WAPO (Once again w/no paywall. Gotta disseminate that disinfo, right? Gotta reach out to all the suckers!!!)
`I would be your president:’ Clinton blames Russia, FBI chief for 2016 election loss
Hillary Clinton emerged from political hibernation Tuesday by declaring herself “part of the resistance” to Donald Trump’s presidency — and spreading blame for why it is not her sitting in the Oval Office.
Making a rare public appearance, Clinton attributed her surprise loss in the 2016 election to interference by Russian hackers and the actions of FBI Director James B. Comey in the campaign’s home stretch.
“If the election had been on October 27, I would be your president.”
—snip—
Jesus save us!!!
HRC’s “Deplorables” speech. Sept. 10, 2016. Roughly 1.5 months before her preferred date of 10/27/16.
NEW YORK, Sept. 10 (UPI) — Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, speaking to wealthy donors at a fundraising event open to the press, said half of Donald Trump supporters are in “the basket of deplorables,” people who are racist, xenophobic, homophobic and misogynistic, a comment she later said she regretted.
The comment drew a sharp rebuke from the Trump campaign, which demanded an apology for disparaging millions of Americans.
Clinton, speaking to donors in New York, said: “To just be grossly generalistic, you can put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the ‘basket of deplorables,'” Clinton said. “Unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.”
—snip—
Actually…i agree with her.
If the FBI and the Russians hadn’t hacked her brain that night, she would never have said that awful, self-defeating thing.
I mean…it had to be some kind of outside interference, right?
I mean, she’d never…even at her most self-congratulatory, hubris-loaded, entitlement-poisoned worst…ever say something that bone-headed.
Right?
Riiiiight…
In fact…those dastardly FBIs and Russkies must’ve hacked her brain much earlier than Fall, 2016.
Right?
Like this one from 2013:
Hillary: You Need A `Public’ And `Private’ Position On Every Issue
During a private 2013 speech to the National Multifamily Housing Council (NMHC), Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton emphasized the importance of holding two positions on political issues — a “public” one and a separate “private” one.
Clinton’s speech to the NMHC, a trade organization representing apartment building owners and developers, was one of many private speeches she gave which she refused to release the transcripts of despite heavy pressure from Sen. Bernie Sanders and Republican nominee Donald Trump. Excerpts from those speeches were released Friday as part of a larger leak of over 2,000 emails to Clinton campaign manager John Podesta.
In the speech, Clinton talked about how the horse-trading of politics looks bad to the public, necessitating the creation of a separate public position that doesn’t reflect one’s actual views.
—snip—
Give me a break, Hillary!!!
You were a lousy candidate representing a lousy DNC/centrist/globalist/multinational/corporatist set of interests. And you loast to an amateur with attitude.
Go back to Chappaqua and do whatever you do that’s not in public sight.
Yer OUTTA here!!!
AG
You’re being more generous towards her than I was inclined to be about this interview.
Pardon but a) the election wasn’t scheduled for October 27 and b) Silver has a less than perfect record in concluding election winners as of election day (and zero track record of calling an election correctly if it’s held weeks before the scheduled date).
Wikileaks (not “Russian Wikileaks” unless or until authentic evidence emerges) began releasing the Podesta emails on October 7. That was twenty days before October 27.
Considering the number of women in the Senate compared with the number of male AA Senators, I don’t accept that misogyny is a higher hurdle for the presidency than race. Her candidacy had three huge strikes against it from the beginning: 1) presidential dynasty 2) third term for a Democrat in the WH and 3) she lacks that easy likeability quality. (While there’s nothing in her public record that speaks well of her for the office of the presidency, doubt that was a factor for anyone but lefties, but she didn’t want those voters anyway.)
Her gripe is that exposing unsavory aspects about Trump ended up being a wash with what was exposed about her. The Podesta files revealed that team Clinton relished running against Trump. As much of a slam dunk win for her as the nomination with no competitors was supposed to have been.
I thought the speech was terrible too. Nate Silver may have given her the lead in October, but he was one of the few popular media pollsters who actually pointed out the sensitivity numbers and that a small national shift would make her lose several states and the electoral college. While Hillary’s band of geniuses concluded that since she had a 95% chance of winning a bunch of swing states and they could just multiply the independent probabilities to give her a 99% chance of winning she should concentrate on running up the popular vote in Chicago and LA, Nate pointed out that a small swing in each of the swing states would make her lose.
With the Clintons its never their fault. Its Comey, Russia, misogyny by females, racism by Obama voters, Stein, and Sanders (and I think she would have lost biglier without Sanders since she would have said she took money from Goldman Sachs due to 9/11 in a presidential debate instead of a primary debate nobody watched). The only problem is that the rest of us get stuck with Trump because of the clintons’ ego.
If I were a full time, paid professional poll reader/analyst, instead of a hoi polloi observer, I wouldn’t have noted that the following was deeply flawed for a few reasons:
First, there was never a point in time where her campaign had the sort of or level of national momentum that would put big stretch states in play, an objective measure of momentum. We saw such momentum in Obama’s ’08 campaign and that flipped IN and NC, neither of which he needed. We also saw a low level version of that in 2000. Low level because Gore got those points in time but was unable to sustain that momentum and/or undermined it (ie the first debate). He was fortunate that enough of his momentum resurfaced on election day to carry FL, IA, PA, NM, and WI, but not solidly enough to overcome the fix in FL or flip NH. (OTOH maybe he shouldn’t have put all his chips on FL.)
Second, Trump didn’t need several states but only one or two. That, however, eluded outside observers and Hillary’s campaign. National Review, August 30, 2016 As things stand now, Trump’s electoral math is unworkable.
More:
That was one thing in the article that I agreed with, but disagreed with much of the rest including that NH was noncompetitive. For me, the polling in both NV and NH put those states in the too close to call category. However, did a ground zero exist and if so, where was it?
Considering where team Clinton was putting its energy and resources — FL, NV, and NC (and to a lesser extent NH and late in the campaign more high profile efforts in OH and PA) — there had to have been an assumption by her team that there was no ground zero. Clinton would win even if Trump carried FL, NV (or NH), and NC. OTOH, Trump would win if he carried FL and NC and one other state or NV and NH.
From a distance, it was easy to see that Trump’s campaign worked much harder on FL, NV, and NH than NC. Why? That really was a clue as to team Trump’s game plan. Once a state was reasonably settled as CO and NC were, they didn’t waste further resources there.
Another clue was ME-CD-2. FL, NV, NH, and NC only resulted in a tie and ME-CD-2 would put him over the top (regardless of how well the GOP did in their House races). Still, being totally dependent on drawing an inside straight is for chump gamblers or risk takers.
Oh how all the outsiders and team Clinton laughed at Trump’s (assuming there was no team Trump) efforts to put PA, MI, and WI in play. Team Trump engaged in hedging and team Clinton didn’t. The odds weren’t good for flipping any of those states, but four chances to win was better than going for the one chance (NV and NH).
Axelrod Rips Clinton for Election Excuses: `It Takes a Lot of Work to Lose to Donald Trump’
Bingo!
wrt her personal server, Hillary made a calculation in 2009. We’ll never know all the factors involved in the calculation and if it still ended up being the better option for her intended later presidential run. We only know that it didn’t turn out to be as good as hoped for which was that her exclusive use of her private communication set-up wouldn’t be detected. Once it was, it fed right into her reputation for being secretive and hiding her stuff. It was also when she had to make another calculation: turn everything over to State and let them sort it out or delete whatever she didn’t want others to see. Podesta appeared to appreciate the political minefield of not turning over everything. OTOH, he was assuming that nothing truly damaging was in the deleted files. So, did Hillary make a really dumb move or was it her best option under the circumstances?
Those two choices are not mutually exclusive. She placed herself in those circumstances by any number of dumb moves, as far as I am concerned.
AG
Include her reputation for secrecy, hiding documents, parsing, and calculating (doesn’t matter if any of that is true or not), in this instance, I do think they are mutually exclusive. I was only speaking of her last decision point in late 2014 when it was known that she was the sole custodian of all her SoS email communications. I can’t speak to her prior decision points: a) choosing to keep her emails outside of State Dept computers and control b) opting not to use State email for anything (a decision that could have been revisited at any time during her tenure) c) not unilaterally turning over some or all of her work related emails during the period after she left office and before it became known that she and not the State Dept had all her emails. For that last decision point, it doesn’t really matter that she created the circumstances for it.
A decision was required. Several were available but if she were to run for president, there were only two viable options: 1) an “oops” and turn over everything or 2) select what she/her team considered relevant and forward to State.
A majority of USians are pretty good at dismissing an intemperate or embarrassing comment/statement in what was assumed to be a private forum that didn’t have import beyond that. (All of us are guilty of that at some time or other in our lives.) Particularly when it would require a rat for it to become public. Assuming that there was nothing in her emails that was as fully in the gray zone as Trump’s “pussy-grab” moment, her choice was to let it rip or feed into her negative reputation for secrecy, etc. If that were her choices, she made a dumb move.
I don’t know, but I do know it became an own-goal when she let the issue/non-issue linger out there for weeks/months in medialand as she allowed surrogates to answer for her instead of personally stepping up and responding forcefully in a way that would easily explain the silly thing to most people and would tend to put the matter to rest.
For me, I never cared much for the email nontroversy during her time at State.
I did care about her hawkish FP attitude while at State.
A fair chance, had she won, we’d by now be eyeball-to-eyeball with the Russkies over her no-fly zone in Syria. It’s that realization that makes it easier for me to live with the current consequences of the Nov outcome.
Lots of pols in recent times have uttered this when faced with a personal crisis/scandal/major defeat — it’s become the thing to say, expected — but very few have sincerely meant it since JFK said it after the BoP.
She couldn’t explain it and put it to bed because everybody in the private and public sector knows that all work products are owned by the employer. An after the fact “oops” and choosing what to turn over (even dressed up as her attorney handling the selection) was a tough sell for someone without a sterling reputation for openness and honesty.
“I’m responsible” — Lots of pols in recent times have uttered this when faced with a personal crisis/scandal/major defeat –
Intended to include that in my comment, but I often edit out stuff when I think I’m being too wordy or that the point stands without a comment by me. It’s as meaningless as nopologies.
McGovern always has a sense of humor. He probably stopped throwing up weeks before election day ’72. Until his VP choice blew up in his face, there was still a chance (slim but still a chance) that traditional Democratic Party powers would rally around the ticket. Afterwards, there was no ticket.
Oh, and McGovern and Mondale could comfort themselves with having run against an incumbent. Regardless of how venal Nixon was and how senile Reagan was, they had high approval ratings. McGovern didn’t even get the opportunity to debate his opponent.
Losing to a B grade actor undoubtedly hurts, but he could still mostly hit his marks and use words above a fifth grade comprehension level.
h/t Love fest @dKos
Searching archive here @BooMan, for “onward together” I got a single hit from an excellent blogger …
○ Swimming Up Stream: Against the War on Terror by Boston Joe on July 13, 2006
We are being easily led. In an ongoing war. And perhaps into new wars. And to continuing occupations. And to covert actions to secure our rights to BigMacs and SUVs. I submit to you that it is our own nationalism and militarism that is leading us to a day when our children may well see the mushroom clouds of this administration’s imagination.
Hermann Göring is oft quoted from his defense at the Nuremberg trials:
Of course the people don’t want war. But after all, it’s the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it’s always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it’s a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger.
○ The Next Front Line in the Fight for Hearts and Minds | Stratfor |
And that was the era where the Russians had no influence on western elections through social media, bots and cyber warfare!
Interesting quote from Hermann G., who is an interesting character. Absolutely no scruples, but also no ideology. Basically an amoral thief and libertine. IIRC he despised those that actually believed the Nazi BS. One could see him on the deck of a Viking longship and, even more, swilling beer, and fondling bar maids in a viking hall.