Teflon Hillary ?

[Comish]

Just wondering if others are wondering why Hillary seems to catch no grief ?

 

Seems like her position as the Secretary of State and the author of numerous statements of certitude claiming that the embassy/consulate/uprisings/etc. fiascos were the sole result of a video that few have ever even seen ……….has escaped scrutiny. Just pondering why she is immune?

 

She doubled down on her (and the administration’s) version of things that have now been proven totally inaccurate. Yet no one questions her role or judgment.

 

I am assuming that the ……..ahem…….progressives on this board will be able to enlighten me.

[carlfense]

Just wondering if others are wondering why Hillary seems to catch no grief ?

 

Seems like her position as the Secretary of State and the author of numerous statements of certitude claiming that the embassy/consulate/uprisings/etc. fiascos were the sole result of a video that few have ever even seen ……….has escaped scrutiny. Just pondering why she is immune?

10 million = few?

 

She doubled down on her (and the administration’s) version of things that have now been proven totally inaccurate. Yet no one questions her role or judgment.

 

I am assuming that the ……..ahem…….progressives on this board will be able to enlighten me.

I'll happily question her judgment. It's not too often that the Secretary of State is a hot topic during a presidential campaign. In fact . . . I'd be willing to guess that most people can't name the last 3 Sec States without looking it up. What would you like to discuss?

 

I have a theory about why the posts criticizing the likes of Hillary have fewer comments than threads criticizing Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney. Partisans don't blindly defend her actions . . . and therefore the thread dies. I've said that Obama deserves every bit of criticism that he receives for his administration misrepresenting the Benghazi attacks. http://www.huskerboa...ost__p__1013848 That doesn't leave you with much room to complain about partisan blindness . . . does it?

[Comish]

Just wondering if others are wondering why Hillary seems to catch no grief ?

 

Seems like her position as the Secretary of State and the author of numerous statements of certitude claiming that the embassy/consulate/uprisings/etc. fiascos were the sole result of a video that few have ever even seen ……….has escaped scrutiny. Just pondering why she is immune?

10 million = few?

 

She doubled down on her (and the administration’s) version of things that have now been proven totally inaccurate. Yet no one questions her role or judgment.

 

I am assuming that the ……..ahem…….progressives on this board will be able to enlighten me.

I'll happily question her judgment. It's not too often that the Secretary of State is a hot topic during a presidential campaign. In fact . . . I'd be willing to guess that most people can't name the last 3 Sec States without looking it up. What would you like to discuss?

 

I have a theory about why the posts criticizing the likes of Hillary have fewer comments than threads criticizing Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney. Partisans don't blindly defend her actions . . . and therefore the thread dies. I've said that Obama deserves every bit of criticism that he receives for his administration misrepresenting the Benghazi attacks. http://www.huskerboa...ost__p__1013848 That doesn't leave you with much room to complain about partisan blindness . . . does it?

Now Carl...........the post didn't even address comparing the campaign or Ryan or Romney or even Obama. But feel free (as you are wont to do) to read anything into it that makes it an argument you are trying to foster.

It was (and is) a simple question dealing with Hillary and why SHE seems immune to criticism. Nothing more. I asked for opinions on her seemingly untouchable status and you want to make it a referendum on number of responses........as if numerical totals are the sole source of worthiness. Sometimes a post is only a question looking for someone to offer an answer. And if a reply makes sense, no other replies are necessary. Unfortunately, once again, you failed to meet that minimum standard.

 

Also, did I use the term "partisan blindness"? No, I don't think so. That little piece of baiting comes directly from you pal.

[carlfense]

It was (and is) a simple question dealing with Hillary and why SHE seems immune to criticism. Nothing more. I asked for opinions on her seemingly untouchable status and you want to make it a referendum on number of responses........as if numerical totals are the sole source of worthiness.

Immune to criticism? What? I don't like Hillary. Never have. You seem to be drawing conclusions from the fact that you haven't noticed threads criticizing her on HB . . . and that absence of those threads means that she's immune to criticism. That's a strange conclusion.

 

Sometimes a post is only a question looking for someone to offer an answer.

Can you phrase your question in one sentence so that we know what you're looking for? It seems that you'd like an answer about her response to the rioting in the middle east. What exactly would you like to know?

 

Also, did I use the term "partisan blindness"? No, I don't think so.

I didn't say that you used the term partisan blindness. Perhaps you should re-read my comment.

 

 

Yet no one questions her role or judgment.

 

I am assuming that the ……..ahem…….progressives on this board will be able to enlighten me.

^^^^Clearly shows that you wanted to avoid any sort of partisanship. Just a straightforward question, right?

[Comish]

It was (and is) a simple question dealing with Hillary and why SHE seems immune to criticism. Nothing more. I asked for opinions on her seemingly untouchable status and you want to make it a referendum on number of responses........as if numerical totals are the sole source of worthiness.

Immune to criticism? What? I don't like Hillary. Never have. You seem to be drawing conclusions from the fact that you haven't noticed threads criticizing her on HB . . . and that absence of those threads means that she's immune to criticism. That's a strange conclusion.

 

Ah.........YOU seem to be the one busy drawing conclusions. Nowhere was it inferred the lack of criticism was on HB......I was referring to her seemingly untouchable status in the press at large. (maybe you should re-read Rush to Judgement)

Sometimes a post is only a question looking for someone to offer an answer.

Can you phrase your question in one sentence so that we know what you're looking for? It seems that you'd like an answer about her response to the rioting in the middle east. What exactly would you like to know?

I used the middle east as an example.....nothing more. I'll be happy to re-phrase it once again for you in a single, slow, hard-to-miss, pedestrian, in-context, simple, systematic, disciplined, meticulous, thorough, painstaking, careful, and meticulous manner.........."Why does it seem Hillary gets little grief from anyone?". (The "understood" message being that almost anyone in the public and political eye as much as she is.............is occasionally taken to task as a by-product of that role.........yet, she routinely gets a pass)

I was just wondering how she has earned that privileged exemption?

Also, did I use the term "partisan blindness"? No, I don't think so.

I didn't say that you used the term partisan blindness. Perhaps you should re-read my comment.

[carlfense]

"Why does it seem Hillary gets little grief from anyone?". (The "understood" message being that almost anyone in the public and political eye as much as she is.............is occasionally taken to task as a by-product of that role.........yet, she routinely gets a pass)

I was just wondering how she has earned that privileged exemption?

What is she getting a pass for, exactly? And by whom?

[knapplc]

Just about every major and minor member of the president's Cabinet and press staff have commented on the embassy issues. Why is this thread just about Hillary? Is there something she's done that I'm unaware of to warrant a thread specifically about her?

[carlfense]

Just about every major and minor member of the president's Cabinet and press staff have commented on the embassy issues. Why is this thread just about Hillary? Is there something she's done that I'm unaware of to warrant a thread specifically about her?

Because no one will criticize teflon Hillary.

[Comish]

Just about every major and minor member of the president's Cabinet and press staff have commented on the embassy issues. Why is this thread just about Hillary? Is there something she's done that I'm unaware of to warrant a thread specifically about her?

I guess I don't know how to explain this any more clearly. The thread was about Hillary (in general), being immune from much national negative press. The timing of me posting it during the Libyan fiasco has unfortunately caused you and Carl to focus on her role ONLY in that timeline. (to be fair, It's my mistake for using her double-down on the video as an example because it led to these responses)

 

But what the thread was intended to ask had to do with her entire career and it's teflon tendencies.

[carlfense]

Just about every major and minor member of the president's Cabinet and press staff have commented on the embassy issues. Why is this thread just about Hillary? Is there something she's done that I'm unaware of to warrant a thread specifically about her?

I guess I don't know how to explain this any more clearly. The thread was about Hillary (in general), being immune from much national negative press. The timing of me posting it during the Libyan fiasco has unfortunately caused you and Carl to focus on her role ONLY in that timeline. (to be fair, It's my mistake for using her double-down on the video as an example because it led to these responses)

 

But what the thread was intended to ask had to do with her entire career and it's teflon tendencies.

Didn't she receive a LOT of negative press during the primaries a few years back?

[Comish]

Just about every major and minor member of the president's Cabinet and press staff have commented on the embassy issues. Why is this thread just about Hillary? Is there something she's done that I'm unaware of to warrant a thread specifically about her?

I guess I don't know how to explain this any more clearly. The thread was about Hillary (in general), being immune from much national negative press. The timing of me posting it during the Libyan fiasco has unfortunately caused you and Carl to focus on her role ONLY in that timeline. (to be fair, It's my mistake for using her double-down on the video as an example because it led to these responses)

 

But what the thread was intended to ask had to do with her entire career and it's teflon tendencies.

Didn't she receive a LOT of negative press during the primaries a few years back?

In ANY primary, your opponents are going to be knocking you of course.

I'm talking about folks (supposedly neutral journalists) who are either intimidated by her or agree with her to the extent that they refuse to question her.

[carlfense]

Just about every major and minor member of the president's Cabinet and press staff have commented on the embassy issues. Why is this thread just about Hillary? Is there something she's done that I'm unaware of to warrant a thread specifically about her?

I guess I don't know how to explain this any more clearly. The thread was about Hillary (in general), being immune from much national negative press. The timing of me posting it during the Libyan fiasco has unfortunately caused you and Carl to focus on her role ONLY in that timeline. (to be fair, It's my mistake for using her double-down on the video as an example because it led to these responses)

 

But what the thread was intended to ask had to do with her entire career and it's teflon tendencies.

Didn't she receive a LOT of negative press during the primaries a few years back?

In ANY primary, your opponents are going to be knocking you of course.

I'm talking about folks (supposedly neutral journalists) who are either intimidated by her or agree with her to the extent that they refuse to question her.

About what?

[sd'sker]

so the op is just generally mad about not enough people criticizing hillary? here is your chance, buddy, criticize everything you dislike about her.

[knapplc]

About what?

 

I can't believe nobody thought to ask that question before this. Good one, carlfense. Let's see what we get for an answer....

[Comish]

so the op is just generally mad about not enough people criticizing hillary? here is your chance, buddy, criticize everything you dislike about her.

You guys crack me up. Where did I say anything about "mad"?

It seems (unless you insist on putting your own spin on every post even if the question is neutral ......which you obviously do) that it's a fairly innocuous question to wonder why........in an age when EVERY politician gets hammered by somebody...............to ask why she doesn't.

I directed my initial response to the .........ahem..........progressives, for the obvious reason that birds of a feather would certainly have more intimate knowledge of her awesome capabilities and could therefore share their theories.

Alas, I get the sophomoric predictability of Carl's penchant for asking the inane............"about what" or your generalization that it's all about mad and venting.

Really, can you answer the original question? Or do you prefer to make it a pi**ing contest as usual?