And now: Three rules for understanding Hillary Clinton’s words and deeds

This is your periodic reminder that, as awful as Donald Trump is, Hillary Clinton views the government as her own personal service.

This one doesn’t rely on any questionable information from the likes of Wikileaks; it comes straight from the FBI itself. Here’s the gist, via the Associated Press:

“A senior State Department official asked the FBI last year to help reduce the classification of an email from Hillary Clinton’s private server, according to FBI investigative files that have been made public. It was to be part of a bargain that would have allowed the FBI to deploy more agents in foreign countries, according to the files.”

Clinton rally

That “senior State Department official” was Patrick F. Kennedy, the undersecretary for management who served during Clinton’s entire tenure as secretary after first being appointed by George W. Bush. The story reflects very badly on Clinton on its face: While the email was sent in late 2012 (it described news reports related to the Benghazi attack), the request for re-classification wasn’t made until last year. The context is obvious: Kennedy allegedly made his reclassification request in late June or early July 2015, about a month after the AP reported that Clinton received classified information about the Benghazi attack on her private email account hosted on the unsecured server in her basement.

But the details are even worse. Back to the current AP story:

“According to the account in the FBI records, Kennedy proposed using an obscure provision under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act to keep the existence of the classified document from becoming public. By labeling the email unclassified but exempt under the federal records law, the State Department would have avoided criticism that its employees had mishandled classified files but still would have prevented the email’s public release.”

See that? They wanted to keep the information secret, but they wanted to avoid “criticism that its employees had mishandled classified files.” You can almost hear the quintessentially Clintonian spin from State Department flaks: That information she emailed? It’s not “classified.” But no, you can’t have it, because it’s … secret. Pretty nifty, huh?

One thing you might gloss over in the story is the reaction from the Clinton campaign:

“Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon said the campaign had never been part of any such discussion about email classifications.”

Of course “the campaign” wasn’t — because it didn’t need to be. It had loyalists still in the government to do that kind of dirty work.

Not that Clinton waited until leaving office to mix her personal and official interests, as the recent reporting by ABC News about the lucrative contracts awarded to “Friends of Bill” over less-connected folks when State was coordinating relief efforts after the 2010 earthquake in Haiti — and the tragic shortfall that remains there between what was promised and what was actually delivered. Billions were spent on the impoverished island, and yet fewer than 1,500 homes have been rebuilt in six years. There is, however, a luxury hotel there now. It is owned by — no prizes for guessing — a Clinton Foundation donor.

All of which means there is a corollary to the three rules for understanding what Trump says or does that I posted last week. Here are the three rules for understanding Hillary:

  1. First, last and always, Hillary Clinton is about becoming president. If she needs to call young black males “superpredators” in the 1990s to help her husband win re-election, and then come back smiling to ask for their votes in 2016, she’ll do it. She’s not here for them, or anyone else. She’s with her(self).
  2. Hillary wakes up every day asking herself, what do I need to say or do today to make sure I become president? True or false, principled or not: If it will help her move one vote closer to the White House, she will do or say it — and that’s been true of her for at least two decades.
  3. There are things Hillary believes in, but none tops her belief she needs to be president. Hillary is a true-blue progressivist. Her reputation as a moderate owes only to her willingness to adapt in the name of seeking power. This is why most Bernie Bros don’t trust her devotion to left-wing ideas, and why most conservatives don’t trust the rhetoric she’s sprinkled throughout this campaign to attract those of us who won’t back Trump. None of it is believable.

The old adage has been proven correct many times: Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. One who has proved corrupt with the power she has been given shouldn’t be given more.

Reader Comments 0

230 comments
RafeHollister
RafeHollister

For Fineous and others that have so much confidence in the polls, this guy has some warnings.  Left wing site as well.


http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/campaign/301220-you-cant-trust-polls-clintons-winning-but-our-polling-methods-are




In the most recent presidential election, Gallup’s final estimate of likely voters, issued on the eve of Election Day in 2012, projected Mitt Romney as the winner.  A day later, Obama was the winner by nearly 4 percentage points.

Soon after this debacle the Gallup Organization, the inventor of scientific polling in the 1930’s, fell on its sword and quit the election horse-race business altogether. Rasmussen got it wrong in 2012 as well, but they opted to stay in the business.  

But in all fairness to those polling giants, they weren’t alone. Three pollsters wimped out, projecting a tied vote, and of the four remaining polls on the RealClearPolitics summary, only two predicted an Obama victory, and those two did so with minimal confidence.>>>


Few if any polling organizations report the response rate, that is, the percentage of respondents selected by some form of probability sampling who actually completed the interview. Participation can be as low as 1 in 10 because the vast majority of those who are called do not answer poll questions.  Can pollsters just ignore those who don’t respond? Do people who decline to participate vote the same way as those who respond?

To assume so seems a risky bet — a bet Kerry lost in 2004.

So hold off on trusting poll-driven proclamations of a Clinton victory just yet. Voters have a way of always getting the last word.   

RafeHollister
RafeHollister

Another point he makes is if you poll 10 people, how do you pick the 6 who will actually make it to the polls, since only about 60% of registered voters actually vote.

AndyManUSA#45
AndyManUSA#45

Coming soon to a television set near you, finally, a debate with an honest, unbiased moderator.


Wanna bet that a discussion of the wikileaks won't be censored? 

lvg
lvg

The "quid pro quo " uproar is over the classification of one e-mail involving a change of government in a small African country where the leader died. Cons want to make the disclosure of the successor's name to Hillary a high level secret. It was a god d-n talking pont  memo with a little c and the name so she knew who she knew who she was sending condolences to or talking to on the phone. Trump probably has no clue where that country is or who its leader is or their political leanings. Which bothers you more?????????

LogicalDude
LogicalDude

I look forward to your article for whom you support for President. Johnson? Stein? 


It'll be interesting. 

Bruno2
Bruno2

@LogicalDude Kyle may think that "voting his conscience" has value, but there are only two people on the ballot that have any chance of winning.  I voted for Ross Perot twice in the 90s, but I thought he had a viable chance, particularly the first time around. 

LogicalDude
LogicalDude

@Bruno2 @LogicalDude If enough people vote third party, that party gets a piece of the national funds. 

That is what the two parties are scared of. They aren't scared of losing right now, they scared of what it could mean to the system that is currently set up. 

RafeHollister
RafeHollister

@Bruno2 @LogicalDude Hedley maintains that Perot only took votes away from Clinton, but I bet you can prove his idiotic argument bunk.  Who would have been you second choice?

RafeHollister
RafeHollister

@LogicalDude @Bruno2 What scares me is what is in front of us.  I believe if Trump loses the GOP is going to splinter as there is no unifying idea or individual capable of holding it together.  We are then left with a powerful progressive party with splintered opposition.  Unlike a parliamentary system where splinter parties can agree to rule together and control the government, our system is not flexible.  So if the majority of folks splinter off, can a country survive if 40-45% of the people dominate and control the government?


Not sure where this goes.

Bruno2
Bruno2

@RafeHollister @LogicalDude @Bruno2 See my comment below about 2 vs 3.  My guess would be that real competition would result, and the Dem share of the pie would go down with more choices available.

Bruno2
Bruno2

@RafeHollister @Bruno2 @LogicalDude He's basing his opinion on exit polling, but ignores the fact that Perot campaigned directly against Bush, Sr and not against Clinton.

I'm not sure about you, but I don't assign much weight to Hedley's opinions since he has demonstrated time and again that he's not here to discover or promote the truth, he's here to be a disagreeable a$$.

LogicalDude
LogicalDude

@RafeHollister @LogicalDude @Bruno2 " I believe if Trump loses the GOP is going to splinter as there is no unifying idea"


I'm of two minds. 


On the one hand, I think when Trump loses, The Republicans go back to business as usual. They forget all the differences and just work "to beat Clinton at everything".  Those voters who supported anything Republican before, and but now hate Ryan, Cruz, and Kasich for being against Trump will forget it all and just go back to the GOP. 


On the other hand, if those voters who hate Ryan, Cruz, Kasich and anyone who might have a compromising bone in their bodies keep electing wing-nuts, then that fear you have comes about. That will weaken the party even more than now. Moderate voters will flock to the only place left - the Democrats. 

RafeHollister
RafeHollister

@Bruno2 @RafeHollister @LogicalDude True that.  Exit polls had the Democrat propaganda machine gloating and smiling in 2004, because they had Kerry winning by 2% pts.  Apparently they over sampled Democrat voters, go figure.  Their excuse was the Bush voters didn't cooperate with the pollsters, as much as the Kerry supporters.


They missed horribly on BREXIT and the Netanyahu election, so polls are most often close but not always "for sure".

Bruno2
Bruno2

@LogicalDude @RafeHollister @Bruno2 I'm guessing "business as usual".  There's too much money at stake, too many people who are doing well under the current system, even when they "lose".

Bruno2
Bruno2

@LogicalDude @Bruno2 I agree with you that the two main parties are afraid of a viable third party, and will do all they can to prevent it, a point that Donnie Pinko over at Bookman's place has brought up repeatedly.  If that is Kyle's motivation, then I stand behind it, although he hasn't stated that explicitly.

To support your point, where I grew up in NJ, there were only two gas stations within a reasonable driving distance.  Not so mysteriously, they always kept the same price for gas.  It took a third station opening up to get some real competition going. The lesson to me is that two "opposing" entities usually collude together s do the Dems and Repubs.

RafeHollister
RafeHollister

@LogicalDude @RafeHollister @Bruno2 If the voters supported the positions of the establishment, I would agree with everything returns to normal.  However there is so much animosity out there for Pious Paul and Morose Mitch, McCain, Romney, Graham, etc, because they have exposed themselves as being more in line with Hillary than Trump.  They all are supportive of more immigration, more unfair trade deals, and more globalism, which really riles up the voters.  Don't know how they hold it together, without major changes, which none of the leadership will support as they want the same policies that enrich their donors.

LogicalDude
LogicalDude

@RafeHollister @LogicalDude @Bruno2 "more immigration, more unfair trade deals, and more globalism,"


Here's the thing. It's the 21st century. Globalism is not going to stop just because a few voters want it to stop. It's driving the 21st century economy. 


Trade deals that those companies want will not stop either. Most countries see it as win-win when they get the trade deals. The fine print where people might lost some freedoms should be wiped out, though. (the fear of the Trans Pacific Partnership). 


Immigration will not stop either. Now, illegal immigration is where things come to a head. Financially, the country cannot deport everyone. Ethically, the country cannot deport everyone. However, any attempt at a logical approach is met with "follow the law! build a wall! deport 'em all!" by the non-thinking class.  There can be compromise, but not if one side is not willing to compromise. 


Bruno2
Bruno2

@LogicalDude @RafeHollister @Bruno2 In case you haven't noticed, China protects their own interests when trading with us via currency manipulation, import tariffs, etc.  Why should we be the only one concerned with "fairness"??

Bruno2
Bruno2

@RafeHollister @Bruno2 @LogicalDude As a person with a strong math background, I'm suspicious of the claim that you can project 1000 responses in a poll to hundreds of millions of people and expect accurate results.  The big "wild card" that is never addressed in polling is the fact that you can't force 1000 people to respond to you, they have to respond willingly.  As a result, only "willing participants" make up the polling numbers.  Though I can't prove it, I believe stick-in-the-mud Cons are less likely to respond to pollsters.  I'm definitely one of them

FineousMcDirtyBird
FineousMcDirtyBird

@Bruno2 @RafeHollister @LogicalDude How does a strong "math" background occur without a basic understanding of statistical modeling and/or how modern polling functions. 


While I applaud your skepticism, it was that same blind spot that blindsided Republicans in 2012 when mountains of polling evidence (with the Rasmussen outlier) predicted with startling accuracy the loss of Romney. 


Single polls can give incomplete data. Limited samples and push questions can skew data further. But weeks upon weeks of polling, with representative samples that are held to accepted methodology, are telling only one story (i.e. Trump has alienated over 60% of the electorate and will lose convincingly).


It's good to be a skeptic. Keeps you and the world honest. But your argument borders on refusing to acknowledge that it's wet out because you hate the rain.

RafeHollister
RafeHollister

@LogicalDude @RafeHollister @Bruno2 Financially the country can not support those low skilled immigrants and when you have record lows of folks in the work force, because there are no jobs, they are not going to support more immigration.  High skilled maybe,  pine straw spreaders not likely.


Trade is good for all unless it comes with a cost of more unemployed Americans.  Still going to be a few years/generations before folks with a work background and family history will willingly accept being wards of the state, no matter how much corporations enrich themselves with these trade deals and no matter how much government tries to pacify and offers to buy their support.

MarkVV
MarkVV

Hillary Clinton is the right person for the job. She has her faults and has made mistakes, like any other human being. But her “negatives” are the results of three decades of relentless attacks from the Republicans, who have exaggerated every misstep to an incredible degree. It is quite unbelievable when Trump supporters accuse her of lying, while supporting a man who does not even know the meaning of the word “truth.” She is accused of attacking the women accusing her husband by the same people, who overlook Donald Trump’s sexual assaults on many women, which he even bragged about.

RafeHollister
RafeHollister

@MarkVV See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil of our nominee is the Democrat meme.  Bash Trump and claim that Hillary is the right person for the job.  


You constantly hear conservatives speak the truth about Trump, who is the right person for the job only, if the competition involves only two choices, one of which is Clinton.  You never hear the left criticize anything that Hillary has done, has failed at, lied about, or plans to do.  Her sycophants and her propaganda wing the MSM, turn a deaf ear to any and all stories that reflect poorly on the Grifter Queen.  When forced to confront her history of 30+ years of corruption and criminality, we get excuses, e.g., that was Bill not Hillary, that was her staff, no proof she was involved, blah, blah.


Hillary's only accomplishments have been enriching herself tremendously while serving in government, and avoiding any accountability for her misdeeds.


If Hillary is the right person for the job, then we have totally run out of other options.

lvg
lvg

@RafeHollister @MarkVV "Hillary's only accomplishments have been enriching herself tremendously while serving in government, and avoiding any accountability for her misdeeds."


Deplorable and Sick!  Enjoy your alternate reality show. 

RafeHollister
RafeHollister

@lvg @RafeHollister @MarkVV Return to MSNBC, Slate, and Vox and get the opinions you like.  Truth can be very emotionally disturbing when forced on those who avoid it on a regular basis.

MarkVV
MarkVV

@RafeHollister @MarkVV "Hillary's only accomplishments have been enriching herself tremendously while serving in government, and avoiding any accountability for her misdeeds."

This comment is enough to realize that the author has not sense of reality. It is so stupid, it makes one understand that there are people so blinded by hate that there is no use trying to argue with them.

RafeHollister
RafeHollister

@MarkVV @RafeHollister The thinking man would have responded with a list of Hillary's accomplishments instead of attacking the writer.


Please explain why you can say the same things about Trump and there is no hate involved.  


I don't hate Hillary, I think that she has lived off the American taxpayer for about 35 years, accomplished little if any, grifted enough to satisfy 20 people, so now is a good time to move on.  She should enjoy being a grandmother and show us what a great job she can do as a grandmother.

Caius
Caius

I keep thinking of the missed opportunity.  Democrats were set to nominate the person with the highest negatives in polling history.  All Republicans had to do was nominate the nearest empty suit with a clean record. The empty suit would now be far ahead in the polls.


Republicans once again selected the person who sounded good to them, and them alone.

Familiar story. Remember the Republican nominees for Senate in Delaware, Missouri, Nevada over the last few years?  They sounded good to the base. But lost.

Can any Republican read a resume?


So unless a miracle happens we have Hillary Clinton riding into the White House on a wave.


Citizen-of-the-World
Citizen-of-the-World

@Caius It's all about that base -- and Republicans clearly need to raise their lowest common denominator. 


And please tell me the miracle you're hoping for isn't a Trump victory. That's not going to fix the GOP's problem.

Bruno2
Bruno2

@Caius 

"All Republicans had to do was nominate the nearest empty suit with a clean record."

I'm not sure it was that simple, but there was definitely a missed opportunity this election.  "Obama fatigue" left the door open for a qualified Republican, and the Repubs whiffed.

I'm not sure what the antidote is, but I think the problem lies in the Primary selection process.  Turnout for the Primaries is usually light, allowing a small fraction of the voters to determine the final candidate. The end result is that we're most likely going to have a crook for Prez once again, someone who has repeatedly used her public position to benefit herself and her friends privately.

LogicalDude
LogicalDude

@Bruno2 @Caius "the Repubs whiffed."


The Dems whiffed, too. There should have been at least 5 people in 2012 being groomed to be in the running in 2016. (that time period where Clinton said she didn't want to run.)  They should have got their name out. Should have gotten support from the party. 

However, we got Clinton, Sanders (really, an independent), and  O'Malley (who withdrew quickly). 

Where were the new class of Democrats? Were they so scared of the Clinton machine that they didn't even consider running? (my opinion)  Do they all have skeletons in the closet that they didn't want to show? (could be?) 

CardiganBoy
CardiganBoy

@Caius " All Republicans had to do was nominate the nearest empty suit with a clean record. The empty suit would now be far ahead in the polls."


Very true. Painfully so.  


The quality of the last POTUS has a lot to do with the quality of their potential successor.    Dubyah begat Barry O; Barry O begets ....?   


Hillary "in a wave" as you stated.

Citizen-of-the-World
Citizen-of-the-World

Republicans are like a dog with a bone except when they're like someone beating a dead horse.  

AynRant
AynRant

Do-nothing Republican politicians are eternally looking for ways to discredit their opponents rather than debate issues. What’s “corrupt” about using the wrong email server? What harm was done?

Citizen-of-the-World
Citizen-of-the-World

@AynRant Rice and Powell used private servers -- Democrats didn't come after them with both barrels. Democrats are too busy for witch hunts; they have stuff to do, like, um, govern. 

YellowJacket7879
YellowJacket7879

@Citizen-of-the-World @AynRant Uh, untrue,  They didn't use private email servers. They used private email accounts on gmail and other public servers which was inappropriate but also much more secure.

Bruno2
Bruno2

@YellowJacket7879 @Citizen-of-the-World @AynRant Don't forget that the rules were changed prior to Hillary taking office as well, rules which she intentionally ignored so that she could control what info was later released.  Her excuse that she made a simple mistake based upon the convenience of carrying one electronic device is laughable, yet somehow her sycophants gave her a free pass.

lvg
lvg

@Bruno2 @YellowJacket7879 @Citizen-of-the-World @AynRant Cons have a long history of doing what Hillary did and much much worse. They made sure the private papers were either destroyed or out of public reach. Try accessing those millions of sensitive  e-mails Rove stored at the RNC or try to get the VP's files.

RafeHollister
RafeHollister

@AynRant If you don't know what harm was done, you must be a low info Clinton voter.

he_of_stinky_wind
he_of_stinky_wind

Remember back to Watergate.  A non violent break in of a business office to plant listening devices on the phones of your opponents campaign telephones.  And the issue according to the leftist media was Nixon's attempt to cover it up.


But we do not hear the same rallying cry from the leftist media regarding the blatant 'quid pro quo' under Hillary's watch at the State department. 


This is why the front people of the leftist media should be dealt with by patriots.  They cannot police themselves.  Someone will have to remove them from their positions.  Using what ever means required.

Citizen-of-the-World
Citizen-of-the-World

@he_of_stinky_wind No, the issue was the break in -- a blatantly wrong, criminal action. The coverup just compounded Nixon's culpability. 


Clinton has made some high-profile mistakes in her high-profile positions, but none rises to the level of criminality.


Trump, on the other hand, cheats and steals from vendors and contractors, and mauls women. These are not "mistakes," they are crimes and sins.  

Bruno2
Bruno2

@Citizen-of-the-World @he_of_stinky_wind I don't believe it was ever shown that Nixon himself ordered the break in.  Per Trump and the vendors, they all had the opportunity to take him to court and get a fair hearing, an option I believe few pursued.  Ditto for the women coming out of the woodwork a few weeks before the election.  None of them ever made a criminal complaint or filed a civil suit.

fcbowers
fcbowers

I'm amazed that no one in the Trump campaign has gone back in time to find all the liberals saying that Bill Clinton's sexual escapades (or for that matter JFK's) "do not affect his ability to effectively lead or govern the USA."  That's what I would if I were running, I would just quote all the liberal positions from the past so that the newer citizen and younger voters could see and hear the hypocrisy and the "double-standards" propagated by the left. 

MarkVV
MarkVV

@fcbowers If somebody wanted to catalog the hypocrisy on the side of the conservatives from the past, there would be more than enough to counteract any such accusation. But both are irrelevant. As repeated so many times already, Bill Clinton is not on the ballot. The inanity of this suggestion is in the apparent notion that the people (including those “liberals”) denouncing Donald Trump for his sexual assaults on women are responsible for what “the liberals” did or did not do 20 or even more than 50 years ago.

he_of_stinky_wind
he_of_stinky_wind

@MarkVV @fcbowers


Bill Clinton is not on the ballot.  But the women who attempted to destroy the lives of Bill's victims is.  And she claims to be a 'champion' of women who are victims.

MarkVV
MarkVV

@he_of_stinky_wind @MarkVV @fcbowers "attempted to destroy the lives of Bill's victims "

A  stupid exaggeration. Now compare that with the deeds of the man, Donald Trump, who bragged about himself sexually assaulting women.