View Full Version : Hillary Clinton Done Being A Candidate
gimmethesimplelife
9-11-17, 10:06am
I just read online that though she says she will remain in the public sphere, Hillary Clinton claims she is "done being a candidate". I personally find this incredibly depressing as my take is that if she were in office, there would be many fewer missteps and that the United States would not be the laughing stock of the world as it is now. What is is, and I have to accept it, but that doesn't mean I have to like it or find it not depressing.
That said, it will be interesting to see who the Democrats run next time, and if it will be Trump or Pence running for the GOP candidate in 2020. Rob
Williamsmith
9-11-17, 10:57am
Rob, you and I are completely different in our political opinions probably brought on by our living in totally different worlds despite being within the same nation. Still, I feel I could find some common ground with you. The limitations of a semi anonymous forum notwithstanding, it behooves us to try to understand one another. While I certainly agree with your angst over the current administration, I cannot see why anyone would look upon Mrs. Clinton as a viable way forward for our country under any circumstances. Furthermore, I find no comfort in pretending that either the Republicans or the Democrats can produce a candidate that would be of benefit to the country. That would be like like expecting a Chevy Spark to be useful for shipping a load of drywall.
I am am looking for the emergence of a third party....
catherine
9-11-17, 11:54am
I am am looking for the emergence of a third party....
You could probably carve out at least two more parties, given the factions that are breaking off as quickly as the Arctic ice floes these days.
Hillary blames her failure in part on Bernie, for running as Democrat; the mainline Republicans are gritting their teeth every day Trump is in office. I watched Bannon on 60 Minutes last night.. I truly believe he and Trump have a deal--Bannon will be able to push Trump's agenda MUCH more effectively on the "outside." I don't think for a minute that he was "kicked out" of the White House by Trump. This is strategy.
As for Hillary, I'm not shedding any tears. I'm waiting for the party's acceptance of Warren. At the same time I'm going through a little personal mini-crisis of political identity these days.Trying to work things out. I'm finding it a little harder to be a die-hard liberal.
iris lilies
9-11-17, 11:56am
Rob, you and I are completely different in our political opinions probably brought on by our living in totally different worlds despite being within the same nation. Still, I feel I could find some common ground with you. The limitations of a semi anonymous forum notwithstanding, it behooves us to try to understand one another. While I certainly agree with your angst over the current administration, I cannot see why anyone would look upon Mrs. Clinton as a viable way forward for our country under any circumstances. Furthermore, I find no comfort in pretending that either the Republicans or the Democrats can produce a candidate that would be of benefit to the country. That would be like like expecting a Chevy Spark to be useful for shipping a load of drywall.
I am am looking for the emergence of a third party....
I have always thought that this is the true, long lasting contribution Donald John Trump could do for the U.S. Political scene--point the focus of his followers on small gubmnt, change the swamp. He could pull Dems and Repubs who are interested in these topics together.
Since he himself seems largely uninterested in idealogy ( with the exception of The Wall Across Mexico and a couple of other ideas) he could really chrystalize ideas for a new party, and use his personal popularity to promote it.
Based on the interviews connected with her new book, it sounds like she sees herself more in the fundraiser/kingmaker role from here on. I suppose fulfilling that vision will depend on how she's viewed by her fellow Democrats. I read somewhere that 12% of the people who supported Sanders in the primaries wound up voting for Trump in the general election, so party loyalty seems fairly fluid right now. She will certainly have issues with her party's left wing based on her critique of Bernie in the book. A couple of Berniecrats of my acquaintance insist that the DNC did their best to rig the debate schedules and formats to his disadvantage.
I wound up voting third party last year, but would happily vote for virtually any Republican who can take down Trump in the next primary.
Maybe over time Hillary will quite blaming others and realize she lost because her platform and personality just didn't connect with enough voters. It's time for her to step down, but she should get due credit for being the first female major presidential candidate and making a pretty good go of it. I think it will make it easier for others to follow.
flowerseverywhere
9-11-17, 3:11pm
William smith You honestly don't think either party can produce a suitable candidate? Kasich? Surely there also are more moderate dems as well that can work with both parties.
Based on the interviews connected with her new book, it sounds like she sees herself more in the fundraiser/kingmaker role from here on. I suppose fulfilling that vision will depend on how she's viewed by her fellow Democrats.
I think that won't work out so well, for anyone.
Based on my experience in the caucus/delegate/convention process the last several elections, as both a Republican and a Democrat, I don't see that either party has much to offer the younger generations, nor does either party show much interest in this demographic.
If Hillary is the Party's "kingmaker", I think we'll just see repeats of "business as usual". Which I suppose is great for both parties, but not so much for us citizens.
https://www.mediaite.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Screen-Shot-2017-09-08-at-9.58.58-AM.jpg
This thread inspired me to take a political typology quiz.
http://www.people-press.org/quiz/political-typology/
Interestingly, it had more than the standard categories (GOP, Dem, Libertarian). I wound up being a Next Generation Left, probably reflective of the soul-searching I'm doing right now about what I want from a political party.
I'd be curious to know where others here fit.
Not surprisingly I came out with Solid Liberal.
I felt Hillary should have had Bernie as her VP if their egos would have let it happen. Not sure it would have. She won the popular vote by a wide margin. With Bernie alongside it might have worked.
I'd be curious to know where others here fit.
I got "Business Conservative", but the set of forcing questions was so, well, forced that it was sort of meaningless to answer many of them. Even though the instructions said "pick the one you agree most with", as I didn't agree with either of the potential answers, equally strongly for different reasons.
Hilary was too tainted, IMO, by her long history. A lot of older Dems I know (45 and up) had a really bad taste in their mouth mouth from eveything that happened with Bill, etc. She just didn't connect with them. Seemed too cold and elistist. They much preferred Bernie.
A lot of older Dems I know (45 and up) had a really bad taste in their mouth mouth from eveything that happened with Bill, etc. .
I see what you did there....
Ultralight
9-11-17, 6:27pm
Solid liberal here.
Ultralight
9-11-17, 6:28pm
I see what you did there.... !Splat!
Next Generation Left here as well. Some of the questions were too black & white either/or. There was few, if any, options for middle ground.
bae/Geila, I agree that the questions were often hard to answer and not that well constructed as a survey instrument. But, frankly, I thought I was having a hard time because it assumed I am comfortable with the whole system that exists. I was looking for entirely different options.
No surprise that I also am a confirmed solid liberal.
Williamsmith
9-11-17, 8:49pm
Probably just as accurate as the old eight ball ......but I came out a steadfast conservative.
Hilary was too tainted, IMO, by her long history. A lot of older Dems I know (45 and up) had a really bad taste in their mouth mouth from eveything that happened with Bill, etc. She just didn't connect with them. Seemed too cold and elistist. They much preferred Bernie.
Count me as part of that crowd. But Bill was never a solid progressive. Maybe because he got too much money from Big Corporate. Or maybe because of the makeup of congress at the time. Who knows. I'd take Hillary over what we got, but I've never been in love with the Clintons. I would much prefer if the dems would focus on the Sanders/Warren ideas/goals.
gimmethesimplelife
9-11-17, 9:39pm
Just came home from my first day of training.....and took the politics quiz. Would anyone familiar with my posts be the slightest bit surprised that I clocked in as a Solid Liberal? Pretty much par for the course given the givens in my case and given that I live in the 85006. Rob
ApatheticNoMore
9-11-17, 11:42pm
I expected to get that or something but I grew tired of the quiz probably less than half way in and shut the browser. So blank and white and annoying. Gosh what's the point of being a liberal when you can't even carefully parse nuance to the nth degree to try to arrive at the most accurate understanding of the world, anymore. :~)
I'm glad I voted my conscience for Bernie instead of falling for the argument that Hillary was more electable. That was the best thing she had going for her and it was a myth. She can enjoy being a grandmother now, or maybe do TV commentary or a talk show, something where she can lighten up and laugh more. Sort of like how Al Gore came into his own when he no longer had to act the politician.
Everybody should retire at some point. Isn't she over 70? I'm happy for her. Time to enjoy life.
How can anyone trust the judgment of a person who believes one of the lessons from Orwell's 1984 is that we should "trust our leaders"?
Excerpt from her latest book:
Attempting to define reality is a core feature of authoritarianism. This is what the Soviets did when they erased political dissidents from historical photos. This is what happens in George Orwell’s classic novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, when a torturer holds up four fingers and delivers electric shocks until his prisoner sees five fingers as ordered. The goal is to make you question logic and reason and to sow mistrust toward exactly the people we need to rely on: our leaders, the press, experts who seek to guide public policy....
I'm thinking she may not have read the source material.
I don't understand that as her saying that we should trust leaders who are bad leaders as in the 1984 book. I understand her as saying that we should be able to trust leaders and that it's too bad that there are so many authoritarian evil leaders out there.
How can anyone trust the judgment of a person who believes one of the lessons from Orwell's 1984 is that we should "trust our leaders"?
Excerpt from her latest book:
I'm thinking she may not have read the source material.
Possibly my short coming, but I'm not clear on what she is getting at. I get it more as a warning not to trust government and is a reference to Teflon's attempts to redefine the truth. At any rate it is a little cryptic to me. One of her sentences that follow is,
"The goal is to make you question logic and and reason and to sow mistrust, Clinton writes. “For Trump, as with so much he does, it’s about simple dominance.”
Even for liberal me I could get a Hillary connection to some version of the coastal elite. Trump's campaign was sharp enough to take advantage of that. The dems need a face lift. Hopefully Bernie will clear the way for some fresh blood, too.
Williamsmith
9-14-17, 8:28am
She shouldn't have written a book so soon after her humiliation. She hasn't even gotten through the first step in the grieving process.
Al Gore moved on from his "humiliation" and made a documentary and nobody told him to finish grieving. Both he and Hillary nearly won, and had the popular vote if I recall correctly.
I don't get why people despise her so much. It definitely feels to me that the collective "we" continues to struggle with the idea of a stong female leader.
I'm looking forward to reading her book, to get her perspective as well as to read it as a social commentary on the sad state of my country today. Particularly that one debate, where Trump paced and prowled behind her as she tried to give rational answers, was an embarrassingly obvious display of how a bully/stalker can win over a rational person. It plays out every day in many lives in this country. Gaslighting, bullying, stalking, abuse…
I didn't particularly want Hillary to be president, but I would've chosen her any day over what we have right now.
Williamsmith
9-14-17, 9:49am
Tammy, Al Gore wasn't the best the Democrats had to offer when he lost to the hanging chads. The DNC is largely to blame. Hillary lost under the rules of the game which have been the same rules Presidents have always won and lost by. If the rules had been different the campaigning would have been different and no one can predict if she would have prevailed. Again, the Dems had better candidates...female included. She simply assumed her ascension to the Presidency was a foregone conclusion and went through the motions.
Your acceptance of her as a weaker opponent susceptible to bullying and male intimidation is not consistent with the Hillary I have witnessed and come to know. She is a tough nut and could have easily bullied back....just ask the secret service agents that were abused by her over the years.
She might have made a more effective President ....as things are now, can't argue against that. Right now though The Orange One seems to be courting the Dems just is he can get something done.
Gore wasnt humiliated....he was outfoxed. Hillary was humiliated. Id actually feel a little sorry for her except I know that would offend her.
So long as Mrs. Clinton lingers on like Miss Havisham over being left at the electoral altar, the less chance newer, more viable Democrats have to make themselves known. The party in general has a problem with elders refusing to make room for new blood.
So long as Mrs. Clinton lingers on like Miss Havisham over being left at the electoral altar, the less chance newer, more viable Democrats have to make themselves known. The party in general has a problem with elders refusing to make room for new blood.
The Republicans aren't providing much of an example. After all, Trump is "new blood."
And he won. Rant, rail, blame some, excuse others and remonstrate all you like. He won.
You or I may not like it, but he won. There is an active debate within the GOP on how to deal with that. The Democrats seem fixated on the past.
And he won. Rant, rail, blame some, excuse others and remonstrate all you like. He won.
You or I may not like it, but he won. There is an active debate within the GOP on how to deal with that. The Democrats seem fixated on the past.
I think we should "fixate" on the mechanics of the election and how to prevent Russian interference in the future, but there's plenty of new blood in the party and a definite upsurge of activism. I'm hopeful. (If we survive...:help:)
So long as Mrs. Clinton lingers on like Miss Havisham over being left at the electoral altar, the less chance newer, more viable Democrats have to make themselves known. The party in general has a problem with elders refusing to make room for new blood.
I think the ruling Democrats have come to understand they've screwed the pooch these last few election cycles by focusing on social issues and all the various ism's while pandering to the Bernie wing of the party. They may be slow learners but I think the stark reality of losing over a thousand legislative seats in 8 years has finally awakened some of the older crew. If Democratic new blood hasn't gotten the message, the party will continue to decline, at least in the short term, under new leadership. I think their entrenched leadership feels obligated to hold the fort while waiting for the learning curve to kick in.
On the Republican side, I think the current dalliance with Trump will force a more balanced party after he's gone as moderates rally to take back the title of Grand Old Party. It will be interesting over these next few years to see both sides return to their roots.
And he won. Rant, rail, blame some, excuse others and remonstrate all you like. He won.
You or I may not like it, but he won. There is an active debate within the GOP on how to deal with that. The Democrats seem fixated on the past.
And if he's the example of the winning new blood that the republicans have then your party is doomed. That said, I think Hillary made the same mistake as the 16 other republicans that ran this time around. She tried to run a campaign based on the time rested principals of how one runs a political campaign In our current era. Clearly she, and all the others, would have done better if they'd just lied their asses off, made obviously absurd promises, and encouraged everyone to blame all their problems on someone else, preferably someone with scary brown skin. There are obviously plenty of voters who find that message very appealing.
And if he's the example of the winning new blood that the republicans have then your party is doomed. That said, I think Hillary made the same mistake as the 16 other republicans that ran this time around. She tried to run a campaign based on the time rested principals of how one runs a political campaign In our current era. Clearly she, and all the others, would have done better if they'd just lied their asses off, made obviously absurd promises, and encouraged everyone to blame all their problems on someone else, preferably someone with scary brown skin. There are obviously plenty of voters who find that message very appealing.
Hear hear!
And social ills are the basis of all other problems--when the Democrats forget that, I'll have to go back to voting for independent candidates. There's more to life than greed, wars, and Arpaio-style policing.
She tried to run a campaign based on the time rested principals of how one runs a political campaign In our current era. Clearly she, and all the others, would have done better if they'd just lied their asses off, made obviously absurd promises, and encouraged everyone to blame all their problems on someone else, preferably someone with scary brown skin white, male , rich skin. There are obviously plenty of voters who find that message very appealing, after all she did win the popular vote.
Sorry, but with a few edits, I think your analysis is a pretty good portrayal of how both she and Bernie lost.
Sorry, but with a few edits, I think your analysis is a pretty good portrayal of how both she and Bernie lost.
To say that a policy wonk like Hillary was throwing out proposals with no thought given for how to actually accomplish them in amanner even vaguely similar to what trump was doing strains credibility.
Maybe over time Hillary will quite blaming others and realize she lost because her platform and personality just didn't connect with enough voters. It's time for her to step down, but she should get due credit for being the first female major presidential candidate and making a pretty good go of it. I think it will make it easier for others to follow.
Actually she isn't just blaming others. That's just a popular fake news meme created by people who don't like her.
https://qz.com/1077873/hillary-clinton-book-how-many-times-clinton-apologized-in-what-happened/?utm_source=qzfb
I haven't read the book yet because I"m waiting on it from the library, but from the quotes listed in the above article she's certainly no W who couldn't come up with any mistakes he had made when asked.
Williamsmith
9-17-17, 11:39pm
Many of her apologies seemed to be that she sort of took the blame for saying the wrongs things and not connecting with many in the country. But she does an equal amount of blaming others for the outcome. I will agree however, that she hit the nail on the head when she said that many voted against her rather than for Trump. I would go a little further and say it was doubly sweet for many to go in the booth and both vote against her and vote for Trump. They are the ones who stayed up until 3 am laughing, drinking and making merry. It was an epic failure. Personally, I don't think she is down for the count.
ToomuchStuff
9-18-17, 1:56am
This whole thing just brings back intern scandal memories.....
When Bill was caught and she said I want a divorce, you can have everything, but I want the house.:laff:
I wish we knew how many people thought of Trump as a democrat that he claimed to be and just voted against her, rather then for him. Nader and before him, Perot were the closest I ever remember a third party candidate getting. I think this should end up shaking up BOTH big parties when all said and done.
In 2016, the American political class presented the nation with a choice between near-certain chaos and smarmy authoritarianism. They went with chaos by the slimmest of margins. In the end, entertainment defeated entitlement, and the most qualified woman in the history of the universe was relegated to the book tour circuit.
It will be interesting to see how each major party deals with their respective failure in the quality control area. The Republicans need to get some clarity on what it means to be a Republican. The Democrats have a lot of rebuilding to do at the local level and a resurgence in enthusiasm if not numbers of the leftist faction of the party.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.