Hillary Clinton: Classic or Dud?

Speaking of gaslighting
https://www.facebook.com/thekatiehalpershow/videos/1744449688916026/

man, if this is what you all think of HRC, it makes me wonder what sort of contempt you must have reserved for the likes of Strom Thurmond, Robert Byrd or Ted Cruz. it must burn in you like the all-consuming fires of hell. how do you survive it?

it's fine.

j OTM

I think all of the people you mentioned are men, so they're cool

Her book is egregious.

Her book is egregious.

You're egregious.

Hillarygregious

a basket of egregious

How do you survive in the world when you take criticism of a ruling class war hawk so personally?

How do you survive in the world when you take criticism of a the publication of a book by a ruling class war hawk so personally?

How do you survive in the world when you take criticism of the publication of a book ^that almost no one here has actually read^ by a ruling class war hawk so personally?

How will the wolf survive when the hawk rules the skies?

We should probably read the book, huh?

i) Ruling class war hawks by definition have more power and influence than Internet randos who criticize them so I'm not sure the two things are equivalent. ii) I don't see anyone here taking the book especially personally as much as making sarcastic comments about it? The defenders do seem to be taking it pretty personally, though.

xps Ha, was going to add that I haven't actually read the book so.

I don't think anyone takes it personally on any side?

Doug Henwood read it so i don't have to....

http://washingtonbabylon.com/3128-2/

but goodbye forever, HRC

is her book better than her husband's book? because her husband's book sucked.

who 👏 has 👏 the 👏 pdf

I am admittedly sort of encouraged by that passage Henwood cites at the end of the review. That's a significant reversal and a move in the right direction.

The defenders do seem to be taking it pretty personally, though.

If, by this, you mean to indicate I and others are reacting as if the criticism were being directed at us personally, then I don't see it. I don't feel personally attacked or criticized at all. otoh, if you only mean to say we are reacting as if the criticism is being directed at a person, not an effigy, then yeah, you're right.

Well one poster compared her to an actual abuse victim because she has suffered the slings and arrows of the media.

Somewhere in the middle for me. The level of smearing and the amount of bile leveled at HRC since early 1992 is certainly unprecedented for an American female politician, if only because there was never a female politician at her level prior to the 90s. But it comes with the job. I voted for her, I fuckin wish she was President every day, but she can't help making these completely oblivious & self-centered observations stemming from her (understandable) persecution complex. She hasn't recognized that Clintonism is dead and gone, and young people are becoming increasingly more leftist, especially since she lost the election. HRC losing to Trump demonstrated to so many that Clintonism & Obama compromise-style politics ain't gonna cut it anymore.

If you are actually being persecuted all of the time, it is patently unfair to call it a "persecution complex".

You're right. Her paranoia is justified. & I can only imagine how that would cloud one's vision.

i would say the sitting president of the united states still using the idea of sending her to prison as a way to get the crowd riled up, still wanting to revisit that email/benghazi bullshit, etc, i don't think it's a complex yeah.

the level of smearing and the amount of bile leveled at HRC since early 1992 is certainly unprecedented for an American female politician, and was basically destined to be early on for the first woman who had the spine to run for president for real in a country as bigoted, class-riven, and sexist as the US. mrga

Shirley Chisholm might have taken issue with the second half of that sentence.

shirley chisholm would have proudly voted for hillary clinton

i'm about halfway through reminck's essay (which i'm surprised no one anywhere is talking about) and while it's convincing me that i do not need to read the book, i do feel a little bad for her.

i feel bad for all of us that the russians colluded with hillary's seditious, senile opponent and hacked our election. the whole thing is still so fucked up

sedition, now that just brings the 1790s back in an instant

I think that's more than a bit presumptuous xp

it is necessary to assume the election was lost fairly

also as bad as trump is hillary is no saint

I meant presumptuous to assume Chisholm would support Clinton. She certainly would have wanted a female president but Clinton is not in line with her politics.

tbc, not saying she definitely wouldn't

sedition, now that just brings the 1790s back in an instant

― ice cream social justice (Dr Morbius), Monday, September 25, 2017 7:22 PM (thirty-two minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

what was it like being alive back then, Morbz?

it is necessary to assume the election was lost fairly

― imago, Monday, September 25, 2017 2:28 PM (thirty minutes ago)

bull fucking shit it is. lost fairly by negative almost three million people!

Chisholm, as I recall her, would have clearly defined her differences with HRC, then after HRC's nomination would have endorsed her and campaigned for her, while still retaining her differences even as she made compelling pragmatic arguments in Clinton's favor. She was great.

You mean if she were running against her, sure. That's basically what Bernie did. Whether she'd prefer Hillary over Bernie seems like a tougher question.

I'm pretty sure Chisholm would have felt more comfortable with Bernie's positions than with Hillary's in the primaries, but she was nothing if not clear-sighted, and would have worked hard both to elect Hillary and to bring Hillary in her direction.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-media-has-a-probability-problem/?ex_cid=538twitter

really great essay by nate. this is the sort of stuff i was ineffectually yelling into those crowded pre-election threads. we should learn form our mistakes

we should learn form our mistakes

sorry, but, lol

ha

an but would Reagan have endorsed Hillary?

also as bad as trump is hillary is no saint

― reggie (qualmsley)

thomas aquinas was our best president

the level of smearing and the amount of bile leveled at HRC since early 1992 is certainly unprecedented for an American female politician, and was basically destined to be early on for the first woman who had the spine to run for president for real in a country as bigoted, class-riven, and sexist as the US.

How much of the "bile leveled at HRC" from 1992-2000 was a product of her association with Bill (not exactly a beloved figure to the American right) and to what extent can you even call her a politician before 2000? Was she really treated worse than Michelle Obama (whose husband created far less dirt for anyone to react to)? I don't recall 2000-2008 being a particularly fraught time for her politically.

This goes in hand with the arguments that left opposition to Hillary had to have secretly been driven entirely by misogyny rather than ideology. She was the standard bearer for Clintonism, which the left had objected to... since 1992. DOMA and welfare reform and Iraq sanctions and militarism and deregulation and on and on, before you even get to her vote to invade Iraq. Pointing to a lack of objection to Obama fails because he ran in 2008 against Clintonism.

To the extent that there used to be something dubbed Hillarycare