Hillary Clinton: Classic or Dud?

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.

I think the medias role was complex: on one hand, they didn't take trump seriously at all. I think the idea that he would lose was a foregone conclusion and he made a good
Circus for ratings. When people say "they didn't call him out enough for lying" I think that misses the point. They didn't even treat what he said as though it was of any substance whatsoever. And no potential trump voter would have been influenced by a Times editorial calling him a liar. The problem was more the sheer amount of attention he was able to get, which is less a function of individual journalists not being responsible enough and more a function of corporate media execs drive for profit.

Also I do think it's right that some individual journalists were too focused on stuff like the emails in an attempt to appear fair.

Hillary should have known that she'd get a lot of flack for the fact that she was under investigation for her unsecure server and that she was seen as an "insider" who was too cozy with the wrong kinds of special interests. In a post-Occupy world she should have even expected to face an economic progressive in the primaries and have to beat back criticism of her record from that perspective. It's weird she complains about this stuff.

What she couldn't have expected is that she would he running against the feral king of the doofus underworld. Comparing the kind of coverage Hillary got to the kind of coverage Trump got is a weird exercise because Trump isn't even really a person, much less a candidate. He's a provocateur and an entertainment project and also a kind of demonic amalgam of everything that is disgusting about America.

There was no way to cover him in a way that could be both critical and effective. He was running against the media. The people who liked him would never listen to a pundit, or anyone who portrayed themselves as anything but a dirtbag.

These panel members on cnn discussinf her book are morons. No one cares that Hillary is sharing how "upset" she was. No one ever wanted her to be more honest or less "fake" that was just some sexist line people used.

otm

Dud: One Last Tour of Hillaryland

As for those of us in the media, who were penned up at the front of the event, Clinton had no time. She was an hour late. When she entered the building, she triumphantly held up a copy of What Happened, sat down, and immediately began signing books. There were no public remarks.

Strict rules for attendees of Clinton's book signing in NYC pic.twitter.com/lUPC3dbxJS

— John Haltiwanger (@jchaltiwanger) September 12, 2017

it is funny that the two share this antagonism towards the media.

she ended up inadvertently promoting him. most of her ads featured him. it was actual part of her campaign strategy at one point, to isolate the more moderate Republicans, bringing us this yuge asshole she could easily run against by running the numbers.

(1/?) Some thoughts re: this and re: HRC's account of WV https://t.co/cCTBhVP53N

— The Trillbillies (@thetrillbillies) September 14, 2017

not certain any of that counts as "some thoughts"

"the Obungler" what a rich vein you've found, Simon