The Clintons have been very sloppy about things that don't matter like appearing to hide something. This is no big deal. The big deal is that Hilary is not a progressive.
28
Your right, Gail....
Picasso's "Guernica" was definitely the wrong image.
Van Gogh's "Starry Night" would have been much more appropriate.
Picasso's "Guernica" was definitely the wrong image.
Van Gogh's "Starry Night" would have been much more appropriate.
3
Gail, I love you, but you're following and not leading here. Colin Powell did the same thing and nobody is hounding him. And the one time I heard her speak (admittedly, back in 1992) she was poised, brilliant, riveting. I don't agree with her on every issue. But she is so much better than the competition.
52
Gail's and Frank Bruni's essays on Hillary this week begin reasonable, but miraculously turn to dust: For years, while being investigated by a toothless political group over a Libyan incident on a September eleventh, she was without blemish. Now she has given that group ammunition, and it's real ammo, not blanks. Similar to her husband's proclivities, she has now assured this country that nothing but investigations await her, and by extension, us. Why the aforementioned authors consider her forgiven or forgivable is a complete disconnect for me.
25
I think you hit on something important when you discussed Ms. Clinton's speaking style. I heard her speak here drunk the 2008 campaign, and it was as you described. She talked about issues that were important to San Diegans, and she had proposals regarding those issues that were unique and insightful. She won my vote on those grounds. Let's face it. There will be more clumsiness, as demonstrated by the book tour and the email press conference. Ms. Clinton's rhetoric in those situations needs to mimic the level she can achieve when discussing ideas she's thought about carefully.
16
When she wins make Gail Secretary for Humor.
19
Everybody who sends and receives emails knows just how valuable they are. Or aren't. Troglodytes, like Lindsey Graham and that most Einsteiny of the old guard, that guy from Arizona, I forget his name, among probably many others, don't email. But that doesn't have anything to do with anything. They use the phone or write letters, some of which will not be archived.
So, emails are good for some things. Does anybody really think that Hillary Clinton wrote or received anything of much note via email? No, it would be a lot of FYI and OMG did you see this? or endless scheduling and rescheduling of worthless meetings about useless things. We all know this, really.
I can't get fired up about her emails and her private this and that. What I can get upset about is her lack of ... um .. charisma? Um ... experience? Public relations moxie? Self-discipline? The fact that she really never says anything and she says it with something from the school of pronouncement performance of speech.
I couldn't, wouldn't if my life depended on it vote for any of the republicans currently on sale, and there doesn't seem to be a democrat out of the many millions of us with spine enough to run against Hillary. What a revoltin' development.
So, emails are good for some things. Does anybody really think that Hillary Clinton wrote or received anything of much note via email? No, it would be a lot of FYI and OMG did you see this? or endless scheduling and rescheduling of worthless meetings about useless things. We all know this, really.
I can't get fired up about her emails and her private this and that. What I can get upset about is her lack of ... um .. charisma? Um ... experience? Public relations moxie? Self-discipline? The fact that she really never says anything and she says it with something from the school of pronouncement performance of speech.
I couldn't, wouldn't if my life depended on it vote for any of the republicans currently on sale, and there doesn't seem to be a democrat out of the many millions of us with spine enough to run against Hillary. What a revoltin' development.
15
How do you run against a certifiably crazy party? The GOP is off the rails. They will do to her what they did to Obama and Bill. It is going to so ugly, I may need to take a break from the news until post-election.
On the other hand, it might be fun to watch the GOP alienate women voters and cause more women turning their back on the Republicans Ah, to dream.
On the other hand, it might be fun to watch the GOP alienate women voters and cause more women turning their back on the Republicans Ah, to dream.
61
I don't find 42 email messages on average in and out total per day to be in any way unreasonable. And that's just for your typical faux-blonde hair stylist from Little Rock making entertaining allegations against a presidential candidate. This was the U.S. Secretary of State who for four years communicated to a widespread army of subordinates and MANY peers and near-peers, all over the world, as a matter of fact. What's funny isn't the 42, it's the claim that she didn't share classified information using her only means (that we know) of email. She didn't share classified information, and you can forget about ever seeing proof that she did, because it's against the law to do so and discovering that she did would be seriously damaging. Hence, it'll never be discovered: it will be among those emails that she had personal discretion to destroy as "purely personal".
I listened to her whole news conference. Gotta say, Hillary is every bit as accomplished as Ike at saying absolutely nothing to reporters while appearing to say a lot. Age hasn't dulled this lady in any way: she's still one serious piece of work. At the end of it, you could swear all those newsies thought the "vast, right-wing conspiracy" was alive and well.
I opt for "none of the above" among Gail's choices. This isn't going to matter to Americans, and she broke it early enough for any impact it might have in 2016 to just dibble away. Brilliant.
I listened to her whole news conference. Gotta say, Hillary is every bit as accomplished as Ike at saying absolutely nothing to reporters while appearing to say a lot. Age hasn't dulled this lady in any way: she's still one serious piece of work. At the end of it, you could swear all those newsies thought the "vast, right-wing conspiracy" was alive and well.
I opt for "none of the above" among Gail's choices. This isn't going to matter to Americans, and she broke it early enough for any impact it might have in 2016 to just dibble away. Brilliant.
22
I would disagree about her oratorical skills. I have seen her speak, without notes, for more than an hour and in full paragraphs - something few others could do.
47
I'll take option (a)... not one of Hillary' best days. Yet, I thought she explained and defended her choices thoroughly. What more, exactly, do we expect? Want?
Should she plead guility, oh, but to what? Should she say 'sue me'? Well, the AP has done that, sort of. Should she quit the race? What would that accomplish? She is still the best, strongest, most qualified presidential contender around! Hang in there, Hillary.
Should she plead guility, oh, but to what? Should she say 'sue me'? Well, the AP has done that, sort of. Should she quit the race? What would that accomplish? She is still the best, strongest, most qualified presidential contender around! Hang in there, Hillary.
54
The only people "obsessed" with Clinton's emails are the media. The real American people are obsessed with the fact that our national leadership is completely out of touch with reality. They're busy warmongering and we're having to pay the price for their posturing.
46
Please...a faux crisis if ever there was one. I am far more concerned about Scott Walker's ten minute phone conversation with a savvy con artist pretending to be one of the Koch brothers...now that gives on epause, whereas no one can argue with how smart and hard working, and frankly over qualified Hilary is. If any other male candidate had the resume she has built there wouldn't be a question. It's time people. The emails won't and should not matter.
32
No one believes, as you assert, that Clinton will crusade against Wall Street. The statement is ludicrous. Are you writing absurdist comedy?!
The Clintons showered The Street with legislative pull and executive gifts during their eight years. And The favors have been returned many fold. Hilary spent much of her time as Secretary of State trying to develop customers for corporations that support her or that she wants to woo. Our democracy, what was left of it when the Clintons took office, has been transfigured by money and is in a race to hell. Billions and billions to lobby and buy politicians that should have been plowed into wages, r&d, infrastructure, education, revitalization, children.
The Clintons showered The Street with legislative pull and executive gifts during their eight years. And The favors have been returned many fold. Hilary spent much of her time as Secretary of State trying to develop customers for corporations that support her or that she wants to woo. Our democracy, what was left of it when the Clintons took office, has been transfigured by money and is in a race to hell. Billions and billions to lobby and buy politicians that should have been plowed into wages, r&d, infrastructure, education, revitalization, children.
21
Funny as always. But seriously, where's the compliance officer whose job it is to monitor email retention? All financial service businesses have such a person, often an entire department.
Is there a massive databse that holds all major government workers' emails? How about Congresspeople? How about the Court? Do they retain all email correspondence? And who checks them from time to time to make sure the back up is working? And just where is this giant dbase? Is it safe from terrorists?
Is there a massive databse that holds all major government workers' emails? How about Congresspeople? How about the Court? Do they retain all email correspondence? And who checks them from time to time to make sure the back up is working? And just where is this giant dbase? Is it safe from terrorists?
13
This is much ado about nothing. The media, in a feeding frenzy, seems determined to find bad things to say about Hillary. What a poor excuse for the fourth estate. Just leave it to fx and get the Times talking about important matters.
29
I don't think this about breaking a law, but about looking presidential. She may have covered her tracks, but she looked like a hack up there talking about yoga moves and wedding plans as if they are more important that secretary of state transparency. No one cares about your yoga moves. But, everyone wants to feel like their secretary of state is appropriately transparent. And, everyone wants to elect a president that seeks transparency when needed. To me, she came off like she was belittling her role as secretary, in favor of her yoga moves and wedding cake arguments.
18
The decision to have her own server was strictly political: it neatly denied her future (rabid) opponents any information on her years as Secretary of State that she did not want them to have. In other words, it was preparation for the presidential campaign. It was wrong but it was smart. (Jeb Bush did the same thing, for the same reasons, as many have noted.) Which is why the Republicans are so furious with her -- but, hey, what's new about that? They hate and fear her, with good reason.
18
In 1968, Lyndon Johnson was supposed to be a lock for renomination...until Eugene McCarthy challenged him and created an earthquake.
Jerry Brown, our party turns its lonely eyes to you. Get in. Say you'll run for just one term, so you won't be sullied by thoughts of reelection. Offer the vice-presidency to Ruth Bader Ginsberg, so she can resign from the USSC now and let Obama fill the slot.
Or some variation on that theme. Please.
Jerry Brown, our party turns its lonely eyes to you. Get in. Say you'll run for just one term, so you won't be sullied by thoughts of reelection. Offer the vice-presidency to Ruth Bader Ginsberg, so she can resign from the USSC now and let Obama fill the slot.
Or some variation on that theme. Please.
20
Gail, your column today Pitch Perfect! Brilliant Thank you for your incite and very intelligent analysis delivered with your wonderful sense of humour. I especially liked the A B C choices. I think they speak exactly to how a lot of people are feeling.
3
Such a tempest in a tea pot. If the world were ending as it may be in global warming we would be focusing on somebody's hair cut or the color of their socks.
The internet is full of these modern crises. Crashing, and theft and random thoughts. Its enough to turn one into a luddite.
The internet is full of these modern crises. Crashing, and theft and random thoughts. Its enough to turn one into a luddite.
11
Question to the Democratic Party: What is your Plan B? Or don't you have one? Just wondering.
17
Wonderful column, Gail. This is a reflection of the three-ring-circus that is the American political scene. Sift through the nonsense with President Obama, and you will get a lot of good he achieved. It's the same with Mrs. Clinton, she's flawed, yes, but in her heart, there is a decent woman who cares about the average American. What is it with this country that political involvement turns into circuses - silly hats and all (standard convention attire).
We are being silly and heading toward oblivion; no one knows what's real anymore.
Thanks, Gail, for your perspective.
We are being silly and heading toward oblivion; no one knows what's real anymore.
Thanks, Gail, for your perspective.
6
Nice column, Gail.
I think the national media underestimates how many "vegetable eaters" there are out here in their readership, while they are busy serving up so much sugar.
Wouldn't it be wonderful to see a campaign focused on significant national issues and not personalities and side issues that do not affect so many people's lives? Dare to dream...
I think the national media underestimates how many "vegetable eaters" there are out here in their readership, while they are busy serving up so much sugar.
Wouldn't it be wonderful to see a campaign focused on significant national issues and not personalities and side issues that do not affect so many people's lives? Dare to dream...
3
If a government employee can decide not only which emails to turnover to the government, but which email system to use for government or personal emails then isn't this just the Press, which does not like the Clintons, whining because their job was made more difficult?
2
Democrats need a choice, not a coronation.
8
Being truthful and earnest about her e-mail decision while in office does not alter the fact that Hillary considered her personal decision to be preferrable to systems put in place by the government she purported to serve. Sound familiar? In her last campaign Hillary made poor staff choices and routinely ignored their recommendations. The manner in which she handled this latest snafu suggests nothing has changed. I’m a lifetime Democrat. If Clinton is the candidate in 2016 I will vote for her, but I believe she will not win. I hope a better candidate surfaces soon.
16
This whole email fiasco is a slap-in-the-face reminder of the exhaustion of the Clinton era. As Collins points out, nothing seems to have changed with Hillary, nor will it. Hillary hasn't even announced her candidacy and I already feel Clinton fatigue. And I like Bill but the idea of the Big Dog back in the White House is almost too much to contemplate. If Jeb Bush is the Republican nominee running against Hillary, I think Bush wins.
12
Hillary's absence from Selma this past Saturday spoke volumes. What is more important to Mrs. Clinton: honoring those who moved America forward fifty years ago and paid a price for it, or attending a glitzy fund raiser in Florida for the multimillion-dollar family foundation?
This was more disappointing than the email controversy.
This was more disappointing than the email controversy.
17
The NY Times has a bad case of Munchausen by proxy disease. You create a lot of sturm und drang over nothing. Then you say you'd like "a little peace and quiet." I don't think your constant chants to burn Hillary at the stake is going to do anything but make her a stronger candidate. First, by stiffening her backbone and thickening her skin, and second, by showing the voting public once and for all that you're agenda driven, dishonest brokers.
5
My biggest fear is that we will continue to be "obsessed" with Hillary crises of one kind or another.
Indeed we do need another candidate but who it should be is the question of the year.
A flawed Hillary is what we will get. We don't need it, but then where else can we turn?
Indeed we do need another candidate but who it should be is the question of the year.
A flawed Hillary is what we will get. We don't need it, but then where else can we turn?
2
You're too optimistic about Hillary's ability to make serious change. She rose to power on her husband's coattails not hers and, once there, not only accomplished nothing of note but bungled two things she was in charge of--transforming medical care during the first Clinton administration and her 2008 presidential campaign. Thus, there is no basis to assume she will be an effective leader as president. It's time the media started looking elsewhere...Mayor Bloomberg, Governors Andrew Cuomo (possibly tainted father aside), Martin O'Malley, Brian Schweitzer, Bill Richardson, others??? SchUnforteffective once in power
7
It doesn't matter whether she's likely to run for presidency or not. It's her married name, Clinton. She's "her flawed self" as everyone else is. Would you share your private emails with the public? She's not an Internet savvy Nexter or digital native. She is one of us, digital immigrants. Give her a break. It's a faux scandal. She didn't jeopardize the national security by writing a letter to the Supreme Ayatolla of Iran or the Dear Leader of North Korea. So, she makes a misjudgment in this nonissue Internet habit. She didn't start a war. She is trying to prevent a war (or wars) in the great civilization of Persia (It's not going to be over here, right? It's not going to be in Israel, right?). She is the victim. Let's direct the blame to where it belongs. Let's tell her attackers to leave her alone and let the DOS investigation run its course. Let's tell the media be fair and balanced and focus on more substantive issues like inequality, campaign finance reform, ban on negative/false advertising, racism, common wealth, ethical codes of politicians and media, peace,and so on.
12
Great! First we have the never ending congressional hearings on Benghazi. Now thanks to the press and media vultures, we're going to have endless investigations on Hillary's emails until November 2016.
6
You had me at 'why she wanted to get rid of a Wall Street tax break for finances known as "carried interest"'.
If Hillary is willing to take on this specialized slice of Wall St. and take other steps to reform the tax code--something Obama egregiously failed to do in 2008 in the wake of the crash--then she will have my support and my vote. The question here is, I think, does the campaign process itself, with its bottomless fund-raising, canapes, and top tier vacations "necessary" to counter the fatigue, suck all the democracy out of candidates before they even take the oath.
If Hillary is willing to take on this specialized slice of Wall St. and take other steps to reform the tax code--something Obama egregiously failed to do in 2008 in the wake of the crash--then she will have my support and my vote. The question here is, I think, does the campaign process itself, with its bottomless fund-raising, canapes, and top tier vacations "necessary" to counter the fatigue, suck all the democracy out of candidates before they even take the oath.
3
Despite all I've read in the NY Times, I have yet to figure out what is the big deal with regard to this e-mail thing. I find myself diverging greatly from the reactions of pundits, reporters and now you, Gail which is unusual for me. While watching Hillary's press conference, it came to me forcefully that this is probably the next president. She came across to me as eminently adequate to any situation. Although I tend to think she is too hawkish and I sort of dread having to be exposed to all these attacks if I'm going to read news at all. All this hullaballu over the e-mails reminds me of just what is wrong with reporting these days. And why we have so many uninformed voters. This is a focusing on trivia and gossip. So we are told by the press that this e-mail thing indicates all sorts of dire things. Many reporters and NY Times commenters are piling on to pillory Hillary. But the fact remains there is a big disconnect between what I'm reading and what I saw for myself. And what is the problem with standing in front of Guernica?
13
Hillary Clinton might change. For example, Sergey Lavrov might come to the US bringing gifts and a red button that says "reject" on it and present this to Hillary Clinton. Then NYT readers can debate the correct spelling of words like "reject," "reset," and "recidivism."
I would like to see all Senators and Congress members release all of their emails. What a hoot that would be. After all, shouldn't ALL elected officials have to disclose, disclose, disclose. I especially want to know who is financing their campaigns.
12
I get tired Hillary Clinton, and the never ending drama that has become here political life.
Then, I think of the Tom Cotton---the "new/new" face in the Republican leadership.
Enough said.
Then, I think of the Tom Cotton---the "new/new" face in the Republican leadership.
Enough said.
6
If you listen to radical conservatives, what Hillary did was downright treasonous and if you listen to staunch liberals, this is much ado about nothing. The truth, as always, lies somewhere in the middle. But the most salient observation to come out of yet another Clinton kerfuffle is that this episode is just the latest in a long history of the Clintonian way of doing business. If we vote her in no one should expect a different outcome. And here's a puzzlement: Which lexicographer decided to embed the word "candid" into the word "candidate"?
2
Ms. Clinton's slavish admirers aside (and obvi they are legion), I'd like to suggest that less enchanted Dems and Indys (like me) take a long look @ Former Senator, Secretary of the Navy and Asst. Sec. of Defense James Webb, who is exploring a run. Like Ms. Clinton, Webb is a formidable geopolitical analyst, unlike her he argued vociferously against the Second Gulf War and is by nature a non-interventionist. He also seems to make all the right noises in re economic justice, an issue on which, let's face it, no former Senator from New York can ever really be taken seriously (Chas. Schumer has been talking about carried interest for years, and somehow the issue always "needs more study"), So let's not give up on alternatives to a Clinton candidacy quite yet. Whatever else, I guarantee we will save ourselves a whole lot of partisan heartburn.
4
But Gail, Hillary hosting the press in front of Guernica was her announcement (somewhat subliminal): voters' choices are GOP hawks bombing somewhere for sure, or Me in NYC tidying up Wall Street.
3
You are so correct, Ms. Collins, there is nothing "cheery" to put in a column about Mrs. Clinton's potential candidacy. It will be serious business. (My only possible hope for 2016 is that Jon Stewart gave up his current gig to run for the VP nomination on her ticket.)
All those NYT business columns about well-qualified women executives being seen as shrill, humorless, pedantic and scolding? Too true so far of her non-candidacy. Plus she is a grandmother, for heavens sake; Only the Democratic party would choose a candidate who can be painted by the opposition as the "nanny state to the max" candidate. Sigh.
It pains me to say this, Ms. Collins, but if Mrs. Clinton is unable to inspire wit and humor from you before she even announces she is running for the nomination, it is going to be one long slog to November of 2016.
All those NYT business columns about well-qualified women executives being seen as shrill, humorless, pedantic and scolding? Too true so far of her non-candidacy. Plus she is a grandmother, for heavens sake; Only the Democratic party would choose a candidate who can be painted by the opposition as the "nanny state to the max" candidate. Sigh.
It pains me to say this, Ms. Collins, but if Mrs. Clinton is unable to inspire wit and humor from you before she even announces she is running for the nomination, it is going to be one long slog to November of 2016.
1
What bothers me so much about the Hillary email mess is that Hillary went through the effort to create a Clinton email domain. So, then the question is why did she do that? I don't believe it was because she didn't want to carry two phones. Isn't privacy worth the price of carrying two phones? In hindsight, I'm sure Hillary's answer would be yes. I expected better from her. It's not the worst fumble in the world, but it makes me feel she couldn't see outside her own head on this one.
3
Perhaps had the Times given all the facts in their initial report--what was the rule about emails, what is the law, did she or did she not break any law, past history of other Secys. of State doing the same thing, etc etc . it might have been more helpful to all concerned.
10
I think the Guernica tapestry was the perfect background. What better way to say, 'there are a lot worse things going on in the world than my emails.'
146
I would certainly hope the columnists and other pundits keep foremost in mind that Hillary has all the right political values and American values. Even though she makes these silly messy errors, as President she would make the decisions most of us would want made for our country. Who else would? Certainly not any of the GOP. If columnists are going to jump all over Hillary for these types of errors which frankly have won't have anything to do with her decisions as President, they should certainly start examining very closely, and informing us all, of what all the candidate would most likely do as President. For so very many of the candidates, the picture will not be at all pretty, and will dwarf these messes Hillary gets herself into. Let's have some perspective, please. Do we want someone even worse than GWB in the White House, ruining the economy, bombing Iran, sending our best men and women into the Middle East quagmire, lowering the taxes on the rich, not investing in education or infrastructure, interfering with women's health decisions, restricting gays, gutting unions? Come on now, please focus on the real issues.
10
Your view of this matter depends on whether you agree with Hillary's view that a "vast right wing conspiracy" exists to bring them (and probably a large portion of the federal - if not states - governments down). As much as I think Ms. Clinton made a mistake on not using a two device approach, I can't help but think that if the personal emails got into the hands of, say, Bill O'Reilly, she'd be criticized beyond belief. Hillary and Bill aren't my candidates so to speak; but their view of a "conspiracy" is sound. Need more evidence? Remember the secret GOP meeting on the night of President Obama's first inauguration and the relentless opposition to him ever since.
6
This completely self inflicted wound by Hillary Clinton must throw into question her judgement. After 25 years, we have come to know Hillary as a cautious, calculating, detail oriented attorney who carefully scripts out every word and deed. She is not prone to impulsive instincts, unlike her other half.
That begs the question........So what would possibly compel her to run the "risk" of establishing an off site e-mail operation that would surely come back to haunt her at some point?
Is she that paranoid? Is she that controlling? Is she trying to hide something?
Simply a quirk of personality or something more nefarious?
That's what makes this entire e-mail escapade an intriguing window into the world of Hillary Clinton.
That begs the question........So what would possibly compel her to run the "risk" of establishing an off site e-mail operation that would surely come back to haunt her at some point?
Is she that paranoid? Is she that controlling? Is she trying to hide something?
Simply a quirk of personality or something more nefarious?
That's what makes this entire e-mail escapade an intriguing window into the world of Hillary Clinton.
2
No background could ever top Sarah Palin talking while turkeys were having their heads cut off.
3
Everyone laughed when Saddam Hussein ran for President and received 99% of the vote. We are such an advanced nation that we can sport two unrepresentative candidates for our electoral farce, while still deluding ourselves we enjoy a choice.
2
I have given up on TV news, I do watch The News Hour on PBS and listen to some NPR, I read the New York Times everyday, and The Hillary Clinton email controversy got my attention mostly from reading the Times reporting, I was somewhat concerned about what I was reading in the Times. I saw her press conference, she looked and sounded great. She dispelled any concerns I might have had after reading all of the Times reporting. The Clintons, rightly, should do everything in their power to keep as much of their private life private. Creating their own server was a good solution to have as much control over their electronic lives as they could, I believed her comments and her answers to reporters questions. The press should be move on to other real stories, I was very disappointed in the Times coverage.
7
The problem with the emails is that it is entirely consistent with Hillary and Bill's pattern of deception, obfuscation, and manipulation.
Neither of them have ever demonstrated a high concern for transparent, ethical behavior. Hillary has not earned our support or vote.
Elizabeth - reconsider!
Neither of them have ever demonstrated a high concern for transparent, ethical behavior. Hillary has not earned our support or vote.
Elizabeth - reconsider!
3
There is no way I'll vote for any of the republican fascist/corporate skanks. That said, voting for Hillary makes me deeply uneasy.
4
So the conservative and republican senators and representatives do not use email. Very smart. There is no record of what they said to whom while in public office. There should be a public record of their phone use...public and private so we can see who they are talking to and what bill sold for what price. The calls can be recorded. Then let someone decide which calls are public and which are private when the written record of each call is produced after midnight each day.
2
Ha! Yes, we appear to be headed into the new era of Grandmother-In-Charge, Eat-your-vegetables American politics. The polls all tell us we're asking for it. Hillary did offer one small morsel of protein when she reminded everyone at her press-o-rama that all federal workers (and perhaps all workers in general) regularly and instantly distinguish *which* emails go in the work account and which go in the personal account. And given Ed Snowden's recent obliteration of the ability to even *classify* data, I suppose I can't really blame her for *opting out* of the public system...
Let's just hope that she will at least show up at the next news conference sporting her new I-Watch, demonstrating the desire to play along with all the grand-kids. And as a true politician, no doubt she'll promise us all a pint of Ben and Jerry's in every freezer at the end of our long day...and maybe some oreos if we promise to begin behaving a little better. That should help tame the surly media!
Let's just hope that she will at least show up at the next news conference sporting her new I-Watch, demonstrating the desire to play along with all the grand-kids. And as a true politician, no doubt she'll promise us all a pint of Ben and Jerry's in every freezer at the end of our long day...and maybe some oreos if we promise to begin behaving a little better. That should help tame the surly media!
2
With Hillary you know her heart is in the right place. When you look across the isle to the heartless crew she is running against---that is where elections are won.
4
The self inflicted trials and tribulations of Hillary make us weary. Her candidacy would likely turn into an " I'm not as bad as the other candidate" race. It would be all about her instead of important issues.
We have no idea what she's for or against, only that she's accomplished academically, had a brief and unremarkable career as a Senator and Secy of State, was married to a flawed, but successful President and now she wants that job because she's a woman.
Hillary, it's not all about you.
We have no idea what she's for or against, only that she's accomplished academically, had a brief and unremarkable career as a Senator and Secy of State, was married to a flawed, but successful President and now she wants that job because she's a woman.
Hillary, it's not all about you.
5
Just see if you want to be waking up to the inauguration of President Jeb Bush and VP Marco Rubio on January 20, 2017. Sorry, folks, but with all her flaws, her cozy Wall Street ties and her prickly performance at the press conference, Hillary is all that stands between us and a much darker America.
9
Other then the fact she is an educated woman what else has she really accomplished? All we talk about is the scandals surrounding her and Bill. The reason is she really has never accomplished anything on her own. How many intelligent female lawyers are out there? Plenty. So her biggest accomplishment has been marrying Bill and sticking with him for better or worse just so she can be in this position where the Dems and the liberal media have ordained her and cannot offer a challenger.
2
The Republicans have new faces to presidential politics except their either look like the Koch brothers or a mix of Robepierrer Mussolini. Hillary has has more intelligence and relevant experience than any two of them put together. The problem with Hillary that she has been slandered by so many made up scandals that were repeated and repeated by the right wing propaganda machine that the misinformed and ill-informed think that she is a monster and a murderer.
5
Ms. Clinton may well have what it takes to be a very good president. Transparency, by the way, is not one of those things. Anyone have any idea what Ronald Reagan said to Margaret Thatcher in their private meetings? Does anyone think that what they said publicly was ALL that they said in their private meetings? If we're going to expect that from a president, then we should expect it from CEO's, bank managers, union leaders, university tenure committees, anyone in a position to affect the public lives of other people. If you can't say it in public, then don't say it. That's not going to happen. Moving beyond that issue, then, I agree with Ms. Collins that it will not be possible to remake Ms. Clinton and it shouldn't be attempted. (Not even the hairstyle.) Evidence for that advice? Al Gore's multiple remakes in 2000. They hurt him, rather than helping him, because he was trying so hard not to be Al Gore.
6
The numbers are key to the controversy and the sum, 62,000, was not said off the cuff. The calculated forty-two messages per day is so implausible that we must assume she is lying. Why? All very reminiscent of Tricky Dick, where the Hillary story ironically begins.
2
<< It’s like telling your older sister that you’d appreciate it if she’d develop a new personality before the family reunion.>> Beautiful.
1
Lets have the server and all the emails in the hands of an independent reviewer or group. Then we can decide if she is too clever, dumb, a liar, or a criminal.
But please no more Hillary. She is a constantly scheming, non-unifier. Not what the country needs now or ever.
But please no more Hillary. She is a constantly scheming, non-unifier. Not what the country needs now or ever.
4
As much as I am ready for a woman president, and would vote of Hill in a heartbeat, I cannot fathom why she wants to run. She can walk away this ongoing debacle with utter confidence her best contributions to the global village are to yet come.
With her husband and the foundation, they have a great chance to do real good in the real world without Cirque du Congress demanding a voice in their actions. They can do more for more as private citizens that she will be able to do as POTUS. She can leave a legacy to her grandchildren that you don't need an election to change the world.
The evil morass that has become Congress is terribly sad to watch. It will eventually bring down our government, and what will replace will be something along the lines of American sharia... with women tossed back to 17th century career choices of consort, concubine, or service wench. How attractive. I keeping thinking about THE HANDMAID'S TALE by Margaret Atwood. That book is positively prescient.
Hillary may actually be the person best qualified to be POTUS, but I'm secretly hoping she smart enough to tell the GOP and her Democrat undercutters to pound sand.
Walk, Hillary, walk.
http://wifelyperson.blogspot.com/
With her husband and the foundation, they have a great chance to do real good in the real world without Cirque du Congress demanding a voice in their actions. They can do more for more as private citizens that she will be able to do as POTUS. She can leave a legacy to her grandchildren that you don't need an election to change the world.
The evil morass that has become Congress is terribly sad to watch. It will eventually bring down our government, and what will replace will be something along the lines of American sharia... with women tossed back to 17th century career choices of consort, concubine, or service wench. How attractive. I keeping thinking about THE HANDMAID'S TALE by Margaret Atwood. That book is positively prescient.
Hillary may actually be the person best qualified to be POTUS, but I'm secretly hoping she smart enough to tell the GOP and her Democrat undercutters to pound sand.
Walk, Hillary, walk.
http://wifelyperson.blogspot.com/
4
Why does our good country have to be subjected to this, again, anew??
We deserve so much better.
Seriously, is this 1992 AGAIN, Bush v. Clinton?? Wake me from this nightmare.
We deserve so much better.
Seriously, is this 1992 AGAIN, Bush v. Clinton?? Wake me from this nightmare.
2
I want to read Darrell Issa's emails--all of them! Whether the emails relate to his work as a congressman or whether they relate to whatever private life he may have. And while we're at it, I'd like to take a long good look into Senator Graham's closet to see if he's hiding anything in there, perhaps the emails that he says he does not send.
It seems to me at some point we must decide whether we want actual human beings serving in public office or whether we want the most boring, unthinking, unliving citizens that this country can pretend to create.
The bottom line is that we really do not have a right to view anybody's private emails and we have to rely upon somebody, even attorneys, to decide which is public and which is private. [I'll leave to another day whether the NSA has already reviewed all of Hillary's communications since graduating law school.]
It seems to me at some point we must decide whether we want actual human beings serving in public office or whether we want the most boring, unthinking, unliving citizens that this country can pretend to create.
The bottom line is that we really do not have a right to view anybody's private emails and we have to rely upon somebody, even attorneys, to decide which is public and which is private. [I'll leave to another day whether the NSA has already reviewed all of Hillary's communications since graduating law school.]
1
Arrogance is irritating. In the case of the Clintons, it is dangerous. People were so fed up with Bill Clinton and his risk-taking behavior that it made it easy for George Bush, the epitomy of averageness to win two elections.
Bill knew "they" were after him but he knew he was so much smarter, and I might add, smarmy. And Hillary-----what can I say? All that intelligence and no common sense.
Bill knew "they" were after him but he knew he was so much smarter, and I might add, smarmy. And Hillary-----what can I say? All that intelligence and no common sense.
2
Watching....which is what we are doing as citizen spectators...is like viewing a Ping Pong match between diligent "insiders". If it dwindles down to Clinton-Bush, we will wait until One takes the Chair to be enthroned. Meanwhile, the World watches without enthrallment.
1
Please, oh please, let's shout it from the rooftops--this is a pure-politics-storm-in-a-teacup-London-Daily-Mail moment. End of story. And don't watch this space.
2
Where's Senator Warren when you need her? Please, I really want a woman in the White House, but does it have to be Hillary?
1
Election 2016 results: Clinton 49% Bush 51% All the rest of us 0%.
2
I suppose that I really don't care what the missing emails say. You are correct, I have my own daily concerns to occupy me. What I care about is that protocol wasn't followed and executive priviledge was abused. I don't want someone of that temperament as my president. Period. Secretary Clinton may not have a campaign staff in place to address these matters efficiently now but she certainly had a whole State Department to do it for her when she was in office. Using her vast politcal experience and undisputably keen intelligence, SHE. DECIDED. NOT. TO. COMPLY.
1
Yes. In the wake of Obama's always dependable eloquence and thoughtful speech, listening to Hillary at the UN was like watching a kindergarten teacher instructing the kiddies not to eat the crayons,measured and deliberately didactic.
Much as many of us may grimace at the thought of spending at least four years with a person of limited grace and always speaking in such pedestrian ways, we should always remember that it is actually holding the office that will make and define the president, as the history of that office shows. Truth is, we have no real clue just how good or bad she will be until if and when she gets there.
Much as many of us may grimace at the thought of spending at least four years with a person of limited grace and always speaking in such pedestrian ways, we should always remember that it is actually holding the office that will make and define the president, as the history of that office shows. Truth is, we have no real clue just how good or bad she will be until if and when she gets there.
Since the Clintons are perceived to be comniving and calculating, does it make sense that Hillary would use only a personal email account to then be free to write emails that might contain information she would want to keep confidential? One has to anticipate that doing something unsavory might eventially be revealed. The Clintons are under great scrutiny. If one wants to communicate something that should never come to public light, one should not write it on electronic mail.
Remember when it was Mitt Romney's undoing to make that cruel crack about the 47%? It seems that the "New 47" is that gaggle of 47 Republicans who signed a letter attempting to undermine the president's efforts in diplomacy with Iran.
This makes this little kerfluffel over Hillary's emails pale by comparison. If she keeps her word and opens all to scrutiny, unless there is something really awful uncovered, she's probably going to run and win in 2016. The New 47 has killed the GOPers chances at the Presidency for a long time to come.
This makes this little kerfluffel over Hillary's emails pale by comparison. If she keeps her word and opens all to scrutiny, unless there is something really awful uncovered, she's probably going to run and win in 2016. The New 47 has killed the GOPers chances at the Presidency for a long time to come.
9
I was struck by another looming scandal Mrs. Clinton will face. She has lost weight, no doubt in preparation for her presidential run and win. What did she do with it? Who helped her? Suspiciously, she looks very good. Why? Has she used government resources to become so svelte, so sparking, so youthful?
We need Congress to investigate immediately. This new development could be a disaster--for Republicans.
We need Congress to investigate immediately. This new development could be a disaster--for Republicans.
10
Hillary should have consulted with Cuomo...just delete everything in ...er...90 days! If the Governor and the AG can do it with actual government emails and New York State business...with a straight face...Hillary has nothing on them.
29
Its al relatives and the repubs have lots of relatives. The clown car is full of disasters. I think,no matter what she is accused of when she finally gets on the debate platform with any of the repub fools she will look sooo good. Not to worry.
If you look at her experience and intelligence and compare it to say Rick Perry. Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz or even the great wall street hipe Jeb Bush it suddenly seems emails are of little importance.
If you look at her experience and intelligence and compare it to say Rick Perry. Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz or even the great wall street hipe Jeb Bush it suddenly seems emails are of little importance.
4
All I can say is, she better have a decidedly competent and articulate running mate. Why are we made to suffer this way? Why so we have to vote against
the horrifying notion of a Republican presidency instead of for an ethical, open, America loving female or male who can lead the country? Oh that other planets were available to colonize! She is not that special.
the horrifying notion of a Republican presidency instead of for an ethical, open, America loving female or male who can lead the country? Oh that other planets were available to colonize! She is not that special.
2
Should we wonder why the New York Times carps on the shame of Hillary's use of private (highly protected) e-mail although it was required by law to choose otherwise, while the Wall Street Journal was quick to point out that that law went into effect AFTER her years as Secretary of State?
Should we wonder why Hillary waited so long to address the e-mail issue publicly, when she could have rushed in while 'everyone knew' she'd broken the law - rather than wait till more actual facts (along with the usual absurd claims) were swirling around and hope the truth will be more believable from the media than the target?
Should we wonder why Hillary waited so long to address the e-mail issue publicly, when she could have rushed in while 'everyone knew' she'd broken the law - rather than wait till more actual facts (along with the usual absurd claims) were swirling around and hope the truth will be more believable from the media than the target?
6
It's about accountability.
Email on government servers, assuming it is properly archived, is a matter of record. Without this record, politicians do what they want and there is no recourse. Without this record, politicians keep dirty secrets.
Yes, it was a matter of convenience. But not the convenience of having only one smartphone. The convenience of no accountability.
Does she have any skeletons or was she just being royal? Who knows? But either way, it is bad. Very bad.
PS: in many responsible private sector jobs, conducting official business on private email is cause for dismissal.
Email on government servers, assuming it is properly archived, is a matter of record. Without this record, politicians do what they want and there is no recourse. Without this record, politicians keep dirty secrets.
Yes, it was a matter of convenience. But not the convenience of having only one smartphone. The convenience of no accountability.
Does she have any skeletons or was she just being royal? Who knows? But either way, it is bad. Very bad.
PS: in many responsible private sector jobs, conducting official business on private email is cause for dismissal.
4
A Hillary Clinton candidacy is being shoved down the throats of Democrats by middle aged women and the Clintons themselves. I am tired of the Clintons. I voted for Barack Obama twice. This latest press conference reminds me why I am SO tired of the Clintons. I am a registered Democrat. However, unless the Democrats come up with someone else, I am voting Republican this time around. I dont want to listen to any more "It depends on what the definition of IS is" shenanigans. Sorry, middle aged women of America.
2
Personally, I think it's perfectly fine if the media want to harp about Hillary's e-mails. No other politician uses private e-mails. Republicans are all completely transparent and aboveboard on this matter. We know this because we heard it on Fox News.
Hillary's e-mails are clearly a threat to national security. The Iranians, in particular, need to know if she is fomenting war against their country in her e-mails. They might bomb us, or Israel, in retaliation for Hillary's e-mails. Our foreign policy gurus in Congress, such as Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, certainly should take offense that Hillary might be usurping their roles as President and Secretary of State. After all, without the wise foreign policy counsel of McConnell and Boehner, how would the U.S. ever be able to assert itself as the leader of the free world?
Hillary's e-mails are clearly a threat to national security. The Iranians, in particular, need to know if she is fomenting war against their country in her e-mails. They might bomb us, or Israel, in retaliation for Hillary's e-mails. Our foreign policy gurus in Congress, such as Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, certainly should take offense that Hillary might be usurping their roles as President and Secretary of State. After all, without the wise foreign policy counsel of McConnell and Boehner, how would the U.S. ever be able to assert itself as the leader of the free world?
7
Do you know people who crave crises because they make them feel effective? If there are no crises, they create them...just for the thrill of it. Most people outgrow this need for constant adrenalin fixes by the time they reach college but it appears this is what binds the Clinton marriage together and has become their lifelong MO. Nice for them but exhausting for the rest of us. Is there a therapist in the house?
2
Let's nominate Jim Webb and bring honor to the Presidency. Mr. Webb can also help the Democrats regain control of the Congress in 2018. Ms. Clinton is merely a "celebrity." Having a woman in the White House is far less important than having women earn a living wage and gain income equality in her own "house."
2
This isn't a crisis, except for Ms. Clinton's personal political ambitions, which contrary to what she and Bill have believed lo these many years, crises of their personal political ambitions do not constitute crises for the republic.
So, this doesn't count as an answer to the question of how well she handles crisis.
So, this doesn't count as an answer to the question of how well she handles crisis.
Why do we need Republicans to trash a likely Hillary Clinton candidacy, when we have the liberal mainstream media doing the job for them?
Well, let them keep up this much ado about nothing, and we will have a Republican president in the White House in 2016 – ironically, one who also used a private email account while he was governor!
But c’mon that was different – he is a guy, he was a governor, he is a Republican, he is a Bush, he is trustworthy – c’mon totally different!
Well, let them keep up this much ado about nothing, and we will have a Republican president in the White House in 2016 – ironically, one who also used a private email account while he was governor!
But c’mon that was different – he is a guy, he was a governor, he is a Republican, he is a Bush, he is trustworthy – c’mon totally different!
7
Hillary is a policy wonk type much like Al Gore. She looks phony when she tries to act, because she is not a good actor. For example, during her email presser when she kept dredging up her daughter's wedding and her Mom's funeral it appears that she is straining to pull people to her side (mawkishly, as a commenter yesterday well stated), or when she started off her book tour by stating that she and Bill could feel for the financial bind people find themselves in because they were flat broke when they left the White House. Every time she tries to connect with the people it seems so contrived and phony. Her email presser was just the latest iteration.
36
Full stop: why does Hillary Clinton want to be president? Where does she want to take the nation and its government and where would she like to lead us?
We can count on her to make some adjustments here and there. Some of them would be technical in nature, but would likely bring some benefit to the middle economic class and the poor. If she were to win, most likely she would face a Congress controlled in one or both houses by the opposition, just like Obama. Big bold stuff? Perhaps keep us out of war and make some good Supreme Court appointments.
She is not the leader of any movement, other than to finally place a female in the highest, most honorific position in America. For millions, that's enough to be excited. Obama gave millions of voters the chance to demonstrate their willingness to support someone with African heritage for the presidency, something that would have been truly shocking a generation earlier. Is the presidency about breakthroughs or getting where we need to go?
America right now needs new ideas and a fresh way of doing things, ideas that leave the "we oppose everything" Republicans babbling over their breakfast bowls, confused. Mrs. Clinton is not a candidate of ideas. The road ahead looks like a roller coaster ride of more controversies and little inspiration, which could lead to a presidency of the same sort.
http://terryreport.com
2
One reaction:
Please, Elizabeth Warren, declare your candidacy.
Please, Elizabeth Warren, declare your candidacy.
1
Please, oh please Gail, turn your attention to the 47 buffoons who sent the letter to Iran. I could use your witty brand of cheering up right about now.
8
How convenient that after reading the US state department email server usage disclaimer, Hillary decided to use her own email server:
http://eegoweb1e.state.gov/ive/index.php
"You are about to enter a Department of State computer system or network. Use by unauthorized persons, or for unauthorized personal business, is prohibited and may constitute a violation of 18 U.S.C. 1030 and other Federal law, as well as applicable Department policies and procedures.
You have NO REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY while using this computer system or network. All data contained and/or activities performed herein may be monitored, intercepted, recorded, read, copied, or captured in any manner by authorized personnel. System management personnel or supervisors may give law enforcement officials or appropriate Department managers any potential evidence of crime, fraud, or employee misconduct found on this computer system or network, and employees may be subject to discipline for misuse. Furthermore, law enforcement officials may be authorized to access and collect evidence from this computer system or network, or from any portable devices that have been connected to this computer system or network. Nothing herein consents to the search or seizure of a privately-owned computer or other privately owned communications device, or the contents thereof, that is in the system user's home."
http://eegoweb1e.state.gov/ive/index.php
"You are about to enter a Department of State computer system or network. Use by unauthorized persons, or for unauthorized personal business, is prohibited and may constitute a violation of 18 U.S.C. 1030 and other Federal law, as well as applicable Department policies and procedures.
You have NO REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY while using this computer system or network. All data contained and/or activities performed herein may be monitored, intercepted, recorded, read, copied, or captured in any manner by authorized personnel. System management personnel or supervisors may give law enforcement officials or appropriate Department managers any potential evidence of crime, fraud, or employee misconduct found on this computer system or network, and employees may be subject to discipline for misuse. Furthermore, law enforcement officials may be authorized to access and collect evidence from this computer system or network, or from any portable devices that have been connected to this computer system or network. Nothing herein consents to the search or seizure of a privately-owned computer or other privately owned communications device, or the contents thereof, that is in the system user's home."
1
This is the best piece I've read on the Clinton email fiasco; thank you, Gail Collins, for saying most of what can be said about this topic, and for saying it succinctly. And oh yes, for pointing out that a copy of Picasso's "Guernica" was in the background at Hillary's press conference--a reminder that there are matters more important than email that are crying out for our attention.
1
The core issue of this "scandal" is that the person fourth in line of succession to the Presidency choose to use a single device for communications after being told by the professional civil service deputies in the State Department that this was a perfectly valid option.
She had just moved from the Senate, where use of a personal email account for official business is common practice. Had she, in those hectic days at the beginning of her move to the Executive Branch, chosen to use two devices rather than one, there would be no issue whatsoever. (And no, she didn't have the option of putting her personal email account on a government-issued phone).
As scandalous acts go, "not using two smartphones" has got to be just about the weakest ever.
She had just moved from the Senate, where use of a personal email account for official business is common practice. Had she, in those hectic days at the beginning of her move to the Executive Branch, chosen to use two devices rather than one, there would be no issue whatsoever. (And no, she didn't have the option of putting her personal email account on a government-issued phone).
As scandalous acts go, "not using two smartphones" has got to be just about the weakest ever.
7
I am amused that so many commentators respond to the various Hilary messes by saying that, well, she is better than Bush or Paul or Walker. Why is she getting the nomination by acclamation when there could be a better candidate? The she stinks and they stink more reaction seems strange to me.
2
If Collins and the NYT are so obsessed with email, why aren't they giving equal time to Scott Walker's parallel, secret email system while he was Milwaukee County executive? And to his allies desperate fight to keep the evidence secret by legal maneuvering that has thrown the battle into the corrupt, Club for Groth funded Wisconsin Supreme Court.?
12
What do Hillary Clinton's critics think she was doing while in office as President Obama's first Secretary of State? Checking her Spam? This whole email initiative against Hillary by the GOP is just another tempest in a teacup effort to prevent HRC for running for President next year. I am not a great Hillary fan, but she has been too unfairly judged and found wanting by the Republicans.
7
The beef in this Hillary media party patty is all filler. Y'all in the press have been brow-beaten into copping to the TP-OP's bidding... to be meet the right's version of "fair and balanced" .... balanced so that Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein wouldnt begin to understand. Push that Senate letter to Iran to the back pages!
2
Maybe the Guernica backdrop wasn't a accident at all. Maybe it was designed to say: "See? It can always be worse!"
1
The nation is not obsessed with Hilary's emails, the press it. Move on.
6
Hillary is a proven liar and extremely deceptive in her politics. The email scam more than proves how unqualified she is for any public office especially the office of President of the USA. She honestly believes that she is above the law and the rules do not apply to her.
3
unlike virtually every other declared candidate of either party in the race? American politics is so slimy and driven by extraordinarily large amounts of cash that it's virtually impossible not to reach the point where you'd be running for potus and not have problems. on top of that social media, hypocrisy and the inability of the dwindling amount of 'folks' who bother to vote to realize that OTHER adults aren't as pure as five year olds is a problem.
1
On the other hand, if we put the clown clown car of GOP Presidential hopefuls out in front of "Guernica", it would suddenly begin looking more like a Monet.
6
What a non-ediitorial column, Gail. You must have something really important on your mind.
Forget the orator part. We have one of those now and his record is near nada. The issue is leadership. This candidate has no clue about leadership and politics. She is far worse than the current, so-called leader, and he has done virtually nothing to lead....he only proclaims.
One hopes that we have learned a lesson from Obama that black and bright is not the same as leadership. We will soon learn that being female and backwards dancing is not the answer, either.
It's wisdom and being able to politick that we so sorely need. We will not find them here.
Forget the orator part. We have one of those now and his record is near nada. The issue is leadership. This candidate has no clue about leadership and politics. She is far worse than the current, so-called leader, and he has done virtually nothing to lead....he only proclaims.
One hopes that we have learned a lesson from Obama that black and bright is not the same as leadership. We will soon learn that being female and backwards dancing is not the answer, either.
It's wisdom and being able to politick that we so sorely need. We will not find them here.
When any politician, I guess Hillary is not just any politician, can't or won't give honest answers and refers to the expression "Just trust me" you know we're in trouble.
Thought I heard John Kerry utter the same words last week about the Iran talks.
And didn't President Obama say the same thing about our doctors?
Must be the Democratic party slogan!
Thought I heard John Kerry utter the same words last week about the Iran talks.
And didn't President Obama say the same thing about our doctors?
Must be the Democratic party slogan!
1
So…let’s get this straight: Mrs. Clinton must Prove her Innocence, right? Wow. That’s hard to do. She has to prove she didn’t do anything wrong. What other government official, past or present, is being held to this standard? Is anyone else being investgated for using private email? Anyone?
This is like the days when the press obsessed about her pantsuits.
This is like the days when the press obsessed about her pantsuits.
10
Can we get past the Clinton Distraction? The issue isn't whether Hillary is being truthful about what emails she deleted, the issue must be looked at in the following context:
Hillary and her advisers made a conscious decision just before she was confirmed as Sec State to architect an email system for the specific purpose of allowing her to conduct Sec State communications off of Government controlled IT infrastructure.
The system that Hillary decided to use utilized servers that would not be in a managed datacenter but would be on servers physically located in Hillary's home. This doesn't pass the smell test politically because it doesn't lend itself to transparency, it also provides "bad optics" that no one looking to win the trust of the American voter needs, especially a Clinton who has only a casual relationship with truth to begin with. From an IT Security and Operations standpoint, this doesn't pass the smell test when you consider the scope of monitoring, maintenance and activity Hillary's staff would have taken on by keeping these servers out of a managed datacenter. Maybe we are to believe that Hillary is a tech geek deep down and has a passion for staying on top of security trends, doing backups and maintaining an email system, or was it a carefully crafted strategy to control access to her email and ensure that if something gets deleted, it doesn't show up on a mirrored system or conveniently found backup set that Hillary's team could not purge themselves?
Hillary and her advisers made a conscious decision just before she was confirmed as Sec State to architect an email system for the specific purpose of allowing her to conduct Sec State communications off of Government controlled IT infrastructure.
The system that Hillary decided to use utilized servers that would not be in a managed datacenter but would be on servers physically located in Hillary's home. This doesn't pass the smell test politically because it doesn't lend itself to transparency, it also provides "bad optics" that no one looking to win the trust of the American voter needs, especially a Clinton who has only a casual relationship with truth to begin with. From an IT Security and Operations standpoint, this doesn't pass the smell test when you consider the scope of monitoring, maintenance and activity Hillary's staff would have taken on by keeping these servers out of a managed datacenter. Maybe we are to believe that Hillary is a tech geek deep down and has a passion for staying on top of security trends, doing backups and maintaining an email system, or was it a carefully crafted strategy to control access to her email and ensure that if something gets deleted, it doesn't show up on a mirrored system or conveniently found backup set that Hillary's team could not purge themselves?
We the American taxpayer demand to know verbatim the contents of Hillary's emails relating to Chelsea's marriage. This is especially critical as Chelsea's husband was/is of Jewish lineage and may have sought to influence Hillary's judgments about Israeli/Palestinian issues. Voters want to know the full details and will not rest until they are revealed.
2
It is the middle aged women of this country---many of them politicians---who are so personally invested in a Hillary candidacy. They and the Clintons have shoved the Hillary candidacy down the throats of the Democratic Party.
3
I don't care about the email issue. Is Hillary Clinton the most electable candidate we can present? We must have somebody out there who can fire-up the electorate. Hillary is too-familiar, snappish, aging, a proven presidential loser and polarizing in the extreme. With the current crop of Republican oddballs and hopefuls, there might be a candidate who can siphon off enough Democratic votes to take the Presidency. Like the Republicans, Democrats need a new face in the mix.
2
she's going to be a great president
3
It's more than, "exhausting". More than a "mess".
It's the real Hillary.
What you see is what you get.
It's the real Hillary.
What you see is what you get.
1
.
.
I have a lot I could say but (1) Ms. Collins knows more about Mrs. Clinton's presentation style than almost anyone, and (2) I'm sure some of the 161 Comments have said whatever needed to be said!
I am mainly writing to express my hope that Secy. Clinton runs (and wins); and moreover, to thank Our Favorite Columnist for using "Hillary Clinton" (rather than merely "Hillary") in the headline and first paragraph.
For those of you of little faith, please realize that any Democrat running against any of the flawed Republicans in the race will get at least 230 Electoral Votes (Obama exceeded 330 both times). I'm fairly certain Sen. Clinton can get to 270. If a candidate can't pick up a couple of swing states to reach 270, she doesn't deserve to win.
Besides, although Hillary Clinton is a dull speaker, she has excellent campaign surrogates in former President Bill Clinton, Dr. Chelsea [last name uncertain], and baby Charlotte!
.
I have a lot I could say but (1) Ms. Collins knows more about Mrs. Clinton's presentation style than almost anyone, and (2) I'm sure some of the 161 Comments have said whatever needed to be said!
I am mainly writing to express my hope that Secy. Clinton runs (and wins); and moreover, to thank Our Favorite Columnist for using "Hillary Clinton" (rather than merely "Hillary") in the headline and first paragraph.
For those of you of little faith, please realize that any Democrat running against any of the flawed Republicans in the race will get at least 230 Electoral Votes (Obama exceeded 330 both times). I'm fairly certain Sen. Clinton can get to 270. If a candidate can't pick up a couple of swing states to reach 270, she doesn't deserve to win.
Besides, although Hillary Clinton is a dull speaker, she has excellent campaign surrogates in former President Bill Clinton, Dr. Chelsea [last name uncertain], and baby Charlotte!
1
The problem is we are already weary of Hillary and it's only March 2015.
79
I won't judge her on the email issue, but I will on her record.
Speaking at the JFK Library in Boston in November 2014, Senator Warren was asked about Democrats that supported a Bush-era bankruptcy bill that won bipartisan support. Warren began her impassioned 5-minute answer by saying, “God, it was awful,” before hammering Democrats, like Clinton and Biden, for surrendering to an “army of lobbyists” and inspiring her fight for consumer advocacy.
In her previous book, The Two Income Trap, Warren singled out Clinton for criticism among Democrats that supported the bankruptcy bill, saying she “could not afford such a principled position,” and noted the contributions she received from banking and industry executives:
In the spring of 2001, the bankruptcy bill was reintroduced in the Senate, essentially unchanged from the version President Clinton had vetoed the previous year. This time freshman Senator Clinton voted in favor of the bill. Had the bill been transformed to get rid of all those awful provisions that had so concerned First Lady Hillary Clinton? As First Lady, Mrs. Clinton had been persuaded that the bill was bad for families, and she was willing to fight for her beliefs. Her husband was a lame duck at the time he vetoed the bill; he could afford to forgo future campaign contributions. As New York’s newest senator, however, it seems that Hillary Clinton could not afford such a principled position.
Whose side do you think Hillary is on?
Speaking at the JFK Library in Boston in November 2014, Senator Warren was asked about Democrats that supported a Bush-era bankruptcy bill that won bipartisan support. Warren began her impassioned 5-minute answer by saying, “God, it was awful,” before hammering Democrats, like Clinton and Biden, for surrendering to an “army of lobbyists” and inspiring her fight for consumer advocacy.
In her previous book, The Two Income Trap, Warren singled out Clinton for criticism among Democrats that supported the bankruptcy bill, saying she “could not afford such a principled position,” and noted the contributions she received from banking and industry executives:
In the spring of 2001, the bankruptcy bill was reintroduced in the Senate, essentially unchanged from the version President Clinton had vetoed the previous year. This time freshman Senator Clinton voted in favor of the bill. Had the bill been transformed to get rid of all those awful provisions that had so concerned First Lady Hillary Clinton? As First Lady, Mrs. Clinton had been persuaded that the bill was bad for families, and she was willing to fight for her beliefs. Her husband was a lame duck at the time he vetoed the bill; he could afford to forgo future campaign contributions. As New York’s newest senator, however, it seems that Hillary Clinton could not afford such a principled position.
Whose side do you think Hillary is on?
2
We now live in an on-line, social media driven world where everybody trips up. Everybody has an email exchange that would be awkward to explain to a spouse/significant other. (Wait, I need to delete my Chrome history.) The safest route is that taken by John McCain, simply be a computer illiterate.
The biggest news of last week, a one-day news wonder, was Robert Putnam's "Our Kids: The American Dream in Crisis." Yes, a bigger deal than the Apple watch or the Bibi/Adelson speech . Child poverty is big league, adult stuff. Too bad, kids can't vote, so the issue is invisible to Congress.
If Hillary spoke of childhood poverty in ways she's capable, I'd definitely be listening.
The biggest news of last week, a one-day news wonder, was Robert Putnam's "Our Kids: The American Dream in Crisis." Yes, a bigger deal than the Apple watch or the Bibi/Adelson speech . Child poverty is big league, adult stuff. Too bad, kids can't vote, so the issue is invisible to Congress.
If Hillary spoke of childhood poverty in ways she's capable, I'd definitely be listening.
81
Hillary's not the best orator, but watch out for her in debate. She'd wipe the floor with the likes of Scott Walker. And take her at her word about the emails, if for no other reason than that the issue, while contrived, has the potential to do real damage. If she hasn't handed over everything relating to work, she has left herself open to revelations from the recipients of the undisclosed emails, or their staffs, or Republican spies -- or, come to think of it, forgers. But remember: the Republicans will use the same smear tactics on anyone who dares to oppose them. At this juncture in history, better the warrior and the warts we know than a pretty new face before it's been given a bloody nose.
161
I never cease to be amazed by the media's ability to miss the big picture. Whether Mrs. Clinton should have used a "state.gov" email address while serving in the Obama administration is not the point; the point is that she is taken seriously as a candidate only because her husband was President.
This country is full of accomplished and talented women. Surely the Democratic party can convince a few of them to be candidates. Hey, some of them even serve in Congress!
Of course, the bigger big picture is what the prospect of a Clinton nomination says about the Democratic party and our politics generally. It says nothing good, that's for sure, and reporters should be looking into the widespread disgust with the way candidates are chosen and elections are paid for. Our system is broken. Write about that!
This country is full of accomplished and talented women. Surely the Democratic party can convince a few of them to be candidates. Hey, some of them even serve in Congress!
Of course, the bigger big picture is what the prospect of a Clinton nomination says about the Democratic party and our politics generally. It says nothing good, that's for sure, and reporters should be looking into the widespread disgust with the way candidates are chosen and elections are paid for. Our system is broken. Write about that!
7
Guernica was a major rail center in Northeastern Spain and was a legimate target of war. No bombs landed in the town and the pictures of destruction and wanton killing of civilians were "products" of the Republican propaganda machine. Both sides were guilty of atrocities in this war and there was no need for either side to make up strocities that didn't exist. The bombing of Guernica's rail center was not the atrocity that the Republican side made it out to be. (see Arthur Koestler)
May I suggest that Ms Cliinton's Email problems are not quite the "atrocity" US Republicans are hoping they might turn out to be? As with the Benghazi nonsense it is merely another non-issue raised by frustrated Republicans madly searching for a real issue to support their cause.
May I suggest that Ms Cliinton's Email problems are not quite the "atrocity" US Republicans are hoping they might turn out to be? As with the Benghazi nonsense it is merely another non-issue raised by frustrated Republicans madly searching for a real issue to support their cause.
13
WRONG! On every level. The bombing of Guernica was nothing but a display of unbridled power, requested by Spanish Nazis, carried out by Hitler's German air-war machine. Your history is terribly flawed.
Good point about both sides in the Spanish Civil War being guilty of horrible atrocities. If you don't believe it, reread " For Whom the Bell Tolls " by Ernest Hemingway.
Those who hate Hillary Clinton will continue to hate her. Those who love the Clintons will continue to find her faultless. However, for the rest of us her actions around her email account while she represented us to the rest of the world are self-serving, suspicious and inexcusable. As a woman I had my fingers crossed that she would run next year. However, I've come to the sad conclusion that this woman is not fit to represent our sex as the first female U.S. President, let alone lead our nation.
12
How tightly were those fingers crossed, Steph?
1
Who goes to a new job and brings their own e-mail server?
If I had a job candidate ask if they could do that, the answer would be a quick "no," followed by a private thought - dare not spoken - of "what the heck are they trying to hide?"
If I had a job candidate ask if they could do that, the answer would be a quick "no," followed by a private thought - dare not spoken - of "what the heck are they trying to hide?"
4
Hillary is intellectually lazy on the point of public service and the boundary between personal and public lives. The Clinton's have been bombarded on this line for years, deservedly so as neither of them can seem to tell where the line is and they keep assuming its somewhere it isn't. These lines are pretty well known, even GWBush pretty much got them right. Why can't these big personalities manage it?
5
Is this the same GW Bush who calls President Clinton part of the Bush family now? Whose father refers to him as another "son"?
Our whole political system is just sad. Out of approximately 100 million eligible people who could run for the Presidency, we always pick oddball political operatives with little or no talent. The track record over the last four or five presidencies has been awful and here we go again with Hillary.
We know exactly who she is by now and it isn't pleasant. The little show she put on at the United Nations wasn't honest or forthcoming and insulted all of us who have had to carefully follow classification and communications rules while in government service. We would have gone to jail for what she said she did for "convenience".
Are we all just stupid?
We know exactly who she is by now and it isn't pleasant. The little show she put on at the United Nations wasn't honest or forthcoming and insulted all of us who have had to carefully follow classification and communications rules while in government service. We would have gone to jail for what she said she did for "convenience".
Are we all just stupid?
14
In response to your question, Yes!
The writer is another person remarkably gifted and qualified for the presidency but is not fortunate to have either a famous family or great wealth?
1
62,000 emails resulting in 55,000 pages printed out?
Wow, government employees can be succinct if they want to.
Wow, government employees can be succinct if they want to.
4
The 55000 is only the total pages she gave State Dept from her 30490/work emails. She says her lawyers deleted her personal 32000 emails, but i bet they printed them all first just like the ones that went to the State Dept
Just wondering. How long does it take to print 55,000 emails? How many trees did THAT use up?
3
Dear Gail! First you are fond of HC for her "one-of-us" qualities, then you resign to "no better alternative", and than you list alternative interpretations for her weak performance on emails. May be it wasn't weak. Wait for the emails...
2
Now that we have all bought into the silly assumption that every email of every public official must be saved, let's equip them all with body cams, and then insist that every minute of every day be captured and saved for posterity.
13
The Republicans have spent millions of dollars on numerous Congressional investigations of the tragedy in Benghazi. How can it be that they only now found out about Hillary Clinton's email and only from a story in the New York Times, no less?
10
I enjoy Ms. Collins' columns. But you know what my pain is? My pain is that with a population of 318 million people, we can't do better than this. Let me put on my Jack Reacher hat for a moment. If we have 318M people in this country, let's assume that 310M are citizens. Of that, 50% are old enough to be president. So that's 160M. Roughly half are democrats. 80M. Let's be sexist, and say that it's time for a female president, so we're down to 40M. We want someone smart, above average, so we'll just take the cream, the top 10%. 4M. Let's say half of those have no charisma and/or don't enjoy public speaking. 2M. And half of those want to raise a family or continue with their career, so we're down to a million intelligent, charismatic women of the proper age. Surely we can find someone in those million people who can run for office without constantly annoying her detractors and supporters both. Hey, YO! Hillary! Yo, girl, just because it's not technically illegal or there was no specific written procedure that you failed to follow does not make it right. Sometimes common sense has to fit in there too.
5
The math lesson doesn't go far enough.
From the number of eligible citizens, you would need to exclude all of the following:
People with no significant experience in high-level government positions, people not willing to endure juvenile critiques of everything, relevant or irrelevant to the job and people not willing to give up their private lives.
From the number of eligible citizens, you would need to exclude all of the following:
People with no significant experience in high-level government positions, people not willing to endure juvenile critiques of everything, relevant or irrelevant to the job and people not willing to give up their private lives.
2
Agreed. Same goes for the Repubs finding someone better than another Bush.
1
How many would be immuned to the 24/7 microscope of Fox news?
2
Well, the next thing the GOP will want is audio tapes of conversations the president has, in the oval office, with staff et al.
2
D) All of the above
2
Entitlement, entitlement, entitlement and entitlement. For better or worse Hilary is the heir apparent for the Democratic nomination; but is she vulnerable? Her book tour was a disaster as she equated herself as poor and not able to meet the mortgages on her” houses”,showing her insulation from the poor and working class! Her imposition on NY politics has given her a perception of being a carpetbagger , a friend and advocate for wall street! True other Secretary of States have used private email accounts but that was prior to the newly place law in 2009 requiring all State Department employees to have and use government email accounts; true it is a minor issue maybe petty; but it shows how Hilary abides to the rules only if it is convenient to her.....If she runs she must have an arduous and a difficult primary, exposing her short coming. Elizabeth Warren, the true progressive, must run, challenge and confront Hillary to her Wall Street ties. The weakness of the republican and the democratic field should not be an entitlement for Hilary...! This election, I might just sit out!
9
Good grief George! Don't even think about sitting it out. Hillary may not be, is not, perfect, but show me a past president who was.
The surest way for the Republicans to take the White House is for all us disgusted Democrats to stay home. Poor us, poor us, we have a less than perfect candidate, so I will show her a thing or two. Please!
Give it up. Keep the White House from the truly deficient Republican candidates. Hey, at least Hillary knows the world is more than 6,000 years old.
The surest way for the Republicans to take the White House is for all us disgusted Democrats to stay home. Poor us, poor us, we have a less than perfect candidate, so I will show her a thing or two. Please!
Give it up. Keep the White House from the truly deficient Republican candidates. Hey, at least Hillary knows the world is more than 6,000 years old.
6
During her press conference Hillary looked like she was auditioning for the role of nurse Ratchet in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. She got everything right even the tightly wound hair as she testily presided over the therapy session and didn't like it when the patients asked too many questions.
8
Hillary stood by her husband in his hour of need and kept her family together. If more women were as strong as Hillary when their husband strays from the marital bed then the divorce rate would fall.
She deserves our support for President.
She deserves our support for President.
5
Well then, why not run Tammy Wynette for president, if that's your criteria?
Actually, I'd rather have her than Hillary, but no. Sadly, Tammy has passed on.
Actually, I'd rather have her than Hillary, but no. Sadly, Tammy has passed on.
Some people are far betters doers than talkers or apologists. We could use more doers in the government these days...
3
Two words will sink her candidacy - Jeffrey Epstein. When the moment is right..., the Republicans will bring that up.
Hillary's pantsuits may be clean, but there are still some more dirty dresses around and some of her personal emails more than likely related to those, if history is any indication.
We can understand better why Hillary felt she had to dump those personal emails after it was discovered that her emails couldn't be searched by a third party without seeing that BILL's emails were co-mingled. But wait! If he only sent two in his life when he was President, why did he need his very own server and system? Never mind.
The right candidate with the right principles would generate more natural excitement and motivation to vote than money can buy. This time, let's go by actions and not 'just words'.
Hillary's pantsuits may be clean, but there are still some more dirty dresses around and some of her personal emails more than likely related to those, if history is any indication.
We can understand better why Hillary felt she had to dump those personal emails after it was discovered that her emails couldn't be searched by a third party without seeing that BILL's emails were co-mingled. But wait! If he only sent two in his life when he was President, why did he need his very own server and system? Never mind.
The right candidate with the right principles would generate more natural excitement and motivation to vote than money can buy. This time, let's go by actions and not 'just words'.
3
What a horrible cheap shot. Shame on you. Hillary had less than nothing to do with her husband's sexual exploits. Trying to shame her by association is truly perverse and a bit sickening.
6
Abolishing carried interest is not an eat-your-vegetables issue, it is an obvious matter of privilege for high finance that consistently draws support across the political spectrum. But what have Clinton and Democratic politicians in general done about this when they have actually had the chance? Clinton and others have consistently adopted an anti-plutocratic rhetoric but done the opposite when it comes to real action.
12
The Republicans are lucky to have Hilary Clinton as their only opponent in the 2015 and 2016 presidential campaign. One, she is a seriously flawed candidate, whom many Americans, however much they may admire her positions do not trust her or her amen-chorus of defenders. Two, she is the inescapable and irreplaceable candidate, for the Democrats have no bench. But she is lucky to have the motley crew of Republican candidates as her opponents. Only 18 more months of a dog fight of mutts on both sides.
6
The fact is there just wasn't any concrete harm in Hillary's email decision. What crisis is directly a result from her action? None.
Speculation doesn't count in a society that makes decisions on so called facts.
There is a group out there who would rather have a housewife run and lose the nomination; so they can say -- "See, the Presidency is no place for a woman."
There will be more trash thrown at the concept of a woman President of the United States, ignoring of course world history and strong women leaders in from other countries: Maggie Thatcher, Golda Meir, Catherine the Great, Indira Ghandi come to mind. Hilary is strong just like those effective women.
We're at a time in history where gender change in the White House is a necessary statement in a "free society." We are experiencing way too much degregation of minorities on all levels. This is not the way an open society should be acting: progress must be inclusive, not exclusive.
Speculation doesn't count in a society that makes decisions on so called facts.
There is a group out there who would rather have a housewife run and lose the nomination; so they can say -- "See, the Presidency is no place for a woman."
There will be more trash thrown at the concept of a woman President of the United States, ignoring of course world history and strong women leaders in from other countries: Maggie Thatcher, Golda Meir, Catherine the Great, Indira Ghandi come to mind. Hilary is strong just like those effective women.
We're at a time in history where gender change in the White House is a necessary statement in a "free society." We are experiencing way too much degregation of minorities on all levels. This is not the way an open society should be acting: progress must be inclusive, not exclusive.
20
Women are not a minority. In fact, strictly speaking, they are the majority.
1
It's much too soon to judge Hillary's response to her e-mail fiasco. Probably safer to wait until at least the 4th or 5th version.
35
Are the Democrats going to have a primary election or did I miss something?
I feel a bit like the guy that walked into Hobson's stable in need of a horse.
I feel a bit like the guy that walked into Hobson's stable in need of a horse.
1
This is about the best assessment of the Clinton email crisis. The same Hillary both good and bad. At the end of the day the change voters seek is us. We as voters need to focus less on media moments and gotchas, and more on retail political issues that matter. Well laid out.
3
The Clinton-hating Right-wing scandal machine, led by Republicans abusing the congressional oversight process, spent hundreds of millions of dollars investigating fake scandals in the 1990's. They are incapable of, and have no interest in, governing. The legitimate media loses all credibility when it follows along with the Republican echo chamber.
The Right will viciously mear any Democrat, so forget the "Hillary has too much baggage" meme.
The Right will viciously mear any Democrat, so forget the "Hillary has too much baggage" meme.
12
The Hillary e.mail "crisis" would be hardly a blip if the GOP wasn't drooling all over it.
3
Wrong, as a very active Democrat in Iowa I can assure you Iowa Democrats care about this issue, and only her most blind supporters think it is nothing.
This email thing is getting a little tiresome but so is Hillary. She has been around too long and has been a subject in too many political fiascoes. I will support her if she is the presidential nominee since the Republican approach to governance and life in general is just plain dumb. The Democrats have other, better candidates (Elizabeth Warren, Jim Webb) but they don't have the celebrity status of Hillary and that is what it takes to get elected in this country. We will probably be stuck with Hillary but I have the uneasy feeling that she peaked some years back.
7
The guilt by innuendo as news will continue. Especially at the NY Times, which seems to have Hillary hate be the one area which doesn't require fact checking by editors.
4
Open your eyes. Is the vast right wing conspiracy is now so vast it includes the New York Times, and Washington Post? How about a reality check. You can't claim in the spring of 2008 that the Bush administration is shredding the constitution because of missing emails, and then 9-10 months later set up a private email server, under someone else's name (which was conveniently misplaced making tracing the server to Clinton's more difficult) This was 100% Hillary's own doing.
Some members of the press and Mrs. Clinton's surrogates snicker at the thought - but we need a Democratic Primary. Hillary Clinton is the past and the Democratic Party needs to move into the future. We really can do better than simply "crowning" Mrs. Clinton. There are good people out there - let's give them a chance!
7
Name a couple.
By ceaseless attacks on Clinton Republic operatives may soon hoist themselves.
4
Our TV episode fantasy mindset has us longing for a new, savvy and re-energized person to emerge from a hard-shelled truly tested road warrior persona, whom we all know very well, and it ain't gonna happen.
1
There's rarely an article from Ms. Collins' that doesn't make me laugh out loud. I always look forward to reading her editorials.
No one's going to change her in time for the race " It’s like telling your older sister that you’d appreciate it if she’d develop a new personality before the family reunion."
No one's going to change her in time for the race " It’s like telling your older sister that you’d appreciate it if she’d develop a new personality before the family reunion."
7
Oh Oh! Used the wrong server then siad she did it because it wass convenient!
Wow. Right up there with starting two wars and nearly bankrupting the world economy like brother George did.
Snooze time. Please wake me a couple of days before it's time time to vote and remind me about her Republican foes double crossing our President and supporting the Ayatollah and also remind me about the meaning of treason so I will vote a straight Democratic ticket in good conscience.
Wow. Right up there with starting two wars and nearly bankrupting the world economy like brother George did.
Snooze time. Please wake me a couple of days before it's time time to vote and remind me about her Republican foes double crossing our President and supporting the Ayatollah and also remind me about the meaning of treason so I will vote a straight Democratic ticket in good conscience.
20
People in the USA are still uncomfortable with the idea of a strong, intelligent, QUALIFIED female candidate. What do we want?
In this way, Germany and other countries are far ahead of us.
In this way, Germany and other countries are far ahead of us.
12
As a professional women who has practiced law for 29 years, and managed the political campaign of a local female candidate I find your remark to be foolish. People can be upset with Hillary's double standard (claiming the Bush administration was shredding the constitution due to missing emails, and then 10 months later setting a private server) and be fully supportive of strong women. I would love Elizabeth Warren to run. She is a strong women with convictions. She doesn't need 200 advisors to craft her policies (to triangulate how to pretend to be strong against Wall Street when really helping them), because Elizabeth Warren knows what is important to her and the country. So sorry many (if not most) people's problems with Hillary are not related to her gender!
3
People in the USA are not uncomfortable with female candidates, or female presidents. They are uncomfortable with sleaze.
I feel your pain Ms Collins.
It must be so hard to write an upbeat and humorous column about either a Bush or a Clinton.
Do you long for the days of Rick Perry and Dennis Kucinich on the hustings?
Hang in there, worse days are ahead but I will continue to read your offerings.
It must be so hard to write an upbeat and humorous column about either a Bush or a Clinton.
Do you long for the days of Rick Perry and Dennis Kucinich on the hustings?
Hang in there, worse days are ahead but I will continue to read your offerings.
6
I hope I yield to no one in my delight in this columnist's wit, and possibly only to her in my tendency to accept her wisdom. But here I think the shrewdness on new faces exposes a fallacy about Mrs C's -- every face is new, which hasn't held that position. Mock it as she has, through the years, she hasn't held it. I'm left not with resignation to more of the same old same old contempt for the public's intelligence, but with the revived pain of too much of it, all the time from her -- that space between episodes you mention, is far from adequate for me. This reduces any claim to lead, simply to the same defiant pose. I resist her return to public life.
4
Who cares? Colin Powell in the Bush administration did exactly the same thing. Besides if there was anything she really wanted to keep secret she wouldn't exactly write it down in an email regardless of whose server it was on. Like others have noted this is a tempest in a teapot designed by republicans to distract people from what the NY times editorial board has called "Republican Idiocy."
35
There wasn't a policy in place regarding emails when Powell was SOS. People who think it is ok for Hillary in the spring of 2008 to publicly say the Bush administration was shredding the constitution because of missing emails, and then less than 10 months later set up a private server for her own emails are blinded by politics.
1
It is not a good idea to rely on a past wrong to justify a present one. If you are going to defend Hillary, you need to rely on something affirmative -- either an ethical standard or example, a practical one, etc.
1
Nixton versus the latest selection from the Republican frozen foods section. Perhaps Canada should begin planning now to beef up border security, because if that does come off a lot of us are probably heading north.
4
To Canada? Can you say Stephen Harper?
My problem with the email controversy is that it assumes that the press (whoever that is) has a "right" to examine every correspondence a public official makes. If this isn't an "unreasonable search" I don't know what is. Why should a public official not have the same rights to privacy that the rest of us enjoy? And if not, then why stop at emails. Why not insist public officials release videos of their colonoscopies so we can debate the significance of the size of their polyps and whether or not she needs to get another exam in 2 years or 10. Or videos of their cystoscopies, so we can be sure we are not electing someone with bladder cancer. Or MRIs, or EEGs or notes from their therapists.
I think I do a pretty good job of keeping my personal emails separate from my work emails. I'm sure Mrs. Clinton did the same.
I think I do a pretty good job of keeping my personal emails separate from my work emails. I'm sure Mrs. Clinton did the same.
27
We respectfully disagree that this is an invasion of privacy.
I don't care about Ms. Clinton's personal life. In fact, the less I know about it, the better. But she was managing government affairs at the highest level from this email address. And that IS our business. Government should be accountable. That is why records are kept. Ms. Clinton purposefully went rogue to avoid that.
BTW, I remember when Reagan had a polyp removed. Details were reported to the press.
I don't care about Ms. Clinton's personal life. In fact, the less I know about it, the better. But she was managing government affairs at the highest level from this email address. And that IS our business. Government should be accountable. That is why records are kept. Ms. Clinton purposefully went rogue to avoid that.
BTW, I remember when Reagan had a polyp removed. Details were reported to the press.
9
Public officials do not have rights to privacy in their public functions. Their actions, words, letters, emails, etc. are .... public. (That's why we have FOIA). There are exceptions for confidential communications such as classified information, etc. Public officials are the citizens' employees. Citizens have the right to know what they are doing. This is the essence of our republic.
5
You weren't the SOS, you weren't subject to regulations about records for historical purposes. No one cares about her yoga routine, but if she has emails to the German Chancellor that is another story. This is a problem, and while I'll support her if she is our nominee I for one have Clinton fatigue and the official campaign has yet to begin!
3
How did people communicate before there was e mail? Certainly no political opponent would demand recordings of your every conversation. This is a contrived outrage.
292
Thomas, it's not contrived. People used to write letters and memos instead of emails.
Well, once upon a time there were three guys named Kenned, Johnson, and Nixon who thought that taping every conversation in their office would be a great idea. It sort of, kind of, well, it completely blew up in Nixon's face. Caused him to retire early. I wonder how they would have responded to email.
There is nothing contrived about it. I'm a active Democrat I was a delegate to the 2012 Democrat National Convention, and I will work hard to help whoever is the Democratic nominee win Iowa in the general election. However this is not contrived outrage. How do you justify Hillary claiming in the spring of 2008 that the Bush administration was shredding the constitution due to missing emails, and then less than 10 months later she sets up a private email server to keep all her emails private, and doesn't provide the SOS any of her emails until they ask for them over 18 months after she left the position, and Hillary (not the SOS) determines what is official and what is personal. Sorry there is noting contrived here, and only someone whose loyalty has blinded them would believe so!
1
Oh, Gail, thanks for the laughter. So much better to laugh at all these political 'crises' than to cry. We are a speck in the Cosmos and we think we are so so important.
As an independent who would never vote for a Republican (that probably makes me a Democrat actually even though I have a spine and Democrats in office don't) so, ok, as a Democrat I want to see some other faces out there. Just saw Martin O'Malley on Morning Joe and I didn't know who he was (and I'm aware politically, more than most Americans) so there's one. Hope we hear from Jim Webb more and soon.
I'll vote for Hillary if it comes down to that (never voted for a Bush and never will)....but I'd prefer voting for a different woman for president. Personally, I like Amy Klobuchar. Very smart, very personable, answers questions with intelligence and honestly and does her work without grandstanding. I think she'd make a fine president.
As an independent who would never vote for a Republican (that probably makes me a Democrat actually even though I have a spine and Democrats in office don't) so, ok, as a Democrat I want to see some other faces out there. Just saw Martin O'Malley on Morning Joe and I didn't know who he was (and I'm aware politically, more than most Americans) so there's one. Hope we hear from Jim Webb more and soon.
I'll vote for Hillary if it comes down to that (never voted for a Bush and never will)....but I'd prefer voting for a different woman for president. Personally, I like Amy Klobuchar. Very smart, very personable, answers questions with intelligence and honestly and does her work without grandstanding. I think she'd make a fine president.
133
Martin O'Malley is a great guy. I meet him several times last fall as he helped Iowa candidates.
1
But grandstanding is the essence of being president. One reason some people especially one Times columnist does not like President Obama is because he does not make enough noise and just does his job.
Wish it weren't so but our society seems to demand noise and one crisis after another. It's the reason the volume of ads on ads is jacked up so that we will hear them as we raid the ice box.
Wish it weren't so but our society seems to demand noise and one crisis after another. It's the reason the volume of ads on ads is jacked up so that we will hear them as we raid the ice box.
5
One thing I have heard however--and I have voted for Amy, is that she treats her staff like dirt, whereas everyone at the State dept. and everyone in NY and everyone at the White House--from the cleaning service to the foreign service officers, likes and appreciates Hilary. She knows how to treat people--like they're people! Amy is smart and asavvy--and a centrist, truth be told, but is high handed and haughty. That won't get someone elected President.
FOIA should not be an excuse for a fishing expedition by either the AP looking to sell news or opposition researchers looking for mud to sling. That law needs to require targeted specific requests not generic gotcha requests.
The ability to shield classified information from FOIA is as important to our democracy as a reporter's confidential source shield. The press should respect and understand these exceptions to disclosure.
A candidate has the right to privacy. If they exercise that right we must judge them on the consequences of that decision not on their exercise of their rights. Their is an assumption of innocence aka benefit of the doubt in our democracy.
The ability to shield classified information from FOIA is as important to our democracy as a reporter's confidential source shield. The press should respect and understand these exceptions to disclosure.
A candidate has the right to privacy. If they exercise that right we must judge them on the consequences of that decision not on their exercise of their rights. Their is an assumption of innocence aka benefit of the doubt in our democracy.
2
Many Senators do not use e-mail at all. Should they be forced to do so or is none of their correspondence considered government business? E-mail came into wide spread use during the Clinton administration, until then all official business was conducted by either snail mail or memos. I am not surprised that Hillary is not quite up to snuff in the ins and outs of the use of e-mail and I find it strange that people (other than Benghazi Republicans) will find something sinister in her use of personal instead of official e-mail. She has stated she will let lawyers go through and decide which should be considered official and which personal, but some will not be satisfied unless Kenneth Starr is the one who does the perusing.
8
I grew up in a large extended family that loved to talk and argue about politics. A variety of political views were represented in the family ranks, and for one thing, the arguing was in fun and good spirit, not like it is today with all the mean polarization.
Another thing that was different was election time was exciting. Why? Because there were real primaries with lots of contenders vying for the presidency in each party. Okay, the GOP does have lots of contenders for the presidency for 2016, but some are simply there to entertain the base & pick up some money.
But as I remember, the Democrats usually had at least several contenders for the presidency, and the primaries and Democratic conventions were exciting, including 2008. It was a testing period for the candidates, and some showed they were not up to the task and either dropped out or lost badly. Remember Obama came from nowhere & beat H. Clinton.
I can understand when a first-term Democratic president decides to run for a second term and so no one opposes him. But Obama is not running in 2016, yet the Democratic Party has decided H. Clinton is THE only candidate. She is floundering.
Why is there only one presumptuous Democratic candidate so far, and who chose her? I feel the Democratic people have been shut out of the selection process and suspect it is big money and big donors who want to control who the Democratic candidate is.
Wake up Dem. Party--listen to the people, and get back to doing democracy!
Another thing that was different was election time was exciting. Why? Because there were real primaries with lots of contenders vying for the presidency in each party. Okay, the GOP does have lots of contenders for the presidency for 2016, but some are simply there to entertain the base & pick up some money.
But as I remember, the Democrats usually had at least several contenders for the presidency, and the primaries and Democratic conventions were exciting, including 2008. It was a testing period for the candidates, and some showed they were not up to the task and either dropped out or lost badly. Remember Obama came from nowhere & beat H. Clinton.
I can understand when a first-term Democratic president decides to run for a second term and so no one opposes him. But Obama is not running in 2016, yet the Democratic Party has decided H. Clinton is THE only candidate. She is floundering.
Why is there only one presumptuous Democratic candidate so far, and who chose her? I feel the Democratic people have been shut out of the selection process and suspect it is big money and big donors who want to control who the Democratic candidate is.
Wake up Dem. Party--listen to the people, and get back to doing democracy!
5
"... It’s like telling your older sister that you’d appreciate it if she’d develop a new personality before the family reunion".
- quite a piece of wisdom there, Gail. I have an older sister. I've observed that she only has one personality, just like Hillary (who also happens to be an older sister. Older sisters don't changed much. They've been "right" (i.e., narrow-minded) all their lives.
- quite a piece of wisdom there, Gail. I have an older sister. I've observed that she only has one personality, just like Hillary (who also happens to be an older sister. Older sisters don't changed much. They've been "right" (i.e., narrow-minded) all their lives.
2
"Hillary Clinton Emulates Colin Powell" - Now that's the spin that will calm the rabid Tea Partiers. Hell no. Anything any Democrat does drives them crazy. Obama takes "RomneyCare" national -and they hate it. Its their own idea. Colin Powell conducts his business as Secretary of State on his personal email account exclusively - no problem. Hillary does it and she's the most scheming politician alive.
It's the 24 hour news cycle and the fact that with the exception of the NYT there are 5 Republicans that own 95% of all the news media: TV, Radio, Print and Magazine: in the USA. The Liberal Media is a joke and a lie, except that it is more liberal than then the average Republican, who equates ideological purity to Adam Smith and the Koch brothers with patriotism and political correctness (yes, the PC police exists on both ends of the political spectrum).
The newest craze is the spin of "Hillary Fatigue" being a reason for her not to be a viable candidate for president. Then FOX news goes out and proves that Hillary fatigue is here and now 24/7 - giving Obama a rest for a week?
It's time to give my headache a rest. Unfortunately, I have Republican Fatigue and for that even Republicans have no known cure.
It's the 24 hour news cycle and the fact that with the exception of the NYT there are 5 Republicans that own 95% of all the news media: TV, Radio, Print and Magazine: in the USA. The Liberal Media is a joke and a lie, except that it is more liberal than then the average Republican, who equates ideological purity to Adam Smith and the Koch brothers with patriotism and political correctness (yes, the PC police exists on both ends of the political spectrum).
The newest craze is the spin of "Hillary Fatigue" being a reason for her not to be a viable candidate for president. Then FOX news goes out and proves that Hillary fatigue is here and now 24/7 - giving Obama a rest for a week?
It's time to give my headache a rest. Unfortunately, I have Republican Fatigue and for that even Republicans have no known cure.
7
Ms. Collins, was hoping you would write about this email snafu that has caught the idle attention of such Americans as myself. An exchange last evening with an Irish friend who loves America and now working for the Humanitarian community in Baltimore. She doesn't understand why someone hasn't pointed out the big Wilki Scandal Leak a few years ago, and although she remains apolitical, she is the first to say that she would be handling her emails in the same way as Mrs. Clinton. True she lost me because she is the sharpest person I have ever met, processes information differently and faster, while maintaining a generation heart and remains a private person.
I bring this up because the two of us have been an unofficial team when she was an international children's representative in Asia, and never a dull moment. Both Mrs. Clinton and she are born leaders, both with brilliant minds, and all they need is to learn to delegate their work more and listen to their Public Relations staff. My friend was behaving even more flamboyantly on her way to attend an event hosted by Mr. Clinton in NY, and I was having a time of it, getting her to wear something smart, before realizing that she was in love :)
Mrs. Clinton has what it takes to succeed; we need her experience and knowledge, and she could use what is known at the U.N. as improved 'People Skills' with a trenchant wit like Dorothy Parker or better, a sense of humor such as yours, willing to poke fun at the Media and herself.
I bring this up because the two of us have been an unofficial team when she was an international children's representative in Asia, and never a dull moment. Both Mrs. Clinton and she are born leaders, both with brilliant minds, and all they need is to learn to delegate their work more and listen to their Public Relations staff. My friend was behaving even more flamboyantly on her way to attend an event hosted by Mr. Clinton in NY, and I was having a time of it, getting her to wear something smart, before realizing that she was in love :)
Mrs. Clinton has what it takes to succeed; we need her experience and knowledge, and she could use what is known at the U.N. as improved 'People Skills' with a trenchant wit like Dorothy Parker or better, a sense of humor such as yours, willing to poke fun at the Media and herself.
4
In the reality of this sphere, there is a border drawn, which unlike the controversial dress and the color people see, which some may argue is subjective, however concerning the politics that bona fides Hillary by some decree, the controversy of Hillary is simply black and white.
One side there is the grandmaster of spin / shepherd, James Carville, who must be on life time retainer but sounds like a scratched LP, skipping in one warn out groove of the recording "Right Wing Conspiracy", "Right Wing Conspiracy" and so ..... where enough voters will continue to flock to much like a shopper going shopping only because they think they are saving money regardless that the do not need anything...
On the other side there a bit more pragmatic and see through the lack of transparency from Hillary's offering on this issue, yet still realize the numbers don't lie and at this point in time "What difference does it make" since there are always be more followers in a crowd than leaders....
One side there is the grandmaster of spin / shepherd, James Carville, who must be on life time retainer but sounds like a scratched LP, skipping in one warn out groove of the recording "Right Wing Conspiracy", "Right Wing Conspiracy" and so ..... where enough voters will continue to flock to much like a shopper going shopping only because they think they are saving money regardless that the do not need anything...
On the other side there a bit more pragmatic and see through the lack of transparency from Hillary's offering on this issue, yet still realize the numbers don't lie and at this point in time "What difference does it make" since there are always be more followers in a crowd than leaders....
A woman president is much more intimidating to Republicans than a black president at this point in time. The email flap is just another GOP concoction, and we can expect more non-issues to be blown up into "scandals" should she choose to run for President. But she's practical, fully qualified, and she can win, and that's what we need if we're going to save America from the greedy yet fumbling Republican politicians who are determined to undermine our government. Not a single potential GOP candidate can even approach Hillary's experience on the world stage (as the Republicans proved with their clumsy, error-filled letter to Iran). And, just as Obama reaped the benefits of running against incompetent hopefuls, so will Hillary.
And before someone throws the name Jeb Bush out there as an example of a "good" Republican candidate, my guess is that, if he should run, America will hear the name Terri Schiavo so often that some may think she's Jeb's running mate.
And before someone throws the name Jeb Bush out there as an example of a "good" Republican candidate, my guess is that, if he should run, America will hear the name Terri Schiavo so often that some may think she's Jeb's running mate.
13
Private emails in a public role as secretary of state. Not right period. We all know that, you can't spin around that truth.
Speaking of truth do we really believe theta we will have the right version of the truth under her leadership? Too public an office for the behaviour she exhibits. Too bad because she probably is a nice person.
Speaking of truth do we really believe theta we will have the right version of the truth under her leadership? Too public an office for the behaviour she exhibits. Too bad because she probably is a nice person.
1
What voters admire about Mrs. Clinton is her toughness.
She has been a warrior for equality for fifty years.
She has been blessed with enemies that are just vindictive and consumed
by hatred.
Like a kidney stone, this too shall pass.
It's a whole lotta nothing.
She has been a warrior for equality for fifty years.
She has been blessed with enemies that are just vindictive and consumed
by hatred.
Like a kidney stone, this too shall pass.
It's a whole lotta nothing.
13
She's too old to stand up to the strain of the office, severely lacks charisma, and is loaded with baggage of one sort or another that belongs either her or her husband. She has shown a penchant for peevish behavior that results in long periods of sulking and not responding to the attacks of opponents until it's too late (EG: her health care debacle, Vince Foster charges, now...endlessly Benghazi baloney.
She's a flawed candidate who happens to be a very smart, very well-connected woman whose true feelings are often pinched and resentful.
Can't the Democrats find a better candidate than this?
She's a flawed candidate who happens to be a very smart, very well-connected woman whose true feelings are often pinched and resentful.
Can't the Democrats find a better candidate than this?
4
Too old? What does her age matter? I'd truly like to understand what people mean by that. Lots of other things to criticize her about, but her age?
3
A presidential candidate without a presidential campaign? Well count me as one Democrat who hopes she remains a president without a presidency.
2
Ain't any new HRC....just same old, same old. Cheating, lying, and shuffling all around.
2
Once I learned that the strict regulation we have heard quoted was adopted only after Clinyon left the Secretary of State's office this e-mail thing greatly receded in significance. It was not illegal to use private email when conducting government business. The problem them was this. Do you have a system to implement capturing or transferring the official emails to government servers on a regular basis? I doubt that there was an actual system for that. That means , I doubt whether the Department had a system, not just whether Clinton did. She was doubtless not alone in that and that is one of the reasons the new regulations were adopted.
We have had similar examples in NC government. The government related e-mails are public, but they are turned over only when they are requested, because there was no good system for routinely capturing them and turning them over to government control. Occasionally, courts have had to remind people that the public is entitled to public officials' official business emails even if they were in private email.
Everyone, while I share the desire for other Dem candidates, remember how much damage the GOP Supreme Court appointments have done.
We have had similar examples in NC government. The government related e-mails are public, but they are turned over only when they are requested, because there was no good system for routinely capturing them and turning them over to government control. Occasionally, courts have had to remind people that the public is entitled to public officials' official business emails even if they were in private email.
Everyone, while I share the desire for other Dem candidates, remember how much damage the GOP Supreme Court appointments have done.
15
Gail Collins - the one writer in America who is equipped to help us all laugh through a Clinton candidacy. Memo to editors: no vacation for Collins until Hillary drops out. Please!
6
In sports, the email flap would be called "an unforced error."
Whether use of State Dept. email servers was an explicit requirement or not, everyone knows that you conduct business on the corp. email system and personal affairs on your own account. Hillary Clinton essentially handed her opposition an issue that everyone understands that she is wrong and that was totally unnecessary on her part. She only dug her hole deeper by insisting that nothing secret was ever discussed in these emails. Can one truly believe that the president and the Secretary of State never discussed draft policy positions or potential responses to international problems?
In the end, this should not disqualify her as a candidate, but it's certainly a case of needlessly giving her opposition free points. Her main savior will be that her opponents are proving themselves even worse as national leaders.
Whether use of State Dept. email servers was an explicit requirement or not, everyone knows that you conduct business on the corp. email system and personal affairs on your own account. Hillary Clinton essentially handed her opposition an issue that everyone understands that she is wrong and that was totally unnecessary on her part. She only dug her hole deeper by insisting that nothing secret was ever discussed in these emails. Can one truly believe that the president and the Secretary of State never discussed draft policy positions or potential responses to international problems?
In the end, this should not disqualify her as a candidate, but it's certainly a case of needlessly giving her opposition free points. Her main savior will be that her opponents are proving themselves even worse as national leaders.
4
My question is this: As President, when she flies off to some boondocks locale to give a speech, will she still be demanding huge speaker fees?
Here's a staffing idea for her: Make Bill her designated public persona. We'll see, hear, and enjoy Bill, knowing that it's Hillary's way of giving the nation a reason to watch presidential speeches, and press conferences. Just an idea.
Here's a staffing idea for her: Make Bill her designated public persona. We'll see, hear, and enjoy Bill, knowing that it's Hillary's way of giving the nation a reason to watch presidential speeches, and press conferences. Just an idea.
3
Dear Ms. Collins,
Is Hillary Clinton running for president?
I did not know. Did she announce during her conference, you know, snuck it in like, "I averaged 42 e-mails a day, 6 a day to Chelsea, 12 to the Big Guy, Bill, 10 to my hairdresser, 14 to various toadies and flunkies, and I'm running for ....mumble, mumble, mumble".
I think I can hear the reporters shouting, 'What did you just mumble"?
Her response would, of course, be somewhat evasive, 'I do not mumble, you low paid hack from the 'Pottsdown Gazette'; clean your ears out and dump a few singles in my 'Not Committed but Collecting Anyway' Jar as a punishment! It's extremely expensive to, uh well, like position oneself in an attitude of a running-like nature but not really running as allowable in the extreme ramifications of that term or it's subsequent posturing of the aforementioned run/non run status of my non campaign, yet".
Her response would have, of course, sent the media flying to the doors...wait, they don't use phone booths anymore. Her response would have the media "Tweet-O-Sphere" lighting up like Rockerfeller Center at Christmas!
Or, as you have so succinctly reported, we have at least a few more months of speculation. In the interim, perhaps more scandalous behavior may surface for the GOP/TP/KOCH AFFILIATE to exploit.
Leading to my next question; since it seems the media is prepped for a Bush/Clinton showdown, who's in the running/not running/kinda running for 2020?
I'm breathless in anticipation!
Is Hillary Clinton running for president?
I did not know. Did she announce during her conference, you know, snuck it in like, "I averaged 42 e-mails a day, 6 a day to Chelsea, 12 to the Big Guy, Bill, 10 to my hairdresser, 14 to various toadies and flunkies, and I'm running for ....mumble, mumble, mumble".
I think I can hear the reporters shouting, 'What did you just mumble"?
Her response would, of course, be somewhat evasive, 'I do not mumble, you low paid hack from the 'Pottsdown Gazette'; clean your ears out and dump a few singles in my 'Not Committed but Collecting Anyway' Jar as a punishment! It's extremely expensive to, uh well, like position oneself in an attitude of a running-like nature but not really running as allowable in the extreme ramifications of that term or it's subsequent posturing of the aforementioned run/non run status of my non campaign, yet".
Her response would have, of course, sent the media flying to the doors...wait, they don't use phone booths anymore. Her response would have the media "Tweet-O-Sphere" lighting up like Rockerfeller Center at Christmas!
Or, as you have so succinctly reported, we have at least a few more months of speculation. In the interim, perhaps more scandalous behavior may surface for the GOP/TP/KOCH AFFILIATE to exploit.
Leading to my next question; since it seems the media is prepped for a Bush/Clinton showdown, who's in the running/not running/kinda running for 2020?
I'm breathless in anticipation!
3
Hillary Clinton has no lock on the 2016 presidential election. There are many well-qualified Democrats who should be given a look: Martin O'Malley, Jim Webb, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders and Andrew Cuomo, to name a few. Both the Democrats and the Republicans should move past the Clintons and the Bushes. American voters are fatigued by these two families.
6
Andrew Cuomo? Really? I would have voted for Mario Cuomo in a heartbeat, but Andrew?
2
If Elizabeth Warren runs she would win the Iowa caucus, and that would up end the race just like Obama winning in Iowa did. Sadly I don't think Warren will run.
None of these people want to run a campaign full of bitter Hillary haters. The people who want them to run only want them to run because they have some ill-placed paranoid vision of the Clintons and their legacy. Could you imagine being surrounding in something as beautiful and complex as a political campaign for the president when you are surrounded by myopic crazed clinton haters? These names are only viable if you forget that the whole party has to like them, that they have to appeal in PA and Ohio and attract the unions while not scaring Wall Street. Bernie Sanders is just another Ralph Nader if he runs, someone who runs the risk of being a spoiler. Cuomo is not his father, and not even close: he has zero charisma. Warren is the favorite of uncompromising left of center dems and independents who think everyone in New England is right and the rest of the country are idiots.
But the central problem of anyone running in the primaries is that they are going to be staffed by haters motivated by desperation: not exactly an attractive option for anyone to run: how could any candidate control such an irrational chaotic pool of desperados?
But the central problem of anyone running in the primaries is that they are going to be staffed by haters motivated by desperation: not exactly an attractive option for anyone to run: how could any candidate control such an irrational chaotic pool of desperados?
I want choices, not a done deal.
18
The time to want choices was years ago. Everyone in the democratic party had years to ready a run. If one reads The Believer by David Axelrod, one sees that Obama's run started years earlier with a core group of staff around him keeping his options open and doing favors all over the party and fundraising for other candidates. These insurgent runs are not spontaneous things. Could Warren get in? yes. Could she get in and be effective? unlikely, but possibly. Does she want a campaign full of Hillary haters that can't accurately read the landscape and understand the electorate. Hillary is positioned to run with a world of experience and history is on her side. She has developed into the world's most respected woman internationally. Her being Obama's Secretary of State gave his administration increased credibility and vice-versa. Those who want to hate Hillary and resent her standing in the world should maybe blame Obama too: he is half the reason she is now so likely to win.
Personally I can't wait. I love her politics and I am a hardcore democrat. she is publicly more centrist than me but I understand that to win and lead she must be more than a Northeastern Wellesley leftist and think of the entire party and nation. For instance, I trusted that she and Bill and Obama were pro-gay marriage but understood that the issue was not well served by their leading the charge.
Brace yourselves, haters, she is very popular and is far ahead of the field in both parties.
Personally I can't wait. I love her politics and I am a hardcore democrat. she is publicly more centrist than me but I understand that to win and lead she must be more than a Northeastern Wellesley leftist and think of the entire party and nation. For instance, I trusted that she and Bill and Obama were pro-gay marriage but understood that the issue was not well served by their leading the charge.
Brace yourselves, haters, she is very popular and is far ahead of the field in both parties.
2
I've followed this "scandal" and concluded she broke no Federal law or regulation. She used an internet service provider: Optimum which offers website and email hosting services to its customers who may use whatever domain names they own.
She was asked for her government emails and complied like Colin Powell.
She used one email address for work which she co-mingled with work for the sake of convenience like Colin Powell.
That's good enough explanation for me because I'm much more interested in her ideas about universal health care, foreign policy, income disparity, the environment, ISIS, gun safety, the economy, jobs etc.
If others are skeptical or upset with her emails, heck, Don't Vote For Her!
Then apply The Same Standard to all other candidates and their emails: release all work related emails... All of Them! And have Federal government monitors examine which are work and which are personal. All of Them!
She was asked for her government emails and complied like Colin Powell.
She used one email address for work which she co-mingled with work for the sake of convenience like Colin Powell.
That's good enough explanation for me because I'm much more interested in her ideas about universal health care, foreign policy, income disparity, the environment, ISIS, gun safety, the economy, jobs etc.
If others are skeptical or upset with her emails, heck, Don't Vote For Her!
Then apply The Same Standard to all other candidates and their emails: release all work related emails... All of Them! And have Federal government monitors examine which are work and which are personal. All of Them!
432
Maybe she connects with voters because she does the work and doesn't rely on rhetoric. I followed her 2008 campaign and found her analysis of issues riveting. If only the press would analyze candidates in the same way and spare us from a focus on the superficial.
Good column, though.
Good column, though.
313
I wouldn't worry about the emails that are claimed to be deleted. The NSA has copies of all of them, and I'm sure they would be happy to share them with the public if necessary/
2
Just as character reflects motive, we can't understand or explain actions without motive. Hillary Clinton's character is the problem when she deleted thousands of emails on her BlackBerry. She intended to conceal them when she began using her cell phone for both private and government emails. Her intent for privacy for secrecy about her true character. The secrecy was all for her personal benefit. This revelation of her public duplicity ought to be cause for her to retire her career in politics, and since it appears that she will not run for President over this newest scandal, one must ask is there any scandal level that could?
1
Another day, another anti Clinton drumbeat at NYT. If there is one thing you can depend on around here it is anti clinton ism, support for Greeks, attacks on the so called evil rich which means anyone making six figures per their accounting, and anti Israel comments.
So H the 'change' candidate now ?, and you also think that, even if she raises the wall street issue, she would actually go after one of her stongest financial support groups ?
In front of that same tapestry of "Guernica," Colin Powell delivered his assurances that there were, indeed, WMD in Iraq. Thus he cloaked Bush's charge to war under the mantle of trust that the American people had in this general. But, on that occasion the compelling artistic rendering of the horrors of war was also cloaked - literally rendered invisible for Powell's speech so that no one would see the grim ends that Powell was endorsing. At least Ms. Clinton didn't dodge the imagery.
1
Gail,
The Clintons have the amazing capacity to put the nation, not only us Dems, in agony and trauma. Their obsession with money and power knows no limits .Their sense of entitlements drive them to skirting not just the spirit but the letter of the law when it comes to their own perks and prerogatives. They have been in “our face” since 1992 and they just wanted it to stay that way. They are never going away, unless we Dems give them sound, humiliating rejection in the primaries. Thank you, we have more than enough of your shenanigans.
The Clintons have the amazing capacity to put the nation, not only us Dems, in agony and trauma. Their obsession with money and power knows no limits .Their sense of entitlements drive them to skirting not just the spirit but the letter of the law when it comes to their own perks and prerogatives. They have been in “our face” since 1992 and they just wanted it to stay that way. They are never going away, unless we Dems give them sound, humiliating rejection in the primaries. Thank you, we have more than enough of your shenanigans.
1
The beltway media can twist themselves crazy, and of course the rabid anti Clinton readership here hates them anyway, but in most of the country, her ratings are still high.
Democracy is a great thing. Despite what a few thousand readers here and their madia heroes think, far more people support them and like what they stand for.
Democracy is a great thing. Despite what a few thousand readers here and their madia heroes think, far more people support them and like what they stand for.
1
Can we not find a reluctant skilled person to run for President. The Clinton gang has had their chance and blew it, but, they are worth some $55 million!
Let us not measure success by money, the Clintons were supposed to be helping America. Remember how tired we were of them, glad they were out of the White House!
Is our electoral system so corrupt with money that we cannot find somebody like Ralph Nader to run for president, somebody that will care about America instead of how much they will profit out of politicking?
Please, let us move on from The Clintons.
Let us not measure success by money, the Clintons were supposed to be helping America. Remember how tired we were of them, glad they were out of the White House!
Is our electoral system so corrupt with money that we cannot find somebody like Ralph Nader to run for president, somebody that will care about America instead of how much they will profit out of politicking?
Please, let us move on from The Clintons.
Ralph Nader.. You must be kidding. He is the one who cost Al Gore the Presidency. Remember Florida.
3
It's an old trick to brush away what cannot be defended or reflects poorly, under the carpet by claiming "are there no important things to worry about?" and citing "47 signers" of the declaration on "No deal with Iran". It is well covered and discussed in the media.
But what is ever more important than Who should be the next president of the United States?
Any person who can respond to any inquiry into the death of the American Ambassador and three other Americans in Benghazi during an inquiry into her conduct and handling of the affair by asking, "What difference does this make at this point?" should not be trusted to decide which e-mails pertaining to her job she should turn over to the Congressional committee investigating the matter, and which e-mails to call private and unilaterally destroy them. And further should never be trusted in any other government position, let alone the highest office in the land - despite her claim that she is competent and can answer a phone call at 3.00 a.m. in response to trouble anywhere in the world.
It is not an isolated "Clinton" incident. There is a pattern. It is a sad state of affairs, that no other Democrat will run for office - mostly because they fear the Clinton machine - which, as Obama proved, is not invincible.
Delete
But what is ever more important than Who should be the next president of the United States?
Any person who can respond to any inquiry into the death of the American Ambassador and three other Americans in Benghazi during an inquiry into her conduct and handling of the affair by asking, "What difference does this make at this point?" should not be trusted to decide which e-mails pertaining to her job she should turn over to the Congressional committee investigating the matter, and which e-mails to call private and unilaterally destroy them. And further should never be trusted in any other government position, let alone the highest office in the land - despite her claim that she is competent and can answer a phone call at 3.00 a.m. in response to trouble anywhere in the world.
It is not an isolated "Clinton" incident. There is a pattern. It is a sad state of affairs, that no other Democrat will run for office - mostly because they fear the Clinton machine - which, as Obama proved, is not invincible.
Delete
3
The one problem Hillary can't overcome, she's just not very likeable. And Collins should not mention Scott Walker, at all. I surprised she still has a column. Overall the Dem candidates are really old, and not very diverse. If this is what they got, they will get hammered.
When considering Dems and GOPsters, the former's presidential hopefuls are luckless.
One party is sacked with supporters who take issues seriously, do a responsible amount of fact checking; who tend not to give any old answer a free pass, especially when a response is so ridiculous that it makes them mad. Its voters can be particularly rough on their own, so the party has a hard time winning.
Meanwhile, the other party says what it wants, sloughs off its own lies (tho is fond of calling opponents liars on a whim), has a track record for the entirety of the 21st century - so far - for sinking America into big deep messes, and generally doesn't place much stock in pointy-headed science, peer reviewed research, higher education or government (an odd fish of an idea given that governments, in most developed first world countries, are in fact the people's representatives). These characteristics seem to exist in symbiosis with supporters who couldn't be more distanced from reality and still be on the planet. (Calm down all you acid freaks; you are not being challenged.) They pretty much swallow whole anything they're told, and especially if it's said by party leaders or failed disc jockeys (i.e. radio "personalities"). It doesn't hurt either if the party in question can reduce all political calculus to simple-dumb arithmetic: work in a dig at the greatest black man in American history. This party can't seem to lose, no matter what.
Explain this to an eight year old.
One party is sacked with supporters who take issues seriously, do a responsible amount of fact checking; who tend not to give any old answer a free pass, especially when a response is so ridiculous that it makes them mad. Its voters can be particularly rough on their own, so the party has a hard time winning.
Meanwhile, the other party says what it wants, sloughs off its own lies (tho is fond of calling opponents liars on a whim), has a track record for the entirety of the 21st century - so far - for sinking America into big deep messes, and generally doesn't place much stock in pointy-headed science, peer reviewed research, higher education or government (an odd fish of an idea given that governments, in most developed first world countries, are in fact the people's representatives). These characteristics seem to exist in symbiosis with supporters who couldn't be more distanced from reality and still be on the planet. (Calm down all you acid freaks; you are not being challenged.) They pretty much swallow whole anything they're told, and especially if it's said by party leaders or failed disc jockeys (i.e. radio "personalities"). It doesn't hurt either if the party in question can reduce all political calculus to simple-dumb arithmetic: work in a dig at the greatest black man in American history. This party can't seem to lose, no matter what.
Explain this to an eight year old.
4
Well, I guess, after we've -- she's come such a long way baby, (I am still mad because they lost the farm in the process and I got stuck with the taxes and no benefits) but, it would be silly of any woman not to get behind her ---- so, C'mon Hillary, let's get this show on the road, before the boys, (Scott Walker) accuse you of spending too much time in the bathroom. (Gail, do you suppose she gets those warnings --- you have you used 90% of your 8GB data plan, please deposit another $15 for an additional 2GB?). (Don't tell them that on any given day in an attempt to keep my sanity, I might pay $30 for one episode of "Daniel Tiger's Neighborhood"!).
She mail email. They wail. Well, hell.
Oh Gail,
I feel there must be something terribly wrong with me and my commitment to being a concerned and committed citizen.
The fact is, I simply don't care about this email hysteria. Complete disinterest is my default setting.
After all, I've been dragged through Benghazi, Whitewater, Travelgate, the Rose law firm, Vince Foster, and Ken Starr's mania, all for nothing.
So has Secretary Clinton.
No wonder she used her own server. Very smart woman.
Actually, I wish she would release emails about Chelsea's wedding. I'd like to know, why Vera Wang?
But Chelsea's wedding dress designer aside, I'm tired of the GOP and the media default setting on Hillary Clinton: she must be doing something illegal and covering it up.
I'm not interested in her emails.
I'm interested in electing her president in 2016.
Guess I'm concerned and committed after all, Gail.
I feel there must be something terribly wrong with me and my commitment to being a concerned and committed citizen.
The fact is, I simply don't care about this email hysteria. Complete disinterest is my default setting.
After all, I've been dragged through Benghazi, Whitewater, Travelgate, the Rose law firm, Vince Foster, and Ken Starr's mania, all for nothing.
So has Secretary Clinton.
No wonder she used her own server. Very smart woman.
Actually, I wish she would release emails about Chelsea's wedding. I'd like to know, why Vera Wang?
But Chelsea's wedding dress designer aside, I'm tired of the GOP and the media default setting on Hillary Clinton: she must be doing something illegal and covering it up.
I'm not interested in her emails.
I'm interested in electing her president in 2016.
Guess I'm concerned and committed after all, Gail.
6
The emails don't bother me at all, especially since Congress has a rich Congressional tradition of not using email while they use the telephone and cocktail hour on yachts and private jets to hire ALEC and Citigroup to write our laws for private profit.
The email issue is simply a good campaign workout session for Hillary that shows she's out of fighting shape and needs to hit the political gym; the real campaign will be far nastier as the GOP will dump hundreds of loads of industrial-strength propaganda on her should she gain the Democratic nomination, and if there's anything the American 'heartland' loves, it's industrial-strength, GOP-certifiable, Koch-funded propaganda and disinformation ( see 'Swiftboat', Benghazi, IRS, birtherism, 'job killer', job creator', Ebola, 'Obamacare', 'freedom', 'liberty', 'Greece' and other best selling GOP disinformation themes of the 00's and 10's).
Hillary needs to turn on her light switch.... or at least hire an electrician to fix that broken light switch.
She's about to face up against the world's finest propaganda complex the world has ever known and that has to be fought with both fire and a world-class truth-and-lies firing squad that exposes the complete fraud, bankruptcy and misanthropy that the Republican Party brings to the American public.
She's up against a giant Grand Old Prevaricating Death Panel that is happy to lie America to death.
When facing such a right-wing snake, you need to be comfortable chopping off its head.
The email issue is simply a good campaign workout session for Hillary that shows she's out of fighting shape and needs to hit the political gym; the real campaign will be far nastier as the GOP will dump hundreds of loads of industrial-strength propaganda on her should she gain the Democratic nomination, and if there's anything the American 'heartland' loves, it's industrial-strength, GOP-certifiable, Koch-funded propaganda and disinformation ( see 'Swiftboat', Benghazi, IRS, birtherism, 'job killer', job creator', Ebola, 'Obamacare', 'freedom', 'liberty', 'Greece' and other best selling GOP disinformation themes of the 00's and 10's).
Hillary needs to turn on her light switch.... or at least hire an electrician to fix that broken light switch.
She's about to face up against the world's finest propaganda complex the world has ever known and that has to be fought with both fire and a world-class truth-and-lies firing squad that exposes the complete fraud, bankruptcy and misanthropy that the Republican Party brings to the American public.
She's up against a giant Grand Old Prevaricating Death Panel that is happy to lie America to death.
When facing such a right-wing snake, you need to be comfortable chopping off its head.
230
Who needs the GOP when the NYTimes is hounding her, pitchfork in hand, 24/7. Republicans can relax knowing the Times will do their dirty work for them.
4
Socrates, You are really smart. Great comment.
3
Best I think for Hillary to avoid the word 'change'. And though she's from there, 'hope' might be a good word to avoid, too.
Dems smell disaster.
Dems smell disaster.
1
It might have been nice to turn over digital copies of the State Department related emails. That she did not shows how small and venal she really is. So much for the FOIA.
1
How many elected officials open their emails. Don't you think everyone who works for the people or the government should be required to?
1
State Department requires hard copies. Can't handle digital.
3
Putting on my alarmist hat, the country's going to hell in a handbasket, an imported handbasket at that. This is a long term trend that will turn us into a second rate economic power like other reduced friends accross the pond.
Can't Ms. Clinton come up with any battle cry for a general revitalization and redirection? I appreciate some sectors and people-groups are doing well.
Can't Ms. Clinton come up with any battle cry for a general revitalization and redirection? I appreciate some sectors and people-groups are doing well.
1
I like Hilary, but laughed when she said that she used a private e-mail because she did not want to have to carry two phones. That being said, I don't want a perfect Hilary—I want the imperfect one, the flawed human who will fight against republicans intransigence.
9
The press conference at the United Nations was right out of "The Day of the Locusts."
Unless she was hiding emails from Adult Friend Finders, I'd be willing to believe she deleted at least 40,000 emails from AARP and new credit card cash advances.
Unless she was hiding emails from Adult Friend Finders, I'd be willing to believe she deleted at least 40,000 emails from AARP and new credit card cash advances.
9
Peculiar column. Her email decisions are a big deal. I'm a Democrat and will vote for her. But her integrity has been successfully called into question. Remember, with the Clintons, she was supposed to be the one that you could trust. She is confirming the criticism of the Clintons more generally that laws weren't made for them. The ONLY reason to do what she did was to shield herself from criticism or to do shady things.
84
How about the folks who sent Hillary email? DIdn't they find the address strange, compared to every other government employee? [email protected]?
How about free world leaders with whom she communicated. Oh, God, the whole thing is to silly, even I can't go on!
How about free world leaders with whom she communicated. Oh, God, the whole thing is to silly, even I can't go on!
2
There won't be a new Hillary, she who embodies everything one hates about carpetbagging politicians and hangers-on who descend onto Washington every four years...the ultra-insider, so important that she probably uses her cellphone mid-flight as well as disdaining to use the State Department email server. She's not going away because the media, including this paper, have already anointed Billary as Democratic candidate and front-runner, won't hear of anyone else and won't permit her to fade and permit someone fresher, younger and not encumbered with her Billary baggage, including the ineluctable and inexplicable standing by her man after he let Lewinsky into the oval office on a dubious errand...how worn-out, vitiated and exhausted are the political options for 2016, if it comes down to a contest between the dim dynasts of the Bush and Clinton chandeliers...
3
"Right now you’re probably asking yourself: What am I supposed to do with all this Hillary Clinton stuff?"
No, Gail. That may be your take. What I want to know is Why will this woman not go away and enjoy being a grand mother? What does America need her for?
If 1/2 of America is obsessed with wanting a "woman" President - what is the standard by which she should be judged?
One is hard pressed to think of any positive accomplishment one can attribute to her as a Senator (Iraq anyone?) or as Sec. of State (The Russia "reset" and, yes, Benghazi).
No, Gail. That may be your take. What I want to know is Why will this woman not go away and enjoy being a grand mother? What does America need her for?
If 1/2 of America is obsessed with wanting a "woman" President - what is the standard by which she should be judged?
One is hard pressed to think of any positive accomplishment one can attribute to her as a Senator (Iraq anyone?) or as Sec. of State (The Russia "reset" and, yes, Benghazi).
2
Guernica!?! Bombing innocents and chaotic death by ultra right wing anti democratic fascists. You see an art history as a major would have had value. Watch the GOP will make it a Benghazi.
42 per day? Quite possibly e-mail is _not_ at the center of Ms. Clinton's life. She has plenty of staff (!) to tale care of that for her. As to classified messages and so forth, State has plenty of official channels for that.
Actually, I prefer a Secretary of State who does not have her or his face buried in a screen. The real world has plenty of problems and I would like their eyes focused on them.
BTW, no one born after 1990 or so even remembers the Clinton administration...
Actually, I prefer a Secretary of State who does not have her or his face buried in a screen. The real world has plenty of problems and I would like their eyes focused on them.
BTW, no one born after 1990 or so even remembers the Clinton administration...
7
You know your campaign is in trouble when your constant rallying cry is--at least I am not as bad as those crazy Republicans. And who can dispute that --although always comparing yourself as being better than crazy folk wades into dangerous territory.
I can't think of another area of life in which people compare downwards, as they do with politics and Presidential campaigns.
Does a parent feel better if a child rationalizes his C- with the fact other students got D's and F's?
Do we go to restaurants that serve lousy food because others down the street are even worse?
Would you buy a cell phone that has a track record of breaking in a year because someone tells you others don't last 6 months?
As we all heard in our youth--just because Johnny jumps in the lake doesn't mean you have to. And we all got it.
Not Hillary. There was so many opportunities along the road in constructing the private email accounts she could have just said, "Forget it." Natural impulses--convenience, the desire for secrecy and control, etc.--could have succumbed to doing the right thing.
But no, in each and every instance, she opted for doing it her way--jumping into the lake. The latest being her private lawyer deciding (I am sure with her urging) which emails to purge from the public record. Tens of thousands of them.
Hillary must wake up ever day thanking her lucky stars the Republicans are so crazy. Sadly, we are left with the mess.
I can't think of another area of life in which people compare downwards, as they do with politics and Presidential campaigns.
Does a parent feel better if a child rationalizes his C- with the fact other students got D's and F's?
Do we go to restaurants that serve lousy food because others down the street are even worse?
Would you buy a cell phone that has a track record of breaking in a year because someone tells you others don't last 6 months?
As we all heard in our youth--just because Johnny jumps in the lake doesn't mean you have to. And we all got it.
Not Hillary. There was so many opportunities along the road in constructing the private email accounts she could have just said, "Forget it." Natural impulses--convenience, the desire for secrecy and control, etc.--could have succumbed to doing the right thing.
But no, in each and every instance, she opted for doing it her way--jumping into the lake. The latest being her private lawyer deciding (I am sure with her urging) which emails to purge from the public record. Tens of thousands of them.
Hillary must wake up ever day thanking her lucky stars the Republicans are so crazy. Sadly, we are left with the mess.
14
A preview of the next 20 months? How about a preview of the next 9 years.
3
We're even tired of Mrs Clinton on this side of the pond and we obviously don't have a vote in the USA. But where are the credible alternatives on the Democratic side? If there are any they do not seem to be showing heir hand in any meaningful way. The real problem for the rest of the world is that the prospective list from the GOP is just terrifying. Yes the Middle East is a mess but the last thing the world needs is another shoot first ask questions later Republican in the White House. We would all feel, and most likely be, less safe. While he has made some missteps the world will miss President Obama for his calm, dignified and thoughtful leadership. If the Republican Party in Congress is illustrative of what we can expect from the Executive should the GOP nominee win in 2016 then I am very fearful for the future.
127
Welcome to the dismal world of U.S. politics. I do agree with you re: President Obama. But then, UK politics are not a huge inspiration lately, either. UKIP is well beyond scary and The Federated States of Britain seems only a stone's throw away.
I think that we're all going just a little bit bonkers. But then, when I read some of the political exchanges from back during our painful founding, this current stuff comes off as a bit tame. Four of our founding fathers died in duels. At least our current politicians aren't shooting one another yet.
Yet.
I think that we're all going just a little bit bonkers. But then, when I read some of the political exchanges from back during our painful founding, this current stuff comes off as a bit tame. Four of our founding fathers died in duels. At least our current politicians aren't shooting one another yet.
Yet.
2
I totally agree with all you have stated. The GOP's actions by inviting Netanyahu to address Congress without first informing the White House, and then sending the treasonous letter to Iran while delicate negotiations are ongoing, have left many of us here in the U.S.
stunned at the GOP's audacity (in the very worst sense of that word).
stunned at the GOP's audacity (in the very worst sense of that word).
5
'But it’d be nice to have a little peace in between.'
This statement says it all. Has there ever been a more harried, probed, analyzed politician in US history? The one guarantee in American politics is that Hillary will be pilloried by the republicans for transgressions large and small. Maybe that's why she used a private email service. At least she has control over it. How much better would it have been for her to release her emails contemporaneously? Her enemies would have jumped on every one of them.
It has made her tough, a toughness not produced by paranoia but rather assault after assault ad infinitum.
Ask yourself this; who would you prefer? Hillary who saved a substantial percentage of her emails for the republican voyeurs to pour over, or Lindsey Graham who boasts of never having sent an email. What are you hiding, Mr Graham?
This statement says it all. Has there ever been a more harried, probed, analyzed politician in US history? The one guarantee in American politics is that Hillary will be pilloried by the republicans for transgressions large and small. Maybe that's why she used a private email service. At least she has control over it. How much better would it have been for her to release her emails contemporaneously? Her enemies would have jumped on every one of them.
It has made her tough, a toughness not produced by paranoia but rather assault after assault ad infinitum.
Ask yourself this; who would you prefer? Hillary who saved a substantial percentage of her emails for the republican voyeurs to pour over, or Lindsey Graham who boasts of never having sent an email. What are you hiding, Mr Graham?
89
Lindsey thinks it's still the 18th century and he can't type.
3
The e-mail controversy is symptomatic of other problems to be discovered down the pike. She wants to be in control of everything whether on her own or through her carefully chosen aides. She hopes to remain a "maybe" candidate to the very last moment freezing out other competitors and shielding her from having to make the big decision and insulating her from the issues and questions that real candidates face. She is not doing herself or the Democratic Party any favors by employing this strategy.
5
Seems to me that any person who wants to be POTUS wants to control everything. Why else would you do it?
Hillary Clinton is most likely going to be the next president of the United States. Even Ireland's famous "Paddy Power" betting site has her as the odds on favorite to win and they give her very high odds to win over Jeb Bush.
The presidency is essentially Hillary's to lose and so far she is doing a fair job of doing just that. The "Scandals-R-Us" Team Clinton has never missed a beat since the White-Water Webb Hubbell scandal and the fast cash Hillary "miraculously" made on agriculture futures trading in the early 1990's.
Tragically, Hillary's health is another obvious and serious concern. She will be 69 years old when she takes office and her fall and possible neurological issues of a few years back are still unclear and may be a further concern for her.
She is smart and educated that we are certain of. She graduated with one of the top 5 G.P.A.'s from Yale Law and she has demonstrated a keen ability to organize, lead and command.
Outside of a few key "Social/Moral/Family" issues one thinks of the famous quote from the late Alabama Governor George C. Wallace who noted, "There's not a dimes worth of difference between the two parties".
The presidency is essentially Hillary's to lose and so far she is doing a fair job of doing just that. The "Scandals-R-Us" Team Clinton has never missed a beat since the White-Water Webb Hubbell scandal and the fast cash Hillary "miraculously" made on agriculture futures trading in the early 1990's.
Tragically, Hillary's health is another obvious and serious concern. She will be 69 years old when she takes office and her fall and possible neurological issues of a few years back are still unclear and may be a further concern for her.
She is smart and educated that we are certain of. She graduated with one of the top 5 G.P.A.'s from Yale Law and she has demonstrated a keen ability to organize, lead and command.
Outside of a few key "Social/Moral/Family" issues one thinks of the famous quote from the late Alabama Governor George C. Wallace who noted, "There's not a dimes worth of difference between the two parties".
3
I think Ms. Collins understates the seriousness of the email issue.
The Secretary of State of the United States of America should not be conducting state business on personal email. Period. If Hillary Clinton does not realize this, she is stupid, stupid stupid. Convenience is a dumb excuse. Anyone who takes it on face value is stupid, stupid stupid.
But Ms. Collins does correctly observe that this is yet another example of Ms. Clinton's self-centered blundering. Which is exactly what we would get if she was president. So why should we vote for her? The only reason seems to be that the Republicans are even stupider, if that is humanly possible. But the more I get to know her, the worse that reason is.
The Secretary of State of the United States of America should not be conducting state business on personal email. Period. If Hillary Clinton does not realize this, she is stupid, stupid stupid. Convenience is a dumb excuse. Anyone who takes it on face value is stupid, stupid stupid.
But Ms. Collins does correctly observe that this is yet another example of Ms. Clinton's self-centered blundering. Which is exactly what we would get if she was president. So why should we vote for her? The only reason seems to be that the Republicans are even stupider, if that is humanly possible. But the more I get to know her, the worse that reason is.
11
This email issue points out a real weakness in how our political system works. In search of entertainment we construct meaningless scandals that work to determine who gets elected. But this can sometimes result in the country not getting the most capable person to be president. Americans voted for George Bush (twice!) and got a very likeable guy who everyone said they wanted to have a beer with. Not John Kerry who was tainted by the media and Republicans over his alleged war exploits. So we got Bush. We also got 9/11, the Iraq war (the gift that keeps on giving), billions in deficits caused by unpaid for tax cuts, the Iraq war & Medicare Part "D," a collapsed world economy leading to the worst recession since the Great Depression and the mismanaged Katrina debacle.
So all the talk about Hillary's emails highlights a major problem with our political system. We vote for all the wrong reasons. Or we stay at home and don't vote at all. The Republicans constantly work to make it harder to vote so that even less people decide who will represent the country. Since they have little to add in terms of constructive ideas to make the country better, they just feed into the scandal mongering that turns Americans off from potentially good candidates. In the end our political system is completely broken. American perseveres in spite of this, but we could do much better if we had our priorities straight. Too bad.
So all the talk about Hillary's emails highlights a major problem with our political system. We vote for all the wrong reasons. Or we stay at home and don't vote at all. The Republicans constantly work to make it harder to vote so that even less people decide who will represent the country. Since they have little to add in terms of constructive ideas to make the country better, they just feed into the scandal mongering that turns Americans off from potentially good candidates. In the end our political system is completely broken. American perseveres in spite of this, but we could do much better if we had our priorities straight. Too bad.
2
Okay. I get it. The email issue isn't fluff, it's the missing link. Let's view it from the eyes of Republicans. They know the terrorist attack on our embassy in Benghazi was not prompted by spontaneous outrage...they know that it was a planned operation by Hillary Clinton emailing the Libyan terrorists the layout of the embassy and the ambassador's personal schedule. Republicans (now in their 8th committee investigation of Benghazi) just need Hillary's emails to prove it. Sadly, Republicans have been outwitted by Hillary; they never suspected she had her own secret email server! Dang! Nevertheless, they won't give up; if they can't get their hands on the incriminating emails they will simply imagine how bad the non-existing incriminating emails must have been. Republicans won't let facts, real evidence, or reality seep into their Benghazi World. And not getting their hands on Hillary emails that never existed is proof in the Republican Benghazi World that she planned the Benghazi attack, that she may be a Russian mole or even an ISIS sympathizer. If they could only get those emails!
60
No one can argue against Hilary's intelligence or work ethic. Her problem is that she is tone deaf regarding open communication. There is always that lawyerly part of her parsing words, answering with as little detail as possible, hedging and obfuscating. The document dump was disingenuous. She should have provided her hard drive and put an end to all questions. The drip, drip, drip of information is a Clinton pattern - give only what you think you must. It leads to more suspicion rather than trust and trust is what you need to get votes. The best possible version of their flawed self is all any of us can give, but for those who are perfect. However, Hilary is smart enough to understand she has a problem, and to take steps to change her siege mentality.
4
The Clintons may be secretive, but they are openly secretive unlike President Obama. He promised a transparent administration but his staff spend their days going after leakers and journalists. I've never noticed the Clintons doing that...perhaps they are more transparent than the current administration.
And, judy, where do you suppose that "siege mentality" came from?
And, judy, where do you suppose that "siege mentality" came from?
Since her loss in '08, I have never been convinced Hillary would ever run again. But the Clintons are fabulous self promoters. They're making money hand-over-fist while the story of her predicted run persists in every corner of the earth. After all, if we knew she wasn't going to run who would pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for her speeches, some of which given and proposed at organizations and institutions she should be giving money to not taking money from—and I don't count her “donations to the Clinton Foundation/Clinton Global Initiative” as a donation.
Sidebar: Is it possible that any of those thousands of emails she selectively deleted possibly have CF/CGI quid pro quo deals within them? Made while on the country’s business? And speaking of the “Foundation,” have you ever tried to find out what the foundation really does, where the money goes? You can’t—not really, not easily and never completely. It's a maze, a flowchart of websites that keep referring you on to the next, and always asking for a donation on practically every page.
No, again, once she says she’s not running, all that money—that pours into her swelling Super PACs giving jobs to friends, hangers-on, ex and present partners and colleagues, and expanding orbits of acquaintances—will dry up. The not so sub subtext of this campaign-in-waiting being: a lot of people, mainly Hillary and Bill and their “Clinton Industrial Complex,” are making a ton of money. This is the stuff of Marketing Genius.
Sidebar: Is it possible that any of those thousands of emails she selectively deleted possibly have CF/CGI quid pro quo deals within them? Made while on the country’s business? And speaking of the “Foundation,” have you ever tried to find out what the foundation really does, where the money goes? You can’t—not really, not easily and never completely. It's a maze, a flowchart of websites that keep referring you on to the next, and always asking for a donation on practically every page.
No, again, once she says she’s not running, all that money—that pours into her swelling Super PACs giving jobs to friends, hangers-on, ex and present partners and colleagues, and expanding orbits of acquaintances—will dry up. The not so sub subtext of this campaign-in-waiting being: a lot of people, mainly Hillary and Bill and their “Clinton Industrial Complex,” are making a ton of money. This is the stuff of Marketing Genius.
6
There is a lot of ignorance about the not-for-profit world. Every foundation has to file a 990 (tax return) for the IRS, which outlines where grants are given and what funds are received; if you want to spread misinformation, please get basic facts straight. These are digitized and freely available to the public via sources like Guidestar, Foundation Center and the National Center for Charitable Statistics.
2
Well said. We expect too much perfection out of our candidates. We threw Hillary aside for Barack and that didn't turn out as the idealists thought. He was not the second coming. He has done a worthy job but he had to adapt to fill it. Hillary will not have to adapt. She will be ready from the git go flaws and all.
11
No one is the second coming. American voters need to get over the idea that each new candidate will finally give them the pony they never got for Christmas.
President Obama is a good man with flaws. In my opinion his biggest flaw is the inability to see the flaws in others, he tends to think too well of everyone from his cabinet members to the truly rotten Republicans he's had to deal with.
Despite the flaws and the opposition from Republicans, he's still managed to dig us out of the recession, provide millions of people with health insurance, provide greater equality for gay people etc. I'll take that and offer thanks for the grace, courage and compassion he has shown in the face of all the hatred he's been subjected to.
President Obama is a good man with flaws. In my opinion his biggest flaw is the inability to see the flaws in others, he tends to think too well of everyone from his cabinet members to the truly rotten Republicans he's had to deal with.
Despite the flaws and the opposition from Republicans, he's still managed to dig us out of the recession, provide millions of people with health insurance, provide greater equality for gay people etc. I'll take that and offer thanks for the grace, courage and compassion he has shown in the face of all the hatred he's been subjected to.
3
Thank you for mentioning this:
"she went on slowly and explicitly about why she wanted to get rid of a Wall Street tax break for financiers known as “carried interest.” It was an eat-your-vegetables kind of moment, but the audience was agog."
Actually, this is exactly what a lot of us want from a Candidate. Perhaps if the press had been obsessing over things like carried interest rather than something easier for political reporters to understand such as emails, something would have been done about carried interest by now.
"she went on slowly and explicitly about why she wanted to get rid of a Wall Street tax break for financiers known as “carried interest.” It was an eat-your-vegetables kind of moment, but the audience was agog."
Actually, this is exactly what a lot of us want from a Candidate. Perhaps if the press had been obsessing over things like carried interest rather than something easier for political reporters to understand such as emails, something would have been done about carried interest by now.
408
Her desire to get rid of the "carried interest" tax break was admirable. Yet now she and Wall Street have the coziest of cozy relationships. What are we to think?
Is this some kind of competition lately? Does every Times columnist have to write more gossip and speculation about Hilary? Do we really need this? Aren't y'all interested in anything else, such as news of the day? Or difficult issues that need real real insight? Considering that so-called "news" or "analysis" articles have also glutted the front page lately with news about Hilary, this publication is turning into "The Hilary Times."
34
"Also, she should keep building on her talent for holding firm during crises."
Who would expect anything less? After all, she's had plenty of practice dealing with crises, many of which were of her own making. It's worth remembering that the NY Times broke the email story, not the vast right-wing media.
Who would expect anything less? After all, she's had plenty of practice dealing with crises, many of which were of her own making. It's worth remembering that the NY Times broke the email story, not the vast right-wing media.
11
The come back kid is a seasoned survivor of the decades long war of the partisans. Remaining resolutely determined in the face of withering sniping is nothing to sneeze at.
The email brouhaha will blow over after another bengazi style series of partisan handwringing.
Hillary is on a mission, and naysayers will not keep her from her appointed rounds.
Snail mail or email, hrc will get it all sorted out.
The email brouhaha will blow over after another bengazi style series of partisan handwringing.
Hillary is on a mission, and naysayers will not keep her from her appointed rounds.
Snail mail or email, hrc will get it all sorted out.
19
After talking to both conservatives and Liberals in recent weeks, I've come away with a feeling that folks have tired of the old ways of producing candidates to run in the 2016 election. They are waiting for Apple to develop an app.
An algorithm can easily be developed to delve into a candidate's past and ascertain, which of their past behaviors would titillate the public or turn them off.
It seems like the more knowledgeable folks become, the more likely they are to become cynical about the candidates, their campaigns and the party process.
With Isis running amok in the middle east and high frequency traders bulldozing Wall Street, who gives a .....about Hillary and her emails. AND Scott Walker- give me a break!
Maybe we'll find someone that's had sex while watching WWII videos of Hiroshima and Nagaski.
An algorithm can easily be developed to delve into a candidate's past and ascertain, which of their past behaviors would titillate the public or turn them off.
It seems like the more knowledgeable folks become, the more likely they are to become cynical about the candidates, their campaigns and the party process.
With Isis running amok in the middle east and high frequency traders bulldozing Wall Street, who gives a .....about Hillary and her emails. AND Scott Walker- give me a break!
Maybe we'll find someone that's had sex while watching WWII videos of Hiroshima and Nagaski.
5
The more voters see her campaign as the Clinton Restoration, the less they will see it as the historic one that will put an enormous crack in the glass ceiling, denying Hillary Clinton (for reasons fair and otherwise) the same kind of glow that for tens of millions followed Barack Obama in his run to the White House seven or eight years ago. They were proud to vote for the first black president and excited by the prospect of his administration; many would feel similarly about voting for the first woman president, whom they have suspected for some time is likely to be a Democrat, if that woman was almost anyone other than Mrs. Clinton. They felt it was fun to learn about this new Obama guy; they had known Hillary for much longer *in 2008*.
They will still vote for her, of course, given the awfulness of the Republican alternative, but with each passing month it becomes more apparent they will likely do so with the fatigue of 1996, not the elation of 2008. And this is precisely the dynamic that the Clinton campaign must change, especially if the Democratic Party is to have any chance of winning the House in 2016, which would give Hillary a chance at a transformational first term. It's not off to a promising start. Mrs. Clinton cannot credibly present herself as a new face in 2016, but she could surround herself with some people who would qualify, such as her vice presidential pick, ideally a woman from the next generation. There are many excellent candidates.
They will still vote for her, of course, given the awfulness of the Republican alternative, but with each passing month it becomes more apparent they will likely do so with the fatigue of 1996, not the elation of 2008. And this is precisely the dynamic that the Clinton campaign must change, especially if the Democratic Party is to have any chance of winning the House in 2016, which would give Hillary a chance at a transformational first term. It's not off to a promising start. Mrs. Clinton cannot credibly present herself as a new face in 2016, but she could surround herself with some people who would qualify, such as her vice presidential pick, ideally a woman from the next generation. There are many excellent candidates.
8
But "the elation of 2008" was short lived. It seems more like a mirage now. Maybe with lowered expectations Ms. Clinton will surprise us.
And as Gail writes: "That while she might not be a transformative speaker, she will be able to explain how she can take the issues she’s been pursuing for decades and turn them into a plan for serious change."
And as Gail writes: "That while she might not be a transformative speaker, she will be able to explain how she can take the issues she’s been pursuing for decades and turn them into a plan for serious change."
9
It is sad to say, but HRC just gave Jeb Bush the biggest campaign gift possible. While she may recover her image among stalwarts of the Demcratic party, she is now unelectable in middle America. Her performance on this issue was atrotious, and that is said by someone who has been a long time supporter of the Clintons. To quote Ted Turner, "she's toast."
6
Mike, it is amusing to note that many of the Senators and Congressmen who shout about HRC's eMail do not use eMail at all.
I wonder why.
I wonder why.
8
I'm not sure. The American people seem to have a short attention span. Remember Monica Lewinsky and impeachment? Bill Clinton was not only forgiven but went on to become hugely popular. The Republicans will trot this episode out and many other examples of Hillary's past transgressions -- real or imaginary. The question is, will she become more adept at managing the message?
1
I understand that Jeb has an email problem as well.
8
Great. Who wants four or eight more years of this garbage? Wouldn't it be a relief to have a President who actually tells the truth?
18
We don't know – it's never happened. Oh, on second thought, Jimmy Carter tried it but nobody wanted to hear it.
13
And where might we find one of those?
1
Who did you have in mind that always tells the truth? And do you have access to what the truth is?
2
Hillary announced to all the world that she wanted to keep her e-mailing simple because she didn't want to carry two devices. Well, forgive me for being blunt, but if neither she nor her staff is aware that on cell phones, as on computers, it's possible to set up multiple e-mail accounts, she's simply not fit to be the leader of the most powerful country on the planet.
(I, an electronics dolt, ascertained this fact in less than 60 seconds online)
(I, an electronics dolt, ascertained this fact in less than 60 seconds online)
24
Mr. Burkett, I do not believe this is true if one of the accounts is the federal government. When my daughter worked for a congress man, she always had to carry two devices. One was for work, and she was not allowed to use it for personal messages.
3
This would be correct, except for the fact that State Department-issued devices didn't allow for the use of personal email. That information came directly from a State Department official and was reported in this same newspaper. Still, it was a lapse, but not egregious and not a scandal.
You want to know who is unqualified to be President? 47 senators who decided to undermine our twice lawfully elected President and aid foreign powers who really don't like us.
You want to know who is unqualified to be President? 47 senators who decided to undermine our twice lawfully elected President and aid foreign powers who really don't like us.
22
And I still have a flip phone and don't email or text, so sue me.
3
Write-in votes count too. There are options if enough people use them.
3
Hillary has spent her whole life trying to make it a fairer and kinder nation and world. Her particular, keen concern for women and girls is the next big civil rights moment.
I'm just grateful she's willing to endure the endless, tedious idiot smears in order to further align us with kind.
I'm just grateful she's willing to endure the endless, tedious idiot smears in order to further align us with kind.
140
"...she will be able to explain how she can take the issues she’s been pursuing for decades and turn them into a plan for serious change."
Issues? Hillary Clinton has causes she champions like empowering women, strengthening families, financial reform? One wouldn't know that from press coverage, including this column.
Clinton responde to the email brouhaha at the United Nations because she was there to speak on the subject of ....who knows? I'm sure whatever the issues were, they were if no importance to anyone compared to a PRIVATE EMAIL SERVER!!! AAAAAAAHHHH!!!!
There is no candidate from either party with the resume and the gravitas of Hillary Clinton. The usual Republican clown show doesn't come close. Yet the press, including the "liberal" media, including Gail Collins, say nothing of this or the issues she has championed.
Hillary has her flaws, (show me a human who doesn't') but her strengths, and the very real issues that effect so many real people are vastly larger than those flaws.
If it gets to the point where Clinton says the hell with it, I'm not taking the abuse anymore, we will have lost a gifted leader at a time the world really needs all the leaders it can get.
Issues? Hillary Clinton has causes she champions like empowering women, strengthening families, financial reform? One wouldn't know that from press coverage, including this column.
Clinton responde to the email brouhaha at the United Nations because she was there to speak on the subject of ....who knows? I'm sure whatever the issues were, they were if no importance to anyone compared to a PRIVATE EMAIL SERVER!!! AAAAAAAHHHH!!!!
There is no candidate from either party with the resume and the gravitas of Hillary Clinton. The usual Republican clown show doesn't come close. Yet the press, including the "liberal" media, including Gail Collins, say nothing of this or the issues she has championed.
Hillary has her flaws, (show me a human who doesn't') but her strengths, and the very real issues that effect so many real people are vastly larger than those flaws.
If it gets to the point where Clinton says the hell with it, I'm not taking the abuse anymore, we will have lost a gifted leader at a time the world really needs all the leaders it can get.
92
Ralph, Good post.
3
Thank you for your comment. The Press is the third rail in the problem of our uninformed public. Their job seems to have devolved into scandal reporting not news or policy reporting. How I am starved for real conversation on policy without a two minute sound bite limit. There has got to be more of you and me out there who feel this way.
4
This column is truly a stale boring rehash of the media obsession of the week which has already been hyped all out of proportion to reality. Why can't you for once talk about some of the issues, pro/con and how they affect millions of us? If you don't want to bother with analysis of this, just itemize the destructive policies, past actions and rhetoric of the gop candidates, who are aiming to further weaken our living standards and democracy.
Then list some possible Democratic alternates to Hillary and what THEY think. Or is that too boring? Both Sen Sanders and ex Gov O'malley give some interesting talks on Cspan, the last few days---if anyone is interested. Please don't ignore them--it just becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.
Then, I saw something about Sen Eliz Warren and the others speaking to the Firefighters Union gathering someplace--said to usually be a 1st step to declaring for a run for president? Or did I get that wrong? Is that too far out? Now that speculation ought to interest Gail.
Then list some possible Democratic alternates to Hillary and what THEY think. Or is that too boring? Both Sen Sanders and ex Gov O'malley give some interesting talks on Cspan, the last few days---if anyone is interested. Please don't ignore them--it just becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.
Then, I saw something about Sen Eliz Warren and the others speaking to the Firefighters Union gathering someplace--said to usually be a 1st step to declaring for a run for president? Or did I get that wrong? Is that too far out? Now that speculation ought to interest Gail.
21
Doesn't it seem that all of these "Hillary Headlines" are more click bait than substantive reporting?
8
Mary Ann Donahue - You nailed it. Click bait is just what they are.
1
I watched the interview at the UN. No one asked the most important question.
Ms Clinton said she handed over paper copies of every e-mail between herself and a subordinate working for the State Department. All of those e-mails are on the State Department computers, and must have been very carefully checked before she sent them.
However, e-mails between Ms Clinton and senior foreign dignitaries were 'personal,' and so were not included. Those foreign dignitaries presumably thought they were official communications with the Secretary of State, but Ms Clinton says, 'The only "official" e-mails were between her and people working for the State Department using official State Department computers,' so all those e-mails with senior foreign dignitaries were 'personal'.
There is a very good chance that some of those 'personal' e-mails might have touched on money, but Ms Clinton has made certain that there will never be any proof, so, legally, Ms Clinton is innocent, and all those Ms Dowd calls 'Clintonistas' will find her innocent as a new born baby.
And all those who are anti-Clintonistas will find her guilty as sin.
Ms Clinton said she handed over paper copies of every e-mail between herself and a subordinate working for the State Department. All of those e-mails are on the State Department computers, and must have been very carefully checked before she sent them.
However, e-mails between Ms Clinton and senior foreign dignitaries were 'personal,' and so were not included. Those foreign dignitaries presumably thought they were official communications with the Secretary of State, but Ms Clinton says, 'The only "official" e-mails were between her and people working for the State Department using official State Department computers,' so all those e-mails with senior foreign dignitaries were 'personal'.
There is a very good chance that some of those 'personal' e-mails might have touched on money, but Ms Clinton has made certain that there will never be any proof, so, legally, Ms Clinton is innocent, and all those Ms Dowd calls 'Clintonistas' will find her innocent as a new born baby.
And all those who are anti-Clintonistas will find her guilty as sin.
7
I really doubt if HRC communicated with senior foreign dignitaries via eMail.
3
Sure, she may have had personal emails that discussed campaign contributions or even more illegal monetary inducements, but so could any candidate or public officials email. By this logic, we should have access to all candidates' private and public emails.
Just because her private emails are on the same server as her government emails does not create a greater opportunity for corruption.
Just because her private emails are on the same server as her government emails does not create a greater opportunity for corruption.
2
What I heard Hillary say was that she had turned-over 55,000 pages of emails. If that is literally what was done, then she has performed the old lawyer’s trick of inundating her opposition in paper. So far, no one has questioned the format of her response. Of course, to be useful and searchable, her response would have to be in an electronic format. Then we have the issue of the man-hours required to translate whatever mail system she uses into the one used by State. This is a costly nightmare, whether her response is on paper or in an electronic data format. This is not transparency.
14
As Rachel Maddow reported last night, the State Department Archives require paper copies. Here is what the FAQ put out by Hillary Clinton's campaign says-
" Why was the Department given printed copies?
That is the requirement. The instructions regarding electronic mail in the Foreign Affairs Manual require that
“
until technology allowing archival capabilities for long-term electronic storage and retrieval of E-mail messages is available and installed, those messages warranting preservation as records (for periods longer than current E-mail systems routinely maintain them) must be printed out and filed with related records
.”
[5 FAM 443.3]. "
" Why was the Department given printed copies?
That is the requirement. The instructions regarding electronic mail in the Foreign Affairs Manual require that
“
until technology allowing archival capabilities for long-term electronic storage and retrieval of E-mail messages is available and installed, those messages warranting preservation as records (for periods longer than current E-mail systems routinely maintain them) must be printed out and filed with related records
.”
[5 FAM 443.3]. "
2
It was no trick, it's what you wanted.
Are you saying she turned too much over?
2
Hillary's emails, compared to the imbecile 47 letter is just
a bunch of bull. This issue pales when you consider the
ludicrous congress we have ... It will not stand.
a bunch of bull. This issue pales when you consider the
ludicrous congress we have ... It will not stand.
441
"Doesn’t anybody ever write to ask her to connect on LinkedIn?"
OMG, Gail, you get those too? I hate LinkedIn with a passion. I once got one from a dear friend, an email saying she is now in LinkedIn, asking me to declare her a "friend." From prior experience, I knew that social media do this to hook you into their circle, because in declaring a member as a friend, you automatically become a member yourself!
So I emailed this friend separately, apologizing why I cannot declare her a friend, since I abhor all social media without exception. She had no idea what I was talking about. When I explained, she said I did not send you that email, nor did I ask LinkedIn to send it to you. So now, knowing their devious trick, I simply report all such emails as spam and delete them.
In truth, other social media do it, but LinkedIn is one of the most odious. Have no idea why people want to be part of such a sleazy group. Enough said, and I feel with you, Gail.
OMG, Gail, you get those too? I hate LinkedIn with a passion. I once got one from a dear friend, an email saying she is now in LinkedIn, asking me to declare her a "friend." From prior experience, I knew that social media do this to hook you into their circle, because in declaring a member as a friend, you automatically become a member yourself!
So I emailed this friend separately, apologizing why I cannot declare her a friend, since I abhor all social media without exception. She had no idea what I was talking about. When I explained, she said I did not send you that email, nor did I ask LinkedIn to send it to you. So now, knowing their devious trick, I simply report all such emails as spam and delete them.
In truth, other social media do it, but LinkedIn is one of the most odious. Have no idea why people want to be part of such a sleazy group. Enough said, and I feel with you, Gail.
29
One of the first things LinkedIn attempts to do when you join is to ransack your address book and send those invites. FB does not do it automatically (LinkedIn used to), but will periodically noodge you about strangers with whom you have a friend in common, asking you to friend them, and also bugging you to like pages, add to your feed, etc.
The problem with social media, for ordinary schnooks like us as opposed to the glitterati such as HRC, is that although being on Facebook or LinkedIn does not necessarily confer positive benefits, not being there prompts a prospective employer to wonder what's wrong with you -- what you're hiding, or whether you are so technologically unsavvy that you can't even figure out how to get on FB.
I have five FB friends and almost nothing on my page; I have about 40 LinkedIn contacts, at least two of whom seem to have the ambition of adding every single living person to their LinkedIn network. Every now and then i get a notice someone looked at me on LinkedIn. (Mostly it seems to be used by overseas hiring managers of offshore companies that have taken our jobs, then, because their own people lack the skills for the work. interpose themselves as a managerial layer and farm the work back to us as temps and freelancers. The stock market adores this Rube Goldberg set-up: 'layoffs! offshoring! lean-and-mean efficiency!' Fetches 'em every time, as Twain's Duke would say.)
The problem with social media, for ordinary schnooks like us as opposed to the glitterati such as HRC, is that although being on Facebook or LinkedIn does not necessarily confer positive benefits, not being there prompts a prospective employer to wonder what's wrong with you -- what you're hiding, or whether you are so technologically unsavvy that you can't even figure out how to get on FB.
I have five FB friends and almost nothing on my page; I have about 40 LinkedIn contacts, at least two of whom seem to have the ambition of adding every single living person to their LinkedIn network. Every now and then i get a notice someone looked at me on LinkedIn. (Mostly it seems to be used by overseas hiring managers of offshore companies that have taken our jobs, then, because their own people lack the skills for the work. interpose themselves as a managerial layer and farm the work back to us as temps and freelancers. The stock market adores this Rube Goldberg set-up: 'layoffs! offshoring! lean-and-mean efficiency!' Fetches 'em every time, as Twain's Duke would say.)
3
Last week I got a Linkedin email from a friend who died three years ago. Now that's what I call real broadband service.
4
And no mention of Dem alternatives to HRC … wonder why. We could certainly use a contest instead of a coronation. Jim Webb. Elizabeth Warren. Bernie Sanders. Time for Dems to be democratic. No entitled royalty, please.
96
Sanders, Warren, good, Jim no democrat, and none could be elected.
1
This liberal says no more Bush's no more Clinton's, enough already!!!
Love your alternative choices but I think the R's could tar-paper any of those as being too radical and get away with it; don't think any of them are electable and my fear of a Jeb presidency trumps my other concerns.
3
Amazing that not one recipient of those 62,000 e-mails said "Hey Hillary! What's with this crazy server!"
35
Compared to ("idiotic". -- as noted by the EB of the NYT) 47 Republican Senators, HRC is Rasputin and Joan of Arc wearing pants suit. Her election will be mostly similar to the coronation of George Washington. The Republican Party is made up of people that are uptight, paranoid while suffering from acute narcism. HRC will raise two billion dollars and women and teenaged girls will get tatoos espousing Her Presidency.
37
Foreign policy is the only area where Republicans want to go right now, because they have zero success -- or reason -- on economics. They'll go on and on about Iran and Benghazi because that's all they've got, and because they feel Hillary is weak there.
41
We elected Obama thinking he was an honest man. His dishonesty has soiled his legacy.
If we elect Hillary, it will be under no such illusion. Can the U S Treasury be taken over by the Clinton Foundation . . for the greater good, of course.
If we elect Hillary, it will be under no such illusion. Can the U S Treasury be taken over by the Clinton Foundation . . for the greater good, of course.
10
Dishonesty about what exactly? Please share.
6
Speak for yourself. I voted for President Obama (the second time, not the first) knowing that he'd proven himself on the job, that he cares about all Americans and that he works hard to do what is right.
9
Dumb, that is pretty much all I can say. You are a public figure who has managed to survive several political and personal disasters and come back in one piece. Why hasn't she learned? Or what did she learn? I mean 5 times burned, you should be charred and start to get the idea that optics matters. If she really cared about her party and her legacy she should get an advisor who is not in her entourage or a sycophant who will really tell her how the little people feel.
39
The Great Email Fiasco is just another case of "Get your tempest out of my teapot." Much ado about nothing. But the press has inches of newsprint to fill up.
141
Well, of course you must not have been following what many Democratic political strategists have been saying, "Hillary has a problem here and it is substantive.".
It is amazing that not one email out of 62,000 was classified.
The secret message that Mrs. Clinton must be telling her rich donors is this: she is all that stands between Senator Warren and the Presidency. I can just hear her saying that if Warren were President, their taxes would skyrocket.
Why else would anyone think they ought to be President, when their chief accomplishment in life was staying married to Bill Clinton?
The secret message that Mrs. Clinton must be telling her rich donors is this: she is all that stands between Senator Warren and the Presidency. I can just hear her saying that if Warren were President, their taxes would skyrocket.
Why else would anyone think they ought to be President, when their chief accomplishment in life was staying married to Bill Clinton?
45
And how do you feel about your governor, the guy whose only accomplishments seem to be scandals related to bridges, hurricanes and Exxon settlements?
5
Sen. Warren is too smart and savvy to run. Her pulpit now is more bully than a losing national campaign. But watch out for Jim Webb. He's going in with gusto, and will grow in recognition over time.
hillary remembers me of my second grade teacher,cold,calculating,mean but intelligent.Maybe she should change future plans,dedicate her life to improve readding scores and open the field to other democratic candiates.Hillary this is your chance to do the right thing ,be a patriot make america proud of you,be brave girl ,do what is best for your country,The american people will love you.
13
Has the current Hillary Clinton been influenced by increased personal wealth and how she is treated, say, in terms of giving speeches for fees? While not everybody would be influenced by such things, some people would. Do we know how she has processed these things, not to mention being known by one name and being deemed by some "inevitable"? What I'm getting at is a concern that a tendency towards secrecy, if combined with too great a sense of being extremely special, could lead to too much bad behavior that remains too unknown for too long; but for all I know Hillary Clinton has kept her head on her shoulders and is a grounded and down-to-earth person and remembers that we all put on our pants one leg at a time. Is there someone without an ax to grind who can tell us?
8
Gail Collins is right: the media should be pressing Mrs. Clinton on her policies. We know we're never going to get find out whether she was micromanaging Chelsea's wedding on the public's dime and time instead of her own, so we might as well move on to more important stuff that will affect all of us directly.
Will she support expansion of Social Security in these tough times? Her family foundation has had an uncomfortably close partnership with Wall Street billionaire Pete Peterson, who's made it his life's mission to cut our earned benefits. Chelsea herself teamed up with Catfood Commissioners Erskine & Bowles to try and convince college kids that their grandparents were stealing their medical care and futures. What's up with that?
Look at the advisers. If former Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin comes on board, raise the warning flag. It was Rubin (helped by John Podesta and Larry Summers) who orchestrated financial deregulation, paving the way for the economic crash and the ensuing worst wealth disparity in modern times. Don't let her blame that mess on just the GOP or "irresponsible borrowers." We need restoration of Glass-Steagall, and as Elizabeth Warren suggests, a dismantling of the TBTFs. What's Hillary's position on that?
Ask her about drones, gun control, dealings with corrupt foreign governments like Saudi Arabia, and corporate coups disguised as "free trade" deals.
Don't just let her get away with platitudes about breaking glass ceilings
Will she support expansion of Social Security in these tough times? Her family foundation has had an uncomfortably close partnership with Wall Street billionaire Pete Peterson, who's made it his life's mission to cut our earned benefits. Chelsea herself teamed up with Catfood Commissioners Erskine & Bowles to try and convince college kids that their grandparents were stealing their medical care and futures. What's up with that?
Look at the advisers. If former Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin comes on board, raise the warning flag. It was Rubin (helped by John Podesta and Larry Summers) who orchestrated financial deregulation, paving the way for the economic crash and the ensuing worst wealth disparity in modern times. Don't let her blame that mess on just the GOP or "irresponsible borrowers." We need restoration of Glass-Steagall, and as Elizabeth Warren suggests, a dismantling of the TBTFs. What's Hillary's position on that?
Ask her about drones, gun control, dealings with corrupt foreign governments like Saudi Arabia, and corporate coups disguised as "free trade" deals.
Don't just let her get away with platitudes about breaking glass ceilings
317
A worthy list of questions for Hillary. However, couldn't one consider it a mistake to suggest that these questions be substituted for an in-depth investigation of Hilary's emails, when it is those very emails that may well turn out to be the only way to verify her answers to your questions?
Karen:
Yes to your policy points. But I think your comment shoots wide of the mark.
Any run of the mill State employee would have been fired for conducting State department business using a private email account. At minimum security protocols would have been violated.
So a) why did Clinton do it? (That's pretty obvious, she wanted total control over her own government emails.) And b) Why in God's name did she think this would never come up?
This provides the voter with a clear outline of who she thinks she is and how that relates to her "public service." Based on the record, it appears she thought she could operate by her own rules, not the government's. The other obvious point is why Obama's people didn't tell her people to let Hillary know she should be on the government servers, not her own.
There is an odd smell to the whole episode. Which is exactly how it should be perceived.
Yes to your policy points. But I think your comment shoots wide of the mark.
Any run of the mill State employee would have been fired for conducting State department business using a private email account. At minimum security protocols would have been violated.
So a) why did Clinton do it? (That's pretty obvious, she wanted total control over her own government emails.) And b) Why in God's name did she think this would never come up?
This provides the voter with a clear outline of who she thinks she is and how that relates to her "public service." Based on the record, it appears she thought she could operate by her own rules, not the government's. The other obvious point is why Obama's people didn't tell her people to let Hillary know she should be on the government servers, not her own.
There is an odd smell to the whole episode. Which is exactly how it should be perceived.
1
Bravo Karen Garcia!!
3
Gee, only 20 months to election day!
Did HRC break any laws?
If so, then she should disqualify herself from running.
If not, then move on.
There were missing emails during the W administration.
There were other things missing too: billions of dollars of cash, for one, never properly investigated by our intrepid press.
Really, with 47 Senators violating the Logan Act, is this the best the press can do?
Did HRC break any laws?
If so, then she should disqualify herself from running.
If not, then move on.
There were missing emails during the W administration.
There were other things missing too: billions of dollars of cash, for one, never properly investigated by our intrepid press.
Really, with 47 Senators violating the Logan Act, is this the best the press can do?
596
Yup, because they are marionettes to the kochs, adelson's and corporations, so benghazi benghazi beghazi emails emails emails.
17
Just as the high concentration of crazies is an indictment of the GOP field of Presidential contenders, the sole Democrat candidate, Ms Clinton, is an indictment of the Democrats' frightening current status. If once again the major reason to vote for a Democrat is "look at the alternative", our political system is in real trouble. The whole Clinton email saga reeks of the usual greedy Clinton entitlement and insider cult and doesn't reflect what most supporters of the ideals of the party have in mind for their leadership. Please, before our shoddy media decide the issues for us, can we have a real supporter of the principles of the party be our candidate? The next Democrat President ought to be driven by the need to support social justice, because if the the GOP are successful and gain the White House, social justice will certainly be on the road to extinction.
179
Who do you suggest?
1
Jack Chicago smells an awful scandal in the email mess.
Many miss the odor of burning human flesh in the letter-by-47.
I don't. The email decision was wrong. I love pre-Nixon tape-erasure days. We need access to history.
But we need history to live for, too.
History profs and GOPers are crying... but no one is frying for her dumb decision. Hope no one does from the Senate 47's, either..
Many miss the odor of burning human flesh in the letter-by-47.
I don't. The email decision was wrong. I love pre-Nixon tape-erasure days. We need access to history.
But we need history to live for, too.
History profs and GOPers are crying... but no one is frying for her dumb decision. Hope no one does from the Senate 47's, either..
8
It's a shame to waste valuable media time - perhaps HC could regale us with the evils of carried interest, then deal with other topics that the press has questions about; sort of a two-fer news event ?
After seeing the assemblage at the U.N. for her ' media event ', we're only half kidding, since it would be such a great usage of hers and the press's time.
We're not surprised at 62,000 being the number of private emails, remembering that she also communicated on the secure State Dept. email system, and we don't remember anyone saying the total number of messages there.
What we are surprised about is that no one asked HC how she would handle email communications if she makes it to 1600 Penn. ?
But the next 20 months will be a test - not one of whether our ' older sister can develop a new personality before the family reunion ', but whether she can highlight in public the personality that she reportedly has in private, that has apparently put her in good stead with people like Sen. McCain and given her good press regarding diligence, service, etc. during her time in the Senate ?
HC should develop a certain light and happy way of saying ' asked and answered ' to queries about email, in a way that subtly reminds everyone the GOP'ers in Congress are, after all, just a chattering pack of ' rabid ferrets ' looking for anything to take the focus off their own dysfunction of shutting down the government and getting our debt downgraded, etc., etc., etc.
After seeing the assemblage at the U.N. for her ' media event ', we're only half kidding, since it would be such a great usage of hers and the press's time.
We're not surprised at 62,000 being the number of private emails, remembering that she also communicated on the secure State Dept. email system, and we don't remember anyone saying the total number of messages there.
What we are surprised about is that no one asked HC how she would handle email communications if she makes it to 1600 Penn. ?
But the next 20 months will be a test - not one of whether our ' older sister can develop a new personality before the family reunion ', but whether she can highlight in public the personality that she reportedly has in private, that has apparently put her in good stead with people like Sen. McCain and given her good press regarding diligence, service, etc. during her time in the Senate ?
HC should develop a certain light and happy way of saying ' asked and answered ' to queries about email, in a way that subtly reminds everyone the GOP'ers in Congress are, after all, just a chattering pack of ' rabid ferrets ' looking for anything to take the focus off their own dysfunction of shutting down the government and getting our debt downgraded, etc., etc., etc.
144
She's in "good stead" with John McCain because they're both war mongers. They'll always have that in common.
4
I'm sorry, but this week, Hillary is my number two. The email is too much "much ado," aren't there issues, ideas and decisions other than the wildly endless speculations about emails that the NSA no doubt has in triplicate but won't tell us about?
This is overactive spring training for a B team practicing for the big time, but not yet in the game; coulds and mights are not much on substance. By the way, no substance: no news.
Substance was staged by a freshman who created the latest of the parallel governments the Congress keeps erecting to take over the Executive while being unable to do its own work and pass a budget! Almost 12 times the size of Mao's old "gang of 4," the 47 exerted the world's strongest push for a conclusion even they were loathe to utter (war!), seeking to give sage advice to our enemies on how democracy works! They forgot to mention "don't try this at home." As no legislature lead by a newly elected, wild-eyed fanatic has ever led wizened old fanatics down the primrose path to the beachhead in order to undermine peace by undercutting its own Executive! That was news!
It shows the strength of the Clinton brand that the 47 were only neck and neck with the emails! If they couldn't eclipse the emails, why listen to them internationally? After all, they wanted a nation to put aside diplomacy to put itself directly in harm's way! The 47's advice would likely get you bombed! That "would" be news! Next time, let's hope they get the constitution right!
This is overactive spring training for a B team practicing for the big time, but not yet in the game; coulds and mights are not much on substance. By the way, no substance: no news.
Substance was staged by a freshman who created the latest of the parallel governments the Congress keeps erecting to take over the Executive while being unable to do its own work and pass a budget! Almost 12 times the size of Mao's old "gang of 4," the 47 exerted the world's strongest push for a conclusion even they were loathe to utter (war!), seeking to give sage advice to our enemies on how democracy works! They forgot to mention "don't try this at home." As no legislature lead by a newly elected, wild-eyed fanatic has ever led wizened old fanatics down the primrose path to the beachhead in order to undermine peace by undercutting its own Executive! That was news!
It shows the strength of the Clinton brand that the 47 were only neck and neck with the emails! If they couldn't eclipse the emails, why listen to them internationally? After all, they wanted a nation to put aside diplomacy to put itself directly in harm's way! The 47's advice would likely get you bombed! That "would" be news! Next time, let's hope they get the constitution right!
378
Actually, among email stories, Clinton is still my number two. Number one is the Ferguson emails. The worst example of hate speech is being overlooked: the eugenics "joke" circulated in Ferguson that cites a bounty for aborting unborn black children, "humor" intensely evil. It was circulated by responsible adults with power and authority.
For the deconstruction of that email and how its values tie to the death of another black child, Michael Brown, see:"Eugenics As Humor in Ferguson's Emails:" [http://bit.ly/1GGwt5g]. Note: eugenics isn't funny; the title is descriptive, not conclusive and describes what the post reviews.
For the deconstruction of that email and how its values tie to the death of another black child, Michael Brown, see:"Eugenics As Humor in Ferguson's Emails:" [http://bit.ly/1GGwt5g]. Note: eugenics isn't funny; the title is descriptive, not conclusive and describes what the post reviews.
113
@Walter - you are right to point out that, while these GOPers can't even get their act together in Congress, they're trying to take over American foreign policy, and based on their track record so far they're making as much a hash of it as they are doing in the hallowed halls.
25
Walter--
My father used to tell me that people that are are uninformed or bigoted are not hard to locate---all you need to do is be quiet and watch/listen.
People will brag about how they never read a book, or, as in this case, they will express their racial views verbally or by mail--often within a "joke". They are dying to say what they feel, and if you listen closely and give them an opportunity, they will tell you.
My father used to tell me that people that are are uninformed or bigoted are not hard to locate---all you need to do is be quiet and watch/listen.
People will brag about how they never read a book, or, as in this case, they will express their racial views verbally or by mail--often within a "joke". They are dying to say what they feel, and if you listen closely and give them an opportunity, they will tell you.
19
The Benghazi cabal cried "Email",
And the National Press, without fail,
Went into a tizzy
And now we're all dizzy
With the Teapot Tempest, now a gale.
Forty seven wrote to Iran,
A harebrained and treasonous plan,
But Hill'ry, it seems,
Devised server schemes,
And naturally that hit the Fan!
And the National Press, without fail,
Went into a tizzy
And now we're all dizzy
With the Teapot Tempest, now a gale.
Forty seven wrote to Iran,
A harebrained and treasonous plan,
But Hill'ry, it seems,
Devised server schemes,
And naturally that hit the Fan!
770
Larry doubles down for Hillary - it's a big story!
2
Well done, Mr Eisenberg! One of your best!
11
___
At issue here seems to be the details and applicability of Executive Order 13526 which further enhanced the Electronic Code of Federal Regulation (44 U.S.C., 74 FR 51014, Title 36 Chapter 12, Subpart B §1220 – effective 10/2/2009, unless otherwise noted).
WITHOUT the stipulation of a GRANDFATHER clause that permits Cabinet Level Federal employees to NOT have a .gov email account and SOLELY conduct GOVERNMENT business on a PRIVATE email, someone's going to have more explaining to do as this evolves.
Comparisons to Powell's and other Secretaries of State's use of personal email must be juxtaposed against the guidelines in place at the time each served in that position and whether they ALSO had a .gov email. As to the comparisons to Jeb, merely a straw man argument; he was a Governor not a federal employee; he must adhere to the standards set forth by the state of Florida.
This is common sense and with a skosh of critical thinking.