DNC Restructuring

**EternityEnd** · 2017-09-12 11:46

Your definition of "going away" is very different from mine, and something tells me the same people would be raising hell if she ran for Senate again.

2016 was a landmark U.S. election, with unprecedented vitriol, media coverage, and foreign interference. It's pretty understandable that she would attempt to explain things from her point of view, and there will undoubtedly be an audience for that.

**Deftscythe** · 2017-09-12 11:46

Did Al Gore exacerbate divisions within his party by refusing to move forward from his loss and continuing to focus media attention on himself? Or, did he instead step out of the public spotlight until years later?

If Hillary's book was coming out in 2021(An Inconvenient Truth came out in 2006) or was all about how the DNC could move forward together, we would be having a different conversation.

**EternityEnd** · 2017-09-12 11:54

She's exacerbated divisions by barely existing until this book? Where, exactly, is this media attention?

In the few interviews she's done where she's talked about the election -- including the one I linked where she assumed responsibility for the loss -- were about unrelated topics until she was specifically asked about 2016 by the interviewer.

Don't see any complaints about Bernie Sanders "exacerbating divisions."

**Deftscythe** · 2017-09-12 12:09

The book is literally called "What Happened" and you're trying to tell me it's not about relitigating 2016? And "barely existing since the election?" You mean the 10 months since it happened? Yeah, sure, that's enough for everyone to be ready for a retrospective on a national disaster that is still happening.

And the reason you don't see that criticism about Bernie is probably because you have spent zero time looking. Go look at Joy Reid's twitter feed for a bit and remember this is a person with a national TV show and she's far from alone. All this despite the fact that no one campaigned harder for Clinton than Bernie.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-d...illary-clinton

Since conceding defeat in the primaries, Sanders has been one of the real champions of this campaign. He let his supporters yell at him and deride him as a sellout in bleak delegate breakfasts at the Democratic National Convention, in Philadelphia, as he endorsed Clinton and explained why they needed to do the same.

**Talint** · 2017-09-12 12:13

Originally Posted by EternityEnd

Your definition of "going away" is very different from mine, and something tells me the same people would be raising hell if she ran for Senate again.

2016 was a landmark U.S. election, with unprecedented vitriol, media coverage, and foreign interference. It's pretty understandable that she would attempt to explain things from her point of view, and there will undoubtedly be an audience for that.

2000 was a landmark election in that the supreme court picked W. as the president. Gore had the wisdom to cease the FL recount once public opinion had shifted and the supreme court weighed in. If he wrote a book entitled "The Hanging Chad" that went on about all the problems with the FL recount, he would be the butt of every joke for the next two decades.

270 electoral votes to win. Both campaigns new this going into the general, and Hillary fucking blew it. But sure, blame everyone else and cover up criticisms with claims of misogyny.

**Dotsudoku** · 2017-09-12 12:20

I don't know how anyone takes these discussions seriously when most of the closing thoughts are, "keep pretending she's not responsible". I'd be impressed if you found one person on this forum that believes she had no part in her own failure

**archibaldcrane** · 2017-09-12 12:27

I love that Hillary's book is a bunch of obvious normie truths (Russian interference was unprecedented, media focused the most on my emails story, my campaign was caught unprepared for the Wisconsin loss, I shouldn't have done those Wall St. speeches, Bernie benefitted from caucuses because he had more enthusiastic die-hards, etc etc) that have been apparent for 10 months and people look at them Rorshach test-style and read whatever they want to read into them.

Vent your spleens at obvious reality, everyone, go ahead, it's super normal

**Deftscythe** · 2017-09-12 12:31

You're missing the point that a book about 2016 by Hillary Clinton released 10 months later helps no one and accomplishes nothing except reopening wounds that had had no time to heal in the first place.

As I have already said:

Originally Posted by Deftscythe

If Hillary's book was coming out in 2021(An Inconvenient Truth came out in 2006) or was all about how the DNC could move forward together, we would be having a different conversation.

Edit: And further, if everything in the book is so obvious, the fuck did she write it for?

**archibaldcrane** · 2017-09-12 12:36

How does obvious uncontroversial fact-stating reopen wounds? Show me where she hurt you lol

If anything, the book is just boring - you just read along and nod "yeah, that's pretty much what happened, huh apt title i guess"

**archibaldcrane** · 2017-09-12 12:38

If this book hurts people, it's because they haven't grasped what happened yet - and therefore it is performing an actual public good lol

The only people who should be outraged by this are people who are off in their own little bullshit alternate realities

**Krandor** · 2017-09-12 12:40

Originally Posted by archibaldcrane

The only people who should be outraged by this are people who are off in their own little bullshit alternate realities

So, the internet.

**Talint** · 2017-09-12 12:40

Yes, it is totally normal to publish a book that continues to place blame elsewhere and regurgitate the election. Hashtag still with her. Hashtag the resistance.

**Dimmauk** · 2017-09-12 12:42

Originally Posted by Deftscythe

You're missing the point that a book about 2016 by Hillary Clinton released 10 months later helps no one and accomplishes nothing except reopening wounds that had had no time to heal in the first place.

As I have already said:

Edit: And further, if everything in the book is so obvious, the fuck did she write it for?

I'd rather see the book drop now, and instead of 3 years from now

**archibaldcrane** · 2017-09-12 12:45

Originally Posted by Talint

Yes, it is totally normal to publish a book that continues to place blame elsewhere and regurgitate the election. Hashtag still with her. Hashtag the resistance.

It "places blame" everywhere blame is warranted, both with herself and with external factors. But that's what I mean - Hillary states normie obvious fact (that you likely agree with), you jump on her for "placing blame".

**EternityEnd** · 2017-09-12 13:13

Originally Posted by Talint

Yes, it is totally normal to publish a book that continues to place blame elsewhere and regurgitate the election. Hashtag still with her. Hashtag the resistance.

You can't be this ignorant. You actually think Russian interference had zero impact? You actually think the media refusing to cover policy had zero impact? You actually believe the media dedicating 90% of their screen time to her emails -- exponentially more than even Trump's much greater scandals -- had zero impact?

She's assumed all the blame she's responsible for. She's recognized all the shortcomings of her own campaign.

Other stuff happened. How is this a controversial claim? When will this penetrate your skulls?

Blame is multifaceted. The world is not black and white.

**Deftscythe** · 2017-09-12 13:19

I don't know how to make this more clear so I will make this the last I say on this topic.

Hillary Clinton putting out a book on 2016 does nothing to help her party or the nation recover from her loss and instead keeps everyone looking backward when the focus of everyone, whether they be leftists, libs, hillbots or bernie bros, needs to be on winning back as much of the congress and as many local elections as we can in 2018. The longer we spend beating the dead horse of the last election the worse our chances of doing something about the results will be.

**tyven** · 2017-09-12 13:20

more like no-chillary

**Moridam** · 2017-09-12 13:31

so uhh which states did russia swing and how was it accomplished and also what's the evidence for attribution

**Talint** · 2017-09-12 13:35

Originally Posted by EternityEnd

You can't be this ignorant. You actually think Russian interference had zero impact? You actually think the media refusing to cover policy had zero impact? You actually believe the media dedicating 90% of their screen time to her emails -- exponentially more than even Trump's much greater scandals -- had zero impact?

She's assumed all the blame she's responsible for. She's recognized all the shortcomings of her own campaign.

Other stuff happened. How is this a controversial claim? When will this penetrate your skulls?

Blame is multifaceted. The world is not black and white.

I do not blame Ralph Nader or hanging chads for 2000. I blame Al Gore.
I do not blame swift boaters for 2004. I blame John Kerry.

Everyone talks like 2016 was somehow an exception. Have you not paid attention to elections before?

There is only ever one fucking person to blame, and that's the candidate. Not Russia. Not her e-mails. Not Bernie Sanders. Not Jill Stein. Not any other excuse. Hillary Clinton.

**Dimmauk** · 2017-09-12 13:41

Originally Posted by Talint

I do not blame Ralph Nader or hanging chads for 2000. I blame Al Gore.
I do not blame swift boaters for 2004. I blame John Kerry.

Everyone talks like 2016 was somehow an exception. Have you not paid attention to elections before?

There is only ever one fucking person to blame, and that's the candidate. Not Russia. Not her e-mails. Not Bernie Sanders. Not Jill Stein. Not any other excuse. Hillary Clinton.

I blame black people for not voting for Hillary

Thread: DNC Restructuring

Thread Tools

Latest Threads

Up & Coming Threads

Hottest Threads