I'm Confused...

[berni_mccoy]

It was Bernie's Fault
It was Comey's Fault
It was Bernie's Supporters Fault
It was the Media's Fault
It was Russia's Fault

I've heard all of the above within the span of 24 hours.

When Jimmy Carter was unfairly treated during the primary for his SECOND term and he ended up losing to Regan, he went into humanitarian service and continues serving those in need to this very day. I didn't hear him blaming Teddy Kennedy or anyone else. He didn't come back a year before the mid-term blaming anyone else either while the Democratic legislature worked to further the party's agenda.

When Al Gore was treated unfairly by the SCOTUS in 2001, he presided over the Senate as they secured the Electoral Votes to put Bush in the White House and he welcomed Bush during the inauguration. He then went on to advising tech companies like Apple while he spread the word on Climate Change. I didn't hear him blaming Nader or coming back a year before the next mid-term while the Democratic legislature worked to further its agenda. He rightfully could have blamed Nader and many here would have agreed. He could have easily blamed the media as they portrayed him as stiff and robotic and lied about his statements of inventing the Internet. Gore could have easily blamed these factors, but he didn't. He moved on to do great things for the country.

I could say many similar things about John Kerry. I worked for his campaign. I saw the many snips and jabs that come from party members and again the unfair treatment by the media. I also saw the voting irregularities in Ohio and it was clear there was tampering of the Diebold voting system. He never came out blaming anyone. He moved on to become one of the best Secretary of States this nation has ever seen.

All of these great Democrats went on to do great things despite the unfair treatment they received which ultimately took the Presidency away from them. I'm sure they all have shared similar feelings at the injustice of their losses, many of the same feelings we've all felt, many times before.

One thing we don't do is blame anyone and everyone because of it. Especially Democrats. And if anyone says shit about Bernie not being a Democrat I'll remind you that Skinner has said "for all intents and purposes to this site, Bernie is a Democrat".

[yallerdawg]

1. If you didn't hear what Carter had to say about Kennedy...

you weren't listening.

[berni_mccoy]

3. I certainly did...

right after the primary. And 30 years later in his memoir where it didn't matter. But not a year before the next midterms. Carter handled his loss with grace and dignity.

[Steven Maurer]

54. And Carter's "grace and dignity" led to 12 years of Republican rule

Have you ever considered the idea that rubbing a puppy's nose in the business they did on the carpet - instead of letting the puppy pretend to itself that what it did wasn't so bad - is just a way to get more shit on the carpet?

Yes, there are a lot of people who - like a puppy - don't like their noses rubbed in the fact that by doing their best to tear down the only person who could have stopped Trump in the general, they helped elect Trump. But maybe, just maybe, like the puppy, those people need to be reminded that acting like petulant asshole has consequences, and so they'll stop being such a petulant asshole next time.


Al Gore was far too gracious to Nader, Sarandon, and other Green Teabagger assholes. That's why - after they gave us Bush - people who follow them still decided that Trump wouldn't be so bad. Or to try the even bigger bullshit of trying to shift blame for their actions.


So, to all of them I say: "See that TRUMP you did on the CARPET?!? BAD DOG. BAD!"

[TheFrenchRazor]

87. this. it is past time to start fighting back. nt

[stevenleser]

55. Yep, Carter blamed Kennedy for the loss, Mondale blamed Kennedy for the loss

Carter also blamed Kennedy for torpedoing his healthcare reform efforts:

https://m.csmonitor.com/1981/1130/113024.html

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2010/09/16/129913094/jimmy-carter-blames-ted-kennedy-for-killing-earlier-health-overhaul

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2010/09/21/130015737/holding-a-grudge-for-30-years-jimmy-carter-against-ted-kennedy

-----------------------------------------------
OP's revisionist history is amusing but that's about it.

[madinmaryland]

96. He said he was going to whip Kennedy's ass and he did....

Is he related to Skittles??

[MrsCoffee]

2. Nice try.

[haveahart]

63. Not even a nice try.

[Solomon]

70. He's right.

He's confused.

[Fresh_Start]

4. All of those are true to some degree

along with errors in the campaign
misogyny
bigotry
ignorance
and probably a hundred other reasons.

[Tanuki]

5. I thought you were "sick of divisive threads"

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9584258

[berni_mccoy]

8. I am. Only some see this thread as divisive.

[Wounded Bear]

11. Really?

[MrsCoffee]

64. The same could be said for any of the ones you complain about.

Seriously. You might want to just come on down off that high horse already.

[Eliot Rosewater]

52. Good one.

Personally, this "shut up, woman, and move on" meme is getting on my fucking nerves.

[EllieBC]

71. +1000000 NT

[bettyellen]

6. You left out HRC saying ultimately it was "all on" her. Still not listening, eh?

We notice these things. When our candidate is lied about.

[JI7]

7. Bernie wrote a book about unfair primary just before the 2016 election

[bigtree]

16. blamed the media, the DNC

...Hillary's surrogates.

[delisen]

79. Yes he was not willing to "accept the responsibility."

[ismnotwasm]

9. .

[Weekend Warrior]

10. I'm not sure how you can be confused by a history...

That you just made up.

[RandomAccess]

12. She has the RIGHT to talk about her experience

to anyone who is interested. If you're not interested, tune out.

All those other candidates ALSO had the right to talk about their experience. That they chose not to (if that's even true) was their choice, a choice which should not be imposed on her (or others in the future, for that matter).

I consider any and all attempts to shut her up, or criticize her for telling her story, to be sexist, frankly. I'd probably feel differently had women not been routinely, systematically, universally SHUT UP for millennia now.

[TexasBushwhacker]

15. The OP is just pointing out that others refrained from having a pity party

But of course, Clinton has the right to free speech just like any other American.

[berni_mccoy]

19. Thank you. Why is that so over-the-heads of so many?

[RandomAccess]

60. Why is it over YOUR head that

* one can understand perfectly what was said and disagree vehemently;

* it's NOT a free speech issue;

* calling her recounting her experience "a pity party" (and agreeing with that) further reveals the bias i suspected

[RandomAccess]

59. It's not a free speech issue

The Constitutional right to free speech only has relevance vis a vis GOVERNMENT.

And the fact that you call it a pity part clearly shows your biases as well.

[Kentonio]

67. You consider it sexist to criticize her for doing something we consider damaging to the party?

Wow.

[RandomAccess]

74. So -- how do you feel about

people who don't speak the truth -- let's say, cops who witnessed another cop doing wrong -- because they want to protect their organization, not let it look bad? Do you support that type of protection?

Here's what I've got to say about that:

That which can be destroyed by the truth, should be. - P.C. Hodgell

I don't happen to agree with your premise in any case, but if the Democratic party can't deal with her speaking her truth publicly, then it might not be worth trying to save. *I* believe it can -- and will.

[Kentonio]

81. I don't think she's telling objective truth

I think she's giving her subjective side of the story. She has every right to do so of course, but the objective truth is that by doing so she's acting as a divisive influence and causing damage to our chances of coming together ready for 2018. The time for recriminations was in the couple of months after the election, not nearly a year later when the dust was finally starting to settle down.

[RandomAccess]

95. I too disagree with some of her take on things

And I could be like a dog chasing its tail trying to figure out whether she REALLY believes that or is dissembling

BUT, it doesn't change what I said one bit. If she's wrong -- THAT truth needs to come out too. IMO the only true way to heal is to go through all this. Ignoring it or trying to suppress it won't work.

Now, that DOESN'T apply to the absolute shit that goes on around here. I'm totally convinced that a good bit of it is intentionally disruptive. Probably like the OP here. There was no GOOD reason for the post, IMO.

[Kentonio]

98. I hate the idea of anything being suppressed.

As a science thinking person, it goes against everything I believe in. I'm a big believer in getting out everyone's perceptions and debating them so we can reach a satisfactory conclusion or compromise. If we all approach things with an open mind and a realistic outlook I think we can make the party platform going forward something that the sizeable majority of us are happy and enthusiastic to support.

I just really wish she'd done it a lot earlier, so it didn't run the risk of carrying over into the preparations for the midterms..

[emulatorloo]

82. Is the Revolution so fragile that it can be "destroyed" by 2 pages of a book?

Sounds weak

[Kentonio]

91. His support isn't being damaged at all

What is being damaged is the acceptance by her supporters that the party needs to change and accept that the reason a virtually unknown senator did so well is because his message actually resonates with tens of millions of people. The party was moving towards that acceptance by allowing changes to the platform, but now we're instead back to the bad old days of ripping chunks out of each other like it was still the primary.

[emulatorloo]

92. Everyone here agrees the party needs to change

You're correct his support isn't being damaged.

I find the OP's characterization of the book to be pretty inaccurate and misleading.

Folks who are actually reading the book know is nothing at all like what bernie_mccoy claims it is.

He's offering misleading divisive spin and imho starting these endless OP's to stir the pot so people will be at each other's throats.

[Kentonio]

97. Interesting.

I'll definitely read the book as I like to judge things fairly based off the actual evidence. Thank you.

[leftstreet]

13. Well, none of them experienced the most humiliating loss in history

I agree with you

But never, ever did anyone expect Hillary to lose to someone like Trump

This will fade away

[MichMary]

76. Um, Reagan won the WH in 1980

with an EC vote total of 489 vs. 49 for Carter. Reagan beat Mondale by 525 to 13. THOSE were humiliating losses.

Secretary Clinton at least won the popular vote.

[bigtree]

14. what critics of Hillary's take on the campaign want

...is free reign to project whatever bias they hold without a kernel of rebuttal from the candidate herself.

It's not surprising from supporters of a campaign which never seemed to accept they had lost, reflecting Bernie's own insistence in mucking up the convention with his losing campaign's bluster, and ignoring the 65 million voters who had invested their votes in Hillary.

It's always a hoot to hear Bernie or his supporters complain about criticism from Hillary, when they've NEVER let go of the animus against Hillary they brought to our Democratic primary.

[UtahLib]

17. +1,000,000

[snooper2]

18. The vast majority of people don't want to hear about Bernie or Hillary anymore

They lost, it's over, move on to the future...

If everyone would have jumped on the Martin O'Malley train we actually wouldn't have the Drumpf right now.... Just FYI. But Noooo, we want to run people who should have retired already.

Time for new blood...2018 here we come

[bigtree]

21. I don't think they want to hear from Hillary as a candidate

...but I think you grossly understate her appeal and influence.

Politics isn't a zero-sum enterprise. Hillary has already demonstrated she's not going to be limited in her participation in our political process by the indifference or objections of her critics.

Further, I think her detractors are short-sighted in wanting to sideline such a dynamic political force who still appeals to millions of women and others who invested so much time and energy in her campaign.

Look, O'Malley had his shot, and it's pretty remarkable how Hillary prevailed against two appealing, populist rivals.

[treestar]

32. Why is the book a bestseller already

with lines to get in to get one then?

[LenaBaby61]

88. From all I've read since November 8th, 2016 ...

and NO Dem--especially not a Martin O'Malley--would have won the presidency with all of the outright cheating, rigging & shenanigans that went on.

We had GOP gerrymandering out of control (And look at what the Supreme Court just did--They put the redrawing of Texas political maps on hold, and that hurts Democratic voters of color ahead of the 2018 elections. Thanks Gorsuch/tRump).

We'll soon have a Supreme Court ruling coming concerning gerrymandering in Wisconsin, and if the Supreme Court reverses a Wisconsin lower court ruling which said that the state's Republican-drawn map constitutes an "unconstitutional partisan gerrymander," Wisconsin will STAY dead Red and out of Dems hands for who knows how long thanks to GOP gerrymandering left in place.

We had the GOP voter-suppressing, voter-crosschecking and voter Id off the chain:

Crosscheck Removed 450K Voters in MI, 270 K in AZ and 590 K in NC.


https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/11/14/1599330/-Crosscheck-Removed-450K-Voters-in-MI-270-K-in-AZ-and-590-K-in-NC

And if those things weren't bad enough we had ruskie bots, Sputnik, RT TV ruskie bought ads/time on Facebook and ruskie interference on a cyber level thrown in to the mix, and although we STILL don't really know how they interfered into our GE, evidence seems to be emerging that the ruskies did more than just TRY to hack into Dem voter bases in certain areas of this country.

RUSSIA MAY HAVE HACKED ELECTION SYSTEMS IN 39 STATES.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/06/russia-may-have-hacked-elections-systems-in-39-states


Russian hackers' election goal may have been swing-state voter rolls.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2017/06/06/russian-hackers-election-goal-may-have-been-swing-state-voter-rolls/102555520/#

We have a purposely under-staffed tRump Department of Homeland Security that doesn't look like it cares whether or not if Dems votes are counted right, fairly, properly or at ALL.

[berni_mccoy]

20. Hmmm, interesting that we haven't let go...

But she's the one out on TV today blaming Bernie and his supporters and Bernie is moving on proposing progressive legislation blazing the trail for the Democratic Party.

[bigtree]

23. Bernie got his shots in early

...couldn't wait to sell a book full of his peeves about Hillary's campaign, her surrogates, and our party. Didn't hear you telling him to sit down and shut up.

I'd fully expect a sitting senator to be doing his job and promoting policy. Most of what I heard today, however, was a lot of clapping back at Hillary from the Senator and his fans.

But, let's pretend this post is about 'progressive legislation blazing the trail for the Democratic Party.'

[berni_mccoy]

26. A book that came out right after the election

not before, but right after. He moved on right away. And in no way can you compare that to what HRC is doing now. But she does have a right to do it, damn whatever happens politically as a result.

[LisaM]

28. A book he must have been working on during the GE -

despite all the claims that he was out there campaigning so much for her. He clearly was penning his book part of the time. It may be that he intended it to hurt her in the event she was elected - who knows - but he clearly wasn't spending his time out on the stump for Hillary or maybe other Democrats, for that matter.

[bigtree]

33. yeah, right after the election

...where he basically ran against the Democratic party.

He still doesn't identify himself as a Democrat, but we're supposed to squint our eyes and imagine he has the best interests of the 65 million (majority registered Democrats) who voted for Hillary at heart now. Why, because someone puts a 'progressive' label on his politics?

I don't think he has a fucking clue about the people who voted for Hillary or what they want, much less cares beyond his own narrow, economic agenda.

[BannonsLiver]

34. He moved on because nobody cared about the book.

[emulatorloo]

83. as I said above, if the Revolution is so fragile it can be destroyed by 2 pages of tepid criticism

in a 500+ page book, then maybe the Revolution is too weak.

You really aren't very good at this

[treestar]

31. [phone]

How many of them still insist the nomination was "stolen" from him?

[2naSalit]

39. +1,000,000,000,000,000!!!

[seaglass]

22. I am reading Hillary's book and am so grateful that she wrote it.

Bernie has been blah blah blah-ing about his take on the election for the past 9 months and NOT in a unifying way. Not sure why it's ok for his grumpiness to pontificate but Hillary is expected to STFU.

Onward Together.

[LexVegas]

24. Goddamn. The Clinton hate is strong on this motherfucker today. nt

[GeorgeGist]

25. Yes you are.

[Skittles]

27. are you really comparing Hillary Clinton to MEN?

YOU REALLY ARE CLUELESS

[Joe941]

29. thank you.

[treestar]

30. They weren't treated unfairly to nearly the degree

They weren't women.

The press did not go out of its way to emphasize negatives. Nobody said, "Oh I just don't LIKE him."

Further, Hillary won the popular vote and they didn't, so people are far more interested in how it happened.

[Major Nikon]

36. Gore won the popular vote

There was also plenty of interest in the post mortem at the time and well after.

[treestar]

37. Not by much

Not by nearly as much. And it became a court case, so the focus was on that.

[Major Nikon]

43. Gore got a higher percentage of the vote

48.4% compared to 48.2%. I'm not really sure how the popular vote is all that relevant. The presidential election isn't based on it and if it were the campaigns would be run completely different.

[Gore1FL]

46. Gore won the popular vote in Florida, too.

They just weren't allowed to count them resulting in the wrong slate of electors voting.

[Major Nikon]

48. A lesson we never learned

The integrity of our presidential elections is starting to look like the 3rd world along with many other aspects of our society.

[unblock]

35. here's a piece about carter still holding a grudge against teddy:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/time-has-not-cooled-jimmy-carter-ted-kennedy-feud/

carter has indeed been a model ex-president, but like every defeated candidate since ever, he's reviewed things and opined on things that were helpful and others that were not. and he was very clear that teddy was not at all helpful. and, to be fair, teddy indeed was quite the jerk in that election. he became a far better statesman once he gave up the idea of winning the presidency.

i'm not sure what you're expecting from hillary. she was very quiet after the election. should she have not written a book?

[berni_mccoy]

41. That was a grudge over Teddy's blocking Carter's Healthcare Bill

Carter wanted Medicare for all before Teddy did. Then after Carter left office Teddy picked it up and could never get it through.

[unblock]

50. so that makes it ok?

what are you trying to say hillary can and cannot say?

[KTM]

38. What gets left out of all of these threads

Is that Clinton, way back in March 2016, had the highest unfavorability ratings of any Democratic presidential nominee in modern history. The only other presidential candidate to have a higher negative rating was Trump.

We ran a candidate who was extremely unpopular to a very large portion of the country, and who energized Republican voters to come out specifically to vote against her. Yes, most of that dislike was based on complete horseshit, but the motivation for their dislike is irrelevant.

People can point fingers at every other fucked occurrence in the election as to "what happened," but that is the big elephant in the room.

A lot of people have no dislike at all for Clinton personally, and thought she would have been a fantastic president - but they also recognized the dangers of running an extraordinarily disliked candidate. It often feels like some of her most ardent supporters can't come to terms with the fact that THAT is what caused the election to be close enough for any of the other shit to matter.

I voted for her, and obviously wish she had won - but to leave this out of the post-mortem is to miss the forest for the trees.

[Arazi]

40. Yup this. Bringing that point up caused serious backlash here

But it's a big truth

[emulatorloo]

84. HRC favorability was 66% when she left State.

Republicans and some deluded "leftists" worked very hard to drive those numbers down

You need to include that fact in your narrative if you want to tell the whole truth.

It is also a cautionary tale when saying Bernie is the most popular politician in the country. Popularity can be destroyed.

[stevenleser]

57. She put that in the post mortem herself. How would we miss it?

p. 120: “A lot of people said they just didn’t like me.”

[KTM]

65. Thats not it at all

"a lot of people said they just didnt like me" is a cop out, an easy way to wash away the truth. A LOT of people did not like her. She was the most hamstrung candidate for President of all time.

But let me be clear(er): Hillary Clinton may have been the most qualified presidential candidate we as a nation have ever had. But, what created the animosity, what created this schism, was the utter unwillingness of her suporters to acknowledge the simple fact that she was HATED by a large enough portion of the electorate to make her candidacy unviable.

Her supporters never could accept or admit this, and it is THAT that created this divide in the Democratic party. It wasnt her - it was those who simply could not see that simple truth because of their devotion to Her as a cause. Hillary Clinton is an inspirational person, a woman who more than anyone in our time represents the plight of intelligient, driven, successful women who are marginlized by our current culture. Many invested their hope and their hearts in her victory, in the idea that this most demonized and repressed woman would have her comeuppance and rise to the position that she truly deserved.

I wish Hillary Clinton had won that battle, had achieved the dream and the desire that so many lived through her. She would have been an AMAZING President. But she was running at the wrong time, in a nation that (due to our cultural impetus to celebrate ignorance) was not in any way ready to accept her.

I know that the reasons our opponents hate her are BULLSHIT. But we knew, going in, that they felt that way, and that we would be unlikely to change their minds. Those people who insisted that she was the only candidate who was "fully vetted" and "who could win" were simply wrong in their assessment of the populace.

[Bluepinky]

66. You're right.

Two people in my own family (sister and sister-in-law) voted for Bernie in the primary but disliked her so much, they couldn't vote for her in the general election. One wrote in Bernie's name on the ballot, the other switched loyalties and voted for Trump. And these were women, whom you would think are supportive of other women. There may have been others in my family who also couldn't vote for her.

I myself was never crazy about Hillary, but she's smart and would have made a great President. I couldn't imagine not voting for the Democratic (or Democratic Socialist) candidate. And Trump is even worse as a President than I ever thought he could be.

[emulatorloo]

85. Once again, HRC's favorables were 66% when she left the State Department

You need to take that fact into account. You need to understand that Republicans main goal was to destroy those favorability ratings with the endless hearings and fake scandal.

[KTM]

89. That simply doesnt matter.

I DID understand that Republicans wanted to tear her down, and had been working toward that goal for decades. Everyone either already knew that, or believed their smears and distortions. The point is, we ALL knew this before the election.

WHY she was the second most unpopular candidate in the past 10 election cycles didnt and doesnt matter. The fact is, she was, and that proved to be insurmountable. All the handwringing in the world over the fact that it was all based on bullshit didnt matter - people were already convinced, we were not going to change their minds, and we knew it.

[emulatorloo]

90. it matters because you vastly oversimplify something that is more complex

If DU is a place for us to analyze and learn lesson about the future, then elliding over significant details won't cut it.

I shake my head when people go on and on about how meaningful it is that Bernie is the most popular politician. It's so fragile.

HRC had higher numbers then than Bernie has now. They can destroy Bernie's numbers too.

We need to figure out to not let that happen.

[KTM]

93. Its not complex at all.

Yes, she was at 66% as SoS in 2013. She dropped to the 40's by 2016. The reasons why dont matter. Yes, that can happen to any politician, but the fact is that it already HAD happened to her. There was nothing that we could have done during the election to raise those numbers up, and no way to erase the damage that had been done. We were left with "well, the other guy is even worse." Thats a crappy way to drive voters to the polls.

And this has nothing to do with Bernie, or O'Malley, or anyone else. Its just a simple truth - we were unable to overcome the effect of decades of smears, no matter how much we loved her and knew those smears were nonsense. How she came to be so detested by so many is as irrelevant now as it was before the election. It was just a fact at the time. We gambled that we could overcome that pre-existing narrative, and we failed.

[PufPuf23]

94. The unfortunate fact was that HRC was the most unpopular politician within the Democratic Party

before the POTUS election cycle.

The election should have been a walkover for the Democratic Party especially after Trump slipped in as the GOP candidate.

Instead the Democratic Party not only loss the POTUS but also at every conceivable level of electoral politics.

The pre-existing HRC dislike did not need to be rational because its existence was fact and a risk from the start.

It does not help calling folks who have voted nothing but Democratic for 40 years or more racists and misogynists and so on because they did not eagerly embrace HRC. This has done incredible damage to the Democratic Party and DU as well.

[Kentonio]

68. Yup.

But apparently this place has deteriorated into a hero worship forum since the election. Discussing things we can actually learn from just ends up with alert stalking and rabid attacks.

It sucks because there were some very useful lessons to learn from that election.

[NanceGreggs]

42. "Skinner has said 'for all intents and purposes' ...

... to this site, Bernie is a Democrat".

It's Skinner's site and he can say/do whatever he wants here. But out there in the real world, Bernie is not a Democrat, and never has been. In fact, BS himself has been quite adamant about that fact.

[berni_mccoy]

44. He certainly has plenty of Dems following his lead on this

As well as other issues.

[NanceGreggs]

56. Not in the real world ...

... where Democrats don't have to STFU up about Bernie, or anything else they care to discuss.

Skinner's opinion about Bernie has zero influence outside of DU. I read and/or post on a variety of political sites, and I've never seen anyone say, "Yeah, but this Skinner guy says Bernie should be treated as a Democrat, so we should all follow his lead."

The only reason many people don't post their true feelings about Bernie here is because if they say anything untoward about him, their post will be "hidden". They're simply following Skinner's rules, not his lead.

[Demsrule86]

58. And it generates excitement here but will amount to nothing. He would be better served to improve

the ACA which has a shot...and people know and like.

[Mike Nelson]

45. I agree...

...much of the media coverage has led to "confusions" like you stated. When I see Hillary Clinton in an extended interview, things are much more balanced.

I'm looking forward to her book and the great work to come!

[stonecutter357]

47. Fox and RWNJ's agree with you....

[johnp3907]

49. What a pile of crap.

[rock]

51. There's enough fault to spread around

[Eliot Rosewater]

53. What is it about this woman that bothers so many people?

[stevenleser]

62. Hint: the sixth word in your post title nt

[EllieBC]

73. Because she's a woman.

That's what it comes down to. "I don't like her.". Yet there's never a concrete reason. It's pure sexism.

[Willie Pep]

61. I think politicians are just becoming more open about their feelings.

In the past the expectation was for politicians to not discuss their true feelings about other political figures and the details of their political lives. The press respected the privacy of the candidates more, for example keeping affairs under wraps.

Now it seems like politicians are more open about their feelings and people want them to communicate with them more intimately, hence why Clinton is more candid about her feelings on her campaign than past presidential hopefuls. I am not sure if this is a good thing but I think this is where we are going politically.

[DetlefK]

69. For all intents and purposes, Bernie Sanders has said that he's NOT a Democrat.

So who you gonna believe on this? Skinner or Bernie?

[Hekate]

72. The Clintons went into "humanitarian service" 17 years ago. Remember? Gore made films...

...wrote books, and made speeches.

It seems to me that everyone except Hillary gets to express their opinion loud and clear -- just not Hillary. I wonder why that is.

[Beantighe]

75. Doesn't read like confusion ...

I don't think you sound confused at all, bro. It reads like you believe the level of "unfair" was/is equal amongst candidates. If Democrats can't accept that there are/were many election altering factors to address, including voter suppression and Russian interference (and the so-called President's collusion with them), we are fucked for the future. THOSE are the issues that need to be confronted head on, not HRC's speaking out. She needs to continue speaking out and we can learn a lot from her experience. She's taken responsibility for her part, and she has earned the right to tell her story. We deserve to hear it. Unfortunately, too many refuse to listen. Just my opinion.

[MineralMan]

77. I suggest that you not order Hillary's book, then.

BTW, it's REAGAN, not REGAN.

[delisen]

80. If "it was clear there was tampering of the Diebold voting system"

in 2004 I believe Kerry and you (if you said nothing) erred in not making a forceful public statement

Diebold machines are still in use in several states. In my state we don't know whether our votes are counted as cast.

I think you are confusing "reasons" with "blame." Clinton is giving us information and her analysis. I want that information and analysis.
If you don't want it, don't take it but Clinton is doing a great service for those of us who want it.

Elections in a democracy are not primarily about the candidate, they are about the electorate and we need all the information we can get to inform our voting.

There is a ritual in political campaigns. It is a scapegoating ritual. It is outdated. The losing candidate is supposed to keep a stiff upper lip, verbally in public "take full responsibility for the loss," absolve staff and others of any responsibility, and then disappear for awhile, come back and maybe do a ritual cleansing through good works.

(Of course in practice many do actually point out the reasons contributing to their loss-but usually little notice is taken. Clinton however gets scrutinized).

It is a ritual that might have value when a country is basically in agreement on principles, issues, and direction. The "loser" takes upon himself or herself the sin of losing, and heads out into the wilderness for awhile, so that the "winner" can consolidate power.

It is exactly the wrong thing to do in the America of 2017.
That America of agreement is no longer in existence. It has not been in existence since 2000 and the candidate as scapegoat ritual is so outdated, that it is harmful.

Clinton is going to be a powerful force in politics, especially as the imperial presidency that grew up after World War II, when much of the developed world was in shambles, is now in decline.

She is not going into the wilderness.

[emulatorloo]

86. You're not "confused." You know exactly what you're doing. You're just really bad at it.

For one thing you've not read the book in question, and anyone who is actually reading it understands your description is bullshit.

For another thing you make Bernie sound like a weak simpering moron who isn't perfectly capable of taking care of himself. Bernie is tough as hell and I don't like you disrespecting him that way.

People see thru your transparently divisive and pot-stirring OP's.

[ecstatic]

99. That's weird. Have you actually listened to what she's said?

I mean, in full context, not just Fox news clips? Are you just going by provocative headlines?

What she's saying shouldn't be confusing, assuming you're actually listening.