Adele M. Stan:
Why Hillary Makes Right-Wingers So Crazy
To be sure, there were real problems in the State Department’s operation of the Benghazi consulate. Why, indeed, was it left so unprotected? But these were not the questions Republican committee members sought to answer; the truth of mere human failings would do little to advance the massive conspiracy theory that right-wing Republicans have been selling about the Clintons since before the current candidate’s husband took office in 1992.
That conspiracy theory is a jumble of dark, murderous inferences against the Democratic power couple, all ginned up to suggest that the Clintons’ ultimate aim is to destroy America. In the latest iteration of the grand conspiracy theory, right-wingers hope to convince the public that Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration deliberately left the consulate unprotected for the express purpose of letting Americans die at the hands of Islamic extremist terrorists.
All of which calls the question: Why on earth have right-wingers always been so unhinged in their hatred for the Clintons?
It was that he was married to that woman—a woman with a brain as big as his, ambitions as big as his, and who had been the breadwinner of her family, freeing her husband to seek low-paying positions such as governor of Arkansas.
No, it wasn’t Bill’s draft-dodging or his weasly answer when asked if he had ever smoked pot. It wasn’t even his philandering. It was that he was married to that woman—a woman with a brain as big as his, ambitions as big as his, and who had been the breadwinner of her family, freeing her husband to seek low-paying positions such as governor of Arkansas. Worse, she wasn’t keeping her breadwinning under wraps. She had a high-powered career as an attorney, and she was proud of the fact. And even worse than that, Bill made it clear that he was proud of her accomplishments.
Michael Tomasky:
Jim Jordan of Ohio asked these video questions. First of all, she did not tell her family one thing and the American people another. Her statement said “some say” it was the video. That’s not an assertion. It was impossible to figure out where Jordan was going with this. He was trying to “prove” some kind of lie, but a) it was a moment of enormous confusion, b) the CIA changed its assessment, which is well documented from previous investigations, and c) even if someone did lie, that will never be proven, so it was an utterly pointless line of questioning, a complete waste of time substantively and even politically.
If you weren’t sure what confirmation bias or epistemic closure were, watch RW Rs interpret the Benghazi hearings as proof Hillary lied.
Lied about what? About this being a terrorist attack . Why is that important? if you have to ask you won’t understand the answer. But you'll hear a lot about those anti-Muslim videos you've forgotten about.
Assumes: 1. she lied about this being a terrorist attack and blamed the videos instead (see below) 2. it’s vitally important that she did 3. she did so to get O reelected in Nov same year. 4. add your own because it's not logical to begin with.
More from Will Saletan:
Since the emails showed nothing new, Republicans went back to old myths. Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio accused Clinton of blaming the Benghazi attack on an anti-Muslim video.Apparently, he was unaware—or didn’t care—that in previous hearings, other Republicans had acknowledged Clinton was innocent of that charge. Jordan insisted that Clinton’s statement on the night of the attack—“Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet”—amounted to an attribution of motive. He ignored Clinton’s explanation that her statement—which continued, “There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind”—was a warning to rationalizers and would-be copycats. He accused Clinton of lying about the attack in public while privately telling the truth to her own family.
More politics and policy below the fold.
Jonathan Allen:
Republicans will kick themselves for dragging Hillary Clinton before the House Benghazi committee Thursday.
It was a defining moment for Clinton's presidential aspirations. She handled the GOP’s questions with aplomb and without the patina of partisanship that has characterized the committee since its conception. That would have been bad enough for the Republicans’ hopes of seizing the White House in 2017. But she did much more than that. She answered questions that Republicans have been hanging out there in hopes of sowing doubts among voters.
Does she believe in American exceptionalism? Yes.
Can she be non-partisan, serious, and policy-minded? Yes.
Is her mental acuity superior to pretty much anyone you know? Yes.
Is she human? Yes.
Does she have the energy to be president? Yes.
Todd Purdhum:
If in January 2017, Hillary Clinton is sworn in as the 45th president of the United States, historians may well point to this month as the moment her campaign turned around. Like the first brisk snap of fall, Clinton’s terrible, horrible, no good, very bad summer has morphed overnight into the best week of her campaign: Joe Biden is out, her poll numbers are up, her crisp debate performance reassured nervous Democrats and her measured resolution before the House Benghazi committee made her interrogators (of both parties) seem small by comparison.
Meanwhile, with every passing week, the GOP looks less united, more angry and less able to govern.
But if Clinton has benefited from an undeniable run of good luck, in a larger sense, there is nothing sudden or surprising about where she finds herself today. Her reconsolidated status as the prohibitive 2016 Democratic front-runner is the predictable result of the grim determination that has always been her hallmark—and the penchant for overreaching that has long been her enemies’ Achilles' heel.
WaPo:
“All successful nominees and ultimately successfully elected presidential candidates walk many miles through the valley of the shadow of political death,” said Steve Schmidt, McCain’s top strategist in 2008. “Resiliency is the most underappreciated virtue.”
Schmidt said realigning resources was “smart” of Bush, but was skeptical of his message stressing governing expertise at a moment when political outsiders are en vogue.
“The issues that the Bush campaign are struggling with are not about the structure of the campaign staff. It’s a Republican electorate that has moved substantially to the right and that is deeply angry at the establishment of the party,” Schmidt said. “Putting the chips down on the ‘experience’ line may prove to be a genius investment, but it’s certainly a courageous one looking at the current state of the electorate’s mood.”..
But one Bush fundraiser, who requested anonymity to speak freely, said, “It feels very much like a death spiral and it breaks my heart. I don’t know anyone who wants to reinvest now.” The campaign, this person added, has been “head-scratchingly bad in every element. I wouldn’t be shocked in 60 days from now if he wasn’t in the race.”
Death spiral. Hmmm...
Well, for some time now I've said Cruz v. Rubio at the end. YMMV. But...
That is a huge jump for Rubio. See the above WaPo story for why.
What about Trump?
From HuffPost Pollster, less smoothing
What about Carson? No one understands Carson, least of all me. But check out this
PRRI poll from 2011 for some explanation. He's the evangelical candidate, and maybe something else, though I don't think he'll last.
White evangelicals and Tea Party members are less likely to believe in evolution and climate change than most Americans, a finding that could pose a particular problem for Republican presidential hopefuls.
A new poll released Thursday (Sept. 22) also showed that a majority of Americans (57 percent) believes in evolution, and an even larger majority (69 percent) believes in climate change — though many still disagree that the phenomenon is based on human activity.
But most Americans do not insist that their presidential candidates share their views on these issues, nor do they believe scientists have come to a consensus on them, according to the poll conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute in partnership with Religion News Service.
The views of white evangelicals and Tea Party members stand apart.
Greg Sargent on the state level issues:
The Democratic Party is in a deep, deep hole. But Democrats are trying to do something about it.
NY Times sums it up:
A beleaguered Jeb Bush slashed his campaign spending. Donald J. Trump lost his lead in Iowa. And a surging Ben Carson galvanized his support among social conservatives.
With Hillary Rodham Clinton emerging as the unrivaled leader in the Democratic contest, the unruly Republican presidential field suddenly seemed to lack a center of political gravity, leaving party strategists and voters to fear a long nomination fight that could end with a damaged standard-bearer facing a more unified left.
...
“The Republican camp is in total disarray,” said Edward J. Rollins, a veteran Republican strategist, who lamented the prospect of several more sprawling debates that fail to narrow the field, saying that Mr. Trump’s “reality show antics” would get in the way of the winnowing that needs to occur, and the sooner the better. “A long, dragged-out battle on our side only makes it more difficult to get ready for Hillary,” he said.
Yep.