Once again, liberals are in a position they’ve grown to dislike: they have to defend the Clintons. While she has positioned herself to run for president, Hillary has an albatross hanging over her.
To the Clintons, this may seem like a great rally cry to round everyone up behind her. But it is a task liberals would rather not have. It’s bad enough they have to defend the Clinton’s entire record anyway but to intentionally give them something else which they must defend her on, against the vast right-wing conspiracy, is an added job on top pf it all.
Remember in the Clinton years she lectured the press telling them the big story media should care to talk and write about is the one about the vast right-wing conspiracy victimizing the Clintons. She scolded them to do that with righteous ambition, which would suit their fancy just fine. They did.
Now again she issues the call to arms after committing an intentional offense while in office — offending even progressives. And she expects that since they have grown used to the job, are experienced at it — and since she is a woman of historic potential — that it will be all the easier for them to jump to her defense. Well, they really have no choice with all the marbles on her — just how she wants it. Let the talking points begin.
Hillary and Iran, two peas in a pod
Hillary’s email problem has a parallel with the Iran negotiations. Both are more matters of illusion than substance. Clinton defenders lecture us not to criticize her emails because we don’t know what is in them. That’s the Dems favorite shell game. With Iran, they say you don’t know what the deal is so you cannot criticize it. They say we must see the deal or emails before passing judgement.(and they aren’t anxious for us to see either)
So, in other words, Hilllary’s email content will determine if she did anything wrong? Both parties have about zero credibility. Where Iran operates on religious motivations, Hillary operates on political ones.
Yet this is the tack the Democrats are taking with Hillary. Wait and see, never mind that she is already outside any ethics or the law itself. Never mind she negotiated 4 months to turn over what she did. Iran negotiations were extended at least twice and they still refuse to allow inspectors full access. We won’t get to see Hillary’s server either.
In both cases the obfuscation is obvious. In both we’re told to withhold judgement and that they are in compliance so far. Hillary was not compliant when she set the whole thing up. She will point to Colinn Powell, Jeb Bush, and Chris Christie. Iran will point to ISIS as the big problem. Neither is to be trusted by any rational thinking person. (Democrats are irrational) Both claim to be in compliance with all the rules that they did nothing wrong, and have no ulterior motives. Right.
Both “require the willing suspension of disbelief.”
RightRing | Bullright