I think Hillary’s post-election book writing and media appearances are her way of dealing with the personal devastation of losing in the most stunning upset in American political history. I mean, she was the A+ student who sat at the front of the class, took notes, asked questions, and went to office hours, and the guy who drank a case of beer every night, date-raped chicks, and watched porn, and only showed up on mid-term and finals day hungover ended up getting a better grade than she did. That’s what sucks. She’ll never get over it.
Yeah, while I think Hillary’s analysis of the election is mostly self-serving BS, I am inclined to cut her some slack. Losing a Presidential election is terrible at best; losing it to Donald Trump must be truly devastating. However I do hope she shuts up about the election after this. There are many other issues where she can contribute if she wishes.
Up to a point, Lord Copper.
I do feel sorry for her personally, but I imagine every single major presidential candidate who went neck to neck at the finishing post always feels utterly miserable and devastated.
To suppose it was worse for her because of her goodie-two-shoes self-promotion buys into her narrative of her deserving to become president.
Nice.
It’s not worse because of any self-promotion. It’s worse because it was Donald Trump. She lost to the least qualified person in the history of elections. The guy wasn’t qualified to run for mayor. And he’s cartoonishly evil: Lex Luthor becoming president made more sense.
That people picked him over her is devestating not just to her, but a whole lot of us. I now know that America is not the place I thought it was. Because even if everything everyone said about Clinton was 100% true, and she was completely wrong on every political issue, she’s still orders of magnitude better than Trump.
I mean, she was the Christian candidate. But the Christians went for the goddamned atheist who shat on our veterans and didn’t think he needed to be forgiven. Women picked the guy who said he could grab their pussies and they wouldn’t mind because he’s rich. The guy you know would attack you personally if it would make him money.
It is devastating. I’ve lost friends over this. I never care who you vote for. I did this time, because Trump was just so obviously evil. I am a Christian, and genuinely now think half the Christians I know are going to hell, because they clearly weren’t listening to God’s moral guidance.
Why do you think they voted for him?
There was an article I read somewhere (maybe politico, but can’t remember). In it they interviewed the losers of past presidential elections, and yep, predictably, they all commented on how emotionally gut-wrenching and depressing the experience was.
I still remember Al Gore letting himself grow a beard. He went from looking like he belonged on the cover of GQ to looking like a homeless guy wandering the back alleys of DC searching for aluminum cans.
There are Christians who truly believe in the more compassionate messages of the New Testament, and there are Christians who adapt these writings to suit their own purposes. My sense is that much of what passes for American Christianity these days is used to provide moral justification for behavior and thought that, in reality, conflict with Christianity. This is not a phenomenon that is unique to Christianity, of course. Nor is this anything particularly new.
This is so far from the truth it’s laughable. It was Clinton who did not study for the final exam, and arrogantly thought she would win because she had it in the bag for years. It was Trump who figured out how best to manipulate the media for free advertising, did not spend anywhere close to the advertising dollars that Clinton spent, and figured out how to win the race, and worked hard to win it.
At first, yes, Clinton was the A+ student in the classroom, but she did not work to win the race. She campaigned on name calling and it’s my turn. She spent much more than Trump did and squandered her great, inherent political advantages to lose a race that was hers to win. That is far from being Presidential material. She is the biggest loser ever, conceptually speaking, in US Presidential elections.
I wasn’t referring to her campaign skills, which I agree absolutely sucked. I was referring to her belief in her intellectual superiority and wonkishness. It’s exactly analogous to the kinds of elections that are held on school campuses, in which the arrogant intellectual ends up losing to the dumb jock. It was a contest of popularity, or more accurately, a contest of who was least popular, a race to the bottom. This election reflected poorly on the candidates for sure, but it reflected even worse on the people who nominated and ultimately elected them, particularly the winner.
Okay, but I’ll argue that the election reflected well on the candidates, particularly Trump who stumped for and got the votes needed to win. Take the votes from the white supremacists, and the xenophobes, for example. During the campaign many people were (as they, or we, should be) aghast that Trump did not distance himself from those groups, that he did not speak out directly and strongly against them. To use a crude phrase, Trump whored himself out to every group that would vote for him, with the sole purpose of winning the race.
I can remember a photo of Senator Ron Paul ---- probably another friend in politics despite political differences, Hillary’s not discriminating — after either the 2008 or 2012 run when to his obvious dismay the electorate had mindbogglingly rejected the One True Way, seated alone in a chair looking suddenly very, very old.
Someone more in touch with middle-class concerns could have won by putting hard-hitting “I’m $NAME, who built a $BUSINESS pulling myself up by my bootstraps from $BLUE_COLLAR_JOB to $SMALL_BUSINESS owner, and this is the story of how Donald Trump ripped me off and ruined my business…” attacks front and center.
Suppose that in fact such ads were cut and aired, how would that change your view of Hillary’s campaign as relevant to the OP?
Bill Maher’s guests talked about this last week. One mentioned not wanting to go through Hillary’s therapy session or 12-step program with her, and the other said something like: It’s typical Hilary to title the book as if this were something that just “happened”. She should have titled it: “What I did to fuck up my campaign”.
This is what I was going to say. Too many people castigate Clinton for not accepting her faults for losing the election. But that avoids who is most culpable for her loss: the American people. Whatever she did or did not do, it was we who did not elect her. “The American people elected Donald Trump” is a dire verdict against us all–every adult American citizen must be blamed for his election.
Yes. Trump is the most immoral president we have ever had. Some people praise him for saying what he thinks. That’s fine, except it reveals the corruption of his soul. He is the personification of sin: lust, gluttony, greed, laziness, anger, envy, pride–he openly indulges in all. Character matters for everyone, but especially for our leaders, and Trump continues to show his utter lack of moral fiber.
Clinton was accused of many things, but it was always others making the accusations. Trump is condemned by his own public actions.
Firstly, that’s a false dichotomy (your first sentence). Secondly, that’s ridiculous (your last sentence). Those of us who voted for Hillary are not responsible for the election of Trump.
How is “this is what I was going to say” a false dichotomy? I didn’t exclude others from saying it. 
Yes, we are responsible, all of us. Not as much as those who voted for Trump, and less than those who didn’t vote for Clinton, but there is still some responsibility even for those who did vote for Clinton. Simply because we are members of American society and we are collectively responsible for our country.
Oops. Second + 3rd sentences.
I don’t accept the concept of collective guilt, especially for those who took action to prevent the thing that caused the guilt.
Yes. It’s too soon for her to write a book, and expect that it will be perceived as candid, honest, historical. She should either have waited a few years or gotten a journalist to write it, with her cooperation. As it is it just looks like an extension of the campaign, and ain’t nobody wants that.