David Brock's Pathetic Spin on Hillary

[Anonymous]

I've always wondered this. Does anyone actually believe that he was a legitimate conservative who finally saw the liberal light? To me, it honestly defies laws of human nature and physics, of all people in the nation, why would a one-time conservative ever fall in love with Hillary Clinton and devote his life to defending her.

I've called BS on his conservative creds forever, pure BS.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/05/opinions/brock-hillary-clinton-email/index.html

[Anonymous]

Yet you can't get enough of Ben Carson. Precisely because he is a black man who says conservative things.

Go figure.

[jsteele]

I don't know if he was a legitimate conservative or not. But what was factually wrong with that article?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:I don't know if he was a legitimate conservative or not. But what was factually wrong with that article?

Yes, Clinton used a private email account to communicate while she was secretary of state. But so did secretaries of state before her. According to the State Department spokesman Marie Harf, John Kerry is the first secretary of state ever to rely primarily on official State Department email.

Condoleeza Rice didn't use unofficial email accounts, John Kerry is not the first.

[Anonymous]

Can you help me understand your use of the word "physics" in your original post?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can you help me understand your use of the word "physics" in your original post?

Hyperbolic, admittedly. These snow days are making me crazy.

[Anonymous]

Of course he has to defend the indefensible. He is the chairman of a Super Pac called “Correct the Record.” Their mission:

The next presidential election may be more than two years away, but Republicans’ relentless attack strategy has already turned its sights on Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and other Democratic leaders.
In preparation for this, we launched Correct The Record – a strategic research and rapid response team designed to defend potential Democratic presidential candidates from right-wing, baseless attacks.
In the coming weeks and months, please continue to visit this website to view content that debunks Republican attacks and keeps potential Republican candidates honest.

[Anonymous]

Yes, he definitely switched. I knew him when he was writing "The Real Anita Hill". He then disappeared from sight going into a deep depression, then came out with a vulgar (he was almost naked on the front of Esquire with arrows sticking into him like St. Sebastian) piece in Esquire, which pretty much ruined him with the conservatives. He's floundered about since then and has been discredited. It's actually a very sad story. http://www.wikiwand.com/en/David_Brock.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Of course he has to defend the indefensible. He is the chairman of a Super Pac called “Correct the Record.” Their mission:

The next presidential election may be more than two years away, but Republicans’ relentless attack strategy has already turned its sights on Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and other Democratic leaders.
In preparation for this, we launched Correct The Record – a strategic research and rapid response team designed to defend potential Democratic presidential candidates from right-wing, baseless attacks.
In the coming weeks and months, please continue to visit this website to view content that debunks Republican attacks and keeps potential Republican candidates honest.

If an attack is baseless, why wouldn't any good conservative oppose it?

[Anonymous]

The ideological fascists, I mean purists, are out in force today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, he definitely switched. I knew him when he was writing "The Real Anita Hill". He then disappeared from sight going into a deep depression, then came out with a vulgar (he was almost naked on the front of Esquire with arrows sticking into him like St. Sebastian) piece in Esquire, which pretty much ruined him with the conservatives. He's floundered about since then and has been discredited. It's actually a very sad story. http://www.wikiwand.com/en/David_Brock.

Why isn't he excommunicated from Clinton world then? Or at least discouraged? One would think Bill could tamp it down if he really didn't approve.

Have "Karl Rove or Dick Cheney tactics" ever been uttered from HRC's lips? Seems a bit hypocritical, don't you think?

You'd probably have to "suspend disbelief" now wouldn't you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, he definitely switched. I knew him when he was writing "The Real Anita Hill". He then disappeared from sight going into a deep depression, then came out with a vulgar (he was almost naked on the front of Esquire with arrows sticking into him like St. Sebastian) piece in Esquire, which pretty much ruined him with the conservatives. He's floundered about since then and has been discredited. It's actually a very sad story. http://www.wikiwand.com/en/David_Brock.

Why isn't he excommunicated from Clinton world then? Or at least discouraged? One would think Bill could tamp it down if he really didn't approve.

Have "Karl Rove or Dick Cheney tactics" ever been uttered from HRC's lips? Seems a bit hypocritical, don't you think?

You'd probably have to "suspend disbelief" now wouldn't you.

I really can't understand what you are trying to say. But I think the answer is that Brock is a journalistic opportunist, as his track record demonstrates. You can't "tamp" that down if someone wants to print crazy stuff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, he definitely switched. I knew him when he was writing "The Real Anita Hill". He then disappeared from sight going into a deep depression, then came out with a vulgar (he was almost naked on the front of Esquire with arrows sticking into him like St. Sebastian) piece in Esquire, which pretty much ruined him with the conservatives. He's floundered about since then and has been discredited. It's actually a very sad story. http://www.wikiwand.com/en/David_Brock.

Why isn't he excommunicated from Clinton world then? Or at least discouraged? One would think Bill could tamp it down if he really didn't approve.

Have "Karl Rove or Dick Cheney tactics" ever been uttered from HRC's lips? Seems a bit hypocritical, don't you think?

You'd probably have to "suspend disbelief" now wouldn't you.

I really can't understand what you are trying to say. But I think the answer is that Brock is a journalistic opportunist, as his track record demonstrates. You can't "tamp" that down if someone wants to print crazy stuff.

Well sitting presidents have sat down with publishers of such publications like the NYT and asked them to not move forward or hold off on publishing stories that they believed would harm national security. Such as when the NYT broke a foreign financing program (my details are fuzzy, sorry), but it was during the Bush administration.

You're suggesting Bill wouldn't sit down with someone he believed was doing more harm than good to his and his family's reputation and ambitions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, he definitely switched. I knew him when he was writing "The Real Anita Hill". He then disappeared from sight going into a deep depression, then came out with a vulgar (he was almost naked on the front of Esquire with arrows sticking into him like St. Sebastian) piece in Esquire, which pretty much ruined him with the conservatives. He's floundered about since then and has been discredited. It's actually a very sad story. http://www.wikiwand.com/en/David_Brock.

Why isn't he excommunicated from Clinton world then? Or at least discouraged? One would think Bill could tamp it down if he really didn't approve.

Have "Karl Rove or Dick Cheney tactics" ever been uttered from HRC's lips? Seems a bit hypocritical, don't you think?

You'd probably have to "suspend disbelief" now wouldn't you.

I really can't understand what you are trying to say. But I think the answer is that Brock is a journalistic opportunist, as his track record demonstrates. You can't "tamp" that down if someone wants to print crazy stuff.

Well sitting presidents have sat down with publishers of such publications like the NYT and asked them to not move forward or hold off on publishing stories that they believed would harm national security. Such as when the NYT broke a foreign financing program (my details are fuzzy, sorry), but it was during the Bush administration.

You're suggesting Bill wouldn't sit down with someone he believed was doing more harm than good to his and his family's reputation and ambitions?

You can't control crazies. And with alternative ways to print now in social media and online, anyone can get their opinions printed.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:I don't know if he was a legitimate conservative or not. But what was factually wrong with that article?

Yes, Clinton used a private email account to communicate while she was secretary of state. But so did secretaries of state before her. According to the State Department spokesman Marie Harf, John Kerry is the first secretary of state ever to rely primarily on official State Department email.

Condoleeza Rice didn't use unofficial email accounts, John Kerry is not the first.

Not to belabor the point, but this is pretty weak grounds for describing the article as "pathetic". Are you suggesting that Brock misquoted Harf or that Harf was wrong? What is your source suggesting that Rice didn't use unofficial email accounts?