Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Bill USA
Bill USA's Journal
Bill USA's Journal
July 18, 2016
and 2) A group, from which the specifically mentioned group of 3 emails came:
https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system
[font size="3"]Now, regarding the group of three - we now know, thanks to Rep. Matt Cartwright's questioning of Comey - that they actually were NOT marked Classified - per the Govt manual on handling Classified information. - DESPITE THE FACT THEY WERE NOT MARKED WITH A HEADER INDICATING THEY CONTAINED CLASSIFIED info - as is REQUIRED BY THE RELEVANT REG/MANUAL, Comey apparently thought the letter "c" appearing in the text of an email was sufficient to declare the email contained classified info - despite the lack of a Classfied Header.[/font]
Note: Subsequent to Comey saying he considered these emails classfied, the State Dept issued a statement that the "c"s in those emails were there due to human error. So on any basis these emails did not contain classified information.
[font size="3"] Now, let's go back to the 110 emails. Apparently, it was NOT 110 separate emails that contained separate items of classified information. Apparently, it was actually 52 email CHAINS which contained classified info (which info was apparently repeated to add up to 110 instances - but not 110 separate items of classified info).
(see https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/07/05/six-things-we-learned-from-the-fbi-investigation-into-hillary-clintons-email/?utm_term=.170cbb2e47fb )
.. [font size="3"]So it's not 110 but 52 instances of Classified info being received/sent by Sec Clinton, right?? Wellllll, hold on a minute..[/font]
NOTICE WHAT COMEY SAID:
I'm not aware of anybody asking Comey about this statement - BUT - if Comey had the "owning agency" "determine" whether the emails contained classified information --- Does that mean - Comey HAD to go the the owning agencies BECAUSE THE REQUIRED HEADER INDICATING THE PRESENCE OF CLASSIFIED INFO - WAS NOT PART OF THE EMAILS? ... AS REQUIRED BY GOVT REG/MANUAL???
I'm willing to go out on a limb and say, if the FBI had to ask the owning agencies to determine if the emails contained Classified Info - then the Header which is required by the Government - WAS NOT THERE.
Which means when Hillary said she did not receive or send anything marked classified she was speaking truthfully.
... as for Dir Comey, far be it from me to declare him an untrustworthy LIAR... but how about an duplicitous OBFUSCATOR?
my take on Comey's different numbers of emails - supposedly - containing classified data
.. those who have been trying to follow/figure-out what in the end did Dir. Comey actually say about Clinton's handling of emails while Sec of State: here is my take on Comey's statements:
In Comey's original statement, while he said the FBI recommended to not indict HRC re handling of emails and personal server.. Dir Comey went on to say that Hillary Clinton had 110 emails which had classified data in them - at the time they were sent. He also said there were three emails that "bore markings indicating the presence of classified information"
There were two groups of emails of interest:
1) A group of 30,000 emails which Sec Clinton submitted to the State Department:
"FBI investigators have also read all of the approximately 30,000 e-mails provided by Secretary Clinton to the State Department in December 2014."
___ it is from this group that Comey refers to 110 emails:
"110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received."
and 2) A group, from which the specifically mentioned group of 3 emails came:
"With respect to the thousands of e-mails we found that were not among those produced to State, agencies have concluded that three of those were classified at the time they were sent or received, one at the Secret level and two at the Confidential level."
https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system
[font size="3"]Now, regarding the group of three - we now know, thanks to Rep. Matt Cartwright's questioning of Comey - that they actually were NOT marked Classified - per the Govt manual on handling Classified information. - DESPITE THE FACT THEY WERE NOT MARKED WITH A HEADER INDICATING THEY CONTAINED CLASSIFIED info - as is REQUIRED BY THE RELEVANT REG/MANUAL, Comey apparently thought the letter "c" appearing in the text of an email was sufficient to declare the email contained classified info - despite the lack of a Classfied Header.[/font]
Note: Subsequent to Comey saying he considered these emails classfied, the State Dept issued a statement that the "c"s in those emails were there due to human error. So on any basis these emails did not contain classified information.
[font size="3"] Now, let's go back to the 110 emails. Apparently, it was NOT 110 separate emails that contained separate items of classified information. Apparently, it was actually 52 email CHAINS which contained classified info (which info was apparently repeated to add up to 110 instances - but not 110 separate items of classified info).
(see https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/07/05/six-things-we-learned-from-the-fbi-investigation-into-hillary-clintons-email/?utm_term=.170cbb2e47fb )
.. [font size="3"]So it's not 110 but 52 instances of Classified info being received/sent by Sec Clinton, right?? Wellllll, hold on a minute..[/font]
NOTICE WHAT COMEY SAID:
"From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received."
I'm not aware of anybody asking Comey about this statement - BUT - if Comey had the "owning agency" "determine" whether the emails contained classified information --- Does that mean - Comey HAD to go the the owning agencies BECAUSE THE REQUIRED HEADER INDICATING THE PRESENCE OF CLASSIFIED INFO - WAS NOT PART OF THE EMAILS? ... AS REQUIRED BY GOVT REG/MANUAL???
I'm willing to go out on a limb and say, if the FBI had to ask the owning agencies to determine if the emails contained Classified Info - then the Header which is required by the Government - WAS NOT THERE.
Which means when Hillary said she did not receive or send anything marked classified she was speaking truthfully.
... as for Dir Comey, far be it from me to declare him an untrustworthy LIAR... but how about an duplicitous OBFUSCATOR?
July 18, 2016
The threat of the Zika public health crisis is increasing as summer continues. While Democrats have spent months trying to get our Republican colleagues to take the Zika virus seriously, Republicans have engaged in yet another cynical crusade against women's health. Now, even a key Republican appropriator admits that Republicans are refusing to fund our response to the Zika virus unless the bill attacks Planned Parenthood. There is no reason for this bill to be bogged down by another Republican attack on women's health.
REPUBLICAN APPROPRIATOR: REMOVING ATTACK ON PLANNED PARENTHOOD IS "RED LINE" GOP REFUSES TO CROSS
Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK): Republican Representative Tom Cole of Oklahoma, a senior appropriator, said Republicans are willing to negotiate further on Zika, but said they still want to avoid adding to the deficit or funding Planned Parenthood. Cole called the latter a "red line" for the Republican conference. (Bloomberg, 7/11/16)
The Washington Post Editorial Board described the Republican Zika Conference report as "saddled with unnecessary partisan baubles"
Washington Post Editorial: It's Us Against Zika - Whose Side Is Congress On? "In the very early morning hours Thursday, Republicans who control the House pushed through a bill to combat the Zika virus that is a totem to their favored causes and a poke in the eye of Democrats. More than four months after President Obama requested nearly $1.9 billion in emergency funding to deal with a public-health emergency, the House voted for $1.1 billion but saddled it with unnecessary partisan baubles. This may further delay action against the mosquito-borne virus that can cause severe fetal birth defects." (Washington Post, 6/23/16)
(more)
Key House Republican Admits: GOP Attacks on Women’s Health R Holding Up Zika Funding
https://www.dpcc.senate.gov/?p=blog&id=596The threat of the Zika public health crisis is increasing as summer continues. While Democrats have spent months trying to get our Republican colleagues to take the Zika virus seriously, Republicans have engaged in yet another cynical crusade against women's health. Now, even a key Republican appropriator admits that Republicans are refusing to fund our response to the Zika virus unless the bill attacks Planned Parenthood. There is no reason for this bill to be bogged down by another Republican attack on women's health.
REPUBLICAN APPROPRIATOR: REMOVING ATTACK ON PLANNED PARENTHOOD IS "RED LINE" GOP REFUSES TO CROSS
Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK): Republican Representative Tom Cole of Oklahoma, a senior appropriator, said Republicans are willing to negotiate further on Zika, but said they still want to avoid adding to the deficit or funding Planned Parenthood. Cole called the latter a "red line" for the Republican conference. (Bloomberg, 7/11/16)
The Washington Post Editorial Board described the Republican Zika Conference report as "saddled with unnecessary partisan baubles"
Washington Post Editorial: It's Us Against Zika - Whose Side Is Congress On? "In the very early morning hours Thursday, Republicans who control the House pushed through a bill to combat the Zika virus that is a totem to their favored causes and a poke in the eye of Democrats. More than four months after President Obama requested nearly $1.9 billion in emergency funding to deal with a public-health emergency, the House voted for $1.1 billion but saddled it with unnecessary partisan baubles. This may further delay action against the mosquito-borne virus that can cause severe fetal birth defects." (Washington Post, 6/23/16)
(more)
July 16, 2016
ST. LOUIS — Hillary Clinton will call for a constitutional amendment to "overturn Citizens United" in her first 30 days as president and plans to make that announcement today to progressive activists at the annual Netroots Nation conference.
"I will also appoint Supreme Court justices who understand that this decision was a disaster for our democracy," Clinton will say in a video message, scheduled to run near the end of today's final keynote session. "I will fight for other progressive reforms, including small-dollar matching and disclosure requirements. I hope some of the brilliant minds in this room will seek out cases to challenge Citizens United in the courts."
In a statement accompanying the announcement, Clinton pledges to promote Securities and Exchange Commission "rulemaking requiring publicly traded companies to disclose all political spending to their shareholders" and to sign an "executive order requiring federal government contractors to fully disclose all political spending." She has discussed versions of those ideas on the campaign trail, but the forum of Netroots Nation — a conference in its 11th year that she visited in person only once — was a striking place to make the statement.
Clinton's campaign previewed the announcement for some progressive groups, which gave it their seal of approval. "Hillary Clinton's commitment to overturning Citizens United, and her other systemic proposals like public financing of congressional elections, are key to improving our chances of victory on every other issue," said Marissa Barrow, a spokeswoman for the Progressive Change Campaign Committee.
(more)
Clinton will push constitutional amendment to ‘overturn Citizens United’
Clinton will push constitutional amendment to ‘overturn Citizens United’ST. LOUIS — Hillary Clinton will call for a constitutional amendment to "overturn Citizens United" in her first 30 days as president and plans to make that announcement today to progressive activists at the annual Netroots Nation conference.
"I will also appoint Supreme Court justices who understand that this decision was a disaster for our democracy," Clinton will say in a video message, scheduled to run near the end of today's final keynote session. "I will fight for other progressive reforms, including small-dollar matching and disclosure requirements. I hope some of the brilliant minds in this room will seek out cases to challenge Citizens United in the courts."
In a statement accompanying the announcement, Clinton pledges to promote Securities and Exchange Commission "rulemaking requiring publicly traded companies to disclose all political spending to their shareholders" and to sign an "executive order requiring federal government contractors to fully disclose all political spending." She has discussed versions of those ideas on the campaign trail, but the forum of Netroots Nation — a conference in its 11th year that she visited in person only once — was a striking place to make the statement.
Clinton's campaign previewed the announcement for some progressive groups, which gave it their seal of approval. "Hillary Clinton's commitment to overturning Citizens United, and her other systemic proposals like public financing of congressional elections, are key to improving our chances of victory on every other issue," said Marissa Barrow, a spokeswoman for the Progressive Change Campaign Committee.
(more)
July 14, 2016
Is anybody williing to fight disinformation and Big Lies so cheerfully abetted by the Corporate media sycophants of the GOP?
Thanks to Comey, most think HRC lied about not sending classfied data - what to do about that?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512253653#post14Is anybody williing to fight disinformation and Big Lies so cheerfully abetted by the Corporate media sycophants of the GOP?
July 13, 2016
- the actual number was 3. But even these three emails Comey referred to "bore markings indicating the presence of classified information".
____ But as we learned in the Investigation of the Investigation, these "markings" Comey was referring to were additions of the letter "c" (next to items somebody thought was classified info) in the body of the email. NOTE these emails DID NOT have the required Header/Subject line showing that classified information was included in the document. Thus, by Government reg - they WERE NOT classified. THis is why Comey had to add:
Further it should be noted that 2 of these emails the Dept of State said were classified (i.e. bore those "markings (in the body of the email) indicating classified info"
IN ERROR.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512247076
But thanks to Comey's repetition of the lie that she sent/received classified emails most people now think that she lied when she said she did NOT send/receive classified emails.
[font size="3"]
My question is: "What do you think should be done about this?" [/font] You realize NONE of the Corporate Media outlets will clarify these facts for people.
___ Should Hillary's campaign put an ad out there making it completely clear there were no 100+ Classified emails. And that the "very few" Comey emails said "bore markings indicating the presence of classified information" - none of these three emails were marked Classified in their header/subject line.
___ Should DUers post in discussion forums all over the internet - to make people aware that Hillary did not in fact send any emails designated Classified?
____ Should a PAC put out an ad pointing these facts out and also challenging corporate media to actually tell people the truth?
What do you think should be done?
Thanks to Comey, most think HRC lied about not sending classfied data - what to do about that?
DUers have seen articles analyzing Comey cleverly worded statement on Hillary's email practices. Even though the FBI correctly concluded there was no evidence of any intent to transmit classified data and additionally,
... the evidence actually shows even though Comey said she sent something like over a hundred classified emails
"From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time"
- the actual number was 3. But even these three emails Comey referred to "bore markings indicating the presence of classified information".
Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.
____ But as we learned in the Investigation of the Investigation, these "markings" Comey was referring to were additions of the letter "c" (next to items somebody thought was classified info) in the body of the email. NOTE these emails DID NOT have the required Header/Subject line showing that classified information was included in the document. Thus, by Government reg - they WERE NOT classified. THis is why Comey had to add:
"But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it."
Further it should be noted that 2 of these emails the Dept of State said were classified (i.e. bore those "markings (in the body of the email) indicating classified info"
IN ERROR.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512247076
But thanks to Comey's repetition of the lie that she sent/received classified emails most people now think that she lied when she said she did NOT send/receive classified emails.
[font size="3"]
My question is: "What do you think should be done about this?" [/font] You realize NONE of the Corporate Media outlets will clarify these facts for people.
___ Should Hillary's campaign put an ad out there making it completely clear there were no 100+ Classified emails. And that the "very few" Comey emails said "bore markings indicating the presence of classified information" - none of these three emails were marked Classified in their header/subject line.
___ Should DUers post in discussion forums all over the internet - to make people aware that Hillary did not in fact send any emails designated Classified?
____ Should a PAC put out an ad pointing these facts out and also challenging corporate media to actually tell people the truth?
What do you think should be done?
July 13, 2016
Quinnipiac University has developed a reputation for outlier polls that consistently deliver bad news for Hillary Clinton and good news for Donald Trump. When we deconstruct their polls, Quinnipiac’s errors are glaringly obvious.
On June 29, we took apart a Q poll that showed Donald ahead of Hillary nationally by two points.
My colleagues Anthony Reed (predictive modeling expert and founder of the highly respected Benchmark Politics) and Eric Kleefeld pointed out that Quinnipiac was alone in its depiction of the race as particularly close. Most other polls at the time indicated a Hillary lead of between 4 and 6 points, and some polls placed her advantage at 8 points or above. Unsurprisingly, the Q poll got a wave of breathless media coverage. But a “unique poll result” is typically an indication of a bad poll result.
[font size="3"]Here’s Quinnipiac’s fundamental problem: They tend to under-represent minorities. In their June 29 analysis, Reed and Kleefeld argued that polls like PPP, IBD/TIPP predict white turnout will be around 70 percent in 2016, down from 72 percent in the 2012 exit poll. Quinnipiac, on the other hand, has white turnout pegged at 73%. Another dubious finding in the June 29 Q poll is Latino support for Donald at 33% when most polls place it around 20%.[/font]
(more)
Quinnipiac University has developed a reputation for outlier polls & the Corp media lap it up
Quinnipiac’s Latino Problem: Shoddy Q Poll Strikes Again and Media Lap it UpQuinnipiac University has developed a reputation for outlier polls that consistently deliver bad news for Hillary Clinton and good news for Donald Trump. When we deconstruct their polls, Quinnipiac’s errors are glaringly obvious.
On June 29, we took apart a Q poll that showed Donald ahead of Hillary nationally by two points.
My colleagues Anthony Reed (predictive modeling expert and founder of the highly respected Benchmark Politics) and Eric Kleefeld pointed out that Quinnipiac was alone in its depiction of the race as particularly close. Most other polls at the time indicated a Hillary lead of between 4 and 6 points, and some polls placed her advantage at 8 points or above. Unsurprisingly, the Q poll got a wave of breathless media coverage. But a “unique poll result” is typically an indication of a bad poll result.
[font size="3"]Here’s Quinnipiac’s fundamental problem: They tend to under-represent minorities. In their June 29 analysis, Reed and Kleefeld argued that polls like PPP, IBD/TIPP predict white turnout will be around 70 percent in 2016, down from 72 percent in the 2012 exit poll. Quinnipiac, on the other hand, has white turnout pegged at 73%. Another dubious finding in the June 29 Q poll is Latino support for Donald at 33% when most polls place it around 20%.[/font]
(more)
July 13, 2016
Politico Reported Clinton Violated 2005 Rule Against Personal Email Accounts
Politico: “Clinton Private Email Violated 'Clear-Cut' State Dept. Rules.” In an article headlined “Clinton private email violated 'clear-cut' State Dept. rules,” Politico reported, “The State Department has had a policy in place since 2005 to warn officials against routine use of personal email accounts for government work.” The article went on say the regulation was “in force during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state” and “appears to be at odds with her reliance on a private email for agency business.” From the March 5, 2015, piece:
[blockquote style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:10px;"]The State Department has had a policy in place since 2005 to warn officials against routine use of personal email accounts for government work, a regulation in force during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state that appears to be at odds with her reliance on a private email for agency business, POLITICO has learned.
The policy, detailed in a manual for agency employees, adds clarity to an issue at the center of a growing controversy over Clinton’s reliance on a private email account. Aides to Clinton, as well as State Department officials, have suggested that she did nothing inappropriate because of fuzzy guidelines and lack of specific rules on when and how official documents had to be preserved during her years as secretary. (Politico, 3/5/15)
But Exemptions In 2005 Rule Could Allow Private Email Account
CNN: 2005 Rule “Filled With Exemptions That Could Allow Clinton To Use A Private Account.” A CNN report noted that the 2005 guidelines “were filled with exemptions that could allow Clinton to use a private account.” The article also noted that Clinton “was not automatically in violation of State Department policy when she exclusively used a private email during her four years as America's top diplomat.” From the March 6, 2015, article:
(more)
Nine Times Reporters Botched The Facts On Hillary Clinton's Emails - Media Matters
.. I could only excerpt part of one example.
http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/07/05/nine-times-reporters-botched-facts-hillary-clintons-emails/211339
Politico Reported Clinton Violated 2005 Rule Against Personal Email Accounts
Politico: “Clinton Private Email Violated 'Clear-Cut' State Dept. Rules.” In an article headlined “Clinton private email violated 'clear-cut' State Dept. rules,” Politico reported, “The State Department has had a policy in place since 2005 to warn officials against routine use of personal email accounts for government work.” The article went on say the regulation was “in force during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state” and “appears to be at odds with her reliance on a private email for agency business.” From the March 5, 2015, piece:
[blockquote style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:10px;"]The State Department has had a policy in place since 2005 to warn officials against routine use of personal email accounts for government work, a regulation in force during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state that appears to be at odds with her reliance on a private email for agency business, POLITICO has learned.
The policy, detailed in a manual for agency employees, adds clarity to an issue at the center of a growing controversy over Clinton’s reliance on a private email account. Aides to Clinton, as well as State Department officials, have suggested that she did nothing inappropriate because of fuzzy guidelines and lack of specific rules on when and how official documents had to be preserved during her years as secretary. (Politico, 3/5/15)
But Exemptions In 2005 Rule Could Allow Private Email Account
CNN: 2005 Rule “Filled With Exemptions That Could Allow Clinton To Use A Private Account.” A CNN report noted that the 2005 guidelines “were filled with exemptions that could allow Clinton to use a private account.” The article also noted that Clinton “was not automatically in violation of State Department policy when she exclusively used a private email during her four years as America's top diplomat.” From the March 6, 2015, article:
(more)
July 13, 2016
PredictIt has Clinton at .68, Trump: .33 ... betting sites are better predictors than polls
https://www.predictit.org/Browse/Group/67/National
July 12, 2016
I’ve come to call it “the Gap.” There is the Hillary Clinton I watch on the nightly news and that I read described in the press. She is careful, calculated, cautious. Her speeches can sound like executive summaries from a committee report, the product of too many authors, too many voices, and too much fear of offense.
~~
~~
And then there is the Hillary Clinton described to me by people who have worked with her, people I admire, people who understand Washington in ways I never will. Their Hillary Clinton is spoken of in superlatives: brilliant, funny, thoughtful, effective. She inspires a rare loyalty in ex-staff, and an unusual protectiveness even among former foes.
~~
~~
Her explanation for the Gap is simple enough. “There’s a lot of behavioral science that if you attack someone endlessly — even if none of what you say is true — the very fact of attacking that person raises doubts and creates a negative perspective,” she says. “As someone Exhibit A on that — since it has been a long time that I’ve been in that position — I get that.”
~~
~~
The answers startled me in their consistency. Every single person brought up, in some way or another, the exact same quality they feel leads Clinton to excel in governance and struggle in campaigns. On the one hand, that makes my job as a reporter easy. There actually is an answer to the question. On the other hand, it makes my job as a writer harder: It isn’t a very satisfying answer to the question, at least not when you first hear it.
Hillary Clinton, they said over and over again, listens.
(more)
I certainly admire Ezra Klein. But I still think the answer is the effectiveness of disinformation and the Big Lie. But the disinformation assault on Hillary has been as successful as it has been in large part because of the active participation of the sycophantic M$M who consistently treat the Big Lie as if it's a Given Truth. Also, of course, you need a large segment of the public to be too lazy to think critically ... or just to think! .. for the Big Lies to work. We certainly know how to market a product in the U.S. The GOP has been successfully marketing Big Lies about the Clintons for decades.
Understanding Hillary - Why the Clinton America sees isn’t the Clinton colleagues know - Ezra Klein
http://www.vox.com/a/hillary-clinton-interview/the-gap-listener-leadership-qualityI’ve come to call it “the Gap.” There is the Hillary Clinton I watch on the nightly news and that I read described in the press. She is careful, calculated, cautious. Her speeches can sound like executive summaries from a committee report, the product of too many authors, too many voices, and too much fear of offense.
~~
~~
And then there is the Hillary Clinton described to me by people who have worked with her, people I admire, people who understand Washington in ways I never will. Their Hillary Clinton is spoken of in superlatives: brilliant, funny, thoughtful, effective. She inspires a rare loyalty in ex-staff, and an unusual protectiveness even among former foes.
~~
~~
Her explanation for the Gap is simple enough. “There’s a lot of behavioral science that if you attack someone endlessly — even if none of what you say is true — the very fact of attacking that person raises doubts and creates a negative perspective,” she says. “As someone Exhibit A on that — since it has been a long time that I’ve been in that position — I get that.”
~~
~~
The answers startled me in their consistency. Every single person brought up, in some way or another, the exact same quality they feel leads Clinton to excel in governance and struggle in campaigns. On the one hand, that makes my job as a reporter easy. There actually is an answer to the question. On the other hand, it makes my job as a writer harder: It isn’t a very satisfying answer to the question, at least not when you first hear it.
Hillary Clinton, they said over and over again, listens.
(more)
I certainly admire Ezra Klein. But I still think the answer is the effectiveness of disinformation and the Big Lie. But the disinformation assault on Hillary has been as successful as it has been in large part because of the active participation of the sycophantic M$M who consistently treat the Big Lie as if it's a Given Truth. Also, of course, you need a large segment of the public to be too lazy to think critically ... or just to think! .. for the Big Lies to work. We certainly know how to market a product in the U.S. The GOP has been successfully marketing Big Lies about the Clintons for decades.
July 12, 2016
Dowd's most recent character assassination of Hillary Clinton: The Clinton Contamination
This is the 7,673rd time Maureen Dowd has written this column! What a gig! - Norman Ornstein
Congratulations! This is the 7,673rd time Maureen Dowd has written this column! What a gig! - Norman OrnsteinDowd's most recent character assassination of Hillary Clinton: The Clinton Contamination
Profile Information
Member since: Wed Mar 3, 2010, 05:25 PMNumber of posts: 6,436
