political issue. so hillary here is speaking to media saying, hey, i m completely comfortable with a detailed conversation about this because i know the facts are on my side and she s saying the discussion that we are having is not a legitimate one. this is the scandal industrial complex at work. this is the partisan propaganda machine chugging out noise. here s your real answers, let s move on. i will not be part of the political slugfest on the backs of dead americans. this chapter says hillary could be combative and ready to the fight of her life. she s fighting against those who as she says would exploit this tragedy as a political tool, minimizing the sacrifices of those who served. she s showing herself, i think, to be like a tough mama, the sort of female type that has broken the glass ceiling in so many major democracies. in order to become the first woman prime minister of great britain, margaret thatcher had to be the iron lady. decades before thatcher s rise,
politics and he believes susan rice is an excellent public servant and someone who is wrong. someone who had nothing to do with what happened that night in benghazi, and someone who s been vindicated by the recently released e-mail trail. and, yet, she was successfully attacked as a way of attacking obama and he probably felt he had to do something to right the injustice done to her. and also, perhaps, to rebuke this scandal industrial complex. and why shouldn t he? why shouldn t he install rights where congress can t block her and leave eric holder alone? why shouldn t he respond to years of gop obstruction and outright subversion of the democratic process with the back of his hand and the people he believes are best for the job? the gop profits from not working with him, from looking like they re defying him so there s no horse trading possible. why shouldn t he dunk on them? as long as his approval stays high and steady, what does he have to fear? of course, the only thing the repub
jordan dunking on ewing because it s worth way more than two points. in the analogy, ewing is the republicans or at least those behind the scandal industrial complex who deal in political theater intended only to embarrass the administration, eat up the clock, try to make people hate or distrust the president, and subvert the democratic process, itself. doesn t really matter if the scandal begins in whitewater or benghazi. the methodology remains the same. leap all mistakes. call them outrageous scandals. make media noise. launch investigations. never let them in. about the president. even if the so-called scandals have nothing to do with the white house at all. eventually the fact of multiple investigations becomes proof of something in and of itself even if those investigations are all fruitless. and each scandal lowers the bar for what else is outrageous, and what else the media must focus on, because surely there s a pattern that proves something about the president. where there s
administration adviser. he is co-author of the book masters of disaster, the ten comman commandments of damage control. how does this compare to the clinton administration or is every perceived scandal not created equally? every perceived scandal is certainly not created equally. i know how washington, d.c. works. there was a great froth for many days this week with people trying to compare this to what had happened with previous administrations. this is not anywhere near on par or a comparable magnitude to the reagan administration, the clinton administration, the bush administration faced in their second terms. that being said this is also an issue that is coming about in a different time period where the media ecology, there is a scandal industrial complex out