sass

I'm really not sure why you're all placing so much importance on Iowa

Its important because the candidates treat it as important. And the media do. And because its often where candidates start to stake their positions and issues and become known to the larger public.

Strategically, you're probably right. But any number of candidates have been winnowed out by a lack lustre Iowa campaign.

danivon wrote:

geojanes wrote:

Sassenach wrote:Also, it is actually a certainty that Hilary will get the Democrat nomination ? I haven't really heard of any credible challengers yet, but at this stage 8 years ago nobody thought Obama was credible either. Nobody wants Bush v Clinton III, you're right about that, but doesn't it hurt Hilary too ?

I think Hillary's email scandal is a pretty big deal, and may actually torpedo her candidacy or at least dent it.

Is it? didn't plenty of politicians use private emails as well - on both 'sides'. Including Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio - http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-cli ... 1426205325

But, her story is gradually coming apart. She said she emailed people at their official addresses, thus her emails were archived. However, two of her assistants used private emails as well.

No SecState has ever had his/her own email server.

With the right-wing AP suing, this story is going to have legs. Now, if nothing comes of it, she'll be fine. However, it's a bit too early to conclude that.

We shall see. http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2 ... counts.php

Strategically, you're probably right. But any number of candidates have been winnowed out by a lack lustre Iowa campaign.

Perhaps, but mostly it just helps sort out which of the fringe candidates will have their moment in the sun before inevitably losing.

rickyp wrote:sass

I'm really not sure why you're all placing so much importance on Iowa

Its important because the candidates treat it as important. And the media do. And because its often where candidates start to stake their positions and issues and become known to the larger public.

Strategically, you're probably right. But any number of candidates have been winnowed out by a lack lustre Iowa campaign.

If a candidate doesn't win Iowa or New Hampshire, they are likely to see a substantial drop in funding. It takes wins to keep a campaign going.

That's why I see the schedule as problematic for Jeb. He virtually HAS to win New Hampshire, especially if Rubio runs. He's running too close to Hillary to win New Hampshire. And, there's no major love for the Bush family there: McCain beat Bush in 2000.

rickyp wrote:geojanes

I think Hillary's email scandal is a pretty big deal, and may actually torpedo her candidacy or at least dent it

.

doubtful . If the BS hearing s over Benghazi didn't raise anything, the pouring over of 55,000 emails isn't going to either.

Her excuses have been lame. "I didn't want to carry two devices." Hello? You can have two different email accounts set for the same Blackberry, or whatever you're using. It was just such a dumb thing to say. It is clear that political types don't like the public's eventual access to their email because it means that they can't conduct business as they might like to. Heck, I wouldn't like it either, and I understand the dislike of it, but I don't understand people who think that the rules don't apply to them. Will it matter in the long-run? People do have short memories, but this could drag out for a while. Sure it's probably doubtful that this alone derails her, but I would still want to have a plan B in the works.

geojanes wrote:Her excuses have been lame. "I didn't want to carry two devices." Hello? You can have two different email accounts set for the same Blackberry, or whatever you're using. It was just such a dumb thing to say. It is clear that political types don't like the public's eventual access to their email because it means that they can't conduct business as they might like to. Heck, I wouldn't like it either, and I understand the dislike of it, but I don't understand people who think that the rules don't apply to them. Will it matter in the long-run? People do have short memories, but this could drag out for a while. Sure it's probably doubtful that this alone derails her, but I would still want to have a plan B in the works.

Some measures of transparency and accountability are the price one pays for serving. Hillary (and others) don't like it.

Okay, then don't serve. Problem solved.

Instead, she concocts this weak excuse and announces she alone will be the arbiter of what needs to be reviewed. After all, who wants to see details about her mother's funeral or Chelsea's dress?

On the other hand, could there be details even in those emails? Well, yes.

Why not let a 3rd party review them as Gowdy has suggested?

Why does Hillary get to decide what should/should not be subject to review?

I've heard the Lanny Davis line of attack: other SecDefs also decided by using private email. Well, if there was an investigation by Congress, I would suggest their private emails be subject to 3rd party review too. So, that's a non-starter.

Again, if you don't want scrutiny, don't serve.

fate

Well, if there was an investigation by Congress

,

Ben Ghazi redux.
There's not going to be anything in the emails either.

NY Times magazine piece on Ben Carson. In-depth:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/22/magazine/how-do-you-solve-a-problem-like-ben-carson.html

rickyp wrote:fate

Well, if there was an investigation by Congress

,

Ben Ghazi redux.
There's not going to be anything in the emails either.

Maybe.

Benghazi: the Administration simply suppresses information and waits for the furor to die out. Easy.

Emails: who knows? Apparently, you do. Did you help Hillary?

We already know she has not been forthcoming. Her two key aides also used private email addresses. We didn't get that info from her.

geojanes wrote:NY Times magazine piece on Ben Carson. In-depth:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/22/magazine/how-do-you-solve-a-problem-like-ben-carson.html

He never had a chance. Even if he had not stuck his foot in his mouth on a few occasions, the media would go after him like they do every minority who has the audacity to not be a liberal.

Doctor Fate wrote:He never had a chance. Even if he had not stuck his foot in his mouth on a few occasions, the media would go after him like they do every minority who has the audacity to not be a liberal.

Please remind me of all the attacks on Colin Powell.

I don't remember Condi getting an especially hard time either, although she never actually ran for office.

Sassenach wrote:I don't remember Condi getting an especially hard time either, although she never actually ran for office.

No, but she did hold high office, as did Powell, who was also being considered as a potential Presidential candidate.

Thinking about it, Powell never got elected to anything either. It's a curiosity of the American system that the holders of the highest offices of state and the best known political figures are often people who have never bothered to stand for election. Rice and Powell are both highly respected figures on the global stage but you wonder whether they could ever have achieved what they did if they'd had to stand for election, with all that entails in American politics.

Doctor Fate wrote:

geojanes wrote:NY Times magazine piece on Ben Carson. In-depth:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/22/magazine/how-do-you-solve-a-problem-like-ben-carson.html

He never had a chance. Even if he had not stuck his foot in his mouth on a few occasions, the media would go after him like they do every minority who has the audacity to not be a liberal.

The NYT would have never given him this kind of ink if they thought he had no chance, so at least someone in the media thinks he's viable.

When Brad mentioned him early in this thread I had never heard of him, but then this huge story comes out. You can't buy that kind of exposure.