HRC: Making History – Amanda S. Green

HRC: Making History – Amanda S. Green

No matter what you think about Hillary Rodham Clinton, she did make history in 2016 by being the first woman to be a major political party’s nominee for president. It is also something she isn’t about to let us forget. It is a major theme in What Happened. A theme she repeats over and over and over again.

I’ll admit, when I saw she had a chapter entitled “Making History”, my first thought was to sneer at her ego. Then I had to actually admit she had a point. With that reminder of my own feelings about her in mind, I took another look at the chapter and the one that followed. Now, before you start worrying, it didn’t change much.

For a change, she actually begins by talking about the campaign. In this case, the Democratic Convention and the weeks leading up to it. “The delegate count hadn’t been in question since March, but Bernie had hung on to the bitter end, drawing blood wherever he could along the way. I somewhat understood why he did it, after all, I stayed in the race for as long as I could in 2008. But that race was much closer, and I endorsed Barack right after the last primary. On this day in New York, Bernie was still more than a month away from endorsing me.” (pg 244)

Of course, the delegate count hadn’t been in question, especially when you look at the super delegates. However, if what we’ve been told about the “fix” is true, Bernie didn’t know he’d been stabbed in the back by the party. He didn’t know HRC was going to be the candidate, no matter what. So why would he have conceded when there were still delegates out there to be had?

And HRC acknowledged the role these “super” delegates played in the nomination. In case you aren’t familiar with who these delegates are and how they impact the election process, HRC gives us an insight. They are “the party leaders who join delegates selected in primaries and caucuses in choosing the nominee at the convention.” (pg. 245) These delegates are unpledged. In other words, they can vote for whomever they want at the national convention. In 2016, they made up approximately 15% of the delegates casting votes at the Democratic Convention. So, yeah, the fix was in and I firmly believe Clinton knew well before the final primaries that she would be the nominee based on the fact super delegates exist and she would have that extra 15% margin of votes.

As she writes about finally realizing she would be the Democratic nominee, HRC said, “I was now all that stood between Donald Trump and the White House. . . I was about to become the first woman ever nominated by a major party for President of the United States. That goal has been so elusive for so long. Now it was about to be real.” (pg. 246)

Wow. SHE was the only thing standing between Trump and the White House. Not the voters. Not Trump himself. Her. Ego much?

And there we have it again, she was making history. I’d happily give that to her if she hadn’t soon followed it by this:

I was torn. I wanted to be judged on what I did, not on what I represented or what people projected onto me. But I understood how much the breakthrough would mean to the country, especially to girls and boys who would see that there are no limits on what women can achieve. I wanted to honor that significance. I just didn’t know the best way to do it. (pg 247)

She didn’t want to be judged by what she represented? Then why did she keep telling us every time she could that she was the first woman to be nominated by a major party? For that matter, why does she continue, page after page and chapter after chapter, bringing up the fact? My objection to the above quote goes further. Why is she only worried about letting the “girls and boys” see “there are no limits on what women can achieve”? I’ll tell you why. Because, despite her protestations, she wanted the election to be one of male vs female and not one about who the best candidate was. Otherwise, why wasn’t she trying to show our children that there are no limits on what anyone can achieve, no matter what their sex, race, creed or anything else?

As you probably guessed by now, she spends time in this chapter painting then-candidate Donald Trump as divisive and, well, evil. “He wanted Americans to fear one another and the future.” (pg 249) I don’t know about you, but I remember Trump talking bluntly about what problems the country faced. I didn’t always agree with him. Hell, I often disagreed with him. But I also remember Clinton and her supporters being the ones talking about how we would have blood running in the streets if Trump was elected. They were the ones who tried to promote fear and distrust. So, at best, this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Except HRC won’t see it and certainly will never admit it.

There’s more of the same in the chapter but most of it all revolves around the same theme: I still believe that, as I’ve said many times, advancing the rights and opportunities of women and girls is the unfinished business of the twenty-first century. That includes one day succeeding where I failed and electing a woman as President of the United States. (pg 257) Wow, “the unfinished business”. Not fighting poverty. Not finding alternative energy sources. Not building better relations with our allies or ending the hostilities in the Middle East. Not even healing racial wounds that are still so prevalent in this country. But she didn’t want to be judged on what she represented – the first woman to be nominated by a major political party.


But it gets better. Or worse, depending on your point of view. The next section of the book bears the title “Frustration” and HRC doesn’t hold back. Not. One. Bit. Her frustration and anger – let’s be honest, her bitterness – at not being elected are plain to see. Any doubts I might have had about it were dispelled with the first couple of paragraphs of the new chapter, “Country Roads”.

“We’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business.” Stripped of their context, my words sounded heartless.” (pg 265) Anyone following the election remembers that statement. HRC is right about one thing. That comment made the rounds and Trump’s camp used it to their advantage. HRC is right about something else, we weren’t always given the full context of the quote. Not that it matters nearly as much HRC wants us to believe.

First, she still refuses to admit she screwed up with the comment. Instead, she called it “unfortunate” (pg 265). She contends that, had we listened to her entire comment, “my meaning comes through reasonably well.” (pg 266) Reasonably well. I don’t know about you, but that sounds like she knows she screwed the pooch but is blaming us for taking her at her word and not reading her mind. But let’s look at the quote.

Instead of dividing people the way Donald Trump does, let’s reunite around policies that will bring jobs and opportunities to all these underserved poor communities. So, for example, I’m the only candidate who has a policy about how to bring economic opportunity using clean renewable energy as the key into Coal Country. Because we’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business, right, Tim? And we’re going to make it clear that we don’t want to forget those people. Those people labored in those mines for generations, losing their health, often losing their lives to turn on our lights and power our factories. Now we’ve got to move away from coal and all the other fossil fuels, but I don’t want to move away from the people who did the best they could to produce the energy that we relied on. (pg 264)

So, did she say she’d put the coal miners out of work? Yep. She most certainly did. Oh, she says she doesn’t want to forget about them but she doesn’t say what she is going to do to help them when she closes down the mines and takes away their jobs. She doesn’t say what she will do about the towns that will be decimated by her actions or what will happen to those companies she planned on putting out of business. In fact, all she did was tell these proud people that they were no longer important in her plan. At best, she would put them on the dole. Is it any wonder they didn’t take well to her words?

She “felt absolutely sick” (page 265) because they didn’t understand what she meant. In other words, they understood what she said and that was a big oops!, not that she’d admit it. She blames Fox News for playing the quote. She blames the media for being hard on her for it and not for being hard on Trump each time he said something “offensive” or for “garbling a thought”. (pg 266) Poor HRC, to hear her say it, she got punished for “being too cautious and careful with her words”.

Except this time she was neither. In fact, to prove she still doesn’t understand what she did with that comment, she later calls it her “gaffe”. (pg 270) Yet again, she simply can’t admit she might have misread her audience and made a mistake.

Usually when I meet people who are frustrated and angry, my instinctive response is to talk about how we can fix things. That’s why I spent so much time and energy coming up with new policies to create jobs and raise wages. But in 2016 a lot of people didn’t really want to hear about plans and policies. They wanted a candidate to be as angry as they were and they wanted someone to blame. . .  but I’ve always thought it’s better for leaders to offer solutions instead of just more
anger. . .

Unfortunately, when the resentment level is through the roof your answers may never get a hearing from the people you want to help most. (pg 272)

Oh my. I don’t know whether to say, “Bless her heart” or tell her to grow the fuck up. There are so many things wrong with her comment. Things that, if she possessed at least a little self-introspection or empathy would have given her answers. Not once does she consider that, before offering “solutions”, she needs to understand the anger and frustration. Instead, she basically blames the people for not wanting to hear what she had to say.

“Since the election, I’ve spend a lot of time thinking about why I failed to connect with more working class whites . . . The most prominent explanation, though an insufficient one on its own, is the so-called war on coal” (pg 273) Wait, what? Does she really believe this is one of the main reasons why she didn’t connect with “working class whites”? Is she delusional?

The answer to that is possibly. She blames the Obama Administration for not  being more proactive in fighting the perception that the government was trying to kill the coal industry (pg 274). And then we get to the real heart of what she feels is wrong with those voters she couldn’t connect with.

After John Kerry lost to George W. Bush in 2004, the writer Thomas Frank popularized the theory that Republicans persuaded whites in places like West Virginia to vote against their economic interests by appealing to them on cultural issues – in other words, “gays, guns, and God.” There’s definitely merit in that explanation. . . Then there’s race. (pg 274)

She so conveniently forgets that man Bill talked to her about earlier in the book. The one from Arkansas who said he was going to vote Republican because he knew they’d screw him but he’d given up on the Democrats after years of waiting for them to do as they promised only to see them do the opposite. She ignores the fact that “gays, guns and God” is a vast oversimplification of the importance of religion and 2nd Amendment rights to much of America. And, just to be sure she covers everything, she has to throw in race.

Not once does she ask herself why these are important to the voters. Not once does she consider how what she said during the campaign, or before, would make voters uncomfortable. Nope, far from it. They weren’t enlightened enough to understand what she wanted to do, so they were the problem. She might not come right out and say it but it is clear that she blames these working class whites for not voting for her.

Here’s a telling quote on several levels. “There’s a tendency toward seeing every problem as someone else’s fault, whether it’s Obama, liberal elites in big cities, undocumented immigrants taking jobs, minorities soaking up government assistance – or me.” (pp 276-277). She is so quick to assign this anger and finger-pointing to conservatives and yet she fails to see that she is doing just that sort of assignment of blame to everyone who did not fall all over themselves to get her elected.

Trump brilliantly tapped into all these feelings, especially with his slogan: Make America Great Again. . .What he meant was: “You can have the old America back one I vanquish the immigrants, especially Mexicans and Muslims, send the Chinese products back, repeal Obamacare, demolish political correctness, ignore inconvenient facts, and pillory Hillary along with all the other liberal elites.” (pg 277)

OMG. Not 20 or so pages earlier, she bitched and moaned because people held her to her words. Now she wants us to condemn Trump based on what she tells us he said. She ignores the fact he didn’t want to deport every immigrant. No, he wanted our immigration laws followed and enforced. He wanted to make sure trade agreements were fair and not tilted against America’s best interests. You get what where I’m going with this. So now it is not only Trump’s fault for being unenlightened but ours for voting for him.

Not convinced? “How do we help give people in rural counties such as Mingo and McDowell a fighting chance? The most urgent need right now is to stop the Trump Administration from making things a whole lot worse.” (pg 281) How? How is he making it worse for them than the Obama Administration did? But, a more basic question is why is she writing about this in a book that is supposed to be about the 2016 presidential campaign?

The more I read of the book, the more I find myself wondering why HRC wrote it. This is not a book about the campaign. Not really. What it reads like is the opening salvo for another political campaign or, perhaps, for a bid to be named as an important political appointee. The one thing I am sure about is how glad I am that the American voters did not elect her. “But I wish I could have found the words or emotional connection to make them believe how passionately I wanted to help their communities and families.” (pg 287) She knew from her 2008 campaign that voters didn’t feel connected to her. She knew from the media she was seen as an ice princess, cold, etc. But she couldn’t figure out how to get her message across. How in the hell would she have been able to do so as president if she couldn’t do so as candidate?

We dodged the bullet, in my opinion.

Next up, we get to see what she has to say about her emails. Won’t that be fun?

(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 ShareGrit and GratitudeHRC Gets Caught TryingA New Deal, A Square Deal or How She Wanted to be the Next RooseveltIt’s All His Fault, Turning Mourning into a Movement and HRC: Idealism and Realism.)

[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]

373 thoughts on “HRC: Making History – Amanda S. Green

  1. I…I…I…. I can’t even believe that this harridan would think about staying in politics. If she attempts to run again this book can be pulled out as exhibit A of why she’s the wrong candidate. SMDH

    1. And she will simply respond that she really didn’t mean what we think she said. It was her little “gaffe”, just like the comments about the coal miners.

        1. Michael Kinsley, a former editor of New Republic and television personality on many political shows, such as Crossfire, which are no longer on the air.

          Per Wiki:
          A Kinsley gaffe occurs when a political gaffe reveals some truth that a politician did not intend to admit. The term comes from journalist Michael Kinsley, who said, “A gaffe is when a politician tells the truth – some obvious truth he isn’t supposed to say.”

          1. See, for example, Trump’s “Access Hollywood” tape comments about gold-digging women. And Hollywood, New York and DC have spent the past year proving him right.

            (*dons flame-proof underwear, positions fire extinguisher within arm’s reach of the computer*)

            1. Note, also, how Trump’s opposition in the Democrat Party and the MSM consistently fails at comprehension of English grammar, mistaking the subjunctive — you could — for the declarative — I have.

              BTW, as Trump was not a politician at the time of that taping, being merely a television entertainer, does he get to claim Franken’s “Entertainer Privilege” in defense of his actions?

      1. Why.. are people laughing?
        There’s a guy.. who’s been gaffing…
        Someone who won’t inhale is…
        Even more fun… than Quayle is…

        Clinton Blunderland – The Capitol Steps.

        And at least he was semi-likeable and kinda-sorta funny, and had some clue about people. Not that he wasn’t/isn’t evil, but… day-yamn.

        1. How stupid is Hillary?
          Well, not only did she defend Bill when he was a philandering letch of a probable rapist, she ignored his advice on how to win the Presidency

          1. Seriously. If there is *ONE* Democratic politician who understands how to campaign, it’s Bill Clinton. And she ignored his advice.

            1. Everyone from Bill himself to Michael Moore was warning her that failing to campaign in the swing states was going to be a disaster.

              Fortunately for the Republic, she chose to listen to the aptly-named Robby Mook instead.

              A conspiracy theorist could probably make a decent case that Mook is actually secretly on our team.

                1. Thus my suspicion that this Reality is not merely simulated, but is an animated cartoon – just no anvils, safes, pianos falling inexplicably. So far.

    2. I can. It makes perfect sense, given what we’ve come to know of her character. She’s eaten up tip to tail with ambition and greed, and effectively has a political gambling addiction. Is it over political stakes? She will always double down, losing hand or not.

      1. Also, like most of the Political Left and all of the Democrat establishment, she deeply believes that all of us peasants need to shut up and do as we are told. And there’s nobody any of them will listen to that will tell them “Suck it up; that isn’t how a representative form of government works.”

      2. OH, I’d love her to run again, against trump in 2020, preferably with him having been a rather successful president.

    3. I almost hope she does. Given that the fear mongering re Trump has been demonstrably falsified, and that she’s been even more annoying post election than pre, the blowout would be, dare I say it, yuuuge

      1. But what if a) Trump drops out of the election by accident or on purpose or b) the only reason Trump won is undersizing the cheating, and this time they size it appropriately.

        1. Cheating can only help so much, especially if it goes well against the perceptions (nobody expects the repubs to win Chicago, so the cheating there works). It also helps to have a competent team, which a few more purity spirals may shed from the Dems.

    4. She may try, but she’d be gone by the Florida primary.
      Typically, when someone blows the big one, the presidential election, they’re pretty much done for. Their political capital is spent, the name is old news, and all that.

      1. When they blow it even after the deck is stacked as much as it was in her favor, they usually fade away without objection. She is still acting like the election should have been hers and she doesn’t understand what happened. And, just as she didn’t learn why folks couldn’t or wouldn’t identify with her in 2008, she acts now like she can’t or won’t understand that her time is over. Shrug.

        1. The party appears to be trying to gently shoo her out the door. They don’t want her around any longer.

          Plus, there’s potential health issues. We haven’t seen any collapses or anything of that nature since the campaign. But that might just be because she’s no longer in the spotlight.

      2. Oh, if only that had been true for the Libertarian Party. Speaking of doubling down on a losing hand . . .

  2. So, at best, this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
    Really, it’s a case of the cast iron dutch oven that thinks it’s a pink Le Creuset calling the copper pot that’s seen quite a bit of use and just won’t burnish clean, black.

    1. OMGROFLMAO. I love the imagery in this. Except you left out that it is the cast iron dutch oven that has been left out in the rain and allowed to rust without having been cleaned and “seasoned” again AND that thinks it’s a pink Le Creuset. . . .

      1. Why do you put the mental image of that poor tortured cast iron in my head! I love my cast iron pans and my blue Le Creuset both!

  3. > but I’ve always thought it’s better for leaders to offer solutions

    Yet I can’t remember her offering any solution to any problem beyond “elect me and it will all be wonderful.”

    1. But she had a plan. She keeps telling us she did. It’s our fault we couldn’t read her mind or didn’t jus trust her. (rolls eyes)

      1. We’ll see her plans about the same time we see that plan 0bama had to let us keep ours and have medical coverage that costs less. We have yet to see that plan, because 0bamacare as passed certainly wasn’t the plan he talked about.

            1. Can’t sue her. She’s got all her money locked away in her darn foundation to protect it from just such attacks.

            2. They do indeed.

              “Why is my District death-rate low?”
              Said Binks of Hezabad.
              “Well, drains, and sewage-outfalls are
              “My own peculiar fad.
              “I learnt a lesson once, It ran
              “Thus,” quoth that most veracious man: —
              You may hold with surface-drainage, and the sun-for-garbage cure,
              Till you’ve been a periwinkle shrinking coyly up a sewer.
              I believe in well-flushed culverts. . . .
              This is why the death-rate’s small;
              And, if you don’t believe me, get shikarred yourself. That’s all.

      2. But she had a plan. She keeps telling us she did.

        So… she was plagiarizing the new Battlestar Galactica? They claimed to have a plan, too.

    2. “Elect me and it will be wonderful.”

      Like that worked over the last administration. Or ever. It’s like she was afraid we might actually expect her to follow through if she gave solutions!

  4. let’s look at the quote
    Wow, based on that context, she could have protected herself simply by saying “Because we’re technology and progress are going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business, right, Tim?” Yes, definitely a gaffe.

    1. Not a gaffe, actually. Their plan was and is to first stop what works, and then convince us to accept the far less efficient, much less useful “renewable energy” that would send most of us back to pre-industrial living standards.
      She just can’t say that.
      Yah, no, fuck her.

        1. Why would killing the economy be good for Hillary? I can see why she’d do it as part of her religion. But it wouldn’t be good for anybody. Unless you mean that she’d embezzle the economy before it crashed.

          1. Simple. Her religion doesn’t tell her that her actions would destroy the economy. 😦

          2. She has a bug in her unrelenting drive to acquire wealth. That being, at the level she is sometimes allowed to play it, it is quite possible to screw up and devalue your loot. She apparently doesn’t realize this is so. It is easy to make that sort of mistake when your ego or emotions are doing the driving.

          3. During Obama’s second term, he had two goals in the Middle East – get Congress to let him go after Assad, and make nice with Iran. Of course, those goals are mutual contradictory since Syria was (and still is) Iran’s ally. I was listening to an expert on international relations talk about Obama’s Middle East policy (or lack thereof), and asked him about those two contradictory goals. His response was to basically say (paraphrasing) that Obama hasn’t put that much thought into it.

      1. Us, of course, but not them. Oh, no, no, no; certainly not them Why, they’d be able to afford electricity. Why, we’re the little people; why do we need electricity?

        The arrogant commissars. They’ll always have brightly lit, warm, dachas, and don’t give a @#$% if the rest of us don’t, and this they call concern for the working man.

        Mutter, mutter.

        1. Reminds me of Al Gore telling us how we all need to conserve energy, etc., and yet has his own private jet, the huge estate that uses more power in a month than most of us use in a year or more, etc. What’s good for the goose is most certainly not good for the gander and they only want us to practice what they preach, to mix my metaphors.

      2. I offer up as evidence the Province of Ontario. That passed a Green Energy Act that shuttered ALL the coal powered power generating plants and replaced them with solar power and wind farms. Ten years later, people are debating about heat in the winter or food. Businesses are pulling up stakes and leaving. Those of us that are left are increasingly reliant upon government programs and hands out to pay our electricity bills. The reason we have to rely on the government is because there are fewer and fewer jobs to keep people self sufficient.

          1. The amount of damage done by the green energy reform has been massive. All former coal burning plants were torn down after they were taken off line. Any nuclear plant construction is so restricted and regulated it would take decades to get one on line. Any other power generation is also looking at decades. And it’s all dependent on getting rid of the damned leftists in Queen’s Park. Not to mention the current federal government that’s forcing a carbon tax down the entire country’s throat. It’s going to be the new normal I am afraid.

              1. Minor nit pick. There’s no chance in hell that he’s actually literally Castro’s love child. Resemblance withstanding. A lot of the anecdotal stories I have heard is that the millennials voted for him A.) because he was ‘pretty’ and B.) he was going to legalize pot. *spit*
                He’s half the man his father was. Trouble is it’s all the bad half. :/

                1. “He’s half the man his father was.”

                  Trudeau pere was french ‘intellectual’ while Trudeau fils can’t even reach that level, says much about brain power of Trudeau clan.

                  My mother was burn her bra feminist in late 1960s and her first vote in an election was for Pierre who she thought was dreamy. And now fifty years later, my mom was enthusiastic supporter of Justin because he’s handsome and she remembers when he was little and his mother abandoned her family. In between these two votes my mom was level headed, ardent conservative voter who hated politicians.

                  Im curious to know why you sceptic of Castro/Trudeau rumours? Pierre Trudeau’s sons were all fortunate to avoid male pattern baldness.

                  1. Im curious to know why you sceptic of Castro/Trudeau rumours? Pierre Trudeau’s sons were all fortunate to avoid male pattern baldness.

                    Timings of family visits to Cuba are the main reason. Justin was already born by the time they first went to Cuba. Michel was a babe in arms already. Unsure about Sacha, but I would tend to believe that he’s also Pierre’s child. As to the male pattern baldness, Justin is still young, there’s his mother’s DNA donation to his hair, and better living through modern chemistry….

                    1. I am not conspiracy theorist, I mostly think those people are maladjusted, but I have always enjoyed conspiracy theories about the Trudeau’s.

                      I suspect you are correct in your assumptions but I have long believed fifty year old Pierre Trudeau was rather skeevy for marrying twenty year old bipolar woman.

                    2. I respected Pierre T., as in how you respect an enemy that knows what he’s doing. Loathed and despised the man for what he did when he had power. his children? Well, the disgust i have for them is the type of disgust when you find that stuff on the sole of your shoe.
                      I prefer using the truth to put down people I don’t like versus made up conspiracies. It’s easier and harder to sweep under the carpet.

                    3. That kind of thing is only skeevy when Republicans do it. Pierre Trudeau was displaying the overwhelming power of redemptive love in overlooking the bipolarity, just as Charles Windsor’s engagement to Diana Spencer (whom he first met when he was almost thirty and she was sixteen) was demonstration of love’s ability to overcome mere chronological barriers.

                    4. FWIW, male-pattern baldness follows the mother’s father in most cases. It comes on the X chromosome, so only women who have the bad luck to have overlapping patterns on their two Xs are subject to balding from that cause.

                    5. So it would make no sense the fact younger son is losing hair, which my dad didn’t do till his fifties. SIGH. I think his autoimmune, like mine, makes you lose hair when stressed.

                    6. That sounds like a reasonable explanation. Or it’s possible that it came from an ancestor further up the line; mother’s father is just the most likely choice.

                  2. If you want someone else to link him to, Geraldo Rivera hinted shortly after Trudeau became Prime Minister that he (Geraldo) had slept with Trudeau’s mother.

                  1. Probably giving him more credit then he deserves even with that. Unfortunately that boy is my Prime Minister. 😦

                  2. My favorite of the epithets I’ve heard for him is “Prime Minister Zoolander”

                    Other than that I don’t pay enough attention to Canada to have an opinion. (Sorry)

                  3. Also the Iranian girl in my studio thinks he’s dreamy because he’s a cute feminist.


                  4. Half Twit Prince? (riffing on the “he got the bad half” comments)
                    Or is that giving him way too much credit?

        1. So, in other words, a successful government policy.

          Always keep in mind that the stated goals of any government policy may differ significantly from the actual goals, and the actual goals are almost always the same.

        2. And I’ve spoken with Ontario residents who are unfortunate enough to have electric heat… their winter bills went from $100/mo. to almost $700/mo. even tho now they’re shivering in the dark.

      3. Also, it is becoming increasingly clear, through the experiences of States like Germany and Australia that “renewable energy” is the same thing as “alternative energy” which for decades has meant “any form of electrical generation that is in no danger of actually working as a source for a National grid.”. The Left simply WILL NOT do the numbers on how much land would haventombe covered with wind or solar, or how toxic to the environment the batteries needed for electric cars would be. But other people, not evenmvery educated people, can do enough of a,rough estimatento know that it will not work.

          1. No, no! Talk to them about energy details and they pull the most amazing Pseudo-science out of their ass. Batteries that will make solar or wind reliable, which would take at least two HUGE theoretical breakthroughs. Similar nonsense.


            I like to ask the True Believers what taking that much energy out of the environmental cycle will do. They tend to stammer.

            1. I am convinced they can not run the most rudimentary numbers. They do not even do a simple check on the effect of sea level rise based on their own numbers.

              Anyone who knows that wind generation doesn’t work when there’s no wind; many know it doesn’t work when there’s too much. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that solar power doesn’t work when it’s dark and is going to be less than full potential on overcast days or when the panels are dirty. And yet they don’t grasp what this means for generation. If they did, they’d grasp that the bottleneck is energy storage, and once you have a satisfactory solution there, a lot of things become workable.

              I am tired of it. I’ve worked most of my life now keeping the lights on, and once had to help draw up rolling blackout plans because singing Kumbaya and thinking happy thoughts doesn’t generate electricity. They don’t get it. I’m convinced they can’t.

              1. Somebody (Pournelle?) ran the expected death rate on the people cleaning sufficient solar panels to generate 1000kilowatts for a year, using NYC window washer deaths as a yardstick. He showed that a 1000 Kilowatt solar installation would kill more people then the most pessimistic estimate for a similarly sized coal power plant.


                It. Just. Doesn’t. Work.

                I believe it was H. Allen Smith who proposed the Murphology law “If nobody uses it, there’s a reason”

                The greens apparently don’t believe it.

              2. Solar works in my area for a simple reason: we have the biggest energy use during the day in summer, when we get five straight months of sunshine. I can’t imagine pushing it in, say, Seattle. Of course, we still have to be hooked up to the grid, so even if we had a complete system (we have a partial), we would not have power when the grid goes down. *facepalm*

        1. or how toxic to the environment all the solar cell manufacturing would be, or the next wave of batteries for your electric and hybrid cars, or…

          as a note: don’t buy a hybrid seven years or more old without a way to verify battery replacement has already been done.

          1. 2+2=5 when it is convenient. Other times it may equal 10, or 0, or 1,000,000. Whatever is convenient for their political purposes.

    2. Oh yeah, and then explain what her plan was to keep their companies from going bankrupt, their towns from drying up and dying and a way to help the miners without putting them on the dole.

      1. Perhaps the dole was the desired result.

        “Grab them by the wallets, and their hearts and minds will follow.”

        1. Exactly what they’ve been doing with other parts of the population for several generations now. I’ve no issue with help when it is needed. But when that “help” doesn’t also include training to help get them off the dole, when it follows generations of a family, there is a problem with the system. There are times when folks need help. But, unless there are extremely extenuating circumstances, it shouldn’t be forever.

            1. I believe the ‘circumstances’ are

              A) That being fundamentally racist, they don’t think the brown people are good for anything better.


              B) They got left at the alter by the Working Man, after WWII. They were all ready to go full on Socialist. Their vision was of Worker Housing right out of Bauhaus, and Public Transportation, and the Working Classmattending lectures and listening to Mahler (sp?). And the Working Man went for tract houses in Levvittown, cars with tail fins, and a stereo that played cool jazz.

              1. Don’t diss Mahler. Classical has some good stuff. You’d be thinking of 20th-century atonal, where the “music” is determined by mathematical ratios, and is basically a theoretical showing-off rather than anything that touches minds and hearts.

  5. But I also remember Clinton and her supporters being the ones talking about how we would have blood running in the streets if Trump was elected. They were the ones who tried to promote fear and distrust.

    And until the car incident at Charlottesville (which doesn’t seem to be getting much air time nowadays… Hmm, I wonder if it’s because the investigation didn’t support the “alt-right attack” Narrative[tm]), any “blood in the streets” (if not running) was all shed by people who were attacked by Fellow Travelers for daring to have a differing opinion (which, yes, in some cases was a rather odious one, but it’s their right to talk about it).

    1. But that’s different, don’cha know. It was all still our fault. They’ll tell us so. We should have listened closer to Obama and Clinton and simply opened our wallets and handed over everything we had. That collective guilt has to be paid for somehow.

      1. Would when they go for the Jews (hardly an unusual event for authoritarian a-holes) be making them pay the collective gelt?

        Just wonderin’. 🙂

    2. I suspect the Charlottesville death can be shown to be 100% accidental in that the young man was trying to escape a bunch of violent counter protesters, that the woman was not crossing the street at the crosswalk and that crowds were ignoring traffic signals.

      1. As I recall early reports (you know the kind: before they determine the proper narrative and erase inconvenient truths) the driver had a mental condition, such as autism, that caused him to become confused and highly anxious in chaotic situations, such as mobs of angry people shouting and milling about.

        Thus the failure is of the Charlottesville police and VA state troopers for failing to maintain public order in a readily anticipated situation.

          1. I won’t go into crowded restaurants or stores, and urban areas give me the heebies. Throw in some screeching PA systems, blaring TVs, animated advertising boards, and general commotion, and I’m in full retreat. And I’m prfctly nrml. It’s the people who can accept that sort of thing as normal who have issues…

      2. Since A) The Antifa morons appear to like blocking streets


        B) the general public seems to be tiring of the tactic

        I confidently expect to read of a lot more ‘protesters’ (rioters) getting run over.

        1. I confidently expect to read of a lot more ‘protesters’ (rioters) getting run over.
          It has happened a couple of other places. Oddly, the incidences of blocked streets appears to have fallen off. (Might be the semi-global cooling occurring right now – what we non-progs call “winter”.)

      3. Whether or not it was accidental, bringing it up risks drawing attention to the fact that the police basically encouraged a violent confrontation between the two sides in that city.

        1. A tragedy* would be a terrible thing to waste, as they well know, and this “violent confrontation” mostly involved outside agitators over whom there would be few tears shed.

          *such as today’s fifth anniversary of the Sandy Hook shooting:

          On 5th anniversary of Sandy Hook, media partisans trot out bogus gun stats
          by Becket Adams
          There have not been nearly 2,000 mass shootings in the United States since 2012.

          Not by any standard definition, that is.

          You can be forgiven for believing this statistic if you got your news Thursday from certain “explainer” websites or CNN’s cable-news-host-in-waiting Jim Acosta.

          “After Sandy Hook we said never again. And then we let 1,576 mass shootings happen,” read a headline published Thursday by Vox. The article added that roughly 1,788 have been killed and 6,333 wounded in that same time period.

          CNN’s Acosta, who enjoys reading poems during White House press briefings when he’s not trying to dunk on administration officials, faithfully parroted this bogus claim.

          “Since Sandy Hook there have been at least 1,552 mass shootings, with at least 1,767 people killed and 6,227 wounded,” he tweeted.

          The only thing worse than correcting a false narrative is having to do it twice. But that’s what we’re here for, so let’s get to it. …

      4. Sadly it’ll probably at best be a hung jury. Will have at least one person on jury who thinks that he should have just been put on knees and executed.

      1. Or Michael Brown was just minding his business, doing nothing, when a racist cop appeared and just shot him down in cold blood, despite his hands being up.
        Well, he had just robbed a store, and was actually in the process of trying to hurt the cop by reaching inside the cruiser, but who you going to believe?

        1. If Brown was the gentle giant they claim, he would not have been in the street blocking traffic for a cop to stop and be attacked, after Brown had robbed that store. There would have been no reason for the cop, racist or not, to bother looking Brown’s direction.
          If Travon was the little angel they claim, he wouldn’t have been in that neighborhood, now suffering from a rash of thefts (that started with his arrival and ended with his last breath), and he’d have not had to walk to the store to get his drug making ingredients, because he’d not be getting suspended from school for having burglary tools and stolen goods in his possession.
          But other than that . . .

          1. Which isn’t to say that a lot of police departments aren’t hassling the innocent, or that Police Militarization isn’t a real problem. I find it interesting, though, that the BLM movement seems to focus on bogus cases. Almost as if it were intended to make the cops more insular while welding the poor to ineffective outrage.

            1. and these are almost always in our leftoid strongholds. basically BLM, is fighting you or I over a manufactured situation brought about by those who claim to support BLM.
              Look at where their cases of upheld bloody shirts occur. Most haven’t had conservative republican control in decades. But this is supposed to be our fault.
              I’ve noticed for years the “honor” of Most Racist City goes to Boston or one of its socialist run kin.
              Yeah, it’s almost as if someone wants a race war between blacks and police.

            2. the BLM movement seems to focus on bogus cases
              I’ve made that point, too. There are plenty of legitimate police abuse cases (a product of our return to elitism), but the BLM folks never seem to grab hold of those.
              As JP says, it’s almost as if……..

              1. Keep in mind that the BLM movement is a wholly owned subsidiary of Soros, Inc. funded in part by George Soros.

                  1. Pretty much every Left-Wing activist group is a front funded by Soros, Kerry (or rather, Heinz) and labor unions. It is the reason they were so ready to declare the T.E.A. Party as astro-turf. Some would say the Devil knows his own, but more likely those accustomed to counterfeit coin lose the ability to recognize the real thing.

                    1. In defense of Truth I will dispute your “Old Nazi” designation. As I understand what happened in the camps he was no Nazi, he was a kapo, selling out his coreligionists to save his own worthless hide.

                      Yes, that is lower than a Nazi. I said I was defending Truth, not Soros.

    3. Is it possible that, on investigation, it turns out that the antifa idiots were rocking the car? It’s a common ‘protest’ behavior for the left, and the only thing the driver can do is gun it.

      1. Nyah, not possible. If the antifa idiots had been rocking the car the highly trained professional journalists covering the protests would have reported it.

        Or maybe it is Santa who would have — I get these mythological observors of who’s naughty or nice confused.

    4. Looks like they’ve gone with a first degree murder charge against him. I don’t know if he’s guilty of a crime or if it was just an accident. If accidental, I hope the prosecution falls flat on their face with this.

      1. Have you noticed a tendency for prosecutors, especially in Progressive polities, to over-charge defendants? Nice to be able to look tough without actually being tough.

        1. The conspiratorial cynic in me wonders if the overcharging is deliberate, in the hopes of either A. claiming that racism is alive and well in America if the jury says, “Not enough evidence of premeditation” or B. If the jury does decide there’s enough evidence of premeditation, using the verdict as a cudgel against their political appointments.
          Hanlon’s Razor, however, tells me the prosecutor wants to get his name in the papers.

        2. Typical everywhere, now. Charge people with multiple felonies, even if there’s no evidence whatsoever. Wave them at the accused while telling them they’re facing huge prison terms, then open the plea bargaining. With luck they can still get a felony, which makes their statistics look good, and the System avoids the expense of a trial. Everyone wins. Except the poor bastard who just got prison for something a reasonable DA wouldn’t have bothered prosecuting.

    5. Yeah, after a video popped up that clearly showed 1) the car never touched the ‘victim’ (and it came out later, she died not of injuries but of a heart attack), 2) the car was being attacked by thugs with baseball bats …. suddenly all the outrage dried up and we heard no more about it.

      1. Christmas! If that’s what the video shows, how the heck did the DA managed to bamboozle a grand jury to approve the charges?

          1. “We are still working very hard to authenticate and analyse the video, but there are numerous depositions of eye-witness accounts and we need to act quickly to send a message that such fascistic terrorism is not tolerated in our community!”

          1. And well they should!!! When I was a kid a ham sandwich tried to choke me! I’ve hated them ever since.

            1. We cannot tolerate this blatant sandwichism! Ham sandwiches are no more violent than their sliced turkey and roast beef sandwich neighbors!

              Those bourgeois bologna sandwiches on the other hand…

  6. And, just to be sure she covers everything, she has to throw in race.
    Wow. Yeah, it must be OUR fault that race was a factor. It couldn’t possibly be the 8 years of having “race” used against us, over and over again. It couldn’t possibly be that her Democrat predecessor screwed her chances by pissing off the still-majority of voters.

    1. Well, you know how backward all those conservatives are. We hold our religion dear and sacred. We believe in the Constitution and we don’t think the government should tell us how we should run our businesses. That means it has to come down to being Bible-thumping, inbred racists. What other explanation can there be?

      1. Of course when you turn up with conservative Buddhists, conservative Muslims, conservative Hindus, conservative animists, conservative neo-pagans, and conservative native American religious followers it just messes up their whole day.

        1. Now Mike, you know those aren’t “Real, Authentic” followers of non-Abrahamic religions. Just like conservative Gays, Blacks, Hispanics, or Women aren’t really “Real, Authentic” minorities.
          If they were Real and Authentic, they would be Leftist Democrats!

      1. Well, you can’t have healing without an injury, so finding a decided lack of same in today’s America, they set out to create it…

  7. It always amazes me that no one on the left seems to realize just how incredibly insulting their claims that anyone who doesn’t support them is “voting against their interests” are. Well, perhaps they do realize it but just don’t think we’re smart enough to pick up on that nuance…

    1. They are so programmed to the rhetoric, they don’t think about the logic of it or about how it might be perceived by others. They are right. We are wrong and that’s that, at least in their book.

      1. Well, actually thinking it would be questioning one of the dogmas of their religion. You can’t do that if you’re a fundamentalist true believer, on pain of being anathemized and excommunicated.

        1. It’s a religion. I once asked a die-hard Dem why he voted against his best interest once.
          We were discussing a company buying another so they could then move corporate headquarters to a lower tax nation easier (the bought company having HQ in Cork, Ireland). He said that should be illegal, and a company should be forced to pay that same higher tax rate. I pointed out corporations don’t pay taxes, they see it as an expense. He got huffy, saying he knew they paid because he owned his own company. I asked him where the money to pay his Michigan and Detroit taxes came from, and he mumbled ” from my customers… mostly”.
          I replied it better be always, or he wasn’t going to remain in business much longer. I also pointed out if his taxes were lower, he might be better able to compete with the others in his business who weren’t in Detroit, Michigan etc and not paying such high tax rates.

    2. Another point is that if “God, guns, and gays” are so unimportant in the larger scheme of things, why don’t those on the Left give up THEIR views on those issues? Conceded that most of the country doesn’t want men in the women’s locker room (even men convinced they are women) and just focus on the important economic issues?

      Oh, right. It’s because THEIR views on the subject are important and correct and even worth losing an election or two over. It’s the peasants who just need to focus on their immediate needs and leave the thinking about the larger issues to their betters.

      1. Yup. It all boils down to, “Shut up and do as you’re told.” And then when we indicate a disinclination to play along, we’re the most evil creatures on the planet, and must be destroyed.

      2. You remind me of Dick Armey’s explanation of Democrat calls for “bipartisanship” — They want us to be bi- and they will be partisan.

          1. But that’s not even what the Democrats mean nowadays by “bipartisan”. It means “what the progressives want, but the nominal right votes for.”

                1. IIRC They are trying to claim that they had Republican support in the Senate.

                    1. That would be all the Republican senators who said they would have voted for it if only they weren’t terrorized by their Bible-thumping, gun-clinging, immigrant-bashing, fear-mongering deplorable base?

              1. Oh, that’s not new; it was always sold as “Romneycare” when convenient, as in “All we did is implement Romney’s plan, and he’s a Republican!”

            1. “Bipartisan” is what the Democrats think should be enacted and what the MSM think should be enacted.

    3. If “you” want to do it, and “I” don’t want to do it, how is it in “my” interests?

      Yar. Logic isn’t a progressive’s strong point.

    4. Who is this @55hole who falsely believes they know MY interests better than I do? Someone who ain’t ever gettin’ my vote, that’s for damn sure! – Anyone Sane

    5. Well, either the voter is stupid, and doesn’t have the capacity to see Leftist reasoning; or he is smart, can see the radiant glow of the coming Leftist Utopia, and rejects it because he is a greedy stupidhead.
      Thus, anyone against them is either Stupid or Evil. That they may be wrong doesn’t enter into it.

      1. Of course it doesn’t. When you’re a True Believer, anything that isn’t in accord with your scriptures just can’t be considered.

        1. People are always looking for something to believe in.

          I believe I’ll have a drink,

          after I get back from fencing tonight.

                1. Now let’s see if I got the facts straight here:
                  Cleaningwoman Clara Clifford discovered your clean copper clappers kept in a closet were copped by Claude Cooper, the kleptomaniac from Cleveland. Now is that about it?

  8. “How do we help give people in rural counties such as Mingo and McDowell a fighting chance? The most urgent need right now is to stop the Trump Administration from making things a whole lot worse.”
    Yeah, Hill, that second question is not an answer to the “how” question in the first sentence. Not grasping that is a huge part of your problem.

    1. She never answers the question. She spent the entire chapter using the coal mining quote as a linch-pin on why she lost the election. Then, because she still couldn’t answer the question (instead, she spent pages explaining why the issue really started long before her but she was unfairly targeted by the media, etc), she turns to the current administration. My question, as it always has been while reading the book, is WTF does that have to do with her campaign, with “What Happened”.

      1. Also find the blame she heaps on Bernie interesting… watch his concession announcement at the DNC. Someone had a gun to his head.

        (I don’t like Bernie, but he’s occasionally shown that he may grok the notion of ‘principles’, if only because he’s a True Believer in his cause. At least sometimes.)

  9. “But I wish I could have found the words or emotional connection to make them believe how passionately I wanted to help their communities and families.”
    Oh, sweety, we did believe how passionate you were about “helping” us. It’s not about your passion to inflict progressive ‘solutions’ on our non-existent problems. It’s about the fact that you are passionate about inflicting your progressive solutions on our non-existent problems. ESPECIALLY after telling us how ignorant and backwards we must all be for believing in the ideas and principles upon which this nation was founded.

          1. I’ve known a few folks from Arkansas, they’ve gone well past the polite southern sayings and are well into explitives not deleted when it comes to the Clintons, particularly Hillary

      1. Amanda, you ‘sound’ just like my Aunt Gloria, bless her heart, she’s been dead for the past 10 years now. May you remain far from that event!

              1. Dear Everybody:


                We’re getting the filtered version, and I’m guessing even for that I’ll be going through one more bottle of something (and I bloody well don’t mean Coors Light!) before it’s done.

          1. My cardio-pulmonary resuscitation skills are a bit outdated, since while I work in a hospital, I don’t engage in hands on patient care. But I do know how to use an automatic defibrillator!

                    1. Eh prepping for a colonoscopy isn’t that bad if you know the tricks (probably had one 30 times since ’89). Liquid diet for 24 hours (Jell-O counts as a liquid) and make sure you drink lots so your well hydrated to start with. Have the mixed jug of prep down at near freezing to numb the taste buds. Chug don’t sip, and rinse with ice water after each 8oz glass.

                    2. Thanks for the reminder that I am sitting on a letter from my gastroenterologist advising me it’s been a while since last they’ve seen me and they would like to revisit the scene of their last intrusion. I don’t care for the nap and tend to not recover well afterward. All in all it is just an enormous pain in the a…..

    1. “It’s not about your passion to inflict progressive ‘solutions’ on our non-existent problems. It’s about the fact that you are passionate about inflicting your progressive solutions on our non-existent problems.”
      Looking at the top down, almost Stalinist way her campaign was run, it is obvious her administration would work the same way.

      1. I’d be wary of an attempted Final Solution to the Rural Deplorables Problem. OTOH, I doubt they’d like the response to the attempt.

  10. painting then-candidate Donald Trump as divisive and, well, evil.

    Projection: it’s not just for movie theatres!

      1. She comes across as one of the type who don’t see others as people. I forget what this week’s DSM term for that is.

        It’s all about Hillary, because she doesn’t see that the meat puppets surrounding her have opinions and goals of their own. They’re just objects that are useful when they support her, and enemies if they don’t.

          1. And a stupid one at that.

            IIRC a smart one can fake it better than that.

          1. I think the DSM stopped being a medically useful tool after III.

            Fixed that for you. There is no denying it is a highly useful tool for other (e.g., political) purposes.

        1. For inexplicable reasons this comes to mind:

          Letting Congress design a solution to any problem only ensures the problem will never be resolved.

            1. hmm. I think we had a glitch in the matrix.
              One of my replies went way off course too, and I can only get one comment at a time to fit on my phone screen, so it ain’t like I bumped a different reply link

              Also, the engineer I have had to deal with wouldn’t have come that close to the correct design

        2. Yeah, we’re a problem rather than people. An attitude shared by coastal elites towards those of us in flyover country. (Every winter, we get told that studded snow tires cause too much damage. Spoken by someone who sees an inch or two of snow once a winter, to those who drive on roads covered by a half inch of packed snow/ice. Sod off, swampy!)

          1. Well, part of the problem is people using studded tires in those places where there isn’t much snow and ice, and thereby tearing up the roads. Seriously, folks, if you don’t drive over a mountain during snowstorms, or live somewhere the road never clears, you probably don’t need studded tires. (Yes, I get that they make a really cool noise when you drive down the highway. So do baseball cards in your bicycle spokes. Try that, instead, please.)

                1. I’ve driven on ice storm-coated streets without snow tires OR chains once. (Forecast incorrect and everybody got caught at work.) I think I did better than nearly everybody else I saw on the roads because it was scary and I was paying very close attention to what the car was doing.

                  Also took about 90 minutes to go ten miles. I only slid twice, and thankfully not far either time.

                  1. When we moved up here, the insurance agent recommended sniped studless snow tires. We tried it on the 2WD Ranger. It did OK in snow, though the 4WD Chevy with studded snows got a lot more use. However, I tried driving on the north side of a hill in Klamath Falls that winter. It had been cold and the streets were quite slick. I made it up 50′ from one intersection before sliding back down. I really don’t like entering an intersection sliding backwards…

                    After that, we decided to park the Ranger most winters. Eventually, we replaced it with a Subaru Forester. I drove that vehicle in Utah on glare ice on a road trip to the Midwest. I-80 iced up just outside of Salt Lake City (late April) and a lot of people got caught. Had to go by a huge multi-vehicle collision, including an upside-down SUV. The Subie did all right, but the studded tires would have been nice. (FWIW, Illinois has a complete ban on studded tires, so even if it had been in winter, I’d have had to go without.)

                  2. I drove through Ruidoso, NM during its worst blizzard to date in January ’85 on regular tires. Because I was going from Tucson, which was clear, to Wichita, which was clear. Only managed to slide once, but it was a nail-biting about ninety seconds.

                    We only used snow tires regularly when Dad was stationed at Grand Forks AFB.

            1. Both conditions fit. This year, I’m a frequent traveler between Klamath County and Medford. Wednesday, 70% of the trip involved driving on patchy ice. With medical appointments, I don’t have the luxury of choosing the day I can travel. Locally, we have a few miles of perma-ice driving through the forest. If I want to go to town for business, I don’t have a choice. (Pneumatic retractable studs are a thing, but I haven’t seen them in the real world just yet.)

              And yes, in most years, I’ll a) time the trips for good weather, and b) use summer tires if the roads are dry for an extended period. Doesn’t look like either condition will apply for a month or two, at least.

              My wife watches the Medford news, and there’s always a few accidents on the highway caused by a westsider sliding off the road in, yep, ice. Personally, I’d rather hear the sounds of studded tires on pavement than screams of injured people, but you can have your snark.

  11. “<Ishe doesn’t say what she is going to do to help [coal miners] when she closes down the mines and takes away their jobs.”

    Sure she did:
    I’m the only candidate who has a policy about how to bring economic opportunity using clean renewable energy

    They’ll be able to get work as unicorn ranchers.

    That’s a much healthier working environment, lots of fresh air and outdoor activity.

      1. A group of Truly Angered unicorns is a fearsome thing. being run through with the horn or trampled would be kinder. But when they’re really, truly, offgep[eace]d.. saturation glitterbombing. pneumoglitterosis is nasty.

      2. Have you seen the latest thing? Glitter is harmful to the environment (it washes into the ocean eventually.) I wonder when glitter bans will start popping up. (And moms everywhere will still be finding glitter for decades after a ban, even in houses that have had the flooring replaced. Glitter is forever.)

          1. Yes. I saw a recent article that talked about the bulk of the plastics in the ocean coming from eight rivers, every one of which is in Asia or Africa. That article also talked about the reasonable concept of targeting those particular rivers for mitigation practices. If nothing else, get a freaking net and monitor it…

  12. Day 1 – Thus far, the Book of Unspeakable Doom has done little to live up to its formidable reputation.

    Day 2 – I have read such things.

    Day 3 – The angles of the room have changed. The measurements insist they are the same, but my eyes are not wrong.

    Day 4 – Shadows. Shadows mocking me. Why do they laugh?

    Day 5 – Flame will not destroy it. I hear the Living Horror That Crawls in the hallway coming to take me to the Dread Ones. There is no time! I implore you, do not read it! Do not! It is too late for me but

    1. Day 6: Do not listen to the voices when they say to get the audio of the book. The incantations included therein will destroy the soul, not only yours but the souls of all those who might venture near enough to hear. The voices never stop. No matter what you do. They whisper, telling you to give up all hope.

          1. It’s not so bad . . . the Dread Ones beckon . . . Yhai! Yhai! Yamamanama ksathm!

  13. As far as the “making history” bit was concerned, I always wondered if it bothered feminists at least a little bit that the first woman presidential nominee was Bill’s wife. Not that she was married to Bill Clinton but that the only reason she was nominated was because of who she was married to. Despite her claims to be “the most qualified presidential candidate since 1776” or whatever, the odds of a 1.5-term junior senator and 1-term Secretary of State attracting the virtual guarantee from the party she needed to get the nomination is pretty much nil if she wasn’t the wife of a popular Democratic president. Ultimately, the party didn’t nominate Hillary Rodham; it nominated Bill Clinton’s wife.

    Contrast that with someone like Sarah Palin or Elizabeth Warren. Whatever you think about those two, they made it as far as they did on their own, not because they were an accessory to a powerful man. I’ve got to say that either of them would be a better example to the “boys and girls” than Hillary; you too can be president if you marry the right powerful man and stay loyal to him through all his affairs and rapes and sexual harassment of his underlings.

    1. Think about the psychology of someone who insists that a specific person be elected because that specific person has some quality that makes them a totem to that someone.

      Hillary is important to many women who are not personally satisfied with what they have done with their lives. Why are they unsatisfied? Well, society is evil for not reshaping itself to put them in their proper place. Alternatively, they’ve made some choices about what they will be happy about, and these sorts of choices more significantly impact satisfaction than precise details of society. (The grass is always greener, and if my circumstances had permitted me to hit the goals I am currently chasing after, who is to say that I would not now be chasing after a different set of goals.)

      Hillary has some things that a saner mindset might derive a certain amount of satisfaction from. But it is clear that if anything, they gall her, drive her to seek ever higher levels of personal egoboo. That is probably why she resonates more with the sort who use her as a fetish. Warren may leave the senate if she gets a chance for presidential run, but I have the impression that she would be more satisfied than Hillary would at the prospect of staying a senator into doddering senility.

      It’s magical thinking tied to personal ego. It doesn’t have to make objective sense.

          1. She’s giving a speech about how you have to vote for her, or George Bush will destroy the country as President.

    2. Not just that she rode Bill’s coattails but that she did so much to throw mud on those women who brought to light Bill’s sexual escapades. How can she stand there and claim to be an advocate and champion of women’s rights, how can she say we should believe the allegations women are bringing now when she tried to cast doubt on those women who said Bill acted as he did?

      1. I think that means there’s a special place in hell reserved for Hillary Clinton. After all, Madeline Albright tells us there’s a special place in hell for women who don’t support other women.

      2. She was probably thinking: look on the bright side… Bill is in their beds, not mine.

        (Word around was she had her boys on the side too, and everyone was pleased with these arrangements.)

        1. Boys on the side? I’ve heard her preferences go slightly differently, but then such rumours tend to trail all female politicians of mannish aspect.

          More relevantly, one of the proffered explanations for Vince Foster’s suicide was that he and Hillary had been close in Arkansas and he took hard her distancing herself from him in DC. I ain’t sayin’ nothing, but some folk suggest looking at pictures of Chelsea alongside pix of Bill and Vince.

    3. Leaving aside any debate over whether she was “most qualified” since the Founding (and oy vey, can that be debated! Our nation’s history is replete with “more qualified” candidates losing the presidency –Nixon to JFK, George H. W. Bush to Bill Clinton … ) what strikes me about this is how much she sounds like the purported Jesse Helms constituency: “You were more qualified but you lost that job because of …”

      1. I know you said you wanted to leave it aside, but no, the question of whether she was the most qualified really can’t be debated. To name just one example: George H.W. was a naval aviator, congressman, ambassador to the UN, director of the CIA, and vice president. He was at least a tiny bit more qualified than Mrs. Clinton.

        She wasn’t the least qualified, but that’s only because Obama (and really, probably Trump too) lowered the bar so far.

        1. Or Dwight Eisenhower, who somehow managed to keep Montgomery and Patton from meeting each other with pistols at dawn, which by itself would qualify him to be POTUS aside from any of his other accomplishments.

          1. While both moved legitimately up the rank ladder, neither Montgomery nor Patton should ever have held a field command. It was only a lot of up-the-chain situation management that kept them from being remembered alongside Custer and McClellan.

            As for Eisenhower, his book “Crusade in Europe”, about how he personally won WWII, has to top HRC’s whinefest. By his own words, Eisenhower didn’t even know his own chain of command…

        2. That’s just “accomplishments”, like the mud people have. Meaningless. Bush was unqualified because the People Who Counted didn’t accept them into their in-group.

  14. I can understand her wanting to be judged by what she did. Problem is, she never did anything useful to the American people, so any judgments are likely to go against her.

    “I’m the only candidate who has a policy about how to bring economic opportunity using clean renewable energy as the key into Coal Country.”

    Really? How come I never heard, or saw, her policy for that? What possible clean renewable energy system could possibly be economical to produce in Coal Country?

    I’d go with telling Hillary to grow the F* up; except she never listens to anyone anyway. She’s the perpetually petulant teenager. Thinks she knows it all, and is deaf to everything.

    Don’t care how passionate someone claims to be to help my community and family. Actions speak louder than words, and in the long run, all of Hillary’s actions have been detrimental to me, my family, and my community.

    1. Oh, the very last thing she wants is to be judged by what she did. She wants to be judged by her claims, and for everyone to believe that she knows what’s best for them. It won’t happen that way of course, but that’s what she’d really prefer.

      1. “Mrs. Clinton, the electorate has decided to go all insurance agency on you.”

        “What does THAT mean?”

        “It means they’ve decided to judge you on your claims, and they’ve all been disallowed because you failed to submit valid receipts.”

        “What! I submitted receipts for everything!”

        “That’s the point ma’am. You claimed responsibility for everything and submitted the receipts. However, they don’t count when you’re the one signing them.”

      1. West Virginia is nominally close to DC, which should provide an endless supply of “biomass”. They also have cows in WV, to supplement, if necessary.

    2. I think she took a page from Nancy Pelosi’s book. Remember, she told us not to worry about what was in the AAC. She told members of the House to vote for it and then we could all read it together — after it was passed into law. HRC operates much the same. “Trust me when I say I have a plan. I’ll reveal it after you give me all the power.”

      And we’ve seen how well that’s worked out historically, haven’t we?

      1. Obamacare would have worked just fine if we had left the Dems in charge because we all know “no plan survives contact with reality” and so a few “minor” tweaks were going to be required to suppress dissent make the plan work as we saw how markets and the public incentivized politicians responded to its deployment.

        1. Dear Wallaby, I know you are… sending up… but.. ox slow.. and even though now Suntori bottle (seems similar to decent blended scotch) almost empty… and a good stout stout had… ox not THAT slow or that snockered – and likely never will be.

          1. If one of us ever gets *that* slow, like as not there will be powerful drugs involved. Like “you gonna die if we don’t surgerize yous quicklike” drugs.

    3. Her problem is that you need at least some charisma if you are going to sell boy bands to the unwashed.

        1. Not by my definition. “Charisn’tma” is when you have someone who’s revolting but so fascinating that you can’t look away. Trump arguably has charisn’tma.

          No, Hillary is the obnoxious relative who insists on spending Thanksgiving talking about the Consumer Finance Bureau whom you really just wish would go away.

          1. I meant that she has the opposit of charisma. Your definition is interesting, but I think it runs aground on the likes of That Certain Austrian. He had buckets of Charisma, even for people who despised him.

            Hillary is tiresome.

            1. Over the years it has been noteworthy that Hillary’s public favorability has consistently varied in inverse proportion to her public availability. The less the public sees of her the more they like less they dislike her.

            2. HRC has the public presence of that really angry and bitter Womyn’s Studies prof that nobody really likes (except for a small group of lickspittles), mixed with a good portion of Hateful Mother In Law.

    4. Wind, maybe? I’m not sure how all the coal miners would make the transition, but something tells me Mrs. Clinton thinks one blue-collar job is the same as another.

      1. She figures if they all get a job standing in a field, blowing up at the windmills…………………

        1. That seems improbable. More likely they will be fed troughs of baked beans positioned to have their backsides pointed toward the windmills.

    5. She’s the perpetually petulant teenager.

      Interestingly, one way I’ve heard Personality Disorders described is that it’s as if the personality stops developing in adolescence.

  15. He wanted to make sure trade agreements were fair and not tilted against America’s best interests.

    Sometimes, to show how serious about not be a sucker you are, you have to walk away to convince people that no, you are not gonna fall for that crap. I recall our alleged media in a tizzy when Reagan decided there was no point in hanging around Reykjavík when it was started with, “Here’s the concessions YOU need to make.” so he simply left – proving that that crap was simply Not. Gonna. Happen. And yet.. next time.. things went well – because the Soviets now knew they couldn’t just dictate terms. Same. Damn. Thing.

    Is Trump another Reagan? Haw! As if! But… he can emulate well enough, considering the dirigible fire we could have been stuck with.

      1. Trump may prove another Reagan; he’s certainly proven more successful than Reagan at regulatory rollback and appoint textualist judges. It is important to see beyond the trim and gingerbreading to the structure underneath.

        In actuality Trump probably is not another Reagan, any more than Reagan was another Coolidge. Times change and needs must change with them.

        1. Trump may also out-Reagan Reagan on the Immigration and border control issue too. But that may take a couple more years.

          1. Seems to be doing ok so far. In fact that’s driving the Lefties of my acquaintance batty; they can’t argue that he isn’t keeping his promises, or that those promises are turning out all that badly (though the try), so they have to spin dark fantasies about what he MIGHT do in the future.

            1. Only problem is that he is in the same position as president lightbringer. The extent of what legislature has done since inauguration has been to approve a few judges and cabinet members and conduct an investigation into what dirt can be found on the president. All the executive actions that actually happen will be swept away first week. At least Reagan had to deal with Democrat legislature as opposed to his own party.

              1. The difference seems to be that Trump’s executive orders seem to do pretty much what he sells them as doing, whereas Obama would make all kinds of claims, none of which were ever mentioned again (for pretty good reason).

                1. Not speaking to utility or validity but that they are as ephemeral as his predecessor’s. Honestly even more so because the agencies feet drag and courts apply the argument of the week to stop it. Already got one trying to enshrine ratchet effect in law. Congress has to get their act together. But the only laws I expect personally will be passed are a DACA amnesty and gun control.

                  Reagan at least got bills out.

                2. Another thing: many of Trump’s executive orders are to <I<restore Constitutional order (e.g., revoking Obama’s DAPA program, which abused prosecutorial discretion to legislative effect) while Obama’s executive orders were attempts to end-run Constitutional limits.

                  Draw your own conclusions as to why certain entities in American politics and Media (but I repeat myself) object to Trump’s EOs but were complacent about Obama’s.

  16. Next up, we get to see what she has to say about her emails. Won’t that be fun?

    /me goes to make sure there is plenty ouzo. Sees bottle is almost full. Good. Has nasty feeling gonna need it – badly.

    1. I wish my bottle was. I have a feeling there’s not going to be enough booze — or coffee — to get through that chapter in one sitting.

      1. Thus, why I purchased a copy of the Nocturnal Lives box set like a one man book bomb. So you can Get Paid. This drivel of Hillary’s ought not to be faced soberly and alcohol costs money.

        1. Sigh. Not available in dead tree, and I truly prefer reading from the mangled, ichor-splattered corpses of trees.

          I see that the first DT book is Amazoned from three third party robbers:

          Makes you wonder, eh? I don’t s`pose you sell direct?

          1. Actually, I’m in the process of redoing the print versions of everything. They’ll be out after the first of the year. I meant to have them done by now but real life interfered.

            1. [R]eal life interfered“!!! How dare real life do that?!?

              My “real life” afternoon entailed purchasing a replacement dishwasher. Bleh. My emotional connection to dishwasher shopping ranks just above kidney replacement. At least they can promise delivery within the week so Christmas Day isn’t spent hand-washing utensils. (Hopefully it won’t entail heated discussions of how the delivered product is failing to conform to advertised characteristics.)

              I look forward to purchasing carefully desecrated corpses of trees from you in the new year.

              1. We just got a replacement washer. Yes, it’s HE, but it also has a nifty button called “Extra Water”, so we’re good. (And it’s so quiet after the last one’s months-long dying scream.)

                1. (goggles!) Wow! You got a dish washer with High Explosive? That must do a really good job with stuck on grease!

    2. What can she say? She was cleared, not of wrongdoing, but of criminal intent. So, either one buys the clearing or one doesn’t. If one buys it, she’s either so stupid or so technically incompetent that she shouldn’t be President. If one doesn’t buy the clearing, she’s a crook and a liar who is being covered for by her political cronies.

  17. Amanda, I would add to your liquor fun right now, but that link seems to demand I set up a PayPal account of mine own. While it’s been years since I’ve seen PayPal horror stories, I recall enough of them – from those I trust, yes – that I am still Very Leery Indeed. That is, I trust PayPal only slightly more than I trust Hillary. (See: Faint Praise, Damning with)

    1. Yep, I haven’t used Paypal in years. So I resorted to the Correia sponsored, Bezos approved funding method.

    2. I think you can go to my blog and use the link there without a paypal account. I’m not sure which link Sarah is using, the straight paypal or the addy.

    3. Well, I used the PayPal, since I’ve had an account for a long time (back when it was necessary for eBay).
      BTW, did you know PayPal tells me what city you live in (supposedly) when I send you money? Not sure why it would do that, but it does.

      1. I noticed that — only reason I can think of is because there is more than one Amanda Green and they are trying to make sure you have the right one.

  18. “I wanted to be judged on what I did”

    You were, cupcake. For some of us the phrase “vast right-wing conspiracy” while you defended your womanizing adulator husband still rings in our ears.

    or maybe it was what you didn’t do – like in Benghazi.

    Or maybe it was calling people who disagree with you deplorable.

    “gays, guns, and God.”

    Where have I heard that before? Gee, sounds an awful lot like “clinging to their guns and bibles”.

    You were judged on what you said, did and didn’t do – and found wanting.

    1. Don’t forget what might have been the longest lasting damage – Taking out Khadifi after we’d made a deal to leave him alone if he gave up his WMD programs & respected his neighbor’s borders.

      Who the heck is going to trust that the U.S. bargains in good faith after that!?!?

      1. Well, that could be blamed on Obama not Hillary.

        What was worse IMO was that Obama made it clear that Khadifi would face a war crimes trial even if he surrendered.

        IE The “old way” was to convince a tyrant to surrender and allow him to live in exile so nobody had to invade his country.

        Obama “told” Khadifi that it was better for Khadifi to stay and fight than to go into exile. 😦

  19. that book just goes to show that Gollum-ette remains a twisted shadow of whatever she once might have been, and would bite off someone’s finger to regain Precious power.

    Oddly, her debacle and fall may ultimately destroy the power machine she sought to command in quest for rule. She will ride that book, shrieking, into Hellfire before she says “my bad” .

    Again, my sincere thanks to zer0 and Trump for blocking that twisted monster from the Oval Office.

    1. She will ride that book, shrieking, into Hellfire before she says “my bad”

      Image.. Hillary.. riding the book down… yes, like a (really really bad) parody of Dr. Strangelove.

      1. If anyone makes that.. sidesaddle.
        I know, Chelsea exists.
        I prefer NOT to think about the mechanics of that.
        Actually, were she mechanical, it might be for the better.

      2. I was actually thinking more of Charon’s boat, rather than a Bible or Slim Picken’s nuclear ride.

      3. I now have that image in my head — and I want someone to photoshop it for me. I might have to frame it and hang it somewhere special. 😉

        1. In your bathroom over the toilet, or as a backstop to your trashcan in the kitchen? Oh, I know, something to decorate your kitty litter box!

  20. Hillary, sweetie, you DID make history. For the first time, the Democrats were SURE the fix was in. So sure they effectively said to…and they FAILED. They failed because you are such a repulsive human being. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

  21. No matter what you think about Hillary Rodham Clinton, she did make history in 2016 by being the first woman to be a major political party’s nominee for president.

    Did she also provide the most historic temper tantrum in reaction to losing an election? (Possibly not… but I’m sure she’s up there on the list.)

    1. Gore’s was pretty impressive too.

      And come to think of it, hasn’t Jimmy Carter essentially been in the middle of his for almost forty years now?

      1. I think Jimmy went full on neurotic because even as President, nobody respected him. F’chrissakes, he was a sitting President and actually got challenged for the nomination!

        So he’s,spent his ex-Presidency gladhanding ever two bit dictator in the world, trying to ‘matter’.

        Poor slob.

        1. Consider: The one bright spot of Carter’s presidency was the deal between Sadat and Begin. Things might have been tougher than we know. When, at the live televised announcement, Carter made some comment about difficult moments, Begin gave a distinct, strong, nod. But that was the one thing he did well during those four years.

          That, I think, is why he tried to set himself up as Super Statesman. It was “I’ve got this.” An attempt to feel relevant? Likely. But he stuck with what he thinks he did well. Whether or not he actually does is another issue.

          1. According to what I read, the Camp David Accord was made in spite of Carter’s involvement, not because of it. Sadat and Begin wanted to cut a deal and worked around Jimmeh’s bumbling efforts.

            Give Carter credit for airline deregulation and for Paul Volcker, though. He basically implemented Reaganesque economic policies before Reagan, but it is unlikely he had the steel to go all the way, or even stick with them when the headwinds massed.

            1. While that might be true, what’s important here is what Carter thinks. And that’s why he cozies up to so many tyrants that the Carter Center could be called “Dictators ‘R’ Us.”

  22. One encouraging sign: I was at Costco on Monday, and even though it was a brand new store, packed with coastal Oregonians, the book section was entirely Clinton-free.

      1. Reasonably sure. SW Oregon is a bit of a mess, especially Medford. It was a classic working class lumber mill Democrat town, between the small, very pro-business Central Point and the People’s Republic of Ashland, a college town.

        This is a new Costco, replacing one that had been annexed into Medford. They were going to build the new one in Medford, but the city put up so many restrictions, Costco bailed and went to the town just north, Central Point. After the usual legal land-use battles, it got built. FWIW, this Costco draws from the area that would like to be in the state of Jefferson, so it’s less progressive than it could be. I did have a fellow customer try to “educate” me on the horrors of buying sugar-free cocoa mix, but he got the attention he deserved. I ignored him, while my wife graced them with a grade 3 death stare.

        1. Central Point is my go-to point to buy gas when driving to Grandma’s (the kids, not mine.) There was one memorable trip when I found out that the stations in Ashland were a staggering 30¢/gal more expensive. (You have to drive right by the station, since they don’t advertise on big signage. Gee, wonder why.)

          1. If you belong to Costco, they’re running 10-20 cents a gallon cheaper than the majors. Access to the place is a bit poor, but should improve once they get some traffic signals in place. I’ve learned the weird routes that avoid long waits to turn left.

      1. Check your local remaindered and closeout bookstore. There’s a good chance you couldn’t move from all the copies.

  23. What I get is that Clinton’s voice is the voice of the policy analyst, the manager of the administrative state.

    Unlike Bill Clinton, the master politician.

  24. The interesting thing is that “democrats voted republican this time after waiting for democrats to do what they said they’re going to do instead of doing the exact opposiite.” I predict a wave election in 2018 because Republicans are studiously making the exact same mistake. Screw Hillary, but simultaneously, at what point do we finally take our government back for the American people? I didn’t want Trump – but right now I’ll give him credit where credit is due: he seems to be trying to stick to his word. The same cannot be said for all the Republicans who ran on restoring a smaller government. I don’t even consider them “socialist lite” anymore. They’re full on socialist. Just like the Dems.

  25. Yes, this book is the opening salvo of her 2020 campaign.
    I can only hope that the Democrats are stupid enough to nominate her again. I don’t think we conservatives can be that lucky though.

    1. It is not unlikely — that is the whole premise for the “stolen” election side show, after all. Some (Donna Brazile) clearly anticipate and wish to ward off that development, but there is institutional inertia favoring that, even though she elicits little passion except as Feminist Icon.

      Both parties are capable of great stupidity, each in its own characteristic way.

  26. I only recently saw the movie, “Book Of Eli” which concerns a post-apoc wilderness devolved into a struggle of all against all where:

    Spoiler warning

    All Bibles had been destroyed, being somehow blamed for the multiple causes of the apocalypse. Yet, rumors of one Bible remains, and a particular warlord, who rules a small group with fear and a few bullyboys, is after it.

    His plaintive cry is the exactly the same as Hillary’s.
    “I need those words! Those special words in that book! I hear they can convince anyone of anything, do you know what I could do with those words!?!”

    Demonstrating that he entirely misses the point.

Comments are closed.