HRC gave 'f--k-laced fusillade' against Trump in debate prep

[ehrnst]

Hillary Clinton unleashed a “f--k-laced fusillade” about President Trump as they were preparing to debate in 2016, according to a new book.

The former Secretary of State took debate-prep sessions as “cathartic exercises” and her team members understood that she would sometimes go off on them, according to reporter Amy Chozick’s “Chasing Hillary.”

“'You want authentic, here it is!' she’d yelled in one 2016 prep session, followed by a f--k-laced fusillade about what a 'disgusting' human being Trump was and how he didn’t deserve to even be in the arena,” the book, out on Tuesday, recounts."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/clinton-gave-f-k-laced-fusillade-against-trump-in-debate-prep/ar-AAwgZAo

[unitedwethrive]

1. I like her even more now!

[riversedge]

2. It is good to blow off steam every now and then--just not on twitter.

[poboy2]

3. 'You want authentic, here it is!' -true. -nt

[MFM008]

4. She should have

Done it on camera.

[ehrnst]

7. Right. She might as well have said "Free abortions for everybody!"(nt)

[geardaddy]

20. That made me think of the Simpsons "Abortions for some; miniature American flags for others."

[BannonsLiver]

8. That was my first thought too

But the MSM double standard would have been applied. It's great when he does it, but when she does it, it's wall-to-wall pearl clutching and hand wringing.

[ehrnst]

10. Yep. "Clinton rules." (nt)

[LiberalLovinLug]

24. Yes she should have been much more honest

Honest with hers, and millions by osmosis, feelings about all the disgusting, sexist, racist, appalling behaviour he had done already, back when it was far from normalized. Not the f word obviously. But IMO, she did herself no favours by biting her tongue and thinking she was winning support.

In her book she describes when Trump mulled about right behind her she was dying to turn and say: 'back up, you creep!'. That was a huge mistake not to do that.

It would have dispelled a lot of that narrative of her just being a cold, technocrat that sticks to a preplanned script. Its all very well and good to have the principle of 'never let them see you sweat'. Remain stoic and ignore any insults and lies. But Trump is not your usual opponent. His insults and lies were, and are, so egregious, that to NOT be perceived to be affected emotionally, (which obviously she was based on her back room venting) could be interpreted as his behaviour, (especially towards women) and lies not being that important to her. That the insults and lies were acceptable, or that they could be handled with a wry smile. And then, wink wink, everyone would know what she meant.

Obviously Trump and his behaviour was such a different animal than what Clinton and the Democratic election committee planned for. Usually, with more moderate and self-respecting opponents, being quiet and showing by example how one can weather the storm without resorting to going back at them and stooping to the same level, is the norm. But this was not the norm. And they should have pivoted to a whole different more aggressive tactic. And Hillary had sooooooooo much material to work from that it was almost imperitive that she pound away at him and his character with what she honestly thought of him. Because millions of viewers that were voting for her, or were on the fence, were just waiting for her to show what we all felt, and this article proves that she felt that as well.

[pnwmom]

28. Women are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

It if dispelled one narrative, it would create another. She would go from being the cold technocrat to the ballbuster.

The problem is MISOGYNY, not Hillary.

[LiberalLovinLug]

32. I agree the problem is misogyny, not Hillary as a person

Now Hillary's campaign strategists (including Hillary in that role) WERE the problem, in not advising her in fighting against misogyny in that most direct way. That they deduced the most beneficial plan would be to not look like she is passionate about those issues to the point of NOT lashing back and expressing what so many of us felt about him. I really do not think that most pundits and even Trump supporters could paint her as being the only emotional one in the race. It all depends on her opponent. If it were Mitt Romney, then no, there is no reason to go off on him, and she would be in danger of being painted as the hysterical female. With Trump, he almost was daring someone to push back at his childishness. There was wiggle room sitting there, unused. And IMO, Hillary, would have gone up a few notches with the undecided or independent voter at that point if she would have given Donald what he was asking for and deserved. Sure Fox might have tried to label her as an emotionally wrecked female 'ballbuster', but most news sources, in comparing the two behaviours, gender aside, he'd still be the reigning asshole. Easy to say now but in hindsight, she had nothing to lose.

[malaise]

31. She should have exploded about the crooked Hillary shit

and torn into his various cons starting with the fake university, the casinos, the wines and his treatment of women.

[LiberalLovinLug]

33. Yes absolutely

[poboy2]

36. 'Go down swinging' as is said. -nt

[progressoid]

35. Yup. n/t

[uponit7771]

39. +1, looks like human pathology would've rewarded her for it

[fleur-de-lisa]

5. Good for her! I'm sure she only said what all of us were thinking.

[Canoe52]

6. It might have worked if she had just done that in one of the debates.

[ehrnst]

9. I doubt it.

She would have been EXCORITATED by the far left and the right.

She's Hillary Clinton, remember? Everything she does is "corrupt" and "corporatist."

Even when she attempts to "correct the record" on lies told about her.

It would have been held up as "proof" that she was "crazy from that concussion."

[Canoe52]

13. I know I know, but wishful thinking...

[Eliot Rosewater]

15. RU kidding, she once said she would rather work for change than bake cookies and THAT is

one of the main reasons she was targeted for LIFE to be DESTROYED.

The same way Barack challenges white privilege, Hillary challenges the male centric that governs this country.

[oasis]

22. "It Takes a Village". So many flipped out after learning the origin

of her book title.

[tammywammy]

11. She would have been called a hysterical screaming harpy.

In no way would her calling him names or yelling actually benefited her.

[Canoe52]

14. Yeah, it didnt work to my benefit with my crazy ex-wife either.

[pandr32]

12. That sounds like me when I talk about Trump

...every single day at some point, too.

Constant news from Washington (and Mar-A-Lago) reaffirm my fears and rage that we have someone like him sitting in the Oval Office--appointing to important positions the worst creatures he can find while striking as much of President Obama's achievements as he can. How can this be? It is a nightmare.

[SammyWinstonJack]

17. Me too. Hearing President and tRump together does it for me.

[heaven05]

16. excellent

[nolabear]

18. Something tells me the evangelicals wont give her a pass.

I mean, women shouldn’t say such things. It’s classless and offends God, right?

[hurple]

19. If she'd done that during the debate

She'd likely be President now.

[llmart]

21. Not true.

There's a double standard when it comes to women in this country in case you haven't noticed. Don't forget how the bully paced behind her in one of the debates and got in her personal space. She has said that the thought crossed her mind to tell him to "back off", but she thought it wouldn't reflect well on her. Even something as benign and deserved as a comment like that would have been suspect.

[SunSeeker]

23. Wrong. Exhibit A: the unending shit she got for her honest and accurate "deplorables" comment.

But Trump can call Democrats all sorts of names and no one gave a shit.

[tandem5]

25. No, absolutely not -- She walked and continues to walk an impossible tightrope.

[Paladin]

26. So fucking what?

I'm going to avoid Ms. Chozik's whiney little trashing of Hillary like I would avoid a pro-trump rally.

[Blue_Tires]

41. +1

[still_one]

27. F**K Amy Chozick, and the NY Times who proudly gave us Judy Miller

[rogue emissary]

29. Please let there be video tapes!

[John Fante]

30. Not saying much considering Trump gave the three worst

performances in debate history, but HRC absolutely annihilated Dickweed in all three of them. It wasn't necessary to change her style in order to school him.

Anyone who argued that Trump held his own in or (laughably) won those debates was biased beyond all reason. Or, they had a full-on agenda.

[beachbum bob]

34. She should have told trump he is a "fucking liar" to his face

She would have had a electoral landslide.

[poboy2]

38. omit 'fucking' but seriously use 'damnable lie'. That would be the strongest use of conventional

weapons (words) that is acceptable under the political (Geneva) convention.

That term is fair ball and in bounds. Totally justifiable too.

[oberliner]

37. She should've done that in the debate for real

[niyad]

40. and? that is my daily commentary on that bloated scum.

[ehrnst]

42. Someone just shared this with me...

Link to tweet