One could take the view that the deaths should not be held against Mr Trump. After all natural disasters happen and aside from the wider, more complex discussion about resources allocated to public safety and infrastructure, no president is able to control the weather. However, these deaths are Trump's responsibility as a proper post-disaster response would have prevented many of them. How many? Who can say, but the sooner that clean water, sanitation and shelter is restored, the sooner the over-stretched medical services receive vital supplies, the less people die. It's as simple as that.
On the old Ship we had a remarkable thread in Hell, Katrina and the waves, which covered the New Orleans failures. Puerto Rico is looking like an "unsung failure".
Where the Hell is the GOP? Those tweets were a disgrace.
(Apparently he even got blasted on the Fox News programme 'Outnumbered'. Hope he's seen it.)
Where the Hell is the GOP? Those tweets were a disgrace.
(Apparently he even got blasted on the Fox News programme 'Outnumbered'. Hope he's seen it.)
Several Republican politicians have criticized the tweets, a lot of them from Florida (go figure!), but it's probably similar to the way Republican politicians express "concerns" about Trump policies and then vote for them anyway.
Where the Hell is the GOP? Those tweets were a disgrace.
A drop in the bucket, but the BBC report recites:
Florida Republican Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, who is retiring from Congress, called the president's tweets "mind-boggling". She said it is a "warped-mind that would turn this statistic into 'fake news'", and it "may be a new low" for the president.
Of course, that is a retiring Republican. It does seem like the only Republicans who are willing to rip into Trump are the ones who are either retiring or dying.
Just saw a news clip of the Menace claiming he has received "accolades" for the admin's handling of Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico. Why doesn't he quote one? Why doesn't the GOP or the press ask him to?
Because we all know he's lying, we now expect it, and we've become inured to it. As long as I live, I will never be able to erase the horrifying image of this monster chucking rolls of paper towels at people with no power, no resources, and no hope. Who the hell set that photo op up? What in God's name were they thinking? Did they really imagine that no one seeing this Marie Antoinette moment would care what happened to their fellow citizens?
I have a feeling that most of his gluteus-maximus kissers care as little about Puerto Rico as he does. As for the rest of us -- it's high time we do whatever it takes to kick his gluteus maximus out of office.
The president’s legal team put out an initial statement that said: “the President did nothing wrong and Paul Manafort will tell the truth.” Minutes later, they put out a new statement that said simply: “the President did nothing wrong.”
But I find it very hard to think that Mueller’s team would have accepted a plea bargain on less than co-operation in respect of the core Russian conspiracy investigation. Manafort was already looking at 20 years or more on the eight convictions. Mueller had no real need to concede anything.
And given that Manafort was present at the (in)famous Trump Tower meeting, and would almost certainly know about its arrangement and purpose and whether knowledge of those went up the chain to Trump, it would be amazing if testimony about that wasn’t a pre-condition to a deal.
17 pages (even American legal double-spaced Courier 10 point) is more than is needed to say “I don’t know anything of use to you”.
@Gwai I take the point. There may well be significantly more WH interest but I don't think there is anything that'll change the level of incompetence inherent to this administration.
Blogger emptywheel explains why the Manafort plea deal is probably pardon-proof.
Mueller spent the hour and a half delay in arraignment doing … something. It’s possible Manafort even presented the key parts of testimony Mueller needs from him to the grand jury this morning.
The forfeiture in this plea is both criminal and civil, meaning DOJ will be able to get Manafort’s $46 million even with a pardon.
Some of the dismissed charges are financial ones that can be charged in various states.
<snip>
So here’s what Robert Mueller just did: He sewed up the key witness to implicate the President, and he paid for the entire investigation. And it’s only now lunch time.
The idea that Mueller spent the ninety minute delay in the arraignment getting the key bits of Manafort's testimony on the record seems consistent with how he's run the rest of the investigation; tight, competent, and leak-proof.
Manafort's testimony seems likely to provide further support for probable cause on collusion and the President himself has already provided support for probable cause on obstruction of justice. Mueller will not get the face to face interview now, but may be happy with written answers to written questions.
I wonder if Mueller will report before the midterm votes? After all, Trump is not standing for election.
And @sionisais, they count in that he doesn't want to be seen watching thousands of white people die. He's fine if people see him letting brown people die.
He's been screwing over working and poor white people -- his voters -- since he took office. A great deal of Schadenfreude goes around the liberalsphere each time another such story runs. I don't think he cares if people see him letting poor white folk die.
Also, I weary of the "Now THIS goes too far; THIS crosses the line, THIS is beyond the pale, THIS will finally bring the monster down" trope. Every time THIS (whatever it is) does nothing except produce twitterages from the Menace when people object to the latest THIS, all it does is leave us a few inches deeper in the swamp.
Also, I weary of the "Now THIS goes too far; THIS crosses the line, THIS is beyond the pale, THIS will finally bring the monster down" trope. Every time THIS (whatever it is) does nothing except produce twitterages from the Menace when people object to the latest THIS, all it does is leave us a few inches deeper in the swamp.
I would tend to agree that no specific thing is going to be the one silver-bullet that brings him down, though I think the ongoing onslaught of craziness and criminality will likely prevent him from amassing a greater following than he came to power with.
Ronald Reagan got elected in 1980 with a little above 50% of the vote; he got re-elected in '84 with almost 59%. That's not gonna happen with Trump, even if he makes it to the next election.
And my prediction isn't about whether it would horrify his base. It's about he wouldn't want to be seen ignoring dying white people, I think. I think he likes pleasing the white supremacists and would rather not intentionally be seen ignoring the death of people much easier to see than Puerto Ricans on an island many of us have never been to.
Puerto Rico doesn't count because they have no votes in the electoral college But there has been a large out-migration of Puerto Rico to Florida and it has a lot of electoral votes! If Drumpf (which is his German name) makes it to 2020, my bet the state will go blue.
Also, I weary of the "Now THIS goes too far; THIS crosses the line, THIS is beyond the pale, THIS will finally bring the monster down" trope. Every time THIS (whatever it is) does nothing except produce twitterages from the Menace when people object to the latest THIS, all it does is leave us a few inches deeper in the swamp.
Yes my patience response was flippant - apologies Ohher. I was going for the Wicked Witch of the East. I do think Trump is probably going through the old incontinence undies at the rate of a slab a week at the moment. That should give people some comfort.
I wonder if Mueller will report before the midterm votes? After all, Trump is not standing for election.
Here's my daydream: The House turns blue in the election and a crackerjack Dem becomes Speaker after the new members of the House are installed. Then, Mueller brings the hammer down on both Trump and Pence.
I know, my rose colored glasses are pretty magical.
I dream that Mueller provides an "October Surprise" which turns the House AND Senate blue, sends Trump, Pence, and other deeply-emolumented members of the administration to jail, and puts Ryan and McConnell in handcuffs for malfeasance.
Of course, I also dream of the day when the content of women's characters will matter more than the content of their underpants. But there you go.
I dream that Mueller provides an "October Surprise" which turns the House AND Senate blue, sends Trump, Pence, and other deeply-emolumented members of the administration to jail, and puts Ryan and McConnell in handcuffs for malfeasance.
Of course, I also dream of the day when the content of women's characters will matter more than the content of their underpants. But there you go.
People reckon Dutton is the worst immigration minister since the end of the White Australia policy. I say it was this bloke. He was the one to bring the shroud of secrecy down on our offshore detention facilities and our border security operations in the north (noting that our other border security operations are the subject of a popular family TV show). Plus, Dutton looks like an evil prick. This bloke looks like a cross between a Youth Pastor gone to seed and a teddy bear.
In any event, our latest Prime Minister will be out of office by May at the latest, and I predict our next one, Bill Shorten, will be in power for a decade. He has an iron grip on the Parliamentary Labor Party and is supported by a swathe of powerful unions across the political spectrum. The Liberals hold a one-seat majority that they will lose when Karyn Phelps wins Wentworth.
For those of you not familiar with the detail of Aussie Politics, the article makes a swathe of factual errors, most of which are probably a result of having to stick to a word limit. The idea that the current PM did a Bradbury is the most egregious. The use of the word 'soignee' to describe Julie Bishop was apt, but a clumsy use of the thesaurus.
I see that Hilary Clinton has added an "afterword" to the paperback version of her book: Guardian report
Whilst I have sympathy with her viewpoints, I can't help thinking that she would have been better off keeping quiet and letting others pursue these themes. All this does is give Trump another chance to dismiss her as a poor loser and so play to his base, who would vote for Satan before they give Clinton any credence.
Whilst I have sympathy with [ Clinton's ] viewpoints, I can't help thinking that she would have been better off keeping quiet and letting others pursue these themes. All this does is give Trump another chance to dismiss her as a poor loser and so play to his base, who would vote for Satan before they give Clinton any credence.
I'm pretty sure Donald Trump will blame Hillary Clinton for the Mueller investigation, Hurricane Florence, curdling the milk of Goody Proctor's cow, and any other thing that crosses his mind regardless of whether she kept quiet. He's still leading chants for her incarceration at those rallies of his, so trying to appease the bully seems like a mug's game.
For whatever reason calling for Hillary Clinton to shut up is a verypopulargame in political circles. Some of her critics even invented a spurious "historical" standard that unsuccessful presidential nominees have to crawl into a hole somewhere an die. Certainly no one ever heard from Al Gore after he lost the electoral college vote in 2000. John McCain and John Kerry notably retired quietly from the Senate and never did anything political again. Mitt Romney certainly wouldn't consider a return to electoral politics. And I am the Czar of all the Russias! [/sarcasm]
For some reason Hillary Clinton is held to a different standard than all these other presidential losers. I wonder what it could be?
But Hillary’s in a rather different position, I think, as being a) the loser to Obama for the nomination b) the loser to Trump for the Presidency, c) known for pursuing the office since her teens, d) rather unsympathetic in manner and e) generally possessed by a belief that the White House should be hers by right.
I don’t for a moment think she has any reason to retreat from politics; but I do think she should avoid broadsides against Trump, at least until he’s hopelessly engulfed by impeachment or indictment.
Despite not being a Hillary fan (does it show?) I would of course take ten Hillarys over Trump. I agree with Rufus, though, that her interventions are probably counter-productive.
But Hillary’s in a rather different position, I think, as being a) the loser to Obama for the nomination b) the loser to Trump for the Presidency, c) known for pursuing the office since her teens, d) rather unsympathetic in manner and e) generally possessed by a belief that the White House should be hers by right.
That doesn't sound at all like "a different position" from John McCain who was a) the loser to George W. Bush for the nomination, b) the loser to Obama for the presidency, c) known for pursuing political office* since his teens, d) rather unsympathetic in manner, and e) generally possessed by a belief that the White House should be his by right.
To be fair point e) is more or less definitionally true of every major party nominee for the presidency, but it's only considered a remarkable deficiency when it comes to Hillary Clinton for some reason.
*Becoming a staff officer like his father and grandfather is very much a political position, despite the military's best pretensions of being 'non-political'. It just requires a different sort of politics than elected office.
For that matter HN466’s character sketch also sounds a lot like Al Gore and Mitt Romney. Bob Dole too, I guess. The only recent presidential loser that it doesn’t fit would seem to be John Kerry, who never made an unsuccessful run for his party’s nomination.
... e) generally possessed by a belief that the White House should be his by right.
To be fair point e) is more or less definitionally true of every major party nominee for the presidency, but it's only considered a remarkable deficiency when it comes to Hillary Clinton for some reason ....
And apparently she's also insanely arrogant for thinking that relevant education, background and experience as a Senator AND Secretary of State should have anything to do with who goes to the White House. (Whereas the porn-addicted Putin puppy living there now didn't even want or expect to win what was to him, just a big publicity stunt.)
Sometimes I think a bit like Rufus, in that I want Hilary to play a mentoring role, maybe go back to the Senate and spot and foster and channel funds to talented democrats.
But sometimes I think she's still got a heap to give (I'm a Hilary fanboy). I think she is exactly the person to bring about a detante with Russia, with a view to bringing them into the community of nations upholding international norms of conduct. Putin apparently hates her, and THAT is a major factor in my thinking.
I don't think she will ever be President though. She couldn't beat Trump and that means that too many Americans will vote for anybody but her. I don't want her to run again, but if she could spike that bastard Avenetti's candidacy that would be nice. Really, I'd be happy for anybody to spike Avenetti's candidacy. Please do it soon.
To add pathos to the general idiocy and sheer carelessness of Don Jr's tweet, the camera man died last year. But this is the world of "alternative facts".
But she has a full house of the perceived faults, which arguably Gore, Romney, Dole, McCain and so on don't (or didn't). More importantly, she's viewed as having them more intensely; they almost define her now.
She's also a Dem - unlike Romney and McCain - so there's the "he/she would say that wouldn't they: they're the political enemy". And there's no admirable extra-political dimension to her, as there was with McCain.
She's also the last Presidential loser, so would be thought more bitter than any other.
Not that it's Hillary's fault, of course, but Trump has singled her out for abuse, so it plays into his hands somewhat to retaliate, particularly if she does it in colourful terms - what the Guardian piece describes as "unconstrained language".
For some reason Hillary Clinton is held to a different standard than all these other presidential losers. I wonder what it could be?
A read of The Economist's article (now nearly 2 years old, and alas, wrong in its expectations) offers some hints. Their take? It's instructive that by and large, the public appears to have approved of the work Clinton's done when holding office (senator, sec. of state), but pretty much has loathed her whenever she runs for office.
For some reason Hillary Clinton is held to a different standard than all these other presidential losers. I wonder what it could be?
A read of The Economist's article (now nearly 2 years old, and alas, wrong in its expectations) offers some hints. Their take? It's instructive that by and large, the public appears to have approved of the work Clinton's done when holding office (senator, sec. of state), but pretty much has loathed her whenever she runs for office.
For some reason Hillary Clinton is held to a different standard than all these other presidential losers. I wonder what it could be?
A read of The Economist's article (now nearly 2 years old, and alas, wrong in its expectations) offers some hints. Their take? It's instructive that by and large, the public appears to have approved of the work Clinton's done when holding office (senator, sec. of state), but pretty much has loathed her whenever she runs for office.
What's interesting is extent of the pretense that a double standard isn't being applied. For example a list of points detailing why Hillary Clinton is different than past losing presidential candidates turns out to pretty clearly describe almost allrecent presidential losers and when this is pointed out the waffling begins:
But she has a full house of the perceived faults, which arguably Gore, Romney, Dole, McCain and so on don't (or didn't). More importantly, she's viewed as having them more intensely; they almost define her now.
Clinton has "perceived faults", which apparently are different than the other faults already listed which were supposed to disqualify her from public life but which, inconveniently, also apply to a lot of other (male) presidential losers who somehow never get criticized for not sitting down and shutting up. Exactly what these perceived faults are, and how it is that every male presidential loser is virtuous enough to have avoided them, and whether or not there's any accuracy in the perception, is left unexplored.
She's also a Dem - unlike Romney and McCain - so there's the "he/she would say that wouldn't they: they're the political enemy". And there's no admirable extra-political dimension to her, as there was with McCain.
She's also the last Presidential loser, so would be thought more bitter than any other.
Somewhat mysteriously, this standard wasn't applied to John McCain when he publicly criticized President Obama. He started in two months after Obama's inauguration rather than waiting more than a year, but I don't recall anyone arguing that this was somehow inappropriate, unseemly, or counterproductive. He appeared on Sunday morning talking head shows so often, to a remarkable degree for a Republican who wasn't in the party leadership or head of any important committees at the time, it became a joke among lefty bloggers that "President McCain" was on TV again. I don't recall anyone batting an eye when he spoke at the 2012 Republican National Convention and said Obama had "emboldened our enemies" in Afghanistan and was basically soft on tyranny.
But yes, Hillary Clinton is "different". But it would be refreshing if those making this claim would, just once, unambiguously say why she's different in terms that aren't self-evidently a post hoc rationalization.
But yes, Hillary Clinton is "different". But it would be refreshing if those making this claim would, just once, unambiguously say why she's different in terms that aren't self-evidently a post hoc rationalization.
As noted earlier, it's not the content of her character that counts; it's the contents of her underpants.
Comments
On a related topic, apparently several million bottles of water have been sitting abandoned on a Puerto Rican airstrip since last fall. FEMA now claims that they weren't needed and were abandoned in place as a cost saving measure, but the logic seems to be something along the lines of "if they were needed and not used we'd be in big trouble, so obviously they weren't needed".
I'm sure this is very reassuring to the people of the Carolinas right now. Heckuva job, Brockie!
Where the Hell is the GOP? Those tweets were a disgrace.
(Apparently he even got blasted on the Fox News programme 'Outnumbered'. Hope he's seen it.)
Several Republican politicians have criticized the tweets, a lot of them from Florida (go figure!), but it's probably similar to the way Republican politicians express "concerns" about Trump policies and then vote for them anyway.
Because we all know he's lying, we now expect it, and we've become inured to it. As long as I live, I will never be able to erase the horrifying image of this monster chucking rolls of paper towels at people with no power, no resources, and no hope. Who the hell set that photo op up? What in God's name were they thinking? Did they really imagine that no one seeing this Marie Antoinette moment would care what happened to their fellow citizens?
Isn't Trump old enough yet? He certainly can't count.
It’s not yet clear if he’s ‘flipped’ to Mueller.
This could be the day that the forced departure of President Trump became inevitable.
Looks like someone's not getting a pardon.
But I find it very hard to think that Mueller’s team would have accepted a plea bargain on less than co-operation in respect of the core Russian conspiracy investigation. Manafort was already looking at 20 years or more on the eight convictions. Mueller had no real need to concede anything.
And given that Manafort was present at the (in)famous Trump Tower meeting, and would almost certainly know about its arrangement and purpose and whether knowledge of those went up the chain to Trump, it would be amazing if testimony about that wasn’t a pre-condition to a deal.
17 pages (even American legal double-spaced Courier 10 point) is more than is needed to say “I don’t know anything of use to you”.
It looks to me as though Mueller’s got Trump.
Lots of poor white people. Do they count? Apart from ticking a box every four years.
From your lips to God's ear.
@Gwai I take the point. There may well be significantly more WH interest but I don't think there is anything that'll change the level of incompetence inherent to this administration.
AFZ
The idea that Mueller spent the ninety minute delay in the arraignment getting the key bits of Manafort's testimony on the record seems consistent with how he's run the rest of the investigation; tight, competent, and leak-proof.
I wonder if Mueller will report before the midterm votes? After all, Trump is not standing for election.
And @sionisais, they count in that he doesn't want to be seen watching thousands of white people die. He's fine if people see him letting brown people die.
I would tend to agree that no specific thing is going to be the one silver-bullet that brings him down, though I think the ongoing onslaught of craziness and criminality will likely prevent him from amassing a greater following than he came to power with.
Ronald Reagan got elected in 1980 with a little above 50% of the vote; he got re-elected in '84 with almost 59%. That's not gonna happen with Trump, even if he makes it to the next election.
Patience, my pretty...
Is there much protesting going on in a visible manner in the streets? Or is that reserved for key dates such as his inauguration?
On Gramps' post and mention of blue it always takes me a moment to adjust as our conservatives are blue and our progressives red.
And he has now dragged up a 2008 mistake by Obama..
(See Snopes if you are interested.)
Here's my daydream: The House turns blue in the election and a crackerjack Dem becomes Speaker after the new members of the House are installed. Then, Mueller brings the hammer down on both Trump and Pence.
I know, my rose colored glasses are pretty magical.
Of course, I also dream of the day when the content of women's characters will matter more than the content of their underpants. But there you go.
Don't forget their brassieres.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/15/opinion/columnists/trump-finally-makes-a-friend.html
In any event, our latest Prime Minister will be out of office by May at the latest, and I predict our next one, Bill Shorten, will be in power for a decade. He has an iron grip on the Parliamentary Labor Party and is supported by a swathe of powerful unions across the political spectrum. The Liberals hold a one-seat majority that they will lose when Karyn Phelps wins Wentworth.
For those of you not familiar with the detail of Aussie Politics, the article makes a swathe of factual errors, most of which are probably a result of having to stick to a word limit. The idea that the current PM did a Bradbury is the most egregious. The use of the word 'soignee' to describe Julie Bishop was apt, but a clumsy use of the thesaurus.
Guardian report
Whilst I have sympathy with her viewpoints, I can't help thinking that she would have been better off keeping quiet and letting others pursue these themes. All this does is give Trump another chance to dismiss her as a poor loser and so play to his base, who would vote for Satan before they give Clinton any credence.
I'm pretty sure Donald Trump will blame Hillary Clinton for the Mueller investigation, Hurricane Florence, curdling the milk of Goody Proctor's cow, and any other thing that crosses his mind regardless of whether she kept quiet. He's still leading chants for her incarceration at those rallies of his, so trying to appease the bully seems like a mug's game.
For whatever reason calling for Hillary Clinton to shut up is a very popular game in political circles. Some of her critics even invented a spurious "historical" standard that unsuccessful presidential nominees have to crawl into a hole somewhere an die. Certainly no one ever heard from Al Gore after he lost the electoral college vote in 2000. John McCain and John Kerry notably retired quietly from the Senate and never did anything political again. Mitt Romney certainly wouldn't consider a return to electoral politics. And I am the Czar of all the Russias! [/sarcasm]
For some reason Hillary Clinton is held to a different standard than all these other presidential losers. I wonder what it could be?
But Hillary’s in a rather different position, I think, as being a) the loser to Obama for the nomination b) the loser to Trump for the Presidency, c) known for pursuing the office since her teens, d) rather unsympathetic in manner and e) generally possessed by a belief that the White House should be hers by right.
I don’t for a moment think she has any reason to retreat from politics; but I do think she should avoid broadsides against Trump, at least until he’s hopelessly engulfed by impeachment or indictment.
Despite not being a Hillary fan (does it show?) I would of course take ten Hillarys over Trump. I agree with Rufus, though, that her interventions are probably counter-productive.
That doesn't sound at all like "a different position" from John McCain who was a) the loser to George W. Bush for the nomination, b) the loser to Obama for the presidency, c) known for pursuing political office* since his teens, d) rather unsympathetic in manner, and e) generally possessed by a belief that the White House should be his by right.
To be fair point e) is more or less definitionally true of every major party nominee for the presidency, but it's only considered a remarkable deficiency when it comes to Hillary Clinton for some reason.
*Becoming a staff officer like his father and grandfather is very much a political position, despite the military's best pretensions of being 'non-political'. It just requires a different sort of politics than elected office.
And apparently she's also insanely arrogant for thinking that relevant education, background and experience as a Senator AND Secretary of State should have anything to do with who goes to the White House. (Whereas the porn-addicted Putin puppy living there now didn't even want or expect to win what was to him, just a big publicity stunt.)
But sometimes I think she's still got a heap to give (I'm a Hilary fanboy). I think she is exactly the person to bring about a detante with Russia, with a view to bringing them into the community of nations upholding international norms of conduct. Putin apparently hates her, and THAT is a major factor in my thinking.
I don't think she will ever be President though. She couldn't beat Trump and that means that too many Americans will vote for anybody but her. I don't want her to run again, but if she could spike that bastard Avenetti's candidacy that would be nice. Really, I'd be happy for anybody to spike Avenetti's candidacy. Please do it soon.
To add pathos to the general idiocy and sheer carelessness of Don Jr's tweet, the camera man died last year. But this is the world of "alternative facts".
But she has a full house of the perceived faults, which arguably Gore, Romney, Dole, McCain and so on don't (or didn't). More importantly, she's viewed as having them more intensely; they almost define her now.
She's also a Dem - unlike Romney and McCain - so there's the "he/she would say that wouldn't they: they're the political enemy". And there's no admirable extra-political dimension to her, as there was with McCain.
She's also the last Presidential loser, so would be thought more bitter than any other.
Not that it's Hillary's fault, of course, but Trump has singled her out for abuse, so it plays into his hands somewhat to retaliate, particularly if she does it in colourful terms - what the Guardian piece describes as "unconstrained language".
A read of The Economist's article (now nearly 2 years old, and alas, wrong in its expectations) offers some hints. Their take? It's instructive that by and large, the public appears to have approved of the work Clinton's done when holding office (senator, sec. of state), but pretty much has loathed her whenever she runs for office.
Uppity women much?
Sorry: for got the link: https://www.economist.com/united-states/2016/10/22/hating-hillary
Quartz ran a similar article in early 2016.
What's interesting is extent of the pretense that a double standard isn't being applied. For example a list of points detailing why Hillary Clinton is different than past losing presidential candidates turns out to pretty clearly describe almost all recent presidential losers and when this is pointed out the waffling begins:
Clinton has "perceived faults", which apparently are different than the other faults already listed which were supposed to disqualify her from public life but which, inconveniently, also apply to a lot of other (male) presidential losers who somehow never get criticized for not sitting down and shutting up. Exactly what these perceived faults are, and how it is that every male presidential loser is virtuous enough to have avoided them, and whether or not there's any accuracy in the perception, is left unexplored.
Somewhat mysteriously, this standard wasn't applied to John McCain when he publicly criticized President Obama. He started in two months after Obama's inauguration rather than waiting more than a year, but I don't recall anyone arguing that this was somehow inappropriate, unseemly, or counterproductive. He appeared on Sunday morning talking head shows so often, to a remarkable degree for a Republican who wasn't in the party leadership or head of any important committees at the time, it became a joke among lefty bloggers that "President McCain" was on TV again. I don't recall anyone batting an eye when he spoke at the 2012 Republican National Convention and said Obama had "emboldened our enemies" in Afghanistan and was basically soft on tyranny.
But yes, Hillary Clinton is "different". But it would be refreshing if those making this claim would, just once, unambiguously say why she's different in terms that aren't self-evidently a post hoc rationalization.
As noted earlier, it's not the content of her character that counts; it's the contents of her underpants.