Somebody explain something to me

[fadedrose]

Last edited Tue Sep 22, 2015, 01:24 AM - Edit history (2)

President Obama has not shown any preference for anyone running, although HC appears to be cozy using his name as a mantel of approval.

I am bewildered at how he could support her if he got to read a couple of her emails that I read.

Let's take this one, paraphrasing everything of course, but it's not exaggerated or made up.

When HC started State, she was told that Blumenthal (sp) was not to be among those in her carry-overs to State Department. And yet, she corresponded with him through emails (secret server) as though that was alright, although anyone with a lick of sense would think this was a betrayal of the President's confidence (just like he wanted everyone to use govt servers for govt email).

Next is the email telling HC to "rein in" Axelrod (who was at the WH then as adviser) because Axelrod's was voicing his opinion that Israel was too heavy-handed with the Palestinians and there were too many deaths and destruction. Or something like that, that's how I interpreted it. What business was it what Axelrod was saying that Blumenthal had the right to tell HC to rein him in? Blumenthal's wasn't even supposed to be part of State Department business.

I have to be wrong or someone would have raised a fuss about the stuff done behind Obama's back by his Sec'y of State who heard other orders than his.

Someone explain please, I don't mind being wrong and will not be angry or embarrassed. But this email business has me pissed off.

[PoliticAverse]

1. He can support her if she is the Democratic nominee because the alternative would be a Republican

who would likely work to undo much of what he has accomplished. You might as well have asked how could he have
asked her to be Secretary of State after that acrimonious campaign in 2008.

[fadedrose]

2. He knew the party was divided

and that her followers would never give in, so he used psychology, but it didn't work very well did it? He's a man of peace, a good man, not perfect, but good. He tried to please everyone, not in spite of the acrimonious campaign, but because of it.

[fadedrose]

4. Gee Agschmid

Did I wake you up, Honey?

It's nothing. Go back to sleep.

[840high]

5. It would have looked bad if

he hadn''t given her something in his cabinet.

[artislife]

18. I never understood it.

I was beyond peeved when he did that...after that bs she and bill did, the racist stuff. The was my first disappointment yet awe with President Obama. He is pretty noble. I would have turned all the photos and pictures against the wall if I had been in his position.

[840high]

20. That's pretty much how I felt.

[99th_Monkey]

6. Obama is apparently supporting Hills

by refusing to call DWS/DNC to account for their fucked-up debate
scheduling.

Or at least someone is claiming that Obama, and Obama alone, could insist on
a more fair & democratic debate schedule and/or removing exclusion rule.

I posted this earlier today, but also check out the response I got:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=611493

[99th_Monkey]

9. Yes you. If Obama CAN do as you say, yet is NOT doing it

then that is the only way I can interpret his refusal to do so,
is that -- by his inaction on this -- is tacitly supporting Hillary.

If that's not what you mean to imply, I'll personally own that
as my opinion, and mine alone.

[virtualobserver]

11. No matter how Obama feels, he couldn't fire DWS...because it would cause turmoil...

and it would be a huge distraction.

She has put her foot down so firmly on this issue, that even Obama merely calling for debates would cause a lot of turmoil. He does not want to be the story.

[99th_Monkey]

14. I totally agree with you on that,

and taking it a tiny step further, but I'm not
overly invested in that point of view.

[SheilaT]

7. I hope you put

"reign in" in quotes because it should have been "rein in".

To reign means to rule.

To rein in means to stop or check, typically by using the reins of a horse, but colloquially it refers to pulling in or slowing down anyone or anything.

[bvf]

15. Good to see somebody pointing this out.

This misusage is really aggravating, and it's becoming commonplace.

And someone (OK, I'll do it) should also point out that a "mantel" is a shelf over a fireplace. "Mantle" was called for in the OP.

[fadedrose]

16. Oh Shiela, you are a stickler for words

I usually look up stuff I'm not sure of but was concentrating more on getting the "facts" right, that I remembered and tried to piece together to make some sense of it all, which I haven't been able to do. Thanks, though.

So, now, there's reign, rein, and I hope nobody suggests "rain" if we're lucky.

The word "rein" was definitely used. But what good. A wise Democrat told me that Democrats don't care about the emails. I guess he/she is right.

[SheilaT]

19. I'm also a stickler for the correct spelling of my name.

Sheila

Correct usage really does matter. There's a difference between rein and reign. Knowing the difference matters. Carelessly using the wrong word makes a person look ignorant. Or at best, careless. Sometimes it's not possible to really understand what a person actually means.

And getting the facts right also depends on getting the words right.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

12. Because they are both transactional politicians ?

eom

[fadedrose]

17. I looked up transactional

and don't know which meaning your "transactional" has.

Interesting word. I shall use it if I can figure out where..

Thanks, DemSinceBirth...I can always count on you for the right answers..

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=transactional&ia=meanings&iai=%2FTransactional_leadership