Now it's Bernie Sander's fault that Hillary lost the election.

[Edge-]

Yeah, he appeared on shows, and people were cordial with him. Next show, be it Colbert, Maher, or the like, they were making fun of him, calling him in not so many words crazy. Colbert dissing Sanders, Maher going on rants about how Sanders should drop out. Treating him like he wasn't really there, like he was a joke candidate. Conan, Kimmel, Fallon even got their jabs in, although less of course since they don't really seem like such huge dickbags as Colbert and Maher.

And, of course, then there's the Clinton fanbase, who dismissed Sanders as well, but that's to be expected. "BernieBros", "socialist", "misogynistic", you name it. All that bullshit came from the Clinton camp. "BernieBros" and rumors of misogyny was picked up by the mainstream media and late night shows as well.

Late night show hosts alternatively praise and pillory candidates? I'm shocked!

There was plenty to mock him over, just as there was plenty to praise him over. And he received both. This attempt to change history to make Bernie seem like some poor victim of media and popular culture, which were both largely positive in their handling over him, is strange.

[Deleted]

Late night show hosts alternatively praise and pillory candidates? I'm shocked!

Well, it's nothing to be shocked about that they did pillory him, as long as one admits that it actually did happen, and it wasn't all "positive coverage" for him. Although, I can't really remember Bernie being praised for his policy positions and the fact that he was representing democratic socialism. It was mostly along the lines of people ridiculing him and yelling "Magic abs!", like Hillary comments in her book.

[Edge-]

Well, it's nothing to be shocked about that they did pillory him, as long as one admits that it actually did happen, and it wasn't all "positive coverage" for him.

I never argued it was all positive. Late night shows treated all the candidates that way. That's what they do, they swing with the popular breeze for the most part.

But alleging that they were all "up Hillary's ass" despite them regularly mocking her, and that they were all cruel and unfair to Bernie, despite them routinely having positive bits about him, is nonsense.

[Beazy]

Wait, I thought Russia was the reason she lost. What happened to those 150 security agency reports proving she was done in by Putin?

[Chinese Bootlickers]

I'm really getting Oprah vibes about her now. "You're the reason I lost! You're the reason I lost! Everyone and everything else but me was the reason I lost!"

[Theodarzna]

I'm really getting Oprah vibes about her now. "You're the reason I lost! You're the reason I lost! Everyone and everything else but me was the reason I lost!"

Hell, Hillary even blamed those pink knitted hat idiots who made the Women's March for her lose.

[Edge-]

Hell, Hillary even blamed those pink knitted hat idiots who made the Women's March for her lose.

No she didn't. She asked where the kind of post-election motivation/enthusiasm for these Women's marches etc. was during the election. She never, from what I can see, specifically referenced those women.

It's still stupid, but let's at least try to represent the content of her book without lying. Tabloid headlines are never accurate.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ers-Lauer.html

[FlatBootyJudy]

Hillary is kind of like a bad cheating Monopoly player, they stole from the bank, fixed the dice and still lost, but they don't blame themselves! I hope she lands on "GoTo Jail!"

[xChurch]

Seems like a big book to just be about how Bernie fucked it up for her. I don't think he played a major role in her loss, but it'd be silly to suggest he had no effect or a net positive one. Her book should have really been titled "wtf did I do" though, since her loss wasn't something that just passively happened to her.

[paralleluniverse]

Right... I guess it's kind of positive when he was repeatedly being called a socialist by everyone under the Sun. I guess that counts as positive. Right?

Look at the studies on media coverage I linked. Sanders received the most positive coverage, you liar.

Being called a socialist isn't really negative. Being called Crooked Hillary is.

You are trying to rewrite history. I guess you just can't handle facts.

- - - Updated - - -

Unless you're going to explain how she is to the left of other dems, i'm just going to assume its bullshit. She was just as deep in Wall Street's pocket as Obama.

Go through every issue, she is on the left of Obama.

Healthcare, she wants to expand ACA and add in a public option. Wall Street regulation, she wanted to strengthen Dodd-Frank, particularly to regulate shadow banking. Trade, she was against TPP. Taxes, she wanted to tax the rich. And so on.

- - - Updated - - -

Seems like a big book to just be about how Bernie fucked it up for her. I don't think he played a major role in her loss, but it'd be silly to suggest he had no effect or a net positive one. Her book should have really been titled "wtf did I do" though, since her loss wasn't something that just passively happened to her.

No.

"What Happened"? Her book should have been titled "But My Emails", because that's what the 2016 election was about and why she lost.

[ati87]

And this is who the liberals wanted for president...

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/05/politi...ned/index.html

still beter then Donald Smallhands Trump

[Blade Wolf]

No.

"What Happened"? Her book should have been titled "But My Emails", because that's what the 2016 election was about and why she lost.

Yeah that's clearly why she lost and not because she was the worst candidate the democrats could have put forth.

[paralleluniverse]

Yeah that's clearly why she lost and not because she was the worst candidate the democrats could have put forth.

Wrong. It is the main reason why she lost. Emails, not her being a bad candidate, was the overwhelmingly dominant issue of the entire campaign. Nothing got more news coverage than emails. In fact, emails got more coverage than three times all policy issues combined.

Why are you trying to downplay the emails? It is the greatest scandal in the history of politics and we need to LOCK HER UP.

[mvaliz]

[[[insert Mouthspwewing nonsense rhetoric drivel here]]]

Jesus fucking christ, how does one become so delusional? How do we defeat this level of fucking ignorance? >_<

I was writing a bunch to respond to this and how stupid what you said was, but I quickly realize I'd be trying to argue with somebody who is clearly not interested in debate or facts or reality.

All I can do is feel pitty for you, and place you on Ignore... >_<

[zenkai]

She sabotages Bernie's campaign

Still, Bernie ends up supporter her

Then she blames Bernie for her loss


LMAO what a Fucking stupid bitch

[Deleted]

Haven't watched it yet myself. Maybe tomorrow.

Hillary Clinton’s theory of politics is unfashionable, but she doesn’t care.

On page 239 of What Happened, Hillary Clinton reveals that she almost ran a very different campaign in 2016. Before announcing for president, she read Peter Barnes’s book With Liberty and Dividends for All, and became fascinated by the idea of using revenue from shared natural resources, like fossil fuel extraction and public airwaves, alongside revenue from taxing public harms, like carbon emissions and risky financial practices, to give every American “a modest basic income.”
Her ambitions for this idea were expansive, touching on not just the country’s economic ills but its political and spiritual ones. “Besides cash in people’s pockets,” she writes, “it would be also be a way of making every American feel more connected to our country and to each other.”
This is the kind of transformative vision that Clinton was often criticized for not having. It’s an idea bigger than a wall, perhaps bigger even than single-payer health care or free college. But she couldn’t make the numbers work. Every version of the plan she tried either raised taxes too high or slashed essential programs. So she scrapped it. “That was the responsible decision,” she writes. But after the 2016 election, Clinton is no longer sure that “responsible” is the right litmus test for campaign rhetoric. “I wonder now whether we should’ve thrown caution to the wind, embraced [it] as a long-term goal and figured out the details later,” she writes.
What Happened has been sold as Clinton’s apologia for her 2016 campaign, and it is that. But it’s more remarkable for Clinton’s extended defense of a political style that has become unfashionable in both the Republican and Democratic parties. Clinton is not a radical or a revolutionary, a disruptor or a socialist, and she’s proud of that fact. She’s a pragmatist who believes in working within the system, in promising roughly what you believe you can deliver, in saying how you’ll pay for your plans. She is frustrated by a polity that doesn’t share her “thrill” over incremental policies that help real people or her skepticism of sweeping plans that will never come to fruition. She believes in politics the way it is actually practiced, and she holds to that belief at a moment when it’s never been less popular.
This makes Clinton a more unusual figure than she gets credit for being: Not only does she refuse to paint an inspiring vision of a political process rid of corruption, partisanship, and rancor, but she’s also actively dismissive of those promises and the politicians who make them.

On Tuesday morning, I sat down with Clinton for an hour on the first official day of her book tour. It is a cliché that stiff candidates become freer, easier, and more confident after they lose — see Gore, Al — but it is true for Clinton. Jon Stewart used to talk of the “buffering” you could see happening in the milliseconds between when Clinton was asked a question and when she answered; the moments when she played out the angles, envisioned the ways her words could be twisted, and came up with a response devoid of danger but suffused with caution. That buffering is gone.
In our conversation, she was as quick and confident as I’ve seen her, making the case for her politics without worrying too much about the coalitional angles or the possible lines of offense. And she says plenty that can, and will, offend. In our discussion, she lit into Bernie Sanders’s single-payer plan, warned that Donald Trump is dragging us down an authoritarian path, spoke openly of the role racism and white resentment played in the campaign, and argued that the outcome of the 2016 election represented a failure of the media above all. This was Clinton unleashed, and while she talked about what happened, it was much more interesting when she talked about what she believed should have happened.

- Ezra Klein
Editor-in-chief, Vox

This interview was recorded on September 12, 2017.

[anyaka21]

I've been saying since like last January that I thought Clinton was a poor candidate to pick. The big problem for the Democrats is that they didn't really have many other big names that seemed to have any desire to take a run at it. I like Warren, but she's refused to even consider it. Franken's made some noises about the future, which I would find hilarious if they came about, because Franken is a smart guy and not the kind of person you'd be able to fluster in a debate. I preferred Sanders, but mostly from how he'd shake things up than any expectation of him achieving specific goals directly.

But a lot of the slander against Clinton was totally undeserved. And she mostly sat there and took it, which made it look like there was more credibility to the accusations than there really was. That's a big part of why I thought she was a terrible candidate; not because I thought she'd do a bad job, but because she doesn't have great charisma outside of personal interactions, and the right-wing had been frothing against her and her husband for over 20 years by then; she just brought too much baggage, even if most of it was nutbar fictional woo-woo nonsense.

I disagree. She pretty much had to hijack the DNC to beat Sanders in the primaries, and even to the point of supposed election fraud in places like Nevada.

But I will agree that Hillary was a terrible candidate, and not unlike you, that it was because she was a woman but because of the type of person she is. Hillary even admitted her biggest mistake was the email trail. And really all that did was bring to light all of her shady election tactics with the DNC, how she planned and implemented the rise of Trump because she thought he would be easier to beat than the others....

The main problem now is that all Hillary is doing is not owning up to the facts of who she is and why she lost. And as mentioned, she claims that her biggest mistake was the email trail. But notice the subtlety there where she really isn't taking responsibility. She doesn't take responsibility for her dirty politics. Apparently thats normal. She won't admit wrongly using the DNC beat Sanders, or even things like leaked debate questions, etc... Just really confirming to me how wrong of a candidate for the President of the United States that she is. And IMO, shut down the only person that really deserved that spot.