Hillary Clinton: Classic or Dud?

and things have fortunately changed since the nineties.

i am not making this assumption

Clinton wrote that while she was impressed with the massive anti-Trump demonstrations in the days after his January inauguration, "I couldn't help but ask where those feelings of solidarity, outrage and passion had been during the election."

oh my god i have to read this book

better you than me

fortunately clintonism is apparently just as self-destructive as trumpism

https://i.imgur.com/UKrzWOB.png

https://i.imgur.com/SU6CeFX.png

Re the "pony" thing, Hillary is that kid who ran for student council against the kid who was promising to get vending machines in the cafeteria, and her campaign was "Student council can't get vending machines in the cafeteria, he's just saying that to get votes!" And then the other kid wins and convinces the school administration to add vending machines in the cafeteria.

Classic for plugging Elena Ferrante, though I have my doubts about the Snyder (which I've only read excerpts of.)

I feel like the inevitable biography of Hillary is going to have to carry the theme of her incredibly poor judgement regarding other people's reactions. It's actually really, really sad, well maybe that's obvious, but that she was given so many opportunities, and took so many of those opportunities, and tried pretty fucking hard for the better part of half a century (Yale law '73), and came up snake eyes in so many ways. She trusted so many of the wrong people, and time and time again she committed unforced errors, and there's got to be at least a dozen occasions where she was supposed to be over, out, done with, toast, into the cornfield.

She strikes me as superlatively book-smart, frighteningly tenacious, and genuinely committed on womens' and childrens' issues. And she's also extraordinarily loyal, but mostly to people who suck.

that's a great point they made on the most recent chapo - she's very much like Trump in being loyal to & trusting of anyone that fawns over her but is otherwise incompetent (cf. daou, mook, dws)

and i agree it is very sad. this-

I feel like the inevitable biography of Hillary is going to have to carry the theme of her incredibly poor judgement regarding other people's reactions. It's actually really, really sad, well maybe that's obvious, but that she was given so many opportunities, and took so many of those opportunities, and tried pretty fucking hard for the better part of half a century (Yale law '73), and came up snake eyes in so many ways.

is so otm

She's probably one of the toughest people ever. Who else could hold her head high through the Lewinsky thing and then *want* to turn around and run for a Senate seat in a super high profile state? Then she endured a decade and a half in the public eye, where she was subject to an almost unprecedented degree of scorn and invective, lost a nasty presidential primary in which she burned a lot of goodwill among Democrats, and was investigated by the FBI. Then she ran for President again! Knowing how miserable it was, how she would spend the bulk of her 70s as an even more visible, even more hated target!

Like, who else would make these choices?

I'm not sure it's even admirable but it's awe inspiring.

Mastering that level of DGAF-what-people-say comes with side effects.

"If the dossier is to be believed, the Russian effort may well have started as an anti-Clinton operation, and only became combined with the separate effort to cultivate the Trump team when it appeared Trump might win the nomination."

https://www.justsecurity.org/44697/steele-dossier-knowing/

I feel like Hillary Clinton should read the keen insight into false equivalency found in the new book What Happened by Hillary Clinton pic.twitter.com/KKYEqith8r

— Jon Schwarz (@tinyrevolution) September 13, 2017

someone needs to convince this lady she could be america's cato

recommended twitter muting keywords for the next few weeks
"HRC" "Clinton" "Hillary" "Hillary's"

I read Sarah Jones' review but that's about all I can stand probably

I've already been in so many terrible arguments about this book, way worse than anything during or in the immediate aftermath of the election. The whole thing is a trap. The book and accompanying media blitz are bait. Avoid at all costs. Tie yourself to the mast and resist its siren song.

A guy told me I was trying to silence women's voices today. When I pointed out that, given that she is in literally every media outlet at the same time right now, and that she makes more for a one hour speech than my household makes in a year, the chances of me "silencing" her are slim, he responded "only because people like me are defending her."

the most silenced woman ever

she probably has a Southern accent. Who knows?

forced back into the kitchen by tweets

You can be unsuccessful at something you're trying to do, btw. Anyway, this was good: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-hillary-clinton-right-about-why-she-lost/

"only because people like me are defending her."

This is extraordinarily punchable imo

I'm finding it hard to keep reading about something this disingenuous:

micah: I mean, Al Gore made a freaking movie after he lost and no one was like, “Why is he making this movie?” (At least, as far as I can remember.)

*after something

the sexism on display in the US toward hillary rodham clinton remains a sight to behold still in 2017

holy fuck

Wait, are you saying I'm sexist because I don't think making a film about the issue of climate change is equivalent to writing a book about your own failed campaign? Or was that sarcastic (or in reference to something else)?

An Inconvenient Truth also came out 6 years after he lost to Bush.

lol she spent $1.2 billion on omnipresent fawning media and still wasn't satisfied w the coverage

I do not recall seeing Romney or Kerry much following their losses either

Oh im sure everyone would be cool with Hillary following Romney's model and not endorsing the next dem candidate

yeah keyes that was exactly simon's point, good showwww i say

https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2016-03/14/13/campaign_images/webdr12/mr-krabs-is-all-of-us-2-27015-1457975784-4_dblbig.jpg

538 chat reads as mostly accurate (outline of that Al Gore line, wtf); not only did we have to hear about emails every other day but there was also like three straight weeks about what the Clinton Foundation *might* have done and hardly anything about the far, far more corrupt Trump Foundation. the media was too chickenshit to straight up say that Trump was a bald-faced liar and instead just reported incessantly on every idiot thing he said "Did Hillary Clinton REALLY create ISIS? CNN investigates...". I mean HRC's campaign was bad no doubt but still, c'mon

Kerry was a sitting senator, and he did his own awful mea culpa on His Holiness Tim Russert's show.

the media was too chickenshit to straight up say that Trump was a bald-faced liar

lol are you serious? the media basically acted like he was a hateful imbecile entirely unqualified to even run for the office.

538 chat is accurate as being the media reflecting on the media reflecting on the media being wrong

the media basically acted like he was a hateful imbecile entirely unqualified to even run for the office

tbf this was his major selling point

sund4r that was in no way a dig directed at you, sorry, just a general howl into the foxnation misogyny-charged climate-change hurricane winds for hillzo to stay on the stage until benedict donald is jailed for colluding with our primary global adversary to profit (liquidate debt) by keeping a chick out of the white house

xpost

exactly, people loved him because he hated the same people they did

xp

like a ton of his appeal was "media lies, politicians lie, therefore he's telling the truth", which I think worked so long as the media kept letting him get away with that "truthful hyperbole" BS that he's been doing his whole life. once the media started to go full bore into garbage like "well how many Muslims DID celebrate on 9/11? was it more like 100?" I think they'd basically punched his tickets through the primaries. it wasn't until that idiotic "birther" press conference (in which he took no questions, but did advertise his hotel) that the media finally sacked up and said straight up, "the things this man says are not true". but the damage had been done.

to any reasonably discerning reader, the media's coverage of trump was far more hostile than that of hillary. whether enough of the country is "discerning", and therefore whether the media should be more explicit (i.e., partisan) in its reporting, is a fair question

also anything trump = higher ratings

CLINTON: Who cares how much money I took, money didn't affect Obama.

VOX: It did though.

CLINTON: Sure but it's always been like that. pic.twitter.com/Wm3FJLoVbS

— Jon Schwarz (@tinyrevolution) September 13, 2017

to any reasonably discerning reader, the media's coverage of trump was far more hostile than that of hillary. whether enough of the country is "discerning", and therefore whether the media should be more explicit (i.e., partisan) in its reporting, is a fair question

― k3vin k., Wednesday, September 13, 2017 5:58 PM (one minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

also the media had different rules & different standards for covering Trump & HRC. She was obviously held to a higher standard because her opponent was fucking Donald Trump. hence the abundance of email coverage & clinton foundation vs. almost anything Trump had said or done in the past.

omnipresent fawning media 

 any reasonably discerning reader, the media's coverage of trump was far more hostile



you ppl r bonkers

http://www.resource-media.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/trump-clinton-word-clouds.png

Cool, qualmsley. Thanks for explaining.