Larry Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 As for the Clinton emails - a really really stupid move by her. Not sure why she thought she could ever get away with it. Well, just my opinion, but I'd put my money on "arrogance". Although the fact that this seems to be SOP, for all political figures, for a decade or two, to set up private email systems for the specific purpose of avoiding laws that mandate record retention, and that nobody else has ever had any trouble over it, was probably a factor, too. Governor Palin did it. The W White House did it. Apparently, Governor Jeb did it. (First I've even heard of that one.) ---------- Does all of that make it right? **** no. Frankly, I would consider the fact that these people set these things up, in the first place, demonstrates that they were planning, going in, on doing illegal things. (Or at least, things that were politically damaging enough that they figured that breaking the law was better.) Julian Castro is another name that springs to mind for me. I think he's an interesting politician and potential candidate, but he's not Obama and his brand is way too nascent for 2016 IMO. Who is going to give him money over Hillary? I do think he's got a future on the national stage though. He comes off as very likable and charismatic, really the key assets in national politics and two assets that Hillary lacks... No doubt really premature, but Veep, maybe? (I confess, I've never heard of the guy.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 I agree with Kilmer. It's garbage to jump on people for not attending stuff. I hope Kilmer understands that part of the reason so many people here are talking about this is because the GOP is usually the side making a stink over non-issues like this, and it feels good to give it back to them sometimes. Obama didn't do the Charlie Hebdo march, Obama didn't wear a flag pin, Obama didn't go to Margaret Thatcher's funeral, Obama saluted a Marine with a coffee cup in his hand, Obama took a selfie with other world leaders at a summit, Obama put his feet up on the historic White House desk, Obama bowed to a Saudi king.... that crap never ends. I think there is another reason no GOP leader wants to go to this. A gathering of black civil rights leaders and a million cameras means a million opportunities to get a bad photo op. Imagine Boehner being there and some ancient lady who marched in Selma is giving a speech, and she starts talking about how the GOP is taking away the hard earned voting rights of African Americans.... and the cameras all swerve to focus on John Boehner sitting there, squirming uncomfortably, unable to say a thing. Not a good visual. It plays into the narrative that she thinks the rules don't apply to her and that she is always hiding something. And the first one of those things pretty clearly is an accurate criticism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted March 6, 2015 Author Share Posted March 6, 2015 For what it's worth, local news just reported that Obama will be attending the event. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 For what it's worth, local news just reported that Obama will be attending the event. Oh ****, gotta go. I need to read the comments on yahoo and Free Republic as they start pouring in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcsluggo Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 It is already hurting her. And will going forward. How much though is the issue. Even worse today is that while she was at State, they FIRED an ambassador for keeping his own email and not using Government issued. And it also came out that she communicated via IM in some situations. It plays into the narrative that she thinks the rules don't apply to her and that she is always hiding something. It's a long way to Iowa. that is not "quite" the same situation. (but it is certainly optically difficult) they fire people for keeping dual accounts -- an official account and an account where all the juicy and potentially ilegal correspondences take place as an aside, i'll not that they not only didn;t fire people for this during the w-bush era, but politcal appointees were actively encouraged to keep a gmail account, for non-foia correspondences. Obama made a big deal early on about how wrong this was --- which is exactly WHY hclinton looks so bad right now. given that ALL of her mail went though this other server, it is still possible that she will be able to not get hit TOO hard... but yeah, its just a matter of how much this hurts, not whether it will hurt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Going Commando Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 No doubt really premature, but Veep, maybe? (I confess, I've never heard of the guy.) He gained some buzz in 2012 when he was the keynote speaker at the DNC, kind of Obama-esque. And he's got an interesting and very appealing background. Mother was a single mom and political activist for the Latino community in San Antonio and this got him interested in politics as a boy. He's very personable and he kind of has a bootstraps appeal to him--I think he even made a joke about that in his DNC speech. And he has a twin brother whose in the House of Representatives and is also a very appealing politician. I could see them becoming stars in the party and I think too think he could be a dark horse VP nomination if he has any chance of swinging Texas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 I don't think you're quite the base he'd be needing to court. Although say a Texas Democrat like him runs against a Republican from Florida or New Jersey. What's his chance of winning Texas? Or another question, how useful could he be in the electoral math as a VP candidate? I'm not as partisan as some assume Depends on who they run against(totally different between Christie and Jeb), we Hispanics are fickle . Julian is too green to swing the vote much as a VP,but it depends on who ya pair him with Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 I could see them becoming stars in the party and I think too think he could be a dark horse VP nomination if he has any chance of swinging Texas. I don't think Chuck Norris could swing Texas for Hillary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 I have no interest in some Selma event and I wouldn't blame a politican of any affiliation from having no I terest either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 Julian Castro is another name that springs to mind for me. I think he's an interesting politician and potential candidate, but he's not Obama and his brand is way too nascent for 2016 IMO. Who is going to give him money over Hillary? I do think he's got a future on the national stage though. He comes off as very likable and charismatic, really the key assets in national politics and two assets that Hillary lacks... Julian Castro may be a great guy, but it would be irresponsible to put someone that green a heartbeat away from the Presidency. Perhaps not Sarah Palin level of irresponsible, but close. IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 was her greeness much different than Obama's?....especially with the different positions. I do agree Julian is not ready for the type of **** they threw at her Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted March 6, 2015 Author Share Posted March 6, 2015 was her greeness much different than Obama's?....especially with the different positions. I do agree Julian is not ready for the type of **** they threw at her Palin's lack of qualification had less to do with her resume than other failings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
actualone Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 equal under the law ....now The GOP helped free more people yet again. You are quite confused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 I always wonder when the talking heads and political scorekeepers start talking about things like "this is going to hurt him or her".. Mostly I wonder what harm other than people talking badly about them on TV, which is a standard day anyway. The people who would vote for her likely will anyway, and those who would not sure wouldn't even if there wasn't a scandal. Obviously, this is on scale to the offense.. but since i think most of these things are trumped up political plays to try to damage the opponent, I don't much see what all the hoppla over damage is about. I I guess in short, i think those who make up the true "undecideds" going into pretty much any election cycle anymore are a dwindling group. And of that group, how much damage is a lot of damage? If a person is in that group these days, they're obviously very particular about what they are looking for, and I wonder if all the effort that goes into trumping up smears is worth it. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 You are quite confused. Always a possibility, but I am finally free from a rule generated for actions before my time.....and equally treated as a Yankee is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 I always wonder when the talking heads and political scorekeepers start talking about things like "this is going to hurt him or her".. I'm remembering a moment from the classic Monday Night Football. It's 4th and 1nches. The offense decides to go for it. They huddle. The announcers speculate on whether they should be going for it. They break the huddle. Line up. QB scans the D. Calls signals. The announcers speculate on whether they will run the ball, or pass. The drama builds. They snap the ball. And the zebras blow the play dead. False start, offense. Fourth and one becomes fourth and six. Cosell: "Well, that really hurt them." (The booth shows us slow motion of the OL jumping prematurely.) Merrideth: "They called a pass". Cosel: "Huh?" Merrideth: "They called a pass play. That player who jumped early, he was moving into a pass block." Ever since then, whenever I hear some TV announcer say "that penalty hurt them", I think "well, no ****, Sherlock. How about telling me something that I didn't know?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Going Commando Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 I always wonder when the talking heads and political scorekeepers start talking about things like "this is going to hurt him or her".. Mostly I wonder what harm other than people talking badly about them on TV, which is a standard day anyway. The people who would vote for her likely will anyway, and those who would not sure wouldn't even if there wasn't a scandal. Obviously, this is on scale to the offense.. but since i think most of these things are trumped up political plays to try to damage the opponent, I don't much see what all the hoppla over damage is about. I I guess in short, i think those who make up the true "undecideds" going into pretty much any election cycle anymore are a dwindling group. And of that group, how much damage is a lot of damage? If a person is in that group these days, they're obviously very particular about what they are looking for, and I wonder if all the effort that goes into trumping up smears is worth it. ~Bang It matters for how they'll poll on things like trustworthiness. That's a big factor in determining how people vote. A candidate that polls poorly on trustworthiness will have a harder time energizing their party faithful and getting undecideds to vote for them. But I doubt either of these recent controversies are things that will make a difference in whether she gets the nomination. She was a strong candidate that's already way far out the gate. This is the kind of stuff that could torpedo an emerging candidate with no national brand, but every person in America knew who she was before these came up. And the stories broke really far in advance of the primaries, they'll get buried under 500 news cycles between now and election season. If the GoP conference in the House can shut down the government for a month, to the universal outrage of the nation, and then everyone had forgotten about it a year later on election day, then I don't think voters and contributors will remember/care that Hillary used her own email server run out of her living room. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted March 7, 2015 Author Share Posted March 7, 2015 See this is why Conservatives always win the Hate Wars. They can go on for a month about AG Holden or Obama not marching in France, but liberals can't carry the torch for more than an hour or two on something like this... and even then we wind up getting pivoted to make the conversation about Hillary's scandals. GOP always wins the Hate Wars. They're so much better at it than liberals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 ya think they are comparable? Seem rather different to me,not that I think either is really worth arguing over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted March 7, 2015 Author Share Posted March 7, 2015 The Selma March and the Solidarity March in France. Yeah, I think they are quite comparable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 the Selma march yes, the 50th anniversary event no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 ... I guess in short, i think those who make up the true "undecideds" going into pretty much any election cycle anymore are a dwindling group. And of that group, how much damage is a lot of damage? If a person is in that group these days, they're obviously very particular about what they are looking for, and I wonder if all the effort that goes into trumping up smears is worth it. ~Bang i'm undecided. i've said i won't vote for clinton, but i still hold out a shred of belief the gop can produce someone worse (in my mind) and force my hand. i don't feel like i'm being particular. i feel like i've set the bar pretty low Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StillUnknown Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 http://www.vox.com/2015/3/7/8168085/president-obama-selma-50 Transcript of President Obama's speech, one of his better speeches IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRAVEONAWARPATH Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 http://www.vox.com/2015/3/7/8168085/president-obama-selma-50 Transcript of President Obama's speech, one of his better speeches IMO. I agree, He was on fire. In fact, I think it MIGHT be his best speech. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sinister Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 I have no interest in some Selma event and I wouldn't blame a politican of any affiliation from having no I terest either. Some Selma event? Really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.