http://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...travel-democrats-republicans-column/26415031/
I'm generally slow to jump on scandal bandwagons, especially when they're driven by political opponents, because they frequently find a lot of smoke but not fire (Benghazi, IRS scandal, Travelgate, Whitewater, etc.) or they find fire, but nobody cares (Lewinsky and arguably, Iran-Contra). However, I think the rules are different when we're talking about a candidate than when we're talking about an incumbent. Why? Because impeachment is a big deal and pretty disruptive to the nation's business. It's basically firing the President, and most want that to be a last resort and only for the worst conduct. Accordingly, unless there's strong evidence of criminal liability on a critical issue, the public might be critical of a politician but will frequently let him slide.
I think choosing a candidate is a different ballgame than impeachment. It's more like choosing not to hire somebody. You may not hire somebody if he gives you a bad vibe or seems shady - a lower standard than you'd likely apply before affirmatively firing somebody already on the job. I do not see how the recent stories about the Clinton Foundation coupled with the hidden e-mail server would not give somebody bad vibes and very skeptical.
I've watched the Clintons deflect scandals for over 20 years, and their rap is usually the same and generally works well. (Having a complicit media helps a lot too.) They start by denying everything. As evidence trickles in (meaning their denial is proven to be *********), they start attacking the character of their accusers. After the dust settles, they might admit to "mistakes" (the "I'm stupid and incompetent" defense) but claim that there's no proof of some critical fact that would produce criminal liability. (See how "we were never alone together" turned into, "she just blew me and let me pleasure her with a cigar, so I didn't lie. And Ken Starr and Newt Gingrich are really rotten guys.") That works in the impeachment realm where the public doesn't want the lengthy ordeal. I'm not so sure that it works in the candidate realm.
The bottom line is that walking on the line of criminal activity has always been the Clintons' course of conduct, and it always will be. The sleazy activities of the Foundation, exorbitant speaking fees from dirty people, the false or inadequate reporting of foreign donations ("the mistakes"), Russian entanglement with US uranium supplies, etc. have to make any sensible person queasy about voting for HRC. Is there conclusive proof of a quid pro quo (meaning sufficient evidence to charge her with criminal bribery and throw her in the slammer)? No, but there's also the hiding of information through the private e-mail server, which she controls by herself, so if there is evidence of a quid pro quo, we'll never see it unless HRC decides to show it to us. I don't care how partisan of a Democrat you might be. You can't feel good about voting for that, and that's gotta make you sweat, because Democrats win by motivating groups that often skip voting to go vote. If you're a cool, black dude with strong ethics, that's an easier task. I think an old, entitled corporate sellout with extremely questionable ethics and the personal appeal of a disgruntled Walmart greeter is going to have a harder time.
It's not too late for Liz Warren to get in.
I'm generally slow to jump on scandal bandwagons, especially when they're driven by political opponents, because they frequently find a lot of smoke but not fire (Benghazi, IRS scandal, Travelgate, Whitewater, etc.) or they find fire, but nobody cares (Lewinsky and arguably, Iran-Contra). However, I think the rules are different when we're talking about a candidate than when we're talking about an incumbent. Why? Because impeachment is a big deal and pretty disruptive to the nation's business. It's basically firing the President, and most want that to be a last resort and only for the worst conduct. Accordingly, unless there's strong evidence of criminal liability on a critical issue, the public might be critical of a politician but will frequently let him slide.
I think choosing a candidate is a different ballgame than impeachment. It's more like choosing not to hire somebody. You may not hire somebody if he gives you a bad vibe or seems shady - a lower standard than you'd likely apply before affirmatively firing somebody already on the job. I do not see how the recent stories about the Clinton Foundation coupled with the hidden e-mail server would not give somebody bad vibes and very skeptical.
I've watched the Clintons deflect scandals for over 20 years, and their rap is usually the same and generally works well. (Having a complicit media helps a lot too.) They start by denying everything. As evidence trickles in (meaning their denial is proven to be *********), they start attacking the character of their accusers. After the dust settles, they might admit to "mistakes" (the "I'm stupid and incompetent" defense) but claim that there's no proof of some critical fact that would produce criminal liability. (See how "we were never alone together" turned into, "she just blew me and let me pleasure her with a cigar, so I didn't lie. And Ken Starr and Newt Gingrich are really rotten guys.") That works in the impeachment realm where the public doesn't want the lengthy ordeal. I'm not so sure that it works in the candidate realm.
The bottom line is that walking on the line of criminal activity has always been the Clintons' course of conduct, and it always will be. The sleazy activities of the Foundation, exorbitant speaking fees from dirty people, the false or inadequate reporting of foreign donations ("the mistakes"), Russian entanglement with US uranium supplies, etc. have to make any sensible person queasy about voting for HRC. Is there conclusive proof of a quid pro quo (meaning sufficient evidence to charge her with criminal bribery and throw her in the slammer)? No, but there's also the hiding of information through the private e-mail server, which she controls by herself, so if there is evidence of a quid pro quo, we'll never see it unless HRC decides to show it to us. I don't care how partisan of a Democrat you might be. You can't feel good about voting for that, and that's gotta make you sweat, because Democrats win by motivating groups that often skip voting to go vote. If you're a cool, black dude with strong ethics, that's an easier task. I think an old, entitled corporate sellout with extremely questionable ethics and the personal appeal of a disgruntled Walmart greeter is going to have a harder time.
It's not too late for Liz Warren to get in.
