I never much liked Trump, but I am
kicking myself for ever having voted for Hillary, who comes across in
this article about her book as being arrogant, petty, and entitled.
She first attributes her loss to the FBI Director's October 28
statement about reopening the E-mail case, but as I recall, almost
every poll - the ones reported on, anyway - indicated that she would
win right up to the evening of November 8. These calls for the end of
the electoral college seem to pop up every so often, as well -
usually after a political upset and by the loser. Ironically, the demographics of Clinton's popular vote win demonstrates why we NEED the electoral
college to make sure that votes count in EVERY state, not just some of
the states Hillary won, such as California and New York - both of
which have some of the biggest cities and populations of people that
not only vote on a regular basis and sometimes even lead political
trends, it seems, but tend to be or be seen as somehow being more
politically motivated and reliably DEMOCRAT, all for a number of
reasons.
Her attacks of Bernie Sanders are really baseless and shameful. It was bad enough that the hierarchy in his own party is alleged to have tried to undermine and dismiss Sander's candidacy - which has actually generated a little sympathy from the right and from Trump, himself - but it is downright deceitful to suggest that Sanders didn't support her or didn't support her enough. For one thing, it was first and foremost HER responsibility as the nominee to "unify the party," not Sanders.' This goes to perhaps the biggest and only substantial criticism of her by pundits everywhere but Fox News, which was her allegedly excessive dependence on political surrogates.
Sanders was always a COMPETITOR that had no obligation whatsoever to drop out of the primary race earlier than he did. The fact that he got so far, allegedly without the typically big donations from big business and political PACS, validates his decision to keep fighting. It suggests to me, anyway, that had the DNC primary rules been different, he might have been nominated and given Trump a bigger fight on similar ground free of baggage. If anything, Hillary had it easy with only 2 other contenders for the nomination to begin with, and after the third one dropped out before January 2016, I think, Sanders was the only one left with whom she had to compete. And, again, what should have made it even easier on Clinton was the fact that Sanders was a candidate which even their own party saw as too "radical" and in which it had little if any faith.
What she needs to be asking herself is why she, as an arguably seasoned and experienced politician and former First Lady, did or could not "understand with the anger..." (as is erroneously written in the article) that really drove BOTH Trump's and Sander's popularity. The 2016 election was driven from top to bottom by a growing anti-incumbent and anti-establishment mentality. While Trump embodies and speaks to that attitude more literally, effectively, and with arguably more credibility as someone with zero past political and legislative experience, Sanders had been the longest serving independent representative in the House. As an almost unabashed Socialist, I think his supporters felt and probably still feel that he better understood the frustration of many Democrats when he was fearlessly criticizing the party and other candidates for always drifting to the center of the aisle during elections. He seemed to recognize and characterize this drifting towards a more moderate stance while campaigning as a sort of betrayal because, as his candidacy bore out, most of the party's younger and more engaged constituency has planted itself on the left and is waving at their party and waiting for it to finally accept them and itself as what they really are. After all, Democrats can surely see how the Republican Party has moved further right WITH its constituency and, in so doing, has managed to prolong its six or seven year winning streak despite historically LOW approval ratings even from within its voting ranks.
The worst part of this in my opinion, at least, is her audacity in saying that the damage done to her campaign by Comey and others "forever changed history," which is like saying that she was somehow preordained to win and would have had Sanders and others not dared to oppose her or say anything critical or unflattering in public. It's like her saying that she lost, in part, because she didn't "understand" the anger of the voters - as if it wasn't reflected on the news and in newspapers every day in living color. That's akin to someone saying they lost a board game that they had been playing for most of their life because they didn't know or understand the new rules and the other players. Well, duh... If that was the case, then she probably had no business running again in the first place. If Trump's administration were not as predictably chaotic as it is, I'd argue that she's the one that forever DAMAGED the Democrat Party.
Her attacks of Bernie Sanders are really baseless and shameful. It was bad enough that the hierarchy in his own party is alleged to have tried to undermine and dismiss Sander's candidacy - which has actually generated a little sympathy from the right and from Trump, himself - but it is downright deceitful to suggest that Sanders didn't support her or didn't support her enough. For one thing, it was first and foremost HER responsibility as the nominee to "unify the party," not Sanders.' This goes to perhaps the biggest and only substantial criticism of her by pundits everywhere but Fox News, which was her allegedly excessive dependence on political surrogates.
Sanders was always a COMPETITOR that had no obligation whatsoever to drop out of the primary race earlier than he did. The fact that he got so far, allegedly without the typically big donations from big business and political PACS, validates his decision to keep fighting. It suggests to me, anyway, that had the DNC primary rules been different, he might have been nominated and given Trump a bigger fight on similar ground free of baggage. If anything, Hillary had it easy with only 2 other contenders for the nomination to begin with, and after the third one dropped out before January 2016, I think, Sanders was the only one left with whom she had to compete. And, again, what should have made it even easier on Clinton was the fact that Sanders was a candidate which even their own party saw as too "radical" and in which it had little if any faith.
What she needs to be asking herself is why she, as an arguably seasoned and experienced politician and former First Lady, did or could not "understand with the anger..." (as is erroneously written in the article) that really drove BOTH Trump's and Sander's popularity. The 2016 election was driven from top to bottom by a growing anti-incumbent and anti-establishment mentality. While Trump embodies and speaks to that attitude more literally, effectively, and with arguably more credibility as someone with zero past political and legislative experience, Sanders had been the longest serving independent representative in the House. As an almost unabashed Socialist, I think his supporters felt and probably still feel that he better understood the frustration of many Democrats when he was fearlessly criticizing the party and other candidates for always drifting to the center of the aisle during elections. He seemed to recognize and characterize this drifting towards a more moderate stance while campaigning as a sort of betrayal because, as his candidacy bore out, most of the party's younger and more engaged constituency has planted itself on the left and is waving at their party and waiting for it to finally accept them and itself as what they really are. After all, Democrats can surely see how the Republican Party has moved further right WITH its constituency and, in so doing, has managed to prolong its six or seven year winning streak despite historically LOW approval ratings even from within its voting ranks.
The worst part of this in my opinion, at least, is her audacity in saying that the damage done to her campaign by Comey and others "forever changed history," which is like saying that she was somehow preordained to win and would have had Sanders and others not dared to oppose her or say anything critical or unflattering in public. It's like her saying that she lost, in part, because she didn't "understand" the anger of the voters - as if it wasn't reflected on the news and in newspapers every day in living color. That's akin to someone saying they lost a board game that they had been playing for most of their life because they didn't know or understand the new rules and the other players. Well, duh... If that was the case, then she probably had no business running again in the first place. If Trump's administration were not as predictably chaotic as it is, I'd argue that she's the one that forever DAMAGED the Democrat Party.
No comments:
Post a Comment
I HATE censorship on principle, so all I ask is that if you decide to vehemently disagree with and challenge me, please endeavor to do so in as civil and specific a manner as possible, citing examples (if not always sources) to back up your claims. Other than that... have fun! Thanks. - JD...