Posted on 04/28/2017 5:49:34 AM PDT by Kaslin
While we're examining the accomplishments of Donald Trump's first hundred days -- putting his man on the U.S. Supreme Court is the biggie -- Hillary Clinton is getting the once-over (and the second and third) for all the reasons why she's not the first woman to preside over her first hundred days in the Oval Office.
She never understood that "the fault, dear Hillary, is not in the stars, but in yourself."
In "Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton's Doomed Campaign," the book Washington, D.C., is talking about, Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes write a sweeping drama with lots of supporting actors strutting across the stage. The characters are worthy of the Bard. It's a tale told not in the poetry of Elizabethan tragedy but as a comedy or farce.
When the curtain finally falls on election night, there are no dead bodies to drag off stage, but lots of Machiavellian characters litter the landscape, muttering asides and revealing dark insights into behind-the-scenes machinations. The cast includes a husband with no "impulse-control button" and enough jesters, fools and sycophants to destroy the myth of the irresistible Hillary Juggernaut that was ordained to elect the first woman president of the United States.
In one richly farcical case of mistaken identity, an aide misunderstands the name of the interviewer Clinton wanted for her first television interview. She said she wanted Bianna, meaning Bianna Golodryga of Yahoo! News, the wife of Peter Orszag, a onetime economic adviser for President Bill Clinton whom she considered friendly and deferential. The aide thought she meant Brianna, as in Brianna Keilar, and that's who got the live interview for CNN. She asked tough questions about Hillary Clinton's infamous email server.
Clinton grew defensive, especially when she was asked, "Would you vote for someone that you didn't trust?" This was a classic softball, which someone at ease with the press might have knocked out of the park. Instead, Clinton glared daggers at Keilar and replied, as if in a sulk, "People should and do trust me." The lady doth protest too much, methinks -- and so did much of the national audience.
Such insights, errors and sloppy work dogged her throughout the campaign, and this after-the-fact focus in this season of her discontent shows her to be the culprit in her demise. "Shattered" suggests why a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll suggests that President Donald Trump, despite low approval ratings, would still defeat Clinton today -- 43 percent saying they would vote for the Donald, and 40 percent for the Lady Macbeth of Little Rock. A remarkable 96 percent of Trump voters say they would vote for him again, and only 85 percent of Clinton voters would still vote for her.
Richard Nixon might have felt at home in the Clinton bunker. After her 2008 loss to Barack Obama, Clinton aides reportedly assigned loyalty scores to members of Congress, from one to seven. A score of one reflected high loyalty; seven signified likely to commit "egregious acts of treachery." Such expectations of disloyalty terrified everyone in the bunker.
Donald Trump, by contrast, inspires a different kind of loyalty. His supporters stick with him despite his evident flaws, his angry tweets and his anger that can go public in an instant. They nevertheless believe he's got their back. There's no mushy empathy like the Clintons' phony assurance that "we feel your pain." The president's fans don't like some of the things he's done but still think he'll deliver on his promise to bring about change and destroy the establishment of the elites that has grown fat and stale, surviving long past its sell-by date.
In town halls during spring break, many voters vented anger at congressmen for their support of the president. But Sen. Joni Ernst of Iowa, as typical of the president's loyal friends in Congress, offered a defense. "We'd be hard-pressed to find a president who doesn't have flaws," she said. "I support a majority of the policies versus the actual person." A Bubba defender couldn't have said it better.
Hillary Clinton has yet to measure the man or understand the "ordinary" men and women who stand with the president. When her aides were preparing her for one of the debates and had to choose someone to play the Donald, casting was a problem because the campaign didn't want a "Saturday Night Live" imitation but someone to rattle and annoy her. Anthony Weiner, the sexting husband of Clinton aide Huma Abedin, was suggested. But Philipe Reines, a senior aide with an acid tongue and a reputation for rudeness, was selected. He helped her to an unflappable debate performance but couldn't do anything about the schoolmarm style that turned off the millions. Hillary Clinton is a woman of many gifts but not what the poet Bobby Burns described as the gift "to see ourselves as others see us." It was the fatal flaw.
If one word doomed her presidential campaign, it was calling half of America ‘deplorables’.
She cannot insult half of the voters and expect many of them to support her. She could berate her staff and sycophants, because they are part of the Machine.
She received under 30% of the vote in Arkansas. That indicates she has little idea of what America outside her bubble is like.
“I don’t care anymore! Hillary is politically DEAD. Stop with this constant analysis.”
I care — but not about the constant analysis. I care that the Democrats and world in general have the truth about this corrupt witch shoved in their evil faces in a manner that they absolutely cannot ignore. I want everyone to know the TRUTH.
The primaries tell the story. In 2008 she couldn’t beat a first term senator who never held a job and in 2016 she had a hard time beating an old commie who was not even a member of the democratic party. Hillary’s only inevitability was defeat.
The fact of the matter is Donald Trump won this election, fighting it out from the day of his announcement to the day he won.
...
I agree. Clinton would have clobbered Jeb, who was the GOPe’s selection.
She lost because ENOUGH voters recognized her for what what she is-a lying, dishonest, corrupt, unethical, America hating, money grubbing, power hungry, sick, alcoholic, grifting person. Being a woman, Russians, and all the other grasping at straws reasons had zero to do with her loss. ENOUGH voters overcame the overwhelming media bias, billions in foreign dollars, rampant voter fraud, liberal socialist academia, entitlement crowd, deluded black plantation members, fake scientists, fossil fuel haters, and general sjw ‘cognoscenti ‘ to elect Trump. Unfortunately he cannot save the USA IMO, but he can stem the hemorrhage for eight years hopefully. That should be long enough for me; unfortunately my children and grand children will have to endure the major cultural and social upheaval that is coming.
I’m far from the most astute political junkie who ever inhabited these parts. Frankly, I have considerable resentment over how much the political everything has hijacked our everyday everything.
But this phenom (her loss of middle class suburban women) is to me the most Occam’s Razor explanation.
I think I am quoting more or less correctly; she (meaning her campaign) said she was abandoning “white middle class blue-collar workers”.
Now, one wonders, why would she abandon them? Perhaps a bit more subtle, why would HER CAMPAIGN ADMIT to abandoning them? They lied about every other freaking thing in the known universe, they made that admission early on, why? Under what duress? Either: she took their votes for granted, as immutably hers; Or, she knows that as far left as she and the Dem party have gone, this segment cannot be persuaded unless they are already welded to “D” in which case nothing needs to be done to woo them. Or, both. This is a consistently “lazy, entitled” story, to put in as few words as possible.
She never set foot in WI and campaigned very sparingly in Rust Belt states.
But everyone saw the “peel back the onion” phenomenon with the flagrant lies on the emails.
She never used a private server.
But they found a private server.
And she never signed up for a gov’t acct, so how could she send emails?
But she only used it for Yoga
So how come “official” looking emails start showing up, early, unencrypted, on the lightest of early skim-thrus.
But those were only......whatever.
But here are emails marked “classified”
But she never sent those, only received those.
And she never knew they were classified bec they were not so marked.
etc;
etc;
etc;
So, if folks did not see the onion being peeled back after three levels of lying, they could maybe see it after 5
levels of lying and if they couldn’t see it then, they could see it after 7 levels.
And it is thus my contention that HRC, herself, all by herself, devised the single strategy that was capable of getting underneath the bumperstickerisms of the left. And that is, to alienate this core constituency with transparent, repeated, pathological-grade lies that these women would not put up with from their own children and they wouldn’t put up them because they smacked or otherwise admonished or punished their kids when their kids told obvious stupid-child lies. And these lies were of that specific character. Guileless. Absolutely dependent upon the belief that unlimited love from the person being lied to will create the condition in which the lie MUST BE believed. She assumed unlimited love from this core constituency and showed she was perfectly ready to crap all over it.
Have any FReepers read this book yet? Any comments on whether it’s worth buying?
What book are you talking about? I don’t see any mention about a book in the article?
Never mind it's in the third paragraph
Yes, Hillary is a woman of many gifts...from foreign donors expecting favors after she was elected.
Clinton bashed white people, particularly white men, throughout her campaign. Not surprisingly, most white men voted against her, and about 57 percent of white women also voted against her, choosing to side with their white husbands, white sons, white fathers, and white brothers over a tired old white hag.
Add to that, the fact that in the 100 days leading up to election day, Clinton held 59 rallies, compared to Trump’s 129.
Clinton, in addition to running an anti-white campaign, ran the laziest, most entitled campaign in history.
Hitlery is a venomous harridan, and every Real American knows that.
That is why she lost!
How true.
It was reported that she spent about $200,000 on her "new" wardrobe for the campaign.
The pant suits disappeared into the back of the closet to be replaced by those oversized tent-like smocks.
I wondered who she had for a fashion consultant - Bernie Sanders' wife maybe?
This is a Georgio Armani poncho thatt retails for $12,495!
Or is it a smock. a tent, a house-coat or an overcoat?
You know that we all hope your assessment is correct.
But I wouldn't bet the baby's milk money on it as a certainty.
If THE BEAST doesn't try to resurrect herself for another run at the presidency she will surely try to wield power and influence within the party.
Like playing the role of elder stateswoman in public but pulling strings and making death threats behind the curtain.
And of concern is what we see happening with the spawn, Chelsea.
There is an obvious attempt to create a history for her - to create some important sounding bona fides.
That can only be because someone has an eye on a political future for her.
Someone like Mama?
And democrats are insane enough to actually run Chelsea for office and to elect her someday.
You know darn well if they pick the right time and office in NY State she would be a shoo-in.
Hillary is politically DEAD. Stop with this constant analysis.
***
Probably, but I think that the post-mortems are hilarious.
IMO, these analyses have become a cottage industry. I put them in the "If Hitler had won the War" fantasies.
With the backing of the Bushes, she felt invulnerable.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
