No, Hillary shouldn’t just shut up

Hillary Clinton’s new book criticizes Bernie Sanders, and has reignited a controversy over progressive unity, women’s rights, and whether the two are mutually exclusive.

I expressed the concern that, regardless of whether Hillary’s criticism of Bernie in the book was right, taking shots at Bernie now risked reigniting a Democrat civil war.

And, I argued, the last thing progressive need right now is fighting each other instead of Donald Trump.

A number of women who voted for Hillary argued that sexism played a huge role in Hillary’s loss, the issue had to be discussed, and asking Hillary to put it off was sexist. Many of them also called me sexist and racist (yes) for suggesting the Bernie criticism was ill-timed.

They argued that sexism played a huge role in Hillary’s loss, the issue had to be discussed, and asking Hillary to put it off was sexist.

As a longtime Hillary supporter, who has criticized Bernie a LOT for being divisive, I feel justified in holding Hillary to same standard,

I was also told that as a white man, I have no right to offer a political opinion on anything Hillary does.

Are Hillary’s critics demanding that women “shut up,” and is Hillary being silenced in the face of legitimate grievances about how she was treated in the 2016 election? Or has the Oppression Olympics on the left gone too far?

Cliff Schecter and I discuss all of this in our latest podcast. (Sasha the wonder-dog, who also refuses to be silenced, makes a cameo appearance.)

You can listen to a snippet of our podcast here. And to hear the entire episode, subscribe on Patreon.

red-donateWith the election of Donald Trump, AMERICAblog’s independent journalism and activism is more needed than ever.

Please support my work with a $25 donation. We don’t make much on advertising, we need your support to continue our work. Thanks.

And buy a t-shirt and support our work:

Get your Mar-a-Lago t-shirt! All proceeds benefit AMERICAblog’s Resistance work.

Follow me on Twitter & Facebook:

Follow me on Twitter: @aravosis | @americablog | @americabloggay | Facebook | Instagram | Google+ | LinkedIn. John Aravosis is the Executive Editor of AMERICAblog, which he founded in 2004. He has a joint law degree (JD) and masters in Foreign Service from Georgetown; and has worked in the US Senate, World Bank, Children's Defense Fund, the United Nations Development Programme, and as a stringer for the Economist. He is a frequent TV pundit, having appeared on the O'Reilly Factor, Hardball, World News Tonight, Nightline, AM Joy & Reliable Sources, among others. John lives in Washington, DC. .

Share This Post

91 Responses to “No, Hillary shouldn’t just shut up”

  1. Bill_Perdue says:

    Clinton lost becasue she’s indistinguishable from Trump, just as all Democrats are indistinguishable from Republicans.

    Both Democrats and Republicans are right centrists and both support wars of aggression, poverty wages for workers and they still oppose ENDA, the federal prosecution of mad dog racist murdering cops and free immigration and union organizing. Both oppose socialized medicine.

    Next year vote left – socialist or labor – or just ignore the whole charade. Nothing will change no matter who you vote for.

  2. Dom Saunders says:

    Yes, true, it topped Amazon charts. And it birthed a whole new category of memes for how simple and basic it was:

    Now who was the one who made a recent record-setting book deal for $60 million this year? Was it Clinton? Oh, wait, no it wasn’t. It was Obama, the one who actually won the presidency TWICE, whereas what does Clinton have to show with her book other than whining about her loss? And speaking of books, whose first week sales for their other books managed to flag behind not only Obama’s sales but even Sarah Palin of all people? “Stronger Together” flopped hard and her other books have also been underwhelming. I won’t deny her success with this book though, if it really is topping the charts, but let’s see how long that lasts, because last I checked, it isn’t exactly breaking any records, meaning that once again, Clinton will flop, fail, and fall behind Obama for yet another time.

  3. Dreamers_lol says:

    Ya we don’t live in one like that, so tfb

  4. downtownla says:

    Yeah, I served on the Board of Equality CA PAC, I know how we got marriage equality. We got it by advocating it in states like MA and IA where we strategically understood the best route to build consensus. My point is that the DC insiders – politicians and advocacy groups – were all saying “it’s too early to push for it. Let’s settle for civil unions first.” Thankfully, we did not listen to these cautious voices who frankly often have the privilege to advocate a slower pace to change. Once we were able to secure it in enough state, the sense of inevitability gave us momentum and we were able to achieve something that seemed impossible just ten years earlier. I believe the same is going on with Medicare for All right now. You have the people in America hungering and dying for a system that removes profit from health care. The DC insiders are telling people to wait. “We don’t have the votes. America will never go for it.” Well, guess what, you have to start demanding these things now. And we may not get it the first few tries, but eventually, we will. Just don’t tell us to stop fighting for what is right just because you don’t think it’s achievable.

  5. Badgerite says:

    Neither is Russia. Russia literally controlled Eastern Europe after WWII by having tanks roll in and suppress any kind of popular moves toward a more liberal western democracy that might actually have the balls to raise its head up. Immediately after WWII they are credited with throwing Jan Masaryk, a Czech advocate for democracy from a window to his death. (Russian methods haven’t actually changed that much, have they?) The Warsaw ‘Pact’ wasn’t actually a pact. It was a sphere of influence, such as a colonial sphere of influence that Stalin established and the Soviet ‘union’ maintained by military force. Churchill, in his famous speech, referred to this as the Iron Curtain that descended over Eastern Europe and smothered all local, sovereign control. After WWII, those countries just traded one occupier for another and just as brutal. Berlin, which had been divided into Soviet controlled (East Berlin) and western controlled (West Berlin) was in 1948-49 cut off from provisions by the Soviets so that the west had to mount the Berlin Airlift to make sure the people of West Berlin would be able to receive the provisions they needed to live. This was literally a siege conducted by Russia to make West Berlin, which was located in the Soviet controlled portion of Germany, succumb to the conditions of colonial control that had been inflicted on the rest of East Germany.
    In 1961, the Soviet response to East Berliners fleeing to West Berlin was to build a wall and a no man’s land where anyone trying to flee their control was shot and killed. They like walls almost as much as trump does. (In 1989 the hated wall was brought down by the people when German guards refused to fire on their own people. A wave of independence swept Eastern Europe and the Warsaw ‘pact’ without Russian tanks and military to enforce it, crumbled.) Soviet invasions to suppress any movement toward independence or democracy ended with Russian tanks rolling in in 1956 in Hungary, 1968 in Czechoslavakia and in 1981 in Poland. Nikita Khrushchev, in 1956 gave a speech to western diplomats at the Soviet embassy in Poland where he literally told them “We will bury you.” International Communism was simply a guise, a cover to give some kind of economic justification to what was in essence, a brutal Russian imperialism, as in “We are not really imperialist looking to enhance nationalistic aspirations of global power, we are actually suppressing your human rights for the good of your ‘working class’.” This, of course, was total crap. The 1981 invasion of Poland was precisely to suppress the movement of unionism and worker’s rights that Solidarity and Lech Walesa represented. A dictatorship, is a dictatorship, is a dictatorship. To call it a “dictatorship of the proletariat” is simply a dishonest ruse. In 1981, Bulgarian intelligence ( see Soviet controlled) are credited with involvement in an attempt to kill Pope John Paul II who was Polish and had been a symbol of resistance to in to Russian imperialism in Poland, Eastern Europe and the world.
    In response to this, the United States, its State Department, Intelligence Services and Department of Defense (otherwise known as the ‘military industrial complex’) adopted a policy of seeking to contain Russian attempts to spread this particular form of authoritarian government subservient to the Kremlin and hostile to western interests (see “We will bury you”). And this policy of containment involved a lot of policy choices that in hindsight were mistaken and in actual fact amounted to a betrayal of those very values that it sought to strengthen in the world. In Chile. In Iran.
    In Vietnam. With client states such as Indonesia. In Latin America.
    In South Africa for a time. In essence this was the product of the “fight fire with fire” argument which is still around and could be credited with the abuses we now associate with the WOT that the Bush/ Darth Cheney administration engaged in. Nixon, in particular, did not believe that democracy could withstand the tactics of subversion that the Russians routinely engaged without “going to the dark side” , as Cheney referred to it. But this is hardly some kind of justification for Putin and the FSB attempting to hack American and European democratic elections as a means of furthering corrupt, authoritarian, and criminal interests in Russia at the expense of trust in and reliance on concepts of representative governance and human rights in the west. This is a pathetic attempt to cover up the fact that Russia cannot provide to its people what the United States has and still does. So it seeks to go outward and corrupt that which is threatening to its own power structure. In order to sell this abroad Putin has simply traded out the old economic arguments of being on the side of the ‘proletariat’ working person and substituted rationale to further Russian imperialism on the international stage and especially in Europe which attempts to capitalize on those elements in all countries that are afraid of a changing world and want to put up ‘walls’ to somehow stop change from happening. Changes that involve freer societies and human rights. They offer a prospect of authoritarian government and practices as a means of stopping these changes. To put a tag on it, you could call it what Putin does which is ‘traditional values’. Putin has no interest in ‘traditional values’ any more than trump does. He has an interest in power.
    And that is what Russia is doing on the world stage now. They are a corruption riven society that is looking to spread its power through a lie, as per usual. The United States, its past mistaken choices notwithstanding, still stands for something in the world. Something that can best be exemplified by the Statute of Liberty, the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence. Russia does not. It stands for authoritarian control by corrupt and oft times criminal elements in government.

  6. percysowner says:

    You mean the book that’s already Number 1 on Amazon? THAT’S the book that NOBODY will read?

    Amazon Best Sellers Rank:

    #1 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

    in Books > Biographies & Memoirs > Leaders & Notable People > Political

    in Books > Biographies & Memoirs > Specific Groups > Women

    in Books > Politics & Social Sciences > Politics & Government > Specific Topics > Civics & Citizenship

  7. 2patricius2 says:

    Were we a county in which every vote counts, rather than every electoral vote counts, Hillary Clinton would have won the election easily, with almost 3 million more votes than Drumpf. The voters chose her over Drumpf by a big margin. She has every right to speak out about the election and about anything else she wants to.

  8. Dom Saunders says:

    Phony how? I literally just cited a post from Washington Post that proved that I was telling the truth. You can say what you think all you want, but I’m going to say what I know. What you thought is irrelevant because it’s not a fact. And what I said was not only correct, it checked your claim and made you out to look dumb. So accept that you were wrong and get over it. The US has interfered in foreign elections for literally decades. For us to act as if it’s so exceptional when the same happens to us is hypocritical and laughable. That last part is my personal opinion, granted. But that doesn’t change the fact we’re no innocent either in that regard.

  9. Badgerite says:

    Yes, you are. I don’t get the gif. Yes, you are unauthentic. As in phony.
    I say what I think. This is not “testing” anyone. It is what I think.
    And you talk stupid.

  10. Dom Saunders says:

    The Long History of the US Interfering in Elections Elsewhere

    Am I “unauthentic” now?

    Don’t try me, because I will bring receipts. And unlike most people here, mine are actually vetted and valid.

  11. Badgerite says:

    Well, we don’t “do this all the time” for one and you sound, what would be the word, unauthentic.

  12. keirmeister says:

    Just a point of order: You didn’t get marriage equality from congress VOTING for it. Had that been the case, it would have NEVER happened.

    No…it was the Supreme Court. And guess what? You need Democrats in the White House to keep right-wingers away from the courts. But that’s dead now too.

  13. Houndentenor says:

    At least I remember Liberman (although it’s not very positive). I’d forgotten about Tim Kaine and can hardly remember what he looks like. it was only last year! I have no idea what she was thinking with that pick.


    Well, you got the idiot part right anyway.


    If you believe that person voted for her — I’ve got some land to sell you.


    Thank you. You said what I was thinking. The Bernie Bros and Russian Bots are out in force today.

  17. Dom Saunders says:

    Goodness forbid I don’t know every leftist white man in history. I have a life and other matters I’m more concerned with, you know. I couldn’t care less about West or what he stands for. And you’re missing the point. Sarandon is just part of the problem. If you put Trump and GOP in power, you have no right to complain about what he chooses to do. As for the “Crooked” propaganda crap Hillary faced, you don’t need to tell me that. I ended up in a comment thread for leftists last night and I have to block everyone there because they are convinced she has literal blood on her hands even though she’s been investigated more than people more directly responsible for wars that cost people their lives, like Bush the Lesser or Tony Blair. I don’t see anyone calling for their heads.

    Only thing I can really agree with you on is that, yes, this wasn’t a normal election. However, it just wasn’t a normal election for us. We’ve regularly engaged (i.e. interfered) in other countries’ elections in the past so honestly, I’m not even mad about Russia doing this to us. You get what you give and for us to cry about our democracy being interfered with is rich when we do the same to other countries literally all of the time. This was a lesson we needed to learn the hard way because clearly common sense didn’t prevail: don’t mess with other countries’ elections because we may not like the results.

  18. Badgerite says:

    I’m not mad and Susan Sarandon had pretty much nothing to do with the central point of my comment which was that this was not a normal election and I don’t think the cause and effect part can be analyzed as if it were. We know that a digital disinformation and propaganda operation against Clinton was mounted by Putin and the FSB. We know the trump campaign and probably the GOP in general colluded with this illegal activity. We have no idea if the vote totals were altered or not but it is certainly a possibility.
    Cornell West? Seriously, you don’t know who Cornell West is?
    “Cornell Ronald West (born June 2,1953) is an American philosopher, political activist, social critic, author, public intellectual, and prominent member of the Democratic Socialists of America. West is an .
    outspoken voice in American leftist politics, and as such has been critical of many center-left figures, including President Barack Obama and Secretary of State and 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hilary Clinton. He has held professorships at Harvard University, Princeton University, Yale University, Union Theological Seminary, and the University of Paris during his career. ……..Among his most influential books are Race Matters (1994) and Democracy Matters (2004).” So, you can see why I would expect more of him than to fall for the transparent hokum of Jill Stein.

  19. brel1 says:

    Anything that keeps the topic of why Trump is an illegitimate president is worth talking and writing about. Get it, you hate her but you voted for her any how, now you want her to shut the f up. Well too bad she needs to write more books and keep talking because blaming it on her is just a lame “we’re still mad that Bern didn’t win” talking point. She didn’t lose, it was stolen from her, so quit blaming her. She needs to keep reminding people of that.

  20. downtownla says:

    I credit the grassroots activists and everyday LGBT Americans for the early success we had. Unlike other progressive communities and causes, we held Obama’s feet to the fire, threatening to withhold funding and support until we were sure he would follow through on his campaign promises. (I think it’s because we had seen how he had backpedaled a bit on marriage equality.) If other communities had taken a tougher stance, too, maybe we would have gotten better immigration, trade, and environmental policies. The lesson is just because we support the Democrats doesn’t mean we should give them a free pass or be afraid to criticize them. As for my general take, I think there are two Americas, as there always has been. There is a globalist vision which is more multicultural and looks the future and a nativist one which looks to the past and is more homogenous. Obama was able to bring out our side in 2008. Hillary was not. (I think her biggest blunder was nominating Tim Kaine to be her VP. Not only did it not excite young voters of color, but it cemented her image as the establishment.) As for white voters not being able to figure out which party is better for them, I think that’s because the centrist Democrats have never offered them a strong defense for good government or explained how the two parties are fundamentally different. Instead of defending the left, they consistently bash the progressives and liberals to prove that aren’t commie pinkos. If these centrists would just move out of the way, maybe the progressives could tell the American public why they should be supporting more progressive legislation. Thanks for listening and engaging respectfully.

  21. downtownla says:

    Have a nice day.

  22. lynchie says:

    Agree. I almost think that Hillary has been doing this for 30 odd years and figured everyone knew where she stood. Well guess what. People are busy, both spouses work, take their kids to soccer, hockey, whatever, have a mortgage, worry if they are going to be the next one laid off at 55 with no hope of a real job because they are too old, don’t really understand global economics, why the rich seem to get richer and they are stagnant, can’t find a way to afford sending their kids to college, have wave after wave of lies from politicians washing over them, see no attempt at dealing with our failing bridges and roads and in the end hear very little from the dems that solves any of that. You are right on about the computer site. It is like people I used to work with so excited they put together a power point but failed to see if it had content and when presented read every line.
    In western pa. we had no lawn signs (told they didn’t work), no town halls except in Pittsburgh, no access to Hillary cause she never came and the local candidate had flashy tv ads but no substance. After signing up to help I got an average of 10 requests for money a day.
    People just tuned out and said “fuck it” no one is listening, no one cares and they said Hillary’s drive to be first female president is great but what about the things that concern me. Well we also know Trump lied through his teeth but most average folks didn’t care because he was touching the issues they felt were important.
    Lastly, how could the Dem party run a candidate with higher dislikes, than likes. I don’t think Bernie would have been the answer but, why didn’t Hillary make him VP choice instead of bland, uninteresting, white bread Kaine who brought nothing to the table. He reminded me of Joe Lieberman.

  23. keirmeister says:

    I appreciate the work you’ve done within the party and respect it. But there’s something I don’t understand: Under Obama we got ALOT of change really quickly (at least by historical standards), particularly in the area of LGBT rights, equal pay, health care, consumer protections, immigration policy…and remember, after a certain point, it was with no help from Republicans, yet Republicans were rewarded for their obstruction.

    Remember how Obamacare was so bad it lost us the midterms (or so people said), but now with Republicans running stuff everyone wants it?

    That deep anger and frustration you’re talking about has little to do with actual suffering for change. That’s just a red herring to cover the bigotry and sexism we’ve seen spewing out of this country for the last 10 years. Hell, I’d argue that one of the factor’s contributing to Trump’s victory is that American got alot of change faster than it can handle and white Americans – men and women – chose Trump to slow some of it down.

    If people were hurting so much, why vote in the party causing the pain (or against the remedy)? If people really couldn’t tell the difference between Democrats and Republicans, there would logically be a mix of both parties throughout the country. This clearly isn’t the case.

    In my opinion, Democrat’s biggest sin is that they don’t call out the specific people hurting regular Americans. Republicans love to demonize the left – but they pick a target and focus on that person until their name becomes synonymous with some negative connotation. They play to emotions. Democrats don’t (and Hillary definitely didn’t, I would agree!); but they’re gonna need to learn how to do this effectively if they want to start winning elections again.

    Oh, and to that last point: Democrats need to win elections again. It doesn’t matter for what office, but having your base only really come out every 4 years ain’t gonna cut it. American voters love to vote for winners. Remember how Trump kept using that word and associating it to himself? That’s what got him elected. A con artist knows how people think and uses it against them. Democrats need to rewrite the rules of the game to suit our strengths. But you’re right: it can’t be Republican-lite.

  24. Houndentenor says:

    In hindsight the candidate Democrats should have run last year was Joe Biden. He’s not without flaws either, but he is from PA and would have talked directly to the very voters that it turns out were the most needed for Democrats to win.

    You’re right about the campaigning last year. It’s great to have detailed proposals on the website but that’s not a campaign. You have to connect directly to voters. Democrats trusted on voters rejecting Donald Trump and while a majority of actual voters did, enough in battleground states did not. Most people are not political wonks and aren’t going to read page after page of policy details to figure out the gist of what you are for. You do have to tell them. Bill Clinton understood that but for some reason Democrats keep thinking that people are just going to figure out on their own why people should vote for them. That NEVER happens except in cases like 2006 when Republicans have fucked up so badly that they don’t see much other choice. Even that was only good for two elections and they were back to losing again. They think they can do top down campaigns and that almost never works. Meanwhile the right has been building grassroots organizations. They pay attention to every school board and county commissioner election. There were a couple dozen Congressional districts where Hillary Clinton won and Democrats didn’t even field a serious candidate. (I call a candidate not serious when they don’t even have so much as a facebook page where you can see what their policies are. No yard signs, no nothing.) It’s like that in way too much of the country. I just don’t understand what they think they’re doing. Howard Dean talked about this and they kicked him out on his ass. And here we are. We’d better get our shit together because if we are still fucking up at the state and local level after 2020 we’re looking at another decade of this shit.

  25. TheAngryFag says:

    About Election 2016, yes Hillary should just shut up because the words “I screwed up and it’s all my fault” are not in her vocabulary and they’re the only words that describe why she failed to win the election. Her book regurgitating her version of the events of the election can be summed up in seven words every reality TV star uses when they look like a douche: “I was edited to look that way”.

    Let’s take a look at the strikes against her before she even entered the race:

    1) She was a failed primary candidate from 2008. The US hasn’t elected one of those since 1980 when Ronald Reagan won. Everyone since then from Bob Dole to John McCain to Mitt Romney to Hillary all ran until the got the nomination and went on to lose in the general election. If she wasn’t good enough then what made her so better in 2016?

    2) She was a second Clinton. We got a taste of “dynastic” presidencies with George H Bush and George W Bush. That turns a lot of people off.

    3) Too many skeletons in her closet and a pile of excuses for them rather than honesty and contrition. The e-mail thing for example. She really stepped in it with that one. It’s already established fact that a) her using the server was not illegal at the time and b) that the e-mails that passed through that server were not marked as classified at the time of transmission (the ones that are classified were done so retroactively by an inter-agency review committee of 12 people). All Republicans really had to show for it was their freak show Trey Gowdy’s penchant for making a fool of himself. But the problem was Hillary didn’t really come across as honest. First she danced around the issue a bit offering explanations that differed, invalid comparisons (e.g. Colin Powell’s private ACCOUNT; remember account != server) and whatnot. She never really came forward and said “Yeah, I did this because I could not get a setup I felt would be the best and most efficient for me in my capcity as Secretary of State. In hindsight, while it was legal, it was not a really good idea and I take full responsibility for my poor choice” and then handed the server over IMMEDIATELY to investigators. She then just expected the American public to just write her a blank check of acceptance that she didn’t play any games with the e-mails on the server. She kept hiding behind the fact that she didn’t do anything illegal. She offered defensiveness instead of contrition.

    4) She ignored the lessons of the prior three presidents’ campaigns. This one is interesting considering one was her own husband and a second was the one that sank her in 2008. You don’t win elections based on hard policies. Americans are too stupid to process that kind of stuff for the most part. Why do you think the anti-trans bathroom BS works so well? Because it plays on fear which is probably our most primal emotion. Trump played on those fears excellently. The Democrats are currently failing to learn that lesson too. Other than incumbents, what Democratic candidate really inspired you lately? If not inspired, at least made you feel something? Out of the hundreds that ran, can you count more than 5 or 10?

    5) WAY too much emphasis was placed on her being the potential first woman president this nation has had. It’s as if the fact she was a woman made her invulnerable to criticism or absolved her of past questionable actions/policies/decisions. Some even went so far as to suggest that not voting for her meant you were somehow sexist/misogynistic which sounds like a great reason to elect President Sarah Palin or elect Marine La Pen, a hard-right candidate, the first woman president of France when that nation held its elections earlier this year. Were feminists “with her?” Would they be with Palin?

  26. lynchie says:

    We only had a choice between Bernie and Hillary. Was there no one else? How about Biden? No one else ran because Hillary was being crowned and everyone stepped back to give her room. She lost to the worst candidate ever. Sure the russians were involved, sure trump treated to poorly but she was tone deaf to the reason trump was popular to a large segment. He struck a never while lying his ass off as to what he was going to do.

  27. lynchie says:

    Well the Clintons still control the DNC

  28. lynchie says:

    Were Clinton and Sanders the only two people we as a party could come up with? They were the two most qualified and most electable? I think not. Hillary was presented as someone who we owed the presidency to. In western Pa. there was no grass roots. We had Katy McGinty was wall street and the banks. There little support, no brochures. The only thing her campaign told me was tell people to go to the web site. I asked for something with the web site printed on it and was told to print it on post it notes and pass those out. Yeah, when you think you are the golden child you listen too much to people who don’t know shit.

  29. Moderator4 says:

    Houndentenor, let’s dial back the insults.

  30. lynchie says:

    His voting record is 98% with dems, he was more of a dem that Lieberman.
    How about the vp candidate Kaine. A total blah

  31. Houndentenor says:

    First of all, I don’t regret insulting you because you are an idiot. You can’t even conceive that there’s something between loathing someone and worshipping them. I am not a Clinton fan. I never have been. I did vote for her husband twice for president and I even voted for her once for Senator but I didn’t vote for her in the 2008 primary (mostly because of her iraq War vote) and wasn’t happy at the field in 2016. But I looked at all the candidates on the ballot (even Martin O’Malley who dropped out before my state’s primary) and decided she was the best of what was running. You can disagree with that (many do and that’s why we have primaries and elections). But no, I don’t think Hillary Clinton is a saint. No one can have known her since the early 80s like I have and think that. I do think she’s smart and hard-working, but not a great campaigner. I think she was trying to get something passed back in the 90s and that was a big disaster. Democrats lost both houses of Congress following that debacle for the next 12 years. I think it’s understandable that not everyone was looking to move that far to the left since every time Democrats take even one step towards the left they get clobbered in the next election. The same thing happened after the ACA. No, we wouldn’t be to single payer by now. You have to build that idea from the ground up. The public support has just not been there for that idea. We’ve had 70+ years of fear-mongering about socialized medicine from the right. You are facing a long battle to get that done. Please work for it. I’d like to achieve that. But it’s not going to happen because of wishing it so. Some of us are more realistic than that. I don’t have a problem with people having dreams and far-fetched ideas but don’t piss on those of us who live in the reality of what we can actually accomplish.

  32. downtownla says:

    Stop with the insults. No, I don’t think she could have passed single payer back then, but she should have at least put it on the table. She should have pushed for it back then and when her efforts failed (because Republicans were going to stop anything), then at least we would have a goal that is further to the left. Maybe now, nearly 30 years later, we would have had it. Anyway, this back and forth is fruitless. You obviously like Hillary and think she’s a saint. I think otherwise. No need for personal attacks against each other.

  33. downtownla says:

    Fine, let’s just agree to disagree. However, I don’t think your assessment of me is being fair to me or anyone who dares to criticize the Democratic Party. As a former director of outreach with the DNC, I feel I’ve gleaned enough insight to know that there is something deeply wrong with our party. And despite my misgivings, I still voted for Hillary and donated to the party this past cycle. However, my fear is that you don’t have an understanding of the deep anger and frustration in America right now and how they are desperate for someone to fight for them. Urging caution and baby steps won’t do it. Americans were so pissed off this past cycle they were willing to take a risk on someone they knew was racist and sexist. That’s how bad things are to the American voters. So the next time you urge caution, please think of this quote from Martin Luther King, Jr… “First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can’t agree with your methods of direct action;” who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a “more convenient season.”

  34. Houndentenor says:

    Are you actually claiming that she could have gotten single payer passed in 1993? Are you that stupid or just too young to remember the avalanche that came at her for even trying to get more people insured?

  35. Dom Saunders says:

    Can’t be part of the problem when I still voted for her ass in spite of everything else. Get this block because you’re not going to try to misconstrue me because of your stupid butthurt.

  36. brel1 says:

    Yeah maybe she should have proposed building a bigger wall and and giving all white men a big stimulus package and everyone else a small stimulus package.

  37. brel1 says:

    Well boo hoo.

  38. brel1 says:

    Hillary should have been meaner to Sanders and his pathetic supporters and she should have been a lot meaner to Trump. The mistake she made was trying to be a nice person against the most corrupt and nasty men that ran against her. Almost anyone would have had trouble dealing with the corrupt and psychopath Trump. When Hillary was running against Obama in the primary everyone flipped out when she tried attacking him. But it was okay for Sanders to attack her like the ass hole he is.

  39. brel1 says:

    You are probably one of the reasons she lost. Excuse me, “Sanders and other Dem” HaHa When did Sanders become a Democrat? She has every right to yell and scream. You are not following the real plot here — Why do you think there is Mueller investigating the fart in chief? Keep it up. You are just part of the problem.

  40. keirmeister says:

    You seem to think visionary people always have the correct solution to a problem. Sometimes what’s visionary is pushing for a radical change in the first place – particularly when no one else is considering it.

    But enough. You seem to be one where just nothing is good enough; and even though baby steps are indeed progress, you complain if you didn’t get all the gold in the beginning. We are both free to disagree, but I really worry that the attitude you’re displaying will mean that no one will ever really measure up. And what do people do when their “friends” are always displeased? They turn their backs on them and instead work with those willing to work WITH them.

    Conservatives have groups that write model legislation and talking points for their politicians. While I work with a group that does this for our side, I often see liberals go to our politicians without anything in hand other than a list of “nice to haves” and then expect the politicians to come up with the specifics. Is it no wonder we don’t always get what we want? Hell, even Hillary, herself, made this point once. And let’s not forget, if liberals only really get out and vote in election years, whose fault is it when our liberal politicians have no one to back up the policies they would like? The point is, be disappointed all you want, but recognize that the blame for this goes far beyond just Hillary, Obama, etc. It’s with US.

  41. downtownla says:

    How was she a visionary? When she was running the health care debate for her husband, she was the one pushing for the creation of a new expanded system that cemented in the health insurance companies. Remember those complicated charts that the Republicans pulled out? That was her fault. If she were truly a visionary, or even a traditional Democrat, she would have pushed for a government run, Medicare For All back then. Once again, Hillary was behind the ball on that issue. As for Obama, to many progressives, his presidency was a disappointment, especially given the large mandate for change he had going in. He missed out on a lot of opportunities by being too cautious and trying to hard to work with the Republicans.

  42. Dom Saunders says:

    I never said she was evil. I said she was disrespectful and classless. And I still stand by that statement. The Democratic party isn’t without its issues and Bernie realized that, but she wants him to be proud to be a Democrat anyway. After the election, I’ve grown jaded with the term. I prefer straight-up “liberal” at this point. Sure, let’s be proud of the party that openly decided to ditch middle class voters in favor of conservatives. Selling your own values in favor of what you think will get you success in the short term isn’t something to be proud of. So her saying he was “right” to have them strengthen their focus on working families means less than nothing now when that wasn’t the stance of the party overall, nor did her campaign ever really reflect that, and she still does not take the blame for that particular mistake. Show me THAT excerpt, and then maybe I’ll give Clinton a pass. But you won’t because it doesn’t exist. Again, I don’t believe she’s “crooked.” I think she’s just clueless and has the charisma of a wet paper bag.

    You know what, just look at Seth Meyers’ comments on the book since he says it better than me. And hell, he supported her too. But she’s not being honest and that’s why I don’t, nor will ever, be in her corner again. Not until she grows up and learns to be an adult about her business and not some privileged moron who thinks her “time is coming.”

    Look where it got her: no presidency and a book few people really want.

  43. downtownla says:

    Sorry. If we had played it safe and settled for civil unions, as the DC insiders told us to do, we wouldn’t have marriage equality now. Sometimes, you have to shoot for the stars. It’s what Trump did – build a wall – and he won. Maybe if Hillary had proposed some big ideas, ones that would have inspired her base, she might have gotten the turnout she needed to win.

  44. keirmeister says:

    And again, you’re attacking a caricature of Hillary Clinton.

    Here’s the excerpt that everyone is talking about. It sounds respectful enough, yet still a fair criticism. Where is Hillary throwing Bernie under the bus by stating these obvious concerns? And again, she was advised to keep quiet, hold back and don’t attack Bernie when he accused her of things that Trump later used against her. We were all there – it wasn’t that long ago! And many of us were worried that Bernie’s attacks would be used by Trump – and that’s EXACTLY what happened. But Bernie gets a pass and Hillary is still evil. Check.

  45. Dom Saunders says:

    Then be outraged with Trump and his bullcrap. No one would blame her for that much. But she also threw Bernie under the bus when he helped her. Trump wasn’t going to concede to Hillary in any way had the tables turned, but Bernie helped her and tried to tell his supporters to back her because he recognized the bigger issue. And she repays that by dragging him in her book. He didn’t even have to help support her after he lost but he chose to do so because he wanted to keep Trump out no matter what, but no. It’s always about her at the end of the day. “I’m with Her,” really? Trump may be a blatantly self-serving asshole but Hillary is pulling the same stunt when she should have been better than that and THAT is why people are telling her to shut up. Because she still doesn’t frigging get it.

  46. keirmeister says:

    “Still, she couldn’t be bothered to practice decorum and lose gracefully even if you paid her to.”

    This is what’s infuriating to me: She DIDN’T LOSE gracefully. Considering all of the cheating we KNOW went on during that campaign in order to help Trump, yet in the same breath you talk about people who are upset that Bernie was cheated.

    Again, that is a clear double-standard. Don’t you see that?

    And that, again, is what pisses me off with some people on our side. Bernie correctly talks about the system being stacked up against us…and yet here we saw a clear example of it in the campaigns between Trump and Clinton. But voter suppression, fake news, planted Russian Facebook posts, free Trump media…nah it sucks, but HILLARY should shut up about it and be graceful about all of these outrages! And I guess, by translation, so should the rest of us.

    Any good project or endeavor should have a lessons learned when it fails. Clinton has done that and wants to share what she found from her perspective. That’s interesting and probably very informative. But who cares? It’s Hillary, so shut her up!

  47. Bill_Perdue says:

    Democrats lost the House, Senate and the WH because of the exponentially expanding radicalization of low wage and former union workers screwed by the DP since Carter and Republicans will lose just as much when Trump sits on their collective face and does his thing.

    The DP and the RP, under the homophobic Clintons or the sell out Sanders or the joke called Trump will continue to lose and major political questions like the Fight for 15 and a Union will be settled by mass actions and mass movements of workers. In those battles Democrats and Republicans are impotent onlookers whose only option is to send in the cops, and that will create sharply honed problems for them.

    I love Karma.

  48. Dom Saunders says:

    Only people laughing here are everyone and their mother laughing at Clinton over the fact that she wasted time penning a book no one will read when she could have spent that time actually doing something, oh I dunno, useful, like mending the bridges between progressives and liberals, apologizing for being a poor candidate and owning her mistakes, working with Sanders and other Democrats to act against Republican-backed policies, etc. She could have done literally anything else but instead she chose to serve herself and her own interests. Don’t act like those of us who hate Trump, Putin and the very stupid GOP can’t multitask. We can drag Hillary right along with the rest of them for losing against Trump of all people, even despite winning the majority vote, because she refuses to be the bigger person and act like an adult.

  49. brel1 says:

    Give em hell Hillary!!!! She’ll have the last laugh as Trump goes down in flames as the Putin puppet and idiot that he is. Of course the country won’t be laughing, just suffering for all his mistakes. Anyone who wants to say what an ass he is loud and clear over and over should do so. Screw all the people who want to attack Hillary and the Democrats instead of the people responsible for this travesty — Trump, Putin and the stupid GOP.

  50. Dom Saunders says:

    I don’t even know who Cornell West is, nor have I heard of him or what he did at all during the election. But sure, he can shut the hell up too, because Stein was almost just as unqualified as Trump was. And what could you not expect of Sarandon? Just because she’s an actress doesn’t mean you can’t expect her to have the sense evolution gave a goat and not vote for the obvious racist among the political candidates. That’s a crap argument to make. The only point I’m making, which still stands, is that if you supported the main guy who put us in this situation, you lose the right to claim the moral high ground and suddenly act like you give a damn about anyone but yourself and your vaunted principles. This is exactly what Sarandon is doing and that’s why she deserves to be dragged, period. You can stay mad or pressed about it.

  51. Badgerite says:

    Ok. Point taken. I also remember the incredibly stupid and offensive things she said during the campaign.
    Sarandon wasn’t really the central point of my post. It was an aside, as it were. Given the lightening rod nature of the her idiocy on many occasions, maybe I should have left that aside out. Seems to have obscured my central point.

  52. Houndentenor says:

    NO ONE is attacking her for supporting dreamers. They are pointing out that she opposed Hillary Clinton and said she was worse than Trump. If Clinton were president now these Dreamers wouldn’t be in such peril. I think that’s a valid point. It’s not just that she supported Stein. It’s that she actually claimed REPEATEDLY that we’d be better off with Trump than with Clinton in the WH. Well here we are with Trump. The anger against idiots like that is justified and should not diminish. And it’s not like she’s ever admitted that she was wrong. Elections matter and Sarandon can claim to care about these issues but when it mattered she worked AGAINST the interest of Dreamers. As Dom points out elsewhere it’s not like immigration wasn’t a major issue in the campaign.

  53. Badgerite says:

    Yeah. I agree. In general. But the case of the Dreamers is so acute and cruel and senseless that any support is support. Attack her for attacking Debra Messing whose twitter I like a lot, BTW. But not for supporting Dreamers.
    Well, you can if you want. I’m not saying you can’t. I just don’t see the point in this particular case. That doesn’t mean there isn’t a point. Just my perspective, that’s all. Don’t take it for more than it is worth which is ….my 2 cents. 3 cents on weekends. Rates go up.

  54. Badgerite says:

    Hilary Clinton doesn’t “need” to be doing anything but what she wants to do.
    She is out of politics now and is a private citizen. The bridge mending is our problem now. Not hers. What’s more, Sarandon did not support the trump monster and did not vote for him. You act as if she all on her lonesome, turned the tide. She did not. Cornell West did the exact same thing that she did, which was vocally support and vote for Jill Stein and he did this after being given a seat on the platform committee of the Democratic party. In fact Cornell West appeared in ads for Jill Stein. Care to tell Cornell West to STFU? I have a lot harder time accepting what Cornell West did than I do accepting what Sarandon did. I don’t care if you are in her “corner”. I don’t imagine she does either. I do, however, think that when someone agrees with you and stands up for the right position, it is rather ridiculous to go after them based on the premise that if Susan Sarandon had just supported Hilary Clinton why, trump would never have made it to the White House. It is just scapegoating and picking someone to vent anger on who’s part in the result is dubious at best.

  55. Martha Bartha says:

    Well, it’s a tough one.????

  56. Houndentenor says:

    Sarandon is only getting back the same shit she dishes out on others. She is still attacking Debra Messing for reasons that escape me. She’s not a harmless idiot. Some people actually take her and her 1% privilege seriously. She can ride out four years of Trump in her Greenwich Village penthouse but the rest of us are suffering already and it’s only going to get worse. Fuck Sarandon. And all the other Stein idiots. Stein was funded by the Kremlin to undermine Clinton. Fuck all of those treasonous morons.

  57. Badgerite says:

    You know, that’s just stupid. Do you ever question why someone who is “most qualified to be president” is someone that “a good number of people in this country….would rather vote for anyone else but Hilary Clinton”? The question that comes to mind would be…..and why is that? You needed to be “under duress” to vote for the most qualified candidate? Why? And why exactly is Hilary Clinton supposed to “blame herself” for such a lane brained attitude as that? And, in fact, your comment rather verifies what offended me as well about the Sanders campaign.
    At a certain point, the possibility of winning dawned on Sanders and his people, their tactics and arguments turned personal and nasty. They were almost salivating for her to be indicted whether she actually committed any crime or not. I think Sanders is also correct that he succeeded in moving the debate and perhaps the country overall more to the left. But it came at a rather high price. We shall see how it plays out over time.

  58. Houndentenor says:

    At this point in 2005 that’s what everyone was saying. Democrats win with outsider candidates. Carter, Clinton, Obama. Republicans sometimes win with the “it’s my turn because I came so close last time” candidates like Reagan in 1980, but for the most part people are looking for someone new. So think outside the box. Another retread is not a winning strategy. It never has been.

  59. Badgerite says:

    I don’t argue with that but I think you credit her with more actual influence on the electorate than really has. I prefer to slam Stein as I think her words, her actions and her campaign were very dishonest. At least I credit Sarandon with being an honest idiot. Probably. I just don’t see the point in slamming her when she does something or takes a stand that one actually agrees with.
    She will return to her idiotic ways soon enough, I’m guessing. But I understand the anger as this campaign to deport these kids is really just cruel.
    And pointless. These are good people who are on the right path in life and maybe that is why Sessions et all are so determined that they should be punished. It’s almost like they are more comfortable with the idea of “bad hombres” and these clearly meritorious young adults are more upsetting to them than actual criminals. I really do think that these stodgy old white guys are more threatened by Latinos who are achievers and pillar of the community types than they are those who are not. IMHO, some of these alt right people should be “replaced”. Maybe we should deport them.

  60. Dom Saunders says:

    If you’re going to come for my adult status, don’t. I voted for her too so I did make the pragmatic decision. Still, she couldn’t be bothered to practice decorum and lose gracefully even if you paid her to. A book, really? And Bernie isn’t perfect either but even he didn’t write a book about why he lost and it’s telling when you consider people still think he was cheated out of a win.

  61. Houndentenor says:

    McCain was on talk shows every Sunday for eight years blasting Obama. So he didn’t put it in book form. Like that makes it different.

    I’m not Clinton fan. I’ve known them since I was a teenager in Arkansas. I had no illusions about who I was voting for. I was hoping for someone better to run in the primaries but it didn’t happen. I weighed my options and voted for Clinton. I hope she isn’t planning on running again. I felt like it was an attempt to move backwards and politics doesn’t work that way, at least for Democrats. Republicans can appeal to voters with “we’ll put everything back like it was in the past” but Democrats have to have vision and Hillary just wasn’t inspiring on that front. It’s time to let the baby boomers retire and allow younger (by younger meaning under 70) people take the lead. I don’t begrudge Hillary Clinton a book deal. Let’s get this out of the way this year so next year can be about the future.

  62. Houndentenor says:

    I agree with you on Iraq and marriage equality but the votes to pass single payer are not there. I don’t know why so many progressives don’t get that. We barely passed a conservative bill (ACA). We’d have never gotten Medicare for All through Congress and still couldn’t. The same goes for free college tuition. In what alternate reality are you living where Congress would pass such a bill? I had friends who hated Hillary because she was for a $12 minimum wage instead of $15 as if we have the votes to pass any wage increase. Instead we are now faced with state legislatures gutting higher city minimum wages. So what did we get for those temper tantrums? Something worse than Clinton wanted. Fight for your ideals, but in the general you have to accept that some is better than none and sometimes even the status quo is better than the negative effects of a Republican administration.

  63. Houndentenor says:

    I don’t know which crowd is more pathetic. Those that can’t see that the Clinton campaign made a series of strategic errors or those that actually think Sanders could have won in a general election based on a few polls without him ever having to face any negative campaigning or ads. If Democrats (all of us) are going to remain that oblivious to realize then we are going to lose against in 2018 and 2020.

  64. Houndentenor says:

    I will slam Sarandon every time she opens her idiot mouth, thank you very fucking much. I’m not done slamming her for supporting Nader in 2000. I haven’t even gotten around to her idiocy in claiming that Trump would be better than Clinton. She’s a moron and she deserves to be lambasted every time she says something idiotic, which is pretty much every time she speaks. DACA woldn’t be on the table if Clinton were president and she worked against Clinton, so yeah she deserves all the outrage coming against her for her short-sightedness. A lot of us saw this coming. If Sarandon didn’t then she’s too stupid to be taken seriously. Forever. If she didn’t learn that lesson with W, she is beyond hopeless.

  65. Houndentenor says:

    I agree with you that “I’m with her” was a terrible campaign slogan for a candidate with such high negatives. I also agree that the campaign neglected the midwest which was in hindsight a huge mistake. But why do you assume those issues won’t be addressed in the book based on a couple of leaked pages out of hundreds? We don’t know that yet. Obviously pages were leaked to stir up controversy and the comments about Bernie seem rather tame frankly. I suspect the book will be far more nuanced than you assume.

  66. keirmeister says:

    She was also a visionary on health care…and she got crucified for it. Again, you seem to be harder on her for these areas of disagreements than, say, Barack Obama – where she was ahead of HIM of a number of those issues….and was Obama’s presidency that horrible?

    That’s my point. Why do these disagreements justify such a hatred for Hillary when other Democrats are given a break? I would argue that you have fallen for the right-wing demonization of her that has been going on for over 40 years.

  67. downtownla says:

    Sorry, but I didn’t like Hillary because of her policies. On so many key issues, she was behind the curveball before eventually coming around and then trying to present herself as a champion. She was wrong on the Iraq War, she was wrong on marriage equality, she was wrong on Medicare for All, TPP, fracking, privatizing prisons, legalization of marijuana, privatization of our public schools, free college tuition, etc. etc… I couldn’t name one issue where I felt like she was a true visionary with bold ideas. The only issue where you can say Hillary was a true leader was woman’s rights and the speech she gave at the UN a couple of decades ago, but since then, it’s been bad decision after bad decision.

  68. downtownla says:

    From the snippets I have seen, the book will only confirm why she lost. Hillary lives in a bubble. It’s everyone else’s fault but hers (and Bill’s.) Will there be any mention of her self-centered campaign message, “I’m with her?” or the fact she was running as the third Obama term instead of change or the fact that she took the Midwest for granted or that she nominated a VP who only reenforced that image of establishment politics. What about Bill’s meeting with Loretta Lynch which prompted Comey’s actions or his not-so-subtle racist comments? Barack Obama was able to overcome the racism in America by projecting a positive message of change and inspiring new voters. If Hillary had run on a campaign of change – possibly by nominating a female VP – she may have also overcome the sexism she faced. But no, Hillary will not be commenting on her poor decision-making. Instead, it will be everyone else’s fault. That’s the real reason she lost.

  69. keirmeister says:

    I have a feeling she understands better than you. She’s already looked in the mirror. Have you?

  70. keirmeister says:

    Why don’t YOU run then?

    I’m still trying to understand this magic unicorn way of thinking. In the adult world, you are often given specific choices and none of them are perfect. But we make the best decision based on what we know.

    …And BTW, Bernie was not the perfect winning candidate. Just using logic, had that been the case, we would have won the primary (or at least gotten much closer to it). And I LOVE Bernie (and totally miss his Brunch With Bernie segments on Hartmann)!

  71. keirmeister says:

    “For her to have been a politician for all these years but fail to do the one thing politicians are known for: lie and sell people what they want to hear…”

    See you hit the point exactly, but I’m not sure you see it. What I’m seeing from almost everyone who says there’s no one to blame for Clinton’s loss but herself need to look in the mirror. The oldest trick in the book is to focus on a central figure instead of laying the blame all around; and WE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE are the main ones to blame for being too stupid and easily led by a clear con artist named Trump. It’s like blaming your cancer on your doctor because he didn’t warn you strongly enough to stop smoking even though you were overly mesmerized by the cute cigarette ads on the back of magazines.

    Your own statement faults Clinton for not lying to us – for believing in the intelligence of the American people to know better. Well, I guess we can indeed blame her for having too much faith in us.

    America is now dumbed down, provincial, anti-intellectual, and arrogant. It’s like high school all over again. And now we have this precedent where we believe ANYONE can be president. The obvious lunacy of this notion is frightening.

    But it’s only Hillary’s fault that she wasn’t strong enough to lie us past our own lizard brain instincts. Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps there are MANY points of blame for her loss – with Hillary herself and Bernie Sanders just two of them? There’s also the media’s behavior, Russia’s behavior, bad polling, etc.

    Finally, Hillary DID take responsibility for her loss early on. But again, people are so blinded by their unfounded hatred of her that they forget this. She is, and has always been, a class act…and she has a right to set the record straight. She’s EARNED it. And if Democrats and Liberals can’t survive the release of her book, isn’t that more a problem with them than with her?

  72. basenjilover says:

    No that was a dishonest move. He was a party crasher and brought the party down screeching “Feel the Bern”.

  73. Demosthenes says:

    You’ll see!

  74. Dom Saunders says:

    Wait, I’m sorry, what? Sarandon supports DACA, yet voted into office the same idiot who literally built his campaign off of a racist anti-Mexican foundation? Yes, she should be criticized for that because she too is stupid and has no right to complain about what he decides to do. She knew he was arrogant, she knew he was a racist, she knew he wasn’t trying to feature Mexicans, immigrants or not, at any point in the game. He literally called them all rapists. So now I’m supposed to be in her corner because she has some remaining humanity left in her? There’s plenty of merit in dragging a hypocrite for filth. Everyone should know who she put in office and she and her fellow Trumpsters should be shamed for that decision.

    As for everything else, I’m over the progressive vs. liberal debate. Clinton is just throwing more fuel into the fire by throwing Sanders under the bus (again) with her book that literally no one (with good common sense) will read. She needs to be mending bridges right now, not burning them. But of course I can’t expect her to do the thing that’d make sense because if she did, she would be president, not Trump.

  75. Dom Saunders says:

    If she had been a man and pulled the same stunt, I’d call him a sore loser too. Hell, I despised Romney and McCain, but neither of them had so little common sense or taste, they had to cash in on their newfound publicity following their failures and wrote books like “Why I Lost to This Black Man” or “Why God Forsook Me Last Election.” That’s trashy and it’s tactless. And to blame Bernie of all people when he campaigned for her after she lost is literally disrespectful and low-key libelous. She’s faced some sexism from her opponents, don’t get me wrong. But let’s not act like she’s a real saint either because she’s not. She wants to denounce Sanders because he wasn’t “realistic” and wanted to serve us a pipe dream. Look at Trump in comparison, look at the dreams he successfully sold his racist/sexist/stupid base, and guess who won? Maybe had she followed suit with Sanders and played the game, she would have won.

    For her to have been a politician for all these years but fail to do the one thing politicians are known for: lie and sell people what they want to hear, that is why her campaign flopped harder than a fish out of water. That is what happened last year with her anti-charismatic campaign and that’s why she lost. She needs to own that and move forward because crying about yesteryear (and trying to cash in on it as well) isn’t going to get us where we need to be.

  76. Demosthenes says:

    I agee. The Democratic 2020 presidential primary field will be full of outstanding highly qualified candidates.

  77. Houndentenor says:

    You can’t think of a single Democrat currently that is saying interesting things and saying them well? Seriously? I can think of a dozen without concentrating that hard.

  78. Houndentenor says:

    The 2018 midterms are over a year away. No one in this country can remember anything from last week much less last year. Better to deal with this now than next year.

  79. Badgerite says:

    Frankly, Clinton’s assessment of why she lost is something I believe she has a right to talk about. But I simply don’t see why that has to be a divisive issue at this time. It is like Susan Sarandon expressing support for DACA. If you agree with her on that, why criticize her for it. There is no merit in that. And nothing accomplished by it.
    As to the election and everyone claiming more or less, “if only”, I think that really misses the point of what happened. This last election played out in an environment where one party had put in place, under various pretexts, legal impediments to voting as a means of engaging in legalized voter suppression in key states. And those voter suppression laws and voter roll scrubbing programs like Crosscheck did their job. The effect was to suppress the vote and the target was mostly Democratic voting blocks.
    Even more unprecedented, we now know the election occurred in an environment that had the intelligence service of a foreign power and long time adversary mounting an no holds barred intelligence operation to get the opposing political party candidate elected. The effect of that kind of well targeted digital propaganda campaign should not be underestimated. In actual fact, I think that the divisions in the progressive and liberal voting blocks could have and would have been exploited without a Sanders candidacy. I also think that if Sanders had been the nominee he would have lost as well because he would have been up against the same juggernaut of voter suppression, illegality and finely honed foreign intelligence tactics.
    One can say that this internal argument about what happened in 2016 will prevent a repeat of that loss. But I think that the only way to really ensure that is to be sure the juggernaut of illegality is stopped cold in its tracks. Because if she hadn’t been up against that, I think Hilary Clinton would have won the Electoral College. And maybe Bernie Sanders as well. But with those illegal operations in play, I don’t think either of them had much of a change.
    Definitely going to read the book if for nothing else, for the inside scoop on Pootey Poot. The anecdotes reported already make him sound like an absolute tool or what.

  80. Jeremiah Soria says:

    Screw that. Her bashing of Bernie Sanders supporters basically shows that she still doesn’t realize why she didn’t win. She needs to look in the mirror.

  81. Jeremiah Soria says:

    Bernie had to run as a Democrat, in that basically it was the only hope that the Democrats could actually win the presidential election had he been nominated.

  82. Jeremiah Soria says:

    Maybe she should, and maybe she shouldn’t. But for her to dump on those of us that wanted Bernie Sanders to win in the primaries? Absolutely she should shut up. She has no one else to blame but herself for “what happened”. There’s also the fact that there’s a good number of people in this country that would rather vote for anyone else but Hillary Clinton, despite the fact that she was basically the only one of all the candidates on Election Day most qualified to be president. I contributed absolutely zero dollars to Hillary’s campaign, and yet I *had* to vote for her, basically under duress. Maybe when she’s ready to actually blame herself for “what happened” in 2016, we can actually let her speak at that point.

  83. basenjilover says:

    Hillary had every right to criticize Sanders. Sanders was an Independent, switched to Democrat then back to being Independent. Major flip flopper that man.

  84. Martha Bartha says:

    Who Does?

  85. tommo says:

    I agree on the sexism. Nobody told men who failed in past elections to just go away. And institutionalized misogyny is still present and powerful throughout the nation, including among a huge section of women.

    33 states have vote suppression laws, 6 million are not allowed to vote due to prior felonies, and Karen Handel personally purged many thousands for having the same first and last name as someone in another state: ex. John Smith. Republicans are un-American and cheaters. There is 100% certainty they cheated once again to let this despicable creature win.

    I’ve seen evidence that Comey’s unfair thrashing eight days before the election turned the tide against Hillary. Not to mention the Russian collusion and fake news bots (trashing the Clinton Foundation, etc. etc.) Also the billion dollars in free media given to Don “The Con”. Quit attacking Hillary, she has always been a great public servant. Congress should be spending their time finding ways to stop future meddling by Putin. Their failure to do so is treasonous.

  86. keirmeister says:

    I swear, Hillary Clinton can’t catch a break with this country – she’s damned if she does and damned if she doesn’t.

    Again, what, exactly, has she done that’s made her this controversial? She’s a strong, intelligent woman…and apparently that was enough to have her destroyed.

    And now she’s trying to share her side of a story and we’re still telling her to STFU. Talking now would cause political turmoil in the Democratic Party, but Bernie has been completely forgiven for pushing the primaries longer than he should have, even though it was clear he was going to lose far earlier. How much damage did that cause the party’s chances for 2016?

    Donald Trump sold himself as a vulgar buffoon, but Hillary is to blame for losing to him – even though he had both the media (proven) and foreign influence (proven) helping him along at every step.

    Hillary Clinton was one of the most qualified candidates to have ever sought the Presidency, but we simply didn’t like her because…emails? Benghazi? I-just-don’t-like/trust-her? So let’s put in Trump!

    Yeah, it’s pretty clear this is sexism. As I said the day after the election, “For every overly-qualified woman who has lost a promotion to a far less-qualified man, American has just told you to go fetch him coffee.”

  87. Quilla says:

    Our country had wonderful BLACK President and was now expected to make room for a FEMALE President. Two whoppers in a row and you knew in your gut it wouldn’t float. I campaigned for her, I had my sign and bumper sticker, and my vote but, dayuuum, IMHO she needs to STFU now before “we” lose the next cycle.

    And, no, I don’t think it’s sexist to tell her to be quiet. It’s common sense. Just sayin’

  88. Demosthenes says:

    Clinton shouldn’t shut up. She’s a private citizen with 1st Amendment rights. Nevertheless, last year she lost the electoral college to the least qualified presidential candidate in history, so Clinton doesn’t represent the future of the Democratic Party.

© 2020 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS