Hillary Clinton
Related: About this forumHillary Clinton, the "flawed candidate".
Last edited Wed Apr 19, 2017, 12:41 PM - Edit history (1)
Last night I watched Brian Williams interview the authors of "Shattered". The authors have done some sterling work in the past, which includes their book on HRC's stint at the State Department.
But Brian Williams persisted in using the phrase "flawed candidate" with reference to HRC and the authors agreed.
"flawed candidate" is one of the most inane phrases in politics. It's an asterisk that denies a person their greatness and an absurd caveat.
U.S. Presidents still held in high regard were "flawed". Some of these men owned human beings and had sex with them, today we would call that rape. Some of them had insane egos, were notorious philanderers, were liars and cheats. Some would not survive in today's climate of politics yet their actions helped us evolve into a more compassionate society - like the abolition of slavery, women's suffrage, the civil rights act and an awareness that politics should improve the lives of people who are different to us. These flawed presidents used the system to improve lives, and they are viewed as "Great Men" - not flawed, not "establishment" men per se, but Great Men - period.
Enter Hillary Clinton, and her belief that the system can do good - and this is seen as shocking and her being out of touch because she is an "establishment" candidate. The broadsided attacks of the "establishment" by populists created an insatiable appetite in the Political Media for more chaos because chaos breeds ratings. "Flawed" was handy to drag Hillary, who never made it a secret she despised the press, to the level of her opponent, a charlatan who hates the system and lacks the skills to make the system work even if he cared a damn. He is unscrupulous so he wants to tear systems down for the sake of it because systems are complex and contain checks and balances that hold people to account.
The desperate attempts to disparage Clinton using the "Flawed" meme reached its zenith with the email server use and the witch hunt that was Benghazi . Hillary is no more a warmonger than past Presidents but you'd swear she was Idi Amin if we go by the histrionics of her harshest critics and her husband's scandals aren't her scandals. A public servant was equated with a man whose narcissism is only excelled by his ignorance and yet Pundits, commentators and journalists couldn't, for all their experience in politics, suss this out for themselves. They fed and keep feeding the anti-establishment narrative and for all their outrage, unwittingly helped elect the most unsuitable person to the presidency in decades.
Peter Daou? put it best "All of this mess, every last bit of it, is because the media, left and right wantonly smeared and slandered this lifelong public servant"
still_one
(96,792 posts)Last edited Wed Apr 19, 2017, 12:03 PM - Edit history (1)
The NY Times review of the book left the impression that this book was just a feeble attempt to cash in on "why Hillary lost". From what I read in the review, I do not take this book as particularly eye opening. The review purports to use assessments from some people in her staff, and they seem to point the blame, at least how I read the review, because Hillary did not reach out enough.
Since I haven't read the book I admit I may be jumping to the wrong conclusion, but even from the title "Shattered", implying that no one in the press expected Hillary to lose, and it was a complete surprise, is bullshit.
The media's double standard, along with Comey, and the FBI's interference in the election seems to be relegated to a back seat in their analysis of why Hillary lost, and in my view that is a patently dishonest assessment.
Reading the reviews of this book over at Amazon, give it an average review, and the consensus over there seems to point to a rehash, nothing enlightening or new. Those that are clearly trump supporters believe it is bias toward Hillary, and those that seem to support Hillary or are Democrats tend to think the book presents a sympathetic look
Based on the reviews I have read, while it may not be its purpose, it provides cover for the shoddy reporting of the press.
I would be curious if anyone has read the book if it delves into how racism, sexism and bigotry was a factor, and how the news outlets legitimized it
the BS with these people is unending.
JHan
(10,173 posts)It should be alarming that Trump managed to beat out Kasich and Rubio in a primary, and go on to win millions of votes in the GE and take the Electoral College.
People actively voted for mean policies against vulnerable groups, hoping to benefit in the process, while ignoring Trump's calls for a tax cut on the rich. Folks willingly deceived themselves about Trump because immigrants, and muslims and brown people and liberals and whoever else they've got an axe to grind over....Few in mainstream media, and fever still in Cable News Media, have let these facts touch their "economic anxiety" narratives.
still_one
(96,792 posts)is easy how we forget about that,
JHan
(10,173 posts)For conservatives - it deflects from the fact that Trump is a product of their making.
For media types - it deflects from their failures in covering Trump's rise
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)then--YEAH.
JHan
(10,173 posts)fuck , even I knew that national security officials destroy their devices after using them and these monumental idiots with pea sized intellects didn't think to inform themselves of guidelines before opening their mouths. They fail their audience time and time again.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)Their loyalty is to corporate America, not as watchdogs for the American people. There is no longer (of there shouldn't be) any doubt about that.
U.S. Media are pretty much in our faces about it, seeing how they coddle TrumPutin while 'reporting' everything about Democrats with a negative slant, like how they reported that "Dems FAILED to win G-06!!" despite the fact that Ossoff won by 27 pnt over the highest Republican.
This is why the American people are still fooled into voting Republican despite the horrors the Republican Party have perpetrated on them, their families, their States, and this country time and again.
sheshe2
(87,981 posts)I luv ya!
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)There. I said it.
sheshe2
(87,981 posts)ladym55
(2,577 posts)You just made so many important points. Thank you. I just don't know if we will ever have the discussions we need to have. Trump kicked the snot out of the "best" of the Republicans because he appealed to the worst part of the Republican base.
There is a piece by Charlie Pierce today: http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a54633/why-trump-won/
The Clinton bashing does need to stop. She was a damned good candidate fighting misogyny, the Russians, and some of the stupidest press coverage I have ever seen.
JHan
(10,173 posts)Pierce has been so on point for months now.
StevieM
(10,546 posts)The whole organization turned into a GOP operation to tear down the Democratic candidate.
BainsBane
(54,854 posts)Excellent post.
JHan
(10,173 posts)"flawed candidate" how many times did we hear that BS? over and over, while Trump was graded on a curve for profit because ratings were great.
Response to JHan (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Sparkly
(24,352 posts)JHan
(10,173 posts)Hillary lost because she was "flawed" - but where does that leave her opponent who was rewarded for his vileness and whose corruption was ignored?