"The drip-drip of e-mails has dogged her campaign and will continue to do so."
"The next president must demonstrate some capacity for working with opponents, for seeking reasonable compromise, while remaining committed to a firm set of values. Clinton has done so throughout her career."
“Clinton has shown a dogged commitment to Democratic values”
Values. Like openness? They barely acknowledged her email problem:
The drip-drip of e-mails has dogged her campaign and will continue to do so. Her early campaign was plagued by too much emphasis on her résumé and too little on the inspiring vision voters seek in a president. Her support for the Defense of Marriage Act and votes on the Iraq war and other issues have haunted her and have contributed to a disturbingly high level of mistrust that she must work to overcome.
They trusted her. So they must have had a very hard time deciding exactly which words and phrases best expressed their feelings about last week’s State Department IG report. They haven’t deduced the full implications yet, but they are getting much closer to a realistic view of the situation. Their praise has turned into a set of demands for her to begin cooperating.
Their latest thoughts on Clinton are as follows (bold text is added)
New audit reveals that she failed to cooperate with inspector general.
By Editorial Board Star Tribune MAY 25, 2016 — 5:54PM
A State Department audit has found that Hillary Clinton violated department rules in her use of a home e-mail server and failed to properly preserve federal records as secretary of state. That is troubling in itself for someone so close to becoming her party’s nominee for president. But even more troubling is Clinton’s refusal to be interviewed about her practices by government officials.
But... Judicial Watch started this bullshit! NOTHINGBURGER!!!
They’ve heard that one:
Allegations of bias from the Clinton camp are futile and should be dropped. This was no GOP witch hunt. It was a review directed by Clinton’s own successor, John Kerry.
They then highlight something that even the least informed American can understand: The coverup. To this they ask (and I paraphrase):
Should we elect a president who refuses to answer legitimate questions? Really?
These are their exact words:
to decline to talk with the inspector general charged with investigating her conduct, even as she is asking Americans to elevate her to this nation’s highest office, is unconscionable.
That must have been difficult to write for the people who had endorsed Hillary against the views of almost 2/3 of the Democrats in Minnesota. To be fair, they endorsed her when she was giving numerous assurances that she was cooperating fully. That was back when she claimed that the Clinton Foundation was not being investigated. So they trusted her enough to say she should be president. They now imply that she acted without conscience, and someone without conscience is obviously not fit to be president. They don’t say THAT yet, but the word they chose has real meaning. There are many others they could have used.
They used this one:
Unconscionable: Something that is almost unimaginably unacceptable... something that no reasonable person would even think of doing or saying — something unbelievable, outrageous, and often horrible.
She wants us to trust her to be president, but she refused to cooperate with John Kerry's IG, appointed by President Obama.
They then refer to the bigger shoe, which is due to drop any time:
Clinton remains under FBI investigation, and she has said she will cooperate.
She has said that she would cooperate all along. The IG report says she didn’t. They refer to the fact that the FBI can compel her cooperation. Her underlings have testified,and she will probably do so very shortly.
They then bring up another very important point: Clinton’s competence:
Clinton has been in government far too long not to know the need for properly preserving federal records. She also knows that she was supposed to surrender all department-related e-mails upon leaving office, yet it’s taken two years to obtain them.
Clinton’s selling point becomes a reason to distrust her original story, that “convenience” was the driving motive. They refer to a “two year delay” but they do not mention that delay was ended by a lawsuit. They do not mention the emails that she didn’t turn in. But they do force a black-and-white question...
the inspector general could find no evidence that Clinton received approval from the department’s legal adviser to use a private e-mail server, even though Clinton has said she had permission.
That is something even the low information voter can understand. She has publicly insisted that the server setup was approved. Either it was or it wasn't. Either she lied or the IG is lying.
So what does this liberal editorial board recommend?
Their prescription
[Hillary Clinton] must cooperate quickly and completely with government officials and answer questions fully.
She has always claimed to be cooperating, so she will continue to do that. She will say she “made mistakes” and drag it out some more, trying to get the nomination. They don’t say they want her to clear this up before the nomination, but of course that would be a good way to avoid a potential disaster for the party. Obviously Clinton’s position becomes more entrenched once nominated, removing her at that point becomes hugely problematic for the party. Hence the word unconscionable.
I believe they have acknowledged, gently, that she is perfectly willing to lie to us, hoping to get into a position where we will have to support her. She knows if she can just get the nomination a large number of Democrats will start acting like the blind loyalists on this site. She wants us to be SO afraid of Trump that we will ignore her disregard for the democratic values we are supposed to share.
This is unconscionable. That is the correct word, one her own supporters chose. They also said (in their endorsement) that the Sanders supporters’ “frustration with the current order should be recognized. ” Our frustrations WILL be recognized.
The way that the current order stymies action on climate change, offering incremental change when the crisis demands radical transformation, the way the current order encourages obscene wealth disparity, the way it kills millions of people every year, our frustration will be recognized.
Hillary Clinton will double down on her deception, knowing that telling the truth will reveal the things about her Foundation she tried to conceal. Some of her supporters will continue to ask questions. And at Daily Kos the horde will cheer as she finally jumps the shark. She may succeed, and she may not. We’ll see. The cries of the loyalists notwithstanding, if her problem is not cleared up “quickly and completely” she will damage our party to a degree that may be enough to elect the odious Trump.
If that happens it will not be the fault of the man who has so far refused to point out that the Fonz has no pants. It will be the fault of the people who refused to ask questions.
He has a lot of experience
