RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Solnit writes: "Sometimes I think I have never seen anything as strong as Hillary Clinton. That doesn't mean that I like and admire everything about her. I'm not here to argue about who she is, just to note what she did."

'Years of Republican plots, an opponent deified by television, and FBI smears stood in her way - and she still won the popular vote by more than Kennedy did.' (illustration: Andrzej Krauze)
'Years of Republican plots, an opponent deified by television, and FBI smears stood in her way - and she still won the popular vote by more than Kennedy did.' (illustration: Andrzej Krauze)


Don't Call Clinton a Weak Candidate: It Took Decades of Scheming to Beat Her

By Rebecca Solnit, Guardian UK

15 November 16

 

Years of Republican plots, an opponent deified by television, and FBI smears stood in her way – and she still won the popular vote by more than Kennedy did

ometimes I think I have never seen anything as strong as Hillary Clinton. That doesn’t mean that I like and admire everything about her. I’m not here to argue about who she is, just to note what she did. I watched her plow through opposition and attacks the like of which no other candidate has ever faced and still win the popular vote. To defeat her it took an unholy cabal far beyond what Barack Obama faced when he was the campaign of change, swimming with the tide of disgust about the Bush administration. As the New York Times reported, “By the time all the ballots are counted, she seems likely to be ahead by more than 2m votes and more than 1.5 percentage points. She will have won by a wider percentage margin than not only Al Gore in 2000 but also Richard Nixon in 1968 and John F Kennedy in 1960.”

You can flip that and see that Trump was such a weak candidate it took decades of scheming and an extraordinary international roster of powerful players to lay the groundwork that made his election possible. Defeating Clinton in the electoral college took the 2013 gutting of the Voting Rights Act by Republican appointees to the supreme court. It took vast Republican voter suppression laws and tactics set in place over many years. It took voter intimidation at many polling places. It took the long Republican campaign to blow up the boring bureaucratic irregularity of Clinton’s use of a private email server into a scandal that the media obediently picked up and reheated.

It took James Comey, the director of the FBI, using that faux-scandal and his power to stage a misleading smear attack on Clinton 11 days before the election in flagrant violation of the custom of avoiding such intervention for 60 days before an election. It took a compliant mainstream media running after his sabotage like a golden retriever chasing a tennis ball. It took decades of conservative attacks on the Clintons. Comey, incidentally, served as deputy GOP counsel to the Senate Whitewater committee, that fishing expedition that began with an investigation in a messy real estate deal in Arkansas before Bill Clinton’s presidency and ended with a campaign to impeach him on charges related to completely unrelated sexual activities during his second term.

It took a nearly decade-long reality TV show, The Apprentice, that deified Trump’s cruelty, sexism, racism and narcissism as essential to success and power. As the feminist media critic Jennifer Pozner points out: “Everything Trump said and did was framed in a way to flatter him, and more importantly, flatter his worldview.” The colossal infomercial fictionalized the blundering, cheating businessman as an unqualified success and gave him a kind of brand recognition no other candidate had.

It took the full support of Fox News, whose CEO, Roger Ailes, was so committed to him that after leaving the company following allegations of decades of sexual harassment of employees, he joined the Trump campaign. It took the withdrawal of too many Americans from even that calibre of journalism into the partisan unreliability of faux-news sites and confirmation-bias bubbles of social media.

It took the mainstream media’s quarter-century of failure to address climate change as the most important issue of our time. It took decades of most media outlets letting the fossil-fuel industry’s propaganda arm create the false framework of two equally valid opinions rather than reporting the overwhelming scientific consensus and tremendous danger of climate change.

To stop Hillary Clinton it also took Julian Assange, using WikiLeaks as a tool of revenge, evidently considering his grudge against the Democratic nominee important enough to try to aid the campaign of a climate-denying racist authoritarian. Assange now appears to have so close a relationship with Russia that he often appears on the state-funded TV channel and news site RT. He tweeted protests when Russian president Vladimir Putin’s information was included in the Panama Papers hack and has been coy about where his leaked information on the Democratic National Committee came from.

Many intelligence experts say it came from Russian hackers, and Putin made it clear that he favored Trump’s win. The day Comey dropped his bombshell, the New York Times ran a story reassuringly titled Investigating Donald Trump, FBI Sees No Clear Link to Russia with its own astounding, underplayed revelation buried inside: “Investigators, the officials said, have become increasingly confident, based on the evidence they have uncovered, that Russia’s direct goal is not to support the election of Mr Trump, as many Democrats have asserted, but rather to disrupt the integrity of the political system and undermine America’s standing in the world more broadly.”

And it took a shortsighted campaign of hatred on the left, an almost hysterical rage like nothing I have ever seen before about any public figure. Some uncritically picked up half-truths, outright fictions, and rightwing spin to feed their hate and rejected anything that diluted the purity and focus of that fury, including larger questions about the other candidate and the fate of the Earth. It was so extreme that in recent weeks, I was attacked for posting anti-Trump news stories on social media by furious people who took the position that to be overtly anti-Trump was to be covertly pro-Clinton. If the perfect is the enemy of the good, whose friend is it? The greater of two evils?

A lot of people seemed to think the Sanders-Clinton primary ended the night Trump was elected. I saw that stuckness from climate activists, anti-racist journalists, civil-rights champions, and others who you might expect would have turned to face the clear and present danger of a Trump presidency. I heard, for example, much about Clinton’s failure to address the Dakota pipeline adequately – which was true, and bad, but overshadowed by what we heard so little about: Trump’s million dollars or so invested in the pipeline and the guarantee he would use presidential powers to push it and every pipeline like it through.

It’s impossible to disconnect the seething, irrational emotionality from misogyny, and the misogyny continues. Since election night, I’ve been hearing too many men of the left go on and on about how Clinton was a weak candidate. I’ve wondered about that word weak, not only because it is so often associated with women, but because what they’re calling her weakness was their refusal to support her. It’s as if they’re saying, “They sent a pink lifeboat and we sent it back, because we wanted a blue lifeboat, and now we are very upset that people are drowning.”

Or, as my brilliant friend Aruna d’Souza put it Wednesday: “At some point soon we need to discuss whether Sanders would have been able to win, but helpful hint: today, it just sounds like you’re saying: ‘The Democrats should have cut into Trump’s lead in the misogynist vote and the whitelash vote by running a white man.’ Let’s come to terms with the racism and the misogyny first, before analyzing the what-ifs – because otherwise we’re just going to replicate it forever. And if you think that the angry anti-establishment vote won (hence Sanders would have fared better), let me remind you that patriarchy and white supremacy are the cornerstones of the Establishment.”

I know that if Clinton had been elected there would not be terrified and weeping people of color all over the country, small children too afraid to go to school, a shocking spike in hate crimes, high-school students with smashed dreams marching in cities across the country. I deplore some of Hillary Clinton’s past actions and alignments and disagreed with plenty of her 2016 positions. I hoped to be fighting her for the next four years. But I recognize the profound differences between her and Trump on race, gender, immigration and climate, and her extraordinary strength, tenacity and courage in facing and nearly overcoming an astonishing array of obstacles to win the popular vote. Which reminds us that Trump has no mandate and sets before us some of the forces arrayed against us.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

We are going to return to our original fully-moderated format in the comments section.

The abusive complaints in the comment sections are just too far out of control at this point and have become a significant burden on our staff. As a result, our moderators will review all comments prior to publication. Comments will no longer go live immediately. Please be patient and check back.

To improve your chances of seeing your comment published, avoid confrontational or antagonistic methods of communication. Really that is the problem we are confronting.

We encourage all views. We discourage ad hominem disparagement.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+52 # anthraxripple 2016-11-15 17:07
Another intentional spin away from what really happened.

NOBODY on the left (remember the left? you know! the ones who could have delivered a victory for Clinton if we'd had a reason to vote?) - NOBODY on the left EVER accused Clinton of "weakness".

We're all well aware of her "strength". She's shown, for many years, the strength of conviction to stand up TO US, and AGAINST US, on MANY issues.

She would have been the most effective Republican President since Reagan (even though Reagan was also to her LEFT on a few issues).

She always looked "strong":

posing with rifles (to not piss off the NRA),

or laughing at Gadhaffi's torture/executi on at the hands of U.S. operatives under her direction, or

or standing up PROUDLY - FOR the TPP (that she helped CRAFT - according to her OWN emails),

or standing up against environmentalis ts who disapproved of the "all of the above" approach to American energy,

or standing up AGAINST RUSSIA (nuclear arsenal and all).

CLINTON'S A BADASS!

She has always looked "tough", and "strong", but never honest, or free from corruption, or warmongering tendencies.

============

Regarding the "scheming" against her: I guess she was "strong" enough to turn all that on its head, when she coordinated ("schemed" - if you will), a pretty sophisticated ATTACK on Sanders, his supporters, and the entire left (remember the left?).
 
 
+25 # willsud24 2016-11-15 17:20
I agree, there's no saying what she would've done with social security and medicare if she was elected. I fear what Trump may try to do, but I never felt safe with Clinton having her hands on it either. Corporate Democrats have helped Republicans chip away at The New Deal by cutting s.s. and medicare, backing right-to-work laws, at-will employment legislation, charter schools and the privatization of government offices.

I can only hope that the Dems get rid of Pelosi, Booker, Reid, Bythe and all the other neoliberals, but they never learn. Clinton was a hard ass, no doubt, but she would've been to the right of Trump and Reagan on many issues. She's fought progressives for decades. I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but Clinton was once a Goldwater girl and when you look at what Bill did when he was POTUS, one could easily conclude that they are both Republican plants.
 
 
+20 # anthraxripple 2016-11-15 20:55
I think they were/are Republican plants. Maybe not plants. Maybe just Hollywood enough to have an agent that told them "the way to win is to be a Democrat, while agreeing with Republicans".

It sure worked in the '90s. We were duped back then.

By the late '90s it was obvious what was going on, but, as always, the Republicans were even worse.

I still think Trump may be 10% worse than Clinton.

But Trump will cause the left to rise up in protest.

Clinton would cause the left to go back to sleep.

The net result is that we're better off having Trump make things absolutely horrific, and getting us pissed off enough to fight back.

Either way, if the Party refuses to listen to us, I refuse to validate their pre-annointed candidate. As a regular law abiding American citizen, I have very little leverage. The ONLY thing I still seem to have is my vote.

I intend to make the most out of that leverage. And I refuse to reward the DNC's behavior until they undo the past 25 years of damage done by the Clintons, and the whole gang of "New" Democrats.
 
 
-1 # wrknight 2016-11-16 07:06
Don't hold your breath.
 
 
+10 # MidwesTom 2016-11-16 07:49
If Pelosi is still in charge in two weeks, we will know nothing has changed.
 
 
+1 # anthraxripple 2016-11-16 13:27
Yep.
 
 
+5 # librarian1984 2016-11-16 15:25
BUT I think we will be able to scare them for 2018. They will have lost confidence in the polls and in their data. They will presumably have spent two years being submissive, unless Sanders leads.

Nina Turner said Sanders 'has no ego'. I don't think he cares who is 'in charge'. But we need to see HIS ideas being implemented, HIS words being spoken.
 
 
+4 # rural oregon progressive 2016-11-17 02:59
2018 and 2020 will be the last chance for substantive democratic change in my lifetime. If we do not get change by then, the Pitchforks are coming ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2gO4DKVpa8 ). I honestly believe that. As Jacob Marley also famously said (in A Christmas Carol) "Ignorance and Want" will bring the moneyed class to their deserved reward. Ignorance and want, or at least a variation of it, have brought us Trump. A visionary (like Bernie) is what we need to save us from the one percent, and the one percent from us! Otherwise, I am willing and ready to carry the pitchfork. We need progressives in 2018, and Bernie in 2020.
 
 
+7 # librarian1984 2016-11-17 06:48
I've heard several analysts and pundits say, Well Democrats need to get in touch with voters and the middle class .. but we have to be careful not to overcompensate .. not to go too far to the left.

Excuse me? Why is it the GOP can go right to Hitler's door, multiple times, but OUR most important concern is not moving "too far left"? Why are we self-declaring centrism right out of the gate, especially when a democratic socialist just won the Democratic nomination -- and FDR is still acknowledged to have saved this country?
 
 
+5 # Caliban 2016-11-17 11:25
Excellent observation, # librarian1984. Democrats forget FDR at their peril when faced this new GOP game show assault on the middle and lower classes.

It's too late for 2016, but Dems should be uniting to put more kindred souls in Congress in 2018 and kick Trumpie out of the White House in 2020.

The HillHating is not going to help in this task any more than it did in 2016.
 
 
+1 # anthraxripple 2016-11-18 23:25
The "HilHating" was by people who agreed with librarian.

"Hil" was the NUMBER ONE culprit in the attack on the left from within the Democratic Party.

It's HER SUPPORTERS who are saying "careful not to go too far to the left".

THAT'S WHY WE FIRED HER.

Caliban, I think you either didn't read librarian's post, or misunderstood it.

YOU'RE one of the prime proponents of EXACTLY what librarian is complaining about on this site. You have been for months.
 
 
+4 # JCM 2016-11-16 07:14
I get it. You hate Hillary, but that is not the point here. The republicans have stolen your democracy with voter purging, disenfranchisem ent and other means of stripping votes. But instead of being outraged about that you still have to demonize Hillary. Now trump will probably make the Supreme Court so far to the right the republicans will be able to continue to destroy our democracy unencumbered. And if they take away the filibuster there will be no way of stopping them.
 
 
+4 # economagic 2016-11-16 08:48
No, you don't get it. Clinton, Inc. (of which Obama is surely a member of the Board) has alienated a great portion of the former Democratic base, including a lot of independents, a lot of people who Voted for this Clinton anyway, and probably a good many who voted for T-Rump but have voted Democratic in the past, by chasing right-wing money and pursuing right-wing policies. Not all of those people are able to articulate all that, but simply feel it in their gut.

The Democrats who govern like Republicans and raise their money from Republican interests have done more than their share to facilitate the theft of democracy. As anthraxripple states so well, nobody on the left ever accused HRC of being "weak," rather that she has been strong for the wrong goals and policies.
 
 
+8 # JCM 2016-11-16 09:02
You are out of your mind. This is not about Hillary and by the way has more than a million more votes than trump, this is about the election being stolen from the American people. Crosscheck has purged more than a million voters making the difference in the Electoral College.

This is why Hillary lost, along with some running for senate.
Crosscheck in action:

Trump victory margin in Michigan: 13,107
Michigan Crosscheck purge list: 449,922
Trump victory margin in Arizona: 85,257
Arizona Crosscheck purge list: 270,824
Trump victory margin in North Carolina: 177,008
North Carolina Crosscheck purge list: 589,393
See: http://readersupportednews.org/.../40246-focus-the...

And with the Supreme Court going far right we will not be able to stop them from stealing every election. If the filibuster is removed we have nothing to stop them. Was that worth all your hate mongering. Our only chance now is if trump pisses off his base that they'll get rid of him and all the other republicans. You made your choice and these are the consequences.
 
 
+6 # mashiguo 2016-11-16 09:13
if you let out one simpering whimper about the theft of the democratic primaries, you might have an iota of credibility.
america has earned what it deserves.
 
 
-4 # JCM 2016-11-16 10:03
This was election theft. And it won't stop. More people voted for Hillary and enough senators to get back the Senate. So you can take all your twisted logic and go vote with that and it still won't add up.
 
 
+8 # lfeuille 2016-11-16 19:05
This has been going on at least since 2000. The Dems had a chance to rectify it in 2009-2010 but didn't. Then they took advantage of it during this years primary. I agree it should be fixed, but it won't happen until there is a Dem President and Congress who really want to fix it, not use it to their own advantage.
 
 
-2 # Caliban 2016-11-17 11:02
Accusations are easy; proof is hard.

Accusers of HRC on election theft have yet to produce proof that a single vote was stolen on Clinton's behalf.

I have to wonder how a great man and public servant like Bernie Sanders attracted such a crowd of intellectual crooks to his side.

Of course, their pro - Sanders claims are probably bogus as their charges against Clinton.
 
 
0 # rural oregon progressive 2016-11-17 03:15
You may be correct about the election theft... But you have to include the primary. The Clinton campaign, MSM and especially the DNC conspired in the original theft... So your crying over the potential of election theft in the general falls on the deaf ears of those who understood the original theft in the primary. We are not likely to cry along with you when the first perpetrator (Hillary) was victimized by similar tactics in the general.
 
 
-2 # Caliban 2016-11-17 11:34
Charges of election theft are the first and last refuge of losers. I believe the DONALD will be a terrible president, but he was a very effective campaigner who produced a lot of votes out of little (his "program" to "make America great again".

With Clinton, it (to me) just the opposite. She would have been a fine president but was a mediocre campaigner -- "smart" and "competent" but "unlikeable".

For 2020, the Democrats must find someone who has greatness as a campaigner AND as a leader. And the time to start looking is now.
 
 
0 # Patriot 2016-11-20 03:45
Caliban, it was corrupt to sabotage Sanders' campaign, which Clinton surely knew happened, since Wasserman-Schul z was HER choice as DNC chair, and beame part of her campaign when forced to resign. And the primaries WERE fraudulent, which Clinton surely also knew, because she never drew a decent-sized crowd, while Sanders kept drawing larger and larger carowds (sometimes several in a single day)--yet masses of people voted for her rather than him, then said on eit polss that they HAD voted for him? Humph.

How smart or competent was Clinton to alienate as many of Sanders' supporters as she could, then promptly turn to REPUBLICANS for support, while denigrating both Sanders' AND Trumps' supporters, and never making any appeal to the independents?
 
 
+10 # reiverpacific 2016-11-16 13:40
Quoting mashiguo:
if you let out one simpering whimper about the theft of the democratic primaries, you might have an iota of credibility.
america has earned what it deserves.


America has no "Left": in Europe, Bernie Sanders would be seen as a middle/left Liberal.
 
 
+11 # Patriot 2016-11-16 13:11
JCM, Clinton also gained the nomination of the Democratic Party with campaign sabotage and election fraud. If that concerns you, write to the DNC and tell them so. BOTH parties have done everything they could to create an exclusively two-party system, and that has enabled them to get away with many, many frauds upon the public they are supposed to represent, but do not and have not for many years.

Direct your wrath to BOTH parties! if you thnk Clinton was cheated, then DO something besides ranting about it.
 
 
+5 # anthraxripple 2016-11-16 13:32
BUT the cheating Clinton did was OK!
 
 
0 # rural oregon progressive 2016-11-17 03:16
So far as many Hillary "lovers" are concerned!
 
 
-2 # Caliban 2016-11-17 11:08
This so-called "cheating" is what the sour grapes crowd on the losing side calls "winning".
 
 
+2 # anthraxripple 2016-11-18 23:26
That's what Trump's supporters are saying too.

You have so much in common!
 
 
+3 # JCM 2016-11-16 18:43
Give me a break. Ranting at this point is about all I can do in the middle of Georgia, and it all starts with ranting. But the idea that the Democratic Party primary is equivalent to what the republicans have just done to steal this election is delusional. The republicans have now more state legislatures and there will be more Crosschecking. The democrats do not as far as I know have systematic means to steal Presidential and midterm elections. I am looking forward to Ellison to be DNC chair but with the republicans in total control it might be too late. And for everyone else stomping on me I'll say this, you have made choices that might have brought about a generation of destruction to our democracy. I know Hillary was just as bad, ridiculous, I knew her faults but under no circumstances except in your own fantasies is Hillary or the Democrats as bad as what we have now. Was it really worth it.
 
 
+6 # economagic 2016-11-16 17:00
# JCM 2016-11-16 09:02

Don't change the subject. YOU are the one who made it about Hillary, and I took specific issue with your specific allegation. Most everyone here knows all about DoubleCrosschec k, and some (not me) can rattle off the figures from memory. Nobody is saying the Republican Party is not hopelessly corrupt. But YOU and some others are accusing people of not voting for Clinton because of personal animus. There are easily a dozen regulars here, including me, who have spelled out our specific reasons for not voting for her, and personal dislike of any kind is not among them. I don't know her, have never even met her, and go to some lengths to purge myself of hatred for anyone.
 
 
-5 # JCM 2016-11-16 18:44
See above
 
 
+3 # rural oregon progressive 2016-11-17 03:23
Economagic...Th ank you! It is amazing how the bots continue to blame everyone but Hillary and themselves for the arrogance and blindness that was the "Clinton Campaign". It never has been about "hatred" or "misogyny"... But rather about facts and progressive idealism.
 
 
+3 # librarian1984 2016-11-17 06:54
During the primary they would not bring up issues and after the defeat they won't assess it honestly .. at least not about Clinton. Apparently everyone BUT HRC was to blame.
 
 
+2 # lfeuille 2016-11-16 19:01
Poetic justice after what they did to Bernie.
 
 
+2 # rural oregon progressive 2016-11-17 03:10
Quoting JCM:
You are out of your mind. This is not about Hillary..."


This is not about Hillary, says JCM after previously posting it is all about Hillary (haters). Where, oh, where was JCM when the same tactics that the Republicans used to purge voters were apparently embraced by the DNC and Hillary lovers during the primaries? So what exactly is it that we "haters" hated, you might ask? It is the rigging, the cheating, the purging, the non-democratic process, regardless of party.
 
 
-3 # skylinefirepest 2016-11-16 10:14
JCM that's pure bullshit and you should know it. If you have not kept up with hillary's antics then I suggest you do so before continuing to suck up to this vile woman.
 
 
-6 # JCM 2016-11-16 18:45
Delusional
 
 
+13 # GoGreen! 2016-11-16 12:41
JCM, you do not get it. It is not about hating Hillary. It is about the fact that the two major parties are owned and operated by Wall St. banksters and the 'defense' corporations.

The Republicans did not steal our democracy. It has been dead for decades. Our elected officials do not represent the people. They have sold their votes for bribes from the greedy few.

We need to break the two party system and allow more democracy to develop. We deserve better than the lesser evil. Both of the major candidates were on the side of the 1% against the 99%.
 
 
-7 # JCM 2016-11-16 18:46
Fat chance.
 
 
+10 # anthraxripple 2016-11-16 13:31
Didn't you get your check yet? What, does she have you working overtime?

She lost, and so did your philosophy of going after the base.

How as Obama able to overcome purging, disenfranchisem ent, etc. in '08?

OH, THAT'S RIGHT, HE GOT 5 MILLION MORE VOTES.

One of those votes was mine.

As YOU told us (Sanders' supporters) after Clinton did the SAME DAMN THING in the primaries -

"GET OVER IT"
 
 
-4 # JCM 2016-11-16 18:48
That's right accuse me of being a troll but realize most of what you all have been saying is very much what a republican troll would say.
 
 
+1 # anthraxripple 2016-11-16 20:37
Are Republicans angry at Clinton because she's a warmonger, anti-environmen talist, makes too many back room deals with Republicans, saves labor costs for big business by shipping American jobs overseas & crafting trade deals that damage American workers, is too beholden to Wall Street.

That's why we're angry at Clinton. That's why we didn't vote for her.

We didn't vote for Trump.

Are Republicans saying the same things?

Here: Let me argue as a Republican:


Benghazi! Gun rights! Benghazi! gun rights!

===============

Realize that a troll is someone who refuses to argue on substance.

You've refused to argue on substance for the past 9+ months.

Troll is a BEHAVIOR.

YOUR behavior is that of a troll - not mine.
 
 
-3 # JCM 2016-11-16 20:58
Funny, I don't remember you being there or did you change your name. Really you all are becoming transparently trolls. They should call this site NOT - Nest of Trolls
 
 
+4 # anthraxripple 2016-11-16 22:40
I've been around for a long time but didn't start commenting until recently. Lots of people have done the same thing. I've read a lot of Hillary supporters saying the same thing. Funny, I don't remember you accusing them of anything however.

Back to the subject: Did you notice that you changed the subject again?
 
 
-4 # Caliban 2016-11-17 11:45
#anthraxripple -- your final points would have merit if you Paragraph #! accusations had any truth to them. But since they don't, your accusations come over a classic lying (a central tactic of Haters).

Try to get on the side of truth, and then maybe you'll be worth listening to again.

Maybe you'll even be able to win an exchange with JCM -- which you have not done so far.
 
 
+5 # librarian1984 2016-11-16 15:29
JCM, What have the Dems done to fix any of that? They are all in it together. Don't get depressed, get mad. We have been betrayed by one group of elite who run both parties and a lot of what we see is theater and games.

Really think about what the Dems have done for us in the past 40 years. And think about the DAMAGE they've done in the past 25.

The DP cares about corporations. Hillary cares about corporations. Why do you think a corporation is a person and Citizens' United is STILL the law. They could change it if they wanted to. They don't even TALK about it.

Sure we hate Hillary, at least I do. What's not to hate? But I don't hate JUST her. She's not the only one who got us here.
 
 
-6 # JCM 2016-11-16 18:51
Change it if they wanted too! That's right will just ask the Supreme Court to overturn their decision just after trump installs another Scalia. However, if we had elected Hillary we might have had a chance of changing it. Think about that a minute or two.
 
 
+3 # librarian1984 2016-11-16 20:17
SIXTEEN years they haven't changed it. They haven't tried.

Bullsh!t she would have changed it. She didn't talk about it until Bernie brought it up, then she said she'd make it a constitutional amendment. Where policy goes to die. Buy it if you want to. I'm not.
 
 
-5 # JCM 2016-11-16 21:00
Are you completely clueless!
 
 
+3 # librarian1984 2016-11-16 21:30
Well ONE of us is.

I have to say I really appreciated your reasonable, well thought out analysis and cogent argument. It's obvious you've really spent a long time thinking about the issue and have a wealth of coherent, rational facts at your disposal. I love our scintillating debates. You are a marvel of topicality.

Mind the punctuation!
 
 
+2 # rural oregon progressive 2016-11-17 03:27
Libraian - It ain't you!
 
 
+2 # anthraxripple 2016-11-16 22:41
Here we go again with the insults.
 
 
-3 # JCM 2016-11-17 06:40
Who dropped the troll word first. You can twist my words all you want. I welcome you red downs. You can try to make what the DNC allegedly did to Bernie equal to how the republicans are systematically stealing the election and our democracy but it just ain't so. Be gone with you all. You have done your damage. I can only hope trump wakes up to climate change or at least sees the money in it. He's off to a very bad start.
 
 
+1 # anthraxripple 2016-11-18 23:29
"Troll" describes a behavior (that of avoiding substance at all costs).

"Clueless" is an insult made by a troll with no substantive argument to make.
 
 
-2 # Activista 2016-11-16 00:25
"but she would've been to the right of Trump and Reagan on many issues.???
please name few - think that your right and my right are different hands ..
 
 
+9 # Patriot 2016-11-16 04:22
That's already been done, ad nauseum, in discussions in which you took part, Activista.
 
 
+5 # lfeuille 2016-11-16 19:09
Russia, for starters. She wants to revive the cold war.
 
 
-7 # candida 2016-11-16 01:26
Solnit provides a nuanced, intelligent and thoughtful analysis of a complex set of factors that defeated Clinton. Unfortunately, nuance goes over most of the heads of those commentating on this site along with a strong resistance to self-reflection , particularly when it comes to misogyny.
 
 
+4 # kalpal 2016-11-16 05:28
Baseless opinion will always overcome facts and reality within the RW in all societies.
 
 
+14 # librarian1984 2016-11-16 16:12
One of the best arguments against Clinton is her supporters.

I would bet you 8 pounds of quinoa I could walk into a room of HRC supporters vs a room of Sanders supporters and tell who was who every time by how they treated the staff.

How do you not see how offensive it is the way you shout misogyny at every turn? It certainly isn't feminism. Is that what you're going for?

As for not detecting nuance, yikes. project much?

This article is absolute and total bs from the first sentence. Why don't you all wrap up the canonization before the dirty truths start leaking out so the rest of us can get to work.
 
 
-8 # revhen 2016-11-16 03:22
It's people like you and the rest of the faux left that put the final nail in Clinton's coffin. For shane.
 
 
+6 # librarian1984 2016-11-16 16:09
Good. It'll be one of my happiest political memories.

It was fantastic to watch the returns, as state after state went to Trump, to watch the smug looks disappear, and to see Clinton get another little stab in by not even showing up to thank her supporters. Class act.

And all the hoopla about this GREAT speech she gave? Right. I'd put Sanders' 2010 filibuster against it any day of the week.

You people buy this? She does not care about you, or women or children or anybody. We are BLESSED she's not going to be president.
 
 
-4 # Caliban 2016-11-17 11:54
#librarian1984 says a Trump presidency will be a BLESSING!

Please send us to the proper bookshelf to check it out for ourselves.
 
 
0 # Patriot 2016-11-20 03:53
Caliban, Lib said no such thing, and you either know that, or cannot read!
 
 
+3 # Diane_Wilkinson_Trefethen_aka_tref 2016-11-17 06:27
Quoting revhen:
It's people like you and the rest of the faux left that put the final nail in Clinton's coffin. For shane [sic].
I assume you are referring to the arrogant Clinton supporters who have bashed us Sanders supporters so shamelessly that they made it easy to vote against the Queen.
 
 
+2 # librarian1984 2016-11-17 07:16
Clinton supporters to Sanders' people:

kick hit slam beat sneer jab VOTE FOR HRC! kick hurt ram smear punch insult
 
 
-6 # ericlipps 2016-11-16 06:00
This again.Hillary was "once a Goldwater girl"--FIFTY YEARS ago. So what? In the 1930s Ronald Reagan was an FDR Democrat. People change. But then, I guess to most folks here, the Clintons aren't people.
 
 
+2 # lfeuille 2016-11-16 19:13
Hillary, by her actions as Sec. of State, and her stated opinions during the campaign, proved that she has not evolved in the last 50 years. She is still where she way back in high school as far as foreign policy ideology.
 
 
+2 # rural oregon progressive 2016-11-17 03:29
And 50 years on...
 
 
0 # Caliban 2016-11-17 10:51
#willsud24 -- I have never had any doubts about Clinton's support for Social Security, Medicare, or any other major part of the Federal support system, and as a septuagenarian I follow the news on these programs.

I have to conclude that you were lied to and believed these lies.

As for your claims that Clinton backs the privatization of government, of public education, and that the Clintons "are both Republican plants", I have decided that it is you who are the liar.

And if there is a republican "plant" on this site it is you, #willsud24.

Nice hearing from you, Trumpie.
 
 
+43 # grandlakeguy 2016-11-15 18:10
Great spinning and triangulation Rebecca.
The most simple and basic fact here is that Hillary Clinton was NOT the choice of the voters in the Primaries.
The DNC(with her obvious complicity) utilized every trick in the book to turn the Democratic party primary into the corrupted farce that is the American election system.

READ THE 94 PAGE REPORT BY ELECTION INTEGRITY.

Why should anyone support an illegitimate "nominee" who would stoop so low as to thwart the will of the electorate to advance her personal lust for power?

Bernie would have demolished Trump and delivered countless down ticket victories.

Hillary Clinton and her co-conspitators in the Democratic party OWN the results of this election!
 
 
+27 # Oyster 2016-11-15 19:24
@GLG:

Thanks for being articulate about what HRC did and didn't do.

In politics, winning is what counts. That said, some would do anything to win, and some would see and stop at invisible moral line in the sand. We all know to which group Clintons belong.
 
 
+30 # anthraxripple 2016-11-15 21:00
If the DNC ever wants to be on the winning team again, it's time they stopped listening to MSDNC and start listening to us.

They need to be put on notice.

The phony self-serving narrative already being thrown at us by the MSM is complete misdirection. We still know why we didn't vote for her. If they can't figure out how to listen to us, they can't expect us to vote reward them.

Trump is a terrifying person.

But we can't get weak-kneed. NOW is the time to stand strong and hold on to our principles.

We'll still be here in 4 years. With any luck, the Democratic Party will CHANGE in the meantime. Part of that requires a lot less of Pelosi, Clinton, Reid, Obama, and the less Blue Dogs dictating to us.
 
 
+4 # economagic 2016-11-16 08:52
Clearly you mean "stopped LISTENING to MSDNC and started listening to us," or STARTED ignoring MSDNC and listening to us."
 
 
+5 # anthraxripple 2016-11-16 13:35
Thanks.

I fixed it.

I was tired.
 
 
+2 # economagic 2016-11-16 16:50
I can relate to that -- and I'm REtired!
 
 
+3 # Activista 2016-11-16 00:30
"and some would see and stop at invisible moral line in the sand"
... and we got moral Trump? What a joke.
 
 
+7 # Caliban 2016-11-16 00:40
The simplest way to lose again to the Donald in 2020 is to go ranting on and on about Hillary Clinton instead of focussing on Trump.

Trump isn't thinking about HRC; he's filling his staff positions and preparing to shove the country to the right while he fills his own pockets from the security of the Oval Office.

HRC is old news -- enough of it! The real threat is making plans we will not like as (some) Democrats waste time and energy bashing their own.
 
 
-8 # JCM 2016-11-16 06:49
Caliban: In the piece, The Election was stolen, You said I had given up, this was my response.
Excuse me; don't tell me I have given up. Tell all of us what we can do about voter disenfranchisem ent. I can tell you one way was to try to elect a president, senate, and house that could have done something. The ones that gave up and didn't vote or voted for a candidate that installed trump as president are the ones who let democracy down. I understand the hard choice we all made but the republicans, unencumbered to rip votes from the elections will make it more and more difficult for us to prevail. The loss of the Supreme Court will be with us for a very long time. Was that really worth staying home or voting for an unelectable candidate? We must now live with the consequence of our choices and can only hope that trump and the republicans will finally piss their base off enough that they will stop blaming the wrong party for their problems. And hope that we, the democrats, liberals and progressives can reform the party into the party of the people.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
+4 # anthraxripple 2016-11-16 22:43
The Democratic primary were stolen too!

A little late to be complaining now.
 
 
-4 # Caliban 2016-11-17 12:10
Sorry, JCM. I almost always vote your comments Thumbs Up, so I'm not sure why I'd be critical of something important you had written.

I could not find the comment you reference a minute ago, but I'll look again.
 
 
-4 # Caliban 2016-11-17 12:39
JCM -- The quotation to I responded is the one just below:

"# JCM 2016-11-13 14:43
We are living in a lie and no one is, or can do anything about it. Democracy Lost."

As I have looked over other comments of yours, I can see your attitudes are much more active and nuanced than this one. but the "no one...can do anything about it" seemed defeatist; hence my critique.

But I did overgeneralize from that one remark -- for which I apologize.
 
 
-11 # ericlipps 2016-11-16 05:58
Nobody ever accused Clinton of being a weak candidate? (Which is what the article said--not "weakness," which carries different connotations.)

Have you actually read the comments here on RSN? Over and over angry Bernouts have said--shrieked, really, that she was the weakest candidate the Democrats could possibly have picked.
 
 
+6 # economagic 2016-11-16 09:59
"Nobody ever accused Clinton of being a weak candidate? (Which is what the article said--not "weakness," which carries different connotations.)"

Fair point. But what Ms. Solnit is arguing -- while acknowledging some reservations (undoubtedly tiny) about Ms. Clinton's policies, ignoring the millions of people who voted for her only out of fear of Trump, and dismissing all criticism of her as personal hatred, misogyny, purist ideology, ignorance, short-sightedne ss, and anything else but serious disagreement over what HRC has stood for -- is that she has been a strong PERSON to stand her ground without ever addressing ANY of the objections put forth OR putting forth any real specifics on any of the big issues that matter.

I don't think any of us would have objected to her carefully burnished policy statements if they had squarely addressed such issues as energy, climate change, corporate privilege and hegemony (especially for financial corporations), nuclear threats both military and commercial, endless war, militarized police, the ongoing tinder box that the State of Israel continues to feed, and many others.

Ms. Solnit has written a number of excellent, profound, and moving essays. This is not one of them, as lorenbliss points out below. She has succumbed to the same fears and wishes that lead many otherwise insightful people to insist that HRC would be president but for the shortcomings of others, certainly none of her own.
 
 
+5 # librarian1984 2016-11-16 16:22
Read the article and anthraxripple's first post. Then maybe consult a dictionary.

She is a strong person but a weak candidate.

This willful ignorance is really tiresome.
 
 
-10 # JCM 2016-11-16 06:46
This is why Hillary lost, along with some running for senate. Republican purge of voter called Crosscheck:
Crosscheck in action:

Trump victory margin in Michigan: 13,107
Michigan Crosscheck purge list: 449,922
Trump victory margin in Arizona: 85,257
Arizona Crosscheck purge list: 270,824
Trump victory margin in North Carolina: 177,008
North Carolina Crosscheck purge list: 589,393

See: http://readersupportednews.org/.../40246-focus-the...

Be very angry.
 
 
+7 # Ted 2016-11-16 07:24
I completely agree,

This election was a clear case of clinton getting more "thumbs DOWN" votes than trump.

(in the few states that mattered to the electoral college count AND disregarding the voting computer maniulation in at least one of those states, Ohio)
 
 
0 # skylinefirepest 2016-11-16 10:13
Funny that Rebecca wants to overlook that hillie is a vile excuse for a woman who lied and cheated her way into a fortune while playing her country. She got what she deserved and hopefully her old ass will go somewhere and stay out of sight.
 
 
-1 # SenorN 2016-11-18 01:01
"If" you'd had a reason to vote?!!! How about the future of my grandchildren? How about the future of the planet? You people who vent and salve your consciences by demonizing Hillary should extricate your cabezas from the other end of your anatomy. Sorry if that represents a "drift toward vitriol," but I'm about done with trying to reason with folks who can equate Trump and Clinton. There is and was no comparison.
You should look up the phrase "motivated reasoning" because you're full of it.
 
 
+47 # librarian1984 2016-11-15 19:32
What a bunch of cr@p. According to these elegies, Clinton should have been able to walk across the Hudson River and cure sick children with a glance -- yet for some reason the American people were just too stupid and bigoted to see what a peach, and indeed messiah, that she is.

The DP, DNC, HRC and msm majorly f^ked up .. but that's not where the blame is going to go. Clinton is blaming Comey while Pelosi and Schumer have got TONS of reasons why they should still be in charge.

THEY HAVE NOT LEARNED A THING.

They all think everything's fine. Stock market went up, didn't it?

But in the past eight years Dems have lost 13 Senate seats (10%), 69 House seats (19%), 12 governorships (36%) and over 900 state legislature seats (20%)!

Washington pols do not think their jobs, pay, perqs or credibility should be contingent upon their actual performance. Yet American workers, whose productivity has gone up and up, have faced stagnant wages for 40 years.

WHAT can reach these people?
 
 
+11 # Oyster 2016-11-15 20:15
Quoting Librarian84:
"But in the past eight years Dems have lost 13 Senate seats (10%), 69 House seats (19%), 12 governorships (36%) and over 900 state legislature seats (20%)!"

I suspect those who got to keep their jobs all concluded that they lost because they didn't have as much money to spend as the republican counterparts. As a result, they resort to source of money and all became Democrat In Name Only. Compassion to do things for working class constituents was swapped by keeping their jobs and corporate loyalty.

"WHAT can reach these people?"

You and I both know the answer: Green Party!
 
 
+1 # anthraxripple 2016-11-15 21:06
I will continue to vote for the Green Party as a wedge to drive the Blue Dogs out of power in the Democratic Party. If we get the Democratic Party back, the Greens won't get any more of my votes, unless they choose to join forces.

I wasn't pleased to vote for Stein this time. I did it out of necessity. If she'd just join the Democratic Party and be prepared to REALLY fight for something (rather than from the outside looking in), I'd do just about anything needed to help her get the next Democratic nomination.

If she had run as a Democrat in this primary, Sanders wouldn't have run. He made it clear that he would only run if no one challenged Hillary from her left.

If Stein had run as a Democrat, the DNC wouldn't have had enough pull to keep her from the nomination. If she had asked Bernie to be her running mate, she'd be the president elect right now.

I'm not so sure Stein even WANTS to be president.
 
 
-15 # Activista 2016-11-16 00:36
"If she had asked Bernie to be her running mate, she'd be the president elect right now."
president elect right now is Trump - and guess why?
 
 
-12 # kalpal 2016-11-16 05:31
Because Americans are misogynists?
 
 
+11 # anthraxripple 2016-11-16 13:36
Because Clinton was chosen to represent the Democratic Party, and the left decided not to vote.
 
 
0 # kalpal 2016-11-16 05:31
Your wedge will succeed as soon our solar body winks out of existence. I too vote green but not with any hopes of overcoming any and all RW baseless beliefs. Some people were raised to swallow lies and ask for more and that is what the RW does in the USA.
 
 
+4 # Ted 2016-11-16 07:40
Anthraxripple,

I agree with you again!

I'm pretty sure Dr. Stein has no personal desire to be president, I don't think anyone with a stable psyche would ever want that position for personal reasons.

What Stein DOES want is to advance the Green Party agenda which is clearly our strongest path to correcting this suicidal and inhumane trajectory we are on.

Please remember that Stein didn't offer to take Sanders on as her V.P., she offered to step aside and let HIM be the Green Party presidential candidate.
 
 
+6 # GoGreen! 2016-11-16 12:55
I think Stein's campaign was an attempt to break the two party system. She knew she could not win and it wasn't about whether she wanted to be President or not. It was about getting some democracy in our nation. Both of the corporately funded candidates were not good. They both served their corporate owners.

We must change our election system to allow the voice of the people to be heard and heeded in all levels of our government. That is NOT the case now---and we all know it. Our government is corrupt! We must change the electoral system. We need public funding for the campaigns. We need the free flow of information. The air waves belong to the people. We need time given in an equal amount to all qualified candidates.

People are scared of the evil that Trump will deliver. But at lease he does not want to attack Russia--that is what scared most about Hillary. I want ALL THESE WARS TO END.
 
 
-1 # Activista 2016-11-17 14:30
People are scared of the evil that Trump will deliver. But at lease he does not want to attack Russia--that is what scared most about Hillary ..
voting from fear and hate - this is what brought us Trump and possible end of democracy. Hillary wanted to attack Russia? Made by Putin and Trump - congratulation for electing Trump.
 
 
-7 # NAVYVET 2016-11-16 11:32
Baloney. Probably a new third party, but not the arrogant Greens. Please!
 
 
+4 # Patriot 2016-11-16 13:17
Navyvet, have you even READ the Green Party Platform at gp.org? Or watched any of the campaign speeches Stein and Baraka made? They've available on YouTube.com via a imple search of YouTube's videos. the party you remember from decades ago has changed--and, like all parties, would be considerably improved by input from citizens. Ranting to us won't change anything.
 
 
+14 # Radscal 2016-11-15 23:08
"Washington pols do not think their jobs, pay, perqs or credibility should be contingent upon their actual performance."

OMG! I'd gotten so tired of having to explain online that "perq" is short for perquisite, and so is correct, that I've actually taken to just writing "perk" so I could just focus on the point.

Thank you again librarian.

Oh, and speaking of the point, you're right on point with this comment, also again.
 
 
+7 # librarian1984 2016-11-15 23:41
lol You never know what's going to click :-)
 
 
+3 # economagic 2016-11-16 10:03
But we can usually rely on librarians to know how to read and write!
 
 
-6 # Activista 2016-11-16 00:51
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/22/steve-bannon-trump-s-top-guy-told-me-he-was-a-leninist.html?source=TDB&via=FB_Page
"“I’m a Leninist,” Bannon proudly proclaimed.
Shocked, I asked him what he meant.
“Lenin,” he answered, “wanted to destroy the state, and that’s my goal too. I want to bring everything crashing down, and destroy all of today’s establishment.” Bannon was employing Lenin’s strategy for Tea Party populist goals. He included in that group the Republican and Democratic Parties, as well as the traditional conservative press."
congratulation Trump supporters ... who "want to bring everything crashing down, and destroy all of today’s establishment."
 
 
-10 # Activista 2016-11-16 00:56
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/dec/28/terrorists-demagogues-scared-charlie-hebdo?CMP=twt_gu
The terrorists and demagogues want us to be scared. We mustn’t give in
George Soros
"The open society is thus always at risk from the threat posed by our response to fear. A generation that has inherited an open society from its parents will not understand what is required to maintain it until it has been tested and learns to keep fear from corrupting reason. Jihadi terrorism is only the latest example. The fear of nuclear war tested the last generation, and the fear of communism and fascism tested my generation.... when I watched the last Republican presidential debate; I could stop myself only by remembering that it must be irrational to follow the wishes of your enemies."
 
 
-2 # NAVYVET 2016-11-16 11:30
And us along with it.
 
 
+34 # DogSoldier 2016-11-15 20:09
What a bunch of bull. It didn't take the Republicans years of scheming to beat her.She couldn't win the primaries in 2008, and she lost this years primaries to Bernie. She was only the candidate because she and the dishonest DNC cheated. She beat herself. It was obvious she couldn't win, yet they made her their candidate anyway. I would hope that they learned that they should never nominate a candidate that half the country dislikes and believes to be dishonest, but I doubt it.
 
 
+12 # PaulK 2016-11-15 21:23
Exit polling indicates that this general election was stolen by black box voting machines. Hillary Clinton is a weak candidate because she didn't get up and fight for this country's democracy.

It's possible that if she did stand up, the country would equally come down on her for stealing every primary vote that she could take.
 
 
-14 # Caliban 2016-11-16 00:52
Right, and Bernie just stood by and let her steal the nomination without a protest?

Brilliant theory.
 
 
+7 # Radscal 2016-11-16 18:16
Yep. There had to be a reason why the Democratic Party Establishment refused to do anything to stop the mass election fraud practiced by the Republicans since at least 2000.

LBJ "won" his first election in 1948 after losing the vote by a few dozen votes and then suddenly "finding" a ballot box stuffed with LBJ votes. Election have been rigged forever. It's just gone to industrial levels.
 
 
+3 # economagic 2016-11-16 22:28
One of several major downsides to industrializati on. With luck, maybe we can work our way back to a happier medium. If not, see Vonnegut's "Galapagos."
 
 
+4 # anthraxripple 2016-11-16 22:45
Apparently stolen elections only matter when "the good guys" aren't as good at it.
 
 
+41 # Moxa 2016-11-15 21:34
One hardly knows where to begin.

I think Solnit is confused by what people mean when they say Hillary was a weak candidate. They don't mean she was weak-willed. Rather, she was tough as nails. But that is part of what made her a weak candidate. People found her unpleasantly ambitious, ruthless and arrogant and they didn't like it. Compare her fixing the primaries along with Debbie Wasserman Schultz with Bernie's totally gracious, "The American people don't give a damn about your emails." His comment was honest, fair and generous. He did not pick an easy target and aim at it just because he could. He had more important, more substantive things to discuss.

When people say that Hillary was a weak candidate, they meant her chances of winning were not good because people didn't like her. People didn't like the email situation because she was arrogant in thinking she could get away with doing something illegal. They didn't like her close ties with Wall Street. They didn't like her actions regarding the Iraq War, Libya and Honduras, or her tendency toward wanting to overthrow leaders of other countries. They didn't like the fact that she had, by her own admission, different policy positions for different audiences. They didn't like that all her positions kept creeping left in order to try to usurp Bernie's growing popularity. And then, the nomination in hand, courting Republicans and choosing a very right leaning V.P. candidate. (Continue below.)
 
 
+35 # Moxa 2016-11-15 21:47
(Continued from above.)

Bernie was a strong candidate because people liked him and respected him. Hillary may have had many enemies but she had the entire Democratic establishment behind her; big money, and virtually all of the "liberal" mainstream media on her side. She began as the presumed heir to the throne and almost was beaten by the largely unknown senator from the tiny state of Vermont.

If there is such a thing as male chauvinism (which there is) there is its opposite: female chauvinism. There is no doubt that women are oppressed in our society, but it is a specious and dishonest argument to lay so much of the criticism of Hillary on misogyny. I didn't vote for Hillary; I voted for a different woman I do like. And I was also eager to support Elizabeth Warren-- before she refused to run, and before Bernie so beautifully filled our lives and our hearts.
 
 
+22 # Stranger 2016-11-15 22:53
This article is revisionism on an unblushing scale of utter nonsense. Does the author have any notion of who pointed out that in the very size of the lie there is credibility for the masses. The rubbish she spouts certainly qualifies.
 
 
+21 # Old Uncle Dave 2016-11-15 23:30
"Let's all pretend she wouldn't have started a war with Russia."
 
 
+31 # JayaVII 2016-11-16 00:06
Hillary was a lousy candidate, bad enough to lose to the worst presidential aspirant of all time ... and this is a lousy article, perhaps the worst yet in terms of hurling blame at everyone except the true culprit. So it's Julian Assange's fault? Or Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin's? Were they working hand in glove with the FBI? How about the Freemasons? Were they in on it? It's not much of a conspiracy theory without them.

I voted for Jill Stein not because I have a hysterical misogynistic hatred of Hillary Clinton, but because I agree with Ms. Stein's positions and disagree with those of Ms. Clinton.

I could not possibly support a politician who voted for the invasion of Iraq, an action on a par with Hitler's invasion of Poland. It was her war as much as it was Bush's. Such an action creates karma, and we have seen it play out. Has Ms. Solnit tossed the death of a million Iraqis and the ruination of the Middle East -- a crime that dwarfs anything Trump has committed -- down her personal memory hole? The writer's blinkered, paranoid, self-righteous stupidity dwarfs anything Trump is capable of.
 
 
+13 # John Cosmo 2016-11-16 00:47
I think it's fair to call Hillary Clinton a weak candidate. Her record sucks. She managed to be more covert than Trump, but she was every bit as much of a racist, homophobe, and elitist as Trump. Given her condoning her husband's past sexual misconduct, she was easily dismissed as a partisan mudslinger. She had no moral authority.

She was a D- or F+ candidate who had the good fortune to run against an F- candidate and she still lost.
 
 
-31 # ericlipps 2016-11-16 06:03
And Bernie was, and is, a self-declared socialist who'd have been beaten like a drum by Trump, who'd have red-baited him into the mud.
 
 
+16 # Moxa 2016-11-16 09:03
Trump could not have hurt Bernie no matter how much red-baiting he might have done. Apart from the empty label "socialist", there was NOTHING to fault Bernie on: his honesty, sincerity, and the integrity of his political record are unmatched among his fellow politicians. This is evidenced by the fact that he has the highest favorability rating of all of them. And in all head to head match up polls with Trump he trounced him in a way Clinton could only have dreamed of.

In fact, the democratic socialist label which he proudly owned, began as a formidable burden on his credibility. But as he, little by little (with no help from the media) became known to the public--which eagerly agreed with virtually all of his policy positions--that label became trivial and irrelevant to most. Unlike most politicians, Bernie is all substance. That is why Trump could not have hurt him, save with that core of people to whom goodness, fairness and democracy mean nothing.
 
 
+10 # Ken Halt 2016-11-16 11:32
Moxa: Don't mind eric, he's an obsessive Hillary worshiper.
 
 
+6 # pros54 2016-11-16 18:38
Hillary tried to attack that label too and then called him too idealistic on things like universal health care etc, and yet people tell me she is a Liberal. I did vote for her though as a vote against Trump. I was not happy Trump won but also was not sad Hillary lost. I am just dissatisfied with what now stands as democracy.
 
 
+6 # pros54 2016-11-16 18:35
Do you have the same learning difficulties as Hillary? You should have seen from the election that red baiting did not work against Trump even as it was almost even pushed by the government. How many times did you hear the Clinton campaign accuse Russia and Putin of being in cahoots with Trump or vice versa? What good did that do her?
 
 
+2 # lfeuille 2016-11-16 19:23
By Trump the Putin admirer? That would take an unrealistic amount of spinning. You can't do red baiting when you are trying to be pals with a former red.
 
 
+3 # Diane_Wilkinson_Trefethen_aka_tref 2016-11-17 07:02
Quoting ericlipps:
And Bernie was, and is, a self-declared socialist who'd have been beaten like a drum by Trump, who'd have red-baited him into the mud.
Aren’t you the guy who stated above, with great exasperation, “This again.Hillary was "once a Goldwater girl"--FIFTY YEARS ago.”? Follow your own advice and quit with what you know are fraudulent attacks.
 
 
+2 # librarian1984 2016-11-17 10:41
If eric doesn't have fraudulent attacks he doesn't have any attacks at all!
 
 
+1 # rural oregon progressive 2016-11-18 02:36
But ericlipps is not about facts... Rather, he continues to campaign for the failed campaign... ad nauseam..
 
 
+1 # rural oregon progressive 2016-11-18 02:29
Eric... Bernie was, a self-declared "Democratic-soc ialist"... Not your imagined socialistic-com mie... You continue, with no substance, to argue that Trump would have beaten him on that issue. But poll after poll during the primaries showed not only democrats supporting him, but independents as well as numerous disenfranchised repubs. Trump would not have stood a chance against Bernie (or as you refer to him "St. Bernard of Brooklyn"). Hillary lost to Trump. And all of your insipid whining will not change that fact. Time to get off of your high horse and accept that you lost. You lost; Hillary lost; and the scheming and cheating of the DNC caused Bernie to lose as well. In the end, we all will lose a whole lot in the next four years. Thank you for your part in the Trump victory! Enjoy, you have earned it.
 
 
+13 # Jayceecool 2016-11-16 00:48
Is it stupidity or corruption? I'm just an average guy, yet I understand the social/politica l dynamics that Trump is riding into the White House. The sad truth is that national Democrats are so beholden to donors, lobbyists and other elites that they have lost touch with other average Americans. Not just me...
 
 
+2 # Ken Halt 2016-11-16 00:49
Ms. Solnit is a very clever, nuanced, and accomplished writer who never fails to deliver a thoughtful essay. She is an informed and trenchant commentator on US culture and politics. While some on this thread are quick to criticize this piece as another gloss on HRC's career and run for the oval office, please reread the last paragraph, in particular "I deplore some of Hillary Clinton’s past actions and alignments and disagreed with plenty of her 2016 positions. I hoped to be fighting her for the next four years."
 
 
+4 # Radscal 2016-11-16 18:25
I deplore HRC's record and current sponsors, but wish she'd become the President?

Sounds like more Red Queen stuff to me.
 
 
+5 # librarian1984 2016-11-16 21:36
Oh, see there's the problem. You're expecting reason and consistency.
 
 
+14 # Patriot 2016-11-16 04:40
Marc Ash, WHY are you still posting these defenses of Clinton? She lost, as we have discussed ad nauseum since before the convention. We've gone over and over how and why for more than a week. This is old news. Enough, already! If you must continue to post articles about her, at least stick to what she's doing now, or planning to do, so we'll all be forewarned, and so her erstwhile supporters will know where and how she is.

We need reports NOW on what the Repubs and Dems are doing in the House and Senate, what's coming out of the White House, and the developments taking place among Trump's team.

Can you manage that?
 
 
+16 # joejamchicago 2016-11-16 04:55
The arrogance and blindness of Clinton and are cohorts was mind-boggling. She was portrayed as a combination of Mother Theresa and Jane Adams. She got down in the gutter with Donald Trump while blathering that "when they go low, we go high." All she had to do to have won in a landslide was

1) name Bernie Sanders as her running mate

2) run on the slogan FINISH THE JOB

3) ignore Trump.

She spent hundreds of millions of dollars attacking Trump as an individual which reminded voters that she, too, is an individual with faults to rival his. Instead she should have repeated over and over what dire straits the Republicans left us in in 2008, over and over, and focused on the choice: the Democratic team (with she as quarterback) or the Republican. Simple. But she would have had to step down from her pedestal and humbled her own self. Too high a price to pay, it turned out. So we got Tim Kaine, a decent enough fellow, as inspiring as a glass of warm water. We got STRONGER TOGETHER. Gimme a break.
 
 
+4 # Patriot 2016-11-16 13:21
Bravo, joejamchicago!

Clinton was anointed without the slightest effort, well before the campaign even began. she was so confident she would win that the didnt both to appeal to anyone but Republicans. Not a winning strategy.
 
 
+12 # FIRSTNORN1 2016-11-16 05:34
.....if the Party refuses to listen to us, I refuse to validate their pre-annointed candidate. As a regular law abiding American citizen, I have very little leverage. The ONLY thing I still seem to have is my vote.

I intend to make the most out of that leverage. And I refuse to reward the DNC's behavior until they undo the past 25 years of damage done by the Clintons, and the whole gang of "New" Democrats.
"Right-on" Anthraxripple; it is time for Democrats like Senator Leahy from VT to "fall on his own sword". Months ago, when Bernie still had a chance, *Super Delegate* Senator Leahy said that if Bernie won the primary, he (Leahy) would still not support him. May the Democrats rot in the proverbial *hell* until they change the party forever.
 
 
+16 # lorenbliss 2016-11-16 06:10
Rebecca Solnit, a writer for whom I had enormous respect, is correct about Hillary's strength.

Hillary's strength is so great she handed the One Percent the Nazi victory they have sought since 1934, when Russian (Soviet) intelligence operatives helped Gen. Smedley Butler, USMC ret., save President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his New Deal from the Bankers' Plot, whereby the One Percenters' great-grandfath ers sought to make the United States the economically dominant partner in the Third Reich and its later Rome/Berlin/Tok yo Axis.

What Hillary has accomplished is the most powerful act of political subversion in the past several centuries -- maybe in our species entire history. Indeed, she deserves a hearty "Zieg Heil" for putting our neo-Führer in the White House, thereby fulfilling the Aryan promise of the imperial domicile's name. USA! USA! USA!

As to Ms. Solnit, the spiteful gender-identity invective with which she has gifted us tonight permanently reduces her from significant essayist to to maudlin propagandist. The implicit hatred of and contempt for the viciously downtrodden USian 99 Percent evidenced in Ms. Solnit's newest text also casts profound doubt on the (alleged) humanitarianism from which she wrote. It thus reduces all her previous works to "schtick" -- merely another extended program of histrionics, a chic and lucrative Big Lie wrapped in pseudo-empathy, one more dismal manifestation of the ultimately deadly charade of USian "democracy."
 
 
+4 # lorenbliss 2016-11-16 12:21
Considering the role of the Soviet Union aka Russia in saving us from the pro-Hitler, pro-Mussolini capitalists in 1934, when these banksters plotted to make the U.S. a Nazi nation and turn the American Legion into an USian SS -- I cannot but wonder if that's the real reason Goldwater Girl Hillary so despises Russia and all Russians including their unborn children.

Or maybe she just envies the Russians their oh-so-beautiful , oh-so-nuanced language, capable of so much more than the malignantly leering cackle that is Hillary at the apex of her expressiveness, as when she was celebrating the hideously agonizing death of Qaddafi by anal impalement.

How ironic too how Hillary -- even as she was enthroning the real neo-Hitler (neo-Duce too) -- was damning Vladimir Putin as the new Hitler. It was the most effective sleight-of-hand political action I've ever witnessed -- obviously (Ms. Solnit take note), another proof of Hillary's great strength.
 
 
+4 # Radscal 2016-11-16 18:37
I re-read the post yesterday that you'd written some months ago, in which you pondered if HRC was a plant to get a straight-up fascist elected.

It could well be that this was exactly the plan, and the corporate media played us like a violin for the past 2 years to convince us that HRC really was the choice of the elite.

As we discussed, I figure we were screwed either way. At least now, the "liberals" can't pretend the fascism is ok, as they consistently do when their team is doing it. So maybe we can unite to fight back.

But I hadn't read anything about Soviet assistance to General Butler. Do you have a good link I can check out?
 
 
+2 # lorenbliss 2016-11-16 19:37
@Radscal: Not unless you have an Ouija Board or know a good spirit medium, as my best sources were three former Communists, now all dead, one of whom was my father. Essentially, Gen. Butler was being ignored until a smaller Leftist journal that was controlled by the Communist Party published his urgent warnings, which became major national news when a Party member on one of the New York City dailies turned the magazine report into a Page One story. The CPUSA was, at that time, essentially an instrument of the Soviet Union. For more, see my remarks on the comment thread at http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/23224-the-plot-to-overthrow-fdr-how-the-new-deal-sent-conservatives-into-a-rage
 
 
+1 # economagic 2016-11-16 22:25
Whoa! That is a biggie. I have it flagged for further attention.
 
 
+1 # Radscal 2016-11-16 23:12
Wow! Fascinating. And you're absolutely correct that it would explain those three otherwise incongruous historical events.

Sometimes I wish I could call the deceased... but I suspect that even if I had a hotline, there'd be no answer. ;-)
 
 
+1 # librarian1984 2016-11-17 07:38
Love the posts, loren. I bet your dad would be so proud of you -- still educating, still informing, still spreading the word.

After Clinton took the nomination I largely stopped watching the news. The propagandizing was painful. It gave me a chance to catch up on housework, which I'd been neglecting. Now that I'm watching again for the transition intrigue, I've noticed that the msm is doing a great job.

This is their forte, educating the public about rules and procedures, explaining who people are and what their history is. They are capable, they're just so misguided.

I don't trust more than a few. Most showed their unethical stripes. Distressing how easily they abandoned their core principles. imo Van Jones is reasonable and fair. He was a Clinton supporter sympathetic to Sanders. Steve Schmidt is a decent spokesperson for the GOP.

As for Hillary, another round of accolades for her appearance at CDF. I'm so ready for the Clintons to be in the rearview mirror. Can we please quit hearing from them now?

I hope people are archiving the film clips for when Chelsea makes her run. Bushes too.

Satan-esque, get thee behind me!
 
 
+1 # JayaVII 2016-11-18 01:14
Is it true that Soviet spies worked with Smedley Butler to foil the Bankers' Plot? I had never heard that, and would like to learn more. I've read a couple of books on the Plot and don't remember anything about Russian involvement. If it's true, we owe Stalin's KGB a debt of gratitude, strangely enough.
 
 
+10 # JPCT3 2016-11-16 07:05
Here we go! Another myopic reading done through the lens of the Feminist narrative! John Pilger pretty much summed it up - there were no real choices. Naomi Klein speaks of how the Dems embracing of Davos culture contributed to their defeat. You are not a true revolutionary if you have one eye fixed on your stock portfolio.
 
 
+10 # mashiguo 2016-11-16 08:01
clinton alienated voters all by herself.
all these articles by whining women reek.
where were they when palin lost?
or when jill stein lost?
do they not realize they could have elected jill stein by themselves?
they need to give it up.
its tiresome already.
 
 
-7 # NAVYVET 2016-11-16 11:23
Jill Stein is a nice woman, but she just can't win elections. She has a worse personality problem even than Hillary Clinton. But both, basically, come off as white, wealthy snobs.
 
 
+5 # librarian1984 2016-11-16 16:35
Now I know you've not spent five minutes listening to her because that's not at all how she comes across when you hear her speak. She is warm, intelligent and articulate, not snobbish at all. She speaks on a great many issues with poise, knowledge and humanity, and I have never heard her insult or demean anyone.

She is the polar opposite of HRC -- and that's a good thing.
 
 
+2 # anthraxripple 2016-11-16 22:47
The main thing she has in common with Hillary is that Hillary also can't win elections.

Other than that, librarian is correct. The two have nothing in common.
 
 
+8 # Timshel 2016-11-16 08:15
I voted for for Clinton. And, yes, misogyny played a role in Clinton's defeat. But it is not the main reason so many Americans were and still are against her.

Among the many reasons Clinton did not defeat the worst Republican ever was her many lucrative speeches (i.e. bribes) to corporate America. The quid pro quo was not to change her position on anything but just to keep on selling out the American people to Wall Street and the biggest corporations. Worse yet while she was Secretary of State foreign governments were giving her husband's and daughter's (and her) foundation $millions.This was and still is outrageous.

Hillary may be down, but it is clear that many Clintonites are still trying to resurrect this unbelievably corrupt politician. One should not be surprised by this because many of her supporters were, and still are, uninformed, misinformed and self-delusional . Haven't they done enough damage to the Democratic Party?

When will we be rid of this sleazy person?
 
 
+6 # Radscal 2016-11-16 18:41
They're already floating Chelsea as the next, big thing.

Bill and Hillary bought their neighbor's house in New York, so Chelsea can establish a residence there, and run for Congress in 2018.

Then New York can elect someone who literally said that marijuana kills you!
 
 
+4 # lfeuille 2016-11-16 19:29
Oh good god. Say it isn't so.
 
 
+4 # savagem13 2016-11-16 20:11
We're not going to let it happen. NEVER another Clinton in an elected position. We have two years to build the Green Party to a point of strength. Time to take this country back for the people!
 
 
+6 # librarian1984 2016-11-16 20:23
She was also the one who told people Sanders was sexist.
 
 
+4 # Radscal 2016-11-16 23:15
I think she was also the first on the HRC team to say that Sanders' Medicare-For-Al l plan would cost $ Trillions of dollars.
 
 
+5 # anthraxripple 2016-11-16 22:49
I'm so sick and tired of the Clinton sense of entitlement.
 
 
+9 # Skyelav 2016-11-16 08:48
Interesting take but if the Oligarchy hadn't backed her then why did Soros send bussloads of protesters onto the streets? They thought they had us in their pockets but the white unwashed (deplorables) rose up and came to the polls and said "No one else is even talking about change except Donald Trump," and voted. That's why she lost. People are sick of being sold a bill of goods with the last 8 years of continuing, albeit half-heartedly, George W. Bush's policies (i.e, the Globalist neo- con) both domestic and foreign. That is not to mention that she is an arrogant, elitist, know-it-all who demeans the voters whom she has never so much as rubbed elbows with (even on the campaign trail) and smugly parades her feelings of entitlement in front of her small but ever-hopeful hand wringing crowds. If we do not stop giving Hillary Clinton et al a pass on this the democrats might as well pack it in for good. Here we have the result of their arrogance now.
 
 
+4 # Radscal 2016-11-16 18:42
Yep. Not that Trump is likely to do much to help those in the 99% who supported him.
 
 
+1 # anthraxripple 2016-11-16 22:50
Trump is the scum of the Earth.
 
 
+3 # davehaze 2016-11-16 09:14
Rebecca Solnit

Hillary Clinton won the election just like Al Gore won the election. The election was stolen by the Republicans. Hillary Clinton called Trump and congratulated him on him becoming president. And then her and the Democratic Party did not blame themselves but but everyone else especially the left.

Instead of not conceding the election but calling Greg Palast and finding out exactly how the Republicans stole the election in the swing states by illegally purging Black and Hispanic voters and have every vote recounted and demand a fair election process.

But no. Blame everyone else especially the left who would not vote for her because she refused to represent us. So Rebecca you are going to say Hillary Clinton lost because the left did not vote for her period again Hillary Clinton did not lose the election. She won by several million votes. She also won several swing States that the Republicans cheated her out of winning. So stop complaining and call Greg Palast.
 
 
+2 # dascher 2016-11-16 10:49
Hillary Clinton lost the election - that's how this system works. However, she didn't lose by much - 10,000 votes in a couple of key states would have turned the election the other way.

So all this analysis of how/why/who seems pretty overwrought.

THe real question is how we and the rest of the world are going to be able to survive 4 years of Trump's erratic, disengaged, ignorant, idiocracy, decades of his Supreme Court nominees, and who knows how many years of the resurrection of The Insane Clown Posse of Giuliani, Gingrich, Christie, Bannon, Arpaio (and I expect to hear soon, Palin). Those guys are focussed and hard working and evil. They will do most of the real damage.

What recourse within 'the system' is left to stop them? I see nothing to stop them but I hope that they are as incompetent as they are evil.
 
 
+2 # davehaze 2016-11-16 11:12
Dasher

Read Greg Palast's investigation on the election and then tell me that Clinton lost.
 
 
+7 # NAVYVET 2016-11-16 11:20
Well, she did win, after all. But I believe she was a weak candidate because her "accomplishment s" were very flawed, and everyone I knew seemed to know that, including those like me who disliked her but voted for her because of Trump's idiocy. However, it may have been her deep rooted personality problem, her snobbery, that defeated her.

As an old woman, a feminist since I can remember, I was embarrassed by Hillary Clinton's arrogance and by the shrill support for her coming from wealthy feminists who have, in my opinion, disgraced their credentials as champions of ALL WOMEN by what they've said and written--much of it snobbery, entitlement, white privilege, with no understanding whatsoever of women of all colors and educations who are scraping along on Social Security & state handouts (like me). I voted for her--but only because the best candidate, Bernie, urged me to.

It's time to retire, old gals, and use your voices not for denial of reality & reactionary nonsense, but to encourage the hip hop generation of angry, activist females, hitherto denied and shut out from power! Not even Liz Warren has as much know-how of what's needed as they do. Let them take the reins. And both the corrupt Democratic party AND the even more corrupt Republican party should be dissolved, to start over from the grassroots up. Or we're all dead meat.
 
 
+5 # davehaze 2016-11-16 11:23
Dasher

Better yet tell me that the left who voted for Jill Stein lost the election for Hillary Clinton.

Has everybody read Greg Palist?

There are two problems here: the Republicans cheat and the Democrats and the media do not investigate. They are in denial.
 
 
+3 # Patriot 2016-11-16 13:35
Dave, the Dems also cheat. NOBODY does anything about that except claim it all was voter fraud, which it wasn't. Voter hasn't been a problem for many, many decades, but election fraud is becoming every more rampant because it's been so successful.

Why isn't anyone asking how Johnson and Stein, who both polled much better than the results would seem to indicate, somehow managed to lose so many of their supporters on election day. My guess is, the same way Sanders drew hundreds of thousands to his campaign rallies, Clinton very, very few, yet voters stampeded to her side in the primaries.

Election theft is not only rampant but blatantly apparent, yet WE aren't raising the roof over it, and many voters apparently STILL supported the illegitimate candidacy of the Dem nominee Clnton.

The electoral college has been a threat for decades, and unnecessary for decades, but only NOW, after the defeat of a candidate who stole the nomination, is anyone upset enough about it to demand it be eliminated or successfully the simple process of passing state laws that require states' electoral votes to be awarded to the candidate who wins the national popular vote.

We've gotten what we deserve.
 
 
+8 # Buddha 2016-11-16 11:31
All this, and nowhere does it say it ALSO took a Democratic Party that abandoned the working class and unions back when she was First Lady for her to be defeated. Nowhere do I see any honest soul-searching about the consequences of the Democratic Party no longer representing many of the very working class voters seduced by Trump and his racist bullshit.
 
 
+7 # davehaze 2016-11-16 14:13
Sanders won the Idaho caucuses. Clinton and the DNC stole it. Saunders made the mistake of not demanding a recount, of not seeing the raw votes. Having gotten away with that the DNC and Clinton went on to steal whatever states that were close.

But to just say everybody cheats, that the system is flawed does not negate the truth that Clinton won the election. Does not negate the truth that Minority voters are being disenfranchised in the swing States foremost, and in all of the states.

Please don't respond to me before reading Greg Palast.
 
 
+5 # Radscal 2016-11-16 18:49
Hell, Sanders won the very first contest in Iowa, until the HRC staff refused to count votes and instead tossed a coin six times (with HRC winning every toss).
 
 
+6 # lfeuille 2016-11-16 19:44
We know that. But its been well known since 2000. The Democrats could have fixed it after Obama got in. They had both houses of congress. They didn't do anything about it. It won't be fixed under a Republican administration. And I do not believe Hillary, had she won the electoral college, would have been up for fixing it since she wouldn't have made it to the general election without various forms of election fraud.

I don't really think that the Dems conspired to let in stand in 20009. The didn't foresee that Hillary would have an opponent with any staying power. They just fucked up. They didn't consider it important enough.

I think part of the problem is the mindset that votes belong to candidates, not voters. It is candidates that have to take legal action. There is nothing voters can do legally to make sure they get to vote and that their vote is counted. There is no right to vote in the constitution for individual citizens. There is a prohibition against denying someone the right to vote because of race, religion, national origin, etc, but that means proving you were purposely discriminated against which isn't always easy as opposed to just proving you were denied the right to vote. And it doesn't lead to having your vote counted in the current election.
 
 
+5 # savagem13 2016-11-16 19:43
Another load of crap, from yet another "journalist" who is either a paid shill or suffering from a severe case of denial. We are wasting time reading bulls&*t like this. We need to jettison the entire lot of the dems. No debating who should be in leadership positions. It doesn't matter--they all need to go. Even, I'm sorry to say, Bernie. The Green Party is the way forward. We need to rally behind the Green Party and begin to solidify this revolution!
 
 
-9 # margpark 2016-11-16 21:50
The leftists who campaigned against Hillary Clinton have given us Donald Trump. No two ways about it. I was shocked to see it before the election. I am still shocked and upset that Trump won.
 
 
+9 # davehaze 2016-11-16 22:04
Marg park

No leftist campaigned against Hillary Clinton we just didn't vote for her because she did not represent us.

I wanted a Woman for president Jill Stein.
 
 
+2 # savagem13 2016-11-17 06:31
I agree with davehaze, margpark. I don't think you've yet realized the truth about Clinton. If you are a true progressive, please continue to read and listen to other progressives. Clinton didn't represent anything "leftist." For true progressives, the only rational choice in this putrid election was Stein and the Green Party.
 
 
+3 # Diane_Wilkinson_Trefethen_aka_tref 2016-11-17 06:42
I am a Bernie supporter so all this damn sniveling by the Hillary crowd really pisses me off, given that YOU called US whiners and sore losers when Clinton suborned DWS & the DNC conspiring to throw the primaries to her. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, you HRC supporters have changed your tune. Hypocrites!

Regarding the National Popular Vote blather -
“Figures don’t lie but liars figure” is amply proven by the quotation from the NYT cited above, "She will have won by a wider percentage margin than not only Al Gore in 2000 but also Richard Nixon in 1968 and John F Kennedy in 1960.” [Note: I double-checked only the 1960 numbers.]

The NY Times SEEMS to be saying that Clinton won a greater percentage of the NPV than Kennedy. If so, the NYT is lying. Kennedy won 49.72% of the NPV. Currently Clinton leads by about 1.4 million or 47.87% of the NPV. Even if her lead more than doubles to 3 million, she will STILL have less than 49%.

So what could the NYT mean AND not be lying? How about, “Clinton’s percentage of the NPV will exceed Trump’s percentage of the NPV by more than Kennedy’s percentage exceeded Nixon’s in 1960.” That would be true but irrelevant to the main point that the Electoral College is a flawed mechanism. There will always be contests that are closer than others. What a CLOSE race (or one where the winner loses the NPV) means is that the winner doesn't have a mandate to make sweeping changes.

Trump does NOT have a mandate!
 
 
+3 # librarian1984 2016-11-17 08:09
Two excellent points. I've always held a particular dislike of hypocrites, and you've summed up the situation nicely :-)

Right now Hillary is on her canonization tour but in a few years, when the third wave books start coming out, these same people will be stunned .. STUNNED .. and angry at the hubris and corruption that lost this election to Donald Trump.

But for the moment we're still doing that ol' denial song and dance.

I want the DNC scrubbed clean. I want Clinton Inc. income streams to dry up. I hope Chelsea takes up oil painting and never looks back.
 
 
-4 # Activista 2016-11-17 14:36
but in a few years, when the third wave books start coming out ...
think that many book will be banned (censorship) like in China, Russia or in USA under Reagan. Only books celebrating fuhrer Trump and useful idiot who elected him will be marketed.
 
 
+2 # moonrigger 2016-11-17 13:18
At this point, with the fascists having won the election by hook & by crook, it's wise to look beyond our opinions of HRC & the DNC and take a deeper look at how the masses have been manipulated. And no, it wasn't really that poorly educated under-employed men were unhappy. It can't be explained by logic at all. Please watch the series by the BBC entitled The Century of the Self https://youtu.be/eJ3RzGoQC4s
esp. Episode 1 about Freud's nephew who taught industry how to use propaganda (that he cleverly renamed PR) to influence our choices. The RNC & Trump mastered this while we logical thinkers were asleep at the wheel. It's no different than the Give-Us-Barraba s mentality most of us first heard about in Sunday School--the mob that can shift directions as quickly as startled schools of fish that be easily netted by the fishers of men. They did that. And yes, it was also the result of decades of tactics such as Whitewater (see Fools For Scandal) & all cited above, plus our insatiable appetite for media candy. We're arguing while they're celebrating a near bloodless coup. Woe is us!
 
 
+2 # Eljefe 2016-11-18 16:22
Dear DNC,

We coulda' had class. But you wanted a fixed fight and look what we got!
 
 
-1 # Activista 2016-11-18 19:32
Quoting Eljefe:
Dear DNC,

We coulda' had class. But you wanted a fixed fight and look what we got!

Dear anti-Clinton voters -
We coulda' had class. But you wanted a fixed fight and look what we got!
 
 
+1 # markovchhaney 2016-11-18 19:34
Nah, she was just a weak candidate who campaigned like the third-rater she is. Just ask Bill: he should have run her campaign. Well, not that I wanted her OR Trump, but there'd be a load less whinging from idiots like Solnit.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN