PDA

View Full Version : Hillary post-mortem



troung
12 Apr 17,, 15:22
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/328405-clinton-campaign-plagued-by-bickering

Clinton campaign plagued by bickering

By Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes - 04/12/17 06:00 AM EDT


The following is an excerpt adapted from “Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton’s Doomed Campaign,” which will be released on April 18. Copyright © 2017 by Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes. Published by Crown, an imprint of the Crown Publishing Group, a division of Penguin Random House, LLC.


‘We Got An Ass-Chewing’

Hillary was so mad she couldn’t think straight. She was supposed to be focused on the prep session for that night’s Univision debate in Miami, but a potent mix of exhaustion and exasperation bubbled up inside.

She’d been humiliated in the Michigan primary the night before, a loss that not only robbed her of a prime opportunity to put Bernie Sanders down for good but also exposed several of her weaknesses. How could she have been left so vulnerable? She knew — or at least she thought she did. The blame belonged to her campaign team, she believed, for failing to hone her message, energize important constituencies and take care of business in getting voters to the polls. And now, Jake Sullivan, her de facto chief strategist, was giving her lip about the last answer she’d delivered in the prep session.

“That’s not very good,” Sullivan corrected.

“Really?” Hillary snapped back.

The room fell silent.

“Why don’t you do it?”

The comment was pointed and sarcastic, but she meant it. So for the next 30 minutes, there he was, pretending to be Hillary while she critiqued his performance.

Every time the Yale lawyer and former high school debate champ opened his mouth, Hillary cut him off. “That isn’t very good,” she’d say. “You can do better.” Then she’d hammer him with a Bernie line.

It wasn’t just Sullivan in her crosshairs. She let everyone on her team have it that day. “We haven’t made our case,” she fumed. “We haven’t framed the choice. We haven’t done the politics.”

“She was visibly, unflinchingly pissed off at us as a group,” said one aide who was in the room for the humiliating scene. “And she let us know she felt that way.”

Hillary had been up into the wee hours the night before, agitating over her loss. This is because we made poor choices about where we traveled, she thought. She emailed Robby Mook to tell him she believed she’d spent too much time in the cities of Detroit and Flint and not enough in the working-class white suburbs around them. Sensing just how angry she was, Mook responded by putting together a morning conference call so that Hillary could vent. But that didn’t settle her; if anything, it left her more perplexed and angry, as her debate-prep team witnessed firsthand.

Her aides took the browbeating — one of several she delivered in person and on the phone that day — in silence. They had a lot of their own thoughts on what went wrong, some of which echoed Hillary’s assessment: her message was off for Michigan, and she had refused to go hard against trade; Mook had pinched pennies and failed to put organizers on the ground; the polling and analytics were a touch too rosy, meaning the campaign didn’t know Bernie was ahead; she had set up an ambiguous decisionmaking structure on the campaign; and she’d focused too heavily on black and brown voters at the expense of competing for the whites who had formed her base in 2008. The list went on and on.

The underlying truth — the one that many didn’t want to admit to themselves — was the person ultimately responsible for these decisions, the one whose name was on the ticket, hadn’t corrected these problems, all of which had been brought to her attention before primary day. She’d stuck with the plan, and it had cost her.

While the campaign projected a *drama-free tenor, it was reminiscent of other moments of frustration.
Months earlier, Hillary Clinton turned her fury on her consultants and campaign aides, blaming them for a failure to focus the media on her platform.

In her ear the whole time, spurring her on to cast blame on others and never admit to anything, was her husband. Neither Clinton could accept the simple fact that Hillary had hamstrung her own campaign and dealt the most serious blow to her own presidential aspirations.

That state of denial would become more obvious than ever to her top aides and consultants during one conference call in the thick of the public discussion of her server. Joel Benenson, Mandy Grunwald, Jim Margolis, John Anzalone, John Podesta, Mook, Huma Abedin and Dan Schwerin were among the small coterie who huddled in Abedin’s mostly bare corner office overlooking the East River at the campaign’s Brooklyn headquarters. Hillary and Bill, who rarely visited, joined them by phone.

Hillary’s severe, controlled voice crackled through the line first. It carried the sound of a disappointed teacher or mother delivering a lecture before a whipping. That back end was left to Bill, who lashed out with abandon. Eyes cast downward, stomachs turning — both from the scare tactics and from their own revulsion at being chastised for Hillary’s failures — Hillary’s talented and accomplished team of professionals and loyalists simply took it. There was no arguing with Bill Clinton.

You haven’t buried this thing, the ruddy-cheeked former president rasped. You haven’t figured out how to get Hillary’s core message to the voters. This has been dragging on for months, he thundered, and nothing you’ve done has made a damn bit of difference. Voters want to hear about Hillary’s plans for the economy, and you’re not making that happen. Now, do your damn jobs.

“We got an ass-chewing,” one of the participants recalled months later.

Hillary came back on the line to close the lecture. It was hard to tell what was worse — getting hollered at by Bill or getting scolded by the stern and self-righteous Hillary. Neither was pleasant. You heard him, she admonished. “Get it straight.”






Hillary Clinton’s revenge tour and Nikki Haley’s ascent

Democratic nominee blames her loss on misogyny, but strong women are undeterred

By Tammy Bruce - - Wednesday, April 12, 2017


ANALYSIS/OPINION:

Hillary Clinton has emerged from the woods determining that her election loss is everyone’s fault but her own. But even more surprising was that Donald Trump colluding with the Russians was suddenly no longer the main culprit; no, now it was hatred of women that fueled her loss. But this was no ordinary misogyny, it was the fault of women in particular who apparently hate other women. Or something.

In fact, if there’s a misogynist in this story, it’s Hillary Clinton.

Mrs. Clinton spoke about her forthcoming book to The New York Times’ Nicholas Kristof at the Women in the World Summit in New York, in which she will explain it was misogyny, the FBI’s James B. Comey, WikiLeaks and Russia that did her in.


In other words, a book of fiction blaming everyone except herself.

Mr. Kristof dutifully asked her about the impact misogyny had on the election, handing her the plate she required to indirectly riff on how those who did not vote for her are bad, mean people.

“I’m currently writing a book where I spend a lot of time wrestling with this,” she noted. “As you might guess, I’ve thought about it more than once. I don’t know that there is one answer. It is fair to say that certainly misogyny played a role. That just has to be admitted.”

At one point Mr. Kristof directly asks Mrs. Clinton who she blames for her loss. Her simple answer confirms a mindset that has removed herself entirely from the equation, while placing everyone else at the fulcrum: “How much time do you have?”

The fact of the matter is this: The people who didn’t vote for Hillary Clinton like women just fine, but they didn’t like one in particular — her. It was her patronizing sanctimony that repulsed people, yes, including women, during a campaign now returning as a charged-up revenge tour.

Mrs. Clinton holds herself up as a lesson for girls and women in the damage misogyny can do. And she’s right, but the perpetrators are not the women who voted their conscience last year.

The ultimate in misogyny is stripping women of their agency, of their self-worth. By excusing her self-inflicted failure on the deeds of others, Mrs. Clinton is telling women nothing they do matters; their choices are irrelevant; their own decisions are meaningless. In Hillary’s world, women are at the mercy of the environment, like a piece of driftwood in the sea.

And yet this woman, victimized by so much, still insists she coulda, woulda, shoulda, been president.

Are women impacted by the actions of others? Of course we are. Our lives are more complex and the issues we face at home and in the workplace must be continually challenged. Women who succeed recognize that it is our choices that make the difference on both what we offer and what we overcome.

Instead, Mrs. Clinton relies on old feminist tropes, unable to face her own failures. She took for granted her base of support. She presumed she was owed the votes of a certain type of person and then felt comfortable ignoring them. She ran a campaign of vengeance and entitlement, while promoting an agenda that would further the economic destruction of the country and ignored our increasingly perilous national security.

Hillary Clinton lost because she’s Hillary Clinton. She lost because she never set foot in Wisconsin. She lost because she lied. She lost because of her horrible judgment and a resentment of, well, everyone.

She lost because she ran a campaign where she was the one who was to be elevated and lauded, when that is usually reserved for the American electorate.

She made herself the point, when the point was the United States. She lost because, like most politicians, she viewed the American people as obstacles to overcome, not people to get to know.

As Hillary was rolling out her revenge tour last week, there was another woman emerging as the breakout star of the Trump administration. Nimrata Randhawa (also known as Nikki Haley), our ambassador to the United Nations. Mrs. Haley was schooling the world body and U.N. Security Council specifically about the horrors of the Syrian chemical weapons attack on opponents of President Bashar Assad’s regime.

Mrs. Haley, a former governor of South Carolina with no international diplomatic experience, was viewed suspiciously when first named to the post. Critics, including this columnist, were concerned about her lack of a resume on the serious issues besetting the world. How could someone, with no background at all in international politics and diplomacy, handle the pit that is the U.N.?

Those concerns no longer exist after her virtuoso handling of an international crisis, replete with chemical weapons, mass murder, terrorist groups, Russia and Iran. Mrs. Haley was an iron fist in a velvet glove. She did not bend, she controlled the environment, and led.

We can all presume there is an overwhelming amount of misogyny at the U.N. Mrs. Haley is likely dealing with it every day, and yet everyone at the U.N. now knows who is in charge. And it’s not the boys from Syria, Russia or Iran.

If we’re looking for role models for women, the best choice is to look to women who find their power inside, own their choices and forge onward, not to those who insult us all by insisting we’re all victims, at the perpetual mercy of others.

• Tammy Bruce, author and Fox News contributor, is a radio talk show host.

TopHatter
12 Apr 17,, 17:44
My god, that was beautiful. I might actually have to buy that book, a complete first for me.

citanon
12 Apr 17,, 20:05
That scene is right out of Veep.

troung
18 Apr 17,, 14:39
Sanders on Clinton's 'I'm with her' slogan: 'It's so phony'

By Rebecca Savransky - 04/18/17 07:19 AM EDT 76comments

Sanders on Clinton's 'I'm with her' slogan: 'It's so phony'

© Getty Images

http://www.news.com.au/world/north-america/clinton-to-trump-congratulations-donald/news-story/65e421f4b5296ebf25b9a7c8a61cc757




Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) called former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton's "I'm with her" slogan "phony," according to a new book.

In "Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton's Doomed Campaign," The Hill's Amie Parnes and Sidewire's Jonathan Allen write that members of the Clinton campaign reached out to Sanders aides in late September to share a script of an ad they wanted the Vermont senator to record.

In the ad, Sanders would tout the former Democratic nominee for her education, healthcare and minimum wage proposals.



And he would talk about how her former rival, Donald Trump, was wrong about climate change and the economy.At the end of the script were the words: "I'm with her."

“It’s so phony!” Sanders said. “I don’t want to say that.”



Sanders did not use the slogan in the ad.



The Clinton campaign eventually decided not to use the ad on television, after learning that voters had some doubts about whether the Vermont senator fully supported Clinton.




“People felt that it was him delivering his message, not Hillary’s,” said one Clinton aide familiar with focus group responses.


"People didn’t feel that it was an authentic pitch for her and what she wanted to do. It even had some backlash in folks saying that he’s not really supporting her.”



The ad was not used on television, but some of the shorter takes of Sanders were used online.



Sanders endorsed Clinton in July after running a long campaign against her.



Presidential

Hillary Clinton apologized to Obama on election night


Published April 18, 2017
· New York Post


Study: Hillary ran one of the worst campaigns in history


Hillary Clinton had to eat humble pie twice on election night.

Clinton apologized to President Obama for her bruising loss — right after calling Trump to offer him “congratulations,” according to a new book chronicling her 2016 presidential bid called “Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton’s Doomed Campaign.”

“Mr. President, I’m sorry,” she said, according to a Washington Post’s review of the book due out Tuesday.

The White House urged Clinton to concede as Trump claimed battleground states — some by slim margins — because Obama wanted to avoid a messy recount.

“You need to concede,” Obama told Clinton directly, later repeating the instruction to her campaign chairman John Podesta for good measure.

The directive came after Clinton ignored previous messages from White House staff to throw in the towel.

She conceded the loss publicly the next morning.


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/04/18/hillary-clinton-apologized-to-obama-on-election-night.html

troung
18 Apr 17,, 15:41
Mike Allen
2 hrs ago

Inside the Hillary Hindenburg

A new book by Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes, "Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton's Doomed Campaign," makes it clear that whatever you thought was happening in Brooklyn at Clinton's campaign headquarters, it was worse. One of the kickers:

Hillary's top aides were as miserable as midlevel bureaucrats in an agency with no clear plans.

15 highlights 348 words


More highlights from the book:
1.Jon Favreau, brought in to help with the announcement speech, "thought Clinton's campaign was reminiscent of John Kerry's, where he had gotten his start in 2004 — a bunch of operatives who were smart and accomplished ... but weren't united by any common purpose larger than pushing a less-than-thrilling candidate into the White House. ... Frustrated with the process and the product, Favreau dropped out."
2."Some of Hillary's aides longed for her to find her own David Axelrod."
3.Huma Abedin "couldn't be counted on to relay constructive criticism to Hillary without pointing a finger at the critic."
4.Campaign manager Robby Mook "had the most reason to be nervous about his job. Longtime Clinton confidants outside the campaign had been agitating for months for Hillary to get rid of him."
5.Bill Clinton's chief of staff, Tina Flournoy, "mentioned to him and a small group of his aides that she was going to see the Rolling Stones in Europe. 'Mick Jagger used to give my mother-in-law wet dreams,' Bill offered."
6.Hillary to longtime confidant Minyon Moore, during the primaries: "I don't understand what's happening in the country."
7."The one person with whom [Hillary] didn't seem particularly upset: herself."
8."[T]he mercenaries ... feared — appropriately — that unflattering words about Hillary or the strategy would be repeated at their own expense by those who hoped to gain Hillary's favor."
9."[S]he liked to set up rival power centers within and outside her operation."
10.President Obama thought her handling of the server scandal "amounted to political malpractice."
11."In hallmark fashion, Hillary had set up two separate and isolated teams to write her convention speech."
12."Worried about leaving his supersecret [debate] prep materials in an Uber, [Philippe] Reines [who played Trump] bought a heavy-duty tether so that he could lock his briefcase to his waist. He actually acquired two different versions — one of which was originally designed for bondage enthusiasts."
13.Hillary to an aide during the general: "I know I engender bad reactions from people."
14.Bill Clinton on election night: "It's like Brexit ... I guess it's real."
15.Hillary to Obama after calling Trump to concede: "Mr. President, I'm sorry."
https://www.axios.com/inside-the-hillary-hindenburg-2366467487.html

Parihaka
18 Apr 17,, 20:32
It is tempting to buy, kind of a "lessons learned" for next time, but the overarching message is probably obvious: "don't pick a complete narcissist as a candidate unless they have charisma by the bucketload"

troung
02 Jun 17,, 20:24
she can't help herself.

Hillary Blames America First

by Jonah Goldberg June 2, 2017 12:00 AM @JonahNRO

She acts like a sprinkler system of excuses for her 2016 loss, spraying them all around. In one of the great scenes in American cinema, Jake Blues (John Belushi) of the Blues Brothers explains — at gunpoint — to his ex-fiancée (Carrie Fischer) why he left her at the altar. “I ran out of gas! I had a flat tire! I didn’t have enough money for cab fare! My tux didn’t come back from the cleaners! An old friend came in from out of town! Someone stole my car! There was an earthquake! A terrible flood! Locusts! It wasn’t my fault! I swear to God.” I kept thinking of that scene as I watched Hillary Clinton on Wednesday run through all of the reasons why she lost the 2016 presidential race. At a conference hosted by Recode, Mrs. Clinton said, “I take responsibility for every decision I make — but that’s not why I lost.”


The real reasons for her defeat include, but are not limited to: FBI director James Comey’s handling of the investigation into her e-mail server, the institutional ineptitude of the DNC, Facebook, Macedonian “fake news” websites, real news (in the form of unfair coverage from the New York Times and other mainstream outlets), voter suppression in Wisconsin, low-information voters, the billionaire Mercer family, and the deep-seated sexism of the American people. (Now, from one perspective — i.e., hers — she’s right. When you lose a very close presidential race almost any factor can be isolated and credited with the reason for your defeat. It’s like a football game that ends in a squeaker. Every fumble and interception can be highlighted in isolation as the reason one team lost or another team won. But it’s rare to hear losing coaches explain away their losses by singling out the individual mistakes of the players. That’s because they understand that you have to look at the game in its totality. Hillary Clinton got more votes than Donald Trump.

But Trump won the Electoral College by squeezing a 10,000-vote margin of victory in Michigan, a 22,000-vote margin in Wisconsin, and a 46,000-vote margin in Pennsylvania. According to Trump pollster Tony Fabrizio, were it not for five counties — four in Florida and one in Michigan — Hillary Clinton would be president now. Rather than vent about “misogyny” or Macedonian masterminds, she would be on firmer ground by simply saying, “We lost because we didn’t put enough resources into Macomb County, Mich., and South Florida.” Rather than vent about ‘misogyny,’ Clinton would be on firmer ground by simply saying, ‘We lost because we didn’t put enough resources into Macomb County, Mich., and South Florida.’ But that doesn’t support Clinton’s martyr complex.

Which is why she acts like a sprinkler system of excuses, spraying them all around. It doesn’t matter that she is to blame for many of her excuses. If she hadn’t ignored rules for handling classified information, Comey would never have needed to investigate her and the media wouldn’t have had that story to cover. If she discovered that the DNC’s data collection was so terrible — a claim the Democratic party’s own data guru describes as untrue, in profane and scatological terms — she should have compensated. And as for her whining about negative media coverage, it’s not like her opponent was lavished with praise from the Times. Perhaps the most ridiculous claim is that she lost because she’s a woman. Hillary Clinton has convinced herself she is an avatar for all womankind.

Talking about her allegedly unfair treatment, she said, “And at some point it sort of bleeds into misogyny.” Male politicians get treated unfairly from time to time as well (you can look it up). Is that proof of anti-male sexism? Was her husband a victim of misandry? If Hillary Clinton earned one thing in her long and less than fruitful political career, it is this: the right to be criticized or praised on her own merits — or lack thereof. The East German poet Bertolt Brecht once wrote sardonically that when the government lost the faith of the people, “Would it not be easier in that case for the government to dissolve the people and elect another?” Hillary Clinton has been running for president for much of her adult life. She lost twice because, like Jake Blues, the electorate left her at the altar. If she had merely won among the voters who cast ballots for Donald Trump and Barack Obama, she’d have won. She didn’t, preferring to call many of them “deplorable.” Now she claims that many of them were sexist and ill-informed. I’d call her the Brecht Girl, but that would be cited as more proof of the misogyny that did her in. — Jonah Goldberg is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a senior editor of National Review. You can write to him by e-mail at goldbergcolumn@gmail.com. Copyright © 2017 Tribune Content Agency, LLC

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/448199/hillary-clinton-2016-campaign-president-loss-blames-democrats-public-bertolt-brecht



DNC data guru denies Hillary Clinton's claim she "inherited nothing" from DNC
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/dnc-data-guru-denies-hillary-clintons-claim-she-inherited-nothing-from-dnc/

/ REUTERSREUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

Andrew Therriault, the former director of data science for the Democratic National Committee, said Hillary Clinton's claim that she "inherited nothing" from the DNC is totally off base.

Earlier this week at a media and technology conference in California, Clinton claimed the Democratic Party didn't give her the data-related resources she needed, sparking a brutal response from Therriault on Twitter.

"DNC data folks: today's accusations are f***ing bull****, and I hope you understand the good you did despite that nonsense," Therriault tweeted Wednesday in a series of tweets that have since been deleted but were captured by other news outlets.

"Private mode be damned, this is too important," Therriault said in another tweet. "I'm not willing to let my people be thrown under the bus without a fight."

Clinton's comments Wednesday resurfaced responses from her critics that Clinton still isn't owning her loss to now-President Donald Trump. Clinton she wasn't a "perfect" candidate, but that isn't why she lost, blaming everything from the Democrats' data operations to the media covering her email scandal like "Pearl Harbor."

"I get the nomination, so I'm now the nominee of the Democratic Party," Clinton said at the coding event. "I inherit nothing from the Democratic Party. I mean, it was bankrupt. It was on the verge of insolvency. Its data was mediocre to poor, non-existent, wrong. I had to inject money into it."


In her speech, Clinton also praised the Republican National Committee's operations and former RNC chairman -- now White House chief of staff -- Reince Priebus.

The Republicans, Clinton said, "raised, best estimates are close to $100 million. They brought in their main vendors."

Back in February, Therriault authored a Medium post titled, "We shouldn't blame data for bad campaign messaging," saying data is a campaign tool, not a campaign strategy.

troung
02 Jun 17,, 20:33
Hillary Clinton is running again: Doug Schoen


By Julia Limitone Published June 01, 2017 Election


Hillary is back in the game, fmr. Clinton pollster Doug Schoen says
Former Clinton pollster Doug Schoen on Hillary Clinton blaming everyone but herself for her election loss.


Hillary Clinton is blaming everyone else but herself for her election loss to President Trump, but former Clinton pollster Doug Schoen says this is her way of gearing up for another run.

“Even if it’s in only in her own mind… she is running,” Schoen told the FOX Business Network’s Stuart Varney.

The longtime Democrat who worked for President Bill Clinton between 1994 and 2000 said Hillary “made it very clear’ at an event last week that “she’s back in the game,” but pointed out how her lack of self-responsibility for campaign mistakes is alarming.

“This speech at Wellesley where she said she’s joining up with the resistance… she’s blaming everybody—it startles me she doesn’t blame herself. She’s not an introspective at all,” he said.

In his opinion, a key to being a successful leader is understanding and admitting your failures. Schoen pointed out how Clinton was distraught over her loss, at first, but painted a different picture when they met.

More from FOXBusiness.com
• Hillary Clinton's entitlement doomed her campaign, 'Shattered' co-author says
• Clinton email scandal damages U.S. ability to get intel: CIA’s Woolsey
• Clinton, Obama are still in charge: Varney

“What I saw last week when I was up close and personal with her was a woman who has come to blame everybody else—the Russians, Comey – everybody else except herself. So that allows her to go forward, it’s a narrative that works for her,” he said.

Despite his views Schoen quipped Bill greeted him with a hug while Hillary was “chilly.”
http://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/2017/06/01/hillary-clinton-is-running-again-doug-schoen.html

troung
05 Jun 17,, 15:03
SUNDAY, JUN 4, 2017 06:00 AM EDT
Why can’t Hillary let it go? Donald Trump’s not the only one still obsessing over the election
DANIELLE RYAN


Why can't Hillary let it go? Donald Trump’s not the only one still obsessing over the election

Hillary Clinton may have finally lost the plot.

Last year’s defeated Democratic presidential candidate spoke to journalists Kara Swisher and Walt Mossberg at the Code 2017 conference in California on Wednesday about the reasons for her election loss — and there is a whole lot to unpack.

I’ve never run for president, but I imagine political losses of the magnitude suffered by Clinton are very hard to get over — and not just for the candidate. I personally know many people who voted for her who are still wandering around in a state of disbelief. For diehard supporters, the loss hurts in a visceral way that lingers.

But there comes a point when you just have to accept reality — and Clinton herself seems to be having a tough time with that. The Code interview offers pretty broad insight into Clinton’s psyche, nearly seven months on from the election.

The conversation starts with Mossberg asking Clinton to name one major misjudgment — discounting any outside forces — that her campaign made and that she wishes she had done differently. It took Clinton 17 seconds to mention the word “Russians” — and a further 10 seconds to bring up the way her private email server was used against her. Keep in mind, this was after Mossberg asked her to name just one legitimate mistake she and her campaign made. She couldn’t do it.

Clinton has always believed she is the victim of vast conspiracies — and so the conversation continues pretty much in the same vein for another 75 minutes, with Clinton providing probably her most extensive list yet of reasons why she lost, which, naturally, had absolutely nothing to do with her.

Clinton really threw these guys under the bus. The data the Democratic National Committee provided to her campaign was “mediocre to poor, nonexistent, wrong,” she said.

But according to some of those data gurus who spoke to the Daily Beast, Clinton is plain wrong about that. John Hagner, who worked as national field director for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, told the website: “The DNC is farming and what the campaign does is cooking. It’s hard to blame the farmer if the soufflé folds.”

A less eloquent version of the same sentiment came from Andrew Therriault, who had worked as the DNC’s director of data science. He called Clinton’s claim “fucking bullshit” on Twitter, adding that the data he had seen showed that crucial Rust Belt states like Michigan and Wisconsin were not looking “even close to safe,” but that Clinton’s team “thought they knew better.”

Fake news (and the Russians)

According to Clinton, the “vast majority” of news posted about her on Facebook was fake, because “1,000 Russian agents” were paid to make up stories about her. Obviously, it’s beyond dispute that there were plenty of crazy, fake news stories about Clinton during the campaign, but that it was the “vast majority” is hardly clear — and the claim of “1,000 Russian agents” was an unconfirmed report.

Clinton is also sure that the Russians “could not have known” how best to manipulate and weaponize information against her without being “guided” by the Trump campaign.

Twitter, too, Clinton said, has been “victimized” by “deliberate efforts to shape the conversation” — as if efforts to shape political narratives were some strange phenomenon that popped up in 2016 just to spite her.

WikiLeaks (and the Russians)

WikiLeaks dumped the John Podesta emails immediately after Donald Trump’s infamous “grab ’em by the pussy” tape leaked to the media. According to Clinton, this means that Julian Assange’s outfit and the Russian government are “the same thing.”

This accusation is linked to the suggestion that the Trump campaign was “guiding” the Russians by telling them when to release certain information. But would communication at that level really be necessary?

Let’s give the Russians some credit. If you’re intensely following an election and committed to engineering its outcome, it’s hardly rocket science to know when to drop a damaging piece of information. If Russia was really behind the hack-and-dump operation, Putin’s operatives probably didn’t need Trump to jump in and say “Hey, I’m in a tough spot, so now would be a great time to drop those Podesta emails!”

Aside from the matter of who leaked what, Clinton spends no time rehashing the actual content of the various leaks and is in complete denial that any of her emails could have hurt her. In fact, she says that everything in those communications was “run of the mill” campaign stuff.

Nor does she address the fact that former DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz was forced to resign over revelations that the party appeared to be working with Clinton to deny Bernie Sanders a fair shot at the nomination. Or the fact that CNN contributor (and later interim DNC head) Donna Brazile fed a debate question to Clinton’s campaign ahead of time.

These are all things Clinton could have raised when Mossberg asked her what misjudgments and mistakes she made along the way to her agonizing defeat. But, hey, maybe the Russians made them do it.

Sexism

Barack Obama was able to break the racial barrier because he is “an attractive man,” Clinton said. This peculiar comment seemed to imply that Clinton believes she could not break the gender barrier partly due to her appearance.

People, she said, have “a set of expectations about who should be president and what a president looks like.” Obama “broke that racial barrier — but you know, he’s a very attractive, good-looking man.”

Clinton also thinks it was sexist to use the fact that she was paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for Wall Street speeches against her. Men also got paid for speeches they made, so that was “unfairly used” to hurt her.

OK, fair enough: Clinton does get criticized more harshly for some of the same behavior as men, and no doubt there is plenty of sexism surrounding the physical appearance of women in politics. But let’s not feel too sorry for her when she’s pocketing hundreds of thousands of dollars to reassure Wall Street bankers that she holds both a “public and private position” on certain issues.

Netflix

Because Netflix has too many anti-Clinton documentaries.

“Go to Netflix and say you want to see a political documentary, eight of the top 10 — last time I checked a few weeks ago — were screeds against President Obama or me, or both of us.”

The strangest thing about this might be that Hillary Clinton is actually checking Netflix to see how many unflattering documentaries there are about her.

James Comey (and the mainstream media)

When then-FBI Director James Comey announced that the investigation into Clinton’s emails would be reopened, less than two weeks before the election, the media covered it “like it was Pearl Harbor” — “front pages everywhere, huge type, etc.”

Maybe they should have buried it somewhere in the back and used smaller font?

Assumptions

This one might be my favorite because it’s so lacking in self-awareness. Clinton complains that she was “the victim of a broad assumption” that she was going to win.

This is amazing, because no one was more certain of Clinton’s victory than Clinton and her staffers. They barely bothered to campaign in some states, convinced beyond doubt that they would go blue. The campaign organized an election-night fireworks display over the Hudson River, which it only canceled a day before voters went to the polls, when things were starting to look a bit dicey.

But even on Election Day, her aides were so sure of victory that, according to the New York Times, they popped Champagne on the campaign plane before the polls had even closed.

Hillary Clinton has officially jumped the shark with this interview. It’s time for an intervention in Chappaqua, because the longer she continues on like this, the more damage she’s going to do to her party.

Much as it may be therapeutic for Clinton herself, talking about Russia and Comey and sexism and WikiLeaks for the next God knows how long won’t help Democrats win back seats in Congress.

People rightly lampoon Trump for obsessing over the election like the child he is. Well, it’s been nearly seven months and Clinton is still going around acting as though she’s history’s greatest political martyr, regaling us with new reasons why none of the blame for anything that went wrong lies with her.

Democrats need to get their act together. They need to talk about policy and get serious about how to fight Trump on issues of far greater importance than how many bots are following him on Twitter. Hillary Clinton now claims to be part of the “resistance” to Trump, but she’s still fixated on herself.
....

DOR
06 Jun 17,, 12:04
NSA contractor Reality Winner accused of leaking file on Russia election hacking

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/05/reality-winner-russia-us-election-hack-nsa-leak

Three days before Americans voted last November, Reality Winner joked with her sister online that Moscow’s efforts to influence the US presidential election could have an upside for her as a keen weightlifter.

“When we become the United States of the Russian Federation,” she said on Facebook, “Olympic lifting will be the national sport. Seven months later, Winner, 25, called home to Texas on Saturday to let her family know that the Russian hacking saga had ended up landing her in a far more serious situation.

“She said that she had been arrested by the FBI and that she couldn’t really talk about it,” her mother, Billie Winner-Davis, told the Guardian in a telephone interview. “I am still in shock.”

Prosecutors allege that last month, Winner, who was working for the defense contractor Pluribus International Corporation, printed an NSA document detailing how Russia had hacked a voting equipment vendor in Florida and was trying to breach local election systems right up until the days before November’s vote.

The Intercept reported on Monday that Russian military intelligence carried out a cyber-attack on at least one US voting software supplier and sent spear-phishing emails to more than a hundred local election officials days before the poll.

The hacking of senior Democrats’ email accounts during the campaign has been well chronicled, but vote-counting was thought to have been unaffected, despite concerted Russian efforts to penetrate it.

Her family rushed to Georgia for Winner’s first court appearance on Monday but remains confused. Winner-Davis said she was unaware that her daughter had allegedly already admitted, when questioned, to taking the top-secret document. Nor had she heard of the Intercept and she really did not know why Reality would have done it. “I never thought this would be something she would do,” Winner-Davis said. “I mean, she has expressed to me that she is not a fan of Trump – but she’s not someone who would go and riot or picket.”

Winner’s posts on social media over recent months suggest, however, that she, like many other Americans, had become increasingly agitated over some extraordinary developments in national politics. She posted disparagingly on Facebook about Donald Trump’s pledge to build a wall along the Mexican border, about his draconian criminal justice plans, and about his assault on the Environmental Protection Agency. In February, she referred to the president as “piece of shit”.


Winner was born in Texas in December 1991. She was raised in Kingsville, a small city in the south of the state, about 40 miles from Corpus Christi. She has a sister, Brittany, who is studying for a PhD in Pharmacology and Toxicology at Michigan State University and did not respond to an email.

Reality began working for Pluribus in Augusta, Georgia, in February this year, according to court filings. She previously served in the US air force since January 2013 and held a top-secret security clearance. Her mother said Reality had been a linguist for the air force. “She speaks the middle eastern languages – Farsi, Dari and Pashto,” said Winner-Davis, who laughed when asked if she had taught them to her daughter. “No, she did it all on her own,” she said.

Winner-Davis said that her daughter had joined the military soon after graduating from H M King high school. As well as being bright academically, she excelled in tennis and athletics. “But she had gotten a little tired of school,” said her mother, and decided against continuing with college. Winner appeared to be enjoying Augusta, posting photographs to Instagram of good meals she had eaten and videos of herself happily working out. She recently took a trip to Belize. Then her spell in Georgia was abruptly cut short over the weekend.

On Monday evening, her mother struggled to say whether her daughter’s alleged leak would constitute an act of bravery or a painful mistake. “I don’t know, I don’t know,” Winner-Davis said. “I don’t know what the hacking thing all means. Has it made a difference in the election? Who knows.” Her family knows little except that they are bewildered and concerned about the possible 10-year prison sentence that Winner could receive if convicted. “She’s a beautiful girl,” said her mother. “Everyone who meets her loves her, and she’s kind.”

= = = = =

Reality Leigh Winner Criminal Complaint

Reality Leigh Winner, an intelligence contractor, was charged with sending a classified report about Russia’s interference in the 2016 election to the news media, the Justice Department announced Monday, the first criminal leak case under President Trump. The announcement came about an hour after the national-security news outlet The Intercept published the apparent document, a May 5 intelligence report from the National Security Agency.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/05/us/politics/document-2017-06-05-Winner-Criminal-Complaint-Form.html

= = = = =

The original report, from The Intercept:

http://boingboing.net/2017/06/05/nyet.html

TopHatter
06 Jun 17,, 14:01
Hillary Clinton now claims to be part of the “resistance” to Trump, but she’s still fixated on herself.

Narcissists usually are

astralis
06 Jun 17,, 14:42
i'd say, "politicians usually are".

HRC was pretty much in the usual range of the politician-class narcissism (her real weakness is hubris). Obama was on the higher end. Romney was on the lower end.

our current POTUS narcissism level, on the other hand, the metaphor that comes to mind is like the Empire State Building next to some withered rabbits' pricks by comparison.

i understand why Hillary "can't let it go"; she's trying to salvage what remains of her legacy, seeing as how she not only lost twice, but lost to -Donald Trump-. it's a pretty sh*tty way to end a life's career.

TopHatter
06 Jun 17,, 17:43
i'd say, "politicians usually are".

HRC was pretty much in the usual range of the politician-class narcissism (her real weakness is hubris). Obama was on the higher end. Romney was on the lower end.

our current POTUS narcissism level, on the other hand, the metaphor that comes to mind is like the Empire State Building next to some withered rabbits' pricks by comparison.
No argument here.


i understand why Hillary "can't let it go"; she's trying to salvage what remains of her legacy, seeing as how she not only lost twice, but lost to -Donald Trump-. it's a pretty sh*tty way to end a life's career.

Yeah, you're right. But it's almost worth having Cheeto Benito in the Oval Office just to see her and her supporters taken down a few notches. Almost.

astralis
06 Jun 17,, 18:26
joe,


But it's almost worth having Cheeto Benito in the Oval Office just to see her and her supporters taken down a few notches

man, if you think HRC supporters are annoying, i gotta wonder if you've had the distinct...pleasure of meeting Sanders supporters, lol.

TopHatter
06 Jun 17,, 19:44
joe,
man, if you think HRC supporters are annoying, i gotta wonder if you've had the distinct...pleasure of meeting Sanders supporters, lol.

Oh I have indeed. I'm actually rather shocked at their relative non-reaction to the DNC conspiracy to keep Bernie off the ticket in favor of the latest Chosen One.

Bigfella
07 Jun 17,, 12:07
Oh I have indeed. I'm actually rather shocked at their relative non-reaction to the DNC conspiracy to keep Bernie off the ticket in favor of the latest Chosen One.

Even the hard core Sanders supporters (which seems to be most of them) face a rather awkward math problem - Hilary crushed Bernie in the Primaries. It wasn't even close at any point. I've dealt with rather a lot of them, including friends. Whenever I push them to explain why he lost by so very many votes it goes like this:

mumble mumble....superdelegates....mumble mumble...establishment....mumble mumble....debate scheduling....mumble mumble....media bias....mumble mumble....vote rigging.....

Apparently the DNC was supposed to change the rules of the Primaries part way through to allow more non-Democrats to vote for Sanders...or something. At heart Sanders voters don't really want the responsibility of winning. They prefer the romance of glorious defeat at the hands of an evil system. That way they get to stay pure.

If Clinton had run as good a campaign against Trump she'd be in the White House.

TopHatter
07 Jun 17,, 14:41
Even the hard core Sanders supporters (which seems to be most of them) face a rather awkward math problem - Hilary crushed Bernie in the Primaries. It wasn't even close at any point. I've dealt with rather a lot of them, including friends. Whenever I push them to explain why he lost by so very many votes it goes like this:

mumble mumble....superdelegates....mumble mumble...establishment....mumble mumble....debate scheduling....mumble mumble....media bias....mumble mumble....vote rigging.....

Funny thing is, I never considered Bernie Sanders to be electable. And yet his getting crushed in the Democratic Primary doesn't seem to register on his supporter's radar. How can you win a general election if you're getting your ass kicked in the party primary??


If Clinton had run as good a campaign against Trump she'd be in the White House.

Agreed. She spent too much time in her liberal bastions where she could be patted on the back.

astralis
07 Jun 17,, 15:15
joe,


Agreed. She spent too much time in her liberal bastions where she could be patted on the back.

other way around, actually. she spent too much time and effort trying to run up the score in places like Utah, Arizona, and Georgia-- and as a (potential) result, lost traditional blue states like Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.

this is why she threw the DNC data operation under the bus, because they vectored her to those places as the data analytics said the first two were safe.

of course, the easy rebuttal to all of this is that the HRC campaign DID throw massive resources into Pennsylvania and -still- lost. ultimately, she tried to run an Obama-like campaign but without the charisma or (even more importantly) the direct political messaging of Obama.

TopHatter
07 Jun 17,, 17:23
ultimately, she tried to run an Obama-like campaign but without the charisma or (even more importantly) the direct political messaging of Obama.

I can definitely agree with that. Her message seems to have been limited to "Donald Trump sucks and it's my turn anyway"

Bigfella
08 Jun 17,, 09:34
Funny thing is, I never considered Bernie Sanders to be electable. And yet his getting crushed in the Democratic Primary doesn't seem to register on his supporter's radar. How can you win a general election if you're getting your ass kicked in the party primary??

The most damning thing I read about his primary campaign was that he decided early that he wasn't going to win black voters, so he basically didn't bother. His outreach was so insultingly derisory that it hurt him. So did his comments about the type of people voting for Hilary. It is a marker of the extent to which Sanders supporters neither understood nor cared about the process that they rage about conspiracies while embracing a guy who burned the most reliable part of the Democratic base. My favorite response to the hard core Berniebots is simply to point out that his best chance of winning would have been an 'whites only' vote. They really don't like that. :-D

I'm still not sure how he would have gone against Trump. He might well have carried the rust belt states Clinton lost, but I'm not sure if he would have carried all the states he needed. Clinton handled him with kid gloves on account of the tantrum prone nature of his base (millions still sulked & voted Green or sat it out). Trump, on the other hand, had it all hanging out during the Priimaries. Bernie has enough political skeletons in the closet to start an anatomy museum. That doesn't matter to the 'history began when we invaded Iraq' crowd who hero worship him, but I'm not sure how it would have played to a post-pubescent electorate.

GVChamp
08 Jun 17,, 15:19
Seems to me like Bernie was largely successful in his primary goal of turning the Democratic Party into Socialist-Lite, so he's clearly more politically successful than anyone on this particular forum....

I don't think he ever seriously expected to win.

troung
10 Jun 17,, 13:34
http://www.richmond.com/opinion/their-opinion/guest-columnists/andrew-malcolm-column-the-sad-spectacle-of-hillary-clinton-s/article_05289490-ec7e-55cd-89bd-ca88fcbc648d.html

The sad spectacle of Hillary Clinton’s slow-motion breakdown
By Andrew Malcolm 8 hrs ago

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke Monday in Baltimore at a fundraiser for the Elijah Cummings Youth Program in Israel.
Hillary Clinton seems to have launched yet another political campaign, one to convince Americans they absolutely did the right thing by not electing her president.

Which is not to say the campaign winner has been ideal.

But Clinton’s ongoing public struggle with herself is alienating even supporters and it’s crippling the required remodeling and rejuvenation of her aged Democratic Party, which needs a long rehab at some political spa.

The only thing Democrats have going for them right now is an undisciplined president and Republican disunity.

There’s no end in sight for her self-imposed scab-picking; Clinton has not one but two books coming out this fall that will put her on stage after stage across the country with obsequious hosts feeding the Clinton ego with continuous curiosity about her thoughts and doings. Oh, and how in the world could Donald Trump have won?

At some point you’d think a remorseless Clinton might run out of people, countries and conspiracies to blame for that historic upset in November. It was truly a devastating loss, perhaps the most shocking since Tom Dewey’s unanticipated flop in 1948. It’s understandable, if ominous, that the wannabe commander-in-chief was shattered and unable to appear election night.

In fact, that’s one of the reasons Clinton cites for losing. Not Dewey, but the expectation that the immense campaign she’d planned for so many years would indeed succeed. She lost, she explains, as “the victim of a very broad assumption that I was going to win.” Say what?

She lost because “for whatever reason” FBI Director James Comey reopened the investigation into her email scandal just before the election. She lost because of the Russians. You know, the people she helped gain control of 20 percent of U.S. uranium, the folks who paid her husband a small fortune for one speech.

She lost because of American misogyny. She lost because of big money, even though hers was by far the biggest money. And she got pretty big bucks for her closed Wall Street speeches.

She lost because of the media. She lost because Americans do not like giving a third straight White House term to the same party, even though they did in 1988 and — oh, look — in 1948, the fifth straight Democratic term in the White House.


And she lost because the Democratic National Committee, the happily hackable crowd that was quietly subverting the primary campaign of her party competitor Sen. Bernie Sanders, was useless and bankrupt.

She actually lost because of a quarter-century of political baggage and scandals. But she doesn’t say that because it’s the truth. She lost because even after all this ambition-fueled plotting, no one on her staff would hand her a rationale for why she should be president. But she doesn’t say that because, shouldn’t the candidate herself have an inkling about that?

She lost because of that darned Comey investigation. But wait! He’d have nothing to investigate if she herself hadn’t ignored official warnings and constructed an illicit, unsecured private email server to dodge public transparency during her government service. There, Clinton and aides were wheeling and dealing favors for Clinton Foundation donors and sharing national security secrets like teen girls texting prom gossip.

The 69-year-old lost because despite years of practice, she was just a terrible, maladroit campaigner who could not stop coughing and collapsed on national TV.

American voters don’t always pay attention to politics. There’s so much other news of little consequence to consume. But when they do, they can smell insincerity through a TV screen. “I take responsibility for everything I got wrong,” Clinton proclaimed last week in her best bid at introspection. “But that’s not why I lost.”

Andrew Malcolm is an author and veteran national and foreign correspondent covering politics since the 1960s. Follow him on Twitter: @AHMalcolm.

© 2017, McClatchy Washington Bureau

,......

troung
10 Jun 17,, 13:39
TWITTER ERUPTS OVER NEWS THAT HILLARY CLINTON USED BLACK PRISON LABOR WHILE FIRST LADY OF ARKANSAS
BY MIRREN GIDDA ON 6/7/17 AT 8:18 AM

Twitter users have reacted with surprise and fury over excerpts from Hillary Clinton’s 1996 book It Takes A Village. On June 6, Jeanette Jing, an activist with over 33,000 followers on Twitter who supports Clinton's Democratic opponent Sen. Bernie Sanders, shared two pages of the work in which Clinton reminisces about the black prisoners who worked in the Arkansas governor’s mansion she shared with her husband, Bill Clinton, who led the state from 1979 to 1981 and 1983 to 1992.

“When we moved in, I was told that using prison labor at the governor’s mansion was a longstanding tradition, which kept down costs,” Clinton writes. She adds that most of the workers were convicted murderers and she became friendly with “a few of them, African-American men in their thirties who had already served 12 to 18 years of their sentences.”

Despite her alleged friendships with these men, Clinton tells her readers: “We enforced rules strictly and sent back to prison any inmate who broke a rule.” Despite having no psychological qualifications, she later asserts that these men did not have “inferior IQs or an inability to apply moral reasoning” but instead they may have been “emotional illiterates.”

Clinton makes no mention of whether the men received any money for working for her and her husband. A 2016 article from Mother Jones notes that when it comes to prison labor, “some state states, including Texas, Arkansas, and Georgia, do not pay inmates at all.” On Twitter, Jing wrote that “Hillary Clinton was a direct participant in what @samswey correctly described as modern slavery.”

Jing, who also refers to a June 5 Twitter conversation about the Clintons’ use of prison labor from Samuel Sinyangwe, an activist, data scientist and policy analyst. In a string of tweets, Sinyangwe talks about his experience of visiting the Louisiana state legislature and finding black prisoners serving white lawmakers for free. Sinyangwe adds that the state has the world’s highest incarceration rate, with black people making up 66 percent of the prison population. By comparison, black people make up 32 percent of Louisiana’s total population.

He goes on to note that prisoners working in the state legislature are serving people who support laws that “make Louisiana the hardest state to hold police accountable within.” Like in Arkansas, Sinyangwe adds, some of Louisiana’s prisoners work at the governor’s mansion.

In her book, Clinton tried to soften the reality of unpaid black men serving a wealthy white woman. But, 1996, the year her book came out, was also the year she made a speech in New Hampshire in support of her husband’s controversial 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act.

Of the legislation, which critics say ramped up mass incarceration and disproportionately affected African-Americans, Clinton said: “We also have to have an organized effort against gangs. They are often the kinds of kids that are called superpredators—no conscience, no empathy. We can talk about why they ended up that way, but first, we have to bring them to heel.” (Clinton has since apologized for using the term and admitted parts of the 1994 bill were a mistake.)

The resurfacing of her book’s extract has dragged Clinton’s record on racial equality into the spotlight. Despite her reaching out to the black community during her 2008 and 2016 bids for the presidency, she actively supported and lobbied for her husband while more and more black people were sent to prison. Though Toni Morrison named Bill Clinton the country’s “first black president,” under his watch there was an 100:1 gram-to-gram sentencing disparity between people imprisoned for powdered cocaine possession and those imprisoned for crack cocaine. (At the time, a crack epidemic was sweeping America’s black community.)


In response to Jing’s tweets, Clinton’s supporters say she would still have been a better choice for president than Donald Trump. In 1973, the Justice Department sued Trump and his father for discriminating against potential tenants who were black. In 1989, ahead of the trial of the Central Park Five—a group of African-American men who were wrongfully accused of brutally assaulting a white woman— Trump took out an advert in the New York Times calling on the state to bring back the death penalty. “Muggers and murderers,” he wrote, “should be forced to suffer and, when they kill, they should be executed for their crimes.”

Trump has also distanced himself from his past. He promised to send more people to prison to protect minority communities without acknowledging the huge racial disparities in the prison system or the need for police reform.

On Twitter, Sinyangwe concludes : “2016 was a choice between a white woman benefiting from black prison labor and a white man campaigning on sending black people to prison.”,....

http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-prison-labor-african-americans-arkansas-622209

GVChamp
12 Jun 17,, 15:41
In her book, Clinton tried to soften the reality of unpaid black men serving a wealthy white woman
It's prison labor. There's nothing to criticize Hillary for.

DOR
13 Jun 17,, 10:30
HRC’s problem was her organization, not her politics, policies or personality.
She won the most votes, therefore her politics, policies and personality were deemed to be more attractive than those of her opponents.


HRC’s mistake was that she relied on the campaign professionals to get her sufficient votes in the states she needed to win in order to get the majority of the electoral college votes.
Those professional advisers failed to do the job they were hired to do.


HRC’s fault was having hired those advisers, and listened to them.


That is all.

Bigfella
13 Jun 17,, 10:39
Its not all DOR, though its a fair bit of it.

She is a poor campaigner. She frequently looks unconvinced and unconvincing. She has the stink of the professional politician about her far too much. For all her ability she can't overcome her negatives. Look at who she lost to. It wasn't just a technical glitch.

I didn't want her to run because she has too much damned baggage an was so obviously going to scare any alternative talent out of the primaries. In the end the Dems left themselves with two bad options. Unfortunately both of those options continue to meddle rather than retiring and leaving it to others.

DOR
14 Jun 17,, 10:38
Its not all DOR, though its a fair bit of it.

She is a poor campaigner. She frequently looks unconvinced and unconvincing. She has the stink of the professional politician about her far too much. For all her ability she can't overcome her negatives. Look at who she lost to. It wasn't just a technical glitch.

I didn't want her to run because she has too much damned baggage an was so obviously going to scare any alternative talent out of the primaries. In the end the Dems left themselves with two bad options. Unfortunately both of those options continue to meddle rather than retiring and leaving it to others.


Bigfella,

HRC’s a poor campaigner? Unconvinced and unconvincing? Too much baggage?
Really?

Three million extra votes says she was the best campaigner, the most convincing candidate and the one more people preferred.

Now, if you want to think about why we’re in the mess we’re in, refer to my post #25 above.

Bigfella
14 Jun 17,, 11:11
Bigfella,

HRC’s a poor campaigner? Unconvinced and unconvincing? Too much baggage?
Really?

Three million extra votes says she was the best campaigner, the most convincing candidate and the one more people preferred.

Now, if you want to think about why we’re in the mess we’re in, refer to my post #25 above.

Losing the electoral college despite getting 3 million more votes tells me she was a crap campaigner. Simply blaming her campaign team doesn't cut it. She ran against the most manifestly unqualified candidate since.....OK, I'll need to do a ton of research there....possibly in over a century. In other words, it shouldn't have been close. She should have won with a big cushion.

Instead she lost states Democrats should carry in their sleep. She bled working class voters to a man who has an appalling labor history - Trump picked up over 40% of union voters. She bled Hispanic voters to a man who demonized them - Trump got 29% of the Hispanic vote. I'll say that again - 29% of the Hispanic vote to Mr 'Mexico border wall/murders and rapists'. She lost middle income voters and independent voters outright. She won black voters by the usual margin, but their numbers were down. And all of this against Donald fucking Trump.

Sorry, that isn't just an 'oops, my campaign people were crap'. Romney gets that excuse, though it wouldn't have changed the result. That is deep, long term problems. That is people looking for excuses NOT to vote for you. Don't kid yourself.

I get how well qualified she was and I think she would be doing a good job. I also think her choice to run was selfish and the price for that is now being paid. Perhaps an alternative candidate would have lost anyway (I think Sanders would have), but l reckon anyone not trailing a lifetime of baggage and with a shred of personal charisma would have made it. The GOP handed the election to the Dems on a place and the Dems blew it.

DOR
14 Jun 17,, 14:44
Just for the sake of argument, assume these are the main ingredients to a POTUS campaign:

Candidate
Policy positions
Base
Personality
Money
Voter turnout
Opponent
Campaign team

Now, from that list – and please, add to it if you wish – identify which key ingredient didn’t perform up to par.


Candidate? Count the votes.
Policy positions? ditto
Base? ditto
Personality? ditto
Money? Seriously?
Voter turnout? Good numbers
Opponent? Let's not even go there.
Campaign team? Ah, the penny drops. Too much emphasis on the wrong places, not enough on the ones that had to be won.

Albany Rifles
14 Jun 17,, 15:09
DOR,

BigFella's right. She ran a bad campaign. She was the candidate. It was her fault, regardless of the staff.

Big issues:

She has always appeared stiff, especially when compared to Bill & Obama. Her attempts to overcome that were unconvincing at best.

She concurred and went with the plan to ignore the Heartland. As has been said, 3 million votes don't mean squat when you get your clock cleaned in the EC.

She made the same mistake Al Gore did...she made poor use of her best asset, Bill. If Gore had Bill campaign in TN & WV in 2000 it would have been a much different outcome.

Never mind her horrible judgement regarding the entire e-mail server business. She handled that entire mess horribly. She allowed the conditions to exist which allowed any possible 11th hour disclosures. I thought she handled the Benghazi hearings well. She should have insisted on the same for server. A bruising last June or July could be overcome. Obviously, a last minute disclosure by the FBI could not.

surfgun
13 Nov 17,, 00:16
MSNBC reporter Chris Hayes admits it may be time for Democrats to reassess their position on Bill Clinton sexual misconduct.
http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/11/11/msnbc-anchor-admits-democrats-need-a-reckoning-over-bill-clintons-sexual-harassment