HRC: Idealism and Realism – by Amanda S. Green

Posted on by Sarah A. Hoyt

HRC: Idealism and Realism – by Amanda S. Green

Here’s a hint: these don’t mean the same thing for Hillary Clinton as they do for most of the rest of us.

When I started reviewing this book, I did it as a lark. Sarah and I had discussed whether or not one of us should do it and, somehow, we decided it should be me. I expected the book to be a dissection of the election season, biased to be true, but I thought I’d be reading about the time from when Clinton declared her candidacy to when she faced defeat on Election Night. Sure, I knew there would be a few forays into her past, especially her political past since that impacted the election. What I got bears little resemblance to expectations.

For the most part, I’ve reviewed one chapter at a time. Last week’s post covered two chapters. I thought that would be a one-off because of the subject of that part of the book. Nope. I was wrong. I cover two chapters this time as well. Why? Because so much of it is a repeat of what HRC already said. The stories might not be the same but the lead-in to them is as is the import. Yes, we know she started out as an advocate and activist. Yes, we know she cares deeply (her words) about women’s issues, health care issues, civil rights, children. She has made that perfectly clear in the first 200 pages of the book.

So why is she hitting these points so hard, time and time and time again? More to the point, why is she doing so in a book that is supposed to tell us what happened in the election season? I don’t know the answer, but I have my suspicion. That suspicion grew stronger as I read these two chapters. As I said before (I think it was in last week’s post), much of this book reads like her primer for running again for President.

Heaven help us.

One of the most persistent challenges I faced as a candidate was being perceived as a defender of the status quo, while my opponents in the primaries and the general election seized the sought-after mantle of “change”. The same thing happened to me in 2008. I never could figure out how to shake it. (Pg.195)

Earlier, HRC whined – er, complained — about how the voting public perceived her and how she couldn’t understand it. Once again, she does so. The fact there were voters more than willing to discuss the issue with her didn’t matter. She had her own mantle she proudly proclaims, that of advocate and activist. She pulls out her history of working for women’s rights, etc. Her basic message is simple: “How dare we not view her the way she views herself?”

Change might be the most powerful word in American politics. (And probably the most misused and tired word after 2008 – ASG) That’s part of what makes America great. But we don’t always spend enough time thinking about what it takes to actually make the change we seek. Change is hard. That’s one reason we’re sometimes taken in by leaders who make it sound easy but don’t have any idea how to get anything done. (pg. 195)

That is probably the only thing she’s said so far in the book I agree with. Of course, we’d disagree – strongly – on who and how to apply this to. I, and so many others, said it when Obama used “Change” as his keyword when he ran for President. I said it years ago when Bill Clinton ran, not to mention good ole Jimmy Carter.

In 1992 and 2008, change meant electing dynamic young leaders who promised hope and renewal. In 2016, it meant handing a lit match to a pyromaniac. (pg 195)

What HRC doesn’t take into consideration is that what she sees as needed “change” isn’t what a large number of the voting public thought was needed. She doesn’t get that her proposed policies alienate so many who actually go to the polls on election day. She has spent so many years in Washington DC and New York that she forgot what middle America held dear.

Of course, she tries to prove her case as the “candidate of change and understanding” by recounting how she supported many of the BLM leaders and their cause. “I respected how effectively their movement grabbed hold of the national debate.  . . and I was honored when they endorsed me for President. But I was concerned when other activists [within the movement] proved more interested in disruption and confrontation than in working together to change policies that perpetuate systemic racism.” (pg 201)

Yes, there are issues regarding race and law enforcement that need to be addressed. However, it bothers me when someone who claims to be such a concerned activists limits those reforms to one group or segment of our society. Still, HRC showed her own willingness to walk back from her stance that “it was time for public officials – and all Americans really – to stop tiptoeing around the brutal role that racism has played in our history and continues to play in our politics.” (pg 201) She does so very quickly when she recounts an encounter she had with several BLM supporters who came to see her speak one day.

You see, these folks did the unspeakable. They attacked one of Bill’s law enforcement bills while he was President. Instead of coming out and just saying they were right and the bill was flawed, she characterizes their condemnation of it as “oversimplified beyond recognition.” A number of paragraphs later, she finally admits not only that the bill was flawed but that it actually made the problem it sought to solve worse. Why she couldn’t just say that, I don’t know – except it was an attack on something that had the Clinton name associated with it.

As you can see, this chapter follows the same pattern as the previous several chapters. We hear about her as the activist and advocate. We see her meeting with those who need the system to “change”. But where do we hear about the campaign and the other candidates (except for her taking another swipe at Trump)? That’s simple: she finally gets to it on page 211, twelve pages into the chapter. That’s when she begins writing about the water problem in Flint, MI and one of the debates. This is when HRC finally showed some passion and her team was thrilled.

For months, we had been losing the “outrage primary”. Bernie was outraged about everything. He thundered on at every event about the sins of “the millionaires and billionaires.” I was more focused on offering practical solutions that would address real problems and make life better for people.” (pp 211-212)

In other words, she was boring while Bernie excited people. Sound familiar? But that’s about all. She was angry about the situation and her team was excited. That’s a perfect point where she could discuss how to use that to benefit her campaign – or discuss why she chose not to, right? Instead, we get another page plus of her walking down memory lane about a town hall meeting in New Hampshire in 2015 and Kids like Jaylon, the Children’s Defense Fund. Disjointed and incomplete, much like her campaign.

Now to “Sweating the Details”. HRC was excited to take part in the “Commander in Chief Forum” on the USS Intrepid, September 7, 2016. Sponsored by NBC and moderated by Matt Lauer (stop snickering), this wasn’t going to be a debate. Each candidate would be given half an hour to speak and answer questions. The other candidate would not be onstage at the time. Trump won the coin toss and chose to go last. That left good ole Hillary to face Lauer first. “I was confident that with a real focus on substance and a clear contrast of our records, Americans would see that I was ready to be Commander in Chief, and Donald Trump was dangerously unprepared.” (pg 218)

Lauer led off by asking HRC to discuss the most important characteristic the Commander in Chief can possess. Okay, am I the only one who could see where this was going before HRC answered? The problem is HRC didn’t see it. Instead, she left herself wide open to what would follow by discussing steadiness. Even when Lauer clarified her answer by saying “You’re talking about judgment,” she didn’t see what was about to happen. It was only when she saw his expression that she thought he might be about to ask or say something she wasn’t expecting.

Yep, you got it. E-mails.

It was disappointing but predictable that he had so quickly steered the supposedly high-minded “Commander in Chief Forum” to the subject of emails, months after the director of the FBI had announced there was no case and closed the investigation. (page 219) And therein lies part of the problem with HRC. She still doesn’t understand that the emails and her private server presented a problem for the American public. She didn’t get that we saw it as a security issue, no matter what the FBI director said. We saw it as a trust issue – remember all those erased emails? How many people remembered the erased Nixon tapes and wondered what HRC was trying to hide?

This was her chance to answer some of those concerns. Instead, by her own words, she “launched into my standard answer on the emails, one I’d given a thousand times before.” (page 220) She couldn’t be bothered to take a moment to respond to Lauer about it and that would soon bite her in the ass, something she really did not appreciate (and something she makes clear in the book).

Lauer turned to a question from one of the veterans NBC had picked to be in the audience. He was a self-described Republican, a former Navy lieutenant who had served in the first Gulf War, and he promptly repeated the right-wing talking point about how my email use would have landed anyone else in prison. Then he asked how he could trust me as President “when you clearly corrupted our national security?”

Now I was ticked off. (pp 220-221)

The lack of respect for a veteran fairly drips from the page. First, note what was more important to HRC – the fact he was a “self-described Republican”. I don’t remember whether he said that at the time he asked the question or if this is something her team dug up later. But that was more important that the fact he served in the Navy, was in the first Gulf War or anything else. She also left me with the feeling that she would have been happier if there had been no Republicans in the audience, much less allowed to ask her questions. Really open minded, isn’t she?

Then we are treated to a page or more about how Lauer was mean to her. He asked four follow-up questions about her emails. He didn’t ask a “policy” question until the end of her time and then didn’t give her time to really respond. She mourns the fact she hadn’t “pushed back hard on his question.” My question is simple. Why didn’t she? This is the same sort of excuse she’s made before in the book. She could have pushed back when Trump “invaded her space”. She could have pushed back now. But she didn’t. Why? And why should we want a Commander in Chief who won’t stand up for herself – or himself?

The telling statement comes after she spends more time complaining about how Lauer didn’t go after Trump the way he did her. “Sadly, though, millions of people watched.” (page 222) Wait, what? She would have preferred those millions of people not to watch, not to try to become informed on the issues and on the candidates they would soon be voting for or against? How much does it say about HRC that she would have preferred her less than stellar performance not to be seen?

There’s another swipe at Bernie – note the theme. It is never her fault.

No matter how bold and progressive my policy proposals were – and they were significantly bolder and more progressive than anything President Obama or I had proposed in 2008 – Bernie would come out with something even bigger, loftier, and leftier, regardless of whether it was realistic or not. That left me to play the unenviable role of spoilsport schoolmarm, pointing out that there was no way Bernie could keep his promises or deliver real results. (pp226-227) In other words, it was Bernie’s fault for playing her game better than she did. Riiight. There’s more, including the allegation that he’d promised not to make personal attacks and failed to carry through with that promise.

Now, remember back at the beginning of the post when I said I had my suspicions about why HRC really wrote the book? The last nine pages or so of the chapter deal almost exclusively with what HRC would have done in the first 100 days of her presidency as opposed to what Trump did. It reads like a campaign speech. It even includes digs at Trump’s appointments. But, above all that, it reads like a politician practicing her speech before going on the campaign trail.

One thing has become perfectly clear as I read this book. No, not that HRC is still bitter and angry that we weren’t smart enough to elect her President. No, it’s not that she isn’t smart enough to take the lessons she should have learned when she lost the nomination to Obama and applied it to the last election. It is that she lives in her own world of reality in which she is the star, the center of the universe. It is that she expects the world to mold itself to fit her sense of reality instead of taking the hard look at herself and asking the hard questions.

And, with the next chapter entitled “Making History”, I have no hope of that changing.

(You can find the other installments in this series at the following links: What Happened or How I Suffered for this Blog and had to Share, Grit and Gratitude, HRC Gets Caught Trying, A New Deal, A Square Deal or How She Wanted to be the Next Roosevelt, It’s All His Fault, and Turning Mourning into a Movement.)

[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]

314 thoughts on “HRC: Idealism and Realism – by Amanda S. Green”

      2. Exactly what it says. She doesn’t like the history we’ve got now, so she’s going to make a new one.

      4. “Making history?” Forget politics; this book needs to be filed in the *alternate* history section. Too bad she didn’t hire Harry Turtledove to ghost-write the thing; at least it’d be readable then.

  2. This was her chance to answer some of those concerns. Instead, by her own words, she “launched into my standard answer on the emails, one I’d given a thousand times before.”

    Possibly, if she had a bit of perspicacity, she would have realized that if she was still being asked questions about her emails then her standard answer which she had given a thousand times before was insufficient.

    1. Oh yeah. Of course, she still doesn’t seem to understand that. As I commented at the beginning of the post, reality doesn’t necessarily mean what she seems to think it does.

    2. The Queen thought it unfair that anyone dare question how she had run her email system in the first place.

      Someone really needed to say, “Okay, so it’s unfair. Suck it up, Princess, life isn’t fair, and whether you think you need to answer these questions or not, the voters clearly do. You’re going to have to come up with some explanation that satisfies them.”

      Can you imagine if she’d been elected and got to sit around whining about how “unfair” it was that people dare ask her about her policies on North Korea after she’s given her “standard answer a thousand times”?

      2. Her main problem seems to have been the failure to realize that she was no longer First Lady or Secretary of State, and that she couldn’t just wave her hand and make inconveniences and problems simply *go away*.

        The media had always been her sycophants as FL and SS; as “candidate” she no longer had their automatic approval of everything she did and said. But she didn’t realize that, and kept on not realizing that. And further failed to realize that that same mass media no longer had the power to shape public opinion without opposition, and in fact had become regarded more as “entertainment” than :”information” by voters.

        1. Well, I’d argue that the news media had left “Information” status some years ago, and by the 2016 election was passing through and out of “entertainment” status into “hostile propaganda” for a deplorably large segment of the electorate.

      3. “Someone really needed to say …“? As if anybody permitted an audience with Her Royal Clintoness would be permitted a faux pas of such lèse-majesté.

      1. She’s given answers before that everyone knew were obvious bullshit, and enough pretended to believe that she may have honestly concluded that this was a workable operating procedure.

      2. Her ‘clever’ comment, likely meant to disambiguate, on wiping her computer, ‘You mean with a cloth?’ was either an admission of her own ignorance about computers or an insult to the public’s intelligence. Maybe both.

  3. when Obama used “Change” as his keyword when he ran for President
    “Hope and Change”. I knew at the end of 2008 that I could only Hope to have any Change left in my pocket at the end of his term(s). Turns out I was right.

      1. True. I gave Barry the opportunity to prove he could change things for the better in 2008. By 2009 I realized that it wasn’t going to happen.

        1. Well, if you made it past January 20th of ’09, you realized it a bit later than I, or anyone else alive for the 20th of January 1977 (or ’93 or ’97) did. I had quite low expectations and 0bama was well able to exceed them by being a bit worse than I figured. Though even with everything sewed up he failed to do gun control like a lot of us feared, so in that, he failed his base as well.

          1. Well, I never admitted to being the brightest bulb on the planet. Some of us Granite Staters take a bit longer for it to sink through the igneous rock we have between the ears. 😉

              1. to quote my old neighbor in Burleson Texas: “You were right. I knew he was probably going to be bad, but I didn’t think he’d be this bad!”
                This wasn’t far along in 2009.

          1. I’m sorry, but I ecpected Obama to be a disaster. The man’s politcal experience started as a ‘community organizer’. I.E. ‘mau mauing thr flak catchers’. He was a scam artist. Period. Dot.

            Never mind the whole ‘burther’ nonsense; he was an ornament of the far left, and it friggin showed. Decent African-Aerican politicians are going to be living that sonofabitch down for DECADES.

            1. Aye. He might well have set race relations back decades.
              I can almost see the Klan telling people, “Alright, we don’t want a [DELETED] as President, but if we elect this one, we might never have another again.”

              I recall hearing how he was a (new, left) Great Communicator as he spoke so very well. And then I tuned in one night to one of his campaign speeches. Lots of pretty sounding words and feel-goodism… not a damn syllable of content about how to make Utopia happen. Gee, wonder why…

              I identify as mythical, and I don’t believe in Utopia.

              1. In 2008, I made a remark about running my dog for president. A nephew immediately did a riff on it, using most of the same rhetoric used to sell Obama, only ending it with “Give her a chew toy and she’s good all day.” And the rhetoric fit her just as well.

            2. I don’t disagree with your assessment on Obama, but the implication that I was being too soft seems a bit unfair. I knew nothing about the guy, and I do not judge people by hearsay – ever. (Insert obligatory reminder that I’m not American, despite my interest in US politics, I don’t immerse myself in it.) As far as I knew, he was a ‘new face’ – and I looked up what I could. I didn’t like that he basically hasn’t much under his record, and I didn’t like that there seemed to be very little in the way of ‘policy and plans’ in his campaign. And later in the campaign, I didn’t think he would be a good president, but I hoped he wouldn’t do that much damage. I have kin in Chicago, and to put it mildly, they didn’t like him, and gave listed reasons why that meshed with the factual stuff I could find.

              That changed pretty fast, from the first Presidential speech I was aware of. I changed from ‘Let’s see’ to “Oh crap, why are the opposing party so shit, please vote him out he’s a disaster for everyone’ very fast.

              But I was also at a period of my life where I didn’t inhale the news and world events the way I did when I was in college. Dad had died, I had a 1 year old odd son, and I was responsible for my family as the eldest child, as well as my own children. For me at the time, US politics were an occasional entertainment, and I was more focused on ensuring we had the ability to pay bills.

              1. During 2008, I looked at Obama and looked at McCain, and voted McCain because he had learned the hard way that he didn’t walk on water, and Obama had never learned that lesson. That may have been too rosy an assessment of McCain, but it was based on what someone who knew him in the Hanoi Hilton had to say about him.

                1. I thought electing McCain would be a mistake; and I’m retired military. I still think it would have been a mistake to put John from Arizona in the White House. Consider that another election with less than desirable candidates all around.

                  1. he certainly wasn’t my first (or second, or third . . . ) choice, but he would have had to work damned hard to be worse than 0bama. Romney was much the same for me. This last one, I was most “excited” by (pffft, least annoyed by more like) Walker or Cruz. The Stupid Party hasn’t run anyone I really liked since Reagan, and I couldn’t vote for him legally the first time. And there is some I didn’t care for there as well. But then the only person I will agree with 100% of the time (maybe) is Me.

                1. I like Abbot, and I don’t understand the whole ‘eat raw onions’ being a horrible weird thing that the media here keeps harping about. Strange perhaps, but there you go. I also don’t understand why the media made so much of it that Abbot takes his “I am a volunteer firefighter” very seriously – it’s a position, I reckon, he takes as “I will be this even if I am no longer Prime Minister” – and has proven as such. Gillard was a slightly more competent and less horrible Hillary. Turnbull is an odd fish. He’s getting a lot of flak for the gay marriage thing being put to people’s vote (as in, “Why didn’t you do your damn job and decide in favor for gay marriage for us, instead of putting it at risk of being voted no.”) but I think he did the right thing on that one, because despite the common saw that ‘it’s just going to affect the people getting married’ – as we’ve seen in pretty much everywhere else that gay marriage has come up, this has not been the case.

                  http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/ems/s1099_ems_a579926d-7410-46eb-8770-b157ce1028a2/upload_pdf/17257em.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22legislation/ems/s1099_ems_a579926d-7410-46eb-8770-b157ce1028a2%22

                  Religious protections are in place for religious bodies and associated (So, if a baker/photographer/florist wanted to refuse to service any gay marriages, they would have to explicitly only 1) provide those services only to weddings and 2) to weddings of a specific religion.) The wording of that particular section seems very penalizing to me for anyone with a religious belief; but churches and aligned halls and services are no longer at threat of being forced to give services.

                  The way it was explained to me was:
                  people who can NOT refuse to provide service to gay people:

                  – taxis
                  – general bakers
                  – general florists
                  – photographers

                  people who CAN refuse:

                  – bakers who ONLY make wedding cakes for a specific religion
                  – florists who ONLY provide wedding bouquets for a specific religion
                  – photographers who ONLY photograph weddings for a specific religion

                  My reaction is: it could have been much, much worse. There are parts I don’t like, but there will be investigations whether religious freedoms are adequately protected, so things still might change on that bill.

                  For what it’s worth, a lot of people here in Oz think I’m American because of my accent. I don’t sound Aussie (and probably as long as I keep talking to American friends over gaming voice chat, I never will,) and to Filipinos living here, I sound very, very American.

                  Americans I’ve gamed with, spoken to over voice chat and don’t know where I live tend to be surprised that I’m not American. Gaming is why I have that accent, full stop. I didn’t sound American before (apparently, I sounded either British, or vaguely French, or German.)

                  2. I watched y’all suffer Julia and Kevni (how did that get started?) then get Abbot who was “Juliaed” by Turnbull. I can’t say I particularly like Turnbull, but what I get on him is filtered through Bolt and Blair.
                    Actually I am in favor of putting it to a vote, but too often it is dictate, and whatnot.
                    I also think anyone should be able to claim anyone else as dependent/family/wife/hubby/partner/whatever for inheritance, pension etc, but really don’t want our courts saying “you MUST” to private businesses.

                    So, you traded accents with Mark Steyn?

                    1. HA! I want my old accent back because I sound strange to myself now. But I picked up the American accent because the folks I played with often had problems understanding me (due to difference in emphasis of vowels, maybe?) so I started mimicking the accent, and there you go. Served me well in call center work to the US though.

                      Funnily enough, Andrew Bolt (the political commentator here) is considered an extreme conservative here. He had good talks with Milo Yiannopolous though (see Youtube), and he’s a balancing factor to the mostly severely left wing opinions over here. I am rather sad most of his column’s behind a paywall, and I would have very much liked to see the whole interview he did face to face with Milo. It was really good, what I saw of it!

                    2. I see more of his and Tim Blair’s stuff is not behind the wall. For a while nothing they posted was viewable without a subscription. While I like reading their stuff, there is no way I am gonna pay for Oz news and commentary just to do so.

                    3. Apparently if you build fake HTML tags, WordPress tries to treat them like real HTML tags…

                    5. I understand that method of snacking on onions is a popular thing among Russians, so perhaps he was subtly communicating he was Putin’s man?

                    10. I’ve been threatening to make caramel-dipped onions for Halloween for ages. Some year, i just might. And some decoy apples, of course.

      1. Hey Ox: use the right opening tag on immediately so the closing tag has a useful effect. Who do you think you are, the moron in charge of Skype’s user interface?

        1. Well, it’s not like the WP commenting user interface actually shows you what various tags do, you know, like a bazillion other interfaces do as a matter of routine UI design competence.

          WP delenda est.

    3. > hope and change

      Though largely forgotten, the exact words the she and her husband used when running for Governor and President.

  4. In 1992 and 2008, change meant electing dynamic young leaders who promised hope and renewal. In 2016, it meant handing a lit match to a pyromaniac.
    ROFL. She doesn’t even see the clue right in her own sentence. In 2016, “young” and “dynamic” were NOT words associated with the chosen candidate. Oy.

    1. I know, right? This disconnect runs rampant throughout the book. Of course, it kind of goes with the fact that the book has no order or sequence of events. It is like she dictated a series of memories or ideas and then whoever transcribed it, did so in exactly the order she dictated — to the detriment of the book.

      Or, perhaps it is all a plot to drive anyone who reads it insane. It certainly has me headed down that road.

      1. Look, they only had a few minutes before the Chardonnay took hold at one time, so they got what they could get.

        And frankly, the party overlords had absolutely no interest whatsoever in the publishing house hiring a really good ghost to rewrite the thing for coherency – they knew the only thing a clean book would do is encourage the “Run Hillary Run – 2020” when she’d not only be the same broken record, but even less “young” and “dynamic”, and subject to even more “throw the body in the van and lets get out of here” problems for her protection detail.

        1. I was talking to Mom this morning about whether or not there was any editing or even a ghost writer involved. There are times I swear neither came within 10 miles of this project. Then there are times, like in the two chapters I write about today, where it is clear there was either an editor or a ghost writer – either that or HRC has a second personality. When she is writing and is engaged in her topic and she mentions Bill or Obama, she uses their first names. That’s especially true when mentioning Bill. But, as in these chapters, when it is more of a historical nature or facts and figures — ie, no engagement in the topic — she refers to him as “Clinton”. Either way, no one took a red or blue editing pencil to the mss.

          1. She might have included some material from a previous, ghostwritten manuscript that didn’t go anywhere.

            She had to fluff it with *something*, since so far she had avoided all the things a reader would be interested in…

            2. maybe it was a ghostwritten manuscript meant to be her memoirs after her coronation errr election.

          2. I doubt that anyone is allowed to enter HRC’s glorious presence that isn’t a devout worshiper. Thus, to whatever dazzled editor or ghostwriter enthralled by the presence of Authentic Womanhood, all of Her Words were Holy Writ, and not to be changed.

      2. Does she think she is still in her 20s or something? And that she’s going to ‘stick it to the man’ and ‘challenge the establishment’? A lot of dems her age seem to have that delusion….

        1. Once you understand that Democrats desperately want to recapture the heady days of the early 1960s, a lot of their behavior makes a lot more sense than if you think they’re just malevolent.

          1. No matter their chronological age(s) Democrats remain the Party of Adolescents.

            Witness the CFPB’s bureaucrats’ formation of “Dumbledore’s Army” in response to Trump’s appointing (former) OMB Director Mick Mulvaney headmaster.

            1. “No matter their chronological age(s) Democrats remain the Party of Adolescents.”

              I call them the Daddy Issues Party. Take any of their platforms, public statements, etc and add “I hate you Daddy!”

              It’s very enlightening.

    2. “Dynamic young leaders” were missing in the Democratic primary and almost completely lacking in the general election. I suppose Senators Paul, Rubio, and Cruz are reasonably young, so there were some in the Republican primary – but they didn’t go far.

        1. Yeah. But the demographic where 70 looks “young and dynamic” isn’t all that large, and statistically, doesn’t vote much.

          1. Yes they do! They are the mainstay of the Chicago Democratic party! The turnout from those big graveyards is amazing!

            1. Pa had a story (joke?) about a group writing down names from tombstones in a Chicago cemetery. One name was seemingly illegible and a name-collector skipped it.. only to be told, “That person has as much right to vote as anyone else here. Now go back and get his name!”

      2. But, Trump was much more dynamic than the old, decrepit biddy candidate the Democrats put up, even if he isn’t young.

        1. But he’s a pyromaniac — see the quote above — and I didn’t quote her about how he refused to prepare for the debates and how he didn’t know anything about foreign policy, etc. In her eyes, that means he most certainly couldn’t be a better candidate, much less be better liked by the voters, than she. Of course, she also doesn’t get that many voters didn’t so much vote for him as they voted against her. Remember, she doesn’t understand why we don’t like her.

          1. Aside: OK, I think I recall a parody of the “She’s a Maniac” song from Flash Dance as “Pyromaniac”, possibly with a shot of the pyro getting doused with a bucket of water, but I’m not finding anything like that. Is this just a figment of my imagination driven by the easy fit of the word in the lyrics, or does anyone else recall this?

          2. Compared to Clinton, Trump is informed on international affairs. Trump’s public style is either natural ADHD dementia, or a disciplined calculated act. If an act, he has got a much better bead on what his voters wanted than Clinton does about what voters want. Which speaks to better prepwork, especially considering that his political background seems much weaker than hers.

            1. His political background seems much weaker than hers is the impression MSM wanted you to get. Trump was a developer in NYC and NJ. Dealt with politics and politicians all the time. I would say corrupt politicians, but in NYC and NJ that’s redundant. And he built in other states, dealing with politicians. And he built and licensed his name overseas in other nations.

              He’s probably has more real contact with decision makers in other nations then anyone in the senate who thinks they could do the job as POTUS. Not staged diplomatic niceties that POTUS or politicians usually have after underlings have laid the groundwork in negotiation, but doing the negotiations himself, calling the shots, and making the decisions.

              Her political background? Parachuting into the NYS senate race as the appointed Democrat candidate. And serving as the 3rd senator from Arkansas, because she certainly didn’t represent my state.

              1. The difference between them is the difference of having the skids greased for you and having to grease the skids. The latter individual knows how to apply the grease, what type works best for what sorts of situation, and when there ain’t enough grease in the world.

                1. The majority of New York City residents, yes. The majority of upstate New York, almost certainly not. New York state is like Illinois: major liberal enclave in the one huge city, major Republican-dominated areas in the rest of the entire, very large, state. HRC may be representative of NYC, but most of the upstate New York residents I know wish she could have picked some other state to “represent”.

              3. The overlap between “politics” and “real estate” is probably around 90% in my experience.

      3. Eh, Rubio and Cruz got as close to winning the nomination as anyone not named Trump. Neither was my choice (I still had fantasies about Scott Walker riding into the Republican Convention on a unicorn and saving us all), but they went a long way.

      1. I’ve been thinking about that. It seems that, for all their faults, at least the Republicans seem to have a solid ‘healthy’ (in the sense of sustainable for future existence) age range. The Democrats… don’t. I may be slow on this one though…

        1. When Elizabeth Warren and Kamela Harris are “young”, your party has a problem. The Democrats remind me of the Soviet Politburo in the early 1980s.

          1. Kamela was born in 1964, which means she’s the only one I’ve seen touted that’s younger than the Baby Boomer Boundary. Fauxcahontas OTOH was born in 1949, so she’s only two years younger than HRC.

            1. Fauxcahintas is a moron, as well. Should she run she can count on being sidetracked into “why did you lie about being a Native American?” pretty much forever. I don’t see a way to difuse that.

          2. It will be decades before the real disaster that was the Obama Administration is appreciated. The Democrats destroyed their farm teams in all but the most insane states and will be a long time replacing their lost generation of state politicos. In many cases they will be stuck attempting to elevate flawed candidates from rotten boroughs, pushing candidates who can win un-gerrymandered seats only by flukes like the Roy Moore immolation — which will serve to focus their campaigns on the policies of personal destruction, further alienating them from the concerns of effective governance.

            1. As much I hope so… I recall both parties being described as dead or too ill to recover in short time… and they both recovered in short time. Maybe, maybe, it’s different this time with non-MSM sources/channels not relenting. We can but hope.

              1. It’s never as bad as it seems when you’re the losing party or as good as it seems when you’re the winning party. One trend all humans have is the belief that what’s happening now will keep happening forever.

                That being said, though, part of what allowed the Rs to recover so quickly was that, while they were wiped out at the Federal level, they were still pretty healthy at the state level. There were still a lot of Republican governors and state legislators waiting to move into the gap. The Ds, right now, don’t have that. There’s still time for them to get it before 2020, but right now, I think their best bet would be some kind of celebrity candidate, an Oprah or Sean Penn or somebody well known but not in politics.

                1. Keep in mind, with such predictions of political demise, that the MSM is not an impartial reporter. They excel at describing Republican victories (Reagan ’84, e.g.) as illusory and Democrat victories (Billy Jeff ’92) as conclusive.

                2. One trend all humans have is the belief that what’s happening now will keep happening forever.
                  Which is why studying history is so danged important. (And why the progs avoid it so assiduously.)

            2. I’ll bring up my usual point- part of the reason for the dearth of fresh, new faces is that Hillary & Co. did not want some new, fresh young face taking her Presidency again.

              1. Well, consider that her opponent was Bernie; in her mind that means she’s fresher and younger. I don’t think she understood that a looooot of people on her side of the fence preferred Bernie over her; after all, as far as the rest of them were concerned, no Republican was a threat, and Trump was a joke candidate.

                  1. plus many of those Bernie supporters who suffered from getting run over by the Hillbus shenanigans and what few did go to the polls voted against her corruptitude (mostly for Green Party commies). Lucky for us, this was in mostly places she’d likely have won with their fraud cushion, but she concentrated her fraud efforts in places she didn’t really need it.

    4. In 2016, it meant handing a lit match to a pyromaniac.

      She says that like it’s a bad thing. XD

      But she’s not wrong. The resultant conflagrations have been mightily entertaining for those of us in Flyoverlandia, what with the assorted swamp dwellers running around like their hair was on fire

          1. . . . I wonder what it’d take to have the Brits raze it again. I’d be willing to pony up a few greebacks to see that.

            But only if (most) of it’s current denizens and pest continue to infest it. No dice if they get to leave ifirst.

            You know, I say that with tongue in cheek- really, there are very, very few people in this world that I *know* need killin’. What’s not tongue-in-cheek is the real desire to see the bureacracy cut to the bone, the lobbyists, the lifelong politicians, the criminals, the power brokers, and the cronies out of work, out of power, and having to face the results of their actions with frank honesty. Not that it’s like to happen any day soon in this world, mind.

            But a little less boot on our necks would be nice. I’ll keep asking for more until it’s little enough that the Founders would find it good, and then stop. And while I’m asking for improbable things, how about some more health, eh? I think I got our hosts’ upper respiratory thing all the way down here, and it sucks. *chuckle* Just my luck. Ah well. Back to work.

            1. No dice if they get to leave ifirst.
              That’s pretty easy to solve with a few judiciously located accidents on some roads……

            2. But only if (most) of it’s current denizens and pest continue to infest it. No dice if they get to leave ifirst.

              Most of them don’t have enough self awareness to bail.

  5. I’m thinking of Roebuck Ramsden’s lines in Bernard Shaw’s “Man and Superman”:

    You pose as an advanced man. Let me tell you that I was an advanced man before you were born. . . . I am as advanced as ever I was. I defy you to prove that I have ever hauled down the flag. I am more advanced than ever I was. I grow more advanced every day.

  6. Pingback: Writing, Guest Blogging and Waiting for News - Nocturnal Lives

  7. She couldn’t be bothered to take a moment to respond to Lauer about it and that would soon bite her in the ass, something she really did not appreciate
    Given the news of the last few weeks, my brain inserted a “he” in the middle of “that would”. And no, given the revelations about him, she would not appreciate that.

    Yes, I’m a bad man.

    1. I guess it’s okay then for me to admit that I had recent events in mind as I reread the chapter this morning. Of course, my mind went to how ironic it was one predator “betrayed” her onboard the ship and another one “betrayed” his marriage vows to her. Yes, I’m an evil woman and proud of it.

      1. I guess you haven’t heard the old Arkansas joke (dating back to their first term as governor) about how Dollar Billy and Hillary met?

          1. In these “tolerant and diverse decreed by law” times, the part about “they were both dating the same woman” doesn’t carry the same social freight it used to.

  8. So glad that she lost. She’s obviously still clueless that it’s time for her to step away from the podium and spend more time with her family. Of course, that’s if her family wants her around….

    1. Clueless, possibly delusional. I find myself wondering if her family didn’t give her the tools necessary to write the book just so they wouldn’t have to listen to her going on and on about losing.

    2. Given the way the Dems seem to be franticly distancing themselves from the Clintons, to the extent that they are even admitting Bills historically predatory horn dog nature and her part in it as enabler, I cannot help but picture her ending her days alone in a plush hotel room surrounded on the outside by Secret Service agents who famously loathe and detest their charge.

          1. Her protection is not a popular detail, and considered a hardship. they have to rotate through and often it is only the minimum required, and the rest are paid for rent-a-cop (the guys tossing her into the van were rentals iirc). Bill actually is somewhat liked by his detail, though having proximity to her can make it a pain as well.

    3. “Family” is Bill, Chelsea, and whatever relatives will still speak to her.

      So far, nobody has *officially* asked Chelsea to explain all the money that went missing from the Clinton Foundation.

      As far as I’m concerned, the two should have adjacent cells in Club Fed.

      2. Tough call. On the one hand, I don’t really want to provide Unbonnie and Clod with room and board for the rest of their unnatural lives. OTOH, if they were locked away, maybe Chelsea could get into some good therapy, have a face sculpt, and disappear.

        She probably wouldn’t though. Poor kid never had a chance.

        1. “On the one hand, I don’t really want to provide Unbonnie and Clod with room and board for the rest of their unnatural lives.”

          We already have, considering how they made their living – and even they can’t spend down their misbegotten fortune before they face the One least likely to believe their excuses.

  10. Hemmingway said to drink three to FIVE of these things.. slowly. And use 1.5 oz of absinthe, rather than a mere 1.0. FIVE seemed insane. Seemed. I am SO VERY GLAD we dodged the Absinthe Administration. Were she President, I fear I’d be taking shots of it straight – on ‘good’ days.

    1. I absolutely agree. I do NOT like Trump, even though he continues to do things to try to force me to change my mind. But I abhor HRC. I was terrified about what she’d try to do to our country and this book does absolutely nothing to reassure me.

      1. Ox lightweight compared to Hemmingway.
        Two? Plenty. maybe more than.
        And 1.0 oz absinthe quite enough.

        Only reason ox not in bed, is need to drink *water*. Thick skull NOT ease headache on inside.

      2. That’s why I voted for Trump, even though I was, and still am, ambivalent about him. At this point, I think I like him better than I did a year ago because it seems like he is at least attempting to keep his campaign promises, which is refreshing. But Hillary would have been an unmitigated disaster.

      3. Scott Adams has the Evil/Nice: Competent/Incompetent axis.
        Trump is Evil/Competent; Hillary is Evil/Incompetent.
        She’s not a Queen Jezebel, she’s more like Queen Athaliah.

  11. …being perceived as a defender of the status quo, while my opponents in the primaries and the general election seized the sought-after mantle of “change”. The same thing happened to me in 2008. I never could figure out how to shake it.

    Perhaps the fact that in 2008 she ran as a restoration of Bill’s policies after the unfortunate W interregnum, and in 2016 as a continuation of The Mighty O and all his policies, just harder and deeper, may have contributed to this just a teensy bit?

    The lack of any insight into how what she did over and over again directly led to “What Happened” is astounding.

    1. Isn’t it?

      She keeps repeating how she doesn’t understand why people feel the way we do or why something she did or said wasn’t perceived she thought it should be. It would have helped if she surrounded herself with campaign staffers who weren’t “yes men”. It would have helped if she’d listened to the man in Arkansas when Bill told her to — he explained that he knew the Republicans would do nothing for him. But at least they were open about it. The Dems had lied to him for years and he wasn’t going to take it any longer.

      1. all this ‘i don’t understand how people feel that’ is screaming ‘sociopath’ to me.

    2. Oh, I don’t know about that. It’s right there on the cover:

      What Happened? Hillary Rodham Clinton.

    3. Apparently her focus grouped studies of her connection to the voters was incapable of grasping that “status quo” is polite-speak for “corrupt, grasping, liberty-crushing aggregation of power in Washington.”

  12. No question that America dodged a horrible bullet in 2016 which I firmly believe we owe to two things, the Electoral College, and the perception by the Democrats going in that there was no way in hell that Trump could possibly beat their anointed candidate. Had they felt any doubt whatsoever they would have cranked up the vote machines and cheated their way to victory. Their firm belief that it wasn’t necessary is really the only thing that saved us. That and the simple fact that she was a truly horrible candidate of course.

    1. Don’t miss the contribution of the unnatural concentration of all these urban lefty loons in the Bear Republic state – if these binders of loyal HRC voters had been spread out differently, things could have gone very very wrong.

      From behind the lines in the land of the flake preserves, you are welcome.

    2. there’s some evidence that they did crank up the vote “machines.” Enough so that there were enough fraudulent votes to shift NH to Hillary and not The Donald. Our State Democrat organization is rabidly opposed to any kind of voter reform or auditing.

  14. It’s particularly insightful that she dismisses questions about the emails and has absolutely no clue that besides the leaked information, she broke the law and showed an abysmal ignorance of rudimentary security. She proved herself unfit to so much as keep the restroom key in a filling station.

    1. It’s even more basic than that — her inability or refusal to realize how important that is to the voters. She simply can’t perceive that there are people who don’t hold believe every word she says or who might worry that her “ill-advised” actions could have a negative impact on the country’s security.

      1. I’m reminded of the story of the KGB agent who returned from a tour in the USA. Shortly after arriving back in Moscow a member of the Presidium asked him how the latest report of the Party Central Committee Proceedings had been received in the USA.

        The agent, aware that only a handful of Americans even knew that the Central Committee issued reports was in fractions of one percent, and the number of people who had actually *read* it probably numbered less than a hundred out of millions, was cornered. But in a burst of inspiration, he told the politician the American reaction was “thoughtful,” much to his delight.

        As an exchange of cluelessness for non-information, it surely matches the best of Dilbert and the PHB.

        1. Only to be expected from the country where “we pretend to work and they pretend to pay us.”

      2. in this rather leftwing section of the world (but not a lot of full turnip leftoid, just high union/country dem useful idiots) top 3 excuses I heard for not voting for her were, in order of most heard to less:
        1 – Benghazi
        2 – Emails
        3 – “I couldn’t stand to hear that voice for the next 4 years”/”She reminds me of why I divorced my Ex.”
        Okay actually it was one guy for those in number 3, but I giggled.
        The other two were tight and given as the excuses but really it came down to people hate her very much.

    2. I think your use of “Ignorance” is charitable here, as it implies that HRC has somehow not learned about the rules.

      The part that came through crystal clear in her entire public life is that she does not care that there are any “rules” for the little people, since she has clearly attained the lofty heights of “not-the-little-people” and thus is now beyond these constructs society terms “rules” or “Federal Law”.

        1. Nonsense. Compared to Shrillary, Marie Antoinette was Harry Truman when it comes to reading the temper of a country.

          Remember, the ‘Let them eat cake’ line, if it was said at all, was,said by somebody else and only attached to M. A. later.

          Not that M.A. was bright, but after the ‘dplorables’ speach I have to conclude that there are hermit crabs smarter than Shrillary.

          1. And Marie Antoinette didn’t have the likes of Madeleine Albright helping. I know a couple women for whom Albright’s “special place in Hell” speech proved inspirational – and not in the way Albright intended. (Albright – now there’s an ironic name. That speech was quite dim.)

  15. You all have seen the Hillary Christmas Tree topper, right? For those who haven’t, I kiddest thee not. It’s a white figurine of an angel in a business suit in the likeness of Hillary Clinton. Unsure if it’s for supporters or those who told her to cram it.

      1. Yes but how to acquire one without actually giving money to the people who made it? (You get more of what you pay for, obviously)

        Maybe the “remaindered” bins at the after Christmas sales?

        1. It is generally overlooked that second-hand purchases are an effective way of accessing assets without remunerating creators.

          Or rather, it is criticized as a means of denying authors and publishers (which is too say, publishers feign defending authors’ rights while actually pursuing of publisher interests) just remuneration of their efforts while overlooking the social benefits of such transactions.

        2. Are they porcelain or plastic? That’s important- the plastic ones last longer on the range, but the porcelain ones do blow up so nice when shot.

  16. I’m mythical. If you wish, fictional, imaginary and while I do not like made-up and make-believe and truly loathe “pretend”…. they could logically apply.. and yet.. and yet… HRC has a looser grasp of Reality than I do. What The [EXPLETIVE DELETED]?

    Had she been elected, I fear we’d be running comparisons of her performance with a dart-board equipped chimpanzee or such — and the chimp would do better.

          1. Hotel room reserved.
            Con registration done.
            Vacation time info given to H.R.

            Not sure what all ACME Delivery will have me do.
            Like they tell me anything besides, “Hey, while you’re there…”
            …at the last minute.

    2. I recall a scene in Night Court with Harry’s father (the one who had been ‘institutionalized’) where he says something similar, “Somehow *I* am the crazy one?” (Might have related to something Post’s character did/said.)

        2. Astin played a very similar character in a show called “Brisco County, Jr.,” which was sort of a comedic remake of “The Wild, Wild West” with Bruce Campbell.

          Yeah, it was probably typecasting, but Astin seemed to have so much fun doing that character it was a joy just to watch him work.

          2. didn’t see that at all, but I do recall hearing about the show, though I had no idea who was in it.
            He does seem to really enjoy playing those kind of characters.
            He is much like Tim Curry. Even if everything else about the show/movie is lacking, their characters are fun to watch.

            1. Astin was a unique talent, an ability to play characters who were thirty degrees out of plumb He would have been a delight as Elwood P. Dowd.

              Years ago I read of the Michael Caine Problem. Caine, being of working class background never believed in turning down honest (for acting level of honest) labor and, as a result, showed up giving good performances in some terrible movies. The contrast between Caine’s performance and the quality of work surrounding him ofttimes makes the surroundings seem all the seedier, hence creating a Michael Caine Problem: what might have been a tolerable film becomes horrible for his pearl amongst the swine.

              1. Sort of like John Carradine. Carradine would take any part, no matter how minor, instead of “maintaining his brand” as the millennials would phrase it. But Carradine not only worked almost all the time, he’d worked when *everyone*, and if times got thin, all he had to do was make a few phone calls and find out where to show up the next morning.

                Carradine was probably at least as useful for helping newbie actors when they made their first films. Steve McQueen worked with him when he was just starting out. As he tells it, Carradine leaned toward him after one scene and said, “Steve, if you don’t have anything to say, shut up.”

  17. One place I do have a bit of sympathy for what she wrote is her whole discussion of Bernie promising outrageous thing. If Trump was promising to build a wall and make Mexico pay for it, Bernie was essentially promising to buy everyone a pony and make the Koch brothers pay for it. Free ponies are always popular (until you realize that they bite and need to be fed and have their stalls mucked out, but that’s another story).

    Where we part company is in the notion that SHE was the adult in the room telling everyone that there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch. She got by Bernie, with a little help from her friends, and then was just as irresponsible as any of them in what she insisted she could do.

    1. I’ve not read any European assessments of the Nationalist Socialist campaign of Comrade Bernie, but it must have been puzzling to them to watch what over there would barely count as slightly left of center candidate, and how his free pony promises didn’t generate the traction they always do in the sophisticated European electorates.

      1. From what I read, the official news (Die Welt, Die Zeit, DeutscheWelle) shrugged a little and focused on HRC, and the horrors of Trump. PEGAIDA and AfD were a bit more of a concern.*

        * The German cultural preservation protesters and the political party they spawned, which is not Far-Right/Fascist, despite what the media like to portray them as.

        1. As I keep saying, it’s only because the euro Center is WAAAAAAAAY to the left, that the AfD is considered “far right”. PEGAIDA, them I don’t know.

          1. They are not all that political, although they are firmly against mass, unvetted immigration. Their goal is basically to preserve German culture and Judeo-Christian values, and to encourage assimilation by immigrants into German culture. They’d probably support the FDP (German center-right) or even CDU/CSU if the parties would back off on the mass-immigration and favoring immigrants over native Germans. PEGAIDA is being pushed “hard right” because the Center and Center-Left reacted to their requests and protests by calling them dangerous nationalists and eeeeeeeevil right wing.

          1. Who has mentioned that his interest in politics originates from Hitler.

            He is so much of an ‘international’ socialist, a Russki patsy, that he identifies the NSDAP as Hitlerites, and fails to realize that others associate other terms with that organization. Hence why he thought he could get away with describing himself as a national socialist.

            1. “Who has mentioned that his interest in politics originates from Hitler.”

              Wait – what? That’s a new one on me.

              2. Yeah, what Cheek said. Which aggravates the stupidity of his statement, and gives more ammunition to the argument that his self-description was intentional.

            1. It’s based on an interview by The Christian Science Monitor. Here’s the take-away for this subject:

              “As a child, Sanders said, being Jewish taught him ‘in a very deep way what politics is all about.'”

              “‘A guy named Adolf Hitler won an election in 1932,’ the senator said. ‘He won an election, and 50 million people died as a result of that election in World War II, including 6 million Jews. So what I learned as a little kid is that politics is, in fact, very important.'”

              See: https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/monitor_breakfast/2015/0611/Bernie-Sanders-I-m-proud-to-be-Jewish

              1. My “take” is that he learned that “even if you ignore politics, politics won’t ignore you”.

                Which isn’t IMO a bad thing to learn.

              2. Though, one can argue that he was understating the extent to which the existence of the soviet union contributed to that mess, and thereby overvaluing that election.

                  1. And it looks to me as if the Europeans have never recovered from that period. In their political paradigm, if you aren’t left of Stalin, you’re right of Hitler. They just don’t seem to have a concept for limited government and inviolable individual rights.

          3. I’d heard that he described himself as a Nationalist Socialist, which is a bit different, not to say better, mind.

    2. and then ….
      Well, at that point she had to follow the party platform. Which, surprisingly, isn’t that different from Sanders’…………….

      Free ponies are always popular (until you realize that they bite and need to be fed and have their stalls mucked out, but that’s another story).
      At which point, they demand an illegal alien undocumented worker come do the mucking, paid for by the gov’t.
      If only politicians hadn’t priced themselves out of a useful job. After all, they’re EXPERT at shoveling sh………

      1. It would be best were she to realize it was in her (and the country’s) best interest for her to enjoy a quiet retirement. But, despite what might be described as “theological misgivings” it is not that far wrong, anyway.

      2. I don’t think it’s wrong of you to hope she doesn’t run again, FWIW.

        Personally, even though I’ve never voted for a Democrat in my entire adult life (well, okay, maybe I have to put a * by 2016 😛 ) I do kind of want them to run a competent candidate, and to smack down the full-out leftards that are running rampant in the party.

        Having a single party in control for long periods of time usually doesn’t lead to any good as the controlling party gets to thinking they’re less and less accountable for their actions (see 2006 mid-term elections, when complacent Republicans got spanked), but on their current path Dems are looking to me like they’re only going to continue their slide into noisy obscurity.

        TL;DR: More Jim Webb and less Antifa and #Resist, for the good of the body politic as a whole.

        1. Look how the Republicans screwed up going into the 1920s.

          The Southern Democratic kleptocracies tied the national Democratic Party firmly to white supremacism. Which alienated black voters, who the Republicans took for granted and in taking for granted eventually managed to alienate.

          Ease and comfort makes organizations weak.

      3. She *might* have a sudden onset of honesty, lucidity, or common sense.

        Wait, something large and vaguely porcine just flapped by the window…

      4. Well, maybe yes it is wrong. Her running in the primary would create chaos in the Donkey party, always a good thing. And if she gets the nomination, possibly 47 states for Trump if he continues his path of actually doing things the people approve of.

        1. I had heard Trump was gonna bow out in ’20, but the way he is actually going about things, I think he wants the full 8 and wants a landslide come 2020.
          Boy, am I glad 0bama pissed him off at the Press Dinner. really glad.

  19. > We hear about her as the activist and advocate.

    Does she say when this was supposed to have been?

    She arrived from up in Yankeeland, worked at a law firm, squatted like a toad in the governor’s mansion for a while, then flew off to DC. If she ever did any activism or advocacy, we never heard of it. She didn’t have anything to say about Bill’s many publicized indiscretions, either.

    For that matter, nobody ever heard of “Rodham” until Billy’s makeover artists stuffed his cheeks with cotton and he wore a strap-on potbelly while carefully cultivating some kind of Kentucky hillbilly accent for his Presidential campaign. He’d always sounded like a damnyankee before.

    I saw him on TV and asked my wife who he was. She said it was the Governor. “You’re sure it’s not his Dad? He didn’t look like that last week.”

    1. She didn’t have anything to say about Bill’s many publicized indiscretions, either.
      Beg to differ. She had a great deal to say about ol’ Billy boy’s accusers, how they were whores and liars and cheap trailer trash. Or that might have been Carvel, but she was a willing accomplice.

  20. OT: From the news just now, Franken’s resignation speech included this line:

    “I’m going to be just fine.”

    I for one am vastly relieved, as how Al would cope after departing the Senate was right there at the top of my list of worries.

    1. Fitting Franken’s term was TRUNK-ated (where *did* that magical mystery box ballots really come from, hrm?). Alas, Dopey Dayton is apt to appoint the disastrous Keith Ellison.

      Once again, could we maybe try the FRONT end of the horse for a change?

    3. It’s been pointed out he weasel-worded on the timing… so don’t surprised if Frankegroper hangs around a long time… hoping things will blow over and he will continue to be MN’s unfunny joke on the country.

      1. Al Franken, Minnesota’s senatorial whoopee cushion. As distinct from the whoopee cushions from NY, MA, CA, …

    4. His not leaving could really throw a massive wrench in the (purported) Democrat Party plans to have him resign, then whip around and demand that the (R)s keep Roy Moore from taking his seat if he’s elected.

      Time to start two fresh batches of popcorn. Fancy for eating and plain for throwing at the screen, then sweeping up and putting out for the birds.

      1. The senate GOP would be dee-effing-lighted to have an excuse for an Alabama Do-Over. The last thing Schumer & Co. want is for their 2018 campaigns to be deprived of pictures of Republican senators standing with Moore.

        1. They’d be delighted right up to the point where p——off Alabama Republican primary voters make Moore a general election candidate again.

        2. For that matter, I think many of the Alabama voters, faced with a choice between an (alleged) child molester and a guy who won’t even pretend to be a “moderate” on issues like abortion would be dee-effing-lighted for aforementioned do-over.

          1. Recalling a campaign slogan from a gubernatorial race a few years ago, “Vote for the crook molester, it”s important!”

            Simple process: elect Moore, hold Senate Ethics* investigation, accept or reject Moore, if the latter Alabama’s GOP governor appoints a replacement and schedules an election for the replacement.

            *Not necessarily an oxymoron

            1. I, for one, think it would be highly educational to observe public hearings on the topic of whether Roy Moore offends the high moral standards of the US Senate, as established by such stalwarts as Teddy “Lyin’ Lion of the Senate” Chappaquiddick and Chris “Countrywide Financial” Dodd, aka “The whitebread in a waitress sandwich.”

              1. There was a flap some years ago when the state of Mississippi removed a plaque containing the Ten Commandments from the legislature building. The official excuse was something about “separation of church and state.”

                I figured the real reason was that since it was see daily by politicians, it created a “hostile work environment.” Once you remove lying, cheating, and adultery, what’s a politician to do, anyway?

            3. The thing to remember about Moore is that of the four ‘accusers’, three were of legal age for the time and place and their relationship with Moore was a few dates, and some VERY mild necking at most (most reports say cuddling with clothes on, and kissing.). ONE woman ,four decades after the fact, claims more. One.

              Maybe she’s telling the truth, but there’s ample cause for doubt.

              1. The other thing to remember, and what the media won’t say if Moore wins, is that the Democrats are so disliked that they can’t even win against someone accused of sexual harassment.

                1. This appears to be what the Democrats consider a compelling argument:


                  And they’re right, it is … but not in the direction they believe.

                  1. While I don’t think its going to cause hordes of Doug Jones voters to change to Roy Moore, I can easily see it turn them into non-voters in Alabama’s ridiculous special election.

                  2. And it’s another reason Vichy Mitchy is getting his share of the blame; it reminds us of the fliers his good buddy Thad Cochran endorsed in the MS 2014 Senate primary while inviting Democrats to cross over for the primary.

                    https://spectator.org/59766_who-paid-race-baiting-flier-mississippi/

                    “The flier says that the Tea Party uses the word “Democrats” as “code” for blacks. In short? Somebody out there in Mississippi put out a race-baiting flier to smear both Thad Cochran’s Tea Party opponent Chris McDaniel and the Tea Party itself. Using the worst lie about Republicans — against a Republican.”

                    A huge chunk of Moore’s support is a giant FU to Mitch McConnell, like I said earlier.

                2. Kevin, my family lives in AL. They and the people they know blame Vichy Mitchy for this situation as much or more than the Democrats. You would have to have seen how crooked Luther Strange was as AG to get named to the Senate as a payoff for letting the ex Governor (another GOPe pal) skate on massive corruption to understand why.

              2. He was a Democrat at the time and acting as a Democrat. So long as he has truly converted to the Republican faith I am not sure what his behaviour while Democrat has to do with anything.

    5. Hat Tip to NRO’s Morning Jolter Jim Geraghty for this reminder:

      https://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/cold-opening/n10108
      Senators shocked, shocked to learn there’s sexual harassment going on!

      As this is not on Youtube some may prefer to read the transcript. let it be noted for the record that the part of Sen. Paul Simon was played by then SNL cast member Al Franken.

      Sen. Joseph Biden: The committee, at this time, would like to call Judge Clarence Thomas. Judge Thomas? [ Judge Clarence Thomas sits ] Judge Thomas, we’re sorry to have to bring you back, but, as you know, some pretty serious allegations have been made by our previous witness.

      Judge Clarence Thomas: First of all, I want to say that these proceedings are a travesty!

      Sen. Joseph Biden: Mmm-hmm. Well, I understand that. But you did ask Ms. Hill out on a date?

      Judge Clarence Thomas: Uh.. yes, I did.

      [ the committee whisper amongst themselves at the revealing testimony ]

      Sen. Joseph Biden: And she refused?

      Judge Clarence Thomas: That’s correct.

      Sen. Joseph Biden: How did you go about asking her out for this date?

      Judge Clarence Thomas: I’m not sure what you mean, Senator.

      Sen. Joseph Biden: Well.. did you just go right up and ask her? Or did you have one of her friends tell her that you thought she was cute?

      Judge Clarence Thomas: I just walked right up and asked her.

      [ the committee whisper amongst themselves ]

      Sen. Edward Kennedy: Were you, uh.. were you drunk at the time?

      Judge Clarence Thomas: No, I was not.

      Sen. Joseph Biden: But she wouldn’t go out with you?

      Judge Clarence Thomas: No.

      Sen. Joseph Biden: Was she aware that, as her boss, you could have her fired?

      Judge Clarence Thomas: She must have been.

      [ the committee members gasp at the shocking statement ]

      Sen. Joseph Biden: And she still didn’t go out with you? [ Thomas nods no ] Now, Judge Thomas, there have been charges by Professor Hill that you talked casually with her about graphic scenes in porno movies. Is that true?

      Judge Clarence Thomas: Yes, it is.

      Sen. Joseph Biden: And.. did that work? Did it break the ice?

      Judge Clarence Thomas: No, Senator, it actually offended her.

      [ the committee is surprised the tactic didn’t work ]

      Sen. Howell Heflin: Uh.. what porno movie did you talk about?

      Judge Clarence Thomas: Well.. I mainly spoke about a favorite of mine, called “The Hind-Lick Manuever”.

      Sen. Howell Heflin: That’s a good movie, Judge! But do you think hard-core porno is the way to go? Because I feel women prefer softer porn.

      Sen. Joseph Biden: Senator Thurmond?

      Sen. Strom Thurmond: I agree with Senator Heflin. Yeah, that’s right! The women like something with more stories and costumes, that’ll transport ’em to another place and time. That’s right! Women don’t like close-ups of oversized genitalia! That’s just never gonna turn ’em on!

      [ committee agrees ]

      Sen. Edward Kennedy: A, uh.. another good thing is to get them out on your boat for some reason, because, uh.. because then it’s really hard for them to get away.

      Sen. Joseph Biden: Do you have a question, Senator Kennedy?

      Sen. Edward Kennedy: Uh, yes, I do. Have you ever tried coming out of the bathroom nude, and acting like you didn’t know someone was there?

      Judge Clarence Thomas: Uh.. no.

      Sen. Edward Kennedy: Well, that’s too bad. Because that works, too.

      Sen. Paul Simon: Um.. Judge? Judge Thomas? Judge Thomas, are you aware of that, uh.. division of our.. government.. known as the, uh.. Criminal Justice, uh.. Department?

      Judge Clarence Thomas: Of course I am, Senator!

      Sen. Paul Simon: Well, you know when you walk in the main entrance of the Criminal Justice Building.. there’s this receptionist with short brown hair?

      Judge Clarence Thomas: The, uh.. one at the third desk on the left?

      Sen. Paul Simon: No, no. The one at the big, circular desk, uh.. right there in the center there.

      Judge Clarence Thomas: Oh, yes – Sandy.

      Sen. Paul Simon: Yes. Sandy. Um.. do you think that she’d go out with me?

      Judge Clarence Thomas: Well, Senator Simon, not knowing your technique, I feel that it would be unfair for me to prejudge your chances with her.

      Sen. Paul Simon: Uh-huh. Uh.. you think it’s the bow tie, then?

      Sen. Joseph Biden: Senator Simon. Please.

      Sen. Paul Simon: Women just don’t seem to like the bow tie, do they?

      Sen. Joseph Biden: Senator Simon. Please!

      Sen. Paul Simon: Uh, sorry. Sorry.

      Sen. Joseph Biden: Judge Thomas, I’d like to thank you for your testimony. You’ve been very forthcoming, and, may I say, it’s been an education.

      Judge Clarence Thomas: Thank you, Senator. [ stands up and exits ]
      snltranscripts[DOT]jt[DOT]org/91/91cthomas.phtml

  21. From the book:
    In 2016, [change] meant handing a lit match to a pyromaniac. (pg 195)

    No, it didn’t mean that, because you lost, Hillary.

    😛

    1. Well, Your Shrillness, maybe if you and your cronies hadn’t spent the last eight years washing all the Washington bureaucracy down with gasoline the voters wouldn’t have thought that was a SWELL idea.

  23. “As I said before (I think it was in last week’s post), much of this book reads like her primer for running again for President.

    Heaven help us.”

    A year ago I would have said not a chance. Now? All too likely.

  24. I also appreciate the time you are spending wading through this oozing sewer of overweening arrogance. I could never have done it, but it is sure interesting and enlightening to see where that woman’s brain is (and isn’t). I hope you suffer no permanent damage as a result — PTSD seems like a possibility.

      1. I would love for you to drink heavily *before* reading a couple of chapters, then writing on it while still goosed. That could be a really entertaining read. 😉

  25. Considering Hillary’s history of treatment of military and security team members, I suspect she resented having to even talk to a veteran at the Commander in Chief Forum. Of course the valid conclusion of most of the military was that if the woman couldn’t secure her own server, then she damn well wasn’t going to be able to secure this country. Do we even want to go into how well she’d have the military’s back after sending them into harm’s way, after her sterling example of the way she handled Benghazi? Believe me, that was one of the reasons why I decided to retire from the military in the Clinton Administration; Daddy wasn’t going to leave Mrs. Houst a widow and a single parent of two young boys just because of an irresponsible, untrustworthy idiot in the White House.

    The Democrats didn’t need a young candidate, just a dynamic one. Bernie Sanders was certainly dynamic and set a huge amount of the Dems on fire. It was laughable to see what happened to the Democrats after Hillary literally stole the primary from him; kind of like a Cat 5 typhoon smothering a forest fire.

    “In 2016, it meant handing a lit match to a pyromaniac.” No, more like handing a lit match to a career firefighter. They’re attracted to the flame, they’re not obsessed with it. Hillary would have been the pyromaniac choice. And I suspect we’d be in a shooting war or launching against with Russia by now if she were in the White House.

    “she doesn’t understand why people feel the way we do or why something she did or said wasn’t perceived she thought it should be.” That says it all. If you don’t understand the people you’re supposed to represent, then it isn’t possible for you to honestly represent them. But then honesty has NEVER been one of Hillary Rodham’s traits since before she even went to college.

    1. “Hillary would have been the pyromaniac choice”

      The MSM will never make the connection, but there is a damned good reason Kim Il Nutty will not relinquish his quest for nuclear warheads and missiles with which to deliver them. He would not be likely to forget the fate of the last dictator with whom US had negotiated regime safety in exchange for disarmament.

      “We Came, We Saw, He Died”

      1. Which is why Spanish courts shouldn’t be able to indict foreign leaders like, for example, Pinochet. I’m sure there are other examples.

  27. “…why is she hitting these points so hard, time and time and time again?”

    They’re what she’s got. They are, in point of fact, all she’s got that she dares talk about. Her stint as FLOTUS isn’t a credential, and she really doesn’t want to talk about hubby anyway. She doesn’t want to refer to her stint as Sec State, for obvious reasons. She really doesn’t want to get into her experiences during the Watergate investigation because there are people who say she behaved unethically (no surprise). Her life in Arkansas is arguably full of indictable goodness, and Arkansas was soooo pleased with the pair of them that the State is no largely Republican.

      1. It is somewhat interesting to note the parallels between Watergate and the current Trump investigation. As we now know, “Deep Throat” was a disgruntled FBI supervisor, taking revenge for being passed over for promotion. Judge Sirica was colluding with prosecuting lawyers to frustrate the president’s legal rights to due process. And the Independent Counsel’s office was staffed by partisan zealots bent on the president’s destruction.

        Those who learn History are condemned to watch as others repeat it.

          1. You know, I get the feeling that they really want this to be another watergate, but A; there is no there there
            B: this latest “indictment” feels like a “lie to them about something you did that was legal, and when they harp on it we can point out it wasn’t illegal, 0bama did it, and Hillary did something like it and likely illegal, then I’ll pardon you if it comes to it.”

        2. > as we now know

          I read Mark Felt’s book. He made a compelling case for being a disguntled loser trying to get a few minutes of limelight be claiming to be Deep Throat, but there’s almost nothing about how he handled the leaks, or any of the other details anyone who had done much reading on the subject would be interested in.

          As far as believability, he might as well have been claiming he was the one who shot J.R.

          1. IIRC, Woodward & Bernstein identified Felt as Deep Throat.

            Of course, that presumes Woodward & Bernstein are credible, an assumption for which there is much reason to doubt.

        3. “Those who learn History are condemned to watch as others repeat it.”

          So true.
          And because one good quote deserves another:

          https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/12/10/fake_twain_quotes_and_other_hazards_of_twitter_116376-full.html

          Likewise, although there is no evidence Twain ever said, “History doesn’t repeat itself, but it does rhyme,” he did write (in an unpublished manuscript that Bernard DeVoto highlighted in a 1940 collection, “Mark Twain in Eruption”), “It is not worthwhile to try to keep history from repeating itself, for man’s character will always make the preventing of the repetitions impossible.”

          In other words, it is folly trying to improve on Mark Twain, and rarely possible. As Twain himself put in an Oct. 15, 1890, letter to George Bainton, “The difference between the almost right word & the right word is really a large matter — it’s the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning.”

    2. You are an evil, evil man. Just for that, I’m going to keep doing these posts and might have to find an even worse book to inflict upon you. Wait, that would be punishing me. Damn it, this is like Catch-22. 😉

    3. What Happened
      What is Happening
      What Will Happen

      Followed a year by . . .

      What Happened 2: Election Boogaloo

  30. Sarah and I had discussed whether or not one of us should do it and, somehow, we decided it should be me

    I’m guessing Sarah was concerned about the structural damage repeated book-flingings could do to a load-bearing wall.

      2. Teen Vogue is still a thing?

        The publisher was talking about canceling the magazine after the anal sex issue enraged a lot of parents last summer.

        When your magazine has already alienated a large chunk of its paying customers and you think “moar Hillary!” is the key to staying solvent, your business has definitely crossed over into the Twilight Zone.

        2. Teen Vague is now online only because “its target demographic don’t read dead trees.”

          They closed the print run with a “special” (as in, “ain’t she”) issue curated edited by HRC (as if! Delegated to underlings’ underlings, most likely) because magazine editing is one of those skill sets that anybody can just up and do and the big bucks paid to “celebrity editors” such as Anna Wintour, Tina Brown, and Graydon Carter was just promotional overhead.

  32. ” It is that she lives in her own world of reality in which she is the star, the center of the universe. It is that she expects the world to mold itself to fit her sense of reality”

    Isn’t this the essence of the Romance Potboiler?
    She literally lives in a fictional world – except it IS one where she is the center, and everyone molds themselves around her limitations and expectations.

    She and her ilk will never understand what motivates voters like this:
    http://www.sacbee.com/news/nation-world/national/article175735691.html

    “Country singer Rory Feek blogs that he’s building a schoolhouse for his daughter because it’s what his late wife, Joey Martin Feek, would have wanted.

    Country singer Rory Feek has had a lot of time to think while driving his daughter, Indiana, 3 1/2 , an hour each way to school.

    Feek, whose wife, Joey Martin Feek, performed with him as Joey + Rory until her death in April 2016 from cervical cancer, writes in a blog post that he’s been extremely happy with the two schools Indiana, who has Down syndrome, has attended, but that he recently came to a realization.

    “If Joey were here, she would love both of the schools that Indiana goes to, but she would be homeschooling Indy,” Feek said in the post. “Not just now, but permanently. At least I believe she would.”

    So in July, he started work on a one-room schoolhouse on his farm near Nashville, Tenn. …
    Feek shared a photo of the slab of concrete he poured in July and a video of 50 friends helping raise the frame.”

    * *
    Watch the video – this is the kind of village it takes to raise children; not the ersatz Potemkin Village created by the government to control them.

    1. “Isn’t this the essence of the Romance Potboiler?”

      Sorry. Make sure puke bucket is at hand before continuing:

      Hillary, please don’t reject romance novels — you are a romance novel heroine
      By Lisa Kleypas December 8 at 4:09 PM
      Dear Hillary Clinton,

      When your daughter, Chelsea, mentioned in her speech at the Democratic National Convention that you both loved “Pride and Prejudice,” I was delighted and not at all surprised. Elizabeth Bennet is a superb example of a romance heroine: intelligent, articulate, independent and wonderfully imperfect. She is also an incredibly unconventional character for her time, placing a high value on her own happiness, insisting that others treat her with respect and marrying a man only on her terms. No wonder Darcy falls in love with her — and no wonder “Pride and Prejudice” is such a beloved romance novel.

      So how disappointing it was to hear you mischaracterize “the whole romance novel industry” in a recent interview with Washington Post editorial board member Jonathan Capehart. You suggested that men and women gather abusive attitudes from reading romance novels about “women being grabbed and thrown on a horse and ridden off into the distance.”

      As a romance author who has always loved the genre (and as a Wellesley graduate who has always loved and admired you), I’m glad that attitudes about women are being discussed during this incredible moment in American history. But your comment, especially pulled out of context, doesn’t represent all romance novels. It’s a misleading cliche about the genre — like so many misleading cliches about your fabulous trailblazing life.

      The romance genre has undergone remarkable changes in the past 30 years. Romance readers give a variety of reasons for why they love the genre: It’s empowering, it’s an escape, it explores the complexities of relationships in ways that cause them to reflect deeply on their own lives. Incidentally, they’re the least cynical people you’ll meet, and that makes them especially wonderful — necessary, actually — in this day and age. It is never a romance novel if it condones or normalizes abuse or makes a woman less than she is.

      Many of my novels are set in the Victorian era, when women were restricted in what they could wear, what they could learn, what they could earn. As idealized beings who belonged in the house, women were supposed to go from maidenhood to motherhood. They were required to be demure, virtuous and sexless, placed on a pedestal so high that their voices could never be heard.

      Obviously, that definition of the ideal woman was a trap — a woman is trapped any time she lets someone else define her. And no one understands this better than you. I think that’s why you have such an extraordinary record of fighting for women’s causes. It’s only by expanding our views of what women desire, what women are and could be, that our freedom is gradually secured.

      I just finished writing a romance novel inspired by a real-life woman, Elizabeth Garrett Anderson, who in 1873 became the first licensed female physician in Britain. (Naturally, the British Medical Association promptly changed its rules to prevent any other women from joining for the next 20 years.) But Dr. Anderson went on to become the first dean of a British medical school and also the first female mayor in England. She also married and raised a family. You would not be surprised, I’m sure, by some of the negative things that were said and written about her. But nevertheless, she persisted.

      Women deserve to be recognized as multifaceted. And they have the right to be complex sexual beings and to go to work without being harassed or groped and to spend their hard-earned money on whatever kind of books they like.

      Romance novels are about wholeness and the right of readers (and all women) to be accepted and loved for who they are. To achieve. To be heard. To be imperfect. To get back up on their feet after they’ve been knocked down.

      During your legendary Wellesley College commencement speech in 1969, you looked into an unknown future and said, “Fear is always with us but we just don’t have time for it. Not now.” You headed forward fearlessly and achieved so many of your dreams, including love, marriage and family.

      This is why I consider you an honorary romance heroine — no pedestal required, just a pantsuit.

      Lisa Kleypas is the author of both historical romance and contemporary women’s fiction. Her upcoming novel, “Hello Stranger,” will be published in February.

    2. > world – except it IS one where she is the center, and everyone molds themselves around her limitations and expectations.
      —
      When I worked IT at a large hospital, we called it “the doctor problem.”

      No, expertise in one field doesn’t necessarily transfer to another, and when they were used to people jumping at their commands, they had a hard time with “thank you, why don’t you write that up and send it to hospital administration so they can forward it to the correct department.”

  33. Thank you for doing that which I am unwilling to do.

    You make the case, actually recount how HRC makes it, that Hillary the candidate was rejected as an agent of change because she could not be trusted in that role due to being a part of the system that we are told needs to change. Worse for her, she was actually in positions of power that could have been leveraged for the change she identifies as overdue.

    Then, for good measure, she scolds all of us for not accepting her as the ideal advocate. I’m left thinking that she is as delusional and disturbed as she appears to be.

  34. Hillary Quote: “I was confident that with a real focus on substance and a clear contrast of our records, Americans would see that I was ready to be Commander in Chief, and Donald Trump was dangerously unprepared.”

    That illustrates perhaps the greatest flaw in Hillary’s thinking. She has no concept of achievement—meaning objectives achieved. We saw similar thinking when Obama was running for president and especially when he received the Noble Peace Prize for, well nothing. Even at the end of two terms he’d done nothing to make the world more peaceful.

    Trump has undoubted achieved a lot in his life. True, it hasn’t been in government. But you can’t build a major building, casino or golf course in major cities around world without learning a lot about government, perhaps even more than most politicians. He had demonstrated achievements galore.

    In contrast, what has Hillary achieved? I’m not talking about policy papers or stances on various issues. I’m talking about problems faced, action taken, and those problems clearly solved. There is nothing of significance that I’m aware of. Her role as First Lady was spent covering for her sexual predator husband. In the State Department she focused on North Africa and the Middle East—turning a region headed toward an “Arab Spring” into a murderous hell hole with refugees flooding into Europe. And in the Senate she accomplished essentially nothing. No major legislation bears her name.

    And why has Hillary accomplished so little during her lifetime in politics? Look again at that quote of hers. She regards postures and policies announced as if they were achievements. She lives in a world of illusions and deceptions, one where thoughts and words have replaced deeds. Such people accomplish little.

    And, yes. I am aware that Hillary has achieved what has been her real goal in politics—her own enrichment by any means necessary. But in politics, it takes no talent to be a crook and, if you’re a Democrat, it takes no talent to get away with being a crook. The news media will fall over itself protecting you. That’s the real Hillary, the one unmentioned in this most dreadful of political biographies.

  35. Pingback: HRC: Making History – Amanda S. Green | According To Hoyt
  36. Pingback: HRC: Those Damn Emails by Amanda S. Green | According To Hoyt

Comments are closed.