Sound and fury, but with limited significance and flawed parallels.
Near as I can tell the author is wishing for a time when candidates had fewer negatives, regardless of the underlying issues or the even the whims of polls.
Clinton had a 60%+ favorability while Secretary of State as well as a 60%+ in the late 1990s. Every time she runs for office her favorability bottoms out before climbing again as she moves away from the election.
The author even alludes to this with a discussion of image. Trump, of course, is all image all the time. Clinton, however, has a apathy/hate relationship with the image makers She is a person of discussions and papers and small groups rather than a person of the glitter and spotlight. And by almost any measure she's the one of the most honest politicians out there. This is backed up by politifact numbers and statements. Look to Jill Abramson's piece on Clinton's honesty and the related issues. Sanders was much more well-liked and trusted while he made incredible over-the-top promises regarding issues (incarceration, etc.) that a President had no control over.
And even though most of the national security problems of today--if not all of them--are addressing bad choices made by previous administrations, we are left with " Using as criteria the promotion of stability and the avoidance of armed conflict (along with the successful prosecution of wars deemed unavoidable), the answer would, of course, have to be no. " I suppose we would be better off if they were arming the Taliban in Afghanistan or trading arms for hostages in Iran/Contra or assassinating world leaders? Or just generally picking the wrong players to back in most conflicts during the past 50 years? Or maybe just picking battles over a fit of pique from Cuba to Iraq.
The author has a point with the emphasis on spectacle over substance, but this is not Clinton's fault; the blame sits squarely on the media and the public.
Carter was and is a about as likable person as could be President. But his Presidency was a failure. Obama really comes off as a cold fish, but he has been incredibly successful.
Seems like quite a stretch to compare Snowden to Clinton and make the claim that Clinton isn't in legal trouble because she is a member of the ruling class.
I noticed that you mentioned Clinton shared 110 emails in 52 chains over her personal server (in many cases these emails were sent to her, putting responsibility on the sender not the receiver) but failed to mention the total of documents Snowden took.
What is it 1.7 million?
And that doesn't even begin to address the difference in use. Clinton emailed through an unapproved server while Snowden stole data for years then gave the data to the Guardian.
That isn't a difference of privilege that is a difference of scope, intent, action. and result
Comparing Clinton to Snowden would be like comparing the police who shot Christy Sheats to the police who strangled and killed Eric Garner.
Not sure if "just" is an appropriate modifier for Sanders pledged delegate deficit. If the California and NJ primaries were winner take all, then sure! But they aren't. If Sanders wins Cali 326 to 200 he is still more than 200 behind and where does he get those delegates?
Sound and fury, but with limited significance and flawed parallels.
Near as I can tell the author is wishing for a time when candidates had fewer negatives, regardless of the underlying issues or the even the whims of polls.
Clinton had a 60%+ favorability while Secretary of State as well as a 60%+ in the late 1990s. Every time she runs for office her favorability bottoms out before climbing again as she moves away from the election.
The author even alludes to this with a discussion of image. Trump, of course, is all image all the time. Clinton, however, has a apathy/hate relationship with the image makers She is a person of discussions and papers and small groups rather than a person of the glitter and spotlight. And by almost any measure she's the one of the most honest politicians out there. This is backed up by politifact numbers and statements. Look to Jill Abramson's piece on Clinton's honesty and the related issues. Sanders was much more well-liked and trusted while he made incredible over-the-top promises regarding issues (incarceration, etc.) that a President had no control over.
And even though most of the national security problems of today--if not all of them--are addressing bad choices made by previous administrations, we are left with " Using as criteria the promotion of stability and the avoidance of armed conflict (along with the successful prosecution of wars deemed unavoidable), the answer would, of course, have to be no. " I suppose we would be better off if they were arming the Taliban in Afghanistan or trading arms for hostages in Iran/Contra or assassinating world leaders? Or just generally picking the wrong players to back in most conflicts during the past 50 years? Or maybe just picking battles over a fit of pique from Cuba to Iraq.
The author has a point with the emphasis on spectacle over substance, but this is not Clinton's fault; the blame sits squarely on the media and the public.
Carter was and is a about as likable person as could be President. But his Presidency was a failure. Obama really comes off as a cold fish, but he has been incredibly successful.
Seems like quite a stretch to compare Snowden to Clinton and make the claim that Clinton isn't in legal trouble because she is a member of the ruling class.
I noticed that you mentioned Clinton shared 110 emails in 52 chains over her personal server (in many cases these emails were sent to her, putting responsibility on the sender not the receiver) but failed to mention the total of documents Snowden took.
What is it 1.7 million?
And that doesn't even begin to address the difference in use. Clinton emailed through an unapproved server while Snowden stole data for years then gave the data to the Guardian.
That isn't a difference of privilege that is a difference of scope, intent, action. and result
Comparing Clinton to Snowden would be like comparing the police who shot Christy Sheats to the police who strangled and killed Eric Garner.
Not sure if "just" is an appropriate modifier for Sanders pledged delegate deficit. If the California and NJ primaries were winner take all, then sure! But they aren't. If Sanders wins Cali 326 to 200 he is still more than 200 behind and where does he get those delegates?