New Book "Chasing Hillary"

[Seano]

And hot sauce-gate came up again. That perfectly illustrates the issue.

"Hot sauce gate."

There was no "hot sauce gate." She made a clownish statement and people called her on it and that was that.

 

[Jack V Savage]

"Hot sauce gate."

There was no "hot sauce gate." She made a clownish statement and people called her on it and that was that.

The "clownish statement" was a simple, honest answer to a question that she'd given many times for over 20 years.

 

[Trotsky]

If the Clintons ran on bills platform from back in the day, they’d have won.


Instead they chose progressivism, which is always the choice of losers.

What in the bloody hell are you talking about?

Bill's platform was pro-big business neoliberalism that negatively affected the poor.

What exactly was overly "progressive" about Clinton?

 

[Seano]

The "clownish statement" was a simple, honest answer to a question that she'd given many times for over 20 years.

Well, it failed. It didn't resonate with people, obviously. You think anyone was on the fence about voting for her and was convinced one way or the other because of hot sauce?

 

[HomerThompson]

It's the perfect Clinton scandal in that it has already been proven to be completely false but partisans still cling viciously to it, and it drives the narrative about her.

We've said it before, but much of the rightwing in the US lives in their own reality at this point. It's quite troubling, frankly.

But, I think there are many more sane people, and the left just needs to get the vote out. The more people that vote, the better the Democrats and progressives will do.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Well, it failed. It didn't resonate with people, obviously. You think anyone was on the fence about voting for her and was convinced one way or the other because of hot sauce?

What do you mean it failed?

Host: "What do you carry in your bag?"
Clinton: "Hot sauce."
Seano: "That answer failed because she didn't win the election and thus it didn't 'resonate with people.'"

Do you not see how utterly crazy that sounds? It's a simple conversation, and she gave a simple answer to a simple question, and yet you have nutters who spin this whole absurd narrative out of it.

 

[Seano]

What do you mean it failed?

Host: "What do you carry in your bag?"
Clinton: "Hot sauce."
Seano: "That answer failed because she didn't win the election and thus it didn't 'resonate with people.'"

Do you not see how utterly crazy that sounds?

No crazier than you tagging that mundane situation as "hot sauce gate."

 

[Jack V Savage]

No crazier than you tagging that mundane situation as "hot sauce gate."

Um, OK. But you referred to it (still believing the Trump campaign narrative long after it was proved false). Someone else in this thread referred to it and felt that it explained his weird misperception of Clinton. Clearly the attack resonated, despite its factual inaccuracy.

 

[Seano]

Um, OK. But you referred to it (still believing the Trump campaign narrative long after it was proved false). Someone else in this thread referred to it and felt that it explained his weird misperception of Clinton. Clearly the attack resonated, despite its factual inaccuracy.

Its just one of dozens of examples of her failing to connect with people in a pandering manner. It amused me.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

And that right there is why Bill succeeded. He was smart and noticed the trends

Bill Clinton was one of the best natural campaigners I've ever seen. Obama, too. Both are charming and likable. Without term limits I think Bill would have shellacked George W in 2000 and I think Obama beat Trump or any other nominee from the Republican field. Hillary is on the low end of that scale. She has a tin ear and presents herself poorly. It's not fair really.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Its just one of dozens of examples of her failing to connect with people in a pandering manner. It amused me.

It's the only example people have been mentioned, and it's based on people just not knowing that that's a standard question, and the standard, honest answer she's been giving for more than 20 years. That's the point, see? A false narrative drives the perception. The facts disprove the narrative, but it remains. You guys' whole perspective is off here.

 

[Jack V Savage]

What in the bloody hell are you talking about?

Bill's platform was pro-big business neoliberalism that negatively affected the poor.

What exactly was overly "progressive" about Clinton?

That certainly was not his platform (he was more right-leaning than today's Democrats, though). It's also weird how people today are portraying him as some kind of great politician. The numbers and general evidence don't really bear that out. I guess it's outcome bias.

 

[Quequeg]

Its just one of dozens of examples of her failing to connect with people in a pandering manner. It amused me.

No worse example of pandering then Trump to evangelical Christians, the thing of it was they were so stupid that they bought it hook, line and sinker.

 

[kpt018]

I'd disagree with that too. Didn't look like you were using all as a standard for your comment though. Looking back, I guess you mean everyone on the right will always paint everyone on the left as blankety-blank? Sounds legit.

I was talking about political strategy, but you knew that. The strategy is to paint the "left" as condescending (which includes everyone on the left, or implies it does) and apparently it works on people like you.

 

[Seano]

No worse example of pandering then Trump to evangelical Christians, the thing of it was they were so stupid that they bought it hook, line and sinker.

Evangelicals are better off with any republican in the white house.

 

[HomerThompson]

It's the only example people have been mentioned, and it's based on people just not knowing that that's a standard question, and the standard, honest answer she's been giving for more than 20 years. That's the point, see? A false narrative drives the perception. The facts disprove the narrative, but it remains. You guys' whole perspective is off here.

*Your

 

[kpt018]

Bill Clinton was one of the best natural campaigners I've ever seen. Obama, too. Both are charming and likable. Without term limits I think Bill would have shellacked George W in 2000 and I think Obama beat Trump or any other nominee from the Republican field. Hillary is on the low end of that scale. She has a tin ear and presents herself poorly. It's not fair really.

I think a lot of people on the left would agree with most of what you said here. The thing is people are placing WAY too much weight on likability and not nearly enough on substance. But yeah, there are lots of us that don't think she would have been as good as Obama (I don't think Bill was all that great, so she could have been as good or a little better than him).

But people itt and in general are taking her faults way off the deep end or are complaining about the wrong stuff. Look at these guys complaining about her hot sauce comment, it's fucking absurd!

 

[Treeloy]

She spoke extensively about policy.



So?



I mean, that's just not true. She has a long history with lots of experience to show that she does back up what she says. Again, I agree that she is robotic and unlikable, and that she, like many many politicians are "fake", but you guys take it way too far.

For example, what makes you think she doesn't actually agree with policies like paid child care/maternity leave, free state college education and making improvements to the ACA? There is literally no proof that she actually things these are shit policies but pushes them because she thinks it makes her popular.

She has shown a pattern of manipulative behavior and the willingness to lie for political gain. I believe her psychology indicates she would look for a chance to win the election by any means necessary, whether ethical or not, and lying about a certain political position for more votes would be a good strategy, especially if that position was largely unpopular. A Wikileaks released in 2016 was quoted as saying "Hillary Clinton flipped her public position on TPP after her team discussed how she would be "eaten alive" by Labor", that would be one example of changing a position on a policy for political reasons.

 

[jimbob27]

It's the only example people have been mentioned, and it's based on people just not knowing that that's a standard question, and the standard, honest answer she's been giving for more than 20 years. That's the point, see? A false narrative drives the perception. The facts disprove the narrative, but it remains. You guys' whole perspective is off here.

I don't think their perspective is off. Some politicians are just shit at connecting with people, and Hilary is one of them. They're following false narratives because she's crap at getting across her narrative, which leaves the opposition in a perfect position for making shit up and having people run with it.

 

[kpt018]

She has shown a pattern of manipulative behavior and the willingness to lie for political gain. I believe her psychology indicates she would look for a chance to win the election by any means necessary, whether ethical or not, and lying about a certain political position for more votes would be a good strategy, especially if that position was largely unpopular. A Wikileaks released in 2016 was quoted as saying "Hillary Clinton flipped her public position on TPP after her team discussed how she would be "eaten alive" by Labor", that would be one example of changing a position on a policy for political reasons.

She definitely manipulated and lied, but she actually did it less than typical high level politicians do (check her politifact and compare to other candidates), so I think the reason you're highlighting that just shows you bias (you don't like her, got it). At worst she's comparable to other presidential candidates in the honesty department, but I'd bet she's more honest.

I'll pass on the arm chair psychology stuff (don't buy the idea that we can make assessments like that from afar).