Hillary Clinton: Classic or Dud?

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

sarcasm

if you're going to do "(1/?)" why not just write "1."

lol that bugs me too, Halper is the worst for that cause she also uses ellipses / doesn't finish a thought per tweet. for whatever his flaws Jeet is the most formally disciplined threader

internet has been terrible this week bc of this fucking book

tweets and books are natural enemies

"Clinton’s politics are a threat to the ideology of the modern Republican party, but so is her presence on the public stage. Clinton maintains that the government must expand its protections for children and families, and make it possible for men and women of all backgrounds to prosper.

"She sees the nation as an interdependent community – a village, one might say – overseen by a government that advances the interests of all. In essence, Clinton is calling for the expansion of the New Deal state. It is an inclusive vision; it assumes that government policies should treat all Americans equally. Since the 1930s, a majority of Americans has agreed."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep/13/republicans-hillary-clinton-vanish

fantastic hillary interview on maddow last night. that nasty woman is my president, sorry benedict donald

i can only imagine the tough questions

“I am proud to be a Democrat,” Clinton writes, “and I wish Bernie were, too.” Clinton’s fealty to the Democratic brand is quaint given how dysfunctional and mossy the party can seem in contrast to the Republicans. But, for better or worse, the Clintons essentially have been the Democratic Party for over 20 years, and they are nothing without their authority and credibility within it.

Sanders, on the other hand, is an independent socialist who has caucused with Democrats throughout his 26 years in Congress but never changed his party affiliation, not even when he ran for president as a Democrat. Clinton will never let Sanders live this down. Still, where her critics and supporters alike will read the book’s harshest passages about the primary and detect nothing but contempt for Sanders and his fans, Clinton’s sense of injury is bigger than her feud with Sanders. “I think we operate better when we’re between center-right and center-left,” she recently told Vox, elaborating on her bland outlook on the Resistance, which she outlines in the book. “Until recently, that’s where most Americans were.” That’s the Clintonism speaking, and it has never sounded so obviously out of step with a Democratic Party that is still fighting Paul Ryan’s tax reforms—and now also contending with the rise of authoritarianism. Those words, and this book, are the language of a badly flagging standard-bearer who has, frankly, run out of time.

https://www.theringer.com/2017/9/14/16307594/hillary-clinton-what-happened-clintonism-sanders-trump

fantastic hillary interview on maddow last night. that nasty woman is my president, sorry benedict donald

― reggie (qualmsley), Friday, September 15, 2017 9:15 AM (twelve minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

what does this even mean?

It means Qualmsley would rather Hillary was president that Trump

cyndi larper otm

yeah join the club

you can see again watching that interview why vlad the imptrump prefers 2scoops to her. fierce realness. not that it's a surprise

If they held the election again, I bet Hillary would win ilx

...."vlad the imptrump"?

Winning ilx is about all Hillary would manage

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.

This elevation of Trump to a mythical doesn't scan at all. He is president because of the elite's imcompetence.

Sure. That's how he was able to successfully run against "the establishment." But part of the way he did that was by making a mockery of the whole election charade. And the way he did that was by becoming a human obscenity.

his most insidious trick was convincing people that the Secretary of State/Former First Lady was somehow "the establishment"

Well, she is - what Trump did was to call her out as part of "the establishment" while he, Donald Trump, was on your side against "them".

This worked as Clinton was imcompetent.

I mean, I don't think his supporters were serious about being against the establishment. They were annoyed at a culture they thought was leaving them behind and wanted to stick it to the people they held responsible, thinking it would have little consequence to themselves. If they wanted some kind of *political* alternative they wouldn't have supported someone so incoherent, who was radical only in his willingness to offend people and make a spectacle of himself.

The people who Trump said he would hurt the most were Muslims and Latinos, not the establishment.

Treeship continually otm itt

No he isn't.

Trump clearly talked about a jobs programme (I mean its not just a culture, left behind is a factory closing and a city becoming a ghost town), infrastructure development, about drugs that were ravaging the inner states. Trump is incoherent but his language is a lot more colourful than Hillary's technocratic babble and it cut through to people.

Racism was clearly a part of the picture but it wasn't all of it.

Racism (and sexism) was so much a part of the picture that splitting hairs about it doesn't make sense unless you want to tell yourself that America isn't as racist as it actually is.

I would argue it was both- we'll be talking about this election for the rest of our lives because it was a confluence of pretty much every major issue in 21st America, & seemingly opposing views- that HRC was too wonkish & specific, that she was too distance -that Trump was an incoherent demagogue, that Trump made plain, easy to understand statements- it's all true. EVERYTHING was a part of it.