The logic here...

... escapes me:

Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton on Monday dismissed any comparison between the firing last fall of eight U.S. attorneys with the replacement of 93 U.S. attorneys when her husband became president in 1993.

"That's a traditional prerogative of an incoming president," Clinton said in an interview with The Associated Press.

Once U.S. attorneys are confirmed, they should be given broad latitude to enforce the law as they see fit, she said.

"I think one of the hallmarks of our democracy is we have a devotion to the rule of law," Clinton said.

She conceded that should she win the presidency in 2008, she likely would replace all of the U.S. attorneys appointed by President Bush. She said that's merely following traditions in which presidents appoint prosecutors of their own party.

Clinton argued that the Bush administration's firing of the eight federal prosecutors has caused an uproar because it is seen as a conservative push to shift the balance of power in favor of the executive branch.

So... I'm a little simple... but here's the math as I see it... firing all U.S. Attorneys as her husband did in 1993 is the "traditional prerogative of an incoming president".  Firing 93 and replacing them with political ideologues who'll agree with Democrats is good, very good.  Firing 8 and replacing them with political ideologues who'll agree with Republicans is "a conservative push to shift the balance of power in favor of the executive branch" and thusly bad, very bad.

Umm... any questions?  Especially from the media?

Someone fill me in, what am I missing here?

Comments

[Jay]

Reagan also fired all attorneys when he took office.

[Michael]

Reagan and Bush 41 were the first to replace almost all of the US attorneys when they took office. Clinton made the mistake (another one by his transition team) of asking for immediate resignations, but they did not replace all 93 immediately. If you cannot see why this administration injecting politics and "loyalty to the administration" to sitting US Attorneys, then you cannot see the obvious. There has always been seperation between the DOJ and the executive. This is the scariest of the MANY scandals and ethical issues surrounding this white house. And on top of that, they have lied again to us about this over and over and now have "lost" up to 5 million e-mails. What would you be saying if Clinton had pulled this one. you guys were upset about replacing some people in the freaking travel office.