Let’s get the order of events right. While the primaries were ongoing Hillary launched an attack against Trump labeling him a misogynist, this revealed her as a glass house dweller throwing stones, and showed that that she would bring a knife to a gun fight. In a mud-slinging campaign the best slinger has an advantage, she chose the wrong tactics and against someone who was very comfortable rolling in the mud. Of course it sucks that it turned out the way it did, but the attitude toward one particular woman isn’t the best indicator of the general attitude even though that general attitude is nothing to brag about either.
I think somewhere out there is a 40-50 something woman with an aggressive personality making her mark in public service who could well be the first female president.
Kim Davis 2020!
Yeah, that’s an often overlooked part of her negative campaigning. She lightly tossed mud saying ‘this man is not respectable’ when his campaign was based around him ‘telling it like it is’ and not being respectable in the first place. She never really touched on the fact that he’s been bankrupt seven times, stiffs contractors routinely, can’t get loans from US banks, and otherwise is a complete failure as a businessman, even though that would undercut his core message, instead opting to sling mud in what she hoped was a proper manner. I mean, imagine if the response to “I’m going to run this company like it’s a business” was “if you do that, we’ll go bankrupt seven times!” Also the ‘he is not respectable’ attack played really well into the idea that she’s a ‘big city elitist completely out of touch with the common man’, that she’s going to sit off in some (metaphorical) tower in Washington and tell you what you’re allowed to say.
Your narrative of the campaign says a lot about you, but not much about what actually happened.
Clinton routinely attacked Trump in just the way you wish she had, over and over, including in the widely watched debates.
Much in the same way people keep saying she should have spoken about “jobs” even though “jobs” was the subject she spoke most about during the campaign.
Well that’s what people heard. Especially her supporters.
After all in the “Womens March” right after why did all those women wear the pink pussy hats and wear pussy costumes? If her message truly was about jobs why didn’t the march represent it?
Look, she stood there while her husband banged a young female intern in his office and then turns around and acts like some moral authority. Oh, and she has Beyoncé as her spokesperson and calls Beyoncé a good example for young women to follow. Have you ever seen some Beyoncé slut videos?
Have you ever had a happy long-term relationship with a woman that is either ongoing or ended with mutual respect?
Again I say, if Trump was sooooo evil, why did she attend his wedding and take those pictures with him? Why did Bill golf with him? Why were their daughters best friends?
Here are some other Clinton-Trump pictures.
In the immediate aftermath of Billy Bush Weekend, a former NFL player wrote a response where he describes at length what actual athletes talk about in actual locker rooms. And he says that he’d never heard anything so reprehensible as what Trump said…and he had a serial rapist as a teammate. I’ll see if I can find a link.
[MODERATING]
Dial back the misogyny.
[/moderating]
I thought about opening a separate “Hillary’s Book” thread, but I think this is a good enough fit for this question:
In her book she puts some of the blame for her loss on Bernie (and on NPR this morning, she derided him as not really being a Democrat). As I recall (correct me if I’m wrong) once the convention was over and the nomination was decided he was pretty unequivocal in his support for her. (His supporters maybe not so much, but that’s another story) What else did Hillary expect? Is she begrudging the fact that he campaigned against her during the primaries? I’m honestly confused.
Yes. It was her turn to be President. Everyone knew that. How dare anyone run against her at all.
Because those were in reaction to Trump’s “grab 'em by the pussy” tape comments. So the hats and costumes had nothing to do with what Clinton had said and everything to do with what Trump had said.
I hope that clears things up for you.
I’m pretty sure she wasn’t in the room at the time. Plus she wasn’t the one committing adultery, the intern in question was the one that initiated that particular sexual encounter (which involved no “banging” except of the finger (and cigar) variety), and there is nothing to suggest that Hillary condoned the act. So, again, your understanding of the situation is at odds with the facts.
Hillary did stay married to Bill, but then again it used to be the right who talked the talk about the sanctity of marriage when asserting their moral authority. Not so much these days…
Sorry, I had to laugh out loud at that one.
You cited an article that shows that she made a ‘chapter 11’ comment one time in one speech, it doesn’t support your ‘over and over’ or ‘routinely’ claims. If you’re going to tell me that I’m wrong and use a cite, at least use a cite that backs what you said. Also note that my comment was that she ‘didn’t really touch on’ the subject, not that ‘she never ever made one single mention of it anywhere at all’. I certainly don’t remember those being a major part of her campaign, she didn’t get crowds chanting “Chapter 11” the way Trump had crowds changing “Lock her up!”, I remember pussy hats and women’s marches protesting Trump’s misogyny, but I don’t remember anything like that about Trump’s failure at what he says he’s good at.
When it comes to negative campaigning, it’s like the old story about trying to wrestle a pig- you both end up covered in shit but the pig likes it. If you’re going to start down that road, you want to be the pig.
If you revise “She never really touched on” to “I certainly don’t remember those being a major part of her campaign,” then that’s a lot more defensible. I can’t cite what you remember, or what you count as major. In my view, making a central theme of a key economics speech and raising in multiple times in the debates is pretty major. But I’m sure you’ll continue to define “major” in whatever way suits your point that Hillary is a bad woman.
Hillary herself did a decent job of not making her message about her gender. But every candidate is defined, to a certain extent, by the behavior of his or her supporters (fairly or unfairly.) Plenty of Hillary’s *supporters *wanted it to be about gender, about the first-woman-president aspect. Pussy hats (albeit after the election,) placing stickers on Susan B. Anthony’s headstone, pink balloons reading “It’s a Girl,” etc. And so many Hillary opponents concluded likewise that Hillary must be angling in on the woman-president motive.
Do you think it’s possible that there is some confirmation bias at work in your assessment of what Hillary supporters wanted and focused on?