“I’M SORRY.... I’M SORRY.... I’M SORRY....” — BUT WHAT IS HILLARY CLINTON REALLY SORRY FOR ? ? ? — YOU TELL ME ! ! !
An appearance of “Ellen...” and an interview with a triple “Apology” all in one day — And that was just in the first day after saying she had nothing to apologize for — You can’t make this stuff up [really you can, but you don’t have to, Hillary and her folks are doing it for you] — In fact, “The Atlantic” magazine pointed out that the reports of Hillary’s non-apologies were the news in the morning of the day that Hillary made her triple-apology
“.... [I]t doesn't matter how many times James Carville goes on TV to mock the press or warn his fellow Democrats against overreacting to Clinton’s troubles: His fellow Democrats are already alarmed — and her [latest] reboot, rather than assuaging their fears, may be making the problem worse” — “The Atlantic” Magazine, David A. Graham
I choose to call this "Re-Boot" — "Das Boot" — OR — an “Iron Coffin” for an "Iron Maiden"
This morning, one of the folks at “The Atlantic” magazine asked this pertinent question: “.... Bumbling through new strategies publicly, reversing herself on an email apology within 24 hours—has the Democrat learned any of the lessons of 2008?” (See “Hillary Clinton's Bungled Reboot” by David A. Graham, 9/9/15, The Atlantic [http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/09/hiilary-reboot/404398/]).
David A. Graham goes on to tell us what he really thinks in his very thoughtful piece, here’s how he starts: “It’s a bad sign when your presidential campaign needs a reboot. It’s a worse sign when your advisers announce that reboot publicly.... That’s exactly where Hillary Clinton finds herself this week. In an attempt to right what is universally seen as a listing campaign, the Democratic frontrunner is attempting to reassure her supporters, donors, and party—as well as prospective supporters and donors—that she has what it takes to run and win a race. But so far, the hamfisted execution of that reboot suggests that she hasn’t learned enough from the debacle of her 2008 campaign, and it’s hard to imagine that events of the last two days will do much to reassure major donors and party leaders.... The precipitating cause of all of this is the continuing drip-drip of Clinton’s State Department email scandal....”
Here’s the point that David Graham and “The Atlantic” magazine wants to drive home in this article, “.... [Hillary Clinton’s] reversal — two almost diametrically opposed answers to the same question in two days — does not suggest a campaign that is confident and has a plan. And the spectacle of Clinton’s aides speaking to the press about what they “want her” to do makes for uncomfortable recollections of the 2008 campaign, in which Clinton aides fought for control of the campaign (and with each other) via the media. Heading into this race, Clinton promised she had learned the lessons of the campaign, including the risk of failing to show emotion on the trail and the danger of allowing chaos among advisers, and wouldn’t make them again.... So far, the record is mixed....” It continues further on with this: “.... Clinton's struggles show the disadvantages of running as an incumbent, her strategy so far. (Clinton’s Wednesday morning speech making the case for President Obama’s Iran nuclear agreement is the latest instance of this strategy.) One is that the campaign can forget that it actually has to win voters over. A second is that the strategy assumes the candidate has already proven her competence. Clinton’s waffling over the emails, and her advisers’ public declaration of a broader change of course, do nothing to project competence....”
David Graham’s article closes with this: “.... [I]t doesn't matter how many times James Carville goes on TV to mock the press or warn his fellow Democrats against overreacting to Clinton’s troubles: His fellow Democrats are already alarmed — and her [latest] reboot, rather than assuaging their fears, may be making the problem worse”
“Reboot” !!! More like “Das Boot” — a German U-boat depth-charged to the bottom, which greatly struggles to get back to its covered pens, only to be destroyed there in a British air raid !!! By the end of the war, they didn’t call them “Iron Coffins” for nothing....
So far, Hillary’s Campaign is looking very much like an “Iron Coffin”.......
Sort of appropriate — an "Iron Coffin" for the "Iron Maiden".......
7 comments:
Just when I thought it was safe to go back in the water
BACKFILL: THE “CHRIS CILLIZZA VERSION OF THE SAME STUFF” EDITION
THE WA-PO’S CHRIS CILLIZZA SAYS THAT ANY NEW “REBOOT/REINVENTION/REINCARNATION/RENAISSANCE/RESET ALMOST CERTAINLY WON’T WORK. BECAUSE THEY NEVER DO....”
Yesterday, the WaPo’s Chris Cillizza said, “Hillary Rodham Clinton is pushing the ‘reset’ button. That's the very clear signal her campaign wanted to send over Labor Day weekend with a series of stories -- most notably in The [Wshington] Post and the New York Times -- that offer ‘candid’ quotes from her campaign team about how now is the time for Clinton to show people who she really is....” ( See “The reinvention of Hillary Clinton almost certainly won’t work” by Chris Cillizza, 9/8/15, The Washington Post/ The Fix [http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/09/08/the-re-invention-of-hillary-clinton-almost-certainly-wont-work/]).
Tracking along a NY Times article from the day before, Cillizza’s piece in the Washington Post used some of the Times phraseology for counter-point: “.... My favorite line, though, is this one: ‘There will be new efforts to bring spontaneity to a candidacy that sometimes seems wooden and overly cautious.’... Planned spontaneity! ... Here's the thing: This reboot/reinvention/reincarnation/renaissance/reset almost certainly won't work. Because they never do....”
Cillizza’s WaPo article concludes with this: “.... No matter how great a strategy might be, if a candidate can't sell it, it won't work.... It's hard for me to imagine that after all of this time in the public eye, [Hillary] Clinton will suddenly unlock the key to relaxing and showing more of her humanity to voters. At some point, we all are who we are. For Clinton, that's a serious policy mind with a strong resume. The question -- assuming this reboot falls short of its goals -- is whether that's enough for voters next year.”
Everyone is waiting for the Hillary who . . .
Today Hillary sounded like the early saber-rattling Hillary Clinton who backed wars in Iraq and Libya that took down Saddam and Qaddafi.
UPDATE: THE “NEW YORK TIMES WEIGHS IN WITH ALL KINDS OF DOUBTS ABOUT HILLARY CLINTON BY DEMOCRATS” EDITION
BOY, SOMEBODY AT THE NY TIMES THINKS THAT POKING AT HILLARY CLINTON IS GOOD FOR FUN AND PROFIT
THE PURELY POLITICAL UN-PUFF PIECE ABOUT HILLARY SHOWS HOW THE NEW YORK TIMES THINKS HILLARY’S LATEST ROLL-OUT OR RESET IS LIKELY TO WORK OUT
According to an article appearing in the Thursday NY Times print editions, “If Hillary Rodham Clinton’s new apology for her private email server fails to reassure jittery supporters, it could amplify the chatter among some Democrats who have been casting about for a potential white knight to rescue the party from a beleaguered Clinton candidacy.... Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., Secretary of State John Kerry, Senator Elizabeth Warren, former Vice President Al Gore: Each has been discussed among party officials in recent weeks as an alternative to Mrs. Clinton if she does not regain her once-dominant standing in the 2016 presidential field and instead remains mired in the long-running email controversy, with its attendant investigations....” (See “Big-Name Plan B’s for Democrats Concerned About Hillary Clinton” by Patrick Healey, 9/9/15, NY Times/ Politics [http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/10/us/politics/big-name-plan-bs-for-democrats-concerned-about-hillary-clinton.html?ref=politics&_r=0]).
The lengthy and detailed article in the Times goes through so much of what is going through the minds of many Democratic insiders and operatives; and how they are questioning things like Hillary Clinton’s possible un-electability against a Republican in 2016.
I think that the fact the NY Times is publishing this piece at this time, shows that they think Hillary Clinton is in free-fall and unlikely to pull out of that any time soon. If nothing else, the NY Times is showing that HRC’s facade of inevitability as the Democratic Party’s nominee in 2016 has cracked.
UPDATE: THE “A TALE OF TWO HILLARY AIDES & THE BENGHAZI COMMITTEE” EDITION
HILLARY CLINTON’S I-T AIDE, BRYAN PAGLIANO, FORMALLY TAKES THE 5th IN A CLOSED DOOR SESSION, RATHER THAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT HRC’S E-MAILS AND SERVER
BENGHAZI COMMITTEE ANNOUNCES THAT ONE OF HILLARY CLINTON’S CLOSEST OPERATIVES, HUMA ABEDIN, WILL TESTIFY SOM TIME BEFORE HRC’S SCHEDULED TESTIMONY ON OCTOBER 22ND
Newsmax reports that — “[A] former State Department staffer who helped set up the email server in former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's home formally asserted his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination Thursday rather than answer questions before a Republican-led House committee.... The committee's Republican and Democratic members got into a public spat over whether Bryan Pagliano's closed-door appearance before the House Select Committee on Benghazi was necessary. His lawyer last week had told the committee that Pagliano would not testify.... Jamal Ware, a spokesman for the committee's chairman, Representative Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, said in email statement that the panel ‘is interested in facts and documents, not drama.’ He said calling Pagliano to appear in person -- but in private -- was "not designed to embarrass him or for ‘photo ops.’... Ware added that there is legal precedent. He provided a copy of a April 2007 letter in which the House Ethics Committee's top Democrat demanded that a Bush administration aide who planned to plead the Fifth still appear in person and in public before a Judiciary subcommittee....” (See “One Hillary Aide Takes the Fifth; Another to Testify to House Committee” source Bloomberg News, 9/10/15, Newsmax [http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/hillary-aide-benghazi-committee/2015/09/10/id/684233/]).
The Benghazi Committee also announced that it would be interrogating longtime Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin sometime before October 22nd, the date when Clinton is herself set to appear before that committee. Newsmax particularly noted that — “.... Abedin, whose date with the committee has not yet been announced, has worked with Clinton since she was first lady. At the State Department, she was a deputy chief of staff to Clinton from 2009 [to] late 2012. She is now a top official in Clinton 2016 presidential campaign.”
UPDATE: THE “EVEN NPR IS GIVING HRC A NEGATIVE REVIEW FOR HER LATEST ROLL-OUT..... AND SORRY PARTY” EDITION
BASICALLY, IT THEIR NPR WAY, NPR’S “‘FACT CHECK’ – ‘MIXED BAG’” IS SAYING HILLARY IS ONE BIG LYING SACK OF SUET
According to the folks at NPR — “Five months have passed since we first fact checked Hillary Clinton's arguments defending her use of a private email server while she was secretary of state. The controversy has not gone away, and the Clinton campaign, hoping for a post-Labor Day reset, is ramping up its defense.... It posted four points on its web site, titled, ‘Hillary's emails in 4 sentences.’ It also links to the State Department's cache of the emails and links to a fact sheet for ‘(lots) more answers to other questions you may have.’...” (See “Fact Check: Hillary Clinton's Email Defense Is A Mixed Bag” by Domenico Montanaro & Tamara Keith, 9/11/15, NPR [http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/09/11/439456567/fact-check-hillary-clintons-email-defense-is-a-mixed-bag]). NPR’s writers then go on to slice and dice virtually everything the HRC campaign has done and said about E-mails since last week — before calling everything “a mixed bag.”
The Monatanaro-Kieth-NPR article concludes with this: “.... For Clinton politically, she needs to get past this issue [of E-mails and servers], because she continues to slip in the polls, and the more the emails dominate the discussion, the less she's able to talk about the issues she cares about and believes plays well with the general public.”
What they clearly mean is Hillary hasn’t done that so far.
Post a Comment