• Tips gratefully accepted here. Thanks!:

  • Recent Comments

    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on To Autumn
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on To Autumn
    JMS on To Autumn
    riverdaughter on To Autumn
    Lady V on To Autumn
    riverdaughter on To Autumn
    joninhas on To Autumn
    Ga6thDem on To Autumn
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on To Autumn
    r u reddy on To Autumn
    bellecat on To Autumn
    scruzie on To Autumn
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on To Autumn
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on To Autumn
    joninhas on To Autumn
  • Categories


  • Tags

    abortion Add new tag Afghanistan Al Franken Anglachel Atrios bankers Barack Obama Bernie Sanders big pharma Bill Clinton cocktails Conflucians Say Dailykos Democratic Party Democrats Digby DNC Donald Trump Donna Brazile Economy Elizabeth Warren feminism Florida Fox News General Glenn Beck Glenn Greenwald Goldman Sachs health care Health Care Reform Hillary Clinton Howard Dean John Edwards John McCain Jon Corzine Karl Rove Matt Taibbi Media medicare Michelle Obama Michigan misogyny Mitt Romney Morning Edition Morning News Links Nancy Pelosi New Jersey news NO WE WON'T Obama Obamacare OccupyWallStreet occupy wall street Open thread Paul Krugman Politics Presidential Election 2008 PUMA racism Republicans research Sarah Palin sexism Single Payer snark Social Security Supreme Court Terry Gross Texas Tim Geithner unemployment Wall Street WikiLeaks women
  • Archives

  • History

    March 2015
    S M T W T F S
    « Feb   Apr »
    1234567
    891011121314
    15161718192021
    22232425262728
    293031  
  • RSS Paul Krugman: Conscience of a Liberal

  • The Confluence

    The Confluence

  • RSS Suburban Guerrilla

  • RSS Ian Welsh

    • War Criminals, I See War Criminals
      So—Bush Jr., of Iraq and torture, will vote for Clinton. The Clinton team is pleased. Michelle Obama has a publicity photo with her embracing him. 1st Lady Michelle Obama hugs Pres. George W.Bush at opening of @NMAAHC I was there for 1 of museums chief sponsors @BankofAmerica pic.twitter.com/XWw41G5nHO — kennerly (@kennerly) September 24, 2016 Meanwhile they […]
  • Top Posts

Obama throws Hillary under the bus

It’s  either that or he never communicated with her about foreign policy.

Riiiiiiight

32 Responses

  1. I don’t quite trust myself to comment on that right now.

  2. Happens early and often.

  3. I’d have been shocked if he had NOT let her down.

    Except for the fact that I seem to keep having birthdays, I’d swear we’re in a chronic hysteresis, constantly looping back to the betrayals of 2008 (and 2009 and 2010 and 2011 and 2012 and and and) forever.

  4. It’s not even a reasonable lie. It’s like he can’t stop himself.

  5. Oh, he played the stupidity card. Things must have been getting hot for him….but I sort of buy it, since does anyone believe that the useful idiots “we” elect do anything outside of playing golf?–even read email?

  6. This is going to be the most interesting political thing we have seen happen yet. Unbelievable. Like Watergate but worse.

  7. Oh, good lord, there really isn’t even a question of whether she broke any law. She didn’t.
    http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/03/03/the-new-york-times-deceptive-suggestion-that-hi/202726

    And he wasted one good public lie on it. What a schmuck.
    And what a derelict media apparatus.

    • Media matters isn’t always the bastion of truth. Strangely enough, they’re defending Hillary and are absolutely right in this case. But expect them to also throw her under the bus if Obama wants it.

    • There were a number of laws on the books dating back to the 1970’s that may have been violated. Since criminal prosecution is unlikely we’ll never see a clear answer to whether or not Hillary broke the law.

      But even assuming that no laws were violated, her actions were clearly intended to circumvent the FOIA and other open government laws. At the very least what she did is bad optics.

      • Why weren’t any of the others who used their private email addresses accused of crimes?

        • They were. But nothing happened because of the same reason that nothing is going to happen to Hillary – the administration in office at the time wouldn’t investigate and the AG in office wouldn’t file charges.

          This is the first time I recall that the mainstream news media has pursued an email story – usually it’s just cable news and blogs.

          The problem with saying that the other side does it too is that they take turns violating the spirit if not the letter of the law but nothing ever changes. You can bet that a few years from now the Democrats will be the ones complaining and the Republicans will be saying “Hillary did it too!”

          • My argument is not “the other side does it too.” My argument is that it isn’t illegal and that’s why both sides were doing it…even with your reference to a “number of laws”. Articles that talk about “a number of laws” have distorted the facts.

            All the other arguments mentioned over time have been stupid. Clinton shared no classified information over email. It would be foolish to do so. Clinton’s site could have been hacked, yes. However, many of the .gov web sites have been hacked, including OPM, the military and of course our little healthcare.gov.

            The law has changed. The emails are now required to be sent from a .gov address. Sending mail from one’s private email may have been an ambiguity until now, but now the ambiguity is fixed. Your issues aren’t issues.

          • And besides….why is it that even though this kind of behavior has been going on for years, (See Libby, Cheney, disappearing emails), the person who has to pay for it all….is Hillary Clinton.

            I think “the other side does it too” seemed to work fantastically well up until now with both the politicians on both sides of the aisle and the media….why now. Why is the woman pinned with the blame?

    • oh come now love, of course she broke the law, it’s just a matter of the repubican buffoons proving it. perhaps boehner will cry about it?
      As for the POTUS we all know he’ll lie and do anything to cover himself.
      What say we move on in support of Elizabeth Warren.

  8. Okay. So Obama is the skanky liar we all knew him to be back in 2008 or he’s the clueless dolt the GOP loves to describe him as. Either one looks bad for Obama.

    • It’s not an either/or situation you know. Personally, I think he’s a clueless, skanky, lying dolt.

  9. So, would the Clintons like to get even? If they would, are there ways they have to get even with?
    I would imagine Obama could be attacked either through his money or through his narcissistic self-image. Do the Clintons have leverage over either of those?
    Do the Clintons know enough money people that they could somehow get reduced the private payoff Obama is due to get for his 8 years of loyal service to the Overclass? I don’t know how things work up at that level, but I would imagine they probably couldn’t get Obama’s future payoffs reduced by much. An implicit bargain is still a bargain, but is only good if it is kept. If the Overclass fails to pay off Obama as implicitly promised, how can the Overclass be sure the next President will serve their interests in return for future promises of payment?

    Perhaps the Clintons could hurt Obama’s feelings. Perhaps they could get his vanity Library in Chicago either cancelled, or at the very least located away from the public park where it is now going to be located and for which public land will be strong-arm robbed from the people to give to the library. The Clintons still have political power and campaign power. They still have support among blacks and other Dvoters in Chicago. They could quietly threaten Mayor Rahm to overtly and covertly help his mayoral runoff opponent every which way they can unless Rahm cancels the Obama library. If Rahm cancels the Obama library so that it STAYS cancelled, the Clintons can keep silent about Chicago mayoral politics during the runoff. If the Clintons could pull strings to torture Rahm into cancelling Obama’s library, that would hurt Obama’s feelings. It would be the hurt which keeps on hurting. I hope the Clintons go right ahead and do it.

    • Well, the irony is that the right wing has moved on from Hillary to Obama on the email stuff because Obama said he didn’t know about the emails but he had gotten emails from her. So he’s saying he didn’t know she had her own email account but got emails from her?

      • My husband said the same thing about the GOP’s distraction factor and how all heads have swiveled [for the moment] in a game of gotcha–emails from HRC to Obama and Obama to HRC, proving that the President lied or forgot or had one of those momentary lapses, the classic inartful utterance.

        That haters got to hate but POTUS stepped on his own tongue. Ouch! Was this deliberate? Don’t know. Maybe there’s a feud simmering. The Obamacrats do seem very touchy online, the ‘she can’t win without our support’ chant repeated too many times. Must be worried about their jobs. Or something.

        But the Republicans? They’re churning themselves into a feeding frenzy already. Here’s hoping they eat their own!

      • Yeah, no one believes that Obama didn’t know. He’d have to be the least computer literate president in 20 years.
        I dunno, maybe he is. Management rarely tends to know how to use computers effectively.
        In either case, it doesn’t look good for him.
        I wouldn’t have admitted this if I were his press secretary.

    • Push The Button.

    • I’m not sure how to take this, but in any case, I like it. WAR! Politically speaking, of course.

    • I seriously doubt that the Clintons have that kind of control over the rich sychophants who got Obama elected.

      • You are probably correct about the rich “sychophants”, though I wouldn’t call them “sycophants”. I would call them “owners and sponsors”.

        But the Clintons don’t HAVE to control Obama’s rich owners to have an impact against Rahm in his mayoral runoff election. They can get themselves and all their retainers to show up in Chicago and campaign for Rahm’s opponent. Perhaps they could remind Rahm of that political fact. And then offer Rahm a deal he “can’t refuse”.

        ” We made you, Rahm and we can break you. Don’t believe it? Care to find out? Nice little runoff you got there. Too bad if something was to happen to it. Now . . . if you were to cancel the Obama Library, we can give you protection against something happening to your nice little runoff.”

        The Clintons can certainly do THAT.

    • I think that they might be able to produce a message or two from that email account indicating that Obama was too busy resting up for the next day’s fundraiser to bother with Benghazi, and that this is the reason no measures were taken to secure the compound and rescue its personnel. I’m making popcorn.

  10. The Clintons aren’t Frank and Claire Underwood.

    • I gather Frank and Claire Underwood are a pair of TV political villains out to advance themselves? I don’t watch much TV so I don’t know.

      If I am correct, then the Clintons don’t HAVE to be Frank and Claire Underwood. This isn’t about self-advancement. This is about HONor and reVENGE. I hope the Clintons decide to do this.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: