HRC: A New Deal, A Square Deal or How She Wanted to be the Next Roosevelt –Amanda S. Green

HRC: A New Deal, A Square Deal or How She Wanted to be the Next Roosevelt –Amanda S. Green

 

Welcome to the ongoing saga of What Happened or, as I like to call it, the Revisionist History of the 2016 Presidential Election. In our last installment, HRC said what finally convinced her to run for president again were Bill and Obama telling her she was the best person for the job. Now we know the truth. Her campaign didn’t start with those two convincing her to run. According to her, “it started with something a lot more ordinary: a Chipotle burrito bowl.” (Pg 59) Now we know who — or at least what — to blame.

Seriously, that is almost as easy to believe as her next couple of chapters. As she lays out her “low key” trip from New York to Iowa, she tries to convince us, or maybe herself, that she had no real plan to run for President. Oh, she’d thought about it but the decision hadn’t been made. Riiight. Stranger than that, she goes on to spend close to two pages talking about that burrito bowl and how it, because of actions of the media, became the kick-off point of her campaign.

That’s fine. If she wants to act as if everything about that road trip hadn’t been carefully planned out, who are we to complain? She’s already shown through her testimony regarding the attack on our compound in Banghazi that she can bend, stretch and break the truth when it serves her purpose. We’ve seen with her brushing aside the sexual antics of her husband while he occupied the Oval Office as having happened in the past and having been litigated and, in the next breath, condemning every other man accused of sexual harassment or assault (unless, of course, they can somehow benefit her).

Her next point in the chapter entitled “Getting Started” deals with how she set strategy for her campaign. She writes about pulling into a town in New Hampshire and talking with a grandmother whose daughter had become addicted to pain meds. According to HRC, she “knew a little about this”, meaning the opioid addiction problem. Then she goes on to say how she knew three families who had lost someone to opioids. So, after talking with this grandmother and others about the problem, she told her campaign staff to come up with a policy on opioid abuse.

This became a model for how my campaign operated in those early months. People told me story after story about the challenges their families faced: student debt, the high cost of prescription drugs and insurance premiums, and ages too low to support a middle-class life. I’d use those conversations to guide the policies already being hammered out back in our Brooklyn headquarters. I wanted my policy shop to be bold, innovative, industrious, and, most importantly, responsive to people’s real-life needs. (Pp 62-63)

That sounds pretty good until you start taking a hard look at what she really says, especially in light of her experience, experience she has already touted as having made her the best person — not just the best candidate — to be President.

Here we had a woman who had been the First Lady of Arkansas. That came after she had spent years as an activist and attorney, years that should have given her a pretty good idea about what challenges her husband’s constituents faced. Those of us old enough to remember shows like Designing Women know that even then Hollywood was in love with the Clintons and their “progressive” policies. At that time, Slick Willy was governor.

As First Lady of the United States, one of HRC’s pet projects was health care. One would think she’d have an idea then about the cost the average family faced when it came to insurance and medical treatment. Oh, but wait, maybe she hadn’t read the Affordable Care Act. After all, most of those in Congress who supported it hadn’t. Besides, Congress and the Executive Branch didn’t have to worry about finding their own insurance or going through the pool. Taxpayers took care of making sure they had insurance. Silly me.

Still, one would have thought HRC would remember what those very same voters had said about health insurance, not to mention the other concerns she listed, a short eight years earlier. Or is her memory so selective she couldn’t remember because she had wiped that defeat out of her memory, much as she would like to wipe her defeat at Donald Trump’s hand from memory?

What struck me most about that paragraph, however, is that it makes it seem as if HRC formed policy only after she had enough people tell her something concerned her. I don’t know about you, but I want a president who can anticipate trouble, not one who is always having to react to it. That is especially true when the person elected president has been involved in politics long enough that they ought to have already dealt with those issues in some form or fashion before taking the oath of office.

Her misunderstanding of the American people and their view of her continues to amaze me. In discussing a conversation she had with Joel Benenson, she writes, “Voters liked that I had worked for Obama after losing to him in 2008. They thought it showed loyalty and patriotism. They also thought I had done a good job as Secretary of State, and most believed I was ready to be President.” (Pg 68) I don’t know about you, but I figured she’d worked for Obama because that was the agreement she’d made with the DNC. You know, one of those “You do this for the party and we will back you in the next election.:”

Yet, showing just how many holes there were in her belief about the American voting public, she adds this: “Despite having near-universal name-recognition, I would have to reintroduce myself — not as an extension of Bill Clinton or Barack Obama but as an independent leader with my own story, values, and vision.” If this is true, what had she done when she ran for the Senate? What was she doing as Secretary of State? What about her role with her beloved Clinton Foundation? Had she been nothing more than an extension of the two men in those roles?

Despite my intention to run like a scrappy challenge, I became the inevitable front-runner before I shook my first hand or gave my first speech, just by virtue of sky-high expectations. (Pg 72)

C’mon, Hillary. None of us believe that. The fix was in from the beginning. The DNC never had any intention of allowing anyone but you to be the Democratic nominee for President. Many voters realized that in 2008. They watched you position yourself after you left the State Department for just that. Do you really expect us to believe you didn’t know it was in the bag? Pull the other one, why don’t you?

I don’t know what had me shaking my head more, the quote above or her attempts to show how she would have been the Teddy Roosevelt of the 21st Century if only we had been wise enough to elect her.

I was particularly struck by the parallels between what Teddy faced as President in the early years of the twentieth century, as the industrial revolution upended American society, and what we faced in the yearly years of the twenty-first century. In both eras, disruptive technological change, massive income inequality, and excessive corporate power created a social and political crisis. Teddy responded by breaking up powerful monopolies, passing laws to protect working people, and safeguarding the environment. He may have been a Republican but he put the capital P in Progressive. . .  Teddy found the right balance and called it the Square Deal. . . I felt that what we needed was another Square Deal. We needed to regain our balance, take on the forces that had crashed our economy, and protect hardworking families shortchanged by automation, globalization, and inequality. We needed the political skill to restrain unchecked greed while defusing the most destruction impulses of resurgent populism. (Pg 78)

Wow! Full of herself, isn’t she? Note that she never says how she was going to do any of this. Nor does she admit that much of those so-called problems had come about under the administrations of Democrats like herself or that the root cause of much of the problems lay in the policies begun by her idol FDR, who she writes about a little later. Note, too, how she implies that she was the one with the “political skill” to do all she said needed to be done. Finally, damn that resurgent populism and let’s not forget that poor Hillary couldn’t be bothered to find out why it was becoming a stronger force within in the US. Even when a lifelong Democrat from Arkansas explained it to Bill and then he to her, she didn’t listen and she sure as hell didn’t learn. Why? Because it didn’t fit the narrative and, with Hillary like with so many liberals, the narrative is all-important.

Is anyone surprised when she writes, “I also was inspired by Frankly Roosevelt’s New Deal program of the 1930s, which saved capitalism from itself following the Great Depression, and by his vision of a humane, progressive, internationalist American”? (Pg 78) Of course, she loved the New Deal. More government intervention in our lives. A welfare system that was supposed to be temporary and is now such an ingrained part of our society that we have generations of some families on the government dole. And saving “capitalism from itself”? WTF?!? But it sounds good, especially to the rank and file of the Democratic Party.

The next chapter, “A Day in the Life” is exactly that. I’ll leave it to you to read. If you want to hear about the minute details about her life on the campaign trail, especially at the beginning of the campaign, this is the chapter for you. She talks about her nutritionist, her hair stylist, her resentment that men can simply get up, shower and dress. She makes it sound like few politicians — or any other successful businessman — ever had the demands on her time that she did during this election.

It is in this chapter that she speaks about the incident on 9/11/2016 when she collapsed at the 9/11 Memorial. She basically brushes it off. In fact, she spends a total of 2 paragraphs on it and one of them spent more time talking about Chuck Schumer than what happened. So, to answer a question one of you asked earlier, she doesn’t spend a great deal of time discussing her health and is no more forthcoming (at least so far) about it now than she was at the time. (Pg 101)

There’s more but it is typical Hillary. The crowds loved her. Trump is evil. She worked hard and was the best candidate. Trump is evil. Of course, that is the basic outline of every chapter of the book.

One of the problems I have with the book — and one of the reasons this is being done one and two chapters at a time — is that Clinton doesn’t follow the timeline as she writes. She will be discussing the beginning of her campaign and suddenly she’s discussing 9/11/16 or the debates with Trump. This particular chapter is worse than some of the others. On Pg. 105, she writes about the debates, “Trump wouldn’t answer any question directly. He was rarely linear in his thinking or speaking. He digressed into nonsense and then digressed even more.” That pretty much describes her writing style in this book. We are now 107 pages into the book, and we have yet to hear much about her campaign to win the primary (with the exception of those first few weeks). A quarter of the book is done and we have yet to get to the meat of the campaign. She gets there but it comes in bits and pieces.

What Happened might have been her attempt to describe her campaign but it comes across as the wandering of the mind of a bitter, defeated woman who still can’t accept the outcome of the election. And, like the Energizer Bunny, I’m going to keep going. I have to see where this train wreck leads. Now to go find a drink. I think I deserve one after this.

*You know that this is a job where Amanda Green has to endanger either her mind or her liver.  Send the woman a drink-SAH*

378 responses to “HRC: A New Deal, A Square Deal or How She Wanted to be the Next Roosevelt –Amanda S. Green

  1. Dear lord woman. What have you done that you feel the need to torture yourself this way? I appreciate that you are doing this, and I understand the concept of watching a train wreck. Still. Haven’t you suffered enough?

    • Actually, at this point, it is morbid curiosity. What is she going to say next? Who will she throw under the bus next and for what? How many times can she go off topic in a single page or chapter? I will say this, after 8 years of laughing at Obama for not being able to speak without his teleprompter, Clinton is worse. At least if this book is any indication.

      • Morbid curiosity … like observing a gigantic train wreak?

        • Absolutely. That and growing relief she isn’t the president.

          • …growing relief she isn’t the president.’

            Funny that. At the time of the election I had not thought I could not be more convinced that she was not presidential material, but I was wrong.

            • You.. Are.. Not.. Alone.
              This… stun ox. (And damn thick skull, yes.)

              Back in 2008, when it seemed HRC was at least NOT The Worshipped “One” and had some slight relationship with Reality (Yes, I know, I’m Mythical and I saying that… ponder what that takes!) it was disappointing that the Big O (or 0) ‘edged’ her out (by DNC fiat, no doubt… if only they been in the same Fiat, hit by a semi… I can dream, can’t I?). But that election? Hell, it had a LOT of folks voting Trump. Not *for* Trump. Just “Well, at least he ain’t Hillary. Lousy, but good enough right now.”

              I have seldom been so wonderfully disappointed as with what Trump has been doing…. so far. I still trust him almost far as you can comfortably spit a rat…. but… *whew* Not Hillary. Then, a diseased wombat would be Not Hillary… and.. well.. why NOT a wombat?

            • I agree. She keeps amazing me that way 🙂

              And c4c

          • Personally, I’m really hoping that the investigation into the Clinton Foundation goes through. I have this feeling there is a LOT of dirt there.

      • I suspect if you did an outline of the book, and published it; those with brains would understand just how psychotically dysfunctional Mrs. Clinton is, and those with less than functional brains would go postal on you.

        • Those with less functional brains already want to go postal on her and pretty much every person that comments on this blog. They’re hateful like that.

      • Clinton is worse

        Note one major, really troubling difference: This is HRC after the intervention of ghostwriters and copy editors. This is the best the entire NY Traditional Publishing Complex could do with the blather that she provided as a starting point.

        And to think the owner of this level of incoherence came that close to the Presidency.

        • Exactly! This is also after she’d had time for “quiet reflection” and to get over her hurt. Think what she must have been like the first few days and weeks after the election.

        • It follows. I was working at a Borders when Bill Clinton’s memoir dropped and some ardent Democratic coworkers of mine were mocking the prose in public readings.

          • It was better than Carter’s. We used to play a game with Carter’s memoir. The one to come up with the most self-incriminating phrase won… Stuff like “Rosalyn has devoted her life to the mentally ill.”

            • I give Carter his due. He gave us good Beer (not Billy’s, but to get Billy his, he let real beer come back), was a decent finish carpenter, and he used to make really cool furniture.
              other than that, waste of oxygen.

              • Meh. He appointed Paul Volcker to the Fed so that when Reagan arrived he had a partner in breaking stagflation, and he initiated airline deregulation. I vaguely recall something about him starting the rebuilding of the military, but matched against what he bequeathed the nation in bureaucratically elevated hacks (e.g., Warren Christopher) and department heads it is a pittance.

              • Also, Habitat for Humanity. Give him that one.

                • I would specifically if it didn’t have so many bad builds, but he did a lot of that carpentry for them.

                  • Volunteer effort vs professional carpenters. The church I grew up in had a number of carpenters and folks like me who worked part time in construction, and it showed in our building projects. OTOH, I have seen some cringe-worthy work done at some churches.

                    • former co-workers in the fire fighting foam plant in Texas were Jehovah’s Witnesses. They were part of the build help when new halls were going up. They did carpet and tile, and I think the father went back to “semi-retirement” once we closed down, and is just doing occasional tile jobs for work. The son works at a spice blending company now.
                      Anyhow, the son mentioned some of the Halls they’ve renovated or repaired had some scary stuff. The DFW area halls they did were pretty good he said.
                      I had asked him about quality because of how fast they can toss up a new Kingdom Hall, and I was a Finish carpenter’s helper way way back when.

                    • One Saturday afternoon, two of us went to the church I attended with the idea of doing some work on an addition. A few minutes later, a father and son arrived with the same idea. I and the father acted as nailers, and his son helped the other fellow cut plates and studs. Can’t remember if a short section of wall was up or not, but in that afternoon we put up all of the walls, studs on 16″ centers, with only the purlines left to be done. This includes headers over the windows and doors.

                      Mentioned that once to my old boss, and he said it was because at least three of us knew what to do.

                      Some of the cringe worthy stuff I’ve seen includes a staircase attributed to a particular carpenter who attended a certain church. Except I’d worked with him before, and knew he wouldn’t build anything like that. Stairs were too steep and the treads were too narrow. Supposedly it was to install a baptistry, which was why they had took out a perfectly good set of stairs. Worse, it was obvious how to install the baptistry and leave the existing stairs intact, and I knew the carpenter they blamed the terrible stairs on would have done it that way.

                • Habitat’s founder Millard Fuller is the one it should be given to. Carter just supplied a celebrity face to the charity.

              • I consider Carter an object lesson in why not to vote for a third party candidate. As I understand it, based on what I read at the time (I believe the narrative has since been changed) he was a compromise candidate. The Democrats believed (with some justification) that against the man who had pardoned Nixon, they could win if they ran a talking dog. Every major faction within the party wanted the nomination for their head, and none of them would stand for the head of another major faction. Carter was eventually nominated because he wasn’t the head of ANY of the major factions. So he arrived in DC with no allies in Congress. His own party considered him a place holder. Everything he tried to do cost him more in horse-trading than it should have, and he got zero respect.

                I think that’s why he’s been such a neurotic mess ever since; he was President, and his own party treated him like an interloper. He’s been trying to be Important.

                I hope the gods allow him to find peace sometime soon. Watching him kissing up to every third world pissant has been embarrassing.

                • My recollection is that Carter had been in charge of the DNC Rules Committee that developed the party’s rules for the 1976 primaries.

                  I also recall some guy named McGovern heading the committee that re-wrote the rules after the 1968 campaign.

                  Funny how that tends to work out.

                • his time was when I became politically aware, so I recall little myself of the days before, but from what I’ve learned it didn’t help he did little to earn respect and often demanded or assumed he’d get it.

                • Carter ran at a time when everyone was disgusted with government as usual, courtesy of Nixon’s “imperial” presidency; Watergate; and Ford’s pardon of Nixon. Jimmy Carter was a Washington outsider. He would do things like make a show of politicing like someone running for local office. Georgians rolled their eyes because it was obviously a stunt. It was appealing, though, and he looked like the underdog. That’s where the phrase “Jimmy who?” came from. Carter started campaigning when he was a national unknown.

                  The media didn’t like him. I can’t remember who they were pulling for, but they played him up as John Boy to mock him. Big mistake: America was going through a significant nostalgia period, and The Waltons was a top rated show. Compared to established politicians, John Boy was precisely what voters wanted. The mockery backfired.

                  If you want to know how bad it was, someone in Plains was selling vials of clay as ground Jimmy Carter had walked on and people bought it.

                  Then Carter proved an inept president. And the rest is history. That said, if it were not for the Iranian Hostage Crises and a similar media misstep with Reagan, Carter may have been re-elected despite the media throwing in behind Ted Kennedy until after the primaries.

                  • I’ve seen it claimed that presidents who ‘finish the job’ in one term are there only one term. Those with unfinished business get re-elected. And Carter’s “job” was to be Not Nixon. He did succeed at not being Nixon – in four years.

                  • Yes, the press being out of touch with much of the country is not exactly new. Jimmy Carter stated that he was a ‘Born Again’ Christian — a term with which those running the news organizations were unfamiliar and thought very strange.  Then a month before the election a Gallup did a survey and discovered that a third of the population identified themselves as born again.

                    • Which makes for a strange dichotomy. You study Carter’s political campaigns, and you find some underhanded stuff. And yet, Carter did seem to try to live up to what he saw as Christian principles. The mistake was assuming everyone else basically holds to Christian principles, and they don’t, and you can’t expect the world to respond that way. There was also the issue where just because you want to do good doesn’t mean that the way you want to do is the best way. A lot of peoples’ take at the time was that Carter was essentially too good a good ol’ boy to be president, and you needed someone who could be a bit mean when the job required it.

                • I think that’s why he’s been such a neurotic mess ever since; he was President, and his own party treated him like an interloper.
                  Interestingly, a similar position to our current President. Except Carter didn’t start out with the ego that Trump did, so he didn’t have a defense mechanism.
                  Trump knows how great he is, and treats the internal opposition as proof that he ‘s doing the right thing.

                • “I think that’s why he’s been such a neurotic mess ever since; he was President, and his own party treated him like an interloper.”

                  That, and also the fact that in international affairs (the one area where a President can truly make a difference) he got beaten like an egg by the Soviets. The late 1970s was the height of John Walker’s spy ring, and the US Navy – the “power projection” part of our military – couldn’t make a move without the Soviets knowing about it well in advance. Everything Carter did in foreign affairs was countered almost before he started. It must have seemed like the Russkies were reading his mind. It’s no wonder he turned into a socialist Russia-lover.

                  And I think that in at least one way, Carter gets a bum rap. He may have been a Democrat, and something of a wimp, but he wasn’t as flatly anti-military as the hard Left was. Never forget that many of the weapons systems that were used to such great effect in Desert Storm and the Iraq War got either R&D or production funding during his administration.

                  • Kind of a shame he pulled the plug on the neutron bomb. I can think of a few occasions since then where it might have proven handy.

              • Adm. Rickover never let Carter stand a watch.

                • That is most interesting and most telling.
                  We’ve now had two engineers (at least by title/degree?) as president.
                  Hoover and Carter. And I think Hoover got a bum rap.
                  Carter? I think he’s a bum.

                  • I used to think that about Hoover, until I learned he had been imposing the same strategies to fight the Depression that FDR prescribed. They worked for neither of them as cure for the economy although FDR’s use of those strategies was coupled with considerable consolidation of power in DC, so they worked for FDR for certain values of “worked.”

                  • Actually, Carter doesn’t have an engineering degree. He’s taken engineering coursework, but his BS is from the US Naval Academy which did not have majors. He never completed the navy’s nuclear training program, either.

            • Perhaps closer than you realize. When Carter lost in 1980, Rosalyn was genuinely worried about him. They took up a collection among the staff, and she had a woodworking shop set up for him as a surprise. One of his early projects was to make a contraption out of a lard can to steam wood to bend into rocker runners. Source: An issue of Popular Mechanics with Jimmy Carter at work on the cover. Habitat for Humanity may very well have come out of that shop.

              Speaking of which, during one interview on network television, the reporter made a weak offer about volunteering, but he didn’t know how to carpenter, or something like that. IIRC, Carter made a remark that he could hold lumber while he cut it, and put him on the spot. The reporter did go and help, and, from an incidental photo, Carter did put him to work on holding lumber.

  2. The fix was in, and she still blew it. And your morbid curiosity is completely understandable.
    But better you than me. I have a low nausea threshold.

    • As do I, Celia, which is why I do this in small doses. Between the low nausea threshold and the internal editor who wants to get out the red pencil and go to work on the book, I can’t stand long sessions of it.

      • I’m thinking that once you’ve finished your critique/review of the book, you might want to put all of these articles together and make your own book. Though that might make you (even more) of a target for potential Arkancide….

        • Arkancide? It is worth noting that Donna Brazile admits havinghad concerns over such a finale.

        • Suggested Title: “Hillary, That’s What Happened.”

          • Heh. Easiest cover design ever. Flip the two and put a colon after “Hillary!”

            If you don’t need vector graphics I’ll do it for you.

            Author Gets Paid.

            • Back cover matter / blurb:

              Feeling the need to be able to talk about Hillary Clinton’s book with your urban friends? Don’t want to do the reading equivalent of gouging out your own eyes with the spoon? Grab Amanda Green’s chapter by chapter dissection of Hillary Clinton’s whinging Opus. You’ll laugh, you’ll roll your eyes, you’re finally understand why so many people were willing to vote for Donald Trump.

              Price it at 99 cents (short story) or $1.99 (novella)

        • I’m thinking that once she finishes the review of the book it’ll be time for a stint in rehab…

      • If I had to read it myself, I’d probably wind up with forks in both eyes. But secondhand via the more intrepid? This is fascinating! Carry on, brave lady.

        And yeah, I didn’t know I could be even _more_ glad HRC is not the President… we didn’t just dodge a bullet; we escaped a planet-buster.

    • When you’re so bad that you can’t win even when you cheat, it’s time to find a completely different career field. I’d suggest gardening, except Hillary probably has such a black thumb she’d kill silk flowers.

      • I don’t think she has any hobbies or interests, poor thing.

        • She has pretty much lived her entire life for the sole goal of becoming president, only to lose the opportunity twice. One could almost feel sorry for her.

          • “Almost” being the operative word.

            • It just makes the schadenfreude that much tastier.

              • I allow as I have the same warm feelings toward her and her losses as I do toward Haman in the Purim readings.

                • It’s a crying shame she’ll never suffer Haman and his sons fate. And probably no one will ever create a cookie to celebrate her epic loss last November .

                  • I think this lot here could create such a cookie if ever we agreed upon parameters. Any idea how to make one which provides the taste of ashes in one’s mouth? Or should we attempt a gingerbread schadenboner of a cookie, one with jam inside and icing on top?

                    • Its a thought. The Hamentasch (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamantash) are triangular in shape and folded over a filling (poppy seed and Apricot are the best YUM). I became fond of them when one of my coworkers used to make them for Purim and would bring leftovers in to work. There is no clear symbolism (and some “feminist” reformed Jews have very odd ideas indeed, go read the article I do not care to repeat the nonsense).

                      As for taste a little bit of salt and maybe some wormwood extract to represent the bitter tears of the loser and her supporters. I fear this cookie may not actually be very digestible, but then again anything dealing with the Clinton’s is hard to digest… They could be made on November 8th to celebrate our deliverance just like with Purim.

          • Word from folks on the spot back in their Arkansas days was that Bill really didn’t give two hoots about being President, but Hillary wanted to be Mrs. President. They also remarked on how relieved folks were to get those two out of state.

            • They practiced up in Ark. My Dad worked with folks living in Ark and though the county they lived in went almost fully Clinton in the gov election, no one there knew anyone who liked them enough to vote for Bill, Seems once they left the place, the next election, the Repub got almost exactly the same number of votes that lost the county to Bill, but the dem got about a third of his winning number.

            • Yep. I knew people from Arkansas when he was first elected…

            • Both sides of my family are from there and I can confirm it wholeheartedly.

            • I’ve heard basically the same thing. Not that I blame them one bit for being glad the two were out of state. I know I certainly would have been.

        • How about giving talks to the faithful?

  3. Fox News used to have a segment “Planet Blago” about the latest antics of the delusional, disgraced Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich. Perhaps you should call these critiques “Planet Hillary” and put a bundled edition up on Kindle 😉

    >

  4. “As she lays out her “low key” trip from New York to Iowa, she tries to convince us, or maybe herself, that she had no real plan to run for President.”

    Yes, I totally believe that. As long as this was a trip she took from New York to Iowa when she was about, oh say, twelve.

    “If this is true, what had she done when she ran for the Senate? What was she doing as Secretary of State? What about her role with her beloved Clinton Foundation? Had she been nothing more than an extension of the two men in those roles?”

    Well, in the interest of fairness, as Secretary of State, her job really was to be an extension of Obama, executing the policy vision that he laid out. A Secretary of State who goes rogue and implements her own policy is asking to be fired. While the situation is less extreme at the Clinton foundation, it was something she was doing with Bill, he was the former president, it’s plausible a lot of people would see her as an extension of Bill at the foundation. The Senate, though, there’s no excuse, unless this is her way of admitting that she was only elected because the Dems wanted to toss her a bone for standing by her man.

    Really, what it sounds like is that she doesn’t want to admit that she had introduced herself to the American public, we all knew her quite well, and we pretty much universally detested her.

    • I’ll give you the bit about SecState but she has made a big deal in the book already about how she was doing things she felt were important and needed to be done with the Clinton Foundation. She also talked about how she was going around making all these speeches — remember, she whined about how she was dissed for taking money for the speeches when other candidates had not been criticized for it. And yes, your last paragraph says it all and I completely agree.

    • … as Secretary of State, her job really was to be an extension of Obama, executing the policy vision that he laid out. A Secretary of State who goes rogue and implements her own policy is asking to be fired.

      Except in hr performance as SecState it appears she thought her job was to serve America’s foreign policy interests … on a platter.

      As for going rogue asking to be fired, can we please hope somebody will explain that to the New York Times, Washington Post and Rex Tillerson?

      (Okay, I grant that Tillerson probably has already been made aware of that and the other two simply don’t care.)

      • If she employed a ghostwriter, and paid him more than $20, she has change coming.

        • Nah. The ghostwriter earned every penny having to listen to her. I shudder to think what the mss would have looked like before the ghostwriter, assuming there was one — which I doubt. The ego wouldn’t allow her to let anyone else write her story. No, my bet is she sat down and dictated this with the barest of outline or notes.

    • She won a senate seat because even Caligula made his horse a senator, and she was half of one.

      • Mr. Cheek the back halves of horses every where are deeply offended by your comparison. At least what they output can be mulched and made useful. Nothing HRC has ever done has been useful.

      • Given the half in question, it seems to me that it would be a toss-up on the amount of excrement produced…

  5. This became a model for how my campaign operated in those early months. People told me story after story about the challenges their families faced: student debt, the high cost of prescription drugs and insurance premiums, and wages too low to support a middle-class life. I’d use those conversations to guide the policies already being hammered out back in our Brooklyn headquarters. I wanted my policy shop to be bold, innovative, industrious, and, most importantly, responsive to people’s real-life needs. (Pp 62-63)

    Yeah … heuy and bunk.

    After years of life in politics, the wife of a man who had served as attorney general, governor and President, serving on the team that tried to craft universal health care during the Clinton administration, as Senator of New York, trying to gain the nomination of her party for president once before and then serving as head of the state department she didn’t already have a firm idea of what her policies would be?

    She was looking for the best way to sell the idea that she was responsive to the people with whom she spoke. I also believe that the people who were allowed to speak to her were carefully vetted before they got near her. It was all for the purpose of orchestrating appearances, and so is this book.

    • Amen.

      And she still hasn’t learned that the American public, save for the pink pussy-hat wearing harpies, don’t buy it any more now than we did then. We might not be Trump fans but we recognized he was the lesser of two evils.

    • Definitely my thought. That paragraph reads like she had already decided on the policy and was just looking for people who supported the pre-existing narrative.

  6. How hard can my eyes possibly roll to the back of my head? So hard, that I have mapped out my brain. There’s not a single word that she spews that strikes me as true, including “the” and “and.”

    • Yep. I thought about titling this post “Down the rabbit hole”. Then I realized that there was more reality down the rabbit hole than in this book.

  7. I’m now absolutely convinced the witch wrote it herself.

    “I was your last, best hope to overthrow the chains of capitalism, democracy, and sanity, and… you all let me down.”

    Still waiting for MOAR RUSSIANS…

    • Oh, it’s there. It is like her finding ways to attack Trump in ever section of every chapter just about, even when she’s not talking about anything except the ramping up to the primary. I just haven’t mentioned it much because I know there is so much more once she wins the primary and really gives vent to her spleen.

  8. On Pg. 105, she writes about the debates, “Trump wouldn’t answer any question directly. He was rarely linear in his thinking or speaking. He digressed into nonsense and then digressed even more.” That pretty much describes her writing style in this book.

    O.K., one more reason never to vote for the woman. She is in the position to employ the very best of advisers and editors — and this is what she produces?

  9. Interesting that she tries to compare herself with the Roosevelts, the two people who worked hardest in the 20th century to destroy the Constitution and anything remotely resembling limited government. It makes perfect sense, of course, when you look at what policies she has always advocated.

  10. “I also was inspired by Frankly Roosevelt’s New Deal program of the 1930s, which saved capitalism from itself following the Great Depression …”

    Amity Shlaes, and other economists, have written persuasively that New Deal extended the Great Depression and made its affects worse. World War Two ended the Great Depression, not Roosevelt and his cockamamie policies.

    This reminds me of Cliniton’s claim that Orwell’s 1984 is about how the peasants have to trust the elite because they know what’s best, it is glance into Clinton’s authoritarian mind.

    • The Farm Security Administration and the Resettlement Administration’s experiment in collectivist farming was NOT saving Capitalism from itself.

      Or maybe this is a case of: she keeps using that word [capitalism] … I don’t think it means what she thinks it means.

      • Oh heck no, and if you read the Ag Department Yearbooks from the late 1920s, you find exactly the ideas that will become the Resettlement Administration down to the paragraph, all lovingly justified and detailed with lots and lots of numbers and tables.

    • It was a joint effort. Hoover wanted some of the programs that FDR wanted, as did some other Republicans, but ended up blocked by Democrats until FDR was elected.

      • My dear, she doesn’t give a damn.

        Notice that she also referred to TR as “Teddy”, which nickname I was always told he disliked.

        • But, looking at that and the way she keeps referring to the previous president as Obama, it kind of tells you how she feels about him, despite her attempts to make it seem like they are bosom buddies.

    • Waitwaitwait, back up, that last paragraph has to be satirical. Surely she didn’t actually say something that self-evidently wrong.

      • Quote from What Happened, as reported by the Washington Times (I’m not going to track down a copy myself, but Amanda can verify whether the quote is accurate):

        Attempting to define reality is a core feature of authoritarianism. This is what the Soviets did when they erased political dissidents from historical photos. This is what happens in George Orwell’s classic novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, when a torturer holds up four fingers and delivers electric shocks until his prisoner sees five fingers as ordered. The goal is to make you question logic and reason and to sow mistrust towards exactly the people we need to rely on: our leaders, the press, experts who seek to guide public policy based on evidence, ourselves.

        Not satirical at all. And notice the order in which she put those: leaders, then press, then “experts”, and ourselves only last.

        Source: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/sep/14/hillary-clinton-lesson-1984-trust-leaders-press/

        • This sort of thing doesn’t surprise me any more. After all, they said that when the fascists came back, they would be the ones claiming to be against fascism… and here we are today.

        • (Blinks) Wait, a core feature of authoritarianism is trying to sow distrust of a country’s leaders? I mean, I could see that being a feature of would-be authoritarians who want to replace the current government, but if you can’t see that Orwell’s message in 1984 is that you should believe your own lying eyes rather than those in authority, you’ve never read Animal Farm or Homage to Catalonia.

        • The goal is to make you question logic and reason and to sow mistrust towards exactly the people we need to rely on: our leaders, the press, experts who seek to guide public policy based on evidence, ourselves.

          Twit!

          On whose authority can such torturing occur?  

          When the Soviets did it they were the government.  Yes they did it to make you question logic and reason and to sow mistrust towards anything other than themselves so you would rely on them, their leaders, their press and their experts who seek to guide public policy based on the Marxist ideology. 

          What this statement says about her attitude towards the people, and the nature of our nation is disturbing. I don’t think she truly understands the concept ‘of the people, by the people’. She is sure she and her expert friends knows better.

          Once again I am gladdened she was not elected president. If we elect people like that then the government will not long stand.

  11. I’ve not had any alcohol since Sunday… but I can’t think of better time to try the Betsy Ross cocktail than as I read on this.
    https://www.liquor.com/recipes/betsy-ross/#gs.KDSOb6c

    • That should be potent, maybe even potent enough for the occasion.

      • Only if I have a second one. And I’m not sure I want go that light.
        (And, mind, my default mixed drink the Manhattan – no mixer… so.. yeah..oog)

        • I presently don’t have any Ruby Port on hand (just some Sandeman Founder’s Reserve) or I would offer to try one tonight and let you know.

    • For this well filtered, second-hand account, that will do admirably.

    • Corinthian juleps are also good. Take a metal container, silver or pewter. Add superfine granulated sugar, and a few sprigs of freshly picked mint. Use a pestle to match the two together. We’re smashed ice , then pour bourbon over the top. One shot for faith, one for hope, and one for charity.

      Garnish with another sprig of mint.

      • Heh. Waaay past my bedtime.

        Add a few sprigs.

        Mash the two

        Add smashed ice

      • I have been enjoying Rum and Bitter Lemon lately. I am not sure I would want to have something so pleasant be tainted by association with the reading of What Happened.

        • There is reason I tend to go with a new-to-me cocktail or at least rotate some for these posts. I do not wish to build up an association.

          Now, if, say, we got a sample of Dyce Dare*… well, I could settle on something for that. Perhaps the Adonis, as that Dyce doesn’t call for potency to provide relief, as no relief is needed.

          * Not saying we must, nope. All things in good time, etc.

  12. Of course, that is the basic outline of every chapter of the book.

    Egad, I’ve heard Mein Kampf thus described. Not saying HRC is a Nazi… nope nope nope. But.. damn, don’t make that Austrian upstart seem… typical of your own side. It’s… Not Good, shall we say?

    Looks at empty glass…
    Damnit. I was hoping that would last through the whole thing.
    Ox slow, yes. Ox likely to be inebriaht..inebita..ibena… snockered soon.

    • “Ox slow, yes. Ox likely to be inebriaht..inebita..ibena… snockered soon.”

      Do you really want to imitate the Hildebeeste?

      • I am not drinking a ‘share’ of Chardonnay.
        And that was, I believe (I could be wrong) a reference to WB cartoon short… I think the stork had a line of the nature I used. As for exactly which short… I do not recall. If EOCostello were amongst the Huns, he would likely be able to point such out with ease. Alas, I fear he is not.

        • Oh she didn’t just drink any ‘share’. She drank her ‘fair share.’ She can’t even keep her redistributionist politics out of that.

          • I suspect she drank “more than her share” but it was ‘fair’ in her distorted version of reality. (Ain’t it something when a mythical creature has a better grasp on this reality thing?)

            • Not only that, but my money is on the fact her “fair share” not only made mine or yours look small but hers was of a better quality than what we lowly peons would have had.

              • I think “fair” in “fair share” is using this meaning of “fair” (appears in 5th position in the Cambridge Dictionary):

                fair adjective (LARGE) large or great in comparison:
                We still had a fair amount of foreign money when we returned.

    • I’m of two minds. On the one hand, a Socialist is a Communist is a Fascist is a Nazi. OTOH, I’m about half convinced Shrillary is more crook than anything else.

  13. I somehow doubt HRC has read up on any of the recent spate of histories analyzing the New Deal’s horrific failure.

  14. Photons! Only a QUARTER of the way through through this rancid turkey?!?
    Maybe we DO need to legalize recreational cannabis before we all get liver damage.

    Step aside, mixed drinks, this is a job for the straight stuff.

    • Maybe we DO need to legalize recreational cannabis before we all get liver damage.

      I believe that in this case it would not be considered recreational cannabis. Anyway, I doubt that trading liver damage for lung damage would be an improvement.

      • Now who said I was to smoke it? As I understand, “edibles” also work – they just require some patience.

        • Oils. That’s the recommended method for cannaboid derivatives (the non-THC cousins of hemp and marijuana that try to keep the medical benefits without the hallucinogens.) I know several people who do the CBD thing and some who do measured-dose THC blends for anxiety, and oils are the method of choice.

          (And they are effective, too. It’s fascinating to watch someone un-tense.)

      • This is definitely marijuana for medical purposes.

  15. I wonder if I can find a bottle of 21 year old scotch… lest you be accused of consorting with underaged whisky…

  16. It’s like all politics, a SCRIPT that is presented to the public. The peasants have no need to know what the glorious ones say, sitting around the table doing real business. Too often it shows that the rabble are regarded as far worse than deplorables.
    She’s just pissed the script wasn’t followed like it was set up behind the scenes. She was CHEATED. Or maybe a better way to say it is that they didn’t cheat well enough or hard enough for her. How disturbing, because it was enough before.
    At that level they have no interest in the little people to remember any detail. They have pollsters and flappers to remind them what they believe this week. I don’t have a damn bit of use for any of them.

    • All The People Who Counted – a hundred of two of them – said she had it in the bag. It was a done deal.

      Unfortunately, the deplorables, and some sizeable portion of the Faithful Serfs didn’t follow the script they’d been handed.

  17. Alright, finished post, switched to seltzer. Ox slow, not suicidal.

    Have idea for lowering healthcare costs…

    For NON-alcoholic to be diagnosed….

    A room.. a chair.. a bottle of booze.. a copy of What Happened

    Neither is touched – inconclusive, but not alarming.
    Booze is guzzled – maybe alcoholic after all.
    Booze is sampled, leisurely – probably normal.
    Book is read, then booze guzzled – probably normal.
    Book is read, booze sampled in a celebratory (of book, not “I survived!”) way – one-way ticket to Cuba. In severe cases, North Korea.
    Book is read, and booze untouched – consider antipsychotics.

  18. Sigh. Left unanswered remains the same question I’ve asked ever since the Clintonostra first ran for the presidency in 1992: if they (she) don’t believe a word they (she) say, why should I?

  19. Clearly, from your remarks, she (who must not be named) was in great need of an editor for this book. I’m guessing she (as above) believed no editor was good enough for her. (Control issues, perhaps?)

    • 0bama would have simply edited it, himself. Since he’s a better editor than his editors (and a better speechwriter than his speechwriters, etc……).

    • I stand by my theory: there was an editor, but she didn’t dare to correct anything, except maybe a comma or two. Was afraid of home accidents, or possibly a suicide. There are all these rumors of bad things happening to people who piss her royal … ness off.

  20. her resentment that men can simply get up, shower and dress.
    So can women. Most just don’t actually want to.

    • Either her dressers were hopelessly incompetent, or she actually looks worse than what we saw during the campaign.

      I know, “embrace the power of ‘and’.”

      Seriously, I figured that as being of “a certain age” she’d chosen to forego the usual primping and facepaint, which would be reasonable and not noteworthy in polite company. The idea that we were seeing an “after” is sort of scary.

      • Oh, there’s a bit in there about how she appreciated their work and one some (most?) days at the beginning of the campaign, she didn’t use their services. Still, all I can think of are the women in business — and politics — who manage without having a staff of assistants and hairdressers and nutritionists to keep them going.

        • … a staff of assistants and hairdressers, nutritionists and cybernetic engineers to keep them going.

          FIFY

          OTOH, when HRC confesses resentment is when I find her most credible. Billy Jeff personifies Lust, Hillary, Envy; I wonder who best represent the other five?

          • Is idiocy one of the Seven? Because that will be a tough run to figure a winner…..

          • 0bama is the runaway winner for Pride

          • Obama or Trump as Pride

          • I used to run the radio board for a show called The Cowboy Libertarian. One day, he rattled off all seven deadly sins in one breath, so I made a clip of that when I cut the podcast. Pity that I never grabbed it for myself; there was something fascinating about the way he said the phrase “pride, greed, lust, envy, gluttony, wrath and sloth.”

            Note that if we are talking about the sins as counterpoints to the virtues, “gluttony” does not have to refer to food, and “sloth” isn’t just sitting around, doing nothing, but refers to the type of inaction that comes from despair. (And even further, we’re not talking about medical depression, but the concept of “giving up.”)

            So for “gluttony,” we’re looking for a politician who keeps pursuing more of something when they clearly have a surfeit, and who keeps all of whatever it is even when they clearly can’t use it and KNOW they have no use for it. “Sloth” would be a politician who folds on everything because they can’t get a perfect thing out, so the whole enterprise is doomed. “Wrath” and “greed” are more obvious, and for the latter, any politician who takes bribes would qualify.

  21. Thoroughly OT:
    What do you all think of Chinua Achebe as a writer? He’s honored with a doodle by Google today.

    • Haven’t read him, can’t say.

    • He wrote Things Fall Apart (1958). Supposedly a big deal (and appropriate for the “Story First” thread, I think), but I haven’t read it.

    • I read “Things Fall Apart” in 10th grade. Given that it came right after “Crime and Punishment” and Kafka’s “The Metamorphosis,” it was a blessed relief. I’ve never felt the urge to read it again or seek anything else of his out, but as I recall, it was okay. Again, it could be that I was just desperate for any escape from the “life sucks and is all suffering and pointlessness” of Kafka, but I don’t remember it being full SJW. The African tribes had plenty of problems of their own making, entirely unrelated to the Europeans, and if anything, the Christian missionaries provided a place to go for those who had issues with their own society.

      • Achebe was required reading in my school.

      • You know what teachers hate? When you focus on Kafka’s cockroach portrayal, and whether the story does a really good job of horror and weird fiction. And what would Rod Serling have done with this? Would Kafka have been happier doing horror anthologies? Is he somebody who should have done theater or film?

        I think this may have been my mind protecting myself from the hopelessness thing….

      • Zsuzsa sounds like your teacher was trying to rid him (or her) self of 10th graders. Add the Bell Jar and Ethan Fromme and no one would have survived.
        I had a similar class it was at a small private high school. Class name
        was Dystopias and Catastrophes. We read 1984, This Perfect Day, excerpts from Brave New World, Alas Babylon, A Canticle for Liebowitz and On the Beach. I think the English teacher was trying to do us in…

        • Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard

          IMO Alas Babylon and A Canticle for Liebowitz aren’t Dystopians.

          Alas Babylon was a “we went through hellish times but things are looking up” story by the end.

          Canticle was an “after the nuke-war” book with a “let’s rebuild” theme. As I remember it, while another nuke-war was about to begin at the end, there were people heading for the stars at the end.

          • Indeed Titile was Dystopias AND Catastrophes (side thought are catastrophes caused by Cats?). Canticle, Alas Babylon and On the Beach were Catastrophes (Nuclear apocolypses to be precise). I took it because
            I had already read several of the books (1984, On the Beach, Brave New World) and was looking for an easy class. Discovered Canticle and wished there was more from Walter Miller. To say Canticle has a lets rebuild theme is like saying Moby Dick is about chasing a whale…

            • There is a parasite conveyed by cats which well might be the source of a number of social and political catastrophes.

        • In a lit class, dark and dreary pretty much sums up high school literature. That said, I read 1984, Brave New World, A Canticle for Lieborwitz (the original short story) Alas, Babylon, Flowers for Algernon (the original short story), and On the Beach on my own. Of these, only On the Beach was a wall slammer. A Canticle for Lieborwitz was positive, and turned the “Ohh … Christianity Bad!” trope found in SF on its head. Alas, Babylon was positive as well. Flowers for Algernon was a tragedy. 1984 and Brave New World were dark, but oddly I felt that Brave New World was sort of a spoof, and it turns out that it started that way. The result was I didn’t find Brave New World as dark as 1984.

          • I wasn’t assigned A Canticle for Lieborwitz in high school English, but rather in World History to 1650 in college, by a Benedictine monk no less.

        • Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard

          Oh by the way, any teacher who makes kids read “On the Beach” should be “boiled in oil”. 😦

          • A few lashes should suffice. Boiling in oil should be reserved for making one read “Old Man and the Sea” or “Last of the Mohicans” to my taste.

            In any case the teacher teaching the course was a masters graduate with PHD ABD fresh out of Wesleyan University (in Middletown CT) and so could be forgiven for trying to do something different. That she like Science fiction (Heinlein, Bradbury and others) and was pretty made the class even more palatable to me. My angsty fellow students however found it a tough slog, and the reading pace was quicker than they were used to (she’d set stuff at a freshman college like she’d been TAing level I suspect).

  22. You know, the one to watch hasn’t really been discussed. I suspect the fix is in for Joe Biden in 2020, based on how NBC did a quick interview with him “about his book” during halftime of Sunday Night Football. Then he was on the Today Show the next morning. I suspect the movers and shakers have abandoned Hillary in all but lip service.

    • I’m waiting for them to try to push him for the nomination. Yes, I think that is one of the options they are considering. But, as I pointed on out Victory Girls yesterday, his history of sexual harassment is well-documented. Time and other major news sources did articles about it during 2015. Biden, and the party, will be crucified if they put him up as a candidate after the way they have been going after others this election season. (It is also going to be interesting to see how the party deals with the allegations against Al Franken)

      • McConnell has reportedly turned it over to the Senate Ethics Committee so I am confident we can anticipate speedy resolution.

        For certain values of resolution. First they have to make sure there aren’t other pictures (or outstanding negatives) of him being similarly “funny.”

        I expect his defense to be that as a professional comedian he was licensed to push … boundaries.

        • It was a USO tour, fer gawdsakes! Aren’t our troops in harm’s way entitled to know they’re looking at the real thing? Don’t you respect our fighting boys? It was simply the patriotic thing to do!

        • I just read Franken’s statement. He’s sorry. He doesn’t know what was in his mind when he took the picture. He respects women. He really, really does and he asks for an ethics investigation and he will cooperate with it. Three…two…one. Let the attacks on the woman in the picture begin.

          • He’s sorry? Big whoop.

            He respects women? Guess he means, ‘Don’t believe your lying eyes.’

            • Duh. I have never liked him. He always seemed more than a bit creepy and this story, as well as the picture, only solidify my opinion. But any bets on how much the Dems work to make sure he comes across as the victim in the ethics investigation?

            • Respects women?

              They keep using that word. I do not think it means what they think it means.

              In my experience the claim that one “respects” a group often corresponds with a habit of disrespecting individual representatives of that group.

        • It is the job of a comedian to tell jokes, not be one.

    • Joe Biden in 2020? Somethings cannot be fixed with plaster and glue and whitewash. Some things can only be fixed with a scalpel.

      Somebody needs to shop a meme of the two “Uncle Joes” — Stalin & Biden.

    • He’d probably end up like Jeremy Bentham – taxidermied and attending meetings as “present – not voting.”

    • Christopher M. Chupik

      Run, Joe, run!

    • Pure desperation on the media’s part, as they look over the barren fields of good Democratic candidates, knowing that was a result of making Hillary the Inevitable Choice in 2016.

      • I think the media and elite lefties (but I repeat myself) are keying off of Brazile’s book where Donna does her own shouldawoulda and notes she considered throwing The Dowager Empress under the bus and substituting Handsy Uncle Joe after HRC had her “toss the body into the van and lets get out of here” incident in NYC.

        They are zeroing in on that as the last best chance they had to avoid what actually happened, so obviously that’s how they should refight that war next time.

        • And while we are thinking about D alt histories, just imagine how HRCs book would have read if Nationalist Socialist Conrade Bernie had won the nom and been beaten by Trump.

          • What book? A transcript of her show trial for being a ‘wrecker’?

            • That would be if Comrade Bernie had won, and the charge would be cisgenderism, heteronormativity, and of course racism. As denounced by Chelsea.

    • One of the signs that makes me think the Democrat party is in trouble is the lack of (relatively) youthful candidates (say 40s or early 50s) for the presidency being considered. In 2016, the Repulicans had Cruz and Rubio among others, and Ryan is also in that youthful group. Aside from Obama, I can’t think of a major Democrat politician who is younger than 60. There may be some, but I don’t know who they are.

      Of the names I hear touted as possible 2020 candidates for the Democrats, there’s Biden (74), Warren (68 and youngest), HRC again (70), Sanders (76). I suppose there’s a small movement for Michelle Obama who is only 53, but I don’t hear that she’s got any real support politically behind her. There were a two of the token opposition candidates in the primary who were in their 50s (O’Malley and Lessig), but the younger branch of the party seems pretty lacking in political clout. And at some point, you can’t keep running the same ossified fossils, and they aren’t really grooming a lot of people to take up that role, from what I can see.

      Yeah, Trump is old, but Trump was an anomaly age-wise in the group. Of the 17 ‘major’ candidates in the Republican primary, 7 were younger than 60, and only Pataki and Trump were in their 70s. The relative youthfulness of the party leadership is, I think, a good sign for the Republicans and the lack of it is a bad sign for the Democrats.

  23. Wow this is a book on self-delusion. *sigh

  24. Christopher M. Chupik

    I’m amused by the people now saying: “Bill Clinton should have resigned.”

    Only took them 20 years.

    • There’s a lot in that refusal to resign. Bill’s an astute enough politician to know that handing over the Presidency to Algore would pretty much guarantee a win in 2000.
      He’s also smart enough to know that a Gore presidency would also guarantee that Hillary wouldn’t have a chance for 12-16 years. Best if a Republican won in 2k, and then Hillary would have a chance to start “her own career” in the Senate, do some stuff, then swoop into office in 2008 on name nostalgia.
      Which is why Bill’s support of Algore in 2000 was lukewarm, at best.

      • I think there was a lot of “I’ve been to the top. I’m done now, and don’t have any interest in playing those games any more,” also.
        (Though, if it meant UN Sec-Gen, he might – ’cause then he could have interns from all those exotic places, too.)

        • I don’t really see Bill as being fed up- the man loves to be the center of attention, and would have pulled a FDR if he could.
          We also see Hillary following Bill’s advice at first, then going her own way- probably around 2008. Silly thing started thinking she had her own political acumen too!

          • From what I read, Bill was command central for The Dowager Empress’ losing campaign for the D nom in 2008, so when 2016 rolled around she made sure he was ignored.

            That mistake cost her the election. And as much of a reprehensible human being Billy-Jeff is, he’s a great politician.

            But I repeat myself.

          • Oh, if he could have kept going, I think he would have. But I don’t think he was interested in being “in the game” for other people, or to help the party. If it meant he had the chance for more graft and interns, sure, but not because he saw himself as kingmaker or a great statesman.

          • Every time the press brays about Melania Trump – her shoes or what have you – I feel compelled to remind people that the alternative would have been First Lady Bill Clinton running around the White House in his underwear: “I’m gonna grab me some girlies today!’
            “Bill! Put pants on!”
            “I don’t have any!”

      • I’ve heard that AlGore was hated by pretty much everyone in and around the WH, be they Admin, or be they support. Housekeeping had a low opinion of him. Hillary was more popular with the guards than he was ffs, and we all know how she treated most of them.

  25. Been reading “The Gift of Fear”- a book about how your mind is very good at noticing certain clues that tell you a person is dangerous & not to be trusted.
    With HRC, a good part of the American electorate picked up on a lot of those bad vibes. There’s just something that’s off about that woman.

    One general rule about liars is that they give too many details. Hillary has a need to explain how everything she does is inspired by a request from the population at large. It’s supposed to soften her image as a lamprey eel clinging to the actual political career of her husband, but it comes across as forced, staged, and creepy.

    • I remember reading an article about this theatre company who decided to do a gender-swap rendition of the 2016 presidential debates to prove that the only reason people dislike Clinton was because of her sex.

      They had a male actor play Clinton and a female actor play Trump, and had them copy the candidates’ manner and speech exactly.

      The verdict? Clinton was creepy and unlikable even as a man, and Trump as a woman was the kind of person they’d like to have a beer with.

      • I have to say that my gut reaction to the news that Shrillary was running – again – was “So, Dracula wasn’t interested?”

        • The Prince of the Un-Dead would like me to tell you that he couldn’t run for President as he wasn’t born in the US but he’d be a better President than most if he could have run.

          • Well he does have y’all in his pocket anyhow, so . . .why bother (~_^)

            • Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard

              As the Late Fred Saberhagen correctly showed, the Prince of the Un-Dead has no interesting in controlling breathing governments as long as he’s allowed to peacefully reside in the US and elsewhere.

              The Prince of the Un-Dead doesn’t require human blood to survive and drinks human blood as his means of making love to lovely human ladies. 😉

          • Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard

            I’m sure His Highness would have done a better job than HRC. 😉

            • Now come On Drak thats not a very high standard. A rotting piece of salami would do better than HRC (and be more interesting and sympatheic). Mr. Tepes would do much better although the 8th amendment would interfere in his traditional punishment of terrorists.

          • Point of order!

            I’m too preoccupied to look it up, but doesn’t the “born in the United States” requirement properly restrict the demand that a person be born in the United States to only those born after a certain date? Clearly the “Born in the USA” requirement did not apply to the first several presidents, all of whom were born in Great Britain (or British territories) and thus if Vlad was born prior to, say, 1700, he would be grandfathered in?

            Okay, I went ahead and looked:
            US Constitution, Article II, Section 1
            No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.

            Emphasis added. Do we know Mr. Tepes was not an American citizen at the time of adoption? He was (believed) born in 1431, so he had plenty of time to get over here, Stoker be damned.

            • Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard

              As I read Fed The Fred’s comment, Mr. Tepes doesn’t claim to have been an American Citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.

              • BobtheRegisterredFool

                No shit, there I was in October of 2008, contemplating Diner fic of a murderous insane version of Tepes traveling back in time to qualify to run, winning the undead vote, and proving a superior candidate to Obama. My storytelling chops back then weren’t up to delivering. Okay, they still aren’t.

              • I think the more salient issue is whether anybody can prove he wasn’t an American citizen at that time. Winning that argument would require him to run as a Dem, of course, as the Un-Dead have long been casting their votes for that party’s candidates.

                They would attack any Republican argument over citizenship just as they attacked the Birthers, with the added frisson of condemning Conservative bigotry against the living-deprived. The GOP would limply respond that it was appropriate for the party of blood-sucking parasites to have finally found their most apt representative.

          • Because the Son of the Dragon was born before the adoption of the Constitution, there’s a clause which would allow him to run. He just needs to prove he was a resident of one of the thirteen original states at the time of the Constiution’s adoption.

            • Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard

              He told me that, sadly, he had no interest in visiting America until after the events of the novel named after him.

              Oh, for his take on the events in that novel, see “The Dracula Tape” officially written by the Late Fred Saberhagen. 😉

        • oh, I knew she was gonna run as soon as 0bama got the nom. It was HER turn dammit, and he usurped it, so she was gonna have to go NOW it really is My Turn!
          Mark Davis in DFW was right. There were a lot of people who’d crawl over broken glass to vote against her (even if it meant a vote for Trump).
          That Trump now makes em scream and is actually doing far more good than I thought, is all just lagniappe.

          • I commented several times in several blogs and on news sites that I’d crawl over broken glass to vote against her. Including here, I think. Not enough did in NY to make a difference, but I voted anyway.

            I believe Heinlein said something to the effect there’s always a reason to vote against someone, even if it means voting for someone else you don’t particularly like.

          • Mark Davis was gold during the election when it came to his scathing comments about Clinton.

            • I miss listening to him. I went on second shift and BAP gave him the shaft, so he stopped subbing for Rush. We occasionally disagreed, but he was always a gentleman about it.

              • Agreed. I often didn’t agree with him but he did not resort to the personal attacks so many others do.

                • He is one of those who will listen to your view, consider, and rethink his based on what you’ve said, and go from there. Sometimes, his view stays exactly the same. Other times he may adjust.

      • Wasn’t the acting group’s intent to try discredit Trump and it hugely backfired on them? I sort of remember that and laughed when I read about it.

        • Yep ^_^

          Reportedly, people left the theater saying “Now I understand why people voted for Trump”

          I presume they’d completely forgotten this realization by the time they woke up the next morning.

      • It wasn’t a theatre company’s idea. It was a researcher, an associate professor of economics and political science at an institute called INSEAD. The lady’s name was Maria Guadalupe. She went to one of her fellow professors on the Theatre side of the fence.

        The article Google turned up to refresh my memory:

        https://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publications/news/2017/march/trump-clinton-debates-gender-reversal.html

        • I give the researchers credit for being honest scientists and reporting the results as they happened rather than trying to tweak things.

          • Uhm, yeah. That’s really risky these days, especially with the political correctness crap.

          • Maybe, but that isn’t how you get research grants nor National Endowment For The Humanities funding. If they weren’t going to bury it they had a responsibility to provide explanations such as “small sample size,” “flaws found in methodology” or explanations of how the results utterly contradicting their hypothesis in fact actually prove the hypothesis (see: Climate Change.)

  26. Wow: We have a Chipotle burrito bowl to thank for Hillary’s 2016 campaign? All I got when I tried one of those was a severe attack of gas.

    . . . Then again, that’s pretty much what Hillary got too, to judge by her book so far. Perhaps she’s just trying to spread the heartburn around . . . ?

  27. Isn’t Hillary’s history a little off? I thought the “Square Deal” was Truman’s follow-on to the “New Deal” not anything from Theodore.

  28. richardmcenroe

    Y’all think Amanda’s frazzled now, wait til Hillary releases Volume 2: the Wildereness Years…

  29. A New Deal, A Square Deal – A Raw Deal?

  30. A Raw Sewage Deal?

  31. Amanda does a great job with these commentaries.
    They demonstrate that (once again) HRC can’t admit being at fault, so she has to create a narrative that absolves her, and blames others.
    As Amanda writes, it’s become clearer to me that HRC now actually *believes* her own BS.
    And smothers her contrary thoughts with a pillow.
    More, she also believes her book becomes an actual official version of “what happened, ” absolute facts because it’s been typed out.

  32. Two items I saw yesterday connected a thought that had been stretching through my thinking. One item was a headline about HRC going on about the need to ensure our elections were free from “Russian INfluence™” to protect their legitimacy. (yeah, sure, Hill; that’s what you were warning about when you denounced Trump’s failure before No. 8 to agree t accept the voting outcome.)

    The other item was a reminder of the degree to which “our” anti-nuke movement was funded by the Soviet Union. For that matter, I am currently reading (via audiobook) Arthur Herman’s Freedom’s Forge* and am in the portion covering American** labor unions striking during the Summer of ’41, doing their best to act at their Russian*** masters’ behest and disrupt the production and build-up of our war materiel and of Britain’s.

    And I thought Hill, it’s a little late in the game for your party to complain about foreign interference in our elections.

    And elsewhere this morning I read a piece connecting North Korean diplomatic intransigence with our betrayal defenestration of Col. Qaddafi in Libya. Gee, cannot imagine why that might make oppositional state decide they do not care to rely on the kindness of Americans and would rather have their own nuclear deterrence.

    *Excellent book, I strongly recommend it. It makes much of Ayn Rand’s imagery much more clear.

    **Nominally

    ***op cit

  33. “She talks about her nutritionist, her hair stylist, her resentment that men can simply get up, shower and dress.” — then I must be a man because I can simply get up, shower and dress. It’s really not that difficult. Lol! Hillary is an idiot.

    • I get up, shower and dress, and I’ve informed my hair dresser the haircut will have to survive that.

      • My hair is hip-length (again), and there are days where I get up, bun it, and go straight to work at the computer. (I prefer to shower around mid-day, because temperatures, and it forces me to take a break.)

        • The ONLY ways to have carefree hair is very short or very long. I need to cut mine, because it’s all uneven lengths from 4 bouts of prednisone last year, but yeah, I prefer it long. I shower and bun it up after towel drying.

          • I’ve thought about cutting it to shoulder-length, mostly to help it recover from the past few years of stress, but I can’t bun it that way (and thus keep it out of my face and off my neck.) Where we are living now is much drier than in Townsville, and is inconsistent with the weather as well. It’s been HORRIBLE for the skin and scalp and hair.

            I don’t take much care of my hair – run a wooden comb through it just to get the snarls or loose hair out, and then up into a bun or twist it goes. I occasionally wear it down in a foxtail, and I love how feminine and pretty I feel when I do, which is one of the reasons why I’ve been reluctant to cut it.

            Rhys pointed out a new-growing white hair to me the other day – it stuck out from the top of my head, like an antenna. Ahoge is real! ^o^

        • Hip-length? Lessee … from what you’ve said in the past, that’s about fifteen inches?

  34. Pingback: HRC: Turning Mourning into a Movement – by Amanda S. Green | According To Hoyt