More shady Clinton foundation stuff uncovered

[Bull Moose Base]

As I've said all along, this stuff is a nuisance and she isn't the Democrats' strongest potential nominee but she'll win anyway.

[Bull Moose Base]

I dont understand why partisan Dems dont see the disaster that Hillary will be for their party. She might win, might have moderate coattails, but the long term damage she does to the party will be enormous. Can the Dem party in 2018 stand another 2014 or 2010 rout?

Thanks to 2010 and 2014, there is essentially no Dem bench in many states, OH and FL among them. How far down does the Dem party want to fall so that Hillary can be president?

The Republicans muckrake against any Democratic candidate. Hillary has these scandals but if Warren the Fake Cherokee or Biden the Plagiarist Groper or anyone else were the nominee, these same books would still get written with conspiracy theories surrounding everyone they've ever met. To think that simply subbing out Hillary will make it go away is rubbish.

Boring old John Kerry probably had the cleanest nose of any Democratic nominee of the past the century and he was completely trashed as a fake war hero and liar.

The conservative talk radio/Breitbart/Drudge circuits are skilled at smearing anyone. It's an effective way to rally the far right base at a grassroots level. The media--conservative, liberal, and neutral--love the idea of scandals because its good for ratings, so they tend to buy in on accusations.

The question Democrats have to ask if they want to succeed is not "who can we get that won't get tarnished in scandal?" but "who can we get that will be able to defend themselves against the attempts to tarnish them with scandal?" The best answer is Clinton.

Otherwise, you end up with John Kerry and George McGovern getting punched in the face repeatedly without much resistance.

This isn't really a made-up scandal like the swiftboat nonsense. As Jonathan Chait says in his column, even the good version of this is bad, but she'll probably get lucky when the GOP overplays it. In any case, yes, the Democrats would be better with a nominee who has fewer real problems. And there's no reason to think Warren or Klobuchar wouldn't fight back just as hard as they faced less credible accusations. But it won't change anything. Most Democrats aren't supporting Hillary because of her general election strength but because they like her. (In general, it's very doubtful most primary voters weight electability heavily in deciding how to cast their vote.) In any case, neither of those other two are running, and Klobuchar endorsed Hillary before she even got in.

[Bull Moose Base]

rand is ok, that's an impressive job finding effective quotes I have to admit but, in the same vein as Adam T's reply, the justices you quote voting to pry the hands of deep-pocketed donors off the levers of policy creating are all liberals, 2 of them appointed by Bill Clinton. I agree there was a conflict of interest here (with or without clear quid pro quo) and would even prefer another nominee with less of these issues, but I also have zero doubt Hillary winning the nomination with or without my primary vote. But I also know she will appoint Supreme Court justices I prefer and presumably either be a much better choice than the Republican nominee to advance rules to reduce the influence of money in politics, or only equally bad.

[Bull Moose Base]

Adam, how has the conflict of interest been debunked?

I agree the Republican candidates have done comparable things and in the cases of Bush and Walker they've been covered by the media. What really makes Hillary Clinton different is that her and Bill Clinton are more famous than any Republican candidate so covering this new revelation means more business for them. That may be a greedy motive but it's not the same as an anti-Hillary bias. The Christie camp was alleging bias with the deluge of Bridgegate coverage but the reality was probably it just got viewers and clicks.

It's been clear for a while Hillary is in major ways a mismatch for the moment; she's a poor messenger on income inequality, corporate influence on Washington, and distaste for DC. But all that said, no non-incumbent has ever been better positioned to cruise to the nomination and it happens to be for the party with the advantage for 2016.

EDIT: Also, while I don't think Hillary is the best messenger for the Democrats, I don't think it will be a problem for her because despite her own wealth and, say, Walker talking about Kohl's every few seconds, she has an easy case that his policies prioritize people of her income level and hers favor people who shop at Kohl's.

[Bull Moose Base]

Adam, how has the conflict of interest been debunked?

I agree the Republican candidates have done comparable things and in the cases of Bush and Walker they've been covered by the media. What really makes Hillary Clinton different is that her and Bill Clinton are more famous than any Republican candidate so covering this new revelation means more business for them. That may be a greedy motive but it's not the same as an anti-Hillary bias. The Christie camp was alleging bias with the deluge of Bridgegate coverage but the reality was probably it just got viewers and clicks.

1.Please reread what I wrote. I said everything "except the potential conflict of interest" has been debunked.  The potential for conflict of interest is obvious on its face.  

Sorry, I did misread that.

2.I've not seen any national media reports of this on Walker at all, and the coverage of Bush has certainly not been the feeding frenzy it is with HRC. The most recent story on Walker I've seen is that he must be a great Christian because he is the son of a preacher man.

And your point is taken here too. I have read stories about similar behavior from Walker, Bush Rubio but it hasn't gotten anywhere near the national and frenetic energy the coverage of this has. And a GOP candidate's landing of a billionaire donor is reported as a boost in the horserace rather than a conflict of interest just like the one they are freaking out over here. That is true.