“Her devoted followers will find it poignantly honest, while her foes will perceive thinly veiled narcissistic tirades.”
LOL! So true. Over at Democratic Underground there are threads and threads of DU-ers bowing down and worshiping at the alter of Hillary and this book. Quite a few saying they cried reading certain chapters, awed by her strength and honesty.
/gag
According to one count, her book blames her defeat on James Comey, Vladimir Putin, Barack Obama, Mitch McConnell, the New York Times, the media as a whole, Bernie Sanders, Jill Stein, sexism, white resentment, and her own misstatements. Others attribute her loss to her inept handling of the Benghazi attack, her private email server, dubious aspects of the Clinton Foundation, and a long string of past scandals, from Whitewater to Travelgate.
All of which were caused by her conduct.
i dont get people worshiping her.. even if i thought a liberal, she just isnt a very nice person.. shes a B@tch actually...
I agree that “cow” and “hillary” are interchangeable.
Uh, no.
Bottom line: Hillary CHOKED. She “knew a thing or two” about dealing with mean old men but PawPaw Trump twisted her knickers REAL tight. Sent her shrieking through the woods. The Valium/Chardonnay drip slowly returned her to an ordinary level of unhappiness and HATRED.
The Clintons benefit from something I call “we never made a mistake” vote too. Voting for a Clinton reaffirms earlier votes for Clintons. This goes back to Bill’s first term when the it started to seep in that there was more than just womanizing to be concerned with.
As the left undertook the emotional, quasi-intellectual circling the wagons around Bill, adopting notions of evidence to exclude evidences that could be had and beginning a cycle of accommodation/further scandal/more accommodation they started down a road to desensitization. The pride with which they continued to support the Clintons being part of this.
Naturally, this irrational process didn’t start in a virulent form and only obtained its true irrational character over the years.
Conversely, those predisposed to care about wrongdoing often became more attuned to it.
It finally reached a fever pitch during the Obama years where I observed that it seemed as if they had learned to manage scandal with scandal, keeping a steady stream of up damaging issues coming as a way to prevent any shocks from big issues arising. This works two ways: when the left is preconditioned to circle the wagons they do so BOTH because they do not want to face it and also because they are resisting the offense at perceived wrongdoing of Republicans.
I was able to reach this conclusion because of early observations about Obama that clearly suggested he was able of this amount of cynical manipulation.
I’m referring to something I saw in an interview before the 2008 general. In it Obama was asked if, after the election, people might be disappointed in him and his answer let slip what was likely the brilliant manipulative technique behind his rapid rise and success.
He basically said that, yes, people would be disappointed in him because they were likely to have voted for their own fantasy of him. He explained that as a largely unknown quantity that had positioned himself as an agent for hope and change it was left open for people to provide the hope and change that they wanted, to look at his statements and rhetoric in light of that personalized version of “Obama” and then vote for that. He said that when illusion met reality that disappointment would be the result.
Now, at that point I think he may have been lying, for if I could notice the “we never made a mistake” phenomenon then others could too. Obama’s whole career, from when he was groomed and introduced on, seems to have been orchestrated to make a powerful politician. If someone could arrive at the idea of using the self willed delusion of voters to bring about success at the polls then they would probably have the ability to see what went on with Bill and rely on that to their advantage too.
Simply, once emotionally invested in him and his hope and change, Obama voters who might have been disappointed were more likely to protect themselves from it, to alter their expectations of Obama so that they were always in the know, had never been wrong. What he is, where he goes, they would follow. The alternative, the red pill, was simply never going to be an option for many.
Now, going back to what I said earlier, about excluding any evidences that that can be offered, I’ve described this interview by Obama, which I DID see, before and the attitude of leftist is that unless I have a clip they can watch it just didn’t happen. It isn’t evidence because it isn’t proof sufficient to disabuse them all at once.
It actually goes deeper than this, though, for you can show (as happened with a number of Wikileaks emails) a progressive some evidence and later make a reference to it and they will not remember it from when it was previously showed to them, so unless you produce it again, they challenge, it isn’t true (or they may even remember it and act as if they don’t for rhetorical purposes). If they are honest or not about their recollection, here something like Wikileaks, which is vast, works against you (finding a particular email published months ago) and the left knows it.
So, in summation, the left automatically circles the wagons, they resist any evidence that can actually be given demanding a standard of proof to basically you must disabuse them all at once or go home, being emotionally invested they ultimately never made any mistakes, they go along with their leaders as a result drawn along after them because of effects like I’ve tried to to outline here because to escape is to face the possibility of having voted for bad people, corrupt people, and that’s just not gonna happen.
The PEOPLE saw that experience as lying, cheating, stealing, power-hungry, entitled, spoiled, greedy, corrupt, sell-out, hypocritical...married to a perv with identical traits.
