April 16, 2015

#ClintonEmails — more stonewalling

Are you surprised?

Here's the story.

Nutgrafs right at the top of the story:
Hillary Rodham Clinton was directly asked by congressional investigators in a December 2012 letter whether she had used a private email account while serving as secretary of state, according to letters obtained by The New York Times. 
But Mrs. Clinton did not reply to the letter. And when the State Department answered in March 2013, nearly two months after she left office, it ignored the question and provided no response.

That’s “stonewalling.” Grade A level.

We should also note that the State Department's letter of March 27, 2013 was AFTER Sidney Blumenthal's emails were hacked, which was the first clue that she was indeed using a private email account.

I'll be waiting for David Brock at Media Matters and other foot-shooting Clintonistas to cue up the lies and faux outrage machine again. (Well, to them, the outrage may be real, but, as the New York Times has had good reporting, it's faux outrage because it has no connection to reality. Nor does it have any connection to the proper use of English.)

Instead of taking "Butthurt Neoliberals for $500" on political Jeopardy, the ilk ("ilk," what a lovely, faintly sneering word, speaking of actual proper use of English), I may wind up going to the Double Jeopardy round.

And, don't be surprised for more "drips" to come out from somewhere. Yes, as Doug Henwood noted, she's a feisty politico, but she's got plenty she's trying to keep tarped over.

(Meanwhile, per friend Perry, that feistiness reportedly has at least one wingnut of Arkansas repute ready to vote for her.)

Behind this all remains the "cui bono" question, of course, which I tug at a bit here. Let's get more "tugging" going.

Meanwhile, to do a bit of scattershooting while talking about Hillz, let's look at this butt-ugly logo of hers.

First, here's a roundup of five reactions. I agree that it could be mistaken for "Hospital here" in some places. I do laugh that it might be understood as "Hillary is moving right" (but only because that's where "real America is at, folks). It might be amateurish.

I'll add a few of my own thoughts.

First, it looks a bit "brutalish," as in Soviet Realism brutalish.

Second, it looks "noncommittal." Wouldn't that be about right for her anyway, though?

Related to that, third, it looks vague, even generic. Unless you're a Hillz fanboy or fangirl, you're not going to recognize what it means, and that's not good branding. (Note: I said "generic," not "geriatric." Oops, I guess I just said both.)

Friend Perry has more about not just her logo, but the ones Rand Paul, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are inflicting on us.

No comments: