From what I've heard, that pretty much sums it up. I want to sound responsible and say that I own the mistakes made during my campaign. But, James Comey is also at fault. And racists supporting Donald Trump. And misogynists who hate women. And Bernie Sanders, and especially his supporters. And Russia, of course. And Obama, because he did not go after Russia enough for our liking. And the millions among the "Basket of deplorables." And those poor sobs who live in their parents basement. And so on, and so forth.
Never mind the tons of money received from Wall Street and the healthcare industries. Never mind that she claims it is okay to have both a public position on issues, and a private one exclusively for banks and big corporations, to be kept away from the public. Never mind her refusal to release the transcripts of her speeches. Never mind that she gave a speech about economic inequality in today's America while wearing a suit that cost $12,000, or the better part of what a full-time worker on minimum wage would make in one year. Never mind that she asked for help from the Democratic establishment against an opponent that she had once scoffed at. Never mind that her husband illegally met with the then sitting Attorney General at a Phoenix tarmac while she was under active investigation. Never mind that she lost to one of the least trusted and most intensely disliked candidates in history because against all odds, she was even more disliked and distrusted than he was. Never mind that she undermined her own trustworthiness time and time again, by lying about coming under sniper fire in Bosnia, or lying about not knowing where Bernie Sanders was when she was pushing for healthcare overhaul in the 1990's (videos show that he was literally right behind her), or that she lied about asking for help from the Democratic leadership. Never mind that she rewarded Debbie Wasserman-Schultz almost immediately after DWS was forced out and disgraced for her role in a corrupt Democratic electoral process, thus adding fuel to the fire in appearing corrupt. Never mind that she focused her campaign on how bad Trump would be, because evidently she did not take any serious pride in what she allegedly stood for (assuming she stood for anything, that is), although now she actually claims that she should have put her platform front and center. And even though this came after the election loss, never mind that she did not even have the guts to go out before her own assembled and dedicated supporters and speak to them.
In a recent article, Thomas Frank of The Guardian essentially dissects the book, and Clinton's very convenient, self-serving arguments that, in fact, she really was not to blame for her election loss in November. While trying to sound the part of the elegant and dignified statesperson, and suggest that she does accept the blame for things that went wrong during her campaign, the lengths that she goes towards finding convenient scapegoats for why she lost really is astounding, and amounts to refuting any serious blame for herself. Frank puts it quite succinctly here:
"Hillary Clinton simply cannot escape her satisfied white-collar worldview. This prevents her from understanding the events of 2016."
Frank mentions just how slanted Clinton's interpretation of "What Happened" during the 2016 election really is, and how out of touch she proves herself to still be:
"Hillary Clinton simply cannot escape her satisfied white-collar worldview. This prevents her from understanding the events of 2016."
Frank mentions just how slanted Clinton's interpretation of "What Happened" during the 2016 election really is, and how out of touch she proves herself to still be:
"Countless inconvenient items get deleted from her history. She only writes about trade, for example, in the most general terms; Nafta and the TPP never. Her husband’s program of bank deregulation is photoshopped out. The names Goldman Sachs and Walmart never come up.
"Besides, to take populism seriously might also mean that Bernie Sanders, who was “outraged about everything,” might have had a point, and much of What Happened is dedicated to blasting Sanders for challenging Clinton in the Democratic primaries. Given that he later endorsed her and even campaigned for her, this can only be described as churlish, if not downright dishonest."
Yeah, pretty much what Hillary showed with this book, and the slate of interviews that have followed, is that she still has learned nothing. She still seems to feel entitled, to the point that she clearly feels that she was cheated, and that there was nothing that she could possibly have done wrong to undermine her own legitimacy in the eyes of the voter. According to her (and her supporters unconditionally and enthusiastically swallow everything that she regurgitates), she was victimized by racists and misogynists (the infamous "basket of deplorables"), by pathetic and pitiful peasants and pissants living in their parents basement, and of course by Russian hackers and James Comey.
And let's face it: although she blames sexism for why people refused to vote for her or trust her with power, the fact of the matter is that her last name is Clinton, and the Clintons have a well-known history of being rather dishonest and disingenuous. Her husband, who earned the moniker "Slick Willy" while he was running for president in 1992, was known for being very dishonest. Apparently, it runs in the family. I truly do not think that she was distrusted or disliked because she was a woman, as much as because she was a Clinton, and the Clintons are tired. They have no real, or even new, solutions to fix what ales the country. Frankly, what they really seem to want is to make a lot of money, and receive a lot of credit, to look good, even if what they are doing actually is not nearly as glittering as it sounds in all of those speeches. Remember when Bill Clinton claimed that he had paid 60 percent of the national debt? Well, what he forgot to mention was that those were because of temporary loans, and that the country still owed the same amount, although yes, technically, he could claim that this was paid off. Now, that really is slick! Or remember how the Clinton administration was going to be the environmentalist administration, especially with Al Gore serving as Vice-President? Well, the most significant and impressive laws by the Clinton administration came in the final 72 hours of an eight year term in office, knowing full well that the first thing that President Bush would do is get rid of all of that. Again, that's slick. But is that what the country needs? I think most Americans understood that it was not, and that this reluctance, and the lack of real faith in anyone named Clinton in the White House, accounted a great deal for why she lost. And then the things that I mentioned above about Hillary Clinton, specifically, went a long way to cementing this already long list of reasons why people should not trust or like her.
Is she serious when she suggests that she gave some serious reflection about everything that caused her to lose this past election, including a serious and critical look at her own imperfections, and how her elitist style might have undermined her credibility?
Nah! Move along, folks, nothing to see here!
Basically, Hillary is a spoiled elitist who feels cheated by anyone and everyone who gets in the way of what she wants. And you know what? That does not sound radically different than the man who occupies the Oval Office right now. The only difference is that he officially won, and she officially lost. He fixates on the fictional size of his election win, while she fixates on the fictional causes of her election loss. He sees only what he wants to see, and she sees only what she is willing to see. Frankly, that is why so many people, myself included, felt that the 2016 election was an insult to our collective intelligence. To think that these two pathetic excuses for candidates were the final two, that some truly presumed that these two were the best that a country of around 320 million people could offer?
Well, that underscores what a sorry state our political situation is in right now. Yet, you better believe that there will be no shortage of people who believe Hillary, who unconditionally accept and will themselves regurgitate these overly convenient speaking points on "What Happened" during the 2016 election. The fact that there is so much more that she is not mentioning, and that this is, in fact, most likely more important than those things that she is mentioning, is pretty telling about where we are. Worse, she will continue to largely get away with it, much like Trump will continue to get away with being the classless pseudo-fascist that he is. It is pathetic, but I cannot help but think that, at least on some level, it is what we deserve.
I had some hope that at the very least, the loser of the last election would simply go away already.
No such luck. We now have to hear Hillary whining about her convenient version of "What Happened" in the last election. It is everyone's fault. Everyone but hers, essentially. That is what we might learn, or rather be brainwashed into believing, if we listen to her without scrutiny, without objectivity. Hillary is, in fact, the poster child for why Democrats keep losing. Of course, some of us Bernie Sanders supporters had predicted that she would lose, that all of those polls suggesting that she was so hated and distrusted were not inaccurate, and were an early indication that she was vulnerable. Of course, the fact that she had to ask for help to defeat the "spoiler" candidate, Bernie Sanders, suggested that she was not so automatic as she and her supporters suggested. They manipulated the system to assure that she would get the nomination anyway, and we got the results that we got. Now, of course, she is blaming everyone else in her world of alternative truths.
And let's face it: although she blames sexism for why people refused to vote for her or trust her with power, the fact of the matter is that her last name is Clinton, and the Clintons have a well-known history of being rather dishonest and disingenuous. Her husband, who earned the moniker "Slick Willy" while he was running for president in 1992, was known for being very dishonest. Apparently, it runs in the family. I truly do not think that she was distrusted or disliked because she was a woman, as much as because she was a Clinton, and the Clintons are tired. They have no real, or even new, solutions to fix what ales the country. Frankly, what they really seem to want is to make a lot of money, and receive a lot of credit, to look good, even if what they are doing actually is not nearly as glittering as it sounds in all of those speeches. Remember when Bill Clinton claimed that he had paid 60 percent of the national debt? Well, what he forgot to mention was that those were because of temporary loans, and that the country still owed the same amount, although yes, technically, he could claim that this was paid off. Now, that really is slick! Or remember how the Clinton administration was going to be the environmentalist administration, especially with Al Gore serving as Vice-President? Well, the most significant and impressive laws by the Clinton administration came in the final 72 hours of an eight year term in office, knowing full well that the first thing that President Bush would do is get rid of all of that. Again, that's slick. But is that what the country needs? I think most Americans understood that it was not, and that this reluctance, and the lack of real faith in anyone named Clinton in the White House, accounted a great deal for why she lost. And then the things that I mentioned above about Hillary Clinton, specifically, went a long way to cementing this already long list of reasons why people should not trust or like her.
Is she serious when she suggests that she gave some serious reflection about everything that caused her to lose this past election, including a serious and critical look at her own imperfections, and how her elitist style might have undermined her credibility?
Nah! Move along, folks, nothing to see here!
Basically, Hillary is a spoiled elitist who feels cheated by anyone and everyone who gets in the way of what she wants. And you know what? That does not sound radically different than the man who occupies the Oval Office right now. The only difference is that he officially won, and she officially lost. He fixates on the fictional size of his election win, while she fixates on the fictional causes of her election loss. He sees only what he wants to see, and she sees only what she is willing to see. Frankly, that is why so many people, myself included, felt that the 2016 election was an insult to our collective intelligence. To think that these two pathetic excuses for candidates were the final two, that some truly presumed that these two were the best that a country of around 320 million people could offer?
Well, that underscores what a sorry state our political situation is in right now. Yet, you better believe that there will be no shortage of people who believe Hillary, who unconditionally accept and will themselves regurgitate these overly convenient speaking points on "What Happened" during the 2016 election. The fact that there is so much more that she is not mentioning, and that this is, in fact, most likely more important than those things that she is mentioning, is pretty telling about where we are. Worse, she will continue to largely get away with it, much like Trump will continue to get away with being the classless pseudo-fascist that he is. It is pathetic, but I cannot help but think that, at least on some level, it is what we deserve.
I had some hope that at the very least, the loser of the last election would simply go away already.
No such luck. We now have to hear Hillary whining about her convenient version of "What Happened" in the last election. It is everyone's fault. Everyone but hers, essentially. That is what we might learn, or rather be brainwashed into believing, if we listen to her without scrutiny, without objectivity. Hillary is, in fact, the poster child for why Democrats keep losing. Of course, some of us Bernie Sanders supporters had predicted that she would lose, that all of those polls suggesting that she was so hated and distrusted were not inaccurate, and were an early indication that she was vulnerable. Of course, the fact that she had to ask for help to defeat the "spoiler" candidate, Bernie Sanders, suggested that she was not so automatic as she and her supporters suggested. They manipulated the system to assure that she would get the nomination anyway, and we got the results that we got. Now, of course, she is blaming everyone else in her world of alternative truths.
Oh, poor, poor victimized Hillary. Please heal this nation with thy suffering. Do what you do best, and point the finger of blame at everyone but thy precious self.
Here is the article about Hilary Clinton's new book that got me on this topic to begin with:
Hillary Clinton's book has a clear message: don't blame me by Thomas Frank of The Guardian, September 12, 2017:
Well put. The fact that people at large feel that Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump constitutes an enticing (or even acceptable) choice is a sign that our political system isn't working, that the grand experiment envisioned by the founding fathers has failed. Democracy only works when people steer clear of cynicism and complacency masquerading as "realism" or "knowing how to compromise", when they hold their elected officials accountable and are not stupid enough to be taken in by hype, empty slogans and carefully scripted (and well-rehearsed) sound bites. We're not there, and I'm deliberately refraining from appending "yet", because that would imply that it's just a matter of time. I've never been more convinced that we simply don't have it in us to be better than this. As for Hillary, I'm not remotely surprised that she's blaming everyone but herself. The opposite would have surprised me, actually.
ReplyDeleteAgreed, and those are very valid points. The 2016 election was an insult to our collective intelligence. We had a moron, an overgrown manchild, who was the equivalent of a shock jock, who essentially gambled that he could save a lot of money by getting the press to cover him for free. The gamble paid off, making a mockery of any seriousness about the electoral process. He thought that because he was a rich and ruthless tycoon in the business world, that he could and should be given the office of the presidency, and they validated his faith and his enormous ego in the process. I will say this, though - even though the Republican establishment did not like or trust him, they did not go out of their way to derail the democratic process once they realized he was likely to win. The same could not be said of the Democrats, where Hillary, the presumptive nominee in the months before 2016, found herself in a dogfight and, according to Debbie Wassmen-Schultz, Hillary asked the Democratic Party leadership for help. Help that they both knew the law prohibited them from giving. Yet, they gave it, and enthusiastically, all but assuring that HRC would indeed be the official nominee. Still, she almost lost, which should have tipped the Democrats off that Bernie Sanders was not mentioning how vulnerable HRC was merely to score political points, but was legitimately pointing out her vulnerabilities, and the high risks involved. They went with her anyway, and low and behold, the polls that showed her to be the most disliked and distrusted major party nominee in history proved indeed to be her downfall. She tried to make it about Trump and how bad he would be, adding still more focus on him. And he was a believer that any press was good press, that so long as people were talking about him, even if it was not all positive, that it would, in the end, serve his interests. And the media coverage of him proved him right. Now, we have these four ridiculous years with an incompetent and, frankly, a pseudo-fascist "leader" to deal with, and the ramifications of having such a man represent us before the world. We will be dealing with this for many years to come. The 2016 election, frankly, set this country back for many years, and probably more like many decades, to come. Honestly, we might have to deal with more elections like this in the future, to boot, until we sober up from our power hungry drunkenness as a nation.
ReplyDelete