General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums9 Devastating Quotes That Show Hillary Clinton Still Won't Take Responsibility for Her Loss
edited to add:
p. 41: Until you experience it, its hard to comprehend the ache in your gut when you see things going wrong and cant figure out how to fix them; the sharp blow when the results finally come in; the disappointment written on the faces of your friends and supporters.
p. 46: This isnt easy or fun. My mistakes burn me up inside.
p. 72: The controversy over my emails quickly cast a shadow over our efforts and threw us into a defensive crouch from which we never fully recovered.
p. 120: A lot of people said they just didnt like me.
p. 124: Ive tried to adjust. After hearing repeatedly that some people didnt like my voice, I enlisted the help of a linguistic expert.
p. 386: I blamed myself. My worst fears about my limitations as a candidate had come true.
p. 425: None of the factors Ive discussed here lessen the responsibility I feel or the aching sense that I let everyone down.
The others are at:
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/09/hillary-clinton-still-wont-take-responsibility-for-her-loss.html
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)I'm STILL with HER!
democratisphere
(17,235 posts)Thank you!
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)BlueMTexpat
(15,370 posts)We literally missed the chance of a lifetime.
I am SO NOT "getting over it."
Alice11111
(5,730 posts)Tired of theirblying and.cheating their way to wins. Bush v Gore.
Kerry and Swiftboating.
Hillary would have been one of the greatest presidents ever. However, they would have dogged her and investigated her to tie her up.
We would not have had Gorsuch on the Supreme Court either. That was another cheat! MM roast in hell.
Nice to see Cruz and Comey get some shit, even though part of what they are doing to Comey is based on lies.
I want to see MM, Trey Gowdy, and P Ryan fall in their own bile too.
calimary
(81,323 posts)Nor am I.
Sick and tired of the nonstop persecution of Hillary. Just sick to death of it. I hope they all someday, somehow, get a big fat Super-Size serving of that. Taste of their own medicine. See how they like it.
Alice11111
(5,730 posts)news event that shows what a scumbag any of the Repubs are is not even reported on Fox. I flip over to check, and they go right to Hillary's emails. It's their obvious MO. (The Exception is Shep Smith.) Their viewers want to be angry & stupid. They still want to prosecute her, after all Trump has done.
It helps to know we see it the same way, and there are
more of us than them. So, how in the hell did we get here?
They lied. They manufactured outrageous stories that only idiots would believe. The Russians pretty much admit part of their role now. Comey. Cheating in every way possible. Those tactics & their bigotry define most Republicans. That is what they stand for, not Democracy.
calimary
(81,323 posts)They know they have to cheat to win. They CANNOT win on the issues. That oh-so-loyal and stubborn 30-35 percent still grimly determined to stay in the 19th century isn't enough to get you a majority. So they have to cheat. They have to rig the game. They have to gerrymander so there's an automatic artificial built-in infrastructure advantage because they can't build themselves a real, organic one. Too many young people still have too many years ahead of them, into the future, I think, to want to go back to the old days and the old ways. I can see how some senior citizens - the ones who vote regularly and the demographic that tends to lean to the right - might want those "good ol' days" back, that they fondly remember through aging eyes and ears, cloudy memories, and rose-colored glasses. There are those who aren't comfortable with these times, in this new century, with the new demographics and ethnic numbers, and the very idea of having to make room for so many others one might not have had to make room for, in the past. It's like a bunch of little kids in the play yard who don't want to share, and never were taught to do so, and don't feel like they should have to.
Alice11111
(5,730 posts)and these are anxiety provoking times. Ignoring the problems of the times doesn't make them go away...they just get worse ...ISIS, N. Korea, domestic terrorism, environmental meltdown, healthcare....
I've heard people say that the minorities are trying to take things away from them. Shocking. How's about a fair shake?
BlueMTexpat
(15,370 posts)Maven
(10,533 posts)And me too.
But you know what those dead enders say and too bad for them.
iluvtennis
(19,863 posts)NastyRiffraff
(12,448 posts)I'm reading her wonderful book now, and I'm awash in tears. What we could have had!
I'm still with her as well.
grantcart
(53,061 posts)lunamagica
(9,967 posts)onit2day
(1,201 posts)supported her but was never blind to her shortcomings but compared to Trump she is an angel. I really don't believe she actually lost but until democrats raise holy hell about these voting machines and vote stealing suppression I expect it will keep happening. She did not just have opposition she had deplorable scum sociopathic opposition who had no use for statesmanship, diplomacy or integrity. She was running against a mob of people lacking empathy or social skills. But I refuse to close my eyes to what went wrong in order to prevent its re-occurrence. I still believe she won and hope she knows the millions who support and love her far outweigh those who were so nasty to her. I was and am a Bernie supporter and do not support corporate dems generally unless thye put people first.
Sparkly
(24,149 posts)and forever.
democratisphere
(17,235 posts)Great job!
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)GoCubsGo
(32,086 posts)LexVegas
(6,070 posts)mopinko
(70,135 posts)the fact that it was coming out of a female face was what bothered certain people. the deploralbes. yet she tried to change it.
damn. talk about punishing.
samnsara
(17,623 posts)...pinched faces..the same tsk tsk..the same head shaking that they used on her during the election. well fuck them.
iluvtennis
(19,863 posts)Jakes Progress
(11,122 posts)kissed trump's ass for weeks. Now that he attacked them, they go after him. But if he invited them to margo, they would pee all over themselves in pleasure.
They are one of the things that helped Hillary lose. They are deplorable.
procon
(15,805 posts)The deliberate omission makes it seem like your motive was to create controversy where none exists in this tongue in cheek spoof. Please consider editing this post, or at least adding the satire disclaimer thing.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)The title of the actual article is meant to make people think, and to read before assuming it's confirmation bias.
Orrex
(63,216 posts)Since you were exceeding the limit anyway, why not exceed it with the important part, rather than creating sensationalist confusion?
It comes across as a transparently dishonest tactic to trick people into clicking on your OP
StevieM
(10,500 posts)I had noticed people putting five paragraphs in the body of the post, lately. I thought there might have been some sort of change to the rules.
Are you saying that it is still four?
Orrex
(63,216 posts)Regardless, the OP could have included the article's first paragraph.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Orrex
(63,216 posts)procon
(15,805 posts)That is hands down the WORST excuse of the day... but it's still early.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)BlueMTexpat
(15,370 posts)create a controversy no matter what.
lapucelle
(18,277 posts)YOU MAY HAVE TRICKED PEOPLE...
...into reading an OP that they never would have bothered to look at had they known its true tone.
EXPLAIN PLEASE!!!
When helpful ad hoc copy editors critique something I have written, this is my go to answer.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)It is FREAKIN' obvious.
I must say, it seems to me that in the last,, what 4 months, 8 months, 18 months,, I don't know, BUT. a lot of rather easy to see subtly and irony is completely missed by more and more folks.
It's like our brains are turning into mush, into 'republican' brains,'' brains that don't understand irony and subtly and understatement and inference and humor and..... (sshhhh, don't tell anyone I used the word 'r*p*b*i**n--- I might get wacked for saying.....ah, forget it)
Maybe the Russians are secretly sneaking in code to dumb us down, or trolls or.. beats me. But this is a board full of gazillions of damn smart people. Much smarter(well maybe LOL) and sure more knowledgable than me.
For instance, I can't even spell nolegable...
JHan
(10,173 posts)It seems recognizing irony has become a rare art. I saw it in the last election too... heightened emotions clouds reasoning.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)I forget..
So I've tried to be careful.... Should that really be necessary? To fear saying something?
Ah well.....
The Mouth
(3,150 posts)I mean I figured it was irony, sarcasm or something other than a troll, but I am not the only one still hurting, for my self, family, friends and country.
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)From reading the excerpts?
It's not satire. It's irony.
Orrex
(63,216 posts)Pacifist Patriot
(24,653 posts)I assumed the irony from just the subject line. The content was exactly what I expected. Not sure why the sarcasm smilie was even necessary.
Beartracks
(12,816 posts)Last edited Wed Sep 13, 2017, 10:57 AM - Edit history (1)
On edit: Prior reply title referred to "ALL CAPS" nature of OP title... except it wasn't in ALL CAPS. I just "heard" it that way!
===================
pangaia
(24,324 posts)But. if you like, have a gander at my Reply #9 above.
Just an observation of mine..
procon
(15,805 posts)NastyRiffraff
(12,448 posts)How could any sentient being miss the irony? That's not an insult, that's a fact.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)procon
(15,805 posts)you already knew that your joke had backfired. These misleading posts aren't funny when they deceive readers and create yet another avoidable conflict.
Look at the most recent posts where DU readers are STILL being tricked by how you chose to present this post. If people aren't happy to get pawned and criticize your sense of humor, then just own it, this one's all on you, yeah?
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)I see you are still smarting.
I apologized for the deep offense that I inflicted on you by using the title of the article, which was ironic. You feel so "pawned" by the bother of clicking on something that you expected to be a screed on Hillary, and a simple reading of the actual text apparently made you embarassed for being fooled.
And yes, I added "sarcasm" to the post to save time and energy for people who get so enraged, then can't gracefully back out of it.
Then there are these people...
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029588227#post18
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029588227#post30
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029588227#post42
And warning - this one is ironic...
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029588227#post110
Ironic how some people will refuse to take responsibility for pet peeves, and turn them into something just shy of a direct insult - on a thread about the unfounded accusations HRC of not taking responsibility....
pangaia
(24,324 posts)bluepen
(620 posts)The very existence of the "sarcasm" gif on this site is kind of depressing. Maybe people really are that gullible.
Ninsianna
(1,349 posts)phleshdef
(11,936 posts)mcar
(42,334 posts)it takes to go through this and then relive it in the book.
berksdem
(595 posts)BainsBane
(53,035 posts)In the time Clinton wrote one.
mcar
(42,334 posts)for making money from a book. Or all politicians? Or just those who have lost a race?
Please point to where you criticized other politicians for making money off a book.
berksdem
(595 posts)why HRC supporters (I am one) get so defensive when anything has been said about HRC. She was obviously paid handsomely for writing this book and there is nothing wrong with that...
The post was made in context to this book. All politicians make money from book sales.... it does not mean she is doing anything wrong.
Hillary-bros can be as bad as Bernie-bros...
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)is obvious. MILLIONS more votes.
Bleacher Creature
(11,257 posts)And I have yet to see one use of the word "corporatist" in any of these excerpts.
She also refuses to acknowledge that she was no better than Trump.
Sorry, but these quotes just aren't good enough.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)bluepen
(620 posts)flibbitygiblets
(7,220 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)flibbitygiblets
(7,220 posts)Except to say Please Stop
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)flibbitygiblets
(7,220 posts)R B Garr
(16,954 posts)And the "establishment" -- but never any personal responsibility. Yes, please stop.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)johnp3907
(3,732 posts)aikoaiko
(34,172 posts)barbtries
(28,799 posts)but then i have the book now so will soon learn for myself...her speech after the election told me everything i needed to know about her willingness to take responsibility even as it becomes clearer and clearer that she did win.
p. 120: A lot of people said they just didnt like me. - decades of propaganda. i didn't like her either but it was for a fairly petty thing. a real thing, but not consequential. what i believe now is she has always done her best for the country. how many of us has done so much and given so much for something so big? what candidate, or office holder, will always approach an issue just the way we want them to? the answer is none. now, i think i love her. i know she should be president and how much better she would be than trump is nearly immeasurable.
BobTheSubgenius
(11,564 posts)...some pushback.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)and were "tricked" into clicking!!!
They were also tricked into posting that several times!!!
delisen
(6,044 posts)and in politics it has become a cliche.
A candidate is supposed to follow a script - I was the candidate. I take full responsibility for the loss. Blah Blah Blah. I will be the scapegoat...and allow myself to be driven out of town ala ancient ritual practice.
Unfortunately what we the people, the voters, now need to know is who. what, when, where, and how.
The responsibility ritual has become worse than meaningless because it is used to close down discussion and prevent us from learning "what happened" so that we can fix what is wrong.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)expected to do such self immolation as she is expected to do on a constant basis.
delisen
(6,044 posts)of our times.
delisen
(6,044 posts)and in politics it has become a cliche.
A candidate is supposed to follow a script - I was the candidate. I take full responsibility for the loss. Blah Blah Blah. I will be the scapegoat...and allow myself to be driven out of town ala ancient ritual practice.
Unfortunately what we the people, the voters, now need to know is who. what, when, where, and how.
The responsibility ritual has become worse than meaningless because it is used to close down discussion and prevent us from learning "what happened" so that we can fix what is wrong.
Absolutely.
Gamecock Lefty
(700 posts)Despite all against her and the media obsession with Comrade Trumpski I'd say Hillary ran a fine campaign!
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)Because they are the ones who refuse to take responsibility.
Bradical79
(4,490 posts)Yes, there were very valid criticisms of Hillary Clinton and her campaign.
That said, there was absolutely without a shadow of doubt malicious outside interference/influence that brought about an electoral loss rather than a (closer than it should have been) victory.
You can't expect a book reflecting on her campaign to ignore espionage, psyops, and treason directed at installing Trump as president. It's rediculous.
Bad Thoughts
(2,524 posts)If Clinton was indeed taking responsibility for something, the quote should say specifically what is was. Was the writer of the article being lazy?
UCmeNdc
(9,600 posts)The writer of this thread picked these examples.
Bad Thoughts
(2,524 posts)They are mostly vapidly, unreferenced reflections mixed with bullet points that aren't worth reading, let alone buying. There's only one I keep: Wes Clark's Winning Modern Wars because he signed it and because it synthesizes points he made in his first book.
Should an actual historian right about the election, I would probably buy it.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Of course her book says that at the beginning, and unless you read that passage, or any of the synopsises of the book intended for those who are considering buying it, you wouldn't have understood it.
If she had hired a historian to write a memoir, then she would have been pummeled for not writing it herself.
And she's a good writer, BTW.
Bad Thoughts
(2,524 posts)It's "What Happened." It intends to analyze and explain. Perhaps the rest of the book contains more substantive things to say, drawing upon evidence to prove them.
And I'm not saying that she should have hired a ghost writer. I'm saying that in general, politicians write terrible books, especially when it comes to explaining the past. I'm also not buying Sanders' book (nor any book from Warren, Murphy, Harris, that might come out soon).
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"I'm saying that in general, politicians write terrible books, especially when it comes to explaining the past..."
That's quite the creative, though thoroughly unsupported allegation.
Bad Thoughts
(2,524 posts)They are more propaganda than analysis, intending to encourage support rather than advance ideas. This message board is hardly the place for deep analysis, but I know a few historians who find them (particularly campaign books) to be useless when it comes to anything more than revealing the politicians opinions.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)It's "propaganda."
I guess you define all memoirs and autobiographies as "propaganda."
That would also be the same for interviews, wouldn't it? At least where the interviewee isn't challenged on every statement.
Bad Thoughts
(2,524 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)When someone explains that they wanted to say something, and didn't, that's the "evidence" of why she didn't say something. Someone writing a biography would include that.
Memoir: The text is about the personal knowledge and/or experiences of the author. In contrast, an autobiography covers the author's entire life to the present, and is expected to include details about his or her public and private life. A biography is someone's life story written by another person.
Bad Thoughts
(2,524 posts)Perhaps the book has more, I don't know. However, if it is just a memoir, any claims it makes would be very weak.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)So, yes, the memoir can be considered a valuable historical resource, so historians don't assume that "any claims made would be weak"
For the rest of this discussion, consider the example of a soldier who committed atrocities against non-combatants during wartime. Later in his life, he writes a memoir that neglects to mention his role in these atrocities, and may in fact blame them on someone else. Knowing the soldier's possible motive, we would be right to question the veracity of his account.
The credible vs. the reliable text:
Reliability refers to our ability to trust the consistency of the author's account of the truth. A reliable text displays a pattern of verifiable truth-telling that tends to render the unverifiable parts of the text true. For instance, the soldier above may prove to be utterly reliable in detailing the campaigns he participated in during the war, as evidenced by corroborating records. The only gap in his reliability may be the omission of details about the atrocities he committed.
Credibility refers to our ability to trust the author's account of the truth on the basis of her or his tone and reliability. An author who is inconsistently truthful -- such as the soldier in the example above -- loses credibility. There are many other ways authors undermine their credibility. Most frequently, they convey in their tone that they are not neutral (see below). For example, the soldier above may intersperse throughout his reliable account of campaign details vehement and racist attacks against his old enemy. Such attacks signal readers that he may have an interest in not portraying the past accurately, and hence may undermine his credibility, regardless of his reliability.
An author who seems quite credible may be utterly unreliable. The author who takes a measured, reasoned tone and anticipates counter-arguments may seem to be very credible, when in fact he presents us with complete fiction. Similarly, a reliable author may not always seem credible. It should also be clear that individual texts themselves may have portions that are more reliable and credible than others.
The neutral text:
We often wonder if the author of a text has an "ax to grind" which might render her or his words unreliable.
Neutrality refers to the stake an author has in a text. In the example of the soldier who committed wartime atrocities, the author seems to have had a considerable stake in his memoir, which was to expunge his own guilt. In an utterly neutral document, the creator is not aware that she or he has any special stake in the construction and content of the document.
No texts are ever completely neutral. People generally do not go to the trouble to record their thoughts unless they have a purpose or design which renders them invested in the process of creating the text. Some historical texts, such as birth records, may appear to be more neutral than others, because their creators seem to have had less of a stake in creating them. (For instance, the county clerk who signed several thousand birth certificates likely had less of a stake in creating an individual birth certificate than did a celebrity recording her life in a diary for future publication as a memoir.) Sometimes the stake the author has is the most interesting part of a document.
If you take these factors into account, you should be able to read and understand the historical implications of your primary source.
https://clas.uiowa.edu/history/teaching-and-writing-center/guides/source-identification/primary-source
Bad Thoughts
(2,524 posts)An historian can sift through the claims and compare it to other sources and opinions. The writer of the memoir can themselves strengthen their claims by including such evidence, by not omitting or embellishing.
Now, none of this necessarily pertains to Clinton's book in particular. I don't know why you find it so important to defend the genre.
ETA: And it is within Clinton's ability to do so. She went to law school, one of the best. I'm sure she know about writing with evidence.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)I don't know why you find it so important do so.
Bad Thoughts
(2,524 posts)it will lack rigorous analysis. And I have not specifically dismissed her book out of hand.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)"Perhaps the book has more, I don't know. However, if it is just a memoir, any claims it makes would be very weak."
You are dismissing all memoirs, are you not?
Or just hers?
But I'll bite - can you clarify what "rigorous analysis" is in terms of making a politician's memoir "not weak" if that is possible?
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)PDittie
(8,322 posts)this has gotten. I wonder how many have voted to hide it.
Ligyron
(7,635 posts)It's the willful stupidity of about half the country.
The 30 year RW smear campaign against "libruls" and "demon-crats" could not be effective unless those morans wanted to believe the lies.
Old Vet
(2,001 posts)TNNurse
(6,927 posts)say she never takes responsibility for anything and no one called him on it. I screamed at the TV for awhile. No wonder I have had to increase my blood pressure medicine.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)to the choice of shoes she wears...
Hekate
(90,714 posts)What a mess this country has become.
Mr. Ected
(9,670 posts)And still many refuse to take that into account as they besmirch Clinton and blame a campaign instead of the thief that clearly stands next to her in the room.
The innocent until proven guilty standard applies to the judiciary and to the press. It does not apply to the court of public opinion. Mueller's findings will simply accord with what we already know: Hillary Clinton won this election, it was stolen, and all the bitter internal debate is only unnecesssarily dividing us further.
Joe941
(2,848 posts)vkkv
(3,384 posts)A lot of people said they just didnt like me.
Of course I voted for her, but perhaps things would have turned a LOT BETTER for ALL of us if she knew that BEFORE she threw her hat into the ring.
As I've said many times, she would be a great POTUS, but she wasn't a great candidate.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)I suppose. There were millions who loved her, let alone liked her.
But that wasn't ever applied to any who ran against her, even when they had little to no charisma.
vkkv
(3,384 posts)for her opposition to exploit.
The misogynist excuse is overblown her at DU.
See: Collins, Murkowski, Blackburn, Foxx, Ernst, Fisher...
Even the anti-establishment sentiment vote is more likely.
I'm not sure who you are referring to by your comment:
""But that wasn't ever applied to any who ran against her, even when they had little to no charisma.""
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)But you think that in her case, it was a bad thing, because some people would use it against her.
Sort of like people used Obama's 'community organizer' job against him, and being black, but that really wasn't relevant, because it was just smears.
But she was liked enough to win the vote, wasn't she?
And the misogyny here is on full display at DU....
vkkv
(3,384 posts)I never suggested otherwise.
HRC's past offered many facts and truths ("bait" that are easily blurred into smears.
And yes, being a community organizer is a feather in anyone's cap.
I live, and was born and raised in Calif. I've always voted for Feinstein, Boxer, Pelosi ( when I lived in SF), Kamala Harris, Jackie Spear (when I lived in Silicon Valley).
If anyone were so obsessed and small to believe that misogyny is so widespread here at DU, then I'd guess that person could make up any excuse for just about anything.
I just don't vote for bullshit.
TRUTH LEANS LEFT!
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)vkkv
(3,384 posts)""What "bullshit" did you refuse to vote for? (Nt)""
This requires answering?
You can't figure that one out?
I do not vote for Republicans, liars, hypocrites or cheats. ( No redundance intended)
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)according to the Hill-sponsored poll touted to proclaim "Bernie the most popular politician in America, and Warren's numbers are lower than Sanders. That certainly isn't because she' s more "establishment" or less progressive than Sanders, who has been in DC since 1991, longer than Clinton. Warren's polls numbers demonstrate than gender does play a role. In fact, the entire "establishment" meme only emerged during the presidency of an African American man who was poised to be replaced by a woman. For centuries we've had white male presidents, and "the establishment" wasn't a concern. In fact, those who talk most about the establishment explicitly hearken back to the presidency of a aristocrat who man a fortune as a Wall Street financier. That the party of "FDR" was one that presided over Jim Crow and filled the ranks of the KKK, and that FDR himself refused to take action against rampant lynchings because of deference to white Southerners, doesn't prompt a reevaluation of the use of that rhetoric, no matter how many times that history is pointed out.
They key issue in the 2016 election was white male rage. Everything we have seen since November demonstrates that. Some candidates tapped into that, Trump quite masterfully. Hillary tried to appeal to the people's better nature by proposing solutions. Only the public didn't want solutions. They wanted someone to express their anger and punish those they resent. The justifications and rhetoric around those they target vary, but the populations do not.
I certainly learned a lesson about the character of the American electorate.
vkkv
(3,384 posts)Racism in the U.S. ? Yes.
Sexism, yes, some, but there are elected GOP women in Congress.
Warren is viewed as too liberal by some, I'd support her in a minute.
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)and that his polls numbers are higher because she is seen as more conservative?
vkkv
(3,384 posts)If her poll #'s ( perhaps a general population poll?) are lower, I'd suggest that is because much fewer people know who she is.
Not everyone follows politics like us readers at D.U. remember.
I'm not touching this one anymore, getting too close to breaking DU posting rules on 'don't argue about the Dem primary' BS !!
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)to claim he is "the most popular politician in America." http://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/HHP-August-Wave_Topline-Memo_Total-Only_Registered-Voters.pdf
Only 10 percent of respondents said they hadn't heard of her. Other polls have similarly showed her with poor favor ability ratings, even ones that don't over represent independents and voters under 30.
I find it fascinating how determined you are to claim sexism has no bearing on how politicians are viewed. We hear a lot about how racism doesn't exist to. Those claims serve a very specific purpose and reveal a lot about those who cling to them.
I can imagine it's hard to see through all those women presidents of the US to discern the sexism.
We even had a reprieve in the discourse about "whores" until another potential woman candidate emerged. But of course insulting women as "whores who slept their way to the top" isn't sexism. It's a critique of the "establishment."
I certainly do believe "establishment" was an issue in the campaign. Forces aligned and are continuing to align to maintain the established social order at all costs.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)I can't blame a candidate for "throwing their hat in the ring". I can blame us for nominating a candidate with such huge negatives. Flip side it was a small field to begin with, so one is left with "if not her, who?" The real "blame" here is that the democratic party found itself with so few credible candidates to begin with. I'm not sure it is going to be massively better in 2020.
vkkv
(3,384 posts)since any Dem SHOULD be able to beat Mike Pence.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)If that is her list.
Her biggest mistake was trying to pretend she was something she wasn't instead of being herself. Her biggest problem for many was they did not trust her and that in my opinion is because she didn't trust herself and instead tried to mold herself into what she thought people wanted instead of being true to herself. People can sense these things.
None of that matters at this point however. There is no reason to assign blame. It is time to move past the election and work on the future.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Egnever
(21,506 posts)I blamed myself. My worst fears about my limitations as a candidate had come true.
Personally I could not do it so I want to give her kudos for trying.
I think this is the problem for many of our candidates. I think the authenticity is missing for so many of them and these days people are over the poll tested platitudes. Trust in yourself and fight for what you believe in.
She didn't believe in herself I am not sure she ever did. She should have as I do believe she is an amazingly competent person. I don't think that is a problem unique to her though. Tons of people are riddled with doubt despite their own success.
The hard thing is getting past that doubt and trusting in yourself. Self confidence is attractive. As much as I hate Trump he thinks he is the best at everything and many people buy into that even though he is quite possibly the most inept president we have ever had.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Mistrust women. Countless studies have shown people react negatively while for men those traits all register positives. She was literally between a rock and a hard place.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)That is baked in not a damn thing you can do about that really. I am completely the opposite of that I love my wife much more for her self confidence and intelligence than anything else even though I do find her gorgeous.
Trying to appease men who are threatened by strong women is a losing game IMHO. Given there are as many women as men in america it is also a pretty lame excuse. Even more so when you consider as you get older the ratio turns more and more to favoring women. Combine that with the fact that over 40% of the people that voted were over 45 and the blame it on the men that hate strong women becomes more ridiculous.
A factor yes but not the deciding factor.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)When I was a kid there were very few female doctors IRS or lawyers or professionals of any kind. You have to fight the attitudes, and give women the opportunities and examine how and why we came to value their contributions less. It can be rectified, it will be eventually. Other countries have succeeded much more than the US.
The GOP is fighting it every day.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Egnever
(21,506 posts)I don't think you can point to many people out there that are as willing as her to keep putting one foot in front of the other regardless of outside pressure.
Over the decades I have watched her career I have had multiple disagreements with her stances on a wide variety of issues. It is her willingness to continue fighting though that makes me admire her.
She would never have been my first choice for president as I think there are other women I align with much more closely than Hillary. I never for a second doubted she would show up ready to work every single day as president though and that makes her completely suited to the job.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Raster
(20,998 posts)...that commented, "I could never vote for that b****." I was floored. I asked him why and asked him to qualify his comment with something other than she was a b****. He could not. He even acknowledged that he didn't think tRump* would be a good President.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)The 90's! Her marriage! Her "demeanor" and "ambition" her "voice". People compared her to ex wives and mean moms. These were people who considered themselves progressives. And here they were, talking about her mess of a marriage. WTF?!? And never ever taking about her fight for CHIP or work as senator of NY. And I'm an urban liberal, these people - men and women- were reading RT, Wikileaks and TYT without noticing these sources all trashed the majority of Dems. They hated me pointing it out last year- many still can't admit they fell for propaganda. They enjoyed using her as a punching bag. They got in more than the "two minutes of hate" that some preached about every damn day. It was crazy.
janterry
(4,429 posts)True_Blue
(3,063 posts)Last edited Wed Sep 13, 2017, 03:13 PM - Edit history (1)
For losing to Trump. But she's also expected to take responsibility for beating Bernie in the primaries. Blaming women for all of the problems in the world goes all the way back to Pandora and Eve.
JoeStuckInOH
(544 posts)She'd be alerted on 15 times, called a troll, told that the 2016 Clinton campaign was "great" and then run out of here.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)A couple of of threads where that is discussed - without being removed..
https://www.democraticunderground.com/12512618588
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10141860195
I think you may be confusing "pointing out mistakes" with harranguing. Such as, "She should have spent time in Wisconsin" with "She was a total idiot to skip Wisconsin, which proves her campaign sucked"
I hope that helps you understand the difference.
LiberalFighter
(50,950 posts)I thought she was looking out for the rest of us.
Personally, I don't think she let us down. It was those that didn't vote that let her down. It was those that believed lying Trump that let her down. It was the media that let her down for giving Trump all that free media.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)by misogyny on the left and right, who made it clear that a woman who didn't apologize for not being liked by everybody, particularly an older woman, was "unlikeable" and therefore unfit.
An older man who didn't care if he was likeable, on the other hand, was deemed "not a sellout" and therefore strong and trustworthy.
Stuart G
(38,436 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Blue Owl
(50,427 posts)JCanete
(5,272 posts)quotes do not represent that at all. Many of them suggest that she was unfairly disliked, like for her voice, which no doubt is true but isn't taking responsibility for a thing. This is a superficial bias of the public that she is pointing out.
"a lot of people said they just didn't like me" is not saying that they were justified in that dislike, and in fact, it is very much saying the opposite. They just didn't like her for no good damn reason, which again, in many many cases is true and fair to point out. It just isn't what you say it is.
"The controversy over my emails" out of context doesn't speak to whether or not she thinks it was a legitimate controversy, nor whether or not she thinks she made a mistake here. She may expand on this even in this same section, but I'm not feeling the "taking responsibility" in that quote alone.
Saying you "feel like you let people down" is also, by itself, just what people say when people were rooting for them and supporting them. It is devoid of specifics. It is a platitude that again, without more insight or context, could be the kind of thing that is trolling for sympathy. "none of these factors lessen the responsibility I feel" only adds to that sort of presentation. "It was not my fault but I feel like it was my fault anyway because that is who I am, somebody who cares and takes responsibility."
"my mistakes burn me up inside" is nice, but again, non-specific. Your mistake could be "i didn't shove my fist up Sander's ass" or " I listened to dumbfuck with all the bad advice," or something she actually said she regrets "I didn't turn this into a reality show like our dickhead president"...which itself is not a genuine regret, it is a bitter statement about the current state of politics and the American people who responded to a reality show.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Illustrating much of the teeth gnashing going on because she wrote a book.
And your bitterness and rage about her is REALLY coming out in those choices of phrases, even as casually as they are dropped in....
Might as well have used a bullhorn....
JCanete
(5,272 posts)her book. That doesn't change at all whether or not what you presented here does the work you say it does. It doesn't, or show me how anything I addressed is wrong?
I also totally agree with her that some of the reasons she lost this race were entirely out of her control, and were the work of 20 years or so of absolute media vilification. I also agree that sexism is rampant. People still respond to women differently. People not liking her voice is absurd but also almost certainly something people really rejected her for over the years. It is worth talking about. She has every right to talk about it in her book. Was that taking responsibility for something though? Be fucking honest.
I don't actually have any interest in bashing Clinton. I strongly disagree with the nonsense she stated about how Sanders hurt her, or how he was both offering Pony's but that they had nearly the exact same platforms at the same time, and where people were saying that she was stating the uncomfortable "facts," I thought it was worth interjecting.
But it does bother me that you people would want to make a point so badly that they would use evidence as weak as what was presented in the OP and take it to mean far far more than it does because it fits a desired narrative.
I have no interest in whether or not she takes responsibility for what happened. In fact,those who want to lay this whole thing at her feet are being entirely unfair for reasons I already mentioned, from sexism to the demagoguery in the media.
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)accept no responsibility whatsoever, despite losing by 4 million out of 28 million votes, as oppose to earning 3 million more votes out of a total of 129 million.
Link to tweet
/photo/1
Don't let the fact you haven't as much as looked at the book deter you from propping up double standards.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)fairly say, and he doesn't appear to be saying otherwise, that it was Clinton's hard work over the years making those connections that gave her those advantages in the election. She earned those, but they existed. Whether or not a democratic socialist ever had the opportunity to earn those same inroads, I think you will have to agree, has not been a possibility in corporate America. So it was an opportunity she had and capitalized on that was never there for Sanders. That doesn't mean that her fight in a man's world to get to the top of the game wasn't an admirable one. That doesn't mean that her getting the whole establishment behind her bid wasn't impressive. But its a hell of a thing for an outsider to surmount.
Second, I'm not demanding that Clinton go out there and take responsibility for her loss, though I know others are, and as I posted in my follow up, I think to a degree that is totally unfair. My response to the above post didn't have to do with whether or not I need to hear Clinton own anything, it was about what was actually being said and how somebody was trying to make it say something else entirely.
True_Blue
(3,063 posts)Presidential candidates Gore, Kerry, McCain, Romney ... etc., were never expected to apologize, show genuine remorse, and give a detailed explanation as to why they lost and then proceed to drop off the face of the planet.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)mcar
(42,334 posts)No one. Dislike her policy positions, sure. But her, personally? No.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)just don't see how saying so is her taking responsibility for something, as was supposedly the reason for referencing that quote in the op.
lark
(23,121 posts)I saw the title of this OP and was instantly incensed and opened it up intending to fire back hard. I saw the sarcasm thingy and deflated as fast as I blew up a few seconds before. Just took a good lesson from this, don't blow up before getting the facts, it's obviously one I needed.
Thank you.
Want to keep this Clinton/ Sanders thing going to benefit republicans or Russians.
demigoddess
(6,641 posts)Hillary! Hillary!Hillary! Hillary! Hillary! Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!
GaryCnf
(1,399 posts)Is the the headline or where the article acts like it really believes these quotes are "taking responsibility?"
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)There were people here who were "angry" at being "tricked" because it wasn't a screed on HRC.
I added the smilie to to save others who might be outraged the outrage.
Mike Nelson
(9,960 posts)...reaction to her "email" story. It never mattered how many times or ways she scolded herself... Andrea and Mika were always going to find a word she left out... well, she didn't use the word "sorry" they said. So, she did. They only went on to say she didn't use another word...
... and, they wonder about different standards for women.
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)your title. It is really obvious
Scurrilous
(38,687 posts)Justice
(7,188 posts)Progressive dog
(6,905 posts)not the content. Anyone who needed that sarcasm thingy doesn't deserve your effort to explain what is apparent.
Jakes Progress
(11,122 posts)The russians got their number, and they can never admit that to themselves.
I like to think that they were duped instead of being misogynist bigots. Russia baited the left wing with lies about Hillary just as they did the right wing - just different lies. I don't know why lefties would fall for those lies though.