HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » 9 Devastating Quotes That...

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 08:56 AM

9 Devastating Quotes That Show Hillary Clinton Still Won't Take Responsibility for Her Loss

edited to add:


p. 18: “Still, every time I hugged another sobbing friend — or one stoically blinking back tears, which was almost worse — I had to fight back a wave of sadness that threatened to swallow me whole. At every step, I felt that I had let everyone down.”

p. 41: “Until you experience it, it’s hard to comprehend the ache in your gut when you see things going wrong and can’t figure out how to fix them; the sharp blow when the results finally come in; the disappointment written on the faces of your friends and supporters.”

p. 46: “This isn’t easy or fun. My mistakes burn me up inside.”

p. 72: “The controversy over my emails quickly cast a shadow over our efforts and threw us into a defensive crouch from which we never fully recovered.”

p. 120: “A lot of people said they just didn’t like me.”

p. 124: “I’ve tried to adjust. After hearing repeatedly that some people didn’t like my voice, I enlisted the help of a linguistic expert.”

p. 386: “I blamed myself. My worst fears about my limitations as a candidate had come true.”

p. 425: “None of the factors I’ve discussed here lessen the responsibility I feel or the aching sense that I let everyone down.”



The others are at:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/09/hillary-clinton-still-wont-take-responsibility-for-her-loss.html

172 replies, 10822 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 172 replies Author Time Post
Reply 9 Devastating Quotes That Show Hillary Clinton Still Won't Take Responsibility for Her Loss (Original post)
ehrnst Sep 13 OP
NurseJackie Sep 13 #1
democratisphere Sep 13 #3
ehrnst Sep 13 #10
BlueMTexpat Sep 13 #36
Alice11111 Sep 13 #142
calimary Sep 13 #146
Alice11111 Sep 13 #162
calimary Friday #169
Alice11111 Sunday #170
BlueMTexpat Sep 14 #168
shenmue Sep 13 #44
Maven Sep 13 #49
Me. Sep 13 #52
iluvtennis Sep 13 #65
NastyRiffraff Sep 13 #68
grantcart Sep 13 #139
lunamagica Sep 13 #143
onit2day Sep 13 #155
Sparkly Sep 14 #164
democratisphere Sep 13 #2
ehrnst Sep 13 #8
GoCubsGo Sep 13 #97
LexVegas Sep 13 #4
mopinko Sep 13 #12
samnsara Sep 13 #5
narnian60 Sep 13 #58
iluvtennis Sep 13 #66
Jakes Progress Sep 14 #165
procon Sep 13 #6
ehrnst Sep 13 #9
Orrex Sep 13 #11
StevieM Sep 13 #29
Orrex Sep 13 #32
ehrnst Sep 13 #90
Orrex Sep 13 #92
procon Sep 13 #13
ehrnst Sep 13 #22
BlueMTexpat Sep 13 #39
lapucelle Sep 13 #110
pangaia Sep 13 #42
JHan Sep 13 #55
pangaia Sep 13 #60
The Mouth Sep 13 #64
BainsBane Sep 13 #30
Orrex Sep 13 #33
Pacifist Patriot Sep 13 #34
Beartracks Sep 13 #40
pangaia Sep 13 #45
procon Sep 13 #63
NastyRiffraff Sep 13 #69
ehrnst Sep 13 #96
procon Sep 13 #120
ehrnst Sep 13 #136
pangaia Sep 13 #38
bluepen Sep 13 #48
LexVegas Sep 13 #62
Ninsianna Sep 13 #113
phleshdef Sep 13 #125
mcar Sep 13 #7
berksdem Sep 13 #25
BainsBane Sep 13 #28
mcar Sep 13 #51
berksdem Sep 13 #84
LineLineLineLineLineReply K
mcar Sep 13 #152
R B Garr Sep 13 #59
Bleacher Creature Sep 13 #14
pangaia Sep 13 #46
bluepen Sep 13 #50
flibbitygiblets Sep 13 #15
ehrnst Sep 13 #19
flibbitygiblets Sep 13 #23
BainsBane Sep 13 #31
ehrnst Sep 13 #89
flibbitygiblets Sep 14 #167
R B Garr Sep 13 #53
ehrnst Sep 13 #88
johnp3907 Sep 13 #151
aikoaiko Sep 13 #16
barbtries Sep 13 #17
BobTheSubgenius Sep 13 #18
ehrnst Sep 13 #99
delisen Sep 13 #20
ehrnst Monday #171
delisen Monday #172
delisen Sep 13 #20
treestar Sep 13 #24
Gamecock Lefty Sep 13 #26
BainsBane Sep 13 #27
Bradical79 Sep 13 #35
Bad Thoughts Sep 13 #37
UCmeNdc Sep 13 #41
Bad Thoughts Sep 13 #54
ehrnst Sep 13 #76
Bad Thoughts Sep 13 #83
LanternWaste Sep 13 #98
Bad Thoughts Sep 13 #101
ehrnst Sep 13 #107
Bad Thoughts Sep 13 #109
ehrnst Sep 13 #134
ehrnst Sep 13 #104
Bad Thoughts Sep 13 #105
ehrnst Sep 13 #112
Bad Thoughts Sep 13 #115
ehrnst Sep 13 #117
Bad Thoughts Sep 13 #118
ehrnst Sep 13 #133
ehrnst Sep 13 #74
PDittie Sep 13 #43
Ligyron Sep 13 #47
Old Vet Sep 13 #135
TNNurse Sep 13 #56
ehrnst Sep 13 #77
Hekate Sep 13 #57
Mr. Ected Sep 13 #61
Joe941 Sep 13 #67
vkkv Sep 13 #70
ehrnst Sep 13 #79
vkkv Sep 13 #85
ehrnst Sep 13 #87
vkkv Sep 13 #128
ehrnst Sep 13 #129
ehrnst Sep 13 #160
vkkv Sep 13 #161
BainsBane Sep 13 #121
vkkv Sep 13 #130
BainsBane Sep 13 #132
vkkv Sep 13 #137
BainsBane Sep 13 #149
zipplewrath Sep 13 #156
vkkv Sep 13 #157
Egnever Sep 13 #71
ehrnst Sep 13 #73
Egnever Sep 13 #80
bettyellen Sep 13 #86
Egnever Sep 13 #95
bettyellen Sep 13 #102
ehrnst Sep 13 #100
bettyellen Sep 13 #103
Egnever Sep 13 #111
ehrnst Sep 13 #154
Raster Sep 13 #116
bettyellen Sep 13 #124
janterry Sep 13 #108
True_Blue Sep 13 #72
JoeStuckInOH Sep 13 #75
ehrnst Sep 13 #81
Gothmog Sep 13 #78
LiberalFighter Sep 13 #82
ehrnst Sep 13 #91
Stuart G Sep 13 #93
ehrnst Sep 13 #94
Blue Owl Sep 13 #106
JCanete Sep 13 #114
ehrnst Sep 13 #119
JCanete Sep 13 #122
BainsBane Sep 13 #127
JCanete Sep 13 #131
True_Blue Sep 13 #147
JCanete Sep 13 #148
mcar Sep 13 #158
JCanete Sep 13 #159
lark Sep 13 #123
MFM008 Sep 13 #126
demigoddess Sep 13 #138
GaryCnf Sep 13 #140
ehrnst Sep 13 #150
Mike Nelson Sep 13 #141
lunamagica Sep 13 #144
Scurrilous Sep 13 #145
Justice Sep 13 #153
Progressive dog Sep 13 #163
Jakes Progress Sep 14 #166

Response to ehrnst (Original post)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 09:03 AM

1. She has more honesty, honor and humanity than ALL OF HER CHALLENGERS combined.

I'm STILL with HER!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NurseJackie (Reply #1)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 09:04 AM

3. +ZILLION!

Thank you!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NurseJackie (Reply #1)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 09:15 AM

10. Damn straight. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NurseJackie (Reply #1)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 10:17 AM

36. + a million!

We literally missed the chance of a lifetime.



I am SO NOT "getting over it."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueMTexpat (Reply #36)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 03:30 PM

142. Not over it either. Probably never. Maybe PTSD. Sick &

Tired of theirblying and.cheating their way to wins. Bush v Gore.
Kerry and Swiftboating.

Hillary would have been one of the greatest presidents ever. However, they would have dogged her and investigated her to tie her up.

We would not have had Gorsuch on the Supreme Court either. That was another cheat! MM roast in hell.

Nice to see Cruz and Comey get some shit, even though part of what they are doing to Comey is based on lies.
I want to see MM, Trey Gowdy, and P Ryan fall in their own bile too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Alice11111 (Reply #142)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 04:06 PM

146. Nor am I, Alice11111.

Nor am I.

Sick and tired of the nonstop persecution of Hillary. Just sick to death of it. I hope they all someday, somehow, get a big fat Super-Size serving of that. Taste of their own medicine. See how they like it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to calimary (Reply #146)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 09:10 PM

162. Gowdy still wants to investigate her emails. Any major

news event that shows what a scumbag any of the Repubs are is not even reported on Fox. I flip over to check, and they go right to Hillary's emails. It's their obvious MO. (The Exception is Shep Smith.) Their viewers want to be angry & stupid. They still want to prosecute her, after all Trump has done.

It helps to know we see it the same way, and there are
more of us than them. So, how in the hell did we get here?
They lied. They manufactured outrageous stories that only idiots would believe. The Russians pretty much admit part of their role now. Comey. Cheating in every way possible. Those tactics & their bigotry define most Republicans. That is what they stand for, not Democracy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Alice11111 (Reply #162)

Fri Sep 15, 2017, 01:09 AM

169. Something else most republi-CONS stand for:

They know they have to cheat to win. They CANNOT win on the issues. That oh-so-loyal and stubborn 30-35 percent still grimly determined to stay in the 19th century isn't enough to get you a majority. So they have to cheat. They have to rig the game. They have to gerrymander so there's an automatic artificial built-in infrastructure advantage because they can't build themselves a real, organic one. Too many young people still have too many years ahead of them, into the future, I think, to want to go back to the old days and the old ways. I can see how some senior citizens - the ones who vote regularly and the demographic that tends to lean to the right - might want those "good ol' days" back, that they fondly remember through aging eyes and ears, cloudy memories, and rose-colored glasses. There are those who aren't comfortable with these times, in this new century, with the new demographics and ethnic numbers, and the very idea of having to make room for so many others one might not have had to make room for, in the past. It's like a bunch of little kids in the play yard who don't want to share, and never were taught to do so, and don't feel like they should have to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to calimary (Reply #169)

Sun Sep 17, 2017, 04:56 AM

170. Yes. There is that back to the simple fun times of rhe 50s,

and these are anxiety provoking times. Ignoring the problems of the times doesn't make them go away...they just get worse ...ISIS, N. Korea, domestic terrorism, environmental meltdown, healthcare....

I've heard people say that the minorities are trying to take things away from them. Shocking. How's about a fair shake?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Alice11111 (Reply #142)

Thu Sep 14, 2017, 11:57 AM

168. If only .... eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NurseJackie (Reply #1)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 10:31 AM

44. Amen

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NurseJackie (Reply #1)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 10:39 AM

49. And she has integrity

And me too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NurseJackie (Reply #1)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 10:45 AM

52. Yep

But you know what those dead enders say and too bad for them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NurseJackie (Reply #1)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 11:26 AM

65. Bingo...I'm still with her as well

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NurseJackie (Reply #1)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 11:32 AM

68. Yes, she does!

I'm reading her wonderful book now, and I'm awash in tears. What we could have had!

I'm still with her as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NurseJackie (Reply #1)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 02:39 PM

139. yes she does

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NurseJackie (Reply #1)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 03:46 PM

143. Yes we are!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NurseJackie (Reply #1)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 04:54 PM

155. I am not a blind zealot. I voted 4 her and

supported her but was never blind to her shortcomings but compared to Trump she is an angel. I really don't believe she actually lost but until democrats raise holy hell about these voting machines and vote stealing suppression I expect it will keep happening. She did not just have opposition she had deplorable scum sociopathic opposition who had no use for statesmanship, diplomacy or integrity. She was running against a mob of people lacking empathy or social skills. But I refuse to close my eyes to what went wrong in order to prevent its re-occurrence. I still believe she won and hope she knows the millions who support and love her far outweigh those who were so nasty to her. I was and am a Bernie supporter and do not support corporate dems generally unless thye put people first.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NurseJackie (Reply #1)

Thu Sep 14, 2017, 12:34 AM

164. Absolutely

and forever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Original post)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 09:03 AM

2. Just another shining example of how and why Democrats can't get together to win elections.

Great job!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to democratisphere (Reply #2)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 09:14 AM

8. Because she took responsibility, despite what her detractors rant? (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to democratisphere (Reply #2)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 01:00 PM

97. Horseshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Original post)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 09:05 AM

4. "After hearing repeatedly that some people didnt like my voice". This makes me feel sick. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LexVegas (Reply #4)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 09:23 AM

12. yeah, that one stuck out to me, too.

the fact that it was coming out of a female face was what bothered certain people. the deploralbes. yet she tried to change it.
damn. talk about punishing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Original post)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 09:08 AM

5. and morning jo and mica talked about her book with the same...

...pinched faces..the same tsk tsk..the same head shaking that they used on her during the election. well fuck them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samnsara (Reply #5)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 10:55 AM

58. +100

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samnsara (Reply #5)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 11:29 AM

66. ++++++++++ agree. Have the Morning Joe folks learned nothing from the monstrosity in the WH

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samnsara (Reply #5)

Thu Sep 14, 2017, 01:18 AM

165. These two whores

kissed trump's ass for weeks. Now that he attacked them, they go after him. But if he invited them to margo, they would pee all over themselves in pleasure.

They are one of the things that helped Hillary lose. They are deplorable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Original post)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 09:11 AM

6. Why omit the opening paragraph that lets readers know this is satire?

The deliberate omission makes it seem like your motive was to create controversy where none exists in this tongue in cheek spoof. Please consider editing this post, or at least adding the satire disclaimer thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to procon (Reply #6)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 09:15 AM

9. Because there is a limit to the amount I can quote.

The title of the actual article is meant to make people think, and to read before assuming it's confirmation bias.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #9)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 09:20 AM

11. The limit is four paragraphs, which you exceeded

Since you were exceeding the limit anyway, why not exceed it with the important part, rather than creating sensationalist confusion?

It comes across as a transparently dishonest tactic to trick people into clicking on your OP



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orrex (Reply #11)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 10:07 AM

29. I thought the limit had been expanded to five paragraphs. Is that not right?

I had noticed people putting five paragraphs in the body of the post, lately. I thought there might have been some sort of change to the rules.

Are you saying that it is still four?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StevieM (Reply #29)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 10:12 AM

32. I could easily be incorrect

Regardless, the OP could have included the article's first paragraph.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orrex (Reply #32)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 12:52 PM

90. Perhaps I should consult you when I need to choose what exerpts to include.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #90)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 12:55 PM

92. That would certainly improve your posts, yes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #9)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 09:30 AM

13. Oh please... you ran out of room, really? LOL nt

That is hands down the WORST excuse of the day... but it's still early.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to procon (Reply #13)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 09:47 AM

22. Sorry to have offended you so deeply so early. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #22)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 10:20 AM

39. Some will manage to

create a controversy no matter what.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #22)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 01:11 PM

110. YOU DID IT ALL WRONG!!!

YOU MAY HAVE TRICKED PEOPLE...

...into reading an OP that they never would have bothered to look at had they known its true tone.

EXPLAIN PLEASE!!!

When helpful ad hoc copy editors critique something I have written, this is my go to answer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #9)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 10:30 AM

42. Don't listen to those criticizing you for not SAYING your headline was irony.

It is FREAKIN' obvious.



I must say, it seems to me that in the last,, what 4 months, 8 months, 18 months,, I don't know, BUT. a lot of rather easy to see subtly and irony is completely missed by more and more folks.

It's like our brains are turning into mush, into 'republican' brains,'' brains that don't understand irony and subtly and understatement and inference and humor and..... (sshhhh, don't tell anyone I used the word 'r*p*b*i**n--- I might get wacked for saying.....ah, forget it)

Maybe the Russians are secretly sneaking in code to dumb us down, or trolls or.. beats me. But this is a board full of gazillions of damn smart people. Much smarter(well maybe LOL) and sure more knowledgable than me.

For instance, I can't even spell nolegable...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pangaia (Reply #42)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 10:52 AM

55. good point..

It seems recognizing irony has become a rare art. I saw it in the last election too... heightened emotions clouds reasoning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JHan (Reply #55)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 11:03 AM

60. I've had people wack me several times for it.. even got a hide or 2 over the last 6-8 months.

I forget..

So I've tried to be careful.... Should that really be necessary? To fear saying something?

Ah well.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pangaia (Reply #60)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 11:22 AM

64. It shouldn't, but emotions are still raw.

I mean I figured it was irony, sarcasm or something other than a troll, but I am not the only one still hurting, for my self, family, friends and country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to procon (Reply #6)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 10:09 AM

30. How could anyone not know that

From reading the excerpts?

It's not satire. It's irony.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #30)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 10:13 AM

33. I got it by the second or third one...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #30)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 10:15 AM

34. I didn't even have to read the excerpts...

I assumed the irony from just the subject line. The content was exactly what I expected. Not sure why the sarcasm smilie was even necessary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pacifist Patriot (Reply #34)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 10:23 AM

40. Same here. The intent was obvious in the word choice.

Last edited Wed Sep 13, 2017, 10:57 AM - Edit history (1)

On edit: Prior reply title referred to "ALL CAPS" nature of OP title... except it wasn't in ALL CAPS. I just "heard" it that way!

===================

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #30)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 10:32 AM

45. Tell me about it.



But. if you like, have a gander at my Reply #9 above.

Just an observation of mine..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #30)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 11:18 AM

63. See the responses? It looks like a lot of people were needlessly tricked. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to procon (Reply #63)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 11:36 AM

69. So we're all supposed to write for the lowest common denominator?

How could any sentient being miss the irony? That's not an insult, that's a fact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to procon (Reply #63)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 12:59 PM

96. "tricked" oh, my. A lot more seemed to get it, and laugh. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #96)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 01:27 PM

120. Since you subsequently edited your OP to add a cautionary alert about satire,

you already knew that your joke had backfired. These misleading posts aren't funny when they deceive readers and create yet another avoidable conflict.

Look at the most recent posts where DU readers are STILL being tricked by how you chose to present this post. If people aren't happy to get pawned and criticize your sense of humor, then just own it, this one's all on you, yeah?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to procon (Reply #120)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 02:17 PM

136. Tricked!!! OMG.

I see you are still smarting.

I apologized for the deep offense that I inflicted on you by using the title of the article, which was ironic. You feel so "pawned" by the bother of clicking on something that you expected to be a screed on Hillary, and a simple reading of the actual text apparently made you embarassed for being fooled.

And yes, I added "sarcasm" to the post to save time and energy for people who get so enraged, then can't gracefully back out of it.

Then there are these people...

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029588227#post18

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029588227#post30

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029588227#post42



And warning - this one is ironic...

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029588227#post110



Ironic how some people will refuse to take responsibility for pet peeves, and turn them into something just shy of a direct insult - on a thread about the unfounded accusations HRC of not taking responsibility....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to procon (Reply #6)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 10:19 AM

38. I think it is pretty obvious that it is irony.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to procon (Reply #6)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 10:39 AM

48. How could anyone read this and not know it's sarcastic?

The very existence of the "sarcasm" gif on this site is kind of depressing. Maybe people really are that gullible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to procon (Reply #6)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 11:09 AM

62. ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to procon (Reply #6)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 01:15 PM

113. Because it was stunningly obvious to anyone who can read?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to procon (Reply #6)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 01:44 PM

125. Yay. I knew the sarcasm police would be around at some point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Original post)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 09:13 AM

7. I cannot imagine the strength of character

it takes to go through this and then relive it in the book.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mcar (Reply #7)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 09:58 AM

25. I am sure there are a few millions reasons to relive the book.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to berksdem (Reply #25)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 10:06 AM

28. Or "write" and promote two books

In the time Clinton wrote one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to berksdem (Reply #25)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 10:41 AM

51. So, is it only HRC who's to be criticized

for making money from a book. Or all politicians? Or just those who have lost a race?

Please point to where you criticized other politicians for making money off a book.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mcar (Reply #51)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 12:33 PM

84. i really don't understand

why HRC supporters (I am one) get so defensive when anything has been said about HRC. She was obviously paid handsomely for writing this book and there is nothing wrong with that...

The post was made in context to this book. All politicians make money from book sales.... it does not mean she is doing anything wrong.

Hillary-bros can be as bad as Bernie-bros...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to berksdem (Reply #84)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 04:26 PM

152. K

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to berksdem (Reply #25)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 10:59 AM

59. Yes, she got millions more votes than any of her opponents, so her popularity

is obvious. MILLIONS more votes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Original post)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 09:33 AM

14. OK, but how much time did she spend bashing the Democratic Party?

And I have yet to see one use of the word "corporatist" in any of these excerpts.

She also refuses to acknowledge that she was no better than Trump.

Sorry, but these quotes just aren't good enough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bleacher Creature (Reply #14)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 10:33 AM

46. I think you might take out the sarcasm thingy as bait and see what happens..




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pangaia (Reply #46)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 10:40 AM

50. It's sad that we need the "sarcasm" gif on this site.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Original post)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 09:37 AM

15. Please stop

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flibbitygiblets (Reply #15)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 09:45 AM

19. Did you read the quotes? (spoiler - it's satire) (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #19)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 09:48 AM

23. Nope, had enough. Not clicking on these anymore

Except to say Please Stop

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flibbitygiblets (Reply #23)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 10:11 AM

31. Then use trash thread. Nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flibbitygiblets (Reply #23)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 12:51 PM

89. That involves clicking on them, doesn't it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #89)

Thu Sep 14, 2017, 01:26 AM

167. Thank you!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flibbitygiblets (Reply #15)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 10:50 AM

53. Isn't the DNC blamed as the entire explanation for one loss?

And the "establishment" -- but never any personal responsibility. Yes, please stop.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R B Garr (Reply #53)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 12:50 PM

88. Yep. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flibbitygiblets (Reply #15)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 04:24 PM

151. Stop what?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Original post)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 09:37 AM

16. Sigh...


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Original post)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 09:42 AM

17. i almost didn't look because of the OP title

but then i have the book now so will soon learn for myself...her speech after the election told me everything i needed to know about her willingness to take responsibility even as it becomes clearer and clearer that she did win.

p. 120: “A lot of people said they just didn’t like me.” - decades of propaganda. i didn't like her either but it was for a fairly petty thing. a real thing, but not consequential. what i believe now is she has always done her best for the country. how many of us has done so much and given so much for something so big? what candidate, or office holder, will always approach an issue just the way we want them to? the answer is none. now, i think i love her. i know she should be president and how much better she would be than trump is nearly immeasurable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Original post)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 09:44 AM

18. Ahhhh....sarcasm. I was totally ready to exhibit..

...some pushback.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BobTheSubgenius (Reply #18)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 01:00 PM

99. Some people are very upset that the title didn't indicate that it wasn't a screed on HRC.

and were "tricked" into clicking!!!

They were also tricked into posting that several times!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Original post)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 09:46 AM

20. the ritual of "taking responsibility" is just that -a ritual


and in politics it has become a cliche.

A candidate is supposed to follow a script - I was the candidate. I take full responsibility for the loss. Blah Blah Blah. I will be the scapegoat...and allow myself to be driven out of town ala ancient ritual practice.

Unfortunately what we the people, the voters, now need to know is who. what, when, where, and how.

The responsibility ritual has become worse than meaningless because it is used to close down discussion and prevent us from learning "what happened" so that we can fix what is wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delisen (Reply #20)

Mon Sep 18, 2017, 09:15 AM

171. Only she has been demanded to apologize. Not even McGovern was

expected to do such self immolation as she is expected to do on a constant basis.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #171)

Mon Sep 18, 2017, 11:14 AM

172. So true. I see H. Clinton as the real transformational leader

of our times.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Original post)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 09:46 AM

20. the ritual of "taking responsibility" is just that -a ritual


and in politics it has become a cliche.

A candidate is supposed to follow a script - I was the candidate. I take full responsibility for the loss. Blah Blah Blah. I will be the scapegoat...and allow myself to be driven out of town ala ancient ritual practice.

Unfortunately what we the people, the voters, now need to know is who. what, when, where, and how.

The responsibility ritual has become worse than meaningless because it is used to close down discussion and prevent us from learning "what happened" so that we can fix what is wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Original post)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 09:49 AM

24. Yep

Absolutely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Original post)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 10:01 AM

26. 3,000,000 more votes . . .

Despite all against her and the media obsession with Comrade Trumpski I'd say Hillary ran a fine campaign!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Original post)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 10:04 AM

27. And the people who made those charges will not admit they were wrong

Because they are the ones who refuse to take responsibility.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Original post)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 10:16 AM

35. It's tough to be both introspective and candidly realistic.

Yes, there were very valid criticisms of Hillary Clinton and her campaign.

That said, there was absolutely without a shadow of doubt malicious outside interference/influence that brought about an electoral loss rather than a (closer than it should have been) victory.

You can't expect a book reflecting on her campaign to ignore espionage, psyops, and treason directed at installing Trump as president. It's rediculous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Original post)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 10:17 AM

37. Why do none of those quotes references actions, only emotions?

If Clinton was indeed taking responsibility for something, the quote should say specifically what is was. Was the writer of the article being lazy?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bad Thoughts (Reply #37)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 10:29 AM

41. I think you might need to buy and read her book to fully understand this thread.

The writer of this thread picked these examples.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UCmeNdc (Reply #41)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 10:50 AM

54. Politicians' books are pablum

They are mostly vapidly, unreferenced reflections mixed with bullet points that aren't worth reading, let alone buying. There's only one I keep: Wes Clark's Winning Modern Wars because he signed it and because it synthesizes points he made in his first book.

Should an actual historian right about the election, I would probably buy it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bad Thoughts (Reply #54)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 12:09 PM

76. The point of the book was her experience, and point of view.

Of course her book says that at the beginning, and unless you read that passage, or any of the synopsises of the book intended for those who are considering buying it, you wouldn't have understood it.

If she had hired a historian to write a memoir, then she would have been pummeled for not writing it herself.

And she's a good writer, BTW.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #76)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 12:26 PM

83. The book isn't "How I feel"

It's "What Happened." It intends to analyze and explain. Perhaps the rest of the book contains more substantive things to say, drawing upon evidence to prove them.

And I'm not saying that she should have hired a ghost writer. I'm saying that in general, politicians write terrible books, especially when it comes to explaining the past. I'm also not buying Sanders' book (nor any book from Warren, Murphy, Harris, that might come out soon).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bad Thoughts (Reply #83)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 01:00 PM

98. That's quite the creative, though thoroughly unsupported allegation.

"I'm saying that in general, politicians write terrible books, especially when it comes to explaining the past..."

That's quite the creative, though thoroughly unsupported allegation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LanternWaste (Reply #98)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 01:03 PM

101. It is based on impressions of those books I've read

They are more propaganda than analysis, intending to encourage support rather than advance ideas. This message board is hardly the place for deep analysis, but I know a few historians who find them (particularly campaign books) to be useless when it comes to anything more than revealing the politicians opinions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bad Thoughts (Reply #101)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 01:08 PM

107. So if a book doesn't "advance ideas" that are based on timelines and news articles

It's "propaganda."

I guess you define all memoirs and autobiographies as "propaganda."

That would also be the same for interviews, wouldn't it? At least where the interviewee isn't challenged on every statement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #107)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 01:10 PM

109. You are parsing.eom.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bad Thoughts (Reply #109)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 02:05 PM

134. I am applying "rigorous analysis" to your posts... (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bad Thoughts (Reply #83)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 01:05 PM

104. It's what happened in her life at the time, including her feelings.

When someone explains that they wanted to say something, and didn't, that's the "evidence" of why she didn't say something. Someone writing a biography would include that.

Memoir: The text is about the personal knowledge and/or experiences of the author. In contrast, an autobiography covers the author's entire life to the present, and is expected to include details about his or her public and private life. A biography is someone's life story written by another person.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #104)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 01:06 PM

105. I'm only commenting on what the quotes attest to

Perhaps the book has more, I don't know. However, if it is just a memoir, any claims it makes would be very weak.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bad Thoughts (Reply #105)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 01:14 PM

112. Actually, yes, there are ways to judge the factual validity of a memoir for historical purposes.

So, yes, the memoir can be considered a valuable historical resource, so historians don't assume that "any claims made would be weak"

Evaluating the veracity (truthfulness) of texts:

For the rest of this discussion, consider the example of a soldier who committed atrocities against non-combatants during wartime. Later in his life, he writes a memoir that neglects to mention his role in these atrocities, and may in fact blame them on someone else. Knowing the soldier's possible motive, we would be right to question the veracity of his account.

The credible vs. the reliable text:

Reliability refers to our ability to trust the consistency of the author's account of the truth. A reliable text displays a pattern of verifiable truth-telling that tends to render the unverifiable parts of the text true. For instance, the soldier above may prove to be utterly reliable in detailing the campaigns he participated in during the war, as evidenced by corroborating records. The only gap in his reliability may be the omission of details about the atrocities he committed.

Credibility refers to our ability to trust the author's account of the truth on the basis of her or his tone and reliability. An author who is inconsistently truthful -- such as the soldier in the example above -- loses credibility. There are many other ways authors undermine their credibility. Most frequently, they convey in their tone that they are not neutral (see below). For example, the soldier above may intersperse throughout his reliable account of campaign details vehement and racist attacks against his old enemy. Such attacks signal readers that he may have an interest in not portraying the past accurately, and hence may undermine his credibility, regardless of his reliability.

An author who seems quite credible may be utterly unreliable. The author who takes a measured, reasoned tone and anticipates counter-arguments may seem to be very credible, when in fact he presents us with complete fiction. Similarly, a reliable author may not always seem credible. It should also be clear that individual texts themselves may have portions that are more reliable and credible than others.

The neutral text:

We often wonder if the author of a text has an "ax to grind" which might render her or his words unreliable.

Neutrality refers to the stake an author has in a text. In the example of the soldier who committed wartime atrocities, the author seems to have had a considerable stake in his memoir, which was to expunge his own guilt. In an utterly neutral document, the creator is not aware that she or he has any special stake in the construction and content of the document.

No texts are ever completely neutral. People generally do not go to the trouble to record their thoughts unless they have a purpose or design which renders them invested in the process of creating the text. Some historical texts, such as birth records, may appear to be more neutral than others, because their creators seem to have had less of a stake in creating them. (For instance, the county clerk who signed several thousand birth certificates likely had less of a stake in creating an individual birth certificate than did a celebrity recording her life in a diary for future publication as a memoir.) Sometimes the stake the author has is the most interesting part of a document.

If you take these factors into account, you should be able to read and understand the historical implications of your primary source.



https://clas.uiowa.edu/history/teaching-and-writing-center/guides/source-identification/primary-source

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #112)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 01:19 PM

115. Yes, those would be extratextual

An historian can sift through the claims and compare it to other sources and opinions. The writer of the memoir can themselves strengthen their claims by including such evidence, by not omitting or embellishing.

Now, none of this necessarily pertains to Clinton's book in particular. I don't know why you find it so important to defend the genre.

ETA: And it is within Clinton's ability to do so. She went to law school, one of the best. I'm sure she know about writing with evidence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bad Thoughts (Reply #115)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 01:21 PM

117. You talk about HRC's book and dismiss it out of hand without reading it.

I don't know why you find it so important do so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #117)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 01:23 PM

118. Because like other books by politicians,

it will lack rigorous analysis. And I have not specifically dismissed her book out of hand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bad Thoughts (Reply #118)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 02:04 PM

133. You said:

"Perhaps the book has more, I don't know. However, if it is just a memoir, any claims it makes would be very weak."

You are dismissing all memoirs, are you not?

Or just hers?

But I'll bite - can you clarify what "rigorous analysis" is in terms of making a politician's memoir "not weak" if that is possible?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bad Thoughts (Reply #37)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 12:06 PM

74. Did you read the article? (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Original post)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 10:30 AM

43. I wonder how many alerts

this has gotten. I wonder how many have voted to hide it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Original post)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 10:34 AM

47. The real problem isn't Hillary.

It's the willful stupidity of about half the country.

The 30 year RW smear campaign against "libruls" and "demon-crats" could not be effective unless those morans wanted to believe the lies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ligyron (Reply #47)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 02:09 PM

135. Jesus Christ thank you for pointing out the obvious, Its almost embarrassing at this point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Original post)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 10:53 AM

56. I heard some idiot on MSNBC this morning

say she never takes responsibility for anything and no one called him on it. I screamed at the TV for awhile. No wonder I have had to increase my blood pressure medicine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TNNurse (Reply #56)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 12:09 PM

77. The "crooked Hillary" trope is applied to anything. I believe it would be applied

to the choice of shoes she wears...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Original post)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 10:54 AM

57. 66,000,000 voters? 3,000,000 MORE than her challenger, anyway. I'm still with HER.

What a mess this country has become.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Original post)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 11:08 AM

61. We are totally immersed in FACTS that PROVE that Trump colluded with Russia to steal the election

And still many refuse to take that into account as they besmirch Clinton and blame a campaign instead of the thief that clearly stands next to her in the room.

The innocent until proven guilty standard applies to the judiciary and to the press. It does not apply to the court of public opinion. Mueller's findings will simply accord with what we already know: Hillary Clinton won this election, it was stolen, and all the bitter internal debate is only unnecesssarily dividing us further.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Original post)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 11:31 AM

67. thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Original post)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 11:56 AM

70. This quote makes the most sense as far as to what I'd heard among the opposition:



“A lot of people said they just didn’t like me.”

Of course I voted for her, but perhaps things would have turned a LOT BETTER for ALL of us if she knew that BEFORE she threw her hat into the ring.

As I've said many times, she would be a great POTUS, but she wasn't a great candidate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vkkv (Reply #70)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 12:11 PM

79. You mean because of misogyny, because she didn't razzle dazzle?

I suppose. There were millions who loved her, let alone liked her.

But that wasn't ever applied to any who ran against her, even when they had little to no charisma.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #79)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 12:36 PM

85. No, I think it was that she had so much poltical history that was easy bait

for her opposition to exploit.

The misogynist excuse is overblown her at DU.
See: Collins, Murkowski, Blackburn, Foxx, Ernst, Fisher...
Even the anti-establishment sentiment vote is more likely.


I'm not sure who you are referring to by your comment:
""But that wasn't ever applied to any who ran against her, even when they had little to no charisma.""

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vkkv (Reply #85)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 12:49 PM

87. She had so much political history because she accomplished so much.

But you think that in her case, it was a bad thing, because some people would use it against her.

Sort of like people used Obama's 'community organizer' job against him, and being black, but that really wasn't relevant, because it was just smears.

But she was liked enough to win the vote, wasn't she?

And the misogyny here is on full display at DU....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #87)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 01:50 PM

128. Of course they're just smears !


I never suggested otherwise.
HRC's past offered many facts and truths ("bait" that are easily blurred into smears.

And yes, being a community organizer is a feather in anyone's cap.

I live, and was born and raised in Calif. I've always voted for Feinstein, Boxer, Pelosi ( when I lived in SF), Kamala Harris, Jackie Spear (when I lived in Silicon Valley).

If anyone were so obsessed and small to believe that misogyny is so widespread here at DU, then I'd guess that person could make up any excuse for just about anything.

I just don't vote for bullshit.

TRUTH LEANS LEFT!


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vkkv (Reply #128)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 01:58 PM

129. What "bullshit" did you refuse to vote for? (Nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vkkv (Reply #128)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 07:48 PM

160. Not going to answer, I see. Probably for the best. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #160)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 08:38 PM

161. ' I don't vote for bullshit'


""What "bullshit" did you refuse to vote for? (Nt)""

This requires answering?
You can't figure that one out?

I do not vote for Republicans, liars, hypocrites or cheats. ( No redundance intended)




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vkkv (Reply #85)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 01:29 PM

121. Warren's polls numbers are lower than Hillary's ever were

according to the Hill-sponsored poll touted to proclaim "Bernie the most popular politician in America, and Warren's numbers are lower than Sanders. That certainly isn't because she' s more "establishment" or less progressive than Sanders, who has been in DC since 1991, longer than Clinton. Warren's polls numbers demonstrate than gender does play a role. In fact, the entire "establishment" meme only emerged during the presidency of an African American man who was poised to be replaced by a woman. For centuries we've had white male presidents, and "the establishment" wasn't a concern. In fact, those who talk most about the establishment explicitly hearken back to the presidency of a aristocrat who man a fortune as a Wall Street financier. That the party of "FDR" was one that presided over Jim Crow and filled the ranks of the KKK, and that FDR himself refused to take action against rampant lynchings because of deference to white Southerners, doesn't prompt a reevaluation of the use of that rhetoric, no matter how many times that history is pointed out.

They key issue in the 2016 election was white male rage. Everything we have seen since November demonstrates that. Some candidates tapped into that, Trump quite masterfully. Hillary tried to appeal to the people's better nature by proposing solutions. Only the public didn't want solutions. They wanted someone to express their anger and punish those they resent. The justifications and rhetoric around those they target vary, but the populations do not.

I certainly learned a lesson about the character of the American electorate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #121)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 02:02 PM

130. "They key issue in the 2016 election was white male rage." Yep, that is correct.


Racism in the U.S. ? Yes.

Sexism, yes, some, but there are elected GOP women in Congress.

Warren is viewed as too liberal by some, I'd support her in a minute.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vkkv (Reply #130)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 02:03 PM

132. Are you saying Bernie is to the right of Warren?

and that his polls numbers are higher because she is seen as more conservative?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #132)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 02:18 PM

137. Not at all. Which poll ?


If her poll #'s ( perhaps a general population poll?) are lower, I'd suggest that is because much fewer people know who she is.

Not everyone follows politics like us readers at D.U. remember.

I'm not touching this one anymore, getting too close to breaking DU posting rules on 'don't argue about the Dem primary' BS !!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vkkv (Reply #137)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 04:19 PM

149. The same one Bernie supporters tout constantly

to claim he is "the most popular politician in America." http://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/HHP-August-Wave_Topline-Memo_Total-Only_Registered-Voters.pdf

Only 10 percent of respondents said they hadn't heard of her. Other polls have similarly showed her with poor favor ability ratings, even ones that don't over represent independents and voters under 30.

I find it fascinating how determined you are to claim sexism has no bearing on how politicians are viewed. We hear a lot about how racism doesn't exist to. Those claims serve a very specific purpose and reveal a lot about those who cling to them.

I can imagine it's hard to see through all those women presidents of the US to discern the sexism.

We even had a reprieve in the discourse about "whores" until another potential woman candidate emerged. But of course insulting women as "whores who slept their way to the top" isn't sexism. It's a critique of the "establishment."

I certainly do believe "establishment" was an issue in the campaign. Forces aligned and are continuing to align to maintain the established social order at all costs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vkkv (Reply #70)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 05:07 PM

156. That was our fault

I can't blame a candidate for "throwing their hat in the ring". I can blame us for nominating a candidate with such huge negatives. Flip side it was a small field to begin with, so one is left with "if not her, who?" The real "blame" here is that the democratic party found itself with so few credible candidates to begin with. I'm not sure it is going to be massively better in 2020.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zipplewrath (Reply #156)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 05:20 PM

157. I suppose you are right on most of that. 2020 will be very interesting


since any Dem SHOULD be able to beat Mike Pence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Original post)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 12:02 PM

71. I think she still hasn't figured out her biggest mistake.

If that is her list.

Her biggest mistake was trying to pretend she was something she wasn't instead of being herself. Her biggest problem for many was they did not trust her and that in my opinion is because she didn't trust herself and instead tried to mold herself into what she thought people wanted instead of being true to herself. People can sense these things.

None of that matters at this point however. There is no reason to assign blame. It is time to move past the election and work on the future.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Egnever (Reply #71)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 12:05 PM

73. If you read the article at the link, you will see more. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #73)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 12:14 PM

80. Not much more but this I think does hit closer to home

“I blamed myself. My worst fears about my limitations as a candidate had come true.”


Personally I could not do it so I want to give her kudos for trying.

I think this is the problem for many of our candidates. I think the authenticity is missing for so many of them and these days people are over the poll tested platitudes. Trust in yourself and fight for what you believe in.

She didn't believe in herself I am not sure she ever did. She should have as I do believe she is an amazingly competent person. I don't think that is a problem unique to her though. Tons of people are riddled with doubt despite their own success.

The hard thing is getting past that doubt and trusting in yourself. Self confidence is attractive. As much as I hate Trump he thinks he is the best at everything and many people buy into that even though he is quite possibly the most inept president we have ever had.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Egnever (Reply #80)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 12:46 PM

86. Self confidence intelligence and ambition that lead people to

Mistrust women. Countless studies have shown people react negatively while for men those traits all register positives. She was literally between a rock and a hard place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #86)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 12:58 PM

95. I don't think there is any doubt that many men are threatened by competent women

That is baked in not a damn thing you can do about that really. I am completely the opposite of that I love my wife much more for her self confidence and intelligence than anything else even though I do find her gorgeous.

Trying to appease men who are threatened by strong women is a losing game IMHO. Given there are as many women as men in america it is also a pretty lame excuse. Even more so when you consider as you get older the ratio turns more and more to favoring women. Combine that with the fact that over 40% of the people that voted were over 45 and the blame it on the men that hate strong women becomes more ridiculous.

A factor yes but not the deciding factor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Egnever (Reply #95)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 01:03 PM

102. There are things you can do to level the playing field for sure. Change happens slowly.

When I was a kid there were very few female doctors IRS or lawyers or professionals of any kind. You have to fight the attitudes, and give women the opportunities and examine how and why we came to value their contributions less. It can be rectified, it will be eventually. Other countries have succeeded much more than the US.
The GOP is fighting it every day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #86)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 01:01 PM

100. Yep - but she persisted. And against so many odds, got the votes. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #100)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 01:04 PM

103. I admire her fortitude.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #103)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 01:12 PM

111. If there is one thing I admire about Hillary it is that.

I don't think you can point to many people out there that are as willing as her to keep putting one foot in front of the other regardless of outside pressure.

Over the decades I have watched her career I have had multiple disagreements with her stances on a wide variety of issues. It is her willingness to continue fighting though that makes me admire her.

She would never have been my first choice for president as I think there are other women I align with much more closely than Hillary. I never for a second doubted she would show up ready to work every single day as president though and that makes her completely suited to the job.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Egnever (Reply #111)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 04:37 PM

154. Yep. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #86)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 01:20 PM

116. I got to tell you, I have an uncle that I thought to be a bit more progressive...

...that commented, "I could never vote for that b****." I was floored. I asked him why and asked him to qualify his comment with something other than she was a b****. He could not. He even acknowledged that he didn't think tRump* would be a good President.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Raster (Reply #116)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 01:42 PM

124. I was shocked people would admit the same to me - a woman! Many led with criticism of her husband in

The 90's! Her marriage! Her "demeanor" and "ambition" her "voice". People compared her to ex wives and mean moms. These were people who considered themselves progressives. And here they were, talking about her mess of a marriage. WTF?!? And never ever taking about her fight for CHIP or work as senator of NY. And I'm an urban liberal, these people - men and women- were reading RT, Wikileaks and TYT without noticing these sources all trashed the majority of Dems. They hated me pointing it out last year- many still can't admit they fell for propaganda. They enjoyed using her as a punching bag. They got in more than the "two minutes of hate" that some preached about every damn day. It was crazy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Egnever (Reply #71)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 01:09 PM

108. I agree

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Original post)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 12:05 PM

72. Not only is she expected to take responsibilty

Last edited Wed Sep 13, 2017, 03:13 PM - Edit history (1)

For losing to Trump. But she's also expected to take responsibility for beating Bernie in the primaries. Blaming women for all of the problems in the world goes all the way back to Pandora and Eve.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Original post)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 12:08 PM

75. The ironic thing is that if Hillary herself came to DU and said "Hillary had any fault in the loss",

She'd be alerted on 15 times, called a troll, told that the 2016 Clinton campaign was "great" and then run out of here.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoeStuckInOH (Reply #75)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 12:18 PM

81. Actually, that's not true

A couple of of threads where that is discussed - without being removed..

https://www.democraticunderground.com/12512618588

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10141860195

I think you may be confusing "pointing out mistakes" with harranguing. Such as, "She should have spent time in Wisconsin" with "She was a total idiot to skip Wisconsin, which proves her campaign sucked"

I hope that helps you understand the difference.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Original post)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 12:09 PM

78. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Original post)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 12:23 PM

82. I just couldn't figure out why people didn't like her.

I thought she was looking out for the rest of us.

Personally, I don't think she let us down. It was those that didn't vote that let her down. It was those that believed lying Trump that let her down. It was the media that let her down for giving Trump all that free media.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalFighter (Reply #82)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 12:55 PM

91. I think that the people who didn't like her were given validation

by misogyny on the left and right, who made it clear that a woman who didn't apologize for not being liked by everybody, particularly an older woman, was "unlikeable" and therefore unfit.

An older man who didn't care if he was likeable, on the other hand, was deemed "not a sellout" and therefore strong and trustworthy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Original post)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 12:57 PM

93. Total Misleading Headline.....exact opposite of what the story is about., should read something else

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stuart G (Reply #93)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 12:58 PM

94. It's the title of the article, and it's ironic. I hope you don't read Borowitz....(nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Original post)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 01:08 PM

106. The Electoral College may go fuck itself

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Original post)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 01:16 PM

114. so...I'm sure there are passages in the book that do what you say she is doing here, but these

quotes do not represent that at all. Many of them suggest that she was unfairly disliked, like for her voice, which no doubt is true but isn't taking responsibility for a thing. This is a superficial bias of the public that she is pointing out.

"a lot of people said they just didn't like me" is not saying that they were justified in that dislike, and in fact, it is very much saying the opposite. They just didn't like her for no good damn reason, which again, in many many cases is true and fair to point out. It just isn't what you say it is.

"The controversy over my emails" out of context doesn't speak to whether or not she thinks it was a legitimate controversy, nor whether or not she thinks she made a mistake here. She may expand on this even in this same section, but I'm not feeling the "taking responsibility" in that quote alone.

Saying you "feel like you let people down" is also, by itself, just what people say when people were rooting for them and supporting them. It is devoid of specifics. It is a platitude that again, without more insight or context, could be the kind of thing that is trolling for sympathy. "none of these factors lessen the responsibility I feel" only adds to that sort of presentation. "It was not my fault but I feel like it was my fault anyway because that is who I am, somebody who cares and takes responsibility."

"my mistakes burn me up inside" is nice, but again, non-specific. Your mistake could be "i didn't shove my fist up Sander's ass" or " I listened to dumbfuck with all the bad advice," or something she actually said she regrets "I didn't turn this into a reality show like our dickhead president"...which itself is not a genuine regret, it is a bitter statement about the current state of politics and the American people who responded to a reality show.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JCanete (Reply #114)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 01:27 PM

119. So... even when she takes responsibility, it's still not "specific enough" or "platitudes"

Illustrating much of the teeth gnashing going on because she wrote a book.

And your bitterness and rage about her is REALLY coming out in those choices of phrases, even as casually as they are dropped in....

Your mistake could be "i didn't shove my fist up Sander's ass" or " I listened to dumbfuck with all the bad advice," or something she actually said she regrets "I didn't turn this into a reality show like our dickhead president".


Might as well have used a bullhorn....


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #119)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 01:33 PM

122. I have none of those things, and I said that in every case she may actually take responsibility in

her book. That doesn't change at all whether or not what you presented here does the work you say it does. It doesn't, or show me how anything I addressed is wrong?

I also totally agree with her that some of the reasons she lost this race were entirely out of her control, and were the work of 20 years or so of absolute media vilification. I also agree that sexism is rampant. People still respond to women differently. People not liking her voice is absurd but also almost certainly something people really rejected her for over the years. It is worth talking about. She has every right to talk about it in her book. Was that taking responsibility for something though? Be fucking honest.

I don't actually have any interest in bashing Clinton. I strongly disagree with the nonsense she stated about how Sanders hurt her, or how he was both offering Pony's but that they had nearly the exact same platforms at the same time, and where people were saying that she was stating the uncomfortable "facts," I thought it was worth interjecting.

But it does bother me that you people would want to make a point so badly that they would use evidence as weak as what was presented in the OP and take it to mean far far more than it does because it fits a desired narrative.

I have no interest in whether or not she takes responsibility for what happened. In fact,those who want to lay this whole thing at her feet are being entirely unfair for reasons I already mentioned, from sexism to the demagoguery in the media.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JCanete (Reply #114)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 01:49 PM

127. Whereas other losing candidates

accept no responsibility whatsoever, despite losing by 4 million out of 28 million votes, as oppose to earning 3 million more votes out of a total of 129 million.



/photo/1

Don't let the fact you haven't as much as looked at the book deter you from propping up double standards.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #127)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 02:02 PM

131. sooooo? First, what he said is the political reality of the fight. I agree with it. You could

fairly say, and he doesn't appear to be saying otherwise, that it was Clinton's hard work over the years making those connections that gave her those advantages in the election. She earned those, but they existed. Whether or not a democratic socialist ever had the opportunity to earn those same inroads, I think you will have to agree, has not been a possibility in corporate America. So it was an opportunity she had and capitalized on that was never there for Sanders. That doesn't mean that her fight in a man's world to get to the top of the game wasn't an admirable one. That doesn't mean that her getting the whole establishment behind her bid wasn't impressive. But its a hell of a thing for an outsider to surmount.

Second, I'm not demanding that Clinton go out there and take responsibility for her loss, though I know others are, and as I posted in my follow up, I think to a degree that is totally unfair. My response to the above post didn't have to do with whether or not I need to hear Clinton own anything, it was about what was actually being said and how somebody was trying to make it say something else entirely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JCanete (Reply #114)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 04:12 PM

147. To be fair, why does anyone expect her to apologize?

Presidential candidates Gore, Kerry, McCain, Romney ... etc., were never expected to apologize, show genuine remorse, and give a detailed explanation as to why they lost and then proceed to drop off the face of the planet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to True_Blue (Reply #147)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 04:13 PM

148. I agree, and have said so in my posts. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JCanete (Reply #114)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 06:46 PM

158. No one was justified in "disliking" her

No one. Dislike her policy positions, sure. But her, personally? No.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mcar (Reply #158)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 06:59 PM

159. You misread me. I said it was justified for clinton to point out that the dislike was irrational. I


just don't see how saying so is her taking responsibility for something, as was supposedly the reason for referencing that quote in the op.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Original post)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 01:41 PM

123. Boy, talk about pre-judging.

I saw the title of this OP and was instantly incensed and opened it up intending to fire back hard. I saw the sarcasm thingy and deflated as fast as I blew up a few seconds before. Just took a good lesson from this, don't blow up before getting the facts, it's obviously one I needed.

Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Original post)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 01:46 PM

126. Some

Want to keep this Clinton/ Sanders thing going to benefit republicans or Russians.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Original post)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 02:21 PM

138. Hillary!

Hillary! Hillary!Hillary! Hillary! Hillary! Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Original post)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 02:55 PM

140. I was wondering

Is the the headline or where the article acts like it really believes these quotes are "taking responsibility?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GaryCnf (Reply #140)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 04:23 PM

150. The headline is the headline of the article, which is ironic.

There were people here who were "angry" at being "tricked" because it wasn't a screed on HRC.

I added the smilie to to save others who might be outraged the outrage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Original post)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 03:28 PM

141. This reminds me of the...

...reaction to her "email" story. It never mattered how many times or ways she scolded herself... Andrea and Mika were always going to find a word she left out... well, she didn't use the word "sorry" they said. So, she did. They only went on to say she didn't use another word...

... and, they wonder about different standards for women.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Original post)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 03:51 PM

144. Thank you! And it's not your fault if some are so dense they didn't get the irony in

your title. It is really obvious

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Original post)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 03:52 PM

145. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Original post)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 04:30 PM

153. I see what you did there. Awesome post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Original post)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 10:27 PM

163. Some read only the title and

not the content. Anyone who needed that sarcasm thingy doesn't deserve your effort to explain what is apparent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Original post)

Thu Sep 14, 2017, 01:22 AM

166. Far too many here on DU just got duped.

The russians got their number, and they can never admit that to themselves.

I like to think that they were duped instead of being misogynist bigots. Russia baited the left wing with lies about Hillary just as they did the right wing - just different lies. I don't know why lefties would fall for those lies though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread