There are other quotes in the same citation that give opposite opinions, but escaped your attention. I’m assuming you know that, if that isn’t so, I apologize.
Obama was a “safe black”. Black, but not too black. It was almost like he was half white! White Obama in 2008 is a pretty unremarkable pol. White Obama probably doesn’t even beat Hillary in the primary.
Bernie almost beat her and he isn’t as good a politician as Obama. It’s an unanswerable question but vs a 2008 McCain/Palin ticket I think a white Obama still wins. Obama was really inspiring. Even I almost voted for him.
Put forward a positive message of some sort, not this “I’m with her” crap that amounted to “It’s my turn” combined with “Trump is so awful you have to vote for me”. Actually campaign in swing states instead of trying to rack up worthless popular vote in blue states. (She’s the first presidential candidate since 1972 to skip Wisconsin, for example). Get her supporters to stop talking about ‘qualifications’, because her qualifications were things like ‘supported legislation that she now opposes (Iraq War, Crime Bill’ and ‘opposed legislation that she now supports (gay marriage)’ and ‘got appointed to a position by the Democratic establihment’. Be convincing enough in her positions that at least her supporters believe her (like her supposed opposition to TPP). Drop the extremist anti-gun position (opposition to private citizens having guns for self-defense and complete handgun ban) and embrace Heller with something like ‘now you don’t have to worry about excesses like DC, lets work on common sense measures’. Scale back the warmongering so that her foreign policy seems less aggressive than Trump’s.
There’s a lot that’s wrong with her that can’t be fixed on the trail (lack of charisma, bad policy positions, Wall Street ties) but there are several things that are definite mistakes in the campaign that could be corrected.
Naw, it wasn’t her fault, it was Trump, the Russians and Comey.
If she runs the same kind of campaign a third time it’s bound to result in success.
The book makes some compelling observations. (I bought it and am about halfway through).
For instance, the September 2015 NYT story that the Clinton campaign would shift strategies, to show a new Hillary with “more humor and heart.” The piece quoted campaign officials (Mook and Palmieri) saying that their plans included showing how authentic she was by having her appear on late night talk shows, dance the Nae Nae, and reveal that she kept up with the Kardashians.
As Clinton supporters and donors across the country furiously pointed out, a campaign announcement of a strategy to make her seem authentic had exactly the opposite effect.
“It was a pure what-the-fuck moment that buttressed qualms about Hillary’s honesty and trustworthiness at a terrible time.”
Well, in addition to the bit I noted, someone else gets quoted as saying it definitely could’ve alienated voters; I wouldn’t say that’s the opposite opinion, it seems blandly compatible with it. And we’re also told that “some political analysts compared the statement to Mitt Romney’s 47% gaffe”, which (a) I also wouldn’t say is the opposite opinion, but which (b) also seems compatible with it. And there’s the quote from Taranto, which says nothing about whether it was the single biggest moment when voters switched from ‘undecided’ to ‘Trump’.
That leaves Weaver. “Born as an insult, the word became a badge of honour, uniting the Republican’s base. To argue that one word cost Mrs. Clinton the election is foolish. But it certainly did not hurt her opponent.” That doesn’t seem incompatible with saying, as Hessan did, that it was the single biggest moment when voters switched from ‘undecided’ to ‘Trump’; merely that it wasn’t sufficient to cost her the election, but that it united her opponent’s base without hurting him.
So, no; strictly speaking, I’m not aware that other quotes in that same citation give opposite opinions – and so your apology is accepted, I guess?
(Oh, wait; there’s also the quoted question from Cooper to her: “how can you unite a country if you’ve written off tens of millions of Americans?” – prompting Clinton to reply that her argument isn’t with his supporters, but with him. Now, anyone familiar with the transcript knows full well that she was taking issue with various of his supporters when she said they (a) could be put into a basket of deplorables and (b) were irredeemable; but put that aside: strictly speaking, nothing in that exchange strikes me as being in any way incompatible with Hessan’s conclusion.)
(At that, there’s the bit where it – gets compared to Nye Bevan’s “vermin” remark, which likewise sparked merchandise worn by folks who badge-of-honor-ed it? Not really seeing how that’d be at all opposed to Hessan’s claim, either.)
So, are we given to understand that these same people heard Trump speeches? These delicate and vulnerable snowflakes are bruised by Hillary’s rough rhetoric? But can heal themselves in the balm of Trump’s temperate and reasoned discourse?
Yeah, guess so, guess anybody exposed to Hillary crude and ignorant bluster would prefer the decorum and civility of Il Douche. Don’t know how I missed that.
Well he did. His name is William Jefferson Clinton, formerly Blythe.
See, this right here might go a long way to explaining the loss.
Let’s assume, for the sake of argument – and because it’s true – that he crudely blusters while insulting folks who are here illegally; and he crudely and insultingly blusters about Muslim furriners he’d sure like to ban from entering the country.
And let’s figure as well that she responds by explaining that millions of people are deplorable – indeed, irredeemable – but, thankfully, aren’t America.
One of those insulted groups has the right to vote in the Trump-v-Clinton election.
Are there any other contests where losing by twelve points is “almost” winning?
Clinton was a 5-term governor. Obama was a 1 term Senator (and not a full term). Not even close.
…of Arkansas. Clinton and Obama oozed charisma and charm. Hillary? Oozed memories of your annoying 5th grade teacher.
Wait, so does being black help them more, or less, than it helped Trump that he was white? 
These and other Trump statements DO insult US voters, like me. I’m not attacking you personally, but the idea that empathy is impossible – that one can only be deeply insulted if one is the direct target – does appear to be rampant among Trump supporters.
Yeah, but that cuts both ways.
So imagine that I’m (a) an undecided voter and (b) a pretty decent guy with some empathy, and I hear Trump say mean stuff about – well, folks I don’t actually know, of course; but folks I can sympathize with, if one is the direct target.
And imagine I then hear Hillary Clinton say that my dad is deplorable; that my kid sister is irredeemable; that my older brother may have served his country in uniform, but, thankfully, he’s not America. And, again, I’m not the direct target – she’s not talking smack about me – but I can sympathize with them, if they are.
If that just cancels out, then I can sympathize – both times – with the folks being insulted, despite not being one of 'em; and that does her no good, while she directly insults voters and he directly insults nonvoters. But to the extent that I’m likely to indirectly sympathize with one of the directly-insulted groups more than the other?
Plus you have had 15 years of thereabouts of demonizing Muslims in the US Media and longer for Mexicans; you don’t think that would have had an effect on the average voter?
Other Waldo Pepper, I do agree with you that the “deplorable” comment was misguided and insulting – and it’s true that one can empathize with its target population (how they were made to feel in this instance). I just realized that I, for one, am capable of doing just that. (I admit that I had to work at this, while empathizing with the undocumented comes naturally to me – but in part that’s because Hillary’s ACTIONS would, in aggregate, probably have HELPED the “deplorables,” while Trump’s ACTIONS are another story, for “deplorables” and undocumented alike.)
This thread is bait for lefties to give a couple more whacks to the dead horse of Hillary’s campaign. I’ll bite.
Does the book mention how Hillary’s commercials were low on policy substance? Or how she nominated a VP to her right while facing an insurrection from her left? Or how they thought it didn’t matter if blue collar workers were abandoning them because suburban Republicans would vote for them? Or how her attempts to appeal to millennials were received as out of touch pandering?
It was also awkward when Hillary was saying Obama is great and Bernie is horrible for criticizing him and oh yeah, TPP is bad now, all the while Obama was still supporting it.
The odd thing to me is how the Democratic establishment and even most rank and filers, which would include perhaps a majority on this very forum, were determined to nominate someone who’s been hated by both sides of the political spectrum for years and years. I became politically aware in the late '90s and Hillary hate was already a well worn tradition. These people know elections are popularity contests, right?
The accusations of sexism by her supporters didn’t help, either. Yeah, there’s a lot of sexism out there, including so called brogressives (and Reddit is their HQ). But if Sanders and Trump are both sexist that waters the word down to nothing. Calling people who adore Warren and Stein sexist looks desperate.
One could spin Hillary as a tragic figure. A young progressive who fought discrimination, told the press where they could shove their cookies, and who tried to enact UHC only to crash into the rocks lining the shores of American business. Then she was absorbed into the dark machine until she wanted to bomb everyone, cash fat Wall Street checks, and wag her finger at idealistic lefties yearning for single payer.
The first half of the OP’s article struck me as odd because it focused on the reason Hillary was running. It’s a subversive question as it relates to the sort of people who want to rule the whole country (power seeking narcissists), but the article brushed it aside. Why did Obama run? So he could bail out his banking buddies? How about such idealistic individuals as Romney, McCain, Kerry, and Gore? Come on.
Don’t forget Susan Sarandon, Jill Stein the Russian spy, lazy millennials, Bernie Bros (but I repeat myself), bitter clingers, Alex Jones, Podesta, and Bill Clinton.
I’m sorry but this is utterly ridiculous. Black voters are a small percentage of the population that almost uniformly votes Democrat already, whatever bonus Barack got for being black was magnitudes smaller than the votes it cost him. I don’t understand how anyone can possibly think being a black candidate is a bonus, you have to live in a completely different reality.