Current Events > how is Clinton's new book? is it out yet?

(+) Yeah! (+)

I hear she disses Bernie
---

Balrog0 posted...

I hear she disses Bernie

Not a diss, more: "Bernie's campaign ended up hurting mine by overinflating voter expectations, in lieu of more reasonable ones"

And I believe the release date is the 12th.

Now I open the floor to baseless and spectacular accusations.
---

hollow_shrine posted...

Not a diss, more: "Bernie's campaign ended up hurting mine by overinflating voter expectations, in lieu of more reasonable ones"

Which I agree with, I love Bernie, love the guy, don't get me wrong, but I think he really undermined Clinton in that regard.

Also it's not really his fault, but the degree to which his supporters latched on to the right wing "crooked Hillary" meme is rather baffling.
---

hollow_shrine posted...

Now I open the floor to baseless and spectacular accusations.

I hear Hillary writes about the secret meetings she had at Comet Ping Pong Pizza where she would work with the Illuminati to clear a path for her presidency because she had brought them enough offerings to merit a boon.
---

What's it called? "It was my turn?"
---

Doom_Art posted...

Also it's not really his fault, but the degree to which his supporters latched on to the right wing "crooked Hillary" meme is rather baffling.

When I look at how people reacted to her in the eighties and seventies, when she was less of the wife and more of the business partner, I get it. Her first public opinions gave people an impression of someone who was inappropriately assertive, and it ended up sabotaging some of Bill's political ambitions, so she altered it. And that's how we get her baking cookies in the WH in the early nineties.

People were correct to read that change in demeanor as calculated, because it absolutely was. But it was calculated in response to our initial reactions of her. And over the course of her political appearances she developed a reputation of adaopting various hats for political convenience. Thing is, politicians do that all the time. We can google 'Bill Clinton black vote' for an excellent example of a time when it appeared to work. But where people were willing to accept the pantomimes of male politicians, Hillary has always been accused of being fake, mercenary, and assertive.
---

It seems like every week we get a new batch of topics like "Now Hillary is blaming ______!"

In reality I'm sure the book spends a lot of time analyzing different factors that influenced the outcome of the election. It isn't just Hillary Clinton pointing fingers
---

hollow_shrine posted...

People were correct to read that change in demeanor as calculated, because it absolutely was. But it was calculated in response to our initial reactions of her. And over the course of her political appearances she developed a reputation of adaopting various hats for political convenience. Thing is, politicians do that all the time. We can google 'Bill Clinton black vote' for an excellent example of a time when it appeared to work. But where people were willing to accept the pantomimes of male politicians, Hillary has always been accused of being fake, mercenary, and assertive.

She's a very tragic figure in that respect.

She was never my first choice for President, but I admire her and what she had to go through in her public life.

Having to go most of your adult life wearing a persona because of people's expectations of you.

eston posted...

In reality I'm sure the book spends a lot of time analyzing different factors that influenced the outcome of the election. It isn't just Hillary Clinton pointing fingers

No no no don't you get it man she goes on for 400+ pages blaming Russia and Comey
---

eston posted...

It isn't just Hillary Clinton pointing fingers

It mostly is though
---

voldothegr8 posted...

eston posted...

It isn't just Hillary Clinton pointing fingers

It mostly is though

Have you read the book?
---

voldothegr8 posted...

eston posted...

It isn't just Hillary Clinton pointing fingers

It mostly is though

where'd you get that pre-release copy yo?
---

Isn't it just Hillary pointing fingers though
---

Doom_Art posted...

voldothegr8 posted...

eston posted...

It isn't just Hillary Clinton pointing fingers

It mostly is though

where'd you get that pre-release copy yo?

Don't need one, she's that predictable.
---

hollow_shrine posted...

But where people were willing to accept the pantomimes of male politicians, Hillary has always been accused of being fake, mercenary, and assertive.

I call bullshit. We've had entire election cycles dominated by whether someone was "flip-flopping" too much. It basically killed Kerry's white house run. It has nothing to do with her being a woman. Romney suffered the same issue with his attempt as looking like "an average joe" and he got called fake too. This isn't a uniquely man vs woman thing. It happens to ANY politician that acts like they're better than everyone else right up until the moment they need to pander for votes.
---

voldothegr8 posted...

Don't need one, she's that predictable.

So that's a "no" then? You have not read it?
---

"But Russia!!"

the book.
---

Caution999 posted...

"But Russia!!"

the book.

whoa they're handing out pre-release copies of Clinton's book? :o
---

Doom_Art is so triggered lol
---

Caution999 posted...

"But Russia!!"

the book.

Lol
---

Doom_Art posted...

voldothegr8 posted...

Don't need one, she's that predictable.

So that's a "no" then? You have not read it?

Her book is nothing but propaganda and made up nonsense. Consider her blurb about Trump and how her space was violated during one of the debates. She was the one in his space...

She's not even a good liar.
---

voldothegr8 posted...

It mostly is though

HypnoCoosh posted...

Isn't it just Hillary pointing fingers though

The book won't be available for reading or listening until next Tuesday. If either of you could explain how you came to learn of the substantive content of this as yet unreleased title, I'd find it illuminating.
---

Caution999 posted...

Her book is nothing but propaganda and made up nonsense.

I wasn't aware you had a copy. Where'd you get it?

Caution999 posted...

Consider her blurb about Trump and how her space was violated during one of the debates.

Everyone thought Trump was a total creep in that debate, don't act as though it's solely her opinion.
---

hollow_shrine posted...

voldothegr8 posted...

It mostly is though

HypnoCoosh posted...

Isn't it just Hillary pointing fingers though

The book won't be available for reading or listening until next Tuesday. If either of you could explain how you came to learn of the substantive content of this as yet unreleased title, I'd find it illuminating.

Out of curiosity... what do you think the book is likely to be about? I understand you're calling them out on speculating as if it were fact, but you're also not doing anything to argue that their claims aren't likely true based on everything else she's said about the election.
---

s0nicfan posted...

Out of curiosity... what do you think the book is likely to be about? I understand you're calling them out on speculating as if it were fact, but you're also not doing anything to argue that their claims aren't likely true based on everything else she's said about the election.

The book is her perspective on the whole election. The whole thing isn't even "Here's how I lost", regardless of where blame is distributed.
---

LOL if some of you are this defensive already then Tuesday is going to be a very bad day for you. I highly await all the damage control.
---

s0nicfan posted...

hollow_shrine posted...

But where people were willing to accept the pantomimes of male politicians, Hillary has always been accused of being fake, mercenary, and assertive.

I call bullshit. We've had entire election cycles dominated by whether someone was "flip-flopping" too much. It basically killed Kerry's white house run. It has nothing to do with her being a woman. Romney suffered the same issue with his attempt as looking like "an average joe" and he got called fake too. This isn't a uniquely man vs woman thing. It happens to ANY politician that acts like they're better than everyone else right up until the moment they need to pander for votes.

But in both cases those accusations of flip-flopping were coming from the opposition, not from within your own party. Inter-party GOP support for Romney in 2012 and democratic support for Kerry in 2004 were both nearly unanimous. Compare those to the come down from the 2016 DNC going forward to that November.
---

voldothegr8 posted...

LOL if some of you are this defensive already then Tuesday is going to be a very bad day for you. I highly await all the damage control.

Who's defensive? I'm just wondering how you have this sort of insight into a book that hasn't been released yet.
---

Doom_Art posted...

Caution999 posted...

Her book is nothing but propaganda and made up nonsense.

I wasn't aware you had a copy. Where'd you get it?

Caution999 posted...

Consider her blurb about Trump and how her space was violated during one of the debates.

Everyone thought Trump was a total creep in that debate, don't act as though it's solely her opinion.

No, nobody did. Every (election) year during that style of debate, the MSM makes the same joke how the Republican candidate is walking around while the other person is talking. I distinctly remember a SNL skit where they did the same thing with John McCain. Trump didn't do anything creepy.
---

Hillary failed to take advantage of the popular rage that fueled the country in 2016. She shouldn't blame Bernie for giving the people what they wanted. After she won, the least she could've done is adopted more progressive policies or pick a progressive VP. I'll wait till the book is released, but I'm going to be very surprised if she actually acknowledges her (and the DNC's) grave pitfalls last year.
---

s0nicfan posted...

Out of curiosity... what do you think the book is likely to be about? I understand you're calling them out on speculating as if it were fact, but you're also not doing anything to argue that their claims aren't likely true based on everything else she's said about the election.

I've only read two excerpts from the book, both anecdotes about the frustrations of being a political being, both tackling it from different directions. Her joke about shooting varmits on a stage in Oklahoma is about the absurdity of transforming yourself to campaign on a democratic platform in a state like Oklahoma, literal pandering. The anecdote about the Bernie debate was about the frustration of having to play superego to the democratic id of Bernie's optimistic campaign promises.

Looking at those two stories I could assume that the whole book is full of stories like that, but I've literally seen less than one-percent of a several hundred page memoir, and any conclusions I could draw from such a small sample size would be ridiculous. I know that. I suspect most of us know that. And yet...

TLDR. I don't know. I haven't any information with which to speculate except perhaps the title, which just tells me that this is a book about the 2015-2016 election told from her perspective.
---

Caution999 posted...

No, nobody did.

Yes, yes people did.

They noticed him hovering behind her and commented on it.

It was a thing that was talked about regularly after the town hall debate
---

---

Caution999 posted...

No, nobody did. Every (election) year during that style of debate, the MSM makes the same joke how the Republican candidate is walking around while the other person is talking. I distinctly remember a SNL skit where they did the same thing with John McCain. Trump didn't do anything creepy.

he did stand behind her while she was talking though and I thought that was kinda weird when I was watching the debates. :u
---

HypnoCoosh posted...

I don't understand this obsession Trump garglers have with trying to "meme" the Russia stuff.
---

Is there seriously anyone delusional enough to not see the Clintons as corrupt political opportunists?

She would have been a better president than Trump by FAR, but I for one am fucking tired of elitists crowning candidates as nominees even when the public isn't happy with the choice. The DNC and Clinton have nobody to blame but themselves. They actually tried to paint Hillary as a loving motherly type, which is sort of like Trump trying to act humble and unassuming. Don't fucking tell us that she's this heartwarming home maker. That insults our intelligence.
---

hollow_shrine posted...

Her joke about shooting varmits on a stage in Oklahoma is about the absurdity of transforming yourself to campaign on a democratic platform in a state like Oklahoma, literal pandering.

You're not talking about the made up Pixelatedboat thing are you?
---

It's literally called "What Happened" lol. Like get over it, nobody cares anymore.

EDIT: Holy shit, from the wiki page:

Clinton has scheduled appearances in Washington, D.C., California, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, Florida, Georgia, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Washington and Oregon, as well as Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal, and is scheduled to last through December 2017.

She's putting more effort in selling this book than she did the campaign lol
---

Coffeebeanz posted...

but I for one am f***ing tired of elitists crowning candidates as nominees even when the public isn't happy with the choice.

What do you mean by "the public isn't happy with the choice"? You understand that Hilary won the primaries by a lot, right? And that under any other set of "rules" she still won? (Popular vote, no super-delegates, dividing it like the GOP does, etc.)
---

Anteaterking posted...

Coffeebeanz posted...

but I for one am f***ing tired of elitists crowning candidates as nominees even when the public isn't happy with the choice.

What do you mean by "the public isn't happy with the choice"? You understand that Hilary won the primaries by a lot, right? And that under any other set of "rules" she still won? (Popular vote, no super-delegates, dividing it like the GOP does, etc.)

She essentially ran unopposed by any serious DNC candidate. And she still barely won.
---

Coffeebeanz posted...

Anteaterking posted...

Coffeebeanz posted...

but I for one am f***ing tired of elitists crowning candidates as nominees even when the public isn't happy with the choice.

What do you mean by "the public isn't happy with the choice"? You understand that Hilary won the primaries by a lot, right? And that under any other set of "rules" she still won? (Popular vote, no super-delegates, dividing it like the GOP does, etc.)

She essentially ran unopposed by any serious DNC candidate. And she still barely won.

I don't understand. Who are you blaming for the public not being happy with the choice that they ultimately made? Are you blaming the DNC because "no other serious candidate" ran?
---

Anteaterking posted...

hollow_shrine posted...

Her joke about shooting varmits on a stage in Oklahoma is about the absurdity of transforming yourself to campaign on a democratic platform in a state like Oklahoma, literal pandering.

You're not talking about the made up Pixelatedboat thing are you?

I am. I thought that was real.

EDIT: For the sake of clarity, this is first time I'd heard that it might not be real.
---

Coffeebeanz posted...

She essentially ran unopposed by any serious DNC candidate. And she still barely won.

TIL winning by over 3 million votes is "barely winning"
---

Anteaterking posted...

Coffeebeanz posted...

Anteaterking posted...

Coffeebeanz posted...

but I for one am f***ing tired of elitists crowning candidates as nominees even when the public isn't happy with the choice.

What do you mean by "the public isn't happy with the choice"? You understand that Hilary won the primaries by a lot, right? And that under any other set of "rules" she still won? (Popular vote, no super-delegates, dividing it like the GOP does, etc.)

She essentially ran unopposed by any serious DNC candidate. And she still barely won.

I don't understand. Who are you blaming for the public not being happy with the choice that they ultimately made? Are you blaming the DNC because "no other serious candidate" ran?

Because the DNC decided who their candidate would be long before the primaries happened, and did not give two shits about what their own voterbase cared about. When the emails came out, showing Debbie Wasserman Schultz colluding directly with the Hillary camp, it simply reaffirmed those suspicions to a lot of people.
---

I heard all she does for the duration of her "book" is complain and blame everyone but herself for losing.

Thank god that disgusting, vile piece of shit lost lol. Anyone in the history of man was a better candidate. She is a deranged lunatic.
---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrO7KDMfx_0
---

hollow_shrine posted...

s0nicfan posted...

Out of curiosity... what do you think the book is likely to be about? I understand you're calling them out on speculating as if it were fact, but you're also not doing anything to argue that their claims aren't likely true based on everything else she's said about the election.

I've only read two excerpts from the book, both anecdotes about the frustrations of being a political being, both tackling it from different directions. Her joke about shooting varmits on a stage in Oklahoma is about the absurdity of transforming yourself to campaign on a democratic platform in a state like Oklahoma, literal pandering. The anecdote about the Bernie debate was about the frustration of having to play superego to the democratic id of Bernie's optimistic campaign promises.

Looking at those two stories I could assume that the whole book is full of stories like that, but I've literally seen less than one-percent of a several hundred page memoir, and any conclusions I could draw from such a small sample size would be ridiculous. I know that. I suspect most of us know that. And yet...

TLDR. I don't know. I haven't any information with which to speculate except perhaps the title, which just tells me that this is a book about the 2015-2016 election told from her perspective.

Nobody is claiming that you know or should know, but to be this silent about any potential, probable criticism until the book is out to me is just feeding into a bias. Even then, after this book is released, I'm anticipating some heavy rationalization or intentional understatement of the book's potential flaws from people like doom art.
---

Coffeebeanz posted...

Because the DNC decided who their candidate would be long before the primaries happened, and did not give two shits about what their own voterbase cared about. When the emails came out, showing Debbie Wasserman Schultz colluding directly with the Hillary camp, it simply reaffirmed those suspicions to a lot of people.

Bernie lost, man.

The majority of Democratic voters did not want him.

That's all there is.


FaytlessHearts posted...

I heard all she does for the duration of her "book" is complain and blame everyone but herself for losing.

Where'd you hear that?
---

The worst part about Hillary is how fucking blatant the media love fest was over her, and how hard it was for the media to deal with how shitty of a public persona she actually had. Real Emperor's New Clothes stuff. Built up a mountain of expectations prior to any public event, and then the same wooden stump came out again and again.
---