It's Hillz all right. Happy 70th!
What did Hillary do wrong and what's next for her?
- Thread starter sammsky1
- Start date
It's Hillz all right. Happy 70th!
Haha. 2 weeks before the election too. She was absolutely certain she was going to win.
There is a spectre haunting the US...the spectre of mass delusion
lmao they owned that person whose job it is to transfer phone calls
The great Wim Wenders seems to have caught this bug as well(7:00)
He sounds like a child.
He sounds like a child.
For the most part, the Left's response to Clinton's shambolic showing in the General last year has been horrifically juvenile. I said at the time that I'd love for there to be some introspection, some self-awareness, but there's been none of that. Instead, we've got a fairly juvenile reaction to not getting what we feel we're owed and a 'blame everyone else' approach. And here we are, one year later, and it's still happening!
Clinton herself tweeted around this time last year (around the time Trump was talking about a rigged system) that Trump questioning the legitimacy of the election was a 'direct threat to our democracy' and Obama was on the record saying you can't rig an election. Fast forward a few weeks and it was 'RUSSIA!' from all angles, with this damage-control narrative formulated in the Clinton camp on November 10th (as per the Clinton campaign exposé 'Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton's Doomed Campaign').
As a liberal, this has been so, so disappointing. I wanted the Democrats to learn from 2016, an annus horribilis, and build a solid platform to go hard on 2020, but we've lost twelve months of that already with the incessant delusion about what happened last year. It's shaping up to be a similar story in three years' time if lessons are not learned.
Clinton herself tweeted around this time last year (around the time Trump was talking about a rigged system) that Trump questioning the legitimacy of the election was a 'direct threat to our democracy' and Obama was on the record saying you can't rig an election. Fast forward a few weeks and it was 'RUSSIA!' from all angles, with this damage-control narrative formulated in the Clinton camp on November 10th (as per the Clinton campaign exposé 'Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton's Doomed Campaign').
As a liberal, this has been so, so disappointing. I wanted the Democrats to learn from 2016, an annus horribilis, and build a solid platform to go hard on 2020, but we've lost twelve months of that already with the incessant delusion about what happened last year. It's shaping up to be a similar story in three years' time if lessons are not learned.
the true left hasn't done that. it's just the centrist Clinton deadenders
I had to check halfway through that I wasn’t reading an article from the onion.
Wow. Brazile throwing Clinton and Obama, among others, under the bus there. She, however, doesn't deserve sympathy nor hero status: she was caught red-handed forwarding debate questions to Clinton ahead of the DNC Primary debates with Sanders. She was very happy to be in the cabal when all looked rosy but now it's turned to shite, she's jumping ship. No, thanks.
This is just weird. She was always close to Hillary. She never said a word against Obama. She passed Hillary debate questions. She said this on twitter, on this very topic, last week:
Yet here she is, throwing the entire party and its 2 most visible faces under the bus. The allegations and tone here aren't something she can walk back from.
So why is a lifelong servant of the centrist DNC doing this? The only thing I could see was that she think Bernie is taking over the party. But Perez just purged most of the leftists from the DNC last week, and elevated Donna Brazile and people like her. And after the debate fiasco, Bernie supporters remember her name quite well, and not in a good way. In the extremely unlikely event of a left takeover of the party, she will still probably be persona non grata.
Maybe it is just a purely personal grudge, and she has decided she is going to finish her political career soon.
Or she wants to sell her book
Oh, and 3 versions of this article posted to r/politics were downvoted into oblivion, one surprisingly made it through. Initially there were posts about Donna herself being a Putin stooge (I wish shareblue/CTR were more imaginative in their smears!) but now it's been restored to a somewhat less conspiratorial discussion.
Probably trying to distance themselves from Hillary who is tainted. Perez didn't have anything to say about the accusations except that they are looking forward and they are working to make the organization fair and transparent. Probably looking for a new Hillary that is not yet tainted.This is just weird. She was always close to Hillary. She never said a word against Obama. She passed Hillary debate questions. She said this on twitter, on this very topic, last week:
Yet here she is, throwing the entire party and its 2 most visible faces under the bus. The allegations and tone here aren't something she can walk back from.
So why is a lifelong servant of the centrist DNC doing this? The only thing I could see was that she think Bernie is taking over the party. But Perez just purged most of the leftists from the DNC last week, and elevated Donna Brazile and people like her. And after the debate fiasco, Bernie supporters remember her name quite well, and not in a good way. In the extremely unlikely event of a left takeover of the party, she will still probably be persona non grata.
Maybe it is just a purely personal grudge, and she has decided she is going to finish her political career soon.
Or she wants to sell her book
So pretty much every vote which went Sanders' way in the primary was immaterial. Sanders was informed about it subsequently yet still endorsed Clinton in the General. Disappointing on so many levels.
It still shocks me that there are still some people that want her to run again
How has this been proven today in any way beyond what was already known?
We didn't know the extent of Clinton's muggy fingers in the DNC pie prior to the primaries going to ballot. She had the whole party by the short-and-curlies months in advance of her officially being the Democrat candidate. We had a few email leaks which hinted at it, but Brazile's evidence conclusively prove it now.
Yes...and Bernie came within 7% of beating her.
We all knew the party stacked the deck against him, for her. The only people who deny this had some real or emotional investment with Hillary's campaign. As you said, there's more solid evidence now. All this helps with is in arguments with the 8%ers who will never stop supporting her.
But it doesn't mean Bernie votes were meaningless, or that more wouldn't have given her another embarrassing defeat. Even with these revelations, there's no indication that the DNC could have overturned the popular vote totals.
Last edited:
What happened? Maybe Hillary wants to run again and the DNC wants to nip it in the bud and move forward.
Another mystery, regarding Donna Brazile specifically. This contradicts major parts of the article
DNC Chair Perez Ignores Donna Brazile's Allegation That Hillary "Rigged" 2016 Primary: "We're Moving Forward"
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v...d_primary_allegation_were_moving_forward.html
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v...d_primary_allegation_were_moving_forward.html
Will be interesting to hear from the people on here who have always maintained Clinton won the Democrat nomination fair and square and didn't believe that Clinton had the DNC in her back pocket.
Amazed that of all people its Brazile who has dished the dirt out.
Amazed that of all people its Brazile who has dished the dirt out.
Last edited:
Democrats committed to learning from their mistakes.
I'm rather angry with Clinton and hope that history remembers her as the corrupt politician she is. Her corruption essentially placed trump in his chair.
The world would be a very different place if sanders were president right now.
Sanders was electable. He mentioned socialism which is political death at a presidential election. This might change n the future but it will be a while.
Hilary was defeated because she was a woman. If she was a man she could have ripped Trump a new one in the debates but women can't do that as they are "shrill" and "angry" or "a nag". Women are held to different standards particularly in such conservative societies as America's.
Which is what we all wanted from the outset, rather than the twelve months of bitching and whining we did get. Obama and Clinton were on record in the weeks preceding the election stating that the election 'couldn't be rigged' and that if Trump wouldn't accept the results fair and square, it was a 'direct threat to our democracy'. They were so cock-sure they had it wrapped up, they lost the run of themselves and have behaved like children ever since.
Just as sexist to assume only men can be corrupt crooks
Erm.... this women won 3 elections
and the UK in the 1980's was far more conservative than todays United States.
You have been ready too many Trump tweets.
in fairness its silly suggesting she lost because she is a woman
She ran a terrible campaign and for many the clintons (both of them) are very unlikable
And that 'If you're not with us, you're against us' mentality is really part of the problem, makes you incapable of any self criticism - the inability to see the forest through the trees. Yes, Trump is a corrupt clown and male. Yes, Hillary is a corrupt clown who just doesn't happen to be male.
Good post. The tribalism runs strong when it comes to Clinton/DNC and clouds any semblance of self-reflection.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...art-of-a-corrupt-obscene-system-a6956341.html
An article from March 2016 which an exasperated Sanders denounced Clinton's limousine liberalism. Pay attention to the very specific cost of a seat at that dinner ($353,400), it's very important to revealing how the Clinton/DNC abused/circumvented campaign finance regulations.
Just follow the money...
An article from March 2016 which an exasperated Sanders denounced Clinton's limousine liberalism. Pay attention to the very specific cost of a seat at that dinner ($353,400), it's very important to revealing how the Clinton/DNC abused/circumvented campaign finance regulations.
Just follow the money...
Erm.... this women won 3 elections
and the UK in the 1980's was far more conservative than todays United States.
Maggie won by behaving like a man and an aggressive right wing man at that.
Would have been interesting to see her ignore her advisers and rip into him when he was being a creepy stalker during that debate.
Middle america is far more conservative than the UK was in the 80s. Not even close.
Last edited:
What does behaving like a man mean?
No it isn't. It is the main reason she lost.
Trump admitted sexual.assault and still won. If she was a bloke she would have won in a landslide.