The underlying truth — the one that many didn’t want to admit to themselves — was the person ultimately responsible for these decisions, the one whose name was on the ticket, hadn’t corrected these problems, all of which had been brought to her attention before primary day. She’d stuck with the plan, and it had cost her.
While the campaign projected a drama-free tenor, it was reminiscent of other moments of frustration.
Months earlier, Hillary Clinton turned her fury on her consultants and campaign aides, blaming them for a failure to focus the media on her platform.
In her ear the whole time, spurring her on to cast blame on others and never admit to anything, was her husband. Neither Clinton could accept the simple fact that Hillary had hamstrung her own campaign and dealt the most serious blow to her own presidential aspirations.
She is a corrupt incompetent hack, who no one would have ever heard of if she hadn’t married Bill Clinton.
If, like me, you couldn’t make it to Colorado Springs last week, Calla Cofield has highlights.
[Noon update]
Valerie Insinna has the story on Tory’s choice in engines. Aerojet Rocketdyne has to have fingers crossed in the hope that BE-4 testing doesn’t go well.
As is often the case, the science is iffy. I’m taking 5000 IU of D3 daily (or at least when I remember to take anything). No idea if it’s helping, but I don’t generally spend a lot of time in the sun. In fact, I have a solar-powered watch whose battery occasionally runs down because I spend so much time in my office. So it seems likely that I’m somewhat deficient.
Why did they use Tomahawks? This is a pretty good explanation. As the article says, it was low payoff, but it was also low risk, and could be done quickly without having to coordinate with allies, as symbolism.
The cheerleaders were just getting gifts from sugar daddies. It’s ridiculous to only call it legal prostitution if cash exchanges hands. Women have been offering sexual favors in exchange for things since time immemorial, and as long as it’s consensual, it should be legal.
If Nunes is telling the truth—and despite a widespread effort to make him look like a liar, he’s been right so far—then this incidental collection had nothing to do with Russian collusion charges. Why has the media shown such little curiosity about the subject matter of the collection?
Yes, reporters, we know that “unmasking” is legal. So is meeting with a Russian ambassador during a campaign. And no, it does not vindicate Trump’s tweet. Stressing the legality of the unmasking is a way to distract from the real questions: Did Rice abuse her power? Who did she share it with? Why? Did those people then leak the information for political purposes? That is illegal.
That will be pretty challenging for her, given that she seems to be as big a congenital liar as Hillary Clinton.