Just saw a blurb that it is going to drop next week Tuesday, which seems like pretty quick turnaround. From what little I've seen about the book, it seems as if the book has a ton of finger pointing at other folks for her loss, which is pretty interesting. I'm of the opinion that a person in a position of leadership shouldn't be too quick to point the blame at others, but there were some shenanigans involved in her loss, so I somewhat see her being salty. Have to wonder how the current Democrats in power will respond to her criticisms.

"Sean sparks like John Starks, nah, Sean ball like John Wall" - Rest In Power Forever Sean Price.

But I won't buy it or check it out.
You?

------
“There is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn.” -Albert Camus

>But I won't buy it or check it out.
>You?

If the book had some new insights or unknown information so I could actually learn something about what happened, I might give this book a thought. I don't think I can spend the time, money, and energy to give this book interest since it appears Hilary Clinton is getting royalty checks and stiff advance on that book for blaming other en masse for her loss.

More power to her writing the book though and getting some good coin behind it. I do wonder how many bridges she'll burn with his book and what positions of leadership she'll assume once the dust settles.

"Sean sparks like John Starks, nah, Sean ball like John Wall" - Rest In Power Forever Sean Price.

She has every right to tell her story. But in terms of national politics, she needs to go back into the woods for a bit.

The only thing that unites Republicans right now is hating Hillary Clinton. For some reason she is so easy to rally against. Even more so than Obama.
Repubs could be in a cutthroat fight about something and the sing kumbaya minutes later over Hillary hate.

If she says all in the video, I think republican mobilization increases

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/07/hillary-clinton-book-tour-democrats-242419

Reliving the 2016 nightmare is the last thing the party needs right now, many say.

President Donald Trump may be the only person in politics truly excited about Hillary Clinton’s book tour.

Democratic operatives can’t stand the thought of her picking the scabs of 2016, again — the Bernie Sanders divide, the Jim Comey complaints, the casting blame on Barack Obama for not speaking out more on Russia. Alums of her Brooklyn headquarters who were miserable even when they thought she was winning tend to greet the topic with, “Oh, God,” “I can’t handle it,” and “the final torture.”

Political reporters gripe privately (and on Twitter) about yet another return to the campaign that will never end. Campaign operatives don't want the distraction, just as they head into another election season. And members of Congress from both parties want the focus on an agenda that’s getting more complicated by the week.

But with a new NBC News poll showing her approval rating at 30 percent, the lowest recorded for her, Clinton kicks it off on Tuesday with a signing at the Union Square Barnes & Noble in New York. She’ll keep it going all the way through December, all across the country.

“Maybe at the worst possible time, as we are fighting some of the most high-stakes policy and institutional battles we may ever see, at a time when we’re trying to bring the party together so we can all move the party forward — stronger, stronger together,” said Rep. Jared Huffman, a Democrat who represents a Northern California district. “She’s got every right to tell her story. Who am I to say she shouldn’t, or how she should tell it? But it is difficult for some of us, even like myself who’ve supported her, to play out all these media cycles about the blame game, and the excuses.”

In a tweet late Tuesday night, Huffman pleaded with Clinton to stop blaming Sanders for her loss, as she partly does in the book, according to excerpts that leaked ahead of its release. Huffman said the tweet had gotten a lot of "likes" from his colleagues — albeit in private conversations with him.

“There is a collective groan,” he said, “whenever there’s another news cycle about this.”

Asked whether she was excited about Clinton’s book tour, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), one of Republicans’ top 2018 targets, responded first with, “Beg your pardon?”

Asked again, she started shaking her head, walking away.

“I’ve always been a looking forward kind of a guy,” said Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), asked the same question on Wednesday. “I think I’ll leave it at that.”

Even elected Republicans say they’ve had enough.

“I look forward to going to every place where she appears,” Sen. John McCain of Arizona said sarcastically.

McCain pointed out that he didn’t write a book after losing the 2008 presidential race.

“I respect and admire and am a friend of Hillary’s,” he said. “But with these kind of things that happen in life, you’ve got to move on. You’ve got to quickly move on.”

Then again, Clinton’s first event sold out in hours, and the book vaulted to the top of Amazon's best-seller list weeks before its release, almost certain to set a 2017 record.

For Clinton, it's not about the future of the Democratic Party. She's promoting the book because she doesn't think the story of 2016 has been told properly. People close to her believe there's still no closure from 2016, and that no one has offered a reliable autopsy.

Her inner circle — which has been slowly whittled down to longtime aides like Huma Abedin, Nick Merrill, Philippe Reines, Dan Schwerin and a few friends — is defiant.

"I think she should just zip it, but she's not going to," said one top Democratic donor who spoke with Clinton about the book this summer.

Merrill didn’t respond to an email seeking comment.

Many people close to her and supportive of her insist that any concerns about relitigating 2016 are just wrong. Democratic and White House politics are shaped around last year's campaign regardless, they say, and her voice is the only one not currently part of the conversation.

Clinton has spoken with friends about how Republicans are likely to be apoplectic over the book tour. But every time she shows her face in public she's mobbed by fans, and her allies believe there are tens of millions of people who want to hear from her.

"Her book and her tour is not just important for history, it's so important for now," said longtime Clinton friend and fundraiser Robert Zimmerman, who is also a Democratic National Committee member. "It's a very healthy conversation to have, and it's important to put the internal party issues in perspective. If we're going to move forward as a party, and if we're going to move forward as a country, Hillary Clinton's experiences, her insight, is essential."

“People will be giving her a second hearing,” predicted Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.). “And given the way the fella’s performing in the White House, people are having buyer’s remorse.”

It's not hard to imagine Trump belittling Clinton's book via his Twitter feed. But some Democrats have already beat him to it.

“A Sad, Petty ‘It's Everyone Else's Fault,’ Book,” read an email from Sanders die-hard (and Clinton’s 2006 Senate primary opponent) Jonathan Tasini.

“Pathetic. But it is a planned mass PR campaign in prep for the corporate #Dems next candidate. Reality: 75% did not vote 4 her. Denial,” tweeted RoseAnn DeMoro, the executive director of National Nurses United.

Clinton worked on the book with a small team of personal aides, but consulted a wide range of friends and former staffers. Sections of the book have been floating around among sympathetic Democrats for weeks, so many Clinton allies are bracing for impact.

“It will be a hubbub for two or three months,” predicted former DNC chairman and Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, a Clinton family friend who was consulted during Hillary's book-writing process. “There will be a controversy about it.”

Even among some of Clinton's former aides, there's an exhaustion of not wanting to have to defend her anymore. They’ve spent the past two weeks chattering among themselves about the rollout, including frustration over the sheer number of Twitter jokes about Clinton visiting Wisconsin on the tour — something she famously didn't do during the general election.

Republicans and Sanders-aligned Democrats quickly started mocking the high cost of entry to some events — “VIP Platinum” tickets to her Toronto stop, for example, run up to $3,000 and include a meet-and-greet — that reminds them of the paid speech controversy that dogged her throughout the campaign.

Many also believe the party has largely moved on from 2016, and that this is a selfish endeavor more about Clinton’s own feelings than helping the party or country take their next steps. Others worry about the sections on Obama, including Clinton's speculation in the book about what would have happened had the former president done a prime-time address on Russian interference in the election. Clinton also takes a swipe at Joe Biden for criticizing her since the election.

And many current candidates don’t want to be anywhere near her. After the initial book tour schedule was posted last month, one Democratic operative working on 2018 races notified 15 campaign clients that Clinton would be within 500 miles of them, warning them to prepare: "The more the focus is on us, and not Trump, the harder 2018 is going to be."

Republicans, on the other hand, love pointing out that with their own party tearing itself apart, nothing unifies them like the opportunity to attack Clinton.

Many GOP pros are relishing the book tour, eager to tie Democratic candidates to their unpopular former nominee and take the focus off their own president and party rifts.

But there’s also a sense of indifference within the Republican ranks.

Lou Barletta, the GOP congressman now running for Senate in Pennsylvania as a Trump ally, said he hadn’t thought about Clinton’s return.

“It doesn’t really matter to me,” he said. “Some will like it, some won’t.”

_______________________________________

**** Insert obligatory I AM NOT A BERNIE BRO clarification so that the usual suspects don't just chalk up any Clinton criticism to a stereotype****



I will never understand how people can actually say that the fact someone actually stepped up to run a primary against her is the reason she lost.

Like Obama and many before him didn't have to go through a primary.

Like the cheeto in chief didn't go through a primary.


This is how it works. You go through a primary, some dirty laundry gets aired, attacks get thrown, etc...

If you win, you win.

She won.

Then she proceeded to lose in the general to this monstrosity- for a variety of reasons.

Many of those reasons/faults fall squarely on her and her out-dated campaign.

But either way, what is the point of this book now?


Like f*cking John McCain said, he didn't write a book when he lost.


This is a so-called progressive champion and leader of the people, right?

But, this is how she has spent her time? Writing a book on why it wasn't her fault, while the world burns?

Her lack of self-awareness is STILL troubling.


I am disappointed the article beat me to the Wisconsin joke.


So, instead I'll say- Is the tour going to Michigan, or is that just a head fake?


It really, really is time for the Clintons to fall back. And no, not to fall back for Berine, but to fall back for the good of the party and country. Just enjoy retirement.

such as the Russians spying on the Democratic National Convention folks and the gerrymandering and voter denial moves Republicans made against typically Democratic voters. If she went into depth about those matters, I would give this book some time and attention. But her complaining about folks that don't really owe her anything bothers me; I don't feel right rewarding Hilary Clinton and her false sense of entitlement by lining her royalty check.

More power to her though since I'm sure folks will line up to buy her book.

"Sean sparks like John Starks, nah, Sean ball like John Wall" - Rest In Power Forever Sean Price.

That meme about a sense of entitlement is yet another washed-over talking point from Rudy Giuliani and Rick Lazio's senate campaigns in 2000.

The issue is not who is entitled to what. The issue is that Democrats need to vote in their best interests.

then that guy is a Bernie Bro.

Folks have to make that clear because, people like you, can't fathom that it was possible to not be excited about either.


You also get way too defensive of Dems, particularly Hilary.

But, you know, do you.

Dude has to have some type of Hillary alert system on his phone

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

You were there as well, with just as many posts talking shit about her.

And considering that there actually WERE people who got paid to talk shit about her...

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

because it's the only thing standing in the way of the Republican party.

That game was rigged in the Constitutional convention. There are two parties, and there always will be.

If you're not a total piece of shit, then you should care about the Democratic party too.

You can be a proud Bernie Bro, I will be a proud Democrat.

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

>
>because it's the only thing standing in the way of the
>Republican party.
>
>That game was rigged in the Constitutional convention. There
>are two parties, and there always will be.
>
>If you're not a total piece of shit, then you should care
>about the Democratic party too.
>
>You can be a proud Bernie Bro, I will be a proud Democrat.
>

1. Again, dog- I'm not a Bernie Bro. Not sure if it is easier for your to assume that anyone who disagrees with you is, or what the deal is...but it is pretty weird.


2. Where did I say I didn't care about the Democratic party? The difference is that you refuse to be honest about their mistakes, as well as where you have been wrong at every step along the way.


You really come off like you close your eyes, plug your ears, and say things like "Bernie Bro!" and sh!t so you don't have to think critically about the Democratic party.

I want the Dem candidate to win every single time.

The problem is, they don't. And, while not in every case, the reason often is because they aren't particularly good at winning elections.

I wish they were.


That's why I wish the party, Hilary's team, people like you, etc- could be more honest and open about admitting the mistakes that were made in 2016...


So that the party and future candidates can learn from them.


She lost to DONALD TRUMP.


There are many reasons for that- many out of the party's contol.


But the reasons that were in the party's control? Better learn from them.


Or that Blue wave in '18 will be very small, if at all.


Or, I guess, you can keep just assuming everyone who has anything critical to say is a Bernie Bro who hates the Democratic party.

That will probably work.

of whining aimlessly about how the party and its nominee need to "admit their mistakes" and then you conveniently forget to name a single thing they did wrong.

and I think Bernie's movement is one of the many demons we'll need to exorcise before we can really get our shit together.

But I highly doubt there'll be any news in it.

People will whine for a few days, say it tears us apart, mansplain that she needs to "move on," or that she shouldn't defend herself in this particular way, that it's a distraction. And then a few days later we'll be on to the next news cycle.

It really won't be as big a deal as people are making it out to be. Just getting a few things on the record.

Current candidates are sounding more like Bernie than Clinton

_______________________________________

from all the talk about primarying representatives who don't support single payer health care.

The Bernie wing certainly has a lot of power within the party right now. But it's power that can only subvert our plans for a majority, not strengthen it.

The only people who don't get that now are dummies and Clinton loyalists.

Clinton had been campaigning for at least 4 years.

When Sanders first jumped in, it didn't even look like he thought he was a serious candidate. It was just a protest movement to get a message out. It was relatively late in the game when he realized winning was a real possibility. But by that point it was too late.

The fact that he lost the 2016 primary doesn't mean that his message and style doesn't resonate with the majority of the Democratic Party

_______________________________________

In that case I want to go back and push the general election back by a few weeks so that the final Comey noise could die down.

I blame Bernie for not getting his campaign up and running 9 months beforehand. I don't think he had the logistics and political apparatus to beat Clinton with the limited time frame he was working under.

The only reason I bring time up is that I think he had the winning message and style (populism is the song of the year). Just not enough time for it to reach everybody properly.

_______________________________________

Meanwhile, the central platform of his campaign is being championed by Harris, Warren, etc & Hillary is pushing a book.

You are the problem. And I'm sure you find it very satisfying.

Meanwhile, the rest of the left has moved on from her war mongering, neoliberal ass.

to change anything, ever.

and alienated some centrists.

and we passed civil rights and nasa had money for science.

or that time before when the dems were led from the left and the supreme court ended up caring about equality and we got the beginnings of a social safety net.

The Kennedy administration was leading from the left? Was that because they were rabidly anti-communist, or because they sold the country on the idea of trickle-down economics?

Or are you talking about the Johnson administration? Right after bignick accused Hillary of being a warmonger?

Yes, FDR led the country from the left (though we could still list off dozens of horrific things that administration did in the name of political expediency). That was a long time ago, and if you think the circumstances are similar you're deluding yourself.

Kennedy, Johnson, and FDR were effective because they were practical politicians, not because they were of "the left." Bernie wasn't the one continuing that tradition. That tradition came to the modern age with Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton.

that describes a convenient but tiny group of the people, but not most of the electorate, and certainly not your audience on okp. it's true in a narrow sense, but not relevant to the big picture.

the point isn't that they were perfect. the point is that they understood they had to be publicly and personally invested in their politics so that when they set a goal it had some inertia.

the problem with hillary wasn't that she's not perfect. obama won and would have won a third term. hate it or love it, he had campaign slogans that spoke to the left. misnomer or not, obamacare is something that people really showed up for, and continue to show up for.

the problem was she wasn't willing the LEAD from the left, and worse, a year fucking later, she's still complaining about it.

what the fuck was hilary's number one legislative priority? i have no idea. i've read it's things like gun control (holy shit bad idea) or immigration reform (not specific enough). but i'm not really sure, and i don't think anyone else on this board is.

she certainly wasn't promising a new deal, a great society, health care, etc. it's impossible to imagine hillary in 2019 saying "we're fucking going to mars, and we're launching before my grandkids are old enough to vote."

republicans routinely win elections off bullshit promises like walls and kill all the terrorists, because, despite the bullshit, it's easy to understand and they seem to be real priorities to the candidates.

it's why al gore lost too. i'm sure he'd love a do-over.

and yes, she had a tough job establishing that identity...it's always harder following up an fdr or an obama or a clinton or a reagan. but she's been around politics long enough to know that and not look for scapegoats. hell, she's been around politics that long enough that obama's thing was her thing 15 years ago, but then she let other people take up the mantle when it didn't go her way.

which is why people like bernie...he's been clear about what he's been about more consistently.

i also know she gets the theatrics because of that militarist bullshit they pulled at the convention. she just didn't aim for something specific in either of her presidential campaigns.

which is who I was talking to. Not saying you aren't welcome to comment, just explaining the context. I've regularly seen this dude call Barack Obama a neoliberal warmonger. So when he implies that his viewpoint is taking over the party, first of all, I'm skeptical, and second, I fucking hope not.


>that describes a convenient but tiny group of the people, but
>not most of the electorate, and certainly not your audience on
>okp.

Really? Certainly not the audience on OKP? Have you visited OKP?

>it's true in a narrow sense, but not relevant to the big
>picture.
>
>the point isn't that they were perfect. the point is that they
>understood they had to be publicly and personally invested in
>their politics so that when they set a goal it had some
>inertia.
>
>the problem with hillary wasn't that she's not perfect. obama
>won and would have won a third term. hate it or love it, he
>had campaign slogans that spoke to the left.

So, "there's not a blue America and a red America, there's the United States of America" spoke to the left?

Barack Obama ran explicitly as a centrist. Far more centrist than I ever wanted. It's true that he somehow succeeded in making everyone see him the way they wanted to see him. And in part they encouraged this with vague campaign slogans (though note that "Forward" and "Stronger Together", while roughly as vague as "Hope" and "Change", are definitely more overtly leftist).

My point is, as a matter of political strategy, people were able to believe what they needed to believe about Barack Obama. In '08, Hillary Clinton was consistently (though slightly) to the left of Barack Obama on the issues (roughly like Bernie was to Hillary in '16), but she wasn't out there painting Obama as some kind of centrist sellout, or craven political machine, because she knew that he needed to remain strong on those points if he was the nominee. Those are the kinds of attacks that need to be left to the actual opposition party. It does too much harm if they come from within. Hillary and Barack attacked each other viciously in '08, but never in ways that would do lasting damage in a general election.

(Nitpickers will raise the comment about whether she thinks he's a Christian, but that was an isolated event, and even at the time seemed to me mostly like an accident. Democrats play games with religion. They're all a lot more atheist than they pretend to be to general election voters, and it's often hard to gauge how to talk about it in a primary where a lot of voters would see any positive discussion of religion as insincere and perhaps insulting.)

>misnomer or not,
>obamacare is something that people really showed up for, and
>continue to show up for.

Absolutely, a big new program is a great thing to run on when you're the nominee of the party CHALLENGING the current administration. But when you're trying to run as a continuation of the party in power, the strategy is completely different, and much harder, as I think you've admitted below.

>the problem was she wasn't willing the LEAD from the left, and
>worse, a year fucking later, she's still complaining about it.
>
>
>what the fuck was hilary's number one legislative priority? i
>have no idea. i've read it's things like gun control (holy
>shit bad idea) or immigration reform (not specific enough).
>but i'm not really sure, and i don't think anyone else on this
>board is.

That's the problem with running as a representative of the party in power. Any major new ideas are taken as a criticism of the current administration, and undermine your own position. The same was true for Al Gore. That's why it's especially hard to run for a party's third term.

>she certainly wasn't promising a new deal, a great society,
>health care, etc. it's impossible to imagine hillary in 2019
>saying "we're fucking going to mars, and we're launching
>before my grandkids are old enough to vote."
>
>republicans routinely win elections off bullshit promises like
>walls and kill all the terrorists, because, despite the
>bullshit, it's easy to understand and they seem to be real
>priorities to the candidates.

The last time a Republican won in the kind of position Hillary was in the candidate was George HW Bush. He did not make big bullshit promises apart from one famous one ('read my lips') which was again just a continuation of the previous administration's policies, and it completely bit him in the ass and just about single-handedly cost his reelection shortly after he won a fucking war.

>it's why al gore lost too. i'm sure he'd love a do-over.

Yes it is why he lost, too. It's not an easy race to run. I voted for Bill Bradley in that primary (who, by the way, ran in part on single-payer health insurance). But by now I can admit that while *I* would have been more excited by him, he would have done even worse in a general election than Al Gore did.

>and yes, she had a tough job establishing that identity...it's
>always harder following up an fdr or an obama or a clinton or
>a reagan. but she's been around politics long enough to know
>that and not look for scapegoats.

Is a doctor "looking for scapegoats" when he diagnoses a disease? The whole point is, there are problems within our movement that need to be addressed. History is repeating itself because so far we've been too dumb to get our heads around it.

>hell, she's been around
>politics that long enough that obama's thing was her thing 15
>years ago, but then she let other people take up the mantle
>when it didn't go her way.

Um, Obama's thing was Hillary's thing in '08, while they were running (not that he took it from her, just that they were both pushing what by then was a standard idea). It's *Bernie's* thing that was Hillary's thing in the mid nineties, if that's what you're talking about. And "letting other people take up the mantle when it didn't go her way" is, I think, a poor way of interpreting what happened. I'd say she learned something about how consensus works in this country, and worked toward finding a better approach, an approach that is now insuring tens of millions of people and can grow in time into the universal coverage we really need.

>which is why people like bernie...he's been clear about what
>he's been about more consistently.

And again, Hillary was clear about Hillarycare in 1993. And liberals adored her for it. But as you said, it "didn't go her way." In fact, it went very far from her way. I don't know why people think it would have gone differently for Bernie.

>i also know she gets the theatrics because of that militarist
>bullshit they pulled at the convention. she just didn't aim
>for something specific in either of her presidential
>campaigns.

Again, that's an empty criticism unless you can think of some big, specific thing that would have gained them more voters than they would have lost. It's not like this is some genius strategy that just didn't occur to them. George HW Bush's campaign was boring for a reason. Al Gore's campaign was boring for a reason. John McCain's campaign was boring for a reason (until he got the wild idea to try choosing a runningmate that would excite his base, and we saw how that worked out for him). You can't run further to your base than your own president, even if that president is popular. It's simply not an effective strategy.

geez.

“So back we go to these questions — friendship, character… ethics.”

Weren't multiple folks blaming Bernie Saunders and his supporters for Hilary Clinton losing long before this book? Or are you saying finally because it's coming from Hilary Clinton herself?

"Sean sparks like John Starks, nah, Sean ball like John Wall" - Rest In Power Forever Sean Price.

but only very rarely has anyone blamed Bernie himself for feeding the conspiracy theories, slanders, and grievances about the primary supposedly being "rigged."

He personally straightened up a lot by the time of the convention, but by then a lot of the narrative was set, and a lot of Democrats were parroting conspiracy theories that were literally invented by Republican operatives twenty years earlier.

He'd never done politics on that level, and he didn't realize the damage he was doing until it was too late.

All I want to know is why the fuck she didn't visit Wisky

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

>All I want to know is why the fuck she didn't visit Wisky

Because they couldn't predict the future, and all the information they had showed that it would have been wasted money.

The answer to this one is very simple.

polls got it wrong...

they got it wrong...

they bet wrong based off the numbers they had.

that isn't because of Bernie Bros

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

If there was only one problem, then it wouldn't fill up much of a book.

because they had bad information lol lol lol

This dude literally said they didn't want to waste money by going to WI. (I guess their models also told them California was up for grabs by either party right up until the end)


If only there had been a recent successful Democratic presidential candidate who literally proved you win by having a 50 state strategy.


For f*cks sake, do you think it was the polls or the Bernie Bros who made her pick that pint of vanilla ice cream as a VP candidate?


I mean, jesus...if Hilary hadn't been failed by so many people she would have won 80% of the vote and 48 states.

Sure Bernie and bernie bros were factors along with dozens of other things

How will this help bring Dems together? it's just her getting shit off her chest, and accomplishing nothing

And nobody is talking about that yet.

A lot of Democrats didn't understand the stakes, didn't understand the mood of the country outside of their bubble, didn't understand what votes are supposed to accomplish.

A lot of Democrats complained about the nominee to express how independent they thought they were. That's a recipe for political self destruction.

A lot of Democrats thought the country wanted a second coming of FDR. I would love it if that were true, but it clearly isn't.

This corporate centrism and triangulation that's so derided in social media circles, exists for a reason. And Barack Obama, despite just as much corporate centrism and triangulation, still achieved a great presidency. The basic rules of political success have not been upended, and if we as a party can't come around to that possibly-disturbing fact we will continue to lose.

I don't pretend that this book will change anybody's minds. But the conversation needs to start somewhere.

will serve to even start any of those conversations. it will just make the wedge more severe.

I get why she would be frustrated, and that she's expected to just sit down and suck it up, but she seems oblivious (still) to the pulse of the country. or even just the left. its understandable on a human level that she wants to get shit off her chest, but she's the one always going on about public service, and this mostly just feels self serving. and even on that level, this book will probably just feed the funhouse mirror image of her as the entitled bitter, deflecting sore loser shrew.

b/c i think she needs to STFU about this distracting-ass shit.

fuck you.

i partly want her to STFU so these assholes like the ones in here won't have fodder for their bullshit.

THEY need to STFU as much as she does.

fuck you.

what are some good alternative titles?

Author to Write a Book on Losing...in history

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

------
“There is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn.” -Albert Camus

>what are some good alternative titles?


http://tinyurl.com/yal4cw7p

"Sean sparks like John Starks, nah, Sean ball like John Wall" - Rest In Power Forever Sean Price.

similar to the OJ if I DID IT with the small font if.

IG: amadu_me

"...Whateva, man..." (c) Redman

n/m

______________________________

"Walleye, a lot of things are going to go wrong in your life that technically aren't your fault. Always remember that this doesn't make you any less of an idiot"

--Walleye's Dad

________________________________
There are dozens of us! Dozens!

She spent too much time in places she already had wrapped up.

The fuck you holding fund raising dinners in Cali when you lost Michigan and Wisconsin in the primaries?

It's always someone else's fault with her..

She shoulda blamed her weak ass calves on 9/11.

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

seriously, she's never really gone away and has kept the pleas copped. popping up here and there to say it's this fault and that fault.

the dems hand-picked you as consolation for '08. you still took an L. go away for a while, or don't ignore the midwest next time.

*raises hand*

How do you lose to the worst candidate in American history and still have the gall to write books, firing shots at everyone but your own incompetence?

F.O.H.

before giving opinions.

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

to blame the nearest woman than to admit that their movement collapsed.

anyone who had a 95% chance of winning and lost to Trump with 3 million more votes would get the same treatment.

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

Trust if he had won the primary and lost the general (which he would have), pundits and other members of the dirtbag left would have been crying about the odds were stacked against him, how america wasn't ready, how he ran a great campaign, so on and so forth.

I mean her book hasn't even came out and people are foaming at the mouth about it.

fuck you.

He wouldn't but still... ain't no one getting off when they lose like this.

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

>Trust if he had won the primary and lost the general (which
>he would have)

Dude CONSISTENTLY polls as the most popular politician in America.

I fail to See how it would have been a BAD idea to run the most popular person possible.

R.I.P. Loud But Wrong Guy
Dec 29th 2009 - Dec 17th 2017

so i kind of took his always citing how well he polled against trump with a grain of salt.

the attack machines hadn't really set their sites on him yet. would have been tons of propaganda about socialism, he'd spend a whole lot of time on the defensive, while also constantly having to explain why our taxes are going up. he may be able to sell what americans get in return for higher taxes, countered with why should we trust the government and asking have you ever been the dmv, and shit like that.

we don't really know how good bernie would do against these attacks. i saw him get flustered on a couple of occasions already, and criticisms in the primary were nothing compared to what he'd have to deal with as the candidate. Trump starts ramping up that "Crazy Bernie" stuff. Hillary in contrast was used to being a punching bag. despite my criticisms of her, she was pretty fuckin' masterful in those debates

he may have still won. I just don't think it was a lock either way.

He was the best anti-establishment candidate the left had when America was hungry for them.

But a nebbish NY self proclaimed socialist Jew wasn't going to win against the *wink* *wink* I got y'all white people of Trump and direct attacks.

Plus if that dirt with his wife popped up earlier, even if it was bullshit, Trump would have easily painted him as a northerner elitist a la Clinton.

Only thing that would have worked is the fact that maybe Trump would have came off villainous with his vile attacks against someone as effortlessly friendly as Bernie, but we know that even grab em by the pussy aint hurt him

>so i kind of took his always citing how well he polled
>against trump with a grain of salt.
>
>the attack machines hadn't really set their sites on him yet.
>would have been tons of propaganda about socialism, he'd spend
>a whole lot of time on the defensive, while also constantly
>having to explain why our taxes are going up. he may be able
>to sell what americans get in return for higher taxes,
>countered with why should we trust the government and asking
>have you ever been the dmv, and shit like that.
>
>we don't really know how good bernie would do against these
>attacks. i saw him get flustered on a couple of occasions
>already, and criticisms in the primary were nothing compared
>to what he'd have to deal with as the candidate. Trump starts
>ramping up that "Crazy Bernie" stuff. Hillary in contrast was
>used to being a punching bag. despite my criticisms of her,
>she was pretty fuckin' masterful in those debates
>
>he may have still won. I just don't think it was a lock either
>way.
>