Anti-Clinton hit piece in National Journal jumps the shark hard

[Landslide Lyndon]

I won't quote anything from this article. You must read it to believe that such a thing was posted not by Newsmax or the Weekly Standard but by the supposedly respectable NJ.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/against-the-grain/democrats-went-all-in-on-hillary-clinton-it-s-looking-like-a-terrible-bet-20150423?

[Tender Branson]

Of course the Hillary-fetishists don't like it if their princess is not touched with silk gloves.

In the article, there's nothing more than the plain truth. It shows that Hilldog is a deeply flawed candidate and the Dems would be better off with a fresh Obama-style candidate.

[King]

Of course the Hillary-fetishists don't like it if their princess is not touched with silk gloves.

In the article, there's nothing more than the plain truth. It shows that Hilldog is a deeply flawed candidate and the Dems would be better off with a fresh Obama-style candidate.

Fresh Obama style candidates are nice but there are none.

[IceSpear]

This is actually fairly tame for Hillary hit piece standards. The NYT constantly cracks out far, far worse. In fact, they're the catalyst for all the Hillary "controversies" that have come out lately. The rest of them just follow the leader and dogpile on afterwards, like this article does. It's basically just restating the same stuff that's already been repeated ad nauseum by the "political experts."

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Of course the Hillary-fetishists don't like it if their princess is not touched with silk gloves.

In the article, there's nothing more than the plain truth. It shows that Hilldog is a deeply flawed candidate and the Dems would be better off with a fresh Obama-style candidate.

Fresh Obama style candidates are nice but there are none.

But what about Martin O'Malley...

Oh wait.

[Landslide Lyndon]

This is actually fairly tame for Hillary hit piece standards. The NYT constantly cracks out far, far worse. In fact, they're the catalyst for all the Hillary "controversies" that have come out lately. The rest of them just follow the leader and dogpile on afterwards, like this article does. It's basically just restating the same stuff that's already been repeated ad nauseum by the "political experts."

I just found hilarious the part where the writer argues with a straight face that mentioning the fact that the person who alleges all these horrible things about the Clintons is actually a Republican hack with a long history of lies, gives credence to his allegations.
I mean, what kind of logic is that?

[IceSpear]

This is actually fairly tame for Hillary hit piece standards. The NYT constantly cracks out far, far worse. In fact, they're the catalyst for all the Hillary "controversies" that have come out lately. The rest of them just follow the leader and dogpile on afterwards, like this article does. It's basically just restating the same stuff that's already been repeated ad nauseum by the "political experts."

I just found hilarious the part where the writer argues with a straight face that mentioning the fact that the person who alleges all these horrible things about the Clintons is actually a Republican hack with a long history of lies, gives credence to his allegations.
I mean, what kind of logic is that?

Yeah, that was quite impressive. The NYT tends to use a throwaway line to at least cover their ass, such as "Schweizer, a right leaning conservative" or "Whether the donations played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown", usually burying it deep in the article so all the headline readers and skimmers don't see it (which is exactly their goal.)

[Landslide Lyndon]

This is actually fairly tame for Hillary hit piece standards. The NYT constantly cracks out far, far worse. In fact, they're the catalyst for all the Hillary "controversies" that have come out lately. The rest of them just follow the leader and dogpile on afterwards, like this article does. It's basically just restating the same stuff that's already been repeated ad nauseum by the "political experts."

I just found hilarious the part where the writer argues with a straight face that mentioning the fact that the person who alleges all these horrible things about the Clintons is actually a Republican hack with a long history of lies, gives credence to his allegations.
I mean, what kind of logic is that?

Yeah, that was quite impressive. The NYT tends to use a throwaway line to at least cover their ass, such as "Schweizer, a right leaning conservative" or "Whether the donations played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown", usually burying it deep in the article so all the headline readers and skimmers don't see it (which is exactly their goal.)

Oh, and after that howler the journalist practically implores the Democrats to field another candidate against Hillary.
These people are getting so desperate that I'm starting to feel embarrassed for them.

[Beezer]

The basic point remains though. Hitching your wagon to a single candidate is hardly ever a good strategy (unless that person is an incumbent obviously). Eight years ago Clinton underperfomed but the Dems had Obama to fall back on. Now they've got no one.

Of course the question remains who else could have been a contender given how abysmal the Democratic Party now is at churning out halfway decent national or state politicians.

[bobloblaw]

I won't quote anything from this article. You must read it to believe that such a thing was posted not by Newsmax or the Weekly Standard but by the supposedly respectable NJ.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/against-the-grain/democrats-went-all-in-on-hillary-clinton-it-s-looking-like-a-terrible-bet-20150423?

She's your Chris Christie. No proof Christie broke the law, but he is a bully and corrupt and doesnt deserve the nomination.

[bobloblaw]

Of course the Hillary-fetishists don't like it if their princess is not touched with silk gloves.

In the article, there's nothing more than the plain truth. It shows that Hilldog is a deeply flawed candidate and the Dems would be better off with a fresh Obama-style candidate.

Fresh Obama style candidates are nice but there are none.

But what about Martin O'Malley...

Oh wait.

He isnt grabbing her in that pic,. Clearly his hands arent close.

[bobloblaw]

This is actually fairly tame for Hillary hit piece standards. The NYT constantly cracks out far, far worse. In fact, they're the catalyst for all the Hillary "controversies" that have come out lately. The rest of them just follow the leader and dogpile on afterwards, like this article does. It's basically just restating the same stuff that's already been repeated ad nauseum by the "political experts."

I just found hilarious the part where the writer argues with a straight face that mentioning the fact that the person who alleges all these horrible things about the Clintons is actually a Republican hack with a long history of lies, gives credence to his allegations.
I mean, what kind of logic is that?

So is none of it true? What will you say when he uncovers Jeb Bush's fund raising scandals as he is planning to do?

[bobloblaw]

The basic point remains though. Hitching your wagon to a single candidate is hardly ever a good strategy (unless that person is an incumbent obviously). Eight years ago Clinton underperfomed but the Dems had Obama to fall back on. Now they've got no one.

Of course the question remains who else could have been a contender given how abysmal the Democratic Party now is at churning out halfway decent national or state politicians.

oh my. A liberal with a well reasoned thoughtful insight. What youre saying essentially is why the 2016 campaign might be the worst in recent memory. The left is "All In" on Hillary. They have no other choice.  It's Hillary or lose.

[Ebsy]

The National Journal publishes about as many glowing portraits of Rubio and his reform conservatism(which has no chance of winning the nomination or presidency) as it does on Clinton's alleged misdealings and supposed weakness as a candidate.

[bobloblaw]

The National Journal publishes about as many glowing portraits of Rubio and his reform conservatism(which has no chance of winning the nomination or presidency) as it does on Clinton's alleged misdealings and supposed weakness as a candidate.

Rubio probably has the 2nd most likely chance of winning the nomination. There are a lot of Bush fans here (mostly on the left because they want to GOP to be sane which means supporting Common Core and loving illegals), but Bush isnt going to win anything

[Landslide Lyndon]

Well, it certainly seems to be a campaign-killing scandal to me. Congratulations president Rubio!

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/04/27/1380600/--Clinton-Cash-author-can-t-even-defend-his-wild-claims-on-Fox-News

First, former Bush speechwriter and Clinton Cash author Peter Schweizer claimed—with an assist from the New York Times—that then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had approved a deal involving a Russian uranium mining company. Unfortunately for Schweizer and the Times the facts showed that the State Department is just one of nine votes on the committee that had to approve that deal, that Clinton wasn't personally involved in the review, and that other independent agencies also had to approve it. But fear not! Schweizer had a fallback position, which he trotted out on Fox News Sunday, because of course Fox News:

    WALLACE: Nine separate agencies and they point out there's no hard evidence, and you don't cite any in the book that Hillary Clinton took direct action, was involved in any way in approving as one of nine agencies the sale of the company? 

    SCHWEIZER: Well, here's what's important to keep in mind: it was one of nine agencies, but any one of those agencies had veto power. So, she could have stopped the deal.

All the money that allegedly flowed to the Clintons to smooth the way for this deal to go through was so that Clinton would not attempt, as the head of one of nine agencies on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, to veto it? When the State Department's review of the deal didn't rise to the level where the secretary would get personally involved? Oh, and by the way, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Canadian government also signed off on the deal, and if the cabinet secretaries on the CFIUS can't agree on whether to approve a deal, it's not a one-secretary veto situation: the president then decides.

So Schweizer's allegation basically boils down to that Hillary Clinton did not intervene in a process that hadn't risen to the level of needing the secretary's attention, and that she did not exercise veto power she didn't really have. Boy, those donors sure bought some extra-special treatment from her.

[Ebsy]

This scandal has fewer legs to stand on than Emailgate.

[Gallium]

Even the CEO and Editor of Newsmax has come out in defense of the Clinton Foundation, calling Schweizer's allegations "unsubstantiated, unconnected, and baseless".

Donategate is unravelling even faster than the usual Clinton "scandals".

(And how funny/sad to see Newsmax treat the Clintons more dispassionately than the New York Times).

[bobloblaw]

http://nypost.com/2015/04/26/charity-watchdog-clinton-foundation-a-slush-fund/


LOL....

[King]

http://nypost.com/2015/04/26/charity-watchdog-clinton-foundation-a-slush-fund/


LOL....

What an article. The charity watchdog says it doesn't rate it because it's not a charity. (It's not a charity. It's a private foundation.) Then they quote an unrelated person saying it appears to be a slush fund.

[136or142]

http://nypost.com/2015/04/26/charity-watchdog-clinton-foundation-a-slush-fund/


LOL....

What an article. The charity watchdog says it doesn't rate it because it's not a charity. (It's not a charity. It's a private foundation.) Then they quote an unrelated person saying it appears to be a slush fund.

Your first point is incorrect.  That charity watchdog (one of three) used to rate the Clinton Foundation but stopped doing so for the reasons they outlined.

Your broader point is accurate though, that article uses many 'bait and switch' tactics where they use a quote or mention somebody and then state something else implying that it was the person they had just quoted or mentioned that was behind the other thing and, it in fact, wasn't.

For example, the Post article mentions Charity Watch and then implies that they were the ones who supplied the figure for the Clinton Foundation spending.  In fact Charity Watch says no such thing (or anything else on the Clinton Foundation.)

Given that none of the three charity watch organizations state anything of the sort on the Clinton Foundation income and spending, I have on idea where the Post got their numbers from.  They certainly conflict with the audited financial statements on the Clinton Foundation website and they also conflict with the Clinton Foundation tax returns.

No surprise the hack 'newspaper' The New York Post makes up stuff and no surprise the hack poster Boblawlaw falls for their lies.

[ElectionsGuy]

Huh? Journalists criticizing Hillary Clinton? It must be a junk source!

[Landslide Lyndon]

Huh? Journalists criticizing Hillary Clinton? It must be a junk source!

If that's what you understood then you have some serious reading comprehension problems dude.

[Ogre Mage]

Josh Kraushaar is a right-wing writer.  His stuff is sometimes worth reading to get a sense of internal Republican politics, but everything he writes about Democrats is hackish partisan noise.

[Landslide Lyndon]

For example, the Post article mentions Charity Watch and then implies that they were the ones who supplied the figure for the Clinton Foundation spending.  In fact Charity Watch says no such thing (or anything else on the Clinton Foundation.)

Maybe they got them from the same place they get their numbers which show that Obamacare is an unmitigated disaster.