DirkGently
DirkGently's JournalWell, no. Clinton was widely criticized for overstaying in 2008.
That is precisely why she didn't openly complain about Sanders hanging in, pushing for platform influence. It's also pretty likely she traded her cooperation with Obama for her State position, which clearly was supposed to be a stepping stone to the Presidency in 2016.
Her choices in 2008 dictate what she can say now.
Eight years ago this month, Clinton was trailing hopelessly behind then-Sen. Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination. On May 1, 2008, Clinton loaned her bankrupt campaign $1 million (following at least $10 million in earlier loans). Before the end of that week, pundits were calling the contest for Obama, whose May 6 win in the North Carolina primary, by 14 points, had made his delegate lead essentially insurmountable. "We now know who the Democratic nominee will be," Tim Russert said on MSNBC after the results came in. Less than a week later, Obama surpassed Clinton in the superdelegate count, signaling that the party establishment was shifting behind the presumptive nominee.
But Clinton was determined to fight until the last votes had been cast. She would go on to win contests in West Virginia, Kentucky, and South Dakota before the primary ended on June 3, even though there was no way for her to make up her deficit in the delegate count.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/04/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-drop-out-election
Respectfully, this is just flailing on your part. Sanders strengthened the Democratic Party by injecting a level of appeal Clinton simply could not match. Blaming independents is a non-starter like all of the other excuses.
We picked the wrong candidate.
A bad emotional appeal beat a bloodless technocratic appeal.
If we have a takeaway here, that needs to be part of it. Hedging her bets with Wall Street, dialing back Sanders' calls for reform, squelching and deriding optimism and aspiration in favor of deal making and maneuvering.
It could have worked in a less divided country, with a more evenly recovered economy. But, "No we can't," was not going to cut it this time.
Clinton and her people need to own this, so we don't make this mistake again, because they will surely want to.
The rust belt voted for Obama and Sanders. Clinton assumed she had them as well.
Those states were part of the vaunted "Blue wall." Yet Sanders, not Clinton, carried them in the primary. That should have been a sign to everyone that Clinton could lose in the Electoral College.
According to the data, Donald Trump would have been soundly defeated by Bernie Sanders last night had the Vermont senator been the one to face him.
In five states Sanders won where exit polling data is available — Indiana, Michigan, Oklahoma, West Virginia, and Wisconsin — the demographics that helped Trump hit 270 electoral college votes were also Sen. Sanders’ key demographics that helped him defeat the former Secretary of State in multiple primaries in different regions of the country.
http://usuncut.com/politics/bernie-sanders-would-have-crushed-trump/
Clinton stayed well past inevitability in 2008 as well.
She made some very dark remark about remembering Bobby Kennedy, which a lot of people took to mean we should bear in mind Obama might be assassinated, since there was no other logic to what she said.
Her remarks were met with quick criticism from the campaign of Senator Barack Obama, and within hours of making them Mrs. Clinton expressed regret, saying, “The Kennedys have been much on my mind the last days because of Senator Kennedy,” referring to the recent diagnosis of Senator Edward M. Kennedy’s brain tumor. She added, “And I regret that if my referencing that moment of trauma for our entire nation and in particular the Kennedy family was in any way offensive.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/24/us/politics/24clinton.html
June? She was toast well before then.
And yet Obama won, by a lot, with the votes of a lot of people who weren't interested in Clinton.
No one loses a campaign except the candidates.
Sorry, but there's just no one else to blame.
Well, no. Poor Joy-Ann literally thinks there is still a Soviet Russia.
And that the Green Party, Snowden, and Sander are all into it, somehow! COMMIEEES! COMMIEESS EVERYWHERE! AIIEEEEE!
Joy ReidVerified account
?@JoyAnnReid
Joy ReidVerified account
?@JoyAnnReid
That said, for most Americans it's shocking to see an American presidential candidate openly touting authoritarian, communist Russia...
Even Jill Stein, who's taken the socialist Green Party full Putinite, and the Putin-tilting Snowdenistas haven't been nearly as successful.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/joy-reid-roundly-derided-for-tweeting-that-russia-is-still-a-communist-state/
You can paint Trump as sympathetic to Putin, and Putin as a product of the Soviet era, but that doesn't get you anywhere near even Trump touting communism itself, much less Sanders, Snowden, or the Green Party.
Most people recognized that.
“I imagine the old time American Communist Party is spinning in its collective grave with envy at what Trump is accomplishing,” Reid tweeted.
She drew explicit comparisons between Putinism and Green Party candidate Jill Stein, who she claimed had “taken the socialist Green Party full Putinite.” She also took aim at “the Putin-tilting Snowdenistas.”
Level of knowledge American journos have of today's Russia
When did Russia become "communist" again, @JoyAnnReid?
Anya ParampilVerified account
?@anyaparampil Anya Parampil Retweeted Joy Reid
Does @JoyAnnReid know the Soviet Union collapsed? Why does it all come back to commie bashing?
http://www.mediaite.com/online/joy-reid-roundly-derided-for-tweeting-that-russia-is-still-a-communist-state/
And even as for that, Putin is running a distinctly capitalist kleptocracy. You might look into his eyes and see "KGB," but he won't be turning over the means of production to the state any time soon.
Joy-Ann simply lost her damn mind at some point, and either forgot that the Soviet era ended 25 years ago, or just thought "commie" was the worst thing you could call anyone, and therefore should apply to anyone she disagreed with. To be that misinformed, and that unhinged, should disqualify her as a professional commentator anywhere in the public sphere.
No owns "independent" votes.
They're cast by people who didn't pick the candidate people wanted them to, which means nothing. They might have stayed home, or left the top spot blank like 87,000 ( wasn't it?) people in Michigan did.
It's a sore loser's argument, aimed at angrily enforcing conformity.
It's the candidate's job to convince voters.
Not the voters' job to buy what what you're selling. This gets at a fundamental attitude problem with Clinton and her segment of the Democratic Party.
We don't win being a smarter, more socially sensitive version of the same thing the same powers that be always want. We need to convince people without access to power that we will empower them.
Clinton did not do that. She thought it was the 1990s and Wall Street is fine and corporate power is fine and the minimum wage should go up a little but not too much and education should be just a little more affordable so on. She wanted to talk about gentle tweaks to the status quo, and that does not inspire people.
Trump didn't pull as many votes as McCain or Romney, and she still lost.
Hers is not the approach to winning over the country.
Obama was all those things, AND inspiring.
Let this be the death of the technocrat Presidential candidate. National elections are not about being the teacher's pet or having the most important friends.
You HAVE to give people something to aspire to. A vision of a different and better world.
Apparently even a terrible vision is more inspiring than, "Let's incrementally seek to improve without upsetting the powers that be."
It could be that bad, but Joy Reid is a terrible analyst.
She lost her mind during the election, screaming about Soviet-era communism on Twitter (Did you know that Trump, Sanders, Putin, Snowden, and the Green Party are all commies in league with the Soviet Union, which has not existed for 25 years? Joy-Ann Reid did!) and snapping at Trump surrogates on MSNBC in such a childish way that she actually looked like the less reasonable person.
I do agree with her to the extent that it's not Trump himself, who has few ideas that are even within the realm of possibility, but with the Ryans and Boltons and so forth he's surrounding himself with that may become the real power once he gets bored or overwhelmed with a job I think he never really thought he would have that we have to worry about.
If people were doing the math that carefully
Trump would have lost too. Taxes were overlooked in this election. Trump's imaginary program would bankrupt us, but no one cared.
This election turned on emotion. Hillary never had a problem with bloodless, "pragmatic" policy -- it's her strength. But it helped her not at all against a restless public still wanting change.
Remember how she mocked Obama's "pie in the sky" in 2008? Then she mocked Sanders the same way, for same thing. Then the electorate bought a madman's pie in the sky instead.
At least Sanders' difficult aspirations were for things that would actually do some good if they could be accomplished.
Profile Information
Gender: MaleHometown: Orlando
Home country: USA
Current location: Holistically detecting
Member since: Wed Jan 27, 2010, 04:59 PM
Number of posts: 12,151
