The Hillary Clinton e-mail scandal (and, yes, that is the appropriate word) only gets progressively (an ironic term for those who call themselves “progressive”) worse. Yet her apologists keep hammering away at the “unfairness” of the “attacks” upon her. This is the standard Clintonian tactic: assert that nothing was done that deserves scrutiny, accuse the investigators of having an agenda, and constantly repeat the refrain, “That’s old news, there’s nothing here, move on!”
Whenever they try to make a moral equivalence argument, noting that former secretaries of state had private e-mail accounts, they conveniently neglect the established fact that no former secretary set up his or her own server and conducted all official business via that server—which, by the way, was against the rules. Neither are they willing to acknowledge that Hillary had no authority to decide which of those e-mails were government-related and which were not. That authority resides within the State Department, not with her handpicked staff.
Clinton defenders, therefore, follow the same Clinton playbook used by Bill when he was president. One hopes, this time, that they will not succeed with their obfuscations and straight-faced distortions of truth:
This time of year, cartoonists love to use the March Madness bracket symbol to illustrate what’s happening in politics. It’s no different this time around, but the subject of those cartoons has shifted, in large part, to Hillary:
Do Democrats have no choice but to nominate her? Is there no one else in the running?
One new poll shows her favorability—among Democrats, not the general public—has dropped 15 points in the past few weeks, putting her at only 50%. Clearly, they wish they had another option, but I don’t feel sorry for them. They have put themselves in this position. You really do reap what you sow.