Hillary Clinton and her presidential-loss, blame game of excluding herself

[Kulindahr]

Barack Obama had no trouble winning those three core states in the Midwest Rust Belt that Hillary wound up losing by less than 60,000 votes in total... anyone ultimately to blame in this it's one part Russia and two parts Hillary and an out of touch DNC and Democratic establishment. If she really kept her eyes on the prize no way she would have allowed for the kind of message that became apparent that she didn't value their vote.

I've read so much from local Democrat activists in those states where many just gave up in disgust because anything they had to say about how to do things locally was rejected by the DNC -- thus giving that message that it wasn't just their vote that wasn't valued, but even their input. I strongly suspect that this one factor alone was enough to cause the loss in those states, the margins were so narrow.

 

[Kulindahr]

The local paper here had an article about Hillary on the front page. Standing by a newsstand, I heard a number of people express disgust about having to keep hearing about her. This points to a paradox for the Democrats: they need to talk about her in order to analyze what went wrong, but they need to shut up about her because many people are sick and tired of it. Seriously, one of the best things that could happen for the Democratic Party this year would be for Hillary to die in some accident and we'd never hear about her again.

 

[eastofeden]

And meanwhile she baldly claims that nothing she did contributed to her defeat.

Those whom the gods would destroy.....

Can you quote her saying that?...or are you just repeating what other people have said and thinking if so many people say it.... it must be true?....

Because I heard her very clearly claim many mistakes she made....

- - - Updated - - -

The local paper here had an article about Hillary on the front page. Standing by a newsstand, I heard a number of people express disgust about having to keep hearing about her. This points to a paradox for the Democrats: they need to talk about her in order to analyze what went wrong, but they need to shut up about her because many people are sick and tired of it. Seriously, one of the best things that could happen for the Democratic Party this year would be for Hillary to die in some accident and we'd never hear about her again.

[Text: Removed]

 

[KaraBulut]

...On gay rights? Absolutely NEVER been in a leadership role there for either Clintons.. President Obama did more than the Clintons lifting a finger and actually doing some heavy lifting. It doesn't matter what the Clintons "intentions" were... just self justifying excuses that win them no points with me.

I remember it differently. We spent the 80s with a health crisis with a President that couldn't even say the word "AIDS". So, to hear this speech was a major milestone:

People who were there that night called me and said, "You're not going to believe this...".

Unfortunately, after DOMA and Don't Ask Don't Tell, this cover:

Became this cover:

But to be fair, he made the effort back in 1992. The first President who did. It was poorly timed, poorly planned and we all paid the price for it with the conservative backlash.

...There is a division in the party and the country, and the "get rid of the electoral college" movement is nothing more than diversional self serving whining by a selfish and entitled woman and her supporters. Basically Hillary Clinton won by her landslide win in California...

Well, the point of a democracy is that the person who gets the most votes wins. It doesn't matter where those votes come from.

It's a bit ironic that there's so much energy that the left is putting into getting rid of monuments to slavery when the Electoral College is exactly that- it was created solely to enable low-population slave states and to preserve that peculiar institution.

No Republican or Democrat should be in favor of a system that gives the same leverage in a Presidential election to New York state (20 million people), Texas (30 million people), California (40 million people), Connecticut (3 million), North Dakota (750K) and Delaware (952K) with a winner-take-all system and no required consistent system of apportionment.

...I respect Kara Balut tremendously, but I believe his perspective is too narrow and conventional here when things are, at least for the time being, going to be much less conventional or predictable and open to nearly anything.

Just to be clear about something...

I don't post in this forum very often and more often than not, when I do post here, it's because something got flagged for moderator review and I had to read the thread to follow-up on the moderation request. So, I'm not sure what the usual tone is for the regular posters.

You're welcome to disagree with me. I have these discussions all the time with friends (and frenemies) and I don't take any of this personally, as long as it's not intended to be personal.

 

[opinterph]

I heard a number of people express disgust about having to keep hearing about her.

And a number of other people desire very much to hear from Hillary as we move forward to resist bullying, hate, falsehoods, and divisiveness, and stand up for a fairer, more inclusive America.

Wishing harm is an inferior sentiment.

 

[mikey3000]

Please. Amazon got caught deleting all the poor reviews of her new book. No one cares anymore. The Clintons are finished. Sir!

 

[KaraBulut]

Please. Amazon got caught deleting all the poor reviews of her new book. No one cares anymore. The Clintons are finished. Sir!

If you would have read past the headline, Amazon deleted 900 of 1500 reviews because they were reviews of Hillary, not her book. One of the things that they looked at were posters who had only posted once during their membership at Amazon- an obvious sign of bots or trolls posting (part of the same criteria that we use on JUB to evaluate spammers, by the way).

See, the idea is that you read the book, then you review it.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/art/rev...ted-violating-company-guidelines-amazon-says/

Manipulation of content, including unusually high numbers of reviews, are grounds for removal according to Amazon’s community guidelines. In a statement emailed to PBS NewsHour, an Amazon spokesperson said, “We never suppress reviews based on star rating or sentiment. We have triggers in place to detect when numerous reviews post in a short amount of time that are unrelated to the product.”

 

[Sausy]

Clinton's words were stirring.. Bill Clinton could do that as well as anyone ever. Ronald Reagan's response to the AIDS crisis was an absolute travesty, virtually ignoring it for well into his term before he and Nancy started very late to pay some attention. I will admit something few do here, I was wrong making such a broad and sweeping generalization over the Clinton's record... but I do not back off from the truth that ultimately when it counted(not specifically on AIDS to which the Clinton efforts were much better and do deserve commendation) neither Clinton led or really tried to. DOMA and Don't Ask, Don't Tell were triangulating, half hearted efforts that at best may have been meant to prevent a harsher response from opponents(merit on that defense is very debatable) to more cynically, doing enough to LOOK like you're moving forward, but not nearly enough to change the reality. Until marriage equality and the ability to openly serve as LGBT without fear of harassment, abuse, or dismissal were actually realized... millions of LGBT Americans still lived as second class citizens with scant hope of actually being able to live their lives freely without discrimination or fear of public shaming. The law simply wasn't on their side.

 

[Sausy]

For those who position Bernie Sanders, btw, as a great idealist with scant pragmatism and understanding of the real world responsibilities of governing, they are wrong here. Bernie was mayor of Burlington, Vermont... a city of 40,000 plus which while not a major city still is a very solid size sample to generate an appreciation of his skills on the job... for four two year terms lasting from 1981 to 1989. To this day he is strongly well regarded in Vermont for his stewardship there. The wild eyed, impractical socialist balanced budgets, promoted smart growth, and showed he definitely knew how to balance his democratic socialist ideals with the everyday efforts of governing a small city in the real world, and did an amazing job. Burlington became recognized as one of the best cities to live as well as Bernie getting recognized as one of America's best mayors. DON'T tell us Bernie couldn't govern pragmatically if he had been the Democratic candidate... I would guarantee he would have run circles around Donald Trump in the debates and likely well could have won the election. Critics say that Americans would NEVER vote for a democratic socialist... well until 2008 you could say that American's would NEVER vote for a black man , especially in the numbers they did... or America would NEVER elect a bombastic, populist, bigoted, "reality show" starring businessman especially over a woman who was a former First Lady, Senator from New York, Secretary of State. There are new rules now in the digital technology 24/7 age we now live in, with our constant social media updating(for good AND ill). We can no longer make such presumptions over what is possible or not, the rulebook is thrown out the window.

 

[KaraBulut]

...I will admit something few do here, I was wrong making such a broad and sweeping generalization over the Clinton's record... but I do not back off from the truth that ultimately when it counted(not specifically on AIDS to which the Clinton efforts were much better and do deserve commendation) neither Clinton led or really tried to.

It's always a mixed bag. For example, George W Bush deserves a lot of credit for ignoring the conservatives' protests in order to fund President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) which increased the availability of HIV drugs in Africa. Before his actions, about 50,000 in Africa were getting anti-retrovirals; after PEPFAR, there were 4 million people on anti-retrovirals in Africa. On the other hand, Bush should never be forgiven for his tacit permission for Karl Rove to push an anti same-sex marriage state initiatives to get Republicans to the polls in 2004.

Just a reminder on how far we've come...

This is an ad that was run against Bill Clinton in 1992:

This is an interview with Obama in 2004:

This is an ad that was run by the Hillary Clinton campaign in 2016:

This is progress.

 

[KaraBulut]

... well until 2008 you could say that American's would NEVER vote for a black man , especially in the numbers they did...

Something to think about: in the 1870s, there was a big argument on the left about whether women should get able to vote. In the end, there was a compromise.

Liberals (in the Republican party!) felt that it was more likely that Black men would given the vote and that suffrage for women could be worked on later. The 15th Amendment passed in 1870 said that men could not be denied the right to vote based upon race or color.

Despite the promises that women would be given the right to vote after 15th Amendment was passed, women didn't get the right to vote until the 19th Amendment passed in 1920- 50 years later.

Nearly 9 years after Obama was elected, there's no woman on the horizon who has the qualifications that Hillary had (at least based upon resume').

If there is something that the Democratic Party should be really concerned about it is that their leadership and the candidates that they are proposing are predominantly old and male. During the Obama years, the Democrats lost a great deal of ground at the State and local level on developing a next generation of leadership- particularly for women.

 

[ballcaphair]

^ I agree and as a conservative I am at a loss for the present mess. We do not even stumble forward. We fall backward. The rest of the world is whistling and skipping beyond the horizon.

 

[Kulindahr]

It's a bit ironic that there's so much energy that the left is putting into getting rid of monuments to slavery when the Electoral College is exactly that- it was created solely to enable low-population slave states and to preserve that peculiar institution.

That was only one argument used in its favor; the bigger concern was from the small states worried the big states would effectively divide the country up among them treating the small states as vassals.

Ironically, one of the arguments for the EC was that if a total nut-case won over the people, honest statesmen could effectively veto that choice -- but it couldn't work that way with Trump because the virtual worship of democracy led states to require by law that what the people chose, the electors had to vote for.

 

[Kulindahr]

And a number of other people desire very much to hear from Hillary as we move forward to resist bullying, hate, falsehoods, and divisiveness, and stand up for a fairer, more inclusive America.

Wishing harm is an inferior sentiment.

Humorous, given that Clinton engaged in bullying, falsehoods, and divisiveness in running her campaign.

Don't know what "wishing harm" is about.

 

[MystikWizard]

I would like to know from the Hillary supporters on here who feels she should run again. Regardless of the fact she has said she won't run, I would like to know if anyone thinks she should run again and whether you think she would win.

 

[gsdx]

^ I was never so much a Hillary supporter as I was a Trump unsupporter. I could foresee what Trump would do to the United States and I knew what that would mean to Canada and the rest of the world. I couldn't foresee Clinton causing quite as much damage

 

[Benvolio]

I would like to know from the Hillary supporters on here who feels she should run again. Regardless of the fact she has said she won't run, I would like to know if anyone thinks she should run again and whether you think she would win.

As a a Republican I hope she runs again; Sanders too;

 

[bankside]

That was only one argument used in its favor; the bigger concern was from the small states worried the big states would effectively divide the country up among them treating the small states as vassals.

Ironically, one of the arguments for the EC was that if a total nut-case won over the people, honest statesmen could effectively veto that choice -- but it couldn't work that way with Trump because the virtual worship of democracy led states to require by law that what the people chose, the electors had to vote for.

One day we might see that the overwhelming preference of a given electorate is to trust the presidency to an 18-year-old. This is not consistent with US electoral law, which might be tested in court and nonetheless confirmed as valid. The electoral college or any other body of law would have the duty of answering the wishes of the electorate in that year or upholding the law. Since democracy is not an exercise in mob rule, and since an electoral law passed by an elected assembly and found by a court to be consistent with constitutional principles of justice is clearly democratic, the choice should not be in doubt: the electorate cannot have a choice that it's own democratic laws preclude.

Enforcing such principles and governing election in accordance with such principles can be the only legitimate purpose of something like an electoral college.

In 2016 I would argue that the electorate chose an invalid anti constitutional candidate, and the electoral college failed in its primary purpose.

 

[Benvolio]

One day we might see that the overwhelming preference of a given electorate is to trust the presidency to an 18-year-old. This is not consistent with US electoral law, which might be tested in court and nonetheless confirmed as valid. The electoral college or any other body of law would have the duty of answering the wishes of the electorate in that year or upholding the law. Since democracy is not an exercise in mob rule, and since an electoral law passed by an elected assembly and found by a court to be consistent with constitutional principles of justice is clearly democratic, the choice should not be in doubt: the electorate cannot have a choice that it's own democratic laws preclude.

Enforcing such principles and governing election in accordance with such principles can be the only legitimate purpose of something like an electoral college.

In 2016 I would argue that the electorate chose an invalid anti constitutional candidate, and the electoral college failed in its primary purpose.

How invalid or unconstitutional?

 

[gsdx]

How invalid or unconstitutional?

That question has been answered virtually every day since Trump's nomination. You just haven't been paying attention. And I don't know how many times it has been posted here that the EC is intended to prevent this travesty from happening.