Former SOS Clinton was to address her e-mail controversy in the hour "Money with Melissa Francis" (which I DVR) aired live. I wanted to hear it from the horse’s mouth, but Clinton was late, so I only got the first two minutes of her apology. First, she droned on about Woman's Day or Week or whatever, her strategy for moving the narrative away from her questionable record. If she cared, every day would be Woman’s Day. Then, she mentioned
a letter to Iran from Republican senators, saying there were only two possible explanations: 1. they wanted to aid the mullahs, or 2. they wanted to hurt the president.

 
VAST ELECTRONIC CONSPIRACY    

Another diversion with typical Clinton posturing. There are other explanations, not just the two she suggested, much as there are other reasons for hiding your public electronic communications on a private server at your house, other than "convenience." Off the top of my head, I’d say one reason for the Republicans’ letter was to remind Iran that the President cannot sign legally-binding treaties without Congressional approval. Or they could have been reminding the American public that the Senate must ratify treaties, precluding Obama from using his pen and his phone to erase, or rewrite, history or the law. Democrats who are calling this "unprecedented interference" are forgetting their own party’s recent record. The letter may have been a mistake, but it is one letter, not four years of ignoring department policy.

Finally getting around to her e-mail travesty, Hillary Clinton said it was easier having one account because she didn’t want to schlep around two phones. Surely, we don’t know anyone who carries two phones or has more than one e-mail account on a single phone but, considering she’s chummy with Bill Gates, he must know some computer geek who could have set that up for her. There might even be an IT department at State, since she probably didn’t install the server herself.

As far as convenience goes, isn’t Secretary Of State a salaried position? Is it supposed to be easier than Téa Leoni memorising lines for television pretending to hold that office?
If you land a job where computers are involved, can you opt out of your employer’s system?

Bigger question: When she wrote letters, were they on her personal stationery or State Department letterhead? I mean, challenging as it would be to lug around two cellular phones, think how heavy all that paper would be, especially if it is high-quality bond.

Her denials were reminiscent of another Clinton facing the camera, stating unequivocally, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman."
Only Mrs Clinton was gazing everywhere but at the camera, often consulting her notes, seemingly trying to get the words just right. Not slick at all. If she can’t remember her implausible denials, how will she remember what she needs to be president (of the United States), in the disastrous event she runs and gets elected?

The cottage industry of Clinton apologists re-spin history to present false equivalences. Turns out neither Abraham Lincoln nor Ronald Reagan used a .gov e-mail account, and they were famous Republican presidents. Thomas Jefferson was a revered Secretary of State, who did not use state.gov e-mail. Hillary Clinton was following their example. Also, Republicans wouldn’t care about this if she were a man, like David Petraeus.

I am not curious about the endless questionable Clinton activities, by husband and wife. What piques my interest is why someone so unqualified to run a local coffee shop or newsstand is regarded as a possible United States president, except jestingly. She is not up to the job, having had no useful experience, being too decrepit, too untrustworthy. No one knows what her policies would be, despite her occupying public offices for several years, feasting off the public trough most of her adult life. The former Secretary of State had to hire consultants to make her seem human because she’s unlikeable. I understand feeling sorry for her. That’s no reason to elevate her to an office where we will all wind up feeling sorry for ourselves if she is there.

Regarding her age [see informative table below], the Constitution requires a president be 35 years of age or older. There is no upper age limit. It’s a lot like Social Security, which you can collect well into your hundreds, even after you are dead. Given today’s fast-paced world, I am skeptical of the ability of old geezers to handle the job. Not advocating an amendment, just the exercise of caution.

Why does Ms Clinton even want to be president? For all we know, it’s to get revenge on all men for being treated disrespectfully by her husband. Not saying that’s true, but it’s a reasonable explanation. She certainly seems disinterested in any specific problems facing the nation, that don’t involve her personally. She appears comfortable acting like a queen, who is above the law and the constraints affecting common citizens, like you.