Hillary Clinton testifies before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. (Mandel Ngan/Getty Images)
Hillary Clinton brings it before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. (Mandel Ngan/Getty Images)

Some topics are just made for Internet commentary, cycling round and round filling untold bytes on global hard drives with the opinionated graffiti we can’t resist engaging in. Some spats will continue to be argued until all their debaters have worn their typing fingers to bloody stumps and are reduced to carving into the wall of the PostScript Bunker with the largest available fragments of their own phalanges.

PostScript read a lot of Internet comment boards in the 1990s, so she thought she knew what to expect when she saw the huge number of comments on Dana Milbank’s column on Hillary Clinton. Clinton showed a lot of pith in her Senate Benghazi hearings yesterday, as related by Milbank. Basically, she brought it so hard, he writes, that almost all the senators were put off their game, either seeming overly respectful or out of their depth. PostScript was already looking for her safety goggles before heading in to capture samples of what she’d assumed would be inevitable: talk of 2016, cankles, the advantages of having metaphorically male genitalia and Vince Foster.

It turns out PostScript was half right.

Clinton boosters apparently expected an uphill battle, because they came out in overwhelming force, overwhelming even for the 4,500+ comments Milbank’s piece has garnered.

drbilllemoine

Call it a ‘tour de force’. Secretary Clinton made a strong impression graciously accepting kudos for her stellar foreign service of 4 years and also strongly rebuffing ‘take down’ prima donnas [Sens. Rand] Paul and [Ron] Johnson. Traveling to hot spots and showing the flag in friendly places, she made rock solid credentials in foreign affairs that were suspect before as first lady. Her enemies were clearly seeking partisan advantage asking pointless questions about optics which she countered with substance–as much as possible given national security concerns and policy limitations. Should she run, as several legislators strongly hinted inviting her future service to the country, she’ll be strong against anyone the disorganized opposition can offer and perhaps the current stellar vice president.

cjd260

It’s sort of breathtaking reading the idiotic “arguments” trotted out by GOP sycophants: it was a conspiracy to kidnap the Ambassador – and Obama was in on it! Rand Paul came off great! Obama let the whole thing happen to silence Ambassador Stevens!
Serious question to the GOPers: do you guys honestly think this helps your electoral prospects? Widely dismissed conspiracy theories, misogyny, and hitching your wagon to a freshman senator who thinks we should have segregated lunch counters? Do you like losing elections?

bls2011

My first thought on watching the hearings was, “Good Lord, I sure wish Sec. Clinton had one of those WaPo Ignore [User] buttons.” Nonetheless, I believe she conducted herself admirably and showed herself to be both a fierce warrior yet one with abundant compassion and humor – a perfect Presidential candidate for 2016. Thank you, GOP Senators and House Members for allowing her to demonstrate that to the American people.

But the cankles crowd seemed very quiet. Oddly so, just as their ideological counterparts seemed to Milbank at the hearings yesterday.

Tobit is no Clinton fan, but didn’t seem to think the hearings were all that damning:

I came in when she was pounding the table. I thought that was very inappropriate, given her responsibility and the grave nature of the situation. (Yes, kiddies, getting kicked out of Libya by al-Qaeda is grave.) Someone asked, “what did you expect?” I didn’t expect much and that’s what I got. Both sides went through the motions. It’s clear who’s responsible but that doesn’t matter. What matters is learning from this fiasco so we don’t repeat it.

Djones121 too expressed dislike for Clinton’s testimony, but not nearly the personal animus PostScript expected. In fact, he or she implies that the political posturing all around is helping Clinton avoid giving real answers:

“Was it because of a protest, or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they’d go kill some Americans? What difference, at this point, does it make?” I think the lady protesteth too much. What exactly is she trying to cover up that we don’t yet know? I think it makes a lot of difference who and why these “guys” were that attacked the consulate and killed four Americans on 9/11/2012.

There is a lot more to this disaster and glib retorts from Mrs. Clinton are not going to help. Why wasn’t she aware of the Ambassador’s concerns about the deteriorating security situation and why did we keep the consulate open after previous attacks and the British closure of their consulate? Is it true that this wasn’t really a consulate at all, but only a CIA facility? The Republicans are still not asking the right questions.

PostScript is shocked and confused. Is Secretary Clinton somehow no longer a flashpoint in the culture wars? Are the ’90s actually…over? Will the Internet wink out of existence without one of its earliest perpetual argument machines? What are we going to talk about now?

Luckily grandmadusty brings up something we can argue about for the next twenty years, after which time presumably it will have long since stopped being a problem:

Don’t you think it’s about time, in your articles, you dropped the details of what a public figure is wearing; that is, a female public figure? If it were her husband being covered in a story of yours, I doubt you’d be describing his jacket and eyeglasses.