Hey, I respect both of those skills.
This. Your mother and my mother would have totally dug each other.
I gotta disagree about Sec Clinton learning from past mistakes. I don’t think she learned anything from the health care crash and burn. She repeated the secrecy mania in her campaign. I have always felt that her campaign gave a good insight to how she would govern, and her campaign was a train wreck.
She knew she had very high unfavorables and she didn’t have a plan to counteract that. (If she did have a plan, I never saw it.).
Harsh. But I feel ya.
“Women are too meek to run things”
“But I’m speaking up with my ideas.”
“Women are too pushy to run things.”
“How about if we work together to take the strengths of each team member?”
“Women are too wishy washy and can’t command.”
“The report is due tomorrow.”
“b______”
1 Like
But I’ve been told many times that she lost because she didn’t visit two states.
2 Likes
I think they are both terrifically smart. She just doesn’t chase men around the desk.
1 Like
It was not visiting Wisconsin what done her in.
1 Like
We’re going to be dissecting how she lost, or is it how she didn’t win? for years. We do it right now and we’ll still never fully understand how it happened. But we can be sure there were nefarious forces at work, and I’ll never accept she was her own worst enemy as a campaigner.
3 Likes
I hate using the cliche “at the end of the day” but for purposes of this discussion I will. Reporting is objective, you, the reader, have your take on it. You take away untrustworthy, that’s on you. As to “untrustworthy”, I found this from a long time NYT reporter. When the reader buys into an opinion of “untrustworthy”, of course she was doomed. So instead we as a country chose the most untrustworthy, dishonest, most ignorant, treacherous candidate and we pay the price for buying into isolated reports.
Nick Kristof from NYT ends an op piece with
She’s not a saint but a politician, and to me this notion that she’s fundamentally dishonest is a bogus narrative.
The fact remains, at the end of the day, HRC won 3 million more popular votes than djt. In another country she would have been declared the winner and the American president.
2 Likes
Newtie Gingrich gets the prize for condemning a man who had a brief affair, if it could even be called that. He’d been married twice, was seeing his soon to be third wife while married to the second, yet he saw fit to join in impeachment proceedings and saying it was needed because Bill had lied to the American public.
2 Likes
HRC put her career as a very effective lawyer and advocate for children to move to Arkansas and help further Bill’s ambitions. She was the stereotypical woman behind the man, probably smarter, probably savvier, and it seems we don’t like smart and savvy in women in either the political realm or in everyday endeavors.
4 Likes
HRC’s commencement speech was so remarkable Time magazine ran it in an issue at that time. She articulated a vision and reading it one can see a politician on the brink of something sensational and she was all of 22 years old. One para for me stands out
We are, all of us, exploring a world that none of us even understands and attempting to create within that uncertainty. But there are some things we feel, feelings that our prevailing, acquisitive, and competitive corporate life, including tragically the universities, is not the way of life for us. We’re searching for more immediate, ecstatic, and penetrating modes of living. And so our questions, our questions about our institutions, about our colleges, about our churches, about our government continue. The questions about those institutions are familiar to all of us. We have seen them heralded across the newspapers. Senator Brooke has suggested some of them this morning. But along with using these words—integrity, trust, and respect—in regard to institutions and leaders, we’re perhaps harshest with them in regard to ourselves.
4 Likes
Since you insist on being so tendentious , I’ll make it easy for you.
Are you really that thick? I dont think HRC is untrustworthy, but that was absolutely the editorial slant of much of the media in 2016. Not TPM, and not WaPo mostly.
She got 3 millions more votes than the manchild. In another time and place that would be considering winning regardless of half assed reporting. But I like your use of tendentious. and if you think what I said means I’m “thick”, it means you don’t know me. More important I don’t know you.
1 Like
Sweetheart, you are arguing with yourself. I’m full on for Hillary. My point was she was done dirty by the media. Doesn’t make her less righteous. Stop being an obtuse dunderhead.
You condescending shit, I’m not your “sweetheart” nor as people who actually know me would tell you “an obtuse dunderhead.” So many big words in an anonymous forum, dude, but you would think of me as an enemy if you were not a dumbass.
Wow, so much vitriol, so late after the fact. You are patently a dolt. You claim that because the NYT endorsed HRC, it’s impossible that they also trashed her. Newsflash: anyone with a pulse in 2016 knew that the NYT had a longstanding tradition of drumming up shady conspiracies with which to stain the Clintons (not that Bill didn’t invite a lot of this). But more than this, you clearly have massive reading comprehension issues. I did not say that Hillary is untrustworthy. I think she is upstanding. I said that the NYT went a long way to tarnishing HRC’s reputation and credibility. Go back and look at that article I cited, about their “cloudy” “shadowy” language. If you are actually able to read and reason. It’s not clear from any of your responses here, toots. Sorry if I threw shade your way, but your unrelenting stupid left me little choice.