|
Post by burningfeather on Sept 14, 2017 21:26:09 GMT
Let's start judging men (as in politicians) by the same standards. I judge plenty of men that I've never met based on what I see them do or hear them say. I don't have to meet someone in person to see what kind of a person they will be in public. For that matter, I've heard people who have met Donald Trump say that he is very engaging and personable so by your standards since people who have met him say that, then it must be true?
|
|
|
Post by *leslie* on Sept 14, 2017 23:06:46 GMT
I so want to see a woman in the White House in my lifetime but I not going to vote for someone just because she's a woman. It has be to be right woman and Hilary was not the right woman, IMO. I couldn't, in good conscience, vote for her or Trump.
|
|
MsKnit
Pearl Clutcher
RefuPea #1406
Posts: 2,648
Jun 26, 2014 19:06:42 GMT
|
Post by MsKnit on Sept 15, 2017 0:53:59 GMT
Another reason, I think, is that after having the first black president the pendulum of change swung the other way. People were not ready for the first woman president. It would be really nice for people to acknowledge that many of us were ready for the first black woman president. It's not always about race. It's not always about sex. Sometimes, it really is all about Hillary and how many just weren't into her. I'm not saying that Hillary herself wasn't an issue. I wouldn't have voted for her had I had a choice. For some though, going from first black president to first woman president would have been too much, um, out of the norm. They needed to go back to an old white guy in the WH. I hated Psych. So, even though some of the ideas have stayed with me, terms not so much. Just another reason why some would have voted against her is all.
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Sept 15, 2017 1:18:43 GMT
Hillary publicly, 1/8-assedly holding herself partly to blame, but not really. There's no sincerity in her limp mea culpas. Hmmm...... That rings a bell. Seems like I've seen this movie before. I just can not understand how people don't like her. /sarcasm But, but, but, you're saying that... gasp... Hillary might not have done her job as a candidate and actually gone out to the people she needed votes from. Say it isn't so! It can't be that. It's more likely all those women who now must be paraded up to her under strict instructions from their mothers to apologize for not voting! Yeah. That's why she didn't win! Those darn kids. My guess is no matter what Hillary says or does you aren't going to believe it. That's fair. Because I feel the same way about trump. And in all honesty I have sooo much more to work with and don't have to grasp at things to feed my dislike as you have to do with Hillary. Agreed. My oldest brother hates her. He and his wife voted for 45.
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Sept 15, 2017 1:21:57 GMT
Bernie hasn't spent the past 10 months giving every reason under the sun as to why he lost. HRC even put some blame on him, saying he didn't support her enough. So maybe, just maybe, it's not because she's a woman, but because she keeps coming up with reasons and people to blame. Like someone upthread pointed out Clinton got more votes, so where and how does sexism and misogyny come in to play? She didn't get the votes where she needed to, and where she automatically assumed she would. On top of that, Bernie Sanders supporters didn't just jump on the HRC bandwagon like, again, she assumed they would. Then, add in that a lot of people just don't like her so didn't vote for her=HRC loss. linkBernie spent plenty of time during the primaries moaning that the system was rigged against him. In his stump speeches he kept saying "Let the people vote" and I couldn't figure out who was stopping the people from voting. What I found out each state can decide what type of primary election/system for determining the delegates for the convention that leads to picking a nominee for the general election. The choices are open primary, closed primary, and caucuses. The decision of what system to use was determined long before Bernie "threw his hat into the ring" as a candidate for president.Bernie's greatest strength came from independents and not necessarily from registered Democrats. The problem became how to get the Bernie Bros registered so they could vote in the primaries. As far as the caucuses go I don't understand them so that is why I dug up this article from FiveThirtyEight that talks about caucuses and primaries and how they affected each canidate. What Bernie should have done was make sure he had people in every state making sure the Bernie Bros knew what they needed to do register to vote and know the rules of the caucuses. But he didn't he just kept chanting "let the people vote" and implying the system was rigged against him. Ignoring the fact the rules for the primaries were in place long the election cycle started. Add to that the DNC leaked emails that just showed the DNC was pushing for Hillary. But as someone pointed out if you look at the dates of those damning emails they were late May early June when it was clear Hillary was going to be the nominee and the DNC, like Hillary, was changing from "primary mode" to "general election mode". Something that you do if you want to win an election. And that did damage Hillary. Along with Bernie harping about Hillary giving a speech at Goldman Sachs like it was a moral sin. The trump campaign latched on to that and continued to use it against Hillary during the campaign. In the end while Bernie did campaign for Hillary he couldn't deliver the Bernie Bros. I read 12% voted for trump and we have no idea how many of the 61M that didn't vote were Bernie Bros. And there is no question in my mind that Bernie going on about the primaries were rigged agains him hurt Hillary in the general election. What's worse is that he is likely to run again. I will have to vote for him if the Republicans nominate Trump or someone Trump-like. Ugh, I loathe Bernie.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 18, 2024 20:27:40 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2017 3:52:15 GMT
And let's not think for a second that Hillary didn't do everything she could, dirty or otherwise to win. It's the name of the game in politics. Name some.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 18, 2024 20:27:40 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2017 4:33:23 GMT
@fred Even though you quoted leftturnonly, I'm within that quote so wanted to respond. For me, it's not a question of whether or not I believe HRC, but rather whether or not I agree with her. An example, the Electoral College/Votes. From her interview on CNN yesterday, in part: "Hillary Clinton told CNN on Wednesday that it is time to abolish the Electoral College, part of a sweeping interview where the former Democratic nominee sought to explain why she lost the 2016 election." In addition: "Clinton won the 2016 popular vote by nearly 3 million votes, a fact she routinely brings up in her new memoir. But Trump won the Electoral College, a body of 538 members who select the president based on the popular vote in each state, meaning the person who gets the most votes nationally doesn't necessarily win the election." So that is fact--she lost because of the EC and it can't be disputed. However, how does HRC getting nearly 3M more votes than Trump equate to a factor in loosing because of sexism and mysogyny? Is sexism only alive and well in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania? So for this claim, I disagree. And lastly, regarding Bernie Sanders, she said this: "Clinton writes that Sanders' attacks on her caused "lasting damage" and laid the groundwork for Trump's campaign against her. In her interview with CNN, Clinton says the "political sin" Sanders committed was not unifying the party fast enough by dropping out of the race once his campaign was clearly over." For that she might be right, but it's her opinion. But being honest, politics are dirty, and why did she expect it to be different towards her? Using that as an excuse/reason is lame. The Electorial College was set up to make sure the wrong person didn't become president. The framers thought the general public could vote but if the If the general public chose a person unsuited to be president that could be remedied by members of the Electorial College. Unfortunately certain states changed the this and now require the members to vote the way the delegates were assigned from the general election. In other words the Electorial College can no longer function the way it was originally set up to do. So either fix it or get rid of it. Alexander Hamilton explains the reason for the Electorial College in the Federialist Papers I think letter 98 or close to it. Why is Hillary right? I think a strong case could be made that trump was not and is not suited to be president. I read your post about Bernie and dirty politics. To me you gave Bernie a pass but yet all over Hillary because she voiced an opinion the Electorial College should be eliminated and because she explained how Bernie hurt her in the primaries. And claiming the primaries were rigged against him is a little more than dirty politics.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 18, 2024 20:27:40 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2017 10:54:45 GMT
@fred Even though you quoted leftturnonly, I'm within that quote so wanted to respond. For me, it's not a question of whether or not I believe HRC, but rather whether or not I agree with her. An example, the Electoral College/Votes. From her interview on CNN yesterday, in part: "Hillary Clinton told CNN on Wednesday that it is time to abolish the Electoral College, part of a sweeping interview where the former Democratic nominee sought to explain why she lost the 2016 election." In addition: "Clinton won the 2016 popular vote by nearly 3 million votes, a fact she routinely brings up in her new memoir. But Trump won the Electoral College, a body of 538 members who select the president based on the popular vote in each state, meaning the person who gets the most votes nationally doesn't necessarily win the election." So that is fact--she lost because of the EC and it can't be disputed. However, how does HRC getting nearly 3M more votes than Trump equate to a factor in loosing because of sexism and mysogyny? Is sexism only alive and well in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania? So for this claim, I disagree. And lastly, regarding Bernie Sanders, she said this: "Clinton writes that Sanders' attacks on her caused "lasting damage" and laid the groundwork for Trump's campaign against her. In her interview with CNN, Clinton says the "political sin" Sanders committed was not unifying the party fast enough by dropping out of the race once his campaign was clearly over." For that she might be right, but it's her opinion. But being honest, politics are dirty, and why did she expect it to be different towards her? Using that as an excuse/reason is lame. The Electorial College was set up to make sure the wrong person didn't become president. The framers thought the general public could vote but if the If the general public chose a person unsuited to be president that could be remedied by members of the Electorial College. Unfortunately certain states changed the this and now require the members to vote the way the delegates were assigned from the general election. In other words the Electorial College can no longer function the way it was originally set up to do. So either fix it or get rid of it. Alexander Hamilton explains the reason for the Electorial College in the Federialist Papers I think letter 98 or close to it. Why is Hillary right? I think a strong case could be made that trump was not and is not suited to be president. I read your post about Bernie and dirty politics. To me you gave Bernie a pass but yet all over Hillary because she voiced an opinion the Electorial College should be eliminated and because she explained how Bernie hurt her in the primaries. And claiming the primaries were rigged against him is a little more than dirty politics. You're right, I guess I did seem to give Bernie a pass. I also didn't bring up Trump's actions during the campaign, and he was the worst. My reason for responding to the thread in the first place was the simple fact that Hillary has been all over explaining her loss (which she does have every right to do). She also has as much right as the next guy to write a book. However, ten months later we (at least I) have heard so many reasons, how many more can there be? Also, I just don't agree with many of her explanations.
|
|
|
Post by jenis40 on Sept 15, 2017 14:30:54 GMT
I'm not interested in reading her book (and am tired of all the post-election deconstruction, although I think it is important for the Democratic party to take stock), but have been interested in her interviews. The only one I've listened to so far was her interview on Pod Save America and I thought it was really good, although I find the Russia stuff frightening. I know this has been downplayed by many because they feel it is fake news, sour grapes, whatever, but I think the threat from Russia is real (just ask Ukraine about that - fake news in Ukraine stoked the fires of war there and Russia has been testing a lot of their hacking in Ukraine where it has largely gone unchecked - things like hacking into the power grid and shutting it down). This was a really good interview as was the one she did with Rachel Maddow. Her policy answers sounded intelligent and concise compared to the current WH occupant. It's sad and quite scary to compare the grasp of policy matters, particularly foreign, between the two. I think that there were a multitude of reasons Hilary lost, none of which can be ruled out. They all had an effect and I think those who expect her to wear a hair shirt, especially the media which has yet to own up to its part in electing Trump, can go jump in a lake. Like her or don't like her, read her book or don't read her book, I don't care but quit whining that she isn't solely taking the blame for an election loss that clearly was not entirely her fault.
|
|
pudgygroundhog
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,643
Location: The Grand Canyon
Jun 25, 2014 20:18:39 GMT
|
Post by pudgygroundhog on Sept 15, 2017 14:46:56 GMT
I'm not interested in reading her book (and am tired of all the post-election deconstruction, although I think it is important for the Democratic party to take stock), but have been interested in her interviews. The only one I've listened to so far was her interview on Pod Save America and I thought it was really good, although I find the Russia stuff frightening. I know this has been downplayed by many because they feel it is fake news, sour grapes, whatever, but I think the threat from Russia is real (just ask Ukraine about that - fake news in Ukraine stoked the fires of war there and Russia has been testing a lot of their hacking in Ukraine where it has largely gone unchecked - things like hacking into the power grid and shutting it down). This was a really good interview as was the one she did with Rachel Maddow. Her policy answers sounded intelligent and concise compared to the current WH occupant. It's sad and quite scary to compare the grasp of policy matters, particularly foreign, between the two. I think that there were a multitude of reasons Hilary lost, none of which can be ruled out. They all had an effect and I think those who expect her to wear a hair shirt, especially the media which has yet to own up to its part in electing Trump, can go jump in a lake. Like her or don't like her, read her book or don't read her book, I don't care but quit whining that she isn't solely taking the blame for an election loss that clearly was not entirely her fault. ITA!
|
|
|
Post by ScrapsontheRocks on Sept 15, 2017 15:19:38 GMT
I wish to lament the overwhelming need for Presidential Candidates to be likeable, as mentioned several times on here. I agree HRC was/is not, mores the pity. Competence, track record, you name it definitely came way behind the charisma thing in last year's election. I am a little confused, BTW because I don't find DT in the least likeable either!
For those questioning whether likeability counts, consider the following sets of "choices" (with apologies to the British peas). I am not commenting on or taking into account ANY other skills, actions or characteristics other than pure likeability, mind!
Princess Diana vs the Duchess of Cornwall (now, or Camilla Parker Bowles then) Prince Charles vs Prince William (and family) / the Duke of Cambridge. My point with this pair is that every so often a poll is taken to "prove" that a large percentage of the British people would happily skip over C in favour of W.
It is not a reality TV show- the election of 45, the " lining up behind" whom Prince C should have fallen in love with or who should succeed her maj!
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 18, 2024 20:27:40 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2017 15:36:13 GMT
You're right, I guess I did seem to give Bernie a pass. I also didn't bring up Trump's actions during the campaign, and he was the worst. My reason for responding to the thread in the first place was the simple fact that Hillary has been all over explaining her loss (which she does have every right to do). She also has as much right as the next guy to write a book. However, ten months later we (at least I) have heard so many reasons, how many more can there be? Also, I just don't agree with many of her explanations. The bolded part has me puzzled. Do you mean more reasons then what is listed on this thread? The only "excuses" as some may call them, I have heard are the ones listed on this thread. I have not heard any others except some have voiced an opinion that she should have campaigned in Wisconsin.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 18, 2024 20:27:40 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2017 16:04:04 GMT
You're right, I guess I did seem to give Bernie a pass. I also didn't bring up Trump's actions during the campaign, and he was the worst. My reason for responding to the thread in the first place was the simple fact that Hillary has been all over explaining her loss (which she does have every right to do). She also has as much right as the next guy to write a book. However, ten months later we (at least I) have heard so many reasons, how many more can there be? Also, I just don't agree with many of her explanations. The bolded part has me puzzled. Do you mean more reasons then what is listed on this thread? The only "excuses" as some may call them, I have heard are the ones listed on this thread. I have not heard any others except some have voiced an opinion that she should have campaigned in Wisconsin. I have watched several clips of her speaking since the election, and she has given many reasons, beyond what's listed here, as possible factors for her loss. All of the interviews I've heard or articles I've read, she does state Russia, Comey, emails, etc. But she tosses in bits about Joe Biden casting doubts on her campaign, the DNC was broke and didn't give her any financial help, Matt Lauer asked her tougher questions than Trump. She said this about the women at the women's march: "Clinton referenced the throngs of protesters who took the streets of Washington and other cities in a Women's march shortly after his election. But her thoughts moved from the calls to resistance to the Trump agenda to why they hadn't summoned that same passion for her own campaign. 'I couldn’t help but ask where those feelings of solidarity, outrage and passion had been during the election,' Clinton writes in her new memoir, 'What Happened.'" There's more, I just don't have the time to find and link them. @fred Sorry for the delay in editing, my computer is flaking, lol.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 18, 2024 20:27:40 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2017 16:13:17 GMT
Randi Mayem Singer....
"Hilary Clinton could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and do nothing, and they would say she shot somebody."
Can't argue with that!
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 18, 2024 20:27:40 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2017 16:34:54 GMT
The bolded part has me puzzled. Do you mean more reasons then what is listed on this thread? The only "excuses" as some may call them, I have heard are the ones listed on this thread. I have not heard any others except some have voiced an opinion that she should have campaigned in Wisconsin. ?
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Sept 15, 2017 16:36:22 GMT
I wish to lament the overwhelming need for Presidential Candidates to be likeable, as mentioned several times on here. I agree HRC was/is not, mores the pity. Competence, track record, you name it definitely came way behind the charisma thing in last year's election. I am a little confused, BTW because I don't find DT in the least likeable either! I've had some really interesting and heated debates on the importance of likability in a president. I don't at all disagree with you that competence, track record etc seems obviously necessary in a candidate. But when you really break down the role and responsibility of the president it falls into a few major categories: Commander in Chief - no question likability or charisma is utterly irrelevant; Communicator in chief - this is where the likability and charisma comes in - you can't over look that one of the main roles the president has is communicating - sometimes reassuring, sometimes swaying, etc the general public; Chief Executive Officer - running the executive branch of the government includes hiring, retaining, directing people - which definitely needs the competency, but I'll also say some likability doesn't hurt in this role - particularly when you layer in their interaction with the legislative branch and attempts to influence legislation etc. I used to be firmly on the who cares if they're "wooden" (a typical slam against intellectuals) or fail to connect with the people - we need someone who is smart, hardworking, experienced -yada yada yada. Now I will acknowledge that do also need strong communication skills and the ability to connect and sway people to fully execute the job. I do however wish the current US population would put a whole lot more weight on the competency part. I also wish that we didn't have a process that seems to discourage the more competent people from running. I am already worried that 2020 will be still be about pushing candidates who's biggest strength is garnering headlines.
|
|
|
Post by #notLauren on Sept 15, 2017 16:38:39 GMT
People are also saying Donald Trump could find a cure for cancer and people would find a reason to berate him for it.
"Alexander Hamilton explains the reason for the Electorial College in the Federialist Papers I think letter 98 or close to it. "
Three individuals wrote the Federalist Papers. They were opposed by many of the original founders of this country, including Jefferson. The Federalist Papers are not the be all and end all of Constitutional interpretation. They merely set forth Hamilton's views (and occasionally those of Monroe and the other author). Hamilton's ideas were hotly contested in his lifetime and like Hillary, he was greatly disliked.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 18, 2024 20:27:40 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2017 16:57:20 GMT
Hamilton's ideas were hotly contested in his lifetime and like Hillary, he was greatly disliked. Waiting for "Hilary - The Musical!"
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Sept 15, 2017 17:09:38 GMT
People are also saying Donald Trump could find a cure for cancer and people would find a reason to berate him for it. "Alexander Hamilton explains the reason for the Electorial College in the Federialist Papers I think letter 98 or close to it. " Three individuals wrote the Federalist Papers. They were opposed by many of the original founders of this country, including Jefferson. The Federalist Papers are not the be all and end all of Constitutional interpretation. They merely set forth Hamilton's views (and occasionally those of Monroe and the other author). Hamilton's ideas were hotly contested in his lifetime and like Hillary, he was greatly disliked. Come on now that one is in the SONG - it's not Monroe but Madison and the "other author" is John Jay who my daughter will tell you became sick after writing just 5! One would also need to separate out the original formation of the EC where the electors had discretion about following the vote of the people (where many states no longer allow discretion) which was a big piece of the unfit to serve argument. Where the EC really hurt Clinton was the delegate allocation and I would argue vehemently that it still serves a purpose just as the differences between the make up of the House and Senate serves a purpose.
|
|
|
Post by #notLauren on Sept 15, 2017 17:12:15 GMT
LOL, as I was writing my post I was trying to remember if it was Madison or Monroe. I guessed wrong.
I haven't heard any music from the musical. I was trying to remember the book Hamilton, that I read last month.
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Sept 15, 2017 17:20:10 GMT
Communicator in chief - this is where the likability and charisma comes in - you can't over look that one of the main roles the president has is communicating - sometimes reassuring, sometimes swaying, etc the general public; Chief Executive Officer - running the executive branch of the government includes hiring, retaining, directing people - which definitely needs the competency, but I'll also say some likability doesn't hurt in this role - particularly when you layer in their interaction with the legislative branch and attempts to influence legislation etc. yeah, 45 pretty much fails miserably at both of these, in my opinion. Unfortunatley I think his 'reality show persona' overrode pretty much everything else in this election. (along with quite a bit of help from Russia, in all sorts of ways.)
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Sept 15, 2017 17:43:55 GMT
Communicator in chief - this is where the likability and charisma comes in - you can't over look that one of the main roles the president has is communicating - sometimes reassuring, sometimes swaying, etc the general public; Chief Executive Officer - running the executive branch of the government includes hiring, retaining, directing people - which definitely needs the competency, but I'll also say some likability doesn't hurt in this role - particularly when you layer in their interaction with the legislative branch and attempts to influence legislation etc. yeah, 45 pretty much fails miserably at both of these, in my opinion. Unfortunatley I think his 'reality show persona' overrode pretty much everything else in this election. (along with quite a bit of help from Russia, in all sorts of ways.) Oh please don't read that as an endorsement of Trump - it's not. It's a general discussion of the traits necessary to be an effective president and why likability is a factor (albeit hopefully a minor one) Now a discussion of a successful CANDIDATE traits is not necessarily the same and unfortunately is OFTEN not the same at all. It's sort of like how everyone says how much they hate negative ads and candidates should never use them - BUT over and over again negative ads have proven to be effective which is why politicians continue to use them (although now they like deniability so let the PACs do the smear campaigns). I actually think the biggest obstacle for Hillary was Obama - it was discussed above - but I'll reiterate it. This was the Republicans election to lose - and they tried, really, really hard to lose it. Just as 2008 was the Democrats election to lose. It's exceedingly difficult to follow an 8 year presidency with another term for the same party. I believe Bush Senior is the only one to do it in the last 90 years or so - and they tossed him out after one term for a charismatic, newcomer with no national experience and no international experience, no military experience and a whole lot of scandal. The Democrats needed an extremely popular, likable candidate to break the headwinds - or a whole lot of help from the Republicans - they almost achieved the latter.
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Sept 15, 2017 18:40:37 GMT
oh, I knew it wasn't any sort of endorsement-- just commenting on how the traits for an effective president don't necessarily hold true with this particular election. Because if they did, he shouldn't have won, either.
|
|
inkedup
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,837
Jun 26, 2014 5:00:26 GMT
|
Post by inkedup on Sept 15, 2017 18:44:56 GMT
Poor Hill just isn't likeable the way Bill is. No charisma and she doesn't motivate people. It must be eternally aggravating to realize that people dislike you so much they'd sit at home on election day and allow a pussy-grabbing TV-host blowhard moron to become president. She's a smart woman who's had a great career, but it's hard to feel real sympathy for her because she's such a polished politician. She feels manipulative. I've never for a moment believed that the email business was of real importance, but then again I don't feel it was any random mistake on her part. Come on now. I think she'd have been better off leaving this shit behind and flying off to Tahiti or something. Who needs this crap. This is how I feel. I think the election was a complete disaster that ended with our disaster of a President, but I also doubt Hillary would have been the savior some are making her out to be. I think it's important for the Democratic party (which I am not a member of) to see where she went wrong in this election. I have no interest in reading her book, however.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 18, 2024 20:27:40 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2017 20:48:50 GMT
linkThis is from the Cut. I'm sure it will be dismissed by some. But In the article it mentions the treatment of Kamala Harris by white male Senators when questioning some of trump nominees. Kamala Harris was the DA in San Francisco and the AG for the State of California. I think she knows how to question people without being "hysterical". "Hillary Clinton is finally expressing some righteous anger. Why does that make everyone mad?"Back in May, Hillary Clinton addressed the graduating seniors at Wellesley College and advised them: “Don’t be afraid of your ambition, your dreams, or even your anger.” Clinton, who at the time was working on her quick, raw, postelection memoir, What Happened, has been heeding that last bit of her own advice. What Happened is 100 percent more candid than anything she has previously expressed in 25 years in national politics. But what makes it unusual and unusually valuable — what sent its early critics into apoplexy even before its publication — is that in it, Hillary Clinton is expressing anger, something she was not free to do during the election, even as her opponents, Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump, were admired for their ability to channel the rage of their supporters. The question of whether Clinton could or should have found her own mad voice during the campaign hangs over What Happened. Should she have turned on Donald Trump as he paced behind her at the second debate, she wonders. Could she have found a way to communicate the anger many Americans were feeling? “I couldn’t — and wouldn’t — compete to stoke people’s rage and resentment. I think that’s dangerous … Besides, it’s just not how I’m wired,” she writes, describing the mental diagnostics she was performing as she listened to Trump’s wrathful inauguration, wondering if “maybe that’s why Trump was now delivering the inaugural address.” Hillary Clinton Didn’t Shatter the Glass Ceiling. This Is What Broke Instead. But if her failure to win the Electoral College hinged on Clinton’s inability to traffic in rhetorical fury, then the question she raises goes beyond her own wiring. Because she never could have turned around and screamed at Trump, never could have slashed her finger through the air and called for revolution in the style of Bernie Sanders, at least not if she had any hope of winning the presidency. Hillary Clinton is a woman, and there is almost nothing that Americans view as more repellent in women than anger. Recall that every time Clinton spoke too loudly into a microphone while debating her screamy opponents, Americans seemed to rear back; consider that the one deprecatory remark she threw out — calling those who responded enthusiastically to Trump’s open racism “deplorables” — is still regarded by many pundits as her fatal error. Never mind tha t she said it while running against a candidate who called Mexicans rapists. Censorious anger from women is a liability; from men, it is often, simply, speech. When California senator Kamala Harris and Jeff Sessions tussled during his Senate Intelligence hearings in the spring, Trump adviser Jason Miller described Sessions as full of “vinegar and fire in his belly,” while he deemed Harris “hysterical.” (Black women, with perhaps more to be mad about in America than anyone else, are often regarded as militant monsters when they so much as raise a disapproving eyebrow, or just as often, when someone imagines that they have. Recall the treatment of Michelle Obama in 2008.) After Senator Kirsten Gillibrand dressed down a commandant for failing to address sexual harassment in the military earlier this year, Tucker Carlson called her “positively unglued.” And in response to a righteous postelection rant from Senator Elizabeth Warren, Mika Brzezinski declared, “There’s an anger there that’s shrill … unmeasured and almost unhinged.” It is therefore exceedingly rare to watch a woman whose career has depended on her appeal to an American public commit her exasperation to paper — paper she hopes to sell for $30 a pop. That Hillary Clinton has finally done it tells us quite a bit about how finished her career as a candidate is, and about how desperate she must have felt, after a quarter century, to — as she rather demurely puts it — “get this off [her] chest!” This being her fury at the media, especially the New York Times, with its damaging infatuation with the email story. But also: her antipathy toward Donald Trump; her loathing for Vladimir Putin; her rancor toward Jim Comey; her disgruntlement with Bernie Sanders. And then there is her vexation with sexist double standards. “I’ve tried to adjust,” she writes drily. “After hearing repeatedly that some people didn’t like my voice, I enlisted the help of a linguistic expert” who told her to focus on deep breathing and positivity. “That way,” she gently smolders, “when the crowd got energized and started shouting — as crowds at rallies tend to do — I could resist doing the normal thing, which is to shout back.” Okay, Clinton tells the expert, she’ll try. “But out of curiosity, can you give me an example of a woman in public life who has pulled this off successfully — who has met the energy of a crowd while keeping her voice soft and low? He could not.”If this release of steam is coming late for Clinton — too late, by some measures — it could nevertheless serve as a useful model for other politicians, women who perhaps have some things they’d like to get off their chests. More crucially, it could be a step toward adjusting American ears to the sound of female anger — righteous and defensive, grand and petty — as a wholly normal emotional and rhetorical expression. Recently, pop culture has suggested that there is a hunger for real talk from those in whom it has long been discouraged: Key & Peele provided Barack Obama with a comedic “anger translator,” who clarified that when the former president suggested compromising with Republicans, what he was not saying was “You know these motherfuckers are gonna say no before I can even suggest some shit!” Clinton’s candidacy prompted a similarly profane parody, under an account called @shithrccantsay. But that adjustment will take a long time, something Clinton knows all too well. While angry has often been the first adjective used to describe the book, a reader might be surprised to learn that much of Clinton’s writing on rage is actually about how hard she’s worked to suppress her passions over the years. She describes forcing herself to smile even when miserable; at one point it becomes so hard that the muscles in her face ache. “Maybe I have overlearned the lesson of staying calm — biting my tongue, digging my fingernails into a clenched fist, smiling all the while …” she writes elsewhere. So internalized is women’s impulse to paper over their ire that Clinton writes about how, in the weeks after her loss, she prayed “to stay hopeful and openhearted rather than becoming cynical and bitter … so that the rest of my life wouldn’t be spent like Miss Havisham … rattling around my house obsessing over what might have been.” This is what women have been taught that rage might do to us: We are so sure that our resentments — especially any resentments toward men — are corrosive, and make us appear pathetic and vengeful, that we ask for divine help to simply stop feeling them. And those who continue to insist on hearing Clinton’s reasoned rage as a means to deflect blame are missing perhaps the object of her most blistering ire: herself. “My mistakes burn me up inside,” she writes of having given the Goldman Sachs speeches. She calls her handling of the email server “boneheaded.” Recounting a painful childhood game with her famously difficult father, who promised he’d love her, but maybe not like her, even if she robbed a store or murdered someone, Clinton writes of how in November, “I thought to myself, ‘Well, Dad, what if I lose an election I should have won and let an unqualified bully become president of the United States? Would you still love me then?” Hillary Clinton is obviously not alone in her condemnation of Hillary Clinton. One of her former fundraisers said to the Hill, “Honestly, I wish she’d just shut the fuck up and go away.” Such commentary — which, to be clear, is anger at her anger, is treated as analysis. But when Clinton vents her spleen, it’s heard as whining. These double standards don’t automatically make either side of the equation more right than the other; those who are furious at Clinton are free to yell back at her, to point out that poor press coverage did not force her to skip Wisconsin. But they would do well to remember that it’s not their rage that’s revelatory or new in this dynamic. People have been reacting with atavistic censure to Hillary Clinton for decades, and she’s been expected to simply absorb it all without returning fire. There are shirts, as she writes in What Happened, that feature an image of Trump holding her bloody severed head aloft; others, which she doesn’t mention, read “Hillary Sucks, But Not Like Monica.” You can disagree with Clinton; you can reasonably acknowledge that some of her pique does sound defensive. But she’s not lying; she’s not inciting violence. She’s not freaking out about crowd size or claiming that antifa protesters are as bad as neo-Nazis or suggesting that protesters be taken away on stretchers. (Granting that no woman of any disposition — even Strawberry Shortcake’s — has so far figured out how to gain the Oval Office, it is simply inconceivable that a wild-haired, insult-generating female tyrant could have made it to January 28 without being taken down by the 25th Amendment.) And perhaps the reason the press, and some of Clinton’s critics on both right and left, react to her legitimate, if arguable, critiques by furiously wishing for her silence is the same reason women’s public airing of fury has long been discouraged and cast as irrational: because if we allowed women’s resentments the same bearing we afford men’s grudges, America would be forced to reckon with the fact that all those angry women might just have a point.
|
|
Peal
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,524
Jun 25, 2014 22:45:40 GMT
|
Post by Peal on Sept 15, 2017 21:03:41 GMT
The bolded part has me puzzled. Do you mean more reasons then what is listed on this thread? The only "excuses" as some may call them, I have heard are the ones listed on this thread. I have not heard any others except some have voiced an opinion that she should have campaigned in Wisconsin. I have watched several clips of her speaking since the election, and she has given many reasons, beyond what's listed here, as possible factors for her loss. All of the interviews I've heard or articles I've read, she does state Russia, Comey, emails, etc. But she tosses in bits about Joe Biden casting doubts on her campaign, the DNC was broke and didn't give her any financial help, Matt Lauer asked her tougher questions than Trump. She said this about the women at the women's march: "Clinton referenced the throngs of protesters who took the streets of Washington and other cities in a Women's march shortly after his election. But her thoughts moved from the calls to resistance to the Trump agenda to why they hadn't summoned that same passion for her own campaign.
'I couldn’t help but ask where those feelings of solidarity, outrage and passion had been during the election,' Clinton writes in her new memoir, 'What Happened.'"There's more, I just don't have the time to find and link them. @fred Sorry for the delay in editing, my computer is flaking, lol. Re the bolded part. I don't think anyone felt they needed to do that. I think the general concession was that Hillary was the obvious winner and we were all just coasting home. I think everyone was surprised at the outcome. Republicans, Democrats and Independents. Save
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 18, 2024 20:27:40 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2017 22:34:17 GMT
The bolded part has me puzzled. Do you mean more reasons then what is listed on this thread? The only "excuses" as some may call them, I have heard are the ones listed on this thread. I have not heard any others except some have voiced an opinion that she should have campaigned in Wisconsin. I have watched several clips of her speaking since the election, and she has given many reasons, beyond what's listed here, as possible factors for her loss. All of the interviews I've heard or articles I've read, she does state Russia, Comey, emails, etc. But she tosses in bits about Joe Biden casting doubts on her campaign, the DNC was broke and didn't give her any financial help, Matt Lauer asked her tougher questions than Trump. She said this about the women at the women's march: "Clinton referenced the throngs of protesters who took the streets of Washington and other cities in a Women's march shortly after his election. But her thoughts moved from the calls to resistance to the Trump agenda to why they hadn't summoned that same passion for her own campaign. 'I couldn’t help but ask where those feelings of solidarity, outrage and passion had been during the election,' Clinton writes in her new memoir, 'What Happened.'" There's more, I just don't have the time to find and link them. @fred Sorry for the delay in editing, my computer is flaking, lol. She has a point. 61M registered voters, for whatever reason, didn't vote. Sat on the sidelines and did nada. If some of them had there would not have been the need for the Woman's march.
|
|
amom23
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,333
Jun 27, 2014 12:39:18 GMT
|
Post by amom23 on Sept 15, 2017 22:41:44 GMT
No excuse to not vote....EVER!!!
|
|
|
Post by ScrapsontheRocks on Sept 16, 2017 4:51:58 GMT
I wish to lament the overwhelming need for Presidential Candidates to be likeable, as mentioned several times on here. I agree HRC was/is not, mores the pity. Competence, track record, you name it definitely came way behind the charisma thing in last year's election. I am a little confused, BTW because I don't find DT in the least likeable either! I've had some really interesting and heated debates on the importance of likability in a president. I don't at all disagree with you that competence, track record etc seems obviously necessary in a candidate. But when you really break down the role and responsibility of the president it falls into a few major categories: Commander in Chief - no question likability or charisma is utterly irrelevant; Communicator in chief - this is where the likability and charisma comes in - you can't over look that one of the main roles the president has is communicating - sometimes reassuring, sometimes swaying, etc the general public; Chief Executive Officer - running the executive branch of the government includes hiring, retaining, directing people - which definitely needs the competency, but I'll also say some likability doesn't hurt in this role - particularly when you layer in their interaction with the legislative branch and attempts to influence legislation etc. I used to be firmly on the who cares if they're "wooden" (a typical slam against intellectuals) or fail to connect with the people - we need someone who is smart, hardworking, experienced -yada yada yada. Now I will acknowledge that do also need strong communication skills and the ability to connect and sway people to fully execute the job. I do however wish the current US population would put a whole lot more weight on the competency part. I also wish that we didn't have a process that seems to discourage the more competent people from running. I am already worried that 2020 will be still be about pushing candidates who's biggest strength is garnering headlines. Very well reasoned.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 18, 2024 20:27:40 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2017 19:00:26 GMT
After reading yet again Hamiliton didn't know what he was talking about when it came to the Electoral College I spent some time reading up on the Electorial College from a couple of different sources and this is my takeaway.
The reason for the Electorial College is the Framers didn't trust the average man when it came to electing a president. They felt it should be done by select group of individuals who could be counted on to select a man of merit.
The question became who and how to chose those select individuals. Add to that the smaller less populated states were afraid the bigger more populated states would have a greater say in government matters. So various ways were tried until the current Electorial College came to be.
Problem is the original intent of the actual voting members of the EC was suppose to be independent and have the ability to pick a "man of merit". That certainly not the case today.
The other problem is the notion of big state vs small state and that if you live in a particular state you will vote a certain way and if you should happen to move to another state then you will vote a different way. In other words if I should move from California to a really red state all of a sudden I will go from being a liberal to a conservative because of where I now live. I think there is enough proof on this board to show that ain't so.
Another problem is how it's deternmined how many Electorial College votes a state gets. In the case of California it takes more bodies to get a vote then say a state like Montana which requires less bodies to get a vote.
This means for those of us who live in California an individual doesn't get a full vote but 83% of one. Which makes it interesting when it comes to Federal taxes. While I only get 83% say in the Federal Government I have to pay 100% of the Federal tax rate for my income bracket. It seems to me since my vote only counts 83% as opposed to less populated states then the tax rate I pay should be discounted 17%. Only seems fair.
I think the current version of the EC is flawed and I think Hillary is right in that it should be eliminated because it's clear it was set up on flawed assumptions.
|
|