Poll
85%
15%
But she said he was a direct threat to democracy cause he would not respect the results of the election. She even calls him a sore loser, this is pretty amazing to watch.
I mean, maybe, but what good is he answer to the title's question? Ostensibly, in her book she talks about varying factors that led to her loss. Sure, maybe it's sour grapes, but analysis of the past - especially when the consensus opinion was wrong - is a noble endeavor, and she had a front-row seat.
From some of what I've heard - at least the only sources I can find not just trying to tell her to shut up for whatever reason - there's some genuine substance beneath the parts that are upsetting people. Past the "Hilary blames Bernie!" clickbait titles, and many similar clickbait titles, is an actual list of factors that, in some capacity, did lose her a winnable election, and likely some nuance to arguments like "Hillary blames Bernie!" that actually have merit and aren't just the ramblings of an also-ran.
As a rule, I'm not a fan of politicians and how they try to spin their own stories. But that doesn't mean their viewpoint should be ignored. And there's clearly an audience for her message - if only to feel smugly condescending toward it (which, let's be honest, sells as well as anything). So... /srug
Originally posted by Digi
I mean, maybe, but what good is he answer to the title's question? Ostensibly, in her book she talks about varying factors that led to her loss. Sure, maybe it's sour grapes, but analysis of the past - especially when the consensus opinion was wrong - is a noble endeavor, and she had a front-row seat.
It's a noble endeavor if you come at it seriously. Not if you pass the buck to anyone and everyone but yourself, and before you say "she does accept some responsibility!" see the next part of my post.
From some of what I've heard - at least the only sources I can find not just trying to tell her to shut up for whatever reason - there's some genuine substance beneath the parts that are upsetting people. Past the "Hilary blames Bernie!" clickbait titles, and many similar clickbait titles, is an actual list of factors that, in some capacity, did lose her a winnable election, and likely some nuance to arguments like "Hillary blames Bernie!" that actually have merit and aren't just the ramblings of an also-ran.As a rule, I'm not a fan of politicians and how they try to spin their own stories. But that doesn't mean their viewpoint should be ignored. And there's clearly an audience for her message - if only to feel smugly condescending toward it (which, let's be honest, sells as well as anything). So... /srug
Thing is, these things actually do not have merit in the context Hilary uses them. She isn't merely just saying "these things played a role". She is saying they are the cause of her loss. She flat out said no when asked if she thinks she made enough mistakes on her own to lose the election. That speaks volumes and robs the book of anything "noble" about it. It's just a bitter politician who thought the presidency was owed to her("it's her turn" was a slogan her staffers toyed with using), doing the cliche thing they all do which is say they aren't perfect(she does say she made some mistakes) before immediately passing the buck. Bernie. Obama. Russia. Comey. Social media. The mainstream media. White people. Racism. Sexism. Obama a second time(first for Russia, then over coal).
There isn't anything noble about the book.
Originally posted by BackFire
Lol Sable, you essentially have "Yes" as the only option for the poll.Really you should have just had "Yes" listed twice, would have been funny.
I agree with Digi as well.
Should really have changed the the thread to:
"Does Hillary ruin my life?"
-Yes she does
-No, but I act like she does every day
Originally posted by Surtur
It's a noble endeavor if you come at it seriously. Not if you pass the buck to anyone and everyone but yourself, and before you say "she does accept some responsibility!" see the next part of my post.Thing is, these things actually do not have merit in the context Hilary uses them. She isn't merely just saying "these things played a role". She is saying they are the cause of her loss. She flat out said no when asked if she thinks she made enough mistakes on her own to lose the election. That speaks volumes and robs the book of anything "noble" about it. It's just a bitter politician who thought the presidency was owed to her("it's her turn" was a slogan her staffers toyed with using), doing the cliche thing they all do which is say they aren't perfect(she does say she made some mistakes) before immediately passing the buck. Bernie. Obama. Russia. Comey. Social media. The mainstream media. White people. Racism. Sexism. Obama a second time(first for Russia, then over coal).
There isn't anything noble about the book.
That may be, and I'm not going to plant my flag defending a politician I don't mind but am not a huge advocate of. But I guess my point is, even if she does present it in a way that doesn't own up to her own failures, isn't it a valuable endeavor to, for example, examine whether or not sexism played a part in her media coverage and/or loss? Because, frankly, it probably did play a role. Or media coverage in general, regardless of gender? Or various other factors. I think it does have merit. Maybe the book is an imperfect vehicle to spark that discussion, but it's a vehicle nonetheless.
Basically, "she's a whiny *****" seems like a worse response to me than trying to push past the double standards to mine her story for actual nuggets of societal wisdom.