Hillary a weak candidate?

[SHRED]

Hell no!

[mcar]

1. Hell no, she wasn't!

Thanks for this Shred.

[Eko]

2. K&R'd

[StevieM]

3. She would have won in a landslide had it not been for James Comey and the out-of-control FBI.

Of course, you could argue that beating Donald Trump in a landslide isn't exactly a big accomplishment. But it is still worth noting that had it not been for Comey and Putin she would have destroyed him.

[mr_lebowski]

8. I blame the profit-driven media and their completely deceptive trumpeting of a NON-STORY ...

What Comey actually told Congress was pretty damn innocuous if you actually go back and read the letter.

And if she'd just won, nobody would've given the tiniest of shits about what he did. Consider that for a minute sometime.

It never should have been blown into the breathless headlines it was, harped about for days in the media ... given the ACTUAL CONTENT of the letter and REALITY of the situation at hand.

If we didn't have a purely profit-driven media, that not only craved eyeballs and clicks for the short-term when the letter was sent, but also smelled mega-bucks coming their way for 4 years if Dump was to actually win, they wouldn't have misrepresented the nature of Comey's letter the way they did.

If Comey hadn't done what he did, Guiliani would've made sure that the media 'found out', and it very easily could've ended up looking even worse for Hillary ... then the fucking media would've 'agonized' endlessly about whether the FBI was 'in the tank for Hillary' and hence 'looked the other way' in the investigations of the email server and the CF.

IMHO, it's time to stop with the blame Comey bullshit and blame the PROPER people ... the media, the GOP, Guiliani, the NY FBI field office who got the laptop and elected to blab to Rudy and play politics with it, and NON-VOTERS who stayed home.

FACT: Nobody knows what would've happened if Comey had 'said nothing' as so many have blithely suggested. It ain't that fucking simple as 'he says nothing, and it never become a story' ... there were people who were DETERMINED to MAKE IT a story, no matter what Comey said or didn't say. They are (among) the proper ones to blame here, IMHO.

[StevieM]

12. I see your point, but only Comey could allow the message to be delivered with the prestige

of the FBI behind it. Labeling her as "under FBI investigation" was repeatedly damning to her in the minds of many Americans.

And his July press conference had the FBI saying bad things about her, even if she wasn't going to be indicted. That let people portray her as "getting away" with something. Comey should have followed protocol and said nothing.

The entire fake email scandal was a non-story. The media turned it into something big. But they did that with the help of Comey, who never should have gotten the FBI involved to begin with.

[politicaljunkie41910]

101. I agree with you 1000%. I've always said that if the media had called Trump's lies "a lie"

everytime he told one, or if they had refused to print his derogatory Tweets (aimed at the other candidates and the media (i.e. lying Ted and the Fake News) and only recognized him when he spoke like an "adult" and a presidential candidate, and not like a junior high school bully, and didn't give him all that free call in time on shows like "Morning Joe" at the expense of all the other candidates; this election campaign would have had a much different result.

My guess is that he wouldn't have made it through the primaries. The media helped create a monster, and since it worked for him, every candidate in 2018 and 2020 will use the same tactics. It is going to get ugly. If we're ever going to have another civilized primary election again, the media is going to have to establish ground rules regarding name calling and fact checking lies in real time, and equal time for each candidate meaning if you give one candidate an hour long call in to a network, you have to give everyone the same treatment. The goal being nobody gets to call in for an hour long rambling, candidate bashing session full of self-serving lies.

[BigmanPigman]

34. Yep, Comey was the main reason.

The other reasons fall behind his BS grandstanding and political decision. Sure there is the Russia interference, Facebook and social media, 24/7 MSM giving the fucking moron all the free time he desired showing an empty stage during his campaign, misogyny, not focusing on the issues, etc...but Comey is what did it!

[krawhitham]

180. She was only up 5 points when Comey reopened the case

[StevieM]

182. It was more like 6 points. But still, Trump had made recent gains, which also means two things:

First, it is that much harder to make more gains when you have already gotten back the first round of voters, who are the easiest to flip back to you.

Second, those voters you just got back are easier to lose. Clinton and Trump had been gone up and down in the polls before. It is by no means unreasonable to suggest that HRC would have recovered those voters, especially since Trump tended to say crazy things and behave erratically. He behaved a little better in the final 11 days.

Also, Clinton felt she had to cancel the positive ads she was going to close on and go heavily negative towards the end, due to Comey. That was a mistake, as were other parts of her response to the Comey intervention, but they were mistakes she never should have been forced into the position of making.

Finally, let's not forget that Putin also caused her to slip in the run-up to the Comey intervention. Those voters were more likely to return then people who flipped based on the issues.

We saw back in July how the Comey press conference not only cost her votes, but they prevented her from recovering support, as she surely would have once it was made clear that the claim that she broke the law was a lie.

[democratisphere]

4. When the opposition actually lies, cheats and steals and HRC won the popular

vote by nearly 4 million more voters, I would hardly call that weak. When all the investigations are done, we'll discover the election was stolen by colluding drumpf, Russia and the GOP.

[unblock]

5. And a hugely biased media. Donnie got 80% of airtime and 80% of what Hillary got was scandal

Only about 4% of airtime was about Hillary's accomplish, talents, experience, priorities, and vision for America.

[brer cat]

51. *This* nt

[VOX]

134. *It May Not Be Good for America, but It's Damn Good for CBS!*

So said Les Moonves, CEO/CBS, per the Hollywood Reporter, 2/29/2016:
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/leslie-moonves-donald-trump-may-871464

Leslie Moonves can appreciate a Donald Trump candidacy.

Not that the CBS executive chairman and CEO might vote for the Republican presidential frontrunner, but he likes the ad money Trump and his competitors are bringing to the network.

"It may not be good for America, but it's damn good for CBS," he said of the presidential race.

Moonves called the campaign for president a "circus" full of "bomb throwing," and he hopes it continues.

"Most of the ads are not about issues. They're sort of like the debates," he said.

"Man, who would have expected the ride we're all having right now? ... The money's rolling in and this is fun," he said.

"I've never seen anything like this, and this going to be a very good year for us. Sorry. It's a terrible thing to say. But, bring it on, Donald. Keep going," said Moonves.
<snip>

[unblock]

150. German businesses found out too late that Hitler was not so good for business....

[VOX]

166. Those military contracts must have looked like a sure thing in 1940...

But complete destruction kinda got in the way.

[yardwork]

139. I blame the media almost entirely. Their coverage was a disgrace to their profession.

[CatMor]

6. I wonder how many could have stood up to what she did...

during the campaign and still kept going. She has actually put up with the right wing nonsense for 30 years. She won the election with the popular vote, the way our elections should be determined. One thing for sure, I willnneber consider trump my president.

[ehrnst]

7. It took an army to steal the Oval Office from her. (nt)

[Cha]

9. I would add the fucking cable nooze 24/7 emails and puffing

up Donald fcucked up trump.. and Cambridge Analytica-FB.



Thanks SHRED

[Wwcd]

10. K & R "They were never going to cover Hillary Clintons plans""

https://still4hill.com/2018/04/21/they-were-never-going-to-cover-hillarys-plans/

They were never going to cover Hillary Clinton’s plans

"Yes, Hillary did have a plan for just about everything. They were good plans. Unfortunately, like blueprints, plans are not especially sexy or exciting. That those plans got shunted off into dusty corners of office cubicles (Amy’s and others’) is, I would argue, the single most significant failure of reportage in the campaign.

As mea culpas go, meh. More a Greek apologia. Chozick writes, “She went through the motions.” No! She did the homework! You dropped the ball. The ball was those plans."

Good Read..

[NastyRiffraff]

17. Very good read!

I don't intend to read Chozick's book either. I'd probably start hurling the book and other heavy objects through windows. Whether it's Amy Chozick, Matt Lauer, or scores of other "journalists," they covered Donald Trump largely without question while constantly harping on Hillary's emails, her supposed "unlikeability," Benghazi, etc. etc.

I know there's plenty of blame to go around about the 2016 election, but surely the so-called liberal media did their part in Hillary's loss of the Electoral College.

[Cary]

11. Like "conservatives" are not going to lie about and smear anyone we nominate...

If one is going to succumb to "conservative" propaganda then it he or she who is weak.

[Hekate]

13. EXACTLY WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING FOR OVER A YEAR!

Thank you!!!

[Pope George Ringo II]

14. I've got to respectfully disagree with this sentiment.

We're actually listing reasons she lost a campaign to the worst major-party Presidential candidate in American history. Put whatever asterisks on it you wish, but the bottom line is that she somehow lost to the worst major-party Presidential candidate in American history. Great candidates don't lose to a sniveling nobody like Donald Trump, even if they've been abducted by aliens.

Before that, she barely won the 2016 nomination as the only Democrat running. Say what you will about Bernie, I would hope that we're all in agreement that she was the only actual Democrat in that race and it was still all she could do to get the nod.

Before that, she let a guy come out of nowhere and take the 2008 nomination away from her. With the understanding that Obama ran a clearly brilliant and outright revolutionary campaign that year, a great candidate would have had that locked up years before and never let the Obama campaign get enough oxygen to be competitive.

She did win the 2000 NY Senate campaign as sitting FLOTUS. This was "taking care of business" and she has nothing to apologize for with that win, but it wasn't one for the ages.

In all frankness, I wish she campaigned half as well as she did anything else. Great FLOTUS, great Senator, great Secretary of State. Serious thinker, policy wonk who really enjoys problem-solving, actual human being with compassion, and a long list of other personal and professional qualifications. But at some point, your record as a candidate describes what kind of candidate you are. Her record says it's the only thing she doesn't knock out of the park, and it makes me want to cry. The only concern I had about her actual administration was that the GOP House was going to waste everybody's time by returning articles of impeachment during her inaugural parade. Campaigning is her tragic flaw, and the entire world is suffering the consequences.

[Nedsdag]

15. I agree as well.

When it comes to intelligence in carefully thought out policies, no one can match her. When it comes to political savvy and game playing, she has failed not once, but twice in that regard.

I also agree with you regarding her administration. All of the thought out policies would never have made it to either the house or the Senate with all the hearings which would've tied up her presidency.

[Wwcd]

21. So its a good thing she didn't win anyway, Cuz she'd have gotten nothing done anyway with the GOP?!

Is that what you're saying?
Well gee in that case all the bull sh** that came at her foreign & domestic are irrelevant, correct?
She'd have failed against the GOP?
Wtf?

So who wouldn't have failed in the same respect?
Just curious who?
So what, we should have elected a Repub because they have the repub legislature behind them?

Oh wait..we did!

I truly disagree with the fatalistic analysis your post presents.

Hillary Clinton was every bit qualified to deal with those who opposed her in the House & Senate.
She knows many & has worked with many as a Senator & Sec of State.

Wow.

[Pope George Ringo II]

26. I wouldn't go that far at all, myself.

Even if she actually was stonewalled at every interaction with Congress, that's still better than Trump and Pence actively working with a GOP Congress to destroy the country. And Obama's executive orders are a good model for doing good things despite Congressional obstruction, as well as diplomatic competence and good-faith.

[Cha]

29. I know.. what a bunch of negative

baloney.

[Pope George Ringo II]

18. You're wrong by two and a half months. She clinched in early June.

https://www.cnn.com/2016/06/06/politics/hillary-clinton-nomination-2016/index.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016

[mythology]

22. There was no viable path for Sanders to win the delegate vote count in March

Much like there wasn't a viable path for Clinton to win in March 2008 over Obama. Having proportional delegate division gives the appearance of the race running longer, especially given Sanders didn't drop out of the race, but actually makes it pretty hard to catch up because there's no way to grab a large enough chunk of delegates.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/was-the-democratic-primary-a-close-call-or-a-landslide/

[Pope George Ringo II]

28. However, note the consequences of it dragging out like that.

It wasn't until June that she was able to stop campaigning against Bernie and the entire Democratic Party could finally start campaigning against Trump. That's one of the turning points mentioned in the links. It should never have been that close when only one Democrat was actually running, but Bernie touched a lot of Democratic voters in a way I had hoped Hillary would have.

[Cha]

98. Please Cut the Crap.. Hillary touched Millions of Democratic Voters..

[boston bean]

120. By about 4 M over bernie.

Damn people just want to overloks actual facts.

[Cha]

121. Yeah.. make up their own scenarios..

Don't think we'll notice they're trying to re-write history.

[boston bean]

123. Nice to see you Cha. Yep I will never forget it. And I won't let anyone else either.

[Cha]

124. Me neither, boston bean..

Really good to see you, too

[R B Garr]

145. +1000, Yup, there has been nonstop rewriting of history.

Even flat out denial of groups in Bernie’s name who were encouraging people to throw away their votes. Of course, all of that ties in with why they were targeted by the Russian’s to poison Hillary.

But Reality is not negotiable like on Fox News...no way.

Hi Cha!

[Cha]

20. I respectfully call BULL.. you are FLAGRANTLY ignoring REALITY

and making up your own scenarios.

It's not a "sentiment" it's reality.

[zentrum]

23. Well said.

I think that's what others in the Democratic Party mean when they say "weak candidate." They mean "weak campaigner".

[Wwcd]

27. Her campaign was strong. Her platform was everything America now claims they want in the next Pres.

These are the reasons she was silenced.
This is why she was kept from speaking of that platform on MSM & why her image had to be re-made into weak, hated, murderer, oligarch, war hawk...remember? She is none of those.

The person Hillary Clinton really is was silenced & the image they wanted the voters to see was pronounced.

I am really amazed at anyone who didn't see what was going on at the time, and more amazed by those who still buy that b.s. considering all we know today.

She would have been a great leader for all people of this country & around the globe.

[BeyondGeography]

149. Campaign and campaigner are different things

[Wwcd]

151. She wrote the policy platform. She campaigned on that. That was all in her speeches

The speeches never shown on MSM, not allowed to be even posted on social media, or blogs like DU.
She was intentionally silenced by a massive media campaign who were never ever to allow her profoundly progressive, future forward policy platform to ever be heard, because the GOP/Russia crime syndicate would never win US power against what she held in that policy platform.

She most certainly did campaign well.
Its on the voters for never knowing what she wanted for America, it was out there to be read, rallys attended, ..it just was rarely seen on MSM, & social media hired hacks were there to do the same.

[zentrum]

161. Exactly. But many

…can't make that distinction. Platform is not the same as the "campaigner". Not arguing with her message. Arguing with her political instincts. Did she go to those three all important electoral college states? No. And that's a "campaigner" issue.

[BeyondGeography]

173. Your initial distinction was spot on

She was not a weak candidate. In many ways she was incredibly strong. But she was neither a strong nor an enthusiastic campaigner.

[Me.]

35. Disagree

and feel you're telling the REader's Digest/Cliff Notes version of the story

[Cha]

36. In the fiction section.

[Me.]

38. ...

[StevieM]

43. I don't think she was too heavy a favorite in early 2007. She made herself a big favorite by

going out in the first 9 months and building up a big lead. People forget that.

[Pope George Ringo II]

47. I think you have to go back further.

I can sort of see the decision not to run in 2004 for various reasons, but in 2005 Obama was "That nice young man who gave a great speech at the convention and is going to be an absolute rock star someday" but Hillary was the presumptive nominee already.

[StevieM]

50. I don't think it is fair to say that she was the presumptive nominee.

She was polling in the mid-30s. That isn't overwhelming.

HRC moved up her announcement date to January when Obama entered the race. It was pretty clear from the get-go that he was a big star.

The way everyone is belittling her as a candidate is a huge payoff for Republicans. They are enjoying this very much. And that says something about what they were willing to do in order to win.

[Pope George Ringo II]

53. Again, given all her advantages, she should never have been caught flat-footed by anybody

It bears mentioning that one of the charges leveled against her in 2016 involved a too-cozy relationship with Wasserman-Schultz. She was always the establishment candidate which has some drawbacks, but she never really took full advantage of the benefits.

And it may be true that the Republicans enjoy every shot at Hillary, but they've never been even somewhat limited by reality in that respect and our bottom line is that the superior party lost the Presidency (with it, a SCOTUS seat), the Senate, the House, and too many state offices. You don't fix that by declaring that everything is fine and nothing needs to change. Honest criticism is necessary. I can live with actual disagreement on how we fix those things, but some of the screaming that everything was perfect is just a little too far out there for me to get behind.

[boston bean]

122. She fucking had 3m more votes than trumpass. Stopin acting like she was some horrid candidate.

We have lost twice now when we won more votes in just 16 years.

God damnit this retelling if history as if nothing like russian hacking, voter suppression, media, plain old fucking cheating had nothing to do with a close electoral loss is fucking infuriating.

[betsuni]

125. Honest criticism means it has to be true.

Oops! Nobody ever said everything is perfect. Why keep propping up that old strawman? It doesn't work, you know.

[ehrnst]

162. We've been 'splained about the Democratic Candidate on DU before

and clearly, are going to be for awhile.

[Me.]

52. I Think You're Invested In Your Contention

and I still disagree and see no point in a back and forth

As to a campaign where she destroyed her opposition I'd say she handled Lazio quite well

[Pope George Ringo II]

55. Yeah, that was the one eighteen years ago she might have covered the spread.

She took care of business on that one, but a Democrat winning a Senate seat in New York is not the most amazing thing.

And if you've got a problem with unproductive back-and-forth, I'd point out that I'm at least trying not to make all sorts of snotty personal remarks here, which I'm not sure I'd say is as universal as might be hoped.

Edit: Also, I'm aware that I'm criticizing a woman who is an icon and a hero to many here, myself included. I'm rather interested in making clear that there are strict limits to that criticism and that it only applies to one limited sphere, so I'm trying not to get blindsided on that subject.

[Me.]

58. Due Respect

but I consider yours a quite narrow view that doesn't address the myriad number of issues involved yet I commend you for not violating the TOS for this site.

[Pope George Ringo II]

62. And please don't take it as being okay with Comey, Putin, Fox, Facebook

Cambridge Analytica, fraud, Wikileaks, and the rest of the usual suspects. But I do think she had underlying flaws getting people to believe she was the superior candidate.

[Me.]

66. And You Are Entitled To Your Opinion

As am I though I am glad to see a broader overview being approached

[Cha]

99. Nah.. Millions knew she was the best candidate.. it was

stolen from her and us.

[lapucelle]

165. "She is a flawed candidate" was a popular right wing talking point.

I'm not sure what "she had underlying flaws getting people to believe she was the superior candidate" even means.

[StevieM]

171. I think she was seen as the superior candidate. But the people were tricked into believing

that she somehow broke the law and got away with it.

[George II]

100. You should spend more time looking into the politics of New York - especially....

....those who have been elected as Senator and Governor over the years. You might be surprised.

[StevieM]

147. Senate races in NY were a lot more competitive back then.

And she did more than cover the spread. She ran a great race. In Upstate New York, by the time that campaign was over, she was the friendly neighbor who understood their communities and Lazio was the carpetbagger from Long Island.

[Cha]

69. I can see it bothers anyone who's into the reality of

what actually happened.

You have your own little convenient scenarios to fit your agenda. You need to check your facts.

[Pope George Ringo II]

40. In all frankness

Which campaign(s) would you like to use to argue that she's a great campaigner?

The 2016 general election she lost to Donald Trump?

The 2016 nomination she won as the only Democrat running?

The 2008 nomination she lost to Obama?

The 2000 general election for Senate she won as a sitting FLOTUS?

I've got no problem saying nice things about her as a person, as an elected public official, as an appointed public official, or as the spouse of an elected official. I will say nice things about her as a prospective elected official in a counterfactual where she won in 2016. We like her. Most of us voted for her in at least one 2016 election, have a history with her, and feel considerable affection for her from her role in the great days of the 90s. I get that.

But I just don't see anything in her track record as a candidate which makes me think it's one of her many strengths. I think at some point we have to take a completely honest look at her history in this one area.

[StevieM]

46. Well, she built up a huge lead in the first 9 months of 2007. Contrary to popular belief,

she didn't start out with it.

Also, that comeback in New Hampshire in 2008 was impressive as hell.

[Pope George Ringo II]

49. Never should have happened, though.

She had all of both Clinton's connections, experience, and base in place, along with warm fuzzies of good government. Forget her actual performance in 2007 and 2008, why was it ever a race in the first place? The negatives associated with her name recognition might have had a role in the general once Fox got going, but she lost the nomination before her only negatives even had to be addressed.

[Caliman73]

97. You forget that sexism is likely stronger than racism as well.

You cannot discount the effects of ingrained societal learning, which is why despite women being more than half of the population in the US, the percentage of women in national leadership roles has NEVER broken 20%. I think that even liberals were more ready to see a Black man as president than a woman.

[druidity33]

128. I'm still pissed that

52% of white women voted for trump.

[StevieM]

44. Given that the American people were persuaded that she somehow broke the law and got away with it,

I think it is impressive that she had such a big lead over Trump. Ultimately, Comey determined that election. He dominated it from beginning to end.

[Pope George Ringo II]

45. Recent developments with Comey aside

My own opinion is that if the week before an election a law enforcement official is going to talk about possible crimes committed by a Presidential candidate, then one of them should be in jail within twelve months.

And let's not lose sight of the fact that we're talking about Donald Trump. There is no serious argument that loon should be allowed on a tour of the White House, let alone given the job he's got.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

67. Hillary, as the candidate in ultimate control of her campaign has taken responsibility for her loss.

But why do you say she wasn't a great candidate? Would she do things differently to defeat Dolt 45? Sure, Hillary, to her credit, has admitted as much.

But that doesn't necessarily mean, however, that Hillary wasn't a great candidate, especially considering the fact that, but for Obama's 2008 election victory, she received the largest number of votes for President in U.S. history. With numbers like those, it's hard to argue that Hillary didn't do a great job as our candidate... just not great enough to overcome the rigged Electoral College system, which is the biggest travesty of all.

[lapucelle]

167. I find it amazing that the female candidate

was so frequently admonished to apologize and/or take responsibility.

Were any male candidates who lost presidential bids ever told to take responsibility and/or apologize?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

174. Who here, or anywhere - certainly not me - admonished Hillary to apologize? For what?

She has nothing, nada, nil to apologize for. No one had to admonish Hillary to take responsibility either... she did that on her own accord, for which she deserves credit. Why take that away from her by implying she only did so because she was pressured into it? That's not being fair to her. Gore did the same thing when he lost in 2000 and, similarly, deserves credit for his handling of a difficult situation.

[lapucelle]

184. I was talking about the press and media. N/T

[BlueMTexpat]

114. I also respectfully

Last edited Sun Apr 22, 2018, 07:04 AM - Edit history (1)

Call bull. She had clinched the Dem nomination by millions more votes and campaigned well. I wish that she had herself made more visits to some red states rather than sending surrogates.

But the deck was stacked against her by the vast RW conspiracy she so accurately described years ago.

[betsuni]

130. If Trump was the worst major party presidential candidate in American history,

why the: Oh, Trump barnstormed rallies and was so popular and had charisma, used wedge issues like immigration and free trade and coal so effectively and had unlimited media interest? Why did people like Michael Moore and Bill Maher warn about a Trump win because of his popularity? A candidate who said he could shoot someone and his supporters wouldn't care? Sounds like a good candidate. Which is it?

[uponit7771]

135. "she barely won the 2016 nomination" this is false on its face

[Kentonio]

140. Perfectly put.

Great policy expert, not a good campaigner.

[Honeycombe8]

24. We voted for her. We wanted her. But it's over, now. nt

[Cha]

25. No, it's not "over".. the DNC is suing..

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[Wwcd]

30. K & R Cha. The organized injustice done to HRC & to the Dem Party WILL BE made right.

Anyone who played a role in the coup will be named in tge lawsuit's discovery. More names and actions are yet to be exposed.

Thank you Tom Perez.
This is what the head of the DNC is supposed to do.

[Cha]

33. Bloodly well right, Wwcd.. My theory on why

it took until now is.. that they had Important Ducks to get in a legal row.. and now it the Perfect time.

[Me.]

37. No, It's Not Over

and likely will never be over because history is going to have a whopper of a tale to tell especially how the long arm of the moral universe reached out and set things right

[Cha]

59. It is So Not Over! Excellent points about

“The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice”

Which I take to mean.. There might not be justice right now for us and for Hillary.. but it will come some day when reality heads prevail. I hope it comes in my lifetime, however.

Mahalo, Me

[Me.]

60. I Do Believe It Will Be In The Forseeable Future

and there have been a number of interesting articles lately which make the case for it already being over but the shouting, that the entire episode is doomed to fail.

[Cha]

76. I hope so!

Thank Goodness the DNC is suing.. I think it took until now to get all their Important Legal Ducks in row.

Tom Perez!

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

72. Glad to see this is finally happening... too bad the lawsuit can't overturn the election...

but, perhaps, it can at least set history straight.

[Cha]

82. I think it took awhile to get their very important

legal ducks in a row.. and now is the best time for it.

I see no downside to it.. it's only for the future of our Democratic elections.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

85. I agree... indeed, I see a lot of upside potential.

[lunamagica]

91. K&R. Well said, Cha

[Cha]

94. Gracias, lunamagica!

[lunamagica]

103. ...

[apkhgp]

32. That makes my day

45 will never be able to come up with any evidence to disqualify people that voted for Hillary Clinton.

[BobTheSubgenius]

39. Yeah. This!

Objectively, she was a terrific candidate. There was and is room to disagree with her on some issues, but no one has ever been better-prepared as a first-term president.

[Mc Mike]

41. More conservative than I'd have preferred, but hands down THE most qualified

candidate I've ever seen. I'm over 50.

[oberliner]

48. Who the hell is Stewart Safran?

[Dream Girl]

159. Makes ya wonder,

[markpkessinger]

54. I voted for HIllary, but . .. .

. . . if many of those commenting on this thread had their way, Hillary would be the first political candidate in U.S. political history who has managed to escape any responsibility for her own campaign. That isn't to say the Russians, Wikileaks and Comey didn't all play a role as well. But for God's sake, people we need to grow up a bit!

Also, I think when people say Hillary was a "weak" candidate, they aren't making a statement about her personal strength or her ability to stand up to pressure. There are many attributes that make up a "strong" candidate, including intangibles such as personality and charisma, and the ability to work a crowd. These areas are not and never were great strengths of Hillary's.

Hillary has some tremendous strengths. Her campaign also had some real flaws, among them being the high level of antipathy towards her from many independent/unaffiliated voters -- a group Democrats must tap into in a significant way if we are going to win national elections -- and a much too murky and too wonkish policy agenda that was hard to reduce to a soundbyte voters could both remember and readily identify with. None of these are personal criticisms of Hillary, but are merely a recognition of what it takes to win at the national level.

[BeyondGeography]

56. +1

[betsuni]

57. Wrong. Clinton: "I go back over my own shortcomings and the mistakes we made.

I take responsibility for all of them. You can blame the data, blame the message, blame anything you want, but I was the candidate. It was my campaign. Those were my decisions."

Maybe you're thinking of a different Hillary Clinton?

[markpkessinger]

61. She has taken responsibility for them, but many here act . . .

. . . as if her campaign made none of its own mistakes.

[betsuni]

63. That's because many of her so-called mistakes aren't true.

They keep having to be debunked, over and over and over and it's irritating.

[markpkessinger]

64. Oh, right, she ran a perfect campaign -- I keep fogetting . . .

. . . unfortunately so did many voters.

[betsuni]

65. And there it is. Saying that not all criticisms of Hillary are true means I think she's perfect.

What kind of an argument is that?

[markpkessinger]

68. You referred to her "so-called errors" . . .

. . . which rather implies you don't think of her mistakes were real or significant.

[betsuni]

74. What were her errors?

Let me guess, she didn't have an economic message? No, the most-used word in her speeches was ... wait for it ... "jobs." Samantha Bee did a good piece on that. She also did go to Wisconsin or wherever it was people said she never went. Can't think of anything else right now.

[markpkessinger]

77. One of them . . .

. . . was confining most of her campaign appearances to small gatherings of wealthy donors, while Trump was barnstorming the country with rallies. That was an error especially given that there was a perception that she was somewhat elitist among certain parts of the electorate. She did nothing to help herself on that front.

And be honest:L she's not the most charismatic candidate to come down the pike. That's not an error, but it can be a weakness in a political race, especially against a skilled media manipulator like Trump.

[StevieM]

81. She made plenty of campaign stops and did plenty of rallies.

She raised money to run commercials, which are hugely important to any campaign.

As for charisma, I think she was more charismatic than Sanders or O'Malley.

[markpkessinger]

90. And again I say . . .

. . . Nobody pointed a gun to anybody's head in the voting booth to force them to pull the lever for Trump.

[betsuni]

95. You originally said, "Hillary would be the first political candidate in U.S. political history ...

who has managed to escape any responsibility for her own campaign." Then it changed to yes, she did take responsibility but her supporters think she's perfect, to "nobody pointed a gun to anybody's head" forcing them to vote for Trump.

[bettyellen]

170. Actually, you didnt say that and keep changing your responses...

That seems legit.

[betsuni]

89. I think the certain parts of the electorate who thought HRC was elitist are the ones

susceptible to propaganda. The money she raised went to Democratic campaigns. And that Wall. St. speech people are still obsessing about, she donated the fee to the Clinton Foundation, a charity.

[Cha]

111. Baloney.. ".. that she was elitist among certain

parts of the electorate.."

That's a rwing talking points.. and whomever else tried to smear her with that vapid epithet.

Big Surprise! It's gd trump who is governing as an elitist

Oh and you're being "honest" because you say she's not the most "charismatic".. oh you mean like trump. You can have your charismatics.. that has fuck all to do with running the government.

They tried to marginalize President Obama as "charismatic".. that didn't work.

[George II]

143. And aside from that, she WAS (is) charismatic. She's been the most admired woman in the world....

....for the last sixteen years and 22 of the last 25 years.

[Cha]

144. That's right, George.. excellent point. I had forgotten

that.. the most admired woman in the world. A Renaissance woman.

[ehrnst]

129. Obama, along with most educated people the U.S. are called "elitists"

by the right wing. I guess that propaganda has landed on the left.



And "most of her campaign appearances were in front of wealthy donors."

I assume you have the numbers to back that up?

I'll wait.

[mcar]

141. Nonsense

This is nonsense.

was confining most of her campaign appearances to small gatherings of wealthy donors, while Trump was barnstorming the country with rallies.

That simply is not true. Go back and look at her campaign schedule.

That was an error especially given that there was a perception that she was somewhat elitist among certain parts of the electorate. She did nothing to help herself on that front.

RW talking point.

[George II]

142. She was the most "charismatic" candidate among all of the Democrats, she had substance.....

....clear policy positions and definitive plans on how to implement (and pay for) those policies.

[StevieM]

79. My favorite is the claim that she didn't campaign in Pennsylvania, a state that she visited

more times than any other state, in a tie with Florida and Ohio.

She didn't make a campaign stop in Wisconsin, because she was way up in the polls there. But she did spend a lot of money there, and she had a huge ground operation.

[betsuni]

86. Oh yeah, it was Pennsylvania, not Wisconsin.

Thanks!

[JI7]

88. many people want to downplay or ignore Putin and Comey's Role in the election

[Cha]

96. So true & why is that?.. It's still reality whether they acknowledge

it or not.

[Cha]

127. Top Republican ADMITS Trump Won Wisconsin by Keeping Democrats From Voting

Election officials and Democrats in Wisconsin have repeatedly argued that the state’s strict voter ID law allowed Donald Trump to win the state in 2016 by keeping thousands of voters—predominantly in Democratic-leaning areas—from the polls. Now a top Republican official in the state is saying the same thing.

“We battled to get voter ID on the ballot for the November ’16 election,” Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel, who defended the law in court, told conservative radio host Vicki McKenna on April 12. “How many of your listeners really honestly are sure that Sen. [Ron] Johnson was going to win reelection or President Trump was going to win Wisconsin if we didn’t have voter ID to keep Wisconsin’s elections clean and honest and have integrity?”

The law, which went into effect in 2016, required specific forms of government-issued photo identification to vote. In a cover story last year, Mother Jones reported that the law kept tens of thousands of eligible voters from the polls and likely tipped the state to Trump. A federal court found in 2014 that 9 percent of registered voters in Wisconsin did not possess the identification necessary to vote. In a University of Wisconsin study published in September 2017, 1 in 10 registered voters in Milwaukee County and Madison’s Dane County who did not cast a ballot in 2016 cited the voter ID law as a reason why. That meant that up to 23,000 voters in the two heavily Democratic counties—and as many as 45,000 voters statewide—didn’t vote because of the voter ID law. Trump won the state by 22,000 votes.

African Americans, who favored Hillary Clinton over Trump by an 88-to-8 margin, were three times as likely as whites to say they were deterred from voting by the law.

Indeed, turnout fell most sharply in black neighborhoods of Milwaukee that heavily supported Clinton. Nearly 41,000 fewer people in the city—where Clinton received 77 percent of the vote to Trump’s 18—voted in 2016 than in 2012.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/04/top-republican-official-says-trump-won-wisconsin-because-of-voter-id-law/

https://upload.democraticunderground.com/100210501063
Mahalo, StevieM

[DeminPennswoods]

132. IIRC, she stuck to the big urban areas of PA

The strategy seemed to be to goose turnout in Pgh and Philly and the Dem voting suburbs to overcome the rest of the state. I attended the rally she had in Pgh right after the Dem convention, but it was a small venue, a 3rd floor ballroom of the David Lawrence Convention Center. It was a good rally and her policy positions were smart and thoughful, but she struck me as just not a natural campaigner. I've also been to 4 appearances by Bill Clinton, including one he did in my hometown in 2008 on her behalf, and honestly no comparison.

Personally, I think she'd have been better off doing small events in some of the larger "red" counties like where I live. From all reports she's warm and funny in person among her friends. She might have been more relaxed in the smaller, more intimate gatherings. I think she'd have won over voters who otherwise just had this media characature of her developed over 30+ years of Clinton bashing. In PA, that might have been enough to carry the state, but we'll never know.

[StevieM]

148. Her commercials ran everywhere. They ran in all parts of the state.

And she did campaign on the ground in Harrisburg and Scranton.

[DeminPennswoods]

189. No, I know she ran many ads

But she had to overcome decades of being bashed in media - liberal, conservative and everyone in between. Where I live the Rs were geared to turn out in spades. The smaller urban areas - the old mill towns that vote Democratic - didn't have that same enthusiasm at all. If she'd have had maybe a small townhall event at say the local community college or high school auditorium, she'd have gotten a bigger bang for her bucks because then attendees would have come out and told their friends, she's not at all like she's been portrayed. JMHO, her campaign didn't use that aspect of her personality as well as it could have. But it's really water over the dam.

[forthemiddle]

131. As the Candidate she never went to Wisconsin

She may have in the Primaries, but not in the general election.
In the final week Russ Feingold reached out to the Clinton campaign begging for help, because they saw the warning signs, yet he was ignored.
The result? Trump won Wisconsin, along with Ron Johnson.

[betsuni]

133. See post #86 -- I meant Pennsylvania, not Wisconsin.

[Cha]

73. Nope.. Hillary took responsibility but it was still

stolen from her and the DNC is suing..

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[markpkessinger]

75. Again, I readily concede she has taken responsibility for her own mistakes . . .

. . . it is some of her supporters here who haven't ween willing to acknowledge that she has any responsibility for her own loss.

And no matter what anybody says, nobody held a gun to anybody's head and forced them to vote for Trump;.

[betsuni]

83. I still don't understand your argument.

There is nobody here saying Hillary or the Democratic Party is perfect, never was.

[Cha]

84. Nobody said anything about any damn guns being held

to anyone's head to vote for trump.. but there were assholes like jill stein and ssarandon who Lied their gd heads and said Hillary was more dangerous than trump.

Fuck them and the freaking RF rats they rode in on.

[uponit7771]

138. "...many here act.." That's not reality, that's your perception. Don't be so vested in a

... perception that reality can't switch it.

[Cha]

70. BULL.. she's not escaping any responsibility.. but it was still

stolen from her and us.

[markpkessinger]

71. No, she's not . . .

. . . I am saying that many people commenting here act as if she had no responsibility for her own mistakes.

Hillary, to her credit, has taken responsibility; some of her supporters should do the same.

[Cha]

78. No she's not perfect but, I appreciate her supporters who are calling

out the crap.

[betsuni]

80. What do you mean by "her supporters"? She's not running for anything.

Do you mean Democrats?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

87. Hillary certainly DOES deserve a lot of credit for that.

[uponit7771]

137. Again, "no responsibility" is your strawman it's not what anyone is saying

[BlueMTexpat]

116. Oh FFS! eom

[uponit7771]

136. No one is saying she was perfect, that's your strawman. Its obvious people are saying she ...

... doesn't bear the onus of the loss seeing the obstacles placed in front of her by multiple opponents including another nations state.

The Russians and the Trump campaign are the only people I see minimizing those obstacles

[Takket]

92. she was the victim of the largest disinformation campaign literally in the world's history

[misanthrope]

109. Hyperbole much?

There are disinformation campaigns associated with religions that have been going on for millennia. The disinformation involving Christopher Columbus has endured for five centuries.

[Cha]

113. It's certainly the Biggest Disinformation campaign

in a Presidential "election". Ending with a Russian agent getting rigged into the wh.

[sprinkleeninow]

93. I am still blaming Comey regardless.

I feel he put the kabosh on the last stretch of her campaign.

Read a good reasoned commentary on Daily Kos a few days ago, and I'm siding with it.

That's me.

~sprink
💙🇺🇸🌊

[lunamagica]

105. And me

[sprinkleeninow]

107. And

"GMTA" 🤗

[lunamagica]

178. Yes, they do!

[sprinkleeninow]

118. Thot I saved the email, but I dint. Did some diggin' and found what

Daily Kos sent:

[link:https://dailykos.com/story/2018/4/17/1757913/-James-Comey-s-revenge-tour-proving-he-is-not-the-noble-upholder-of-justice-he-wants-you-to-believe?detail=facebook|

[lunamagica]

177. That's a really great article, deserving of it's own thread. Thanks for sharing!

[sprinkleeninow]

185. Being 'driven' since 08 November 2016.

My housework forms a queue waiting/anticipating to get done!

Ever'body gets fed watered clean clothes bath and showers, but I let stuff go bc of activism increase. See what 'the travesty' has wrought?

We all require and are entitled to compensation when the resolution comes.

[lunamagica]

102. TRUE! And let's not forget the fact that it doesn't matter if you have the BEST

platform ever, when the media refuses to cover it!

They would cut from a Hillary speech, to show trump's empty podium for hours.

[Cha]

104. Mahalo for the important Reminder, Luna! And, the

the M$M's never ending Obsession with her emails with andrea bitter Mitchell at the helm.

It all needs to get taken into account.. but the important part for the DNC lawsuit is the actual cheating by trumputin..

No Shite!

We’re suing the Trump campaign and Russia.

snip//

"Today, the DNC is filing a civil lawsuit alleging that Russia perpetrated a brazen attack on American democracy during the 2016 election, and found a willing partner in the Trump campaign.

Here’s why: a major part of Russia’s attack on American democracy was the cyberattack on the DNC and theft of the DNC’s proprietary information. This stolen information was then released to the public by Russian agents and
WikiLeaks to damage the Democratic Party and influence the 2016 election.

We’re taking this action because we believe no one is above the law, and we must pursue every avenue of justice against those who engaged in this illegal activity against the DNC and our democracy. We must also prevent future attacks on our democracy, and that’s exactly what we’re doing today."

More.. https://medium.com/TheDemocrats/were-suing-the-trump-campaign-and-russia-72a6b76067e6



P.S. Just what I've been saying..

Now, putting together a lawsuit like this, with all the proper documentation, has taken some time. That’s why we’re filing it today, both to seek justice and to deter further attacks on our democracy.

[sprinkleeninow]

108. I saw this and have gladness!

My roller coaster highs touch the sky, but then the dips. Oy.

This is a good move. No hand wringin'. Show 'em what it's all about.

~sprink
💙🇺🇸🌊

them republucres!

[Cha]

110. Yes! I finally read the whole article that the DNC

put out on just why they're suing and why it hasn't happened until now. And, it fills me with a definite joie de vivre I did not have before.

Mahalo, sprink!

[sprinkleeninow]

115. Na z'drovje, Cha! To your well being!

[Cha]

117. Cheers to you, sprinkleen!

[sprinkleeninow]

119. Yeah!

🥂🍻 😋

Ni-Ni. Ima zonked!

A peace-filled nite and sweet dreamin'!

[betsuni]

106. +1

[BlueMTexpat]

112. Exactly! eom

[Soxfan58]

126. How many times did she have to testify before congress

Over BS. She is one of the toughest candidates I've ever seen.

[R B Garr]

146. There is a yuuuuge factor missing from this list,

but, yes, it took a global effort against her to get 75,000 people in our country to vote for a con man.

[Dream Girl]

152. All true. Now what. Can we move on now?

We are angry and out raged about 2016, but why all these Hillary posts? She’s not running again she will never run for any political office again so what is the point. Time to move on from our mutual grief and fight for our futur instead I wallowing in the past.

[jalan48]

153. According to some psychologists there are 5 steps in accepting loss.

Denial
Anger
Bargaining
Depression
Acceptance

If DU is a gauge it looks like we are still at the beginning of the process. I'm not sure how this will affect the 2018 midterms but I hope we are able to recapture the House and maybe the Senate.

[Dream Girl]

154. Seems like some maybe looping through the stages...

[jalan48]

172. Yes, two steps forward then one back.

[betsuni]

155. In denial of what?

[jalan48]

156. Loss

[betsuni]

157. But the Revolution is under way, isn't it?

Democrats are winning, people are protesting and getting out the vote. What's the problem?

[jalan48]

158. We shall see. I think focusing on the upcoming elections is the key.

[betsuni]

160. What happened to the 2016 Democratic party candidate will happen to the next one.

Whoever they are. Fake news is coming after anyone not Republican or who is not helping Republicans. If history isn't important, why are so many people yammering on about being FDR Democrats? That was a hell of a long time ago! Why not focus on the upcoming elections?

[jalan48]

164. Yes, it seems to keep happening. Al Gore actually won both the popular vote and the electoral

college vote and yet we got George Jr. and all the horrible stuff of his administration. What can we do as we move forward to stop this from happening again? As to FDR Democrats I think it's important not to put corporations before people.

[Fla Dem]

169. Until Bernie supporters stop denigrating one of the most successful American woman politicians

in American history it's hard to say when they'll get through the process. I believe many Democrats have accepted we lost. What else is there to say. We know we have a tough fight ahead of us to take back the Senate, House and hopefully the Presidency. We have moved on, we're looking forward, we've licked our wounds. But when you have people continually picking at those wounds it's tough to heal.

[Cha]

188. Why does it bother you so much? This is a political

discussion board.. we can discuss what we what without someone trying to censor us.

And, it isn't over.. the DNC is suing..

We’re suing the Trump campaign and Russia.

snip//

"Today, the DNC is filing a civil lawsuit alleging that Russia perpetrated a brazen attack on American democracy during the 2016 election, and found a willing partner in the Trump campaign.

Here’s why: a major part of Russia’s attack on American democracy was the cyberattack on the DNC and theft of the DNC’s proprietary information. This stolen information was then released to the public by Russian agents and
WikiLeaks to damage the Democratic Party and influence the 2016 election.

We’re taking this action because we believe no one is above the law, and we must pursue every avenue of justice against those who engaged in this illegal activity against the DNC and our democracy. We must also prevent future attacks on our democracy, and that’s exactly what we’re doing today."

More.. https://medium.com/TheDemocrats/were-suing-the-trump-campaign-and-russia-72a6b76067e6

P.S. Just what I've been saying..

Now, putting together a lawsuit like this, with all the proper documentation, has taken some time. That’s why we’re filing it today, both to seek justice and to deter further attacks on our democracy.

Link to tweet

We're capable of multi-tasking.. been doing it for a long time now.

[Gothmog]

163. Clinton was not a weak candidate

[Fla Dem]

168. Hillary Clinton had the 2nd most popular votes in the history of US Presidential elections.

Last edited Sun Apr 22, 2018, 02:12 PM - Edit history (1)

2nd only to Barack Obama's first victory. She improved over his 2nd election by almost 400,000 votes. Might she have done some things differently, sure. We can all look back at our endeavors and see some things we could improve upon, but not at all certain given the historically combined massive deep state assault on her it would have made any difference. If not for Russian meddling on social media and collusion with Trump's campaign, wikileaks, Cambridge Analytics, DOJ interference, possible election tampering and fake news she would have had a successful campaign. You can criticize her tactics, style, looks etc, but those are the facts.

[R B Garr]

175. Wow! Great post!

2nd most in popular votes — pretty damm popular .

[krawhitham]

181. and she lost to a corrupt racist who brags about assaulting women

You have to be mighty weak to pull that off

[Nitram]

176. The election was stolen by traitors and enemies of the United States.

[krawhitham]

179. She was a candidate the GOP had beat down for 30 years, making her a WEAK CANDIDATE

Is it her fault, NO
Is it true YES

You can talk about a RNC & Russians all you want. But she still lost to a corrupt real estate mogul who filed bankruptcy 6 times, who is also a known racist and brags about assaulting women. That is who she lost to, one of the worst candidate ever to run for president AND SHE LOST. That makes you a WEAK CANDIDATE


And so any saw it coming, it is not like it took a crystal ball. They bashed he for 30 plus years



She should have won 70-30 at the worst

[Fla Dem]

183. And just who do you think would have beaten Trump? Sanders? Biden?

You don't think they (all the deep state actors. the Russians etc) didn't have files filled with crap they were ready to unload on any of them. Biden may have had a chance given a sympathy vote for just losing his son. But he had plenty of years in public service with some missteps along the way, for them to piece together a ton of incriminating false narratives and undermine his election.

I won't even go into Bernie with his socialist background and years living in the forest or his wife's entanglement with the land deal while at Burlington College. They would have skewered him.

Jim Webb? Lincoln Chaffee? Martin O'Malley? Who?

How did Trump manage to pull off his nomination against 15 opponents. While some were just in it for the notoriety and giggles, there were serious Republican candidates, successful and popular politicians that Trump cleaned the floor with.

Kasich. John Kasich r. Ohio governor
Cruz. Ted Cruz r. United States senator
Rubio. Marco Rubio r. United States senator
Carson. Ben Carson r. Retired neurosurgeon
Bush. Jeb Bush r. Former Florida governor
Gilmore. Jim Gilmore r. Former Virginia governor
Christie. Chris Christie r. New Jersey governor
Carly Fiorina R,Former business executive
Rick Santorum r, Former United States senator
Rand Paul r, United States senator
Mike Huckabee r Former Arkansas governor
Lindsey Graham r. United States senator
Bobby Jindal r. Louisiana governor
Scott Walker r. Wisconsin governor
Rick Perry r. Former Texas governor

So again I ask you who do you think would have beaten Trump?

[Cha]

187. You're not facing reality.

[StevieM]

191. The 70-30 number is not realistic. The problem with your argument is that it ignores the fact

that any Democrat who ran in 2016 would have been labeled a criminal, with calls for them to be locked up. And they most likely would have been under a bogus FBI investigation for some reason.

Clinton was way up with just a few weeks to go, in spite of the fact that the FBI tricked people into believing that she somehow broke the law and got away with it. That is pretty impressive. So is destroying your opponent in all three debates.

[sandensea]

186. To say nothing of outright vote tampering.

It must have been easy, seeing as many of those voting systems were designed to be easily hacked into.

[jg10003]

190. Enough already. Instead of beating a dead horse, prepare for the next race. Don't mourn, organize