Hillary Clinton is an extremely intelligent and compassionate woman. She delivered an award-winning speech on women's rights to a major U.N. organization. Some say it was Hillary, not Bill, who'd have made the better President. It is heart-breaking to see all the dislike directed against her by rational Americans. Part of it is misogyny; part of it is the lies repeated over and over and over and over by right-wing haters: After a while, even rational people start assuming "there must be something to it." (And part of the problem is that Hillary wasn't an experienced politician, i.e. experienced liar.)
As just one example, consider the Iraq War Authorization for which Senator Hillary voted Yea. She delivered a powerful speech on the floor of the Senate, explaining why — If the Bush-Cheney Administration truly were good-spirited rather than hypocritical liars — her vote was the way to
avoid war. Yet all one ever hears is "The Witch of Benghazi voted for the Iraq War; Natter natter blah-blah." These people aren't even aware of her speech, and certainly never read it. Joe Biden voted for the same Authorization but nobody cares about that.
It is truly a huge shame the way Americans have treated Hillary Clinton. (She even gets more heat for Monica's blow-jobs than Bill got!) ... And it should be a warning: In 2024 Biden will be too old and the Veep, whatever her qualities, lacks the most important qualification for American Potus: a penis.
It was apparent right then that lots of the Bernies weren't going to EVER vote for Clinton, so when she won the nomination I was fairly certain it was over.
Bernie Bros too stupid to vote for Hillary are beneath contempt. And adopting the tactic of Mafia protection racketeers ("Do you love your children? Vote for Bernie if you don't want us to hurt them") makes the pretense that Sanderistas seek an ethical society laughable.
I think you completely missed the point. The issue was not whether Clinton's chance for victory was 90% or just 60%. (And anyone who assumed that chance was 99+% wasn't studying the polls.) Clinton should have operated to optimize her success probability regardless of whether that increased her chance from 90% to 92% or from 60% to 62%. Only the tipping states mattered. If those Rust Belt tipping states were really "in her pocket" that meant she was going to win easily, and it wouldn't matter where she campaigned.
When playing a game like contract bridge when success seems very likely, you identify what bad breaks are possible and play to cater for that scenario, however unlikely. Similarly the Clinton campaign should have taken the "safety play."
I caucused for Bernie in '16. At the caucus, Clinton took the most votes. But that wasn't what discouraged me. What really told me the cause was lost was that the caucus tables for Clinton were populated by suits, and heavily made-up, jewelry-wearing Karens. The Bernie tables featured lots of hair, beards and granny dresses. It was apparent right then that lots of the Bernies weren't going to EVER vote for Clinton, so when she won the nomination I was fairly certain it was over.
Wow.
I'm a lot more like the hippy chick than the ladies who lunch and always have been. Fuck, my husband is that guy who's worn a beard since the 70's when it allowed him to buy beer underage. We're definitely not Sanders people. Our kids, including one former frat boy/lawyer who loves his suits is definitely in the Bernie camp. The crunchier among them, the less they were inclined to vote Sanders.
I would have voted for Sanders over Trump but it would have involved an awful lot of nose holding. And that's the difference between most Clinton and most Sanders voters. Clinton voters would have sucked it up and jumped on that train. Sanders voters are still talking trash about Hillary.
I approve of Toni's post.
See? That Godzillary comment is exactly the misogyny that lost Clinton the election.
Misogyny?
I had similar terms to refer to Mr. Clinton. My usual was Slick Willy. Does that make me a misandrist?
Sorry. What I'm seeing in your post is gender bigotry.
Woke gender bigotry.
Tom
What you're seeing is someone, a woman, in fact, who has faced bigotry directed against all females, every single day of her life. The name calling, the implication that if one didn't like the proscribed 'girl' things that she wasn't a real girl, that it wasn't ok to be smart--or if you were, you should definitely not let the boys or men know. Same thing with sports. The slurs I heard directed at girls who were good athletes were definitely worse than the slurs I heard directed against boys who were obviously and effeminately gay. Nobody lynches uppity women but they sure do get a lot of rape threats. Not always just threats. And by uppity, I mean being good at something that some insecure male likes to do.
So, yeah, I'm a bit touchy about smart women who dare to be also outspoken and worse, powerful on their own referred to as monsters. Bill, at least, earned the Slick Willy nomer, with his "it depends on what is means..." crap.
And this one.
Not really, as Bernie would have turned off a lot of moderates.
Polls — whether nationwide or in the critical Rust Belt states — agreed with Derec that Sanders would have gotten fewer votes in the November election than Clinton got. Yet Bernie Bros — so eager to repeat every little factoid that supports their view — ignore polls that don't fit their narrative.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Speaking of the 2016 election: In the summer of 2016, while I still thought Clinton victory was probable,
it was obvious to me that the election was going to be very close, and that Biden would be a stronger candidate than Clinton. It would have been possible (especially if Hillary cooperated) for the Party to "switch horses," the earlier the better. Not having the ears of major D.C. politicos, I posted this opinion at The.Other.Message.Board. (The response was exclusively "Nanner nanner nanner, Swammi doesn't know how primaries work.")
Later it was revealed that the Chairwoman (or such) of the DNC had the same idea as I.
