  If truth be told, Hillary's private server was probably safer.  OPM's system was hacked and all of our information was exposed.

    • And that's just it. I don't agree with John above, who says it was reckless. Given the Republican desire to go after Clinton, her email was much more secure – as she envisioned it – on a well-maintained private server. Whether the server was well-maintained enough I'll leave up to the investigation; certainly there were hacking attempts made against it, but the one hacker who claims to have been in it has recently proven to be a washed-up has-been serial liar.

      The government has a serious problem with its IT infrastructure; if we all think the contracting done on the Aurora VA hospital was bad (even at the same time it was an attempt to modernize the government's horrific contracting practices), government computer systems are much worse.

    • JeffcoBlue says:

      Totally agree, but it was still a mistake. She admits it, so I'm not holding a grudge.

  4. While Clinton does get daily attacks on her that we would consider ridiculous when talking about a man, she gets at least as many for being a Clinton and a Democrat IMHO.

    • BlueCat says:

      Perfectly true but it's also true that all of these defenses do her absolutely no good and both her insistence and her supporters' insistence  that there is absolutely nothing to see here has hurt her approval numbers already weighed down by a perception that she isn't honest or trustworthy.

      A litany of Johnny did exactly the same thing too is neither accurate nor helpful. For one thing, it's the Inspector General, not a partisan Republican organization, finding clear violations of the rules, rules that were newly clarified and firmly set in place after the tenures of the previous Secretaries of State and during HRC's time as SOS.

      In any case there is no way HRC or her supporters can argue that the various iterations of this attitude have done her anything but harm. Approval polls show otherwise. So it's a good thing that her team, if not her defenders here, has finally realized that and adjusted her message. 

      This is the smartest no Johnny did it too answer she’s given yet:

      “I said this many times, it was still a mistake. If I could go back, I would do it differently. And I understand people have concerns about this, but I hope and expect voters to look at the full picture of everything I’ve done and stand for. And the full threat posed by Donald Trump. If they do, I have faith in the American people that they will make the right choice.”

      • Davie says:

        Agree, HRC should stick with the apology above.  But others certainly should compare her indiscretion with the *much* worse Johnnies out there such as:

        Flashback: Rove Erases 22 Million White House Emails on Private Server at Height of U.S. Attorney Scandal – Media Yawns


        • BlueCat says:

          Outside groups usually do the attacking so don't worry….  there will be plenty of attacking.  But I don't know how much good referring all the way back to Rove does. It still sounds like …  Oh, yeah? You may think I'm a schmuck but fill-in-the-blank was an even bigger schmuck.

          Dems of a certain age love being reminded of the sins of the Bush administration but they don't need to appeal to us.  And I personally absolutely hate the Johnny does it too defense. It means you're no worse than Johnny but no better than you should be either. It's the refuge of those who know that what they did isn't defensible on its own merits. Not inspiring. And coming from Dem supporters it smacks of IOKIYAD.

          • Kvothe says:

            The same way I feel about her refusal to release her speaking scripts.  Anything she says will be twisted and used against her regardless of the context so why go there?  Fuck 'em.  They will come to the same conclusion regardless of her participation so don't give them any fodder to distort and misreport.  I'm just speculating on one of her reasons for not participating in what could be construed as another Benghazi witch hunt even if it is undertaken by a branch of the federal government.  Selective excerpts of her testimony would probably get leaked just like her email could have been hacked if it was under federal government 'protection'. I was actually responding to Pseudonymous below. My bad

          • Kvothe says:

            Au Contraire bleu le chat regarding the "Johnny does it too is wrong" argument.  There are seven rings in Hell because magnitude of sin does matter.  I have yet to see any real evidence of consequential harm to the interests of the United States let alone any individuals from Mrs. Clintons private and secure email server.  There were no criminal indictments against anyone in the Bush Administration over the outright fraud that was committed to link Iraq to 9/11 to propel the US to invade Iraq because the Bush Administration erased 20 million emails relating to the lead up to and invasion of Iraq.  There is a difference in sin and it is just as disingenuous to say that Clinton is in the same league as Cheney as it to say that she is as big a stooge to Wall Street as Trump.  Magnitude and intent are not subtle differences that disqualify the "They are all as bad as Johnny" stereotype.

            • BlueCat says:

              You completely miss my point.  I'm not comparing sins at all. Just observing that using the the Johnny does it too defense always makes the person using it sound lame. Always makes the person using it sound as if even they themselves think it's their only defense.

              If what a person does is defensible it's always more effective to defend it on its own merits than by claiming others do things as bad or worse which defines what you're defending as something that stinks a little but not as badly as something else.

              As far as your fodder argument, that's what the Clintons have used for decades to justify secrecy and evasion but has it done HRC any good? Apparently not since she is widely viewed as not honest or trustworthy.

              While the right always has been out to get the Clintons, the Clintons themselves and their supporters would do well to acknowledge that they are not entirely blameless for the way they are viewed and not all of the public's perception of them is the fault of the vast right wing conspiracy. 

              I say this as someone who wants very much for HRC to win and for Trump to lose. I don't agree with Clinton apologists who contend there's nothing she can do, that she is powerless in the face of the right wing conspiracy.  If you do agree with that view than maybe you should just curl yourself into fetal position and await he end.

              • Kvothe says:

                Good points le bleu.  What really bothers me is this insinuation of comparable guilt.  Anything Clinton does is always as horrible as anything Republicans do.  She has admitted her mistakes which seems to get ignored in the she's as bad as they are meme's.  It's kind of the flip side of the Johnny does it too defense.  I think it is pretty lame to claim that using a separate email server is as deplorable as Republicans erasing 20 million emails dealing with the lead up and invasion of Iraq.  We will never know what was truly discussed in the Bush Administration and the claim that the backup server also failed and all 20 million are gone forever is what we are comparing Mrs. Clinton email server with?  Really?  I think this is a ginned up conspiracy to make sure that no one talks about what ruthless bastards Republicans were to sabotage the Arab Spring by not supporting Obama and his attempts to have the US transform from military intervention to peaceful assistance in the region.  Talk about catastrophic decisions by politicians.  It was inexcusable behavior driven by a hatred towards Obama and the possibility that he would become an international hero by ending the occupation of Iraq and replacing iron man rule with Democracy in the Middle East.  You think Johnny does it too is lame.  I think ignoring the real consequences of Republican duplicity during that time frame in world politics while assuming Clinton is just as guilty as they are because she got caught using a separate email server is even lamer.

                • BlueCat says:

                  I think your fantasy of Obama having been being able to fix the mess created by colonialism, the cold war, Kissinger's poisonous and ultimately badly backfiring realpolitik policies of supporting any anti-communist psychopathic strongman against any and all mildly socialist leaning (you know… like most of western Europe) democratic reform movements and the misbegotten Cheney/Bush war to bring peace, love, democracy and unicorns to the Middle East is perhaps a tad naive.

                  Anyhoo, we're talking about winning an election here. I'm simply focusing on that endeavor, on what helps HRC and what hurts her in achieving that goal.

                  I think we're not engaging in the same discussion.

  5. Pseudonymous says:

    For those folks on the thread who don't have a particular issue with Ms. Clinton's use of a private server, how do you feel about the fact that she and several of her top staff declined to be interviewed by the inspector general's office?  I found that to be peculiar as there's been no indication that anything horrible resulted from her choices.  I can't see this having an effect except with a very small number of folks who were already disinclined to support her, but it seems like an unnecessary knock to take.

    Oh, I forgot to mention, the report is here for anyone (and I doubt there are many) interested in reading it.

    • mamajama55 says:

      How do I feel about HRC and staff declining to be interviewed by the Inspector General's office? I think that it's typical HRC arrogance, and will not serve her well. She'd be better off jumping through whatever hoops are out there, and being as transparent as she can be. Unfortunately, this is her pattern:

      1. Laugh at or mock the question and questioner, while

      2. stonewalling the response.

      3. Deflect attention by asking the questioner to go question somebody else, or comparing herself to somebody worse.

      4. When finally public attention is unavoidable, she apologizes, walks back her stonewalling, admits mistake or guilt or whatever, and

      5. provides the asked-for information.

      FYI, she hardly ever gets to 5. But she'd be a helluva lot better off at least going straight to 4. I say this as someone who knows she will probably, reluctantly, have to vote for HRC. Don't make it harder than it has to be.


      • Voyageur says:

        It's probably not arrogance but paranoia driving her.  But as the saying goes. just because you know you're paranoid, that doesn't mean they're not out to get you.

        Obviously, she should have been interviewed by the IG office and ordered her staff to do likewise.   Given decades of partisan crap, from Whitewater to Benghazi, her paranoia is understandable.   But it is also counter productive.

        • Kvothe says:

          Oh they are out to get her Mr. Voyageur which will make it even sweeter if she wins the General.  A Democratic win will be a mega-ton explosion over the heartland of Republican ideology.  Decades of practicing the politics of personal destruction wiped out.  Intense efforts to denigrate the accomplishments of the Obama Administration refuted with the election of an Obama cabinet member.  Generations of Republican propaganda touting men over women, meaningless.  A lot of pundits write that a Clinton election won't change the status quo in Washington but they are whistling past the graveyard on that one.  It will be one of the most humiliating defeats in the history of American politics because she is a member of the Obama Administration, she is a woman and she is Hillary Clinton.  When the explosion is over, Republicans are going to have to have a serious discussion about how they can change their policies to get minorities and women to support their positions.  It's going to be a YUUGE election with long term consequences.  Sanders supporters should want to be on the right side of history on this one and gleefully push the button on November 7th to ideologically nuke Republican politics for the next decade.

          • Voyageur says:

            I think she will win, Kvothe, although it will be despite her fumbling of the e-mail issue.  The results will be quite as consequential as you say.  In the end, most Bernistas will vote for her, however reluctantly, because never in the history of American politics has a major party nominated a man as foul and dangerous as Donald Trump.

            I do have to laugh at those who insist there is nothing historic about electing the first woman president when we could choose the 44th old white guy instead.  Who knows, maybe we can make it two in a row by electing Elizabeth Warren in 2024 — she would't be much older then than Bernie is now.

            The simple fact is that male politicians have screwed up this country for 400 years.   It's time to give the women a chance to show what they can do.   And even if they screw up too, at least we'll have a little variety.

          • Duke Cox says:

            “Decades of practicing the politics of personal destruction wiped out. “


            While I can see that you and I are ideologically pretty much on the same page, and I appreciate your comments, I will ask you about this statement, "wiped out"  seems to indicate you expect more of a societal shift than do I. Perhaps the practicing of political destruction may wind up being discredited even more completely than it is already, but it will hardly change the minds of the other side. They are not given to giving up.


            “Republicans are going to have to have a serious discussion about how they can change their policies to get minorities and women to support their positions.”


            I have serious doubts about this discussion taking place…too late for that.


            • Kvothe says:

              Elections have consequences Asshole.  When RNC members show up at the office on November 9th, they are going to have to look in the mirror and ask themselves how they could lose the White House to Hillary Clinton.  They are going to take finger pointing to new levels and eat their own.  The reverberations are going to shake the soul of their political party and we're going to get a chance to pull the lever and make it happen.

              • Diogenesdemar says:

                You're assuming that these are children who have any chance of learning some life lesson.  They're not!  They're Republicans …

                They may vow to do everything they can to make her a one-term President …

                … I think my scenario is much more likely?!?

  6. Moderatus says:

    I'm relieved to see that even the Democrats on Colorado Pols are not buying Hick's trash.

    • Conserv. Head Banger says:

      Hick's trash???  So, you're disagreeing that a lot of the stuff being directed against Hillary is because she's a woman? So, you would also reject that a lot of the opprobrium directed at the President is, and has been, racist in nature??  

      Reminds me of Ken Buck during the Republican Senate primary in 2010 saying to vote for him because he doesn't wear high heels. Or Jack Graham's recent tweet that Republicans can have policy differences with the President, but comparing him to a monkey; as done by the Delta County Republican Chair; is unacceptable. Are you defending the Delta County Chair?

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account

You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.