It’s All His Fault – by Amanda S. Green

It’s All His Fault – by Amanda S. Green

Or how “Sisterhood” should have, but didn’t, win the election.

Yep, you guessed it, we’ve finally come to where the real blame lies in Hillary Rodham Clinton’s loss to Donald Trump. It wasn’t because she might not have been the best candidate for the job. It wasn’t because of Russia or her e-mails or Benghazi. It wasn’t even because of that damned electoral college that stole the election from her. “This has to be said: sexism and misogyny played a role in the 2016 presidential election. Exhibit A is that the flagrantly sexist candidate won.” (Pg 114)

That one sentence sums up what is, so far, the longest chapter of the book. It is telling that it is also the one chapter that has any emotion to it besides bitter frustration and anger. For the first time, Clinton seems to warm up to her topic. Of course, that topic is herself and her role in advancing women’s rights over the years. But, before she can really get to all that, she has to spend some time talking about herself. In doing so, she manages to not only come across as superior but she also shows a distinct lack of understanding that what she sees as a challenge for women in politics is what women in the working world face on a daily basis.

“I want to put to paper years’ worth of frustration about the tightrope that I and other women have had to walk in order to participate in American politics.” (Pg 112) When I first read that, I wanted to take out my red pencil and start marking up the chapter like an editor should have. The sentence would have read much better if she had simply aid, “the tightrope women have had to walk…”. But no, she had to interject herself into the equation, as if not sure her readers would understand she had faced challenges along the way. My second thought was to wonder why women in American politics. Is she saying women in politics elsewhere around the world don’t face the challenges she claims she did?

After that opening statement, she moves away from her thesis to tell us that the personal narrative is important in politics. After spending a whopping two paragraphs describing the narratives of her husband and Obama, she moved on to her narrative. She spends two pages writing about her background — and then admits she isn’t “great” about talking about herself. Before that, however, she described a childhood that wasn’t anything “special”. She grew up in a two-parent home, went to church, always had a roof over her head, etc. “It’s a story that many would consider perfectly ordinary. . . But my story—or at least how I’ve always told it—was never the kind of narrative that made everyone sit up and take notice. We yearn for that show stopping tale—that one-sentence pitch that captures something magical about America; that hooks you and won’t let you go. Mine wasn’t it.” (Pg 112)

That illustrates how far removed she was from the voting public. She doesn’t get that the voting public — outside of a few states — didn’t want glitz and glamour. They wanted someone who could identify with what was important to them. They wanted someone who wasn’t part of the political establishment. They wanted someone they could trust. It had nothing to do with the fact she was from an upper middle class background.

Reading on, the reason Clinton had a hard time giving that quick version of her narrative that would engage people was because it wasn’t important to her. The first glimpse of anything coming close to being engaged in her topic comes when she writes about the women’s movement. Then she fully embraces her topic and goes on and on and on and on again. But, according to her, she didn’t want to be known as the woman candidate. Funny, I seem to remember her trying to drill it into everyone’s head that she was the first female nominee by a major party for President and how that meant we should vote for her.

But the biggest reason I shied away from embracing this narrative is that storytelling requires a receptive audience, and I’ve never felt like the American electorate was receptive to this one. I wish so badly we were a country where a candidate who said, “My story is the story of a life shaped by and devoted to the movement for women’s liberation” would be cheered, not jeered. But that’s not who we are. Not yet. (Pg 114)

Is it me, or is she basically saying that we’re too dumb, too backward and so much below her vaunted view of how things should be? Sorry, but I want my president to be interested in more than just women’s rights issues. If this is the only thing she willingly hangs her hat on as defining who she is, I’m glad she wasn’t elected.

But wait! She backtracks again to the “it’s not easy being a woman in politics” bit. According to her, the moment a woman announces she is throwing her hat into the ring, she is put under a microscope where everything she does, everything she says, etc., is analyzed and what comes out of it “can be incredibly cruel.” (Pg 114) Of course, her solution for this is to get the sexism out of politics. I might buy that if she hadn’t been one of those who stood by and watched her own party do to Sarah Palin and other conservative female political candidates what she now cries foul about. In this, HRC is a walking billboard for the old saying of “do as I say, not as I do”.

She goes on about how unfair life has been to her — remember, this after saying her life had been nothing spectacular and how she’d been happy, loved, etc — because she was called “four-eyes” in  elementary school or because some of her classmates in middle school or high school made fun of the fact she “had no ankles”. I hate to tell her this but that had nothing to do with sexism. It had everything to do with kids being kids which means they can be cruel sometimes. Nor does it mean her experiences were unique. I bet every one of us has known or been the recipient of nicknames like four-eyes in elementary school. There are no crueler creatures on the face of the earth than middle school girls. And, if you read this chapter, you will see that she very carefully says how “some of” her classmates made fun of her lack of ankles, not that her male classmates did. That means she had to adapt her story to fit her narrative. Gee, are any of us surprised she would do that?

In my experience, the balancing act women in politics have to master is challenging at every level, but it gets worse the higher you rise. If we’re too tough, we;’re unlivable. If we’re too soft, we’re not cut out for the big leagues. If we work too hard, we’re neglecting our families. If we put family first, we’re not serious about the work. If we have a career but no children, there’s something wrong with us, and vice versa. If we want to compete for a higher office, we’re too ambitious. . . . (Pg 119)

For someone who swears she is all about the woman’s movement and understands what women face on a daily basis, that statement blows holes in the claim. What she says women in politics have to do is exactly what women wanting a career outside the home have had to face for decades and longer. But it isn’t limited to just women. You can turn it around and find those who condemn men who want to be the caregiver at home, who want to put their families first. Why isn’t HRC rallying for them? Or does she think they’re weak because they don’t want to be king of the hill in the business world?

I’ve been called divisive more times than I can count, and for the life of me, I can’t understand why. Politics is a divisive business, it’s true, and out country has gotten more polarized with every passing year. . . Why am I seen as such a divisive figure and, say, Joe Biden and John Kerry aren’t? . . . I’m really asking. I’m at a loss. (Pg 120) Oh my, let me count the ways. I could write a book on it as could, I’m sure, everyone here. The fact she can write that and, if she really means it, shows how out of touch she has become. Since this chapter basically deals with her dedication to the women’s movement, let’s start by mentioning the way she did her best to derail the accusations of sexual harassment against her husband, steps that included doing her best to throw mud on his accusers. Then there is the apparent double-standard she holds when it comes to the treatment of female politicians. It’s all right to attack Republican women but not Democrats, especially not her. Let’s not forget those other pesky issues of her e-mail server and Benghazi, just to name a few.

But it gets better. The pity party really begins on pg. 126:

It’s not easy for any woman in politics, but I think it’s safe to say that I got a whole other level of vitriol flung my way. Crowds at Trump rallies called for my imprisonment more times than I can count. . . What in the world was this? I’ve been in politics for a long time, but I was taken aback by the flood of hatred that seemed only to grow as we got closer to Election Day. I had left the State Department one of the most admired public servants in America. Now people seemed to think I was evil. (Pg 120)

I’ll give you a moment to clean up the coffee you just spit out. Now reread that. She thinks she had it worse than Palin or others her party has sliced and diced over the years. But the ego and lack of awareness about how much of America viewed her when she left State is amazing. “One of the most admired public servants in America.” Riiiight. Not. People didn’t trust her, certainly not with the security of our country or those public servants dedicated to protecting it. Not after Benghazi. People wondered why she wouldn’t cooperate with the email investigation and why all those emails were deleted before they could be handed over to investigators. This was more than a few minutes of tape being erased ala Nixon. This looked like a massive coverup on her part and middle America wanted answers she still refuses to give.

Now we get to the debates. She writes about how Trump followed her around, breathing down her neck and how it made her skin crawl. She makes sure to let her readers know this was just days after the story about Trump and Billy Bush doing their “locker room talk” about women broke. But she didn’t know how to handle the situation. She writes that she saw her options as staying calm and carrying on “as if he weren’t repeatedly invading your space.” (Pg 136) Another option was to “look him in the eye” and tell him to back off. She chose the former.

I’ll admit, from the moment she started talking about this after the debate, I had questions. Why hadn’t she said something to Trump? [Particularly since they were friends for years and she attended his wedding – editor’s note] She could have asked him to back up some. She could have done it nice and then, in the way of any good Southern lady, mocked him mercilessly and in such a way she never seems anything but reasonable and genteel. But no, she waited until after the fact to comment and condemn. She excuses her lack of action in the book by saying, “[H]ad I told Trump off, he surely would have capitalized on it gleefully. A lot of people recoil from an angry woman, or even just a direct one.” (Pg 137)

I know the Weinstein sexual harassment claims had not made the news at the time HRC wrote the book, but I find it ironic that she whines about how Trump would have “capitalized” on her standing up for herself when so many turned a blind eye to what one of her big supporters had been doing for so long. It is also disheartening that she can write something like that in the face of what she did to those who accused Bill of inappropriate behavior that went far beyond what Trump did to her by “invading her space”. But it comes down to something even more fundamental to me. If you set yourself up as this huge champion of women’s rights, you have a responsibility to stop behavior like what she accuses Trump of doing. This wasn’t a situation where he had political or economic power over her. They were equals in the debate. If she hadn’t felt comfortable saying something to him directly, she should have talked with the debate organizers or even her own campaign staff. Bless her heart, there was so much more she could have done that what she did.

HRC wants the world to think her a champion of women’s rights and, in a way, she has been. But the reality is now she champions only those women and those rights who can help her in some way, be it because they are in the Democratic Party or it is the “right” issue. Frankly, now she seems to be using the cause as an excuse: an excuse for why she lost, an excuse for why she didn’t stand up for herself and an excuse for why America was too backward to elect her. Yet again, she has failed to admit she might have done something wrong or might have miscalculated what the voting public thought important.

But when you are “one of the most admired public servants in America”, I guess you don’t have to worry about little things like facts or logic or issues important to anyone but yourself.

On a personal note, I’ll admit my sanity and my liver almost didn’t make it through this chapter. Thankfully, my son listened to my rantings and kept pouring the whiskey. I think he was amused and wanted to see how much I could put up with before I exploded or passed out. Another run to the liquor store is now in order. At least the next chapter doesn’t have much worthwhile to discuss. So it will be on to the chapter after that.

[I know this is hard to watch, imagine what it must be like to read the book.  If you want to help finance Amanda’s liquor bill, use this address  Send the woman a drink-SAH]

346 thoughts on “It’s All His Fault – by Amanda S. Green

    1. You too? I had to do some serious tongue biting when an associate gushed about “all women will vote for her because she’s a woman! At last, a woman!” I wanted to say, “Why does a woman having ideas I personally disagree with make it any different from a man having ideas I disagree with,” but it wasn’t the place or time.

      1. Yep. But I haven’t bitten my tongue when folks tell me that. I don’t vote based on what plumbing a person has. I vote based on what they stand for, what their opponent stands for and their record if they have been involved in politics before that particular election.

        1. Hillary has stood for Clinton Inc. before their syndicate ever left Arkansas. And she has stood against any and all who would challenge Clinton, Inc.’s corrupt ways.

          Yeah, count me among thos convinced they remain married so neither can be compelled to testify about the other under oath.

          1. Yeah, count me among those convinced they remain married so neither can be compelled to testify about the other under oath.
            Makes sense to me.
            Plus, Bill helps her get chicks.

          2. But she loves him. She says she does. And he was always supportive of anything she ever wanted to do. (that sound you hear is the sound of my eyes rolling so hard they fell onto the floor and the cats are now playing with them.)

            1. Well, he may actually be very supportive of Hillary…. because she has the goods on him. 😈

        2. Personally, I would like the first woman president to be someone I could look up to. Someone who would overcome the (IMO vastly overstated) prejudice against a woman in the highest office.

          A Hillery Clinton Presidency would have had 3/4th of the population leery of ever voting a woman into office, ever again.

          Pity, because the problem isn’t the plumbing, it the political theory, and HRC’s case the personal corruption and ego.

          1. “Pity, because the problem isn’t the plumbing, it the political theory, and HRC’s case the personal corruption and ego.”

            You forgot her ostentatious stupidity.

          2. “Personally, I would like the first woman president to be someone I could look up to.”–Pam Uphoff

            God already called Phyllis Schlafly home and Condolezza Rice does not want the job. Neither does Sen. Diane Feinstein. We’re outta luck. Maybe a generation from now there will be a female in politics who is admirable or who can credibly fake it.

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

          “…Millions had tuned in to watch a man face off against a woman for the first set of co-ed presidential debates in American history. But how would their perceptions change, she wondered, if the genders of the candidates were switched? She pictured an actress playing Trump, replicating his words, gestures, body language, and tone verbatim, while an actor took on Clinton’s role in the same way. What would the experiment reveal about male and female communication styles, and the differing standards by which we unconsciously judge them?..
          Salvatore says he and Guadalupe began the project assuming that the gender inversion would confirm what they’d each suspected watching the real-life debates: that Trump’s aggression—his tendency to interrupt and attack—would never be tolerated in a woman, and that Clinton’s competence and preparedness would seem even more convincing coming from a man….
          Many were shocked to find that they couldn’t seem to find in Jonathan Gordon what they had admired in Hillary Clinton—or that Brenda King’s clever tactics seemed to shine in moments where they’d remembered Donald Trump flailing or lashing out. For those Clinton voters trying to make sense of the loss, it was by turns bewildering and instructive, raising as many questions about gender performance and effects of sexism as it answered….”

            1. That was essentially what happened. I’ve said it every time this survey comes up (mostly because too many things get fudged) credit to the people running the experiment for reporting the results as they were rather than tweaking them to make them more palatable for their intended audience.

        4. Thank you, Amanda, for reading that horrible book so others don’t have to. You’re one of the few women who has chosen to even figuratively take a bullet for strangers.

          1. More importantly, thank you for reading and reporting on that book so that the rest of us don’t have to contribute to Clinton Inc. by buying it for ourselves.

      2. Why is a woman you loathe, whose ideas and policies you do not support, any different than a man I loathe, whose ideas and policies I do not support?

        Consider the Ed Gein/Gary Ridgway test of politician destructiveness.

        1. same note as “You don’t like 0bama because you are a racist!”
          sure, name one white guy holding the exact same veiws I’d vote for.
          ***crickets***
          or I answered “So if we could convince Condi Rice to run for President you’d jump on board that bandwagon because you’d get both a Black and Woman President, right?”
          spittle was the usual result as they foamed and frothed
          Imagine the contortions if the ticket was Mary Cheney/Mia Love (or for that matter Love/Cheney).
          Okay, forget that, imagine the misogyny, gay bashing, and anti-religious ranting.
          With the Shrill One it was a simple “I didn’t vote for Bill, and she’s worse. “

          1. When they pulled the “If you won’t vote for Obama, you’re a racist” number on me, my answer was “Oh, so President of the United States is supposed to be an affirmative action hire now?”

              1. I did too. That’s when you trot out the classic Mencken quote “Democracy is the theory that the common man knows what he wants and deserves to get it, good and hard.”

              2. I always stuck with “So you vote for someone only because of their color, and not whether or not they are the most qualified for the job? And I’m the racist?”

      3. That was the one thing that infuriated both my daughter and myself, when she began angling for higher office — people saying to us that we “should” vote for her because she was a woman.
        Err… nope.
        And after she left her people hanging and dying in Benghazi as the most useless Secretary of State ever, there was no way in hell that either of us would ever vote for her.

  1. Flipping women’s rights into men’s rights, it could be argued that the Clinton campaign was more sexist than the Trump. Yeah, sure the cuck memeing point directly corresponds to the Clinton campaign’s suggestion that you would be less of a woman for voting for Trump. But that was much less highly supported on the Trump side than the female Chauvinism was on the Clinton side. (Albeit selective female Chauvinism, for females equal to Clinton and those who see Clinton through an aspirational lens.) The Clinton campaign’s strategy for controlling negative blowback from sex bigotry was social pressure to make people shut up. Trump’s strategy was twofold: 1) Being so much all over the place and apparently erratic that people could choose to presume whatever they wanted. 2) Not being Hillary Clinton. (I think the latter was accident rather than deliberate choice.)

    1. As things go along, I am more and more convinced Trump ran simply to undo 0bama for his insulting him at the WHPress dinner. To make it even better in his eyes, he convinced both 0bama, and the Clintons (Who he had been very freindly with right until he declared his candidacy) he was really on their side and was going to softball the run once he sewed up the nomination. I mean he gave the max to that commie McAulfie in the Virginia race, the election just before the run-up to the nominations. Not the actions of “The Next Reagan(tm)”.
      I am still unconvinced he holds his “conservative” views as sacred as his biggest supporters believe, because I think he feels he is rich enough, he doesn’t need to worry overmuch. When he was being a leftoid “basically a democrat” it was because he could afford it, and it was in keeping with his social circle (again, that included Bill and Hill) But, to get elected, to maintain support, and to really, really hurt 0bama (and as a side benefit Hillary) he needs to be what he is being. As long as he does that and passes what I’d like, gets the sorts of judges I prefer, I’ll take it.

      1. Until now Trump had never held office and hadn’t had to worry about whether his political policies were effective. It was easy to voice the views his social circle held sacrosanct, and psychologically almost impossible not to.

        Now that he’s in office and compelled to work with the party he claimed, he may well be finding it useful to view such matters afresh and focus on results beyond the endorsements of his social circle. Certainly his judicial nominations and regulatory rollback indicate a more conservative presidency than we anticipated, and his economic and foreign policies would be hard-pressed to be worse than his predecessors.

  2. Teased because she wore glasses and had thick ankles? Honey, I got called carrot-top, four-eyes, tomato head, high-waters (for three months I was the tallest girl in my grade. Then everyone else caught up). And then we all hit junior high and it got worse than name calling. Bless her heart, she really doesn’t understand life outside her own mental world.

    I still love that embroidered coat she wore, though. In that she showed excellent taste.

    1. LOL. You just described my life growing up — with the exception of the four-eyes bit. I didn’t wear glasses then. But she’s special and we have to remember that. If we don’t, she’ll be glad to tell us. . . again and again and again.

          1. I am reminded of the story (source forgotten, truth coefficient unknown) of someone dealing a nasty, rude and not-all-there person (they seem to be a package so oft – insisting on something like having the ice on the bottom of the drink) and after the jerk departed, made a “Must ride the short bus” remark… and a moment later was horrified, realizing a coworker DID ride a short bus due to some issue or other. The rider, however, did have some wit and replied, “No. We have standards.” – and brought the house down, as it were.

      1. I got the ‘four-eyes’ bit. And, with the maiden name of Fales, I got things like ‘Fales fails’ and other bits of joy. It’s probably a good thing that I was deathly shy and hardly ever spoke to anyone at school while I was in jr. high and high school, or I might have heard worse things.

        1. I knew a poor girl with last name Keys
          and her parents named her Dawn.
          that is the least of the crap that put her folks on the list of people I could, er, dispose of, with a clear conscience.

            1. I’m of the firm opinion that a child, upon reaching majority, should be able to petition the courts, not merely for a name change…
              but to be allowed to take their parents out behind the courthouse and beat them with a baseball bat, if they named them something stupid or heinous.

              “Next case, Dactyl v Me & Mrs Dactyl, complaint, Abusive Naming.”
              “State your name for the court, please.”
              “Tara Dactyl”
              “I find for the plaintiff. Bailiff, get this young woman a bat.”

              1. That would be fun. I had a friend in high school that joked that his parents were thinking to give his sister, Ima Bean (yes, pun WAS intended) the middle name of Lima. At least, I THOUGHT he was joking. Then, a couple nights later, I mentioned it to his mom. She, at least, had the strength to look embarrassed when she admitted that they had been thinking that way. One of the reasons why she became the former Mrs. Bean.

            2. There was a girl in my middle school name of Takako Fujita who was often called Taco (as in Taco Fajita.) At least in her case, it seemed to be affectionate rather than insulting, and parents can’t be expected to think of all the puns in a foreign language.

          1. My mother had a classmate. First name Imogene, commonly turned into the nickname Ima, and last name Hogg.

            Parents really need to think about these things.

              1. I’ve heard of a girl who was named Xenia, which is NOT pronounced Zenia, apparently. After much suffering, the happiest day in her life occurred: the most popular girl in the school skipped up to her and said, “You have a really horrible name. I’m going to call you Cindy” — and then told all her friends to do the same.

                This was online. Cindy was posting it.

                1. The Honduran girl I was chasing in Louisiana had a daughter named Ixchel (after the Mayan goddess). Bit tough for most folks to figure out how those kinda names go.
                  oi
                  just realized this sweet little kid I recall would now be 19-20 years old.

              2. A lot of names we liked got the axe because of the nickname aspect. For instance, my husband really likes the name Duncan, but Duncan Durbin sounds like a donut. And we couldn’t name a son after my dad because I don’t name kids after Congress-critters, even if my dad did go by Rich.

                And we’ve already come up with a nickname for the second son that isn’t the traditional one, just because that one rhymes too well.

          2. Teachers see all the weird names parents subject their children to. My wife and I hung the names Anthony and Duncan on our two boys; which by design didn’t make up any derogatory phrases that we could think of. Of course with my name, I spent years of grade school having that horrible House of Mouse song sung at me.

              1. “ARGH!”
                Michael ran frantically for the tractor, desperately hoping the sound of the diesel engine, and later the chainsaw, would drown out the demonic earworm that had plagued him for decades.

            1. One I have actually seen (poor girl). L-a. Ladasha. Her mother insisted that the hyphen wasn’t silent. The sad part is, it’s not an insane name if they’d just spelled it out!

              When I was pregnant with my daughter, my boss heard about the above and suggested the following name: Ma~

              He then left the room (in a hurry) snickering.

              For us, my husband and I looked for names that would be reasonably ‘normal’.

              1. With a last name S[NAME] Beloved Spouse & I quickly discarded a number of names likely to produce initial awkwardness. Eager thought we were to honor Abigail Adams we quickly eliminated her name as problematic. Imagine Gertrude Abigail S[NAME] or Abigail Sarah S[NAME]!

                I still regret that by not having a boychick we were denied opportunity to honor Father-In-Law James and Biblical favourite Gideon and producing S[NAME], J.G.

                1. My wife and I have a S[NAME]. I really loved the name Vanessa Michelle. I would NOT do that to my daughter, though. We then thought about naming the little tyke after her mom and a variant of her brother’s name: Christine Michaela. Nope. That was just out. Sometimes, it sucks being in IT while being an Odd (but I repeat myself).

                2. With a last name B[NAME], we avoided naming our son after my uncle Scott, even though there are few male names that begin with “O”.
                  With all the potential names I made monograms (fLm) and initials (fmL) and nicknames. I even checked fLast email names. Just to make sure.

        2. I have a good friend whose last name is Hunt. His parental units named him Michael, and for obvious reasons he refuses to go by Mike……

          1. not my issue, but there are reasons some folks go for initials for a diminutive/familiar name.
            Though, my Brother-in-law thought my name was Jay because my sisters tend to not even go with the paired set.
            My supe at work sometimes goes for Jape.
            An aunt on dad’s side, and my maternal grandmother use/used JohnPaul like one name.

            1. One of my paternal uncles got saddled with “Horace Horton” Because it was his grandfather’s name. Yeah, he still goes by HH. His parents were confused why he named his sons “Stephen” and “David”.

    2. My late wife left school in the seventh grade because she got tired of getting beaten up in home room. She took her GED when she reached the appropriate age and went on with her life.

      Poor Hillary. How she suffered.

    3. I was too tall, too skinny, was called a ‘walking encyclopedia’, and had a very unusual name.  On that last one I even got trouble from some teachers.

      The Daughter’s third grade teacher once tried to tell me that teasing stopped by the end of elementary school.  HA! I wish.

      1. For me, it lasted through High School.

        Hillary might have been bullied but learned to be a bully.

        1. My teasing started to end in high school because, somehow, I won the respect of the teasers. Might have been that they realized they actually wanted to pass classes and I could help them. Still wasn’t a bed of roses but it got better.

          1. I think that by high school I had finally learned for the most part not to care about the opinions of those who would tease me. Then, I discovered, that when you stop caring only a few rather sad characters continued to try teasing. There were still strong social pressures brought to bear by those who wanted to be at the top of the pack, but teasing was no longer the tool it had been, so it was discarded.

        2. Most of mine manged to turn into reasonable facsimiles of human beings by the time they were sophomores in high school. But not all.

      1. Yes. Knee-length, beautiful embroidery. Just because she had horrible taste to wear it for that speech doesn’t mean the jacket’s bad. Granted, I have no place to wear it to, and not enough pelf to buy it, but it was/is a beautiful garment. And it flattered her, which was rather unusual. She looks better in looser styles and longer jackets than she prefers to wear.

        I say that as someone who likes jacket styles that make me look shorter and that emphasize things that really don’t need more scrutiny.

  3. Kudos to you for sticking to your analysis. I had to stop reading your excerpts from her book about halfway through the article. I could only come back to them after I had taken some time to reorient myself. Even after seeing it there in black and white, it’s hard to believe someone is that arrogant and disconnected from reality.

    1. Sometimes with her it isn’t honest delusion, but a lie she has calculated you will believe. Or she knows you won’t believe, but that she expects you can’t prove is a lie.

    2. Oh, growing up in a household of Historians will make you very aware that history is FULL of despicable vermin as arrogant and delusional as Shrillary, and sometimes even with less reason. Most Spanish nobility. Bonnie Prince Charlie. Woodrow Wilson. And that isn’t even getting into the real Fascist Monsters of the 20th Century. Hillary isn’t even unusual enough to be anything but tiresome.

      1. And occasionally the arrogant monsters have been sort of good rulers in spite of being despicable humans – willing and able to work for the benefit of the country as whole, if bad juju for any individual citizens in it if they had the bad luck of getting in the ruler’s way in any way. Maybe because they would identify with the country they ruled and saw its prestige as theirs, or maybe when they could directly materially benefit from advancing their country.

        But she doesn’t seem to have even that quality to recommend her. It seems that to her her country should be her servant, and she does not identify with it in any way, so screw the country and Hillary for Hillary only.

          1. Yes but she’s special, because she basically has no accomplishments as a politician.

            One senate term and one term as SecState does not a career politician make, no matter what she thinks.

            1. And let’s not forget that, in terms of success as a First Lady when it comes to getting their special agendas through, she wasn’t very successful either. IIRC, after Bill was elected, she made noises about wanting to be appointed to, not a Cabinet position, but one where she could help make policy. Maybe it was creating a new post. It didn’t happen. So she tried to manipulate from behind the scenes and didn’t get nearly as much done as she wanted.

          2. Hmmm. Not as stupid as we could hope. Otherwise, she and Billy would never have been able to dodge the bullet all these years.

    3. As I’ve said before, it is like watching a train wreck. You know you shouldn’t but you do anyway. You can’t help yourself. As for having to stop and reorient yourself, trust me, I was kind. There was much more I could have quoted and didn’t. Had I, the post would have been closer to 7k words, some of it hers but a lot more snark. However, my family would have committed me because I was reading the chapter — at least parts of it — to them last night as I was writing the post. They were begging me to stop, not just for my sanity but for theirs as well.

      1. So “What Happened” Really ought to be titled “The Necrinomicon”?
        Hillary/Shoggoth 2020, Why vote for the lesser of two evils? I knew she looked familiar…

        1. Cthulhu looked upon the Earth and sighed. With humans like Hillary Clinton leading the charge to universal progressive socialism and communist tyranny; how could a mere deity-level evil being like himself compete?

  4. In fairness to Clinton, the matter of Fields does cause me to look more harshly on the Trump campaign. But I have doubts Clinton can usefully perceive anything beyond her own ego, much less something like that.

    I don’t frame the Fields issue in terms of some bizarre theory of the sexes. I already had reservations about apparent ideas regarding power, strength, responsibility, etc…

    Clinton isn’t exactly a plaster saint where those are concerned either.

    1. Or maybe a fantasy tale with an evil sorceress as the main baddie – the ugly non-sexy old hag variety, not the seductress – in which she is thoroughly and embarrassingly beaten by the heroes. Preferably one where she gets made fun of. Can’t think of any good examples right now, but maybe somebody could. 😀

    2. Don’t worry, I have a nice economics book sitting on my bedside table ready to go. And, trust me, for me to read economics, you know I need something very different from what I have been reading. It is most definitely not my favorite subject to relax with.

      1. Well, who doesn’t love them some Thomas Sowell, some Walter Williams, some Milton Friedman? Of a certainty you can be sure an economics text will bear no point of contact with Hillary’s tome.

        1. LOL. It is one of Sowell’s and I expect the only point of contact with HRC’s book is if they somehow managed to get placed side-by-side in the bookshelf.

  5. . . . she described a childhood that wasn’t anything “special”. She grew up in a two-parent home, went to church, always had a roof over her head, etc. “It’s a story that many would consider perfectly ordinary. . .

    Many people dream of growing up in a two parent home and always having a roof over their head.  While it may not seem so to her to qualify as special, it is something for which to be thankful. Instead she seems dismissive of her good fortune.

    She wants a tale of drama, misery and victimhood.  She got it through her own choices. Somehow it has failed to render her a sympathetic character.

    1. She could not embrace, nor convince others of her being, a ‘Jane Average’ which would have gone over so better. Granted, she needed to have started that many, many years ago. And mention that yes, there was good fortune and good circumstance… but if you let that go to your head.. you wind up… oh right, exactly where she is now.

      1. Frankly she could have spun it as: ‘I was so fortunate to grow up … and I want to make it possible for more children to have this experience.’ She didn’t. Instead she whinges about her good fortune and good circumstances. Constant whingeing is unattractive when you have reason. She is thankless and clueless.

      2. See she didn’t even have the privilege of growing up a victim of divorce. Instead she got a perfectly normal two parent family. She didn’t even grow up poor. Imagine that?

        1. Hrmm… I had the two parent family.. not sure I’d make any claims for normal, perfectly or otherwise. It was fun, I will say. In fact, there are times now I muse that I really should be having more fun than I am. But now I’m living inside city limits, with neighbors close, and that’s… limiting for things that really do not affect, let alone actually harm, others, but are somehow illegal or at least frowned upon anyway.

    2. In her circle, “average two-parent home” is considered a disadvantage. To be a part of the good crowd, one must have victim points. A fashionable racial background, a tale of poverty and abuse, or a non-cis preference.
      The other road is to be the spawn of a politically powerful family.

      Either way, Hillary saw that background as being a bad thing, a contamination, a thing to be set aside. She’s so out of touch that it did not occur to her to turn it to her advantage, as a touchstone for the common folks.

      1. She rather does sound as somebody who have always been envious. Of the rich kids, or of kids with powerful parents who would get their roads to power made smooth and easy through their parents’ contacts and influence. Or, yes, maybe also envious of those poor kids who got to prestige schools and careers in spite of having had everything against them in the beginning. Not perhaps envious of the hardships, but thoroughly envious of the attention and admiration those individuals get. She, poor thing, was mediocre. Not the beauty, not the one admired for her struggle, not the one envied for her rich and powerful family. And she perhaps still feels that she has never gotten the attention and admiration she craved and still craves in spite of everything she HAS gotten. Because it is never enough, it never fulfills her need, she always wants more. She wants to be something unique. Something VERY special, the THE everybody else gets compared to. But instead she was just one of several others in the same position, then the wife of the important individual, then again one of several similar people… somebody who got noticed and achieved some prestige and got fans, but never stood out as THE one.

        1. The upper middle class can be hard, very hard. Close enough to see what the wealthy have, but not able to have it yourself. Able to shop in their stores, dine in their restaurants, but not able to buy more than an item or two a year, not “welcomed” by the restaurant owners the way the nobs are. Forever able to look through the window, never able to get inside.

          There are reasons so many of the leading terrorists have come from upper middle class families, sons of doctors and engineers.

          1. I think our resident wallaby has it cold. I went to a small private high school that had a fair number of upper and upper middle class folk. It was hard for me (lower middle blue collar parents) to cope with the envy, but I knew I wasn’t any way for me to get that I was lucky to get the education I did. But for the
            upper middle class there was the thought they could almost have it (or a close facsimile). They were fairly bright and hardworking, but they were never getting the lush treatment the upper class mediocrities (and that is over selling many of them, Monty Pythons upper class twit sketch is a documentary…) assumed was theirs for the taking. It made the mean girls meaner and the guys just bitter. HRC went to Wellesley I believe so that is the heart of the Rich girl nexus when she headed for college.

            1. I also went to a small private high school with a fair number of upper and middle class folk, but I certainly didn’t envy them. One of them, seeing me ride my bike to school every day (did wonders for my health, BTW), told me I should ask my parents for a car for my birthday. When I told her that wasn’t going to happen, she apologized profusely, but honestly, I found her reaction funnier than obnoxious. (She was a sweetheart, just naive as to fiscal realities—and a bit to the social dynamics thereof.)

    3. Exactly! When you read her blurbs on Bill’s and Obama’s lives, they focus on the “challenges” they faced and overcame. Because, duh, we want as our Presidents people who came from disadvantaged backgrounds. I don’t know about the rest of you, but I want someone who understands the challenges faced by the country, the needs of the country and who has at least some attachment to reality.

      1. No, I want my presidents et al to be normal people who understand normal life and can discern what factors go into creating normal life so they can promote those factors in abstemious public policy and get out of the way of the rest of the normal people making normal life happen nationwide. Not that that’s what we are ever offered ….

      2. I think it’s because so many are looking for HEROES. And heroes have a story. If you don’t have a story, how can you be a hero?
        Whereas so many of us are just looking for a non-tyrant.

    4. So ordinary that it required her to make up crap like being named for Sir Edmund Hillary. Very Walter Mitty of her – without all of his endearing qualities.

  6. Somebody take the silly twunt out behind the woodshed and tan her hide, while explaining why she – and delusional, narcissistic ‘Feminists’ like her – have set the cause of Womens’ rights back at least a decade.

    If I believed in reincarnation (I’m intrigued, but unconvinced) I would predict several lifetimes as a slug.

    1. Over achiever that she is, Hillary has done for women’s rights much the same as what her buddy Obama did for racial equality and justice.
      As for that trip to the woodshed, I do believe that was taken care of by the electoral college in early November last year. And what her own party is doing to distance themselves from a rather pathetic failure is simply icing on a whomping big schadenfreude cake.

      1. I’m torn about the Democrat establishment ‘distancing’ themselves. In the first place, I’m unconvinced that’s what’s gong on. This could be a ‘get it out of the way, so she can be fresh for the Convention in 2020’ ploy. In the second place, I’m half convinced that if they run Shrillary again in 2020, they’ll do themselves enough damage that some peole,with some goddamned sense might start to take the party back. There used to be a few on the D side….

        1. I think whoever in Democrat party who supports Bernie Sander’s vision of what America should be are the ones going after Clinton. Non socialists, and those who think Clinton was terrific, are the ones who are acting as palace guard and protecting her.

          1. Despite the degree that I despise the Democrat establishment I really think there are more kinds of Democrats than ‘the usual suspects’ and ‘complete Socialist nitwits’. I hope so, anayway. Because, love them though I do, the Libertarian Party isn’t ready to step up as one of the two Bigs.

        2. Considering I read an article in Salon this morning about why we should not only assume Hillary is the rightful candidate in 2020 but why we should vote for her, I’m afraid you are right — on both points.

          1. At this point, I’m hoping Trump does really well, and Hillary *does* run again, I’d love to see her get completely trounced. One state would be nice.

            1. With her health she may very well croak in the middle of that run. If she even lives long enough to start it.

              Heh. Something that might be worse for her than totally losing to Trump: it looks like she has a chance. It looks like she may have an excellent chance. Everything points towards a win this time. And I mean everything.

              And her health betrays her on the last moment. She doesn’t die but has a stroke or something else which totally disqualifies her for the job. Some other candidate runs in her stead and loses to Trump. And she spends the rest of her life convinced that if she had been able to run she would have won, finally.

              1. How about a massive stroke or something that causes her eyes and nose to bleed, smack in the middle of the first debate.

                Y’know, if I felt this way about amhuman being, I would feel ashamed….

                1. Given those nasty coughing fits, the collapsing and the weakness I would say HRC has less than a 50/50 chance of making it to 2020 in condition to run at all. There’s a bunch of possible explanations and there isn’t one of them that has a good even mid term prognosis for a 70 year old even with superior medical care.

          2. I read the same article as well. Considered linking it but two things stopped me. One, it was Salon. Two, I believe we have enough snark bait as it is and we don’t need to be punished by stupidity any more.

              1. Steven Hayward of Power Line gives the highlights:

                WILL WE EVER BE RID OF HILLARY?
                Don’t say I haven’t been warning you that Hillary Clinton’s desire for the White House is akin to Gollum’s obsession with the One Ring of power. If you need some weekend amusement, check out Salon‘s case for Hillary in 2020:

                1. Hillary Clinton is the Winston Churchill to Vladimir Putin’s Adolf Hitler.
                [SNIP]
                2. Hillary Clinton being elected president (at last) would monumentally piss off misogynistic trolls, and what’s not to like about that?
                [SNIP]

                There’s much more, but you get the idea. I really can’t tell whether this piece is an attempt at droll satire, but Salon isn’t very good at satire, so I expect this is meant seriously.

                I hope she runs. My long position on popcorn futures will come in yuuge.

                1. On point #1, is that equating Benghazi with Gallipoli? That seems unfair to Churchill.

                  Churchill was also a much much much much better writer than Hillary. It would be tedious to list the greatest historians of the last 150 years, so let us simply acknowledge that any such list would have Winston near the top and Hillary well below the cut-off.

                2. Winston Churchill risked his life multiple times, and actually had accomplishments under his belt before he became Prime Minister.
                  When has Hillary Clinton done anything that she believed would be risky to herself in the slightest?

                3. I had to stop reading that Salon piece of crap. How dare they. How fricking dare they. Hillary Clinton as Churchill.
                  I live in Europe. When I go on holiday inside the EU I sometimes visit the Mediterranean. One of those countries on that sea used to be Libia. Except that country doesn’t exist anymore and in place we have a place that actually has slave-markets again. We have litteraly gone back to the time of Caesar when there were pirates in the Mediterranean.
                  And Hillary was smack dab in the middel of that “regime change”.
                  It also did two hilarious in a tragic way things:
                  1) It showed every despot and dictator on this planet what happens when you try to play nice with the International community. You give up your weaponsprogram and a few months later you die by getting sodomized with a bayonet( no I am not joking). No wonder North-Korea doesn’t want to give up its program.
                  2) It showed the real face of certain people and movements. I have seen the peace-movement cry and protest for eight years under Bush II. And when Obama got elected they folded their banners and rallying-cries in a day.
                  Syria is a clusterfuck where everybody gets some of the blame. But Libia is all Obama and Hilary. And how many protest-ralies have I seen: zero.

                  We saw how she reacted when she heard that Kadaffi died: bloodthirsty and spitefull. Never ever forget that.

          3. I know the pride themselves on their Liberal Intelligence (is that like military intelligence?) but Salon has never much impressed me. I didn’t know they had (politically) suicidal tendencies, though.

          4. IMHO, anyone who says, “But I deserve the Presidency!” has just disqualified themselves from anything elected office other than Grand Marshall of a county parade.

            1. Saying “I deserve the presidency” is akin to saying “I deserve execution by being stomped by elephants.” It may be true but it is not something a wise person asserts.

    2. “If I believed in reincarnation (I’m intrigued, but unconvinced) …. ”

      Forget to mention that I do believe in reincarnation and I reckon the Clintons will come back as lice that live in a cat’s a**hole.

      1. Buddhism allows for reincarnation as inanimate objects (see “the single drop of rain” in the song “The Highwayman”).

        I could see the Clintons spending a few incarnations as H and He molecules dropping into a black hole.

        1. Too easy. They do need to come back as humans. As humans who end up serving others their whole lives. Hillary maybe something like a cleaner in some rich woman’s household, hubby as a trash collector or similar. Something they’d find humiliating and beneath themselves even in their new lives, but they can’t get out of for whatever reasons, and have to do to keep themselves fed and clothed. In some country perhaps where there is no good social services and which has strict class divisions. 3:)

          1. How about coming back as a yazidi girl taken as a sex slave of ISIS (or whatever is running that game at that time)? I don’t know what would be appropriate for HRC … a camel currier?

            1. If karma has a role in reincarnation, then I could see Bill ending up like this … between his known indiscretions, the various alleged rapes and his trips on the Lolita express, I can make a good argument for a future for him as a sex slave (or at least abused). Hillary …. hm … daughter of a lower class man in a Muslim country from whom her foundation took money so she can experience life in a true patriarchal society gets close to what she needs to atone for after this lifetime.

            2. Requires that ISIS etc still be operational at least 6 years after her current incarnation’s death. Not worth it.

  7. Why am I seen as such a divisive figure and, say, Joe Biden and John Kerry aren’t? . . . I’m really asking. I’m at a loss.

    John Kerry with his public positions on Vietnam and his claims of service — there was nothing divisive about that was there? NOT!

    Oh yeah, it was the people who questioned Kerry that the party accused of being divisive …

    1. The thing that got to me about Kerry was that even a gram of sense could have spared him all that grief. Hold a press conference – EARLY, mind – and say something like “When I came back from Vietnam I was a very angry man, and I did some things, said some things, and associated with some people that I now regret.”. All done. Any embarassing questions about testifying before Congress in the company of known frauds, pre-defused. All that would have been left was another shmoo trying to game the military system and come out on the other side with all him limbs.

      Bush did something similar. Early on he had a press confernce where he said he was an alcoholic, hadn’t had a drink in years but he was an alcoholic and always would be. Then, when some fool dredged up that DUI conviction he didn’t even answer it himself. A press agent said “He told you he was an alcoholic. What did you think he meant.”

      Kerry was unqualified to be President because he had clearly shown he had the foresight of a concussed bee.

      1. John Kerry was unqualified to be president not because he lacked foresight, which I agree that he does, but because the stupid schmuck still thinks he was right to do what he did…

        Aside from the fact that he lacks the necessary political acumen to know what would get him elected, the sanctimonious bastard still thinks he behaved correctly in Vietnam, and during the aftermath of his service there. That alone indicates a truly mind-boggling lack of a grasp on reality, and an essential inability when it comes to self-awareness. Everything that Kerry said about the North Vietnamese government was proved to be a lie in the aftermath of the ’75 invasion, and he and his ilk steadily ignored that set of facts, while very carefully not mentioning it, ever.

        Now, had the silly beggar stood up, made that speech about Vietnam, and then said “We were wrong…”? Different kettle of fish, entirely.

        But, ain’t none of them ever going to do something like that. Ever.

        1. If I thought Kerry was actually an anti-Vietnam War True Believer, I would agreemwith you. I think he was positioning himself for a political career. Served in a war? Check. Joined the popular anti-war movement? Check. Testified before Congress with the expected indignation about a Big Cause? Check. Wrote a book about his ‘awakening’? Check.

          But if hemwas going to play the game that way, he really needed to keep adapting to ongoin social currents. That he apparently didn’t forsee that his previous posturing was a promblem he had to difuse pretty much made him top out at Double ‘A’ level play.

          1. You forgot the part where he married a catsup heiress.

            I like the kid who went and became a blacksmith. You honor your manufacturing roots, you get away from your annoying relatives; and if paparazzi visit, you always have heavy machinery, blades, and fire handy.

          2. “That he apparently didn’t forsee that his previous posturing was a promblem he had to difuse pretty much made him top out at Double ‘A’ level play.”

            I didn’t need any help to cross Kerry off my list the day he announced, but the Swiftboat Veterans sealed the deal.
            To this day, Democrats use the term “swiftboated” to mean “an erroneous slandering of a candidate,” rather than the correct “revelation of truth” that it was.

      2. For me, he showed his absolute disdain for the entire situation by saying (more or less) “I did my duty in the military, then came home to protest *Nixon’s* war in Vietnam.”

        Just, just…no, okay?

        1. Nixon’s war.. the one started with/by Kennedy and escalated by Johnson? (Yes, Ike had a few folks there, but Ike seemed to have had this idea that advisors would… advise. )

            1. I suspect you all know what picture this is – I couldn’t get it to come up separately from the post.
              https://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/kerrysign.asp

              On 30 October 2006, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts touched off a pre-election political firestorm with a comment he made while at a campaign rally for California gubernatorial candidate Phil Angelides at Pasadena City College. There, while speaking from prepared remarks to a group of students, he said,

              “You know education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.”

              1. yep, because Kerry seemed to think that the armed forces were still a bunch of draftees that couldn’t get into college.

        2. I love how Vietnam was ‘Nixon’s War”. Not LBJ’s. Certainly not JFK’s. Not even Eisenhower’s (Ike did send a few ‘observers’). Nixon’s.

          The Left never, ever forgave Nixon for defeating Helen Douglas. They got all slippery in their shorts over her. And she was as nasty an unrepentant Stalinist as you could hope to avoid meeting.

    2. But you don’t understand. No one understands how hard she had it. People were mean to her. People wanted her imprisoned just because she lied and turned her back on her own people. We betrayed her if we were female and didn’t vote for her. Just ask her, she’ll tell you.

  8. I had left the State Department one of the most admired public servants in America.

    In which alternative universe?

    1. One of the ones where some event creates a lot of Hillary Clinton duplicates, they take over US government, and things somehow last.

      1. Those are extremely unlikely.

        What is more common are the universes where there are thousands of Hillary Duplicates who start fighting to determine which of them is the True Hillary.

        In some cases, the world is greatly damaged by the Hillary Wars but in a few cases the rest of the world is able to contain the fighting so peace occurs. 😉

          1. I’m afraid even Harry Turtledove, John Birmingham and L. Sprague DeCamp couldn’t make those alternate histories interesting. Perhaps leave it to Ms. Swirsky who would maybe reincarnate her as a utah raptor.

    2. Well, sort of. As I recall, Hillary’s approval numbers were pretty high at State. “One of the most admired public servants” might have been an exaggeration, but not as much of one as it seems right now. I don’t know if the numbers were still that high when she left, given that Benghazi had just happened, but for the most part, she was doing a lot better than she did before or after.

      The reason for that is what she identified in one of the earlier chapters. At State, she was merely a bureaucrat carrying out Obama’s policy. We all knew that we weren’t going to get a John Bolton or anyone like that from Obama; Hillary was far from the worst possible choice. Frankly, even I didn’t mind her so much there. The problem was when she left, she went back to being a political player and reminded everyone of how odious she was.

      In essence, while she was at State, she was at a distance from the usual political maneuverings, and as Juan Peron sang:

      “Distance lends enchantment, and that is why
      “All exiles are distinguished.”

      Pity that Hillary couldn’t find job satisfaction in Paraguay.

      1. I somewhat agree with this, and I’ve been confused over how much of a beating she gets over Benghazi. I remember some discussion early on (okay, rumors) that when it was all happening she was pushing Obama to send in the troops and got ragingly pissed off when she was ignored, to the point of trying to figure out a way around him.

        Which I can far more believe of her than not paying attention to what was going on during the attack.

        1. She of the “3 AM call” claim failed her own claim. And even if she had been attempting to get things right, it was her behavior in the aftermath that just screamed coverup didn’t help at all.

          1. There really isn’t anything in her period at the State Department and afterwards that does not scream ‘coverup’: Setting up a private email server when starting the job as SecState in direct contravention to established DoS IT policy, which IT policies being in place to provide compliance with legally mandated record-retention and FOIA stuff, in and of itself is a premeditated coverup, and speaks to what she thought she would be doing as in that job.

            Subsequently following through by securely wiping the email servers just confirms she did in fact accomplish things she needed to hide to avoid prosecution.

            1. Those servers were maintained simply as a convenience and contained nothing of significance, and she did ot wipe them of any and all incriminating documents — she had her lawyers do it for her. That way she can maintain attorney-client privilege.

        2. She refused to accept responsibility for it, she refused to blame Obama for it, either of which potentially could have caused Obama to lose in 2012. If the blame lies outside of the Executive, some foreign actor is responsible and must be punished. (Perhaps starting with razing the town to the ground.) If the blame lies inside of the executive, you can avoid needing to carry out a Mongol style reprisal if you openly, clearly, and swiftly punish the people responsible. That didn’t happen because she was busy playing hide the blame.

          The unpunished death of an Ambassador did more to undermine the institution of Diplomacy than anything Bush did, and perhaps will do so more than anything Trump does.

          1. Heh. Imagine the furor had she resigned in protest of his inaction.

            After the re-election, of course. She could have then spent the second term running as a “realistic” critic of Obama/Kerry foreign policy dreams and might have easily won the 2016 race. She wouldn’t have even had to be an effective critic, a mere stalking horse, defining the bounds of “responsible” criticism, could have sufficed.

            Certainly it would have widened the tightrope she had to walk in her Benghazi testimony before Congress. “The president was convinced that there was no way too get relief to those poor trapped souls. It was heartbreaking, watching the drone video (choked sob) but there was no other choice than to contain the damage inflicted by our treacherous Libyan allies.”

            1. It wouldn’t have worked, though. The e-mails reveal that it was her own department – including her – that was pushing the hardest for the argument that a video was the cause of the attacks. All that Obama would have had to do is to “accidentally” leak those e-mails, and then point out that he bravely resisted the State Department on this point (remember that he used the debate with Romney to advance the false narrative that he had never claimed the video was responsible), and that Hillary was the one responsible for the lie.

              I don’t think there was ever a safe way for her to bring up Benghazi.

            2. If she had done that, Handsy Uncle Joe would have run in the D primaries.

              Not crossing the O was the price for her unopposed coronation run, which is why they pulled out all the stops on Bernie.

            3. Another problem with that bit, besides the one junior gave, is that Hillary couldn’t have afforded to be considered a critic of the Obama administration. She needed to keep the Obama-philes on her side if she was going to have any hope of winning. If she ran as the anti-Obama, large numbers of them simply not voting could have been enough to sink her.

          2. “She refused to accept responsibility for it”

            One lesson the Liberal Left never seems to be able to learn; if you screw up and you won’t accept responsibility in your hands, there’s a very good chance it will be rammed up your backside.

        3. I don’t know what she was doing during the attack. But after the attack, she was one of those pushing the “video” narrative about the reason for the attack.

        4. She gets the beating because she didn’t push to increase security when it was requested, she lied when questioned about what happened and why it happened and then she doubled down on her lies. She worried more about her own neck and career than she did about making sure our country did right by those who had been put at risk by her failure to act responsibly.

          1. Not to mention the fact that after ignoring the requests for increased security, she had the gall to refer to the Ambassador as “my dear friend Chris” when the coffins were brought back.

      2. Attributed to Mark Twain: ‘There are lies, damn lies and statistics.’ Then there are polls.

        I am never very confident about the results of polling. I no longer agree to talk to pollsters. (I gather a growing number of people no longer want to talk to them.) I have been polled, and I noticed that the questions asked are all too often constructed to push a particular answer.

        1. Oh, if I have the time I would LOOOOOVE to talk to pollsters. I would wreck so many curves. I’m a Crank. I just love to play with pointed little heads.

          They don’t come out my way much. And when I run into them it’s usually on a busy errand run, when I don’t have the time or the energy to play.

          1. I was recently Rasmussened. Each question had either a binary response — yes/no, right direction/wrong direction — or a scalar one: strongly approve, somewhat approve, unsure, somewhat disapprove or strongly disapprove.

            There is very little opportunity to get into nuance or to challenge the underlying premises of the question, or respond, “Damn right I think the country is going in the wrong direction; it is still much too far Left!”

        2. When reality doesn’t agree with your predictions, you look at the basis of your predictions to see where you went wrong. The reality of 2016 didn’t agree with the predictions, so logically they should have examined where they went wrong. They haven’t, so therefore they have no credibility.

        3. I usually don’t mind talking to pollsters. But most of the ones I talk to are generally involved in message-crafting. Or in other words, they ask about which candidate running for a specific office or offices you like, run through a bunch of sample political slogans for one or more of the candidates and ask you which slogans you like the best, and then ask you again about which of the candidates you like. So it gives me an opportunity to try and push candidates to offer more conservative messages.

          1. I got one once who had questions like, “If we told you that Candidate X did [negative thing], would that affect your voting?” I kept repeating that I would research the issues myself, and didn’t mention that they were actively trying to circumvent the laws against slander.

    3. You have to understand, in her circle being a lawbreaking, influence peddling, arrogant bitch makes you a sharp operator who knows her onions, and much admired.

      Which is why not electing any of her friends is also a good idea.

        1. Or letting her appoint her friends to high administrative and judicial office. Never mind the woman herself; her appointees would have uprooted the Constitution.

    4. In fairness to HRC (and in respect to her PiC’s ability to parse the meaning of “is”) I believe her statement to be truthful, as she does not say by whom she was admired. Sure, not by the general public nor even the American voter, but she was highly admired by the people who count, by Herself, by Huma, by the Washington and NY press corps …

      She cannot be expected to concern Herself with the opinions of divisive deplorable people, people who – if they even attended college – graduated from state colleges, now can she?

      1. sorta like there was 0bama’s Healthcare Plan, and there was what actually got passed. HE never wrote a word of the ACA.
        Just ignore that he took ownership when he signed it into law.

    5. The one Hollywood created for her, with shows like Madame Secretary.

      I mean, really, a three-season campaign ad? Doesn’t that violate some regulation?

  9. I’m sorry, I thought this was a biography. Not a piece of modern fantasy fiction. Then again, HRC has always been out of touch. 😝

    1. It’s a classic Mary Sue fanfiction of the 2016 election. In this case, subtype Canon Sue. The author is a huge fan of a character who was really pretty awful in the original work, so she’s re-written events to explain how we all just don’t UNDERSTAND the Mary Sue, she’s so brilliant and talented and has all these amazing abilities that she never showed in the original for some reason, and it’s so UNFAIR that people are being so MEAN to her.

  10. She writes about how Trump followed her around, breathing down her neck and how it made her skin crawl.

    Anyone remember how Hillary Clinton moved up in the poles when she managed to cash in, with the media’s help, after Rick Lazio’s ‘aggressiveness’ and ‘invasion of her personal space’ during their first New York Senate debate?  

    Apparently she is confused because she couldn’t pull it off twice.

    Also, anyone remember how George W Bush handled the ‘Alpha male’ posturing by Al Gore during their first debate? 

  11. “She writes about how Trump followed her around, breathing down her neck and how it made her skin crawl. . . But she didn’t know how to handle the situation.”

    As the head of the country’s diplomatic corps, she surely should have known how to handle such a situation. If she were any good at that job, that is.

    1. “[H]ad I told Trump off, he surely would have capitalized on it gleefully.  A lot of people recoil from an angry woman, or even just a direct one.”

      Yeah.  This is why Dame Margaret Thatcher was such a failure.  NOT!

      O.K., I’ll give her the angry, particularly if they are throwing things.  But then again I don’t think angry works for men that well either.

      If HRC cannot manage to find a way to deal with people who are disinclined to deal with women she was not the right candidate for our time.  Why?  Simple.  What is one of the greatest international problems we face?  Islamic Extremism.  If she can’t deal with the bravado of an American male who does business with women, how is she going to deal with a culture that wishes to keep women veiled?

      1. She can’t. Her world-view would probably shatter and take what’s left of her sanity with it if she were forced to admit that the Islamists want to kill people and enslave those they don’t kill or who don’t submit and convert fast enough. And that includes her, and her daughter, and every other Westerner.

  12. My mom was burn her bra feminist at university during the late 1960’s and she absolutely loathes Hillary Clinton.

    My mom remembers Anita Hill hearings, she believed Thomas was innocent, but at least sexual harassment at workplace was being discussed in public. And then the Clintons came along shortly after and sexual harassment at workplace discussion became verboten and women’s issues became abortion and focusing on your career, not family or spiritual life. And the Democratic Party was gearing up to force Clinton to resign as President when Lewinsky thing broke but plans all stopped when Hillary stood by her man.

    Anyways, my mom thinks Hillary Clinton is an enabler of a predator who does not remotely represent the best of women. My sister told me my mom phoned her around midnight on election day last november and sang ‘ding dong the witch is dead’ for thirty seconds and then hung up phone.

    1. Your mom and my mom are in perfect agreement about HRC. Mom would like nothing more than for Hillary to announce she was retiring to do nothing more than play grandma to her grandkids and would never again be in the public eye. Oh, and she’d have to follow through or, under Mom’s rules, she’d be forcibly removed from the public eye for the rest of her life.

      1. What have her grandchildren ever done to you that you hate them so…?

        I get the most ghastly frisson of horror, imagining a few hours alone with a “grandmother” like her, as a small, helpless child. Not even scions of hers deserve such, nor do Webb Hubbell’s… Bill’s might, but I kinda-sorta suspect he may well be sterile, or there’d be a bunch more kids out there that looked like him.

        1. That was my first reaction, too. I think there are stautes barring such abuse of children.


          On the other matter … Chelsea does have a certain resemblance to Vince Foster …

  13. On a personal note, I’ll admit my sanity and my liver almost didn’t make it through this chapter.

    Good Heavens, how much more of this is there?
    I don’t recall scotch coming in 6-packs, but… there might be a market.

    1. I understand that alcoholism is rampant in the cadre of slush pile editors. How this dreck ever got published is a mystery.
      Oh wait, social progressivism and name recognition do still count for a great deal in the trad pub biz.

      1. The slush pile sees only the lowly. THIS wafted directly to the chief editor’s desk — and even he probably didn’t have to read it.

    2. When my Father-in-Law was forced to cut off hard liquor he gifted us with his collected single malts (family is entitled to several plaids and takes its scotch seriously) he packed them for us in some lovely cloth bags, each divided into six “pockets” to keep the bottles from clanking.

      https://www.amazon.com/Reusable-Bottle-Wine-Tote-Pack/dp/B002JURAIO/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&qid=1511552236&sr=8-8&keywords=6+bottle+wine+tote
      So yes, Virginia, scotch does come in six-packs.

    3. I am not quite halfway through. But the next chapter doesn’t have more than a sentence or two worth considering including in the next post. I don’t remember about the chapter after that. Honestly, so much of it is now a repeat or variation on what she’s already written that a lot of it can be skimmed and tossed out without further consideration.

      1. Are you saying an appropriate summary could be phrased: “Blah-blah-blah Deplorable. Blah-blah-Russia, blah-blah-blah robbed, blah-blah Sexism! Blah-blah-blah Trump is undeserving.”?

          1. With sub-headings of “I’m not to blame”, “Obama”, “Biden”, “you should have voted for me” and “Bernie didn’t play the game”.

  14. When I saw the title of the post, I assumed that Her Shrillness was unloading on President Bubba. Let me get this straight; she’s blaming her loss on Trump, as if he was supposed to HELP HER WIN?!?!? Gallantly step aside and let her walk all over him?

    W.T.F?

      1. My impression is that was what the Clintons thought the deal was that they were finalizing in their meeting with Trump before he announced, and they now feel they were double-crossed.

        1. To be quite honest with you, I was pretty sure that Trump was supposed to be the designated guy to take the fall, and then the kayfabe broke.

          Wouldn’t surprise me a bit if that was at least a little true, and that he might have played the role “properly”, if the vote had gone the other way. As it didn’t, well… We’ll likely never know. But, I still kinda wonder if maybe he wasn’t either playing them, or if he was a little surprised when he did win. The argument he was surprised could well be supported by the relatively poor preparation they made for victory, in terms of being ready to go with forming the administration.

          There are some conversations I’d really love to have been a fly on the wall for, not the least the one where they had to break it to Hillary that she’d lost her ass to the guy she most wanted to run against, and who she’d done everything to set up as the Republican nominee…

          1. I think an argument could be made that all those resources expended by HRC, Inc. in advance of her “inevitable” victory to prebuild her new administration should in retrospect properly have been directed towards actually, you know, winning.

            I am ongoingly and eternally grateful that the campaign of the Dowager Empress of Chappaqua did no such thing, wasting effort all over the board and ignoring advice from experts, so that she could lose so satisfyingly. It’s really the gift that just keeps on giving.

            1. And yes, I would dearly love to see a recording (or even just hear – just one cell phone switched on in a pocket, anyone, anyone, Bueller?) of the “Madam Secretary, there’s no longer any chance for you to win – Trump will be the next Pres… No, Madam Secretary, put down that lamp! Bill, look out!…” meeting in the glass ceilinged Hillary Celebration Central Victory HQ before they trotted what’s-his-name out to tell the the sobbing crowds to go home.

  15. One of the more pathetic things (and it’s a long list, trust me) about the segment discussed in this article is that her comment about Trump invading her personal space during the debate is a) bullshit, and b) easily disprovable bullshit.

    Secondary camera angles clearly showed that he was no where near her. It’s only from one particular angle (which of course is the one that just had to be featured by a media known for being fair and impartial… *cough*bullshit*cough*) that he looked close to her.

  16. Good God, she’s completely clueless and so full of herself.

    Amanda, I don’t know how you do it. I need a drink or five just from reading the snippets you’ve posted. Argh!

      1. I think now that you are halfway through the thing she needs to change it to shilling for your liver replacement fund!

  17. This seems like a good time to once again bring up the NYU production that recreated parts of the 2016 Presidential Debates, but gender-flipped the candidates.

    https://tinyurl.com/h679u73This

    tldr –

    The creators and audience mostly went into this thinking that it would reaffirm their opinion that the debates were stacked against Hillary due to her gender. While watching the production, they realized otherwise.

    1. I like the bit about “I never realized how creepy the smiling all the time was” comments from the partisan left audience members about the Male-Hillary character in the play. That was one of the first things that struck me: They had obviously screwed up the plastic surgery, or the Hillary campaign-bot ended up with a stuck servo that smile circuit, or something, but that inappropriate smile always looked very creepy to me on the original as well.

  18. … the flagrantly sexist candidate won.

    That would be the one whose basic campaign message was rooted in voting for Her because of Her gender, whose victory would mark breaking of a glass ceiling? The one who felt entitled to the votes of Her “sisters,” so much so that those who voted against their genitals betrayed her, themselves and generations to come?

    No wonder she’s confused.

  19. I wish so badly we were a country where a candidate who said, “My story is the story of a life shaped by and devoted to the movement for women’s liberation” would be cheered, not jeered. But that’s not who we are. Not yet.

    More of a yawn, or perhaps a point and a snicker. I understand that your worldview is often shaped by the zeitgeist when you come of age, but this is no longer the late ’60s/early ’70s, Ms. Clinton. Y’all have had the franchise for nearly a century. You can no longer be put in jail for obtaining birth control. The fact that I don’t want to pay for your sisters’ ‘family preventplanning doesn’t meant that I’m ‘oppressing’ you any more than the fact that I don’t want to pay for my brother’s vasectomy means I’m ‘oppressing’ him.

    Maybe it’s not who we are *anymore*.

  20. When I heard that the Democrat establishment was throwing over Sanders in favor of Her Shrillness, my first thought was thought was “Bozo the clown was unavailable?”. Nothing that has happened since has changed that initial puzzlement.

  21. her solution for this is to get the sexism out of politics. I might buy that if she hadn’t been one of those who stood by and watched her own party do to Sarah Palin and other conservative female political candidates what she now cries foul about.

    In defense of HRC, it is not an example of sexism, it is how the Left treats all “minorities” who dare resist the role the Left has cast them in. Remember how J. C. Watts’ Democrat opponent dug up an old picture of him, making him look like the archetypical “Angry Black Man”?


    Not the actual picture used, but enough to give you the idea.

  22. If you set yourself up as this huge champion of women’s rights, you have a responsibility to stop behavior like what she accuses Trump of doing.

    A review of the tape from that debate showed it was Hillary who invaded Trump’s space. Saying anything about it at the time would have called attention to the invalidity of her complaints.

    Besides, George W Bush had demonstrated how to eye-check an opponent when Al “Looming” Gore really had tried the space invading ploy sixteen years before.

  23. H. L. Mencken once suggested that the country could save itself a lot of annoyance if the climax of very inauguration saw the losing candidate(s) thrown off the top of the Washington Monument.

    Raise a glass to the Sage of Baltimore. Prophetic again.

    1. Every now and again, I find myself wondering what H.L. Mencken would make of today’s politics, and how he’d write the whole thing.

      On the other hand, were you to somehow bring him forward in time, and give him a briefing on what’s been going on over the last few generations, he’d likely throw up his hands, and say that there’s no way he can cope with the situation. It would be like the Onion, whose most outrageous stories from the recent past have been surpassed by current events…

        1. He certainly anticipated the Socialist Utopia:
          “Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.”

      1. Mencken lived through Wilson’s fantastically unconstitutional administration, and then FRD’s. Oh, we’ve gone tripping a good way down the garden path since, but I think he might be surprised we hadn’t got farther.

      2. I thought Mencken wanted to throw the winners off? On the idea that anyone who worked that hard to become President was someone you wanted nowhere the reins of power.

        1. No, I don’t think so. I believe that his thought was a reaction to Williams Jennings Bryan, who made almost a career out of being the failed Democrat cadidate for President (1896, 1900, and 1908, I believe).

    2. I don’t know. I think the world would be a poorer place without Bush 41 and Mitt Romney. I really have nothing against Bob Dole or John McCain. Even John Kerry, though I don’t like him much, hasn’t done anything to deserve that.

      No, really it’s just one, or possibly two, losing candidates in my lifetime…

      1. I’m not so sure about McCain. It’s possible that he was always like this, but it seems he got really bitter after the 2008 presidential election. He got cheated out of the nomination by Bush in 2000 (iirc, Bush did something during the primaries that McCain considered to be a dirty, underhanded stunt). And as a result, “his turn” ended up being in 2008, when events conspired to make it very difficult to win. He’s been a contrary troublemaker ever since, imo.

        The guy ran in 2010 on an ad that had him saying “Build the dang fence!”, and then promptly voted for amnesty. He most recently ran on overturning Obamacare, and yet has steadfastly refused to vote against it whenever it comes up for vote during the current Senate term. The more I see of him post-2008 election, the less I like him.

        1. I actually considered putting McCain in with Kerry (oh, and I forgot about Gore, he maybe should be in there too), but whatever the guy’s flaws, I don’t think the country would be better off by throwing him off the Washington Monument.

          It’s really just Hillary and Jimmy Carter that I think have been actively destructive as losing presidential candidates.

  24. Everything about Hillary Clinton can be summed up in one neat little package: she is completely incapable of understanding that there is nothing she deals with that is not common to all of humanity.

    1. Indeed, everything about Her Srillness can be put in a neat little package. The trouble is in convincing her to climb into a car compactor.

      And then fumigating it afterwards.

  25. I suspect, a century from now, Obama will be seen favorably. Not for any legislation or accomplishment (snort!), but for simply keeping Hillary Clinton out of the Oval Office in 2008 and 2012. No matter what buffoonery and bumbling he may have done, I will always be sincerely greatful to him for preventing the catastrophe of a Hillary Clinton presidency.

    For the day that corrupt vengeance-harpy ascended to the Oval Office, the Republic would certainly have fallen.

    1. I think that a century from now, they’ll all be long-forgotten. Assuming that there is anyone left to even remember that they might have been a memory, that is… We have still to get through the Great Filter, whatever that is, and I fear we’re on the cusp of finding out. Which will render this all meaningless, in the grand scheme of things.

      1. Read a thing saying ‘No, we can be pretty sure it wasn’t climate’, talking about Easter Island, and a bunch of other examples, which argued that perhaps the cause was contact between different cultures. (I don’t think I kept the link.)

        What I saw in the data presented could have also been interpreted as tin pot god kings shaping society in their image, then a societal backlash when it sees that they bleed like men. Hubris distorting things beyond what reality could bear, and thereby causing its own downfall.

        You make fancy palaces and tombs because people who’ve gotten into your head demand it, so you stop building them when you become disenchanted with it. Preference cascade, possibly precipitating by war or coup, but still maybe a preference cascade.

        I think that, think about modern society, about our golden calves, and ever more demanding priesthood.

        Nemesis is coming.

      2. I think that a century from now, they’ll be praised as the ones who enabled Iran’s conquest of the Great Satan.

        1. No. Islam cannot conquer us, not as presently constituted. And I’m not whistling past the graveyard; I’, actually scared of something I think is more likely and arguably as bad.

          What Islam CAN do is cause us to lose out temper. 9/11 didn’t do that, no matter how many hand-wringing liberal twits bemoaned how we were ‘lashing out in unreasoning anger’; Mecca still stands. But it could happen, and if it does we will start the slide down the ski-jump of tradition to full-bore Imperialism. It won’t be good for us. It will be worse for the Islamofools, but we don’t have the temperament. I can imagine Mecca as a faintly glowing sheet of glass, the Paleswineians driven into the sea, and the United States in control of most of the Middle East, and not getting out for a dozen generations.

          It won’t bother me much. I’m white, male, and past 50. By the time the tyrants start coming after the likes of me, I’ll be long gone. But the outlook for the Country isn’t good.

          1. For a long time the argument that any remaining unradioactive areas of the Middle East should be occupied by the US as a simple “control a critical national resource” effort, along the lines of what the Brits did in WWII in Persia, resonated with me. But now, with fracking and horizontal drilling together restoring the US to an oil exporting nation, I’d frankly let them stew in their own oils.

            If we don’t need what they have, and they lack the finances to FUD nastiness directed our way, they lose their significance.

  26. Actually I agree with Hillary. It is Trump’s fault. He kicked her ass like a boss.

    The best thing he did was ignore Hillary. He didn’t run against her at all. He ran against the media. It was beautiful, and I loved every minute.

    Particularly the part where the media lost, and Hillary lost. Watching those a-holes on TV have their meltdowns was AWESOME. Rachael Maddow losing her actual schlitz on live TV was most enjoyable. Here we are a year later and she’s still losing it. Sweet!

  27. As I read these articles by Amanda, I’m oddly reminded of that bit at the end of Star Trek II where Spock goes into the warp core containment area and starts repairing the drive while taking lethal doses of radiation.

    *bangs on the containment viewport*
    “AMANDA! DON’T DO IT! YOU’LL DIE! AMANDAAAAAAAAA!!!!”

  28. I just realized who Her Shrillness is. She’s Lucy Van Pelt all grown up, and festering. At least she didn’t manage to bully either Charlie Brown or Schroeder into marryng her.

      1. That reminds me.

        Don’t remember where I saw it but somebody had created a “trailer” for a “Charlie Brown goes serial killer” movie.

        All of the Charlie Brown characters (save for Snoopy) are played by teenagers with the Charlie Brown character shown as bald.

        Basically the Charlie Brown character is going after all of his “friends”. 👿

  29. Another result of Hillary’s cut-off cluelessness is that she thinks she’s some sort of Strong Woman archetype. Instead, her public presentation is a combination of “nagging mother-in-law”, “bitter ex”, “man hating womyns studies professor”, and “self absorbed pop diva”.

    1. Many on the Left suffer from the conviction that the label defines the contents. Thus if they label Hillary a “Strong Woman” she is one, by definition. Only the benighted deplorable plebes believe that there may be some discrepancy between the packaging and the contents. Stupid dogs cannot read label about how tasty and delicious the kibble is and insist on believing their own taste buds.

      1. Silly peasants don’t understand that packaging TOTALLY changes the contents of a blivot like Her Shrillness.

        No, guys, we just know 100lbs of wet manure in a sack designed to contain 50.

    2. And at least most self-absorbed pop divas were attractive or talented once. Take Streisand (please); good voice (once) and genuinely funny in WHAT’’S UP DOC.

      1. I remember driving home one afternoon, listening to a superb jazz vocalist on the radio and being astounded too learn it was Streisand.

        Before the stardom got to her head she could really sing!

        1. It’s a real shame her ego went toxic on her. WHAT’S UP DOC is one of the funniest films of its era. Her turn as Dolly Levi isn’t bad either. But by the ‘80’s she’d gone full on ego-witch.

    1. Salon’s case for Hillary 2020? I’m sorry, it’s gonna take more than a case, I’ll need a whole brewery distillery.

      Might make a good bumper sticker: A Distillery 4 Hillary

Comments are closed.