Hilary blames Sanders for losing in her book

"Hillary Clinton’s subtly savage takedown of Bernie Sanders"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ake-on-bernie-sanders/?utm_term=.3e43dab10045

From the Washington Post no less. The press talks about Trump throwing his supporters under the bus, but it doesn't look the alternative is any better.

Hillary Clinton's book is due out next week. And judging by a page that was just tweeted by one of her staunchest supporters — not to mention plenty of other evidence — it's likely to include a heaping dose of score-settling.

That includes with Bernie Sanders.

In the passage that was tweeted out Monday evening by Tom Watson, Clinton attacks some of Sanders's supporters for being “sexist” and suggests the Vermont senator doesn't have the Democratic Party's true interests at heart. Most notably, she also intimates that he may not have even cared that his underhanded (in her opinion) attacks on her helped Donald Trump become president.

“When I finally challenged Bernie during a debate to name a single time I changed a position or a vote because of a financial contribution, he couldn’t come up with anything,” she wrote. “Nonetheless, his attacks caused lasting damage, making it harder to unify progressives in the general election and paving the way for Trump’s 'Crooked Hillary' campaign.

“I don’t know if that bothered Bernie or not.”

Clinton continues: “He certainly shared my horror at the thought of Donald Trump becoming President, and I appreciate that he campaigned for me in the general election. But he isn’t a Democrat — that’s not a smear, that’s what he says. He didn’t get into the race to make sure a Democrat won the White House, he got in to disrupt the Democratic Party.”

At the end of the page, Clinton concludes by saying: “I am proud to be a Democrat and I wish Bernie were too.”
 

Mayhem

Banned
To address her whiny accusations briefly but comprehensively, the Democratic Party needs the disruption that Bernie brings to it. And a whole lot more.

I could go on but I promised brevity. And I'm really wasted.
 

Supafly

Retired Mod
Bronze Member
The Democrats have mainly two paths:

Further down the road of candidaes like Clinton - or candidates like Warren and Sanders.

The first will promise further decline, the latter could very wel be the winning - and more honest - solution
 

meesterperfect

Hiliary 2020
She's a sociopath so it's expected.

Remember the 30 year old lawyer who served the DNC witha lawsuit live on video?
A lawsuit for rigging the primary against Sanders.
Then he died of unknown causes in his home a few weeks later. Just up and died.

Well that lawsuit was thrown out by some judge recently.
But we all know she and they stole that primary from Sanders.
That woke up a lot of people to the fact that the US election system is rigged.
Something crazy me had been trying to tell you all since way before 2016.

Anyway if you thought the 2016 election was a freak show just wait until 2020.

PS. All these celebrity type anti Trumpers.
Why don't any of them ever think of running on the Democratic ticket?
Surely they could win. Then they could turn all the bad things they cry about into good things.
But they know better.

h.jpg

They know better.
 
The Democrats have mainly two paths:

Further down the road of candidaes like Clinton - or candidates like Warren and Sanders.

The first will promise further decline, the latter could very wel be the winning - and more honest - solution

Not seeing it with the latter. Unless the country reacts so strongly to a Trump disaster that it swings way left, which I seriously doubt would happen even if Trump turns out to be that disaster. Imo a moderately liberal democrat without all of Clinton's baggage would be the most likely path to success. Or just maybe 2020 will be the first time an independent wins the presidency.

She's a sociopath so it's expected.

Remember the 30 year old lawyer who served the DNC witha lawsuit live on video?
A lawsuit for rigging the primary against Sanders.
Then he died of unknown causes in his home a few weeks later. Just up and died.

Why why why in the world would anybody murder a process server??? :wtf:
And after having already been served? lol
I mean seriously, that's all the dude did. He wasn't an opposition attorney. He wasn't a lawyer at all. He just served some papers to a DNC office. And he wasn't the only one who did so. Yet somehow the others are all still alive lol
The lawsuit you mentioned had nothing to do with his death. It was a minor suit filed by the DNC regarding being improperly served.
And he didn't just up and die. He died from taking a lethal cocktail of three different drugs, including an opioid.
 

xfire

New Twitter/X @cxffreeman
Jill Stein was more responsible for Hillary's loss than Sanders, but it was ultimately Hillary that lost. The far right had over thirty years to convince stupid and gullible people that Hillary is a "sociopath", I said it before the campaign started, she was the wrong candidate because of the perceived baggage she brought with her.
 
It was Hillary who lost. But the real people to blame for this debacle are the DNC, the people who pushed Hillary, who did all what they could -even cheating- to have her win the primary, knowing what a terrible candidate she was, knowing that a big portion of the country hate her and would vote for anyone who would run against her.
Hillary just did what these people had nominated her for, she ran the campaign they wanted her to run. She could have run a different campaign, but that was not what he DNC wanted, it ws not what they nominated her for.
 

Rattrap

Doesn't feed trolls and would appreciate it if you
"Hillary Clinton’s subtly savage takedown of Bernie Sanders"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ake-on-bernie-sanders/?utm_term=.3e43dab10045

From the Washington Post no less. The press talks about Trump throwing his supporters under the bus, but it doesn't look the alternative is any better.
It's almost as if people are tired of the lesser of two evils.

The Democrats have mainly two paths:

Further down the road of candidaes like Clinton - or candidates like Warren and Sanders.

The first will promise further decline, the latter could very wel be the winning - and more honest - solution
In other words: Become the actual party of the left, or stick with center-right, i.e., corporatism. The folks inside the party rich and fat off the latter will not let go easily.

Not seeing it with the latter. Unless the country reacts so strongly to a Trump disaster that it swings way left, which I seriously doubt would happen even if Trump turns out to be that disaster. Imo a moderately liberal democrat without all of Clinton's baggage would be the most likely path to success. Or just maybe 2020 will be the first time an independent wins the presidency.
This is the silver lining of Trump's presidency. HR 676 never garnered more than a handful of co-sponsers in the ≈10 years it's been introduced. Now it has more than half of house Democrats. Folks are fired up, running for local offices all over the place. Politicians in both parties are being held to the fire in town halls. It's sad that it has to get this bad for people to wake up (short aside, this is why I believe our civilization is totally fucked, and not that long from now).

I may have to disagree with your suggestion of a moderate liberal Democrat's chances, depending on what 'liberal' means anymore. I don't think Third Way Democrats have a place in the future - folks finally realize they're really just Republicans who like gay people. But make no mistake - they'll only go kicking, screaming, and smearing with the full might of their allies in the corporate media - like the Washington Post, for example.

Jill Stein was more responsible for Hillary's loss than Sanders, but it was ultimately Hillary that lost.
You have to be careful with your use of 'responsible'. If you're dialing down to the technical 'ability to respond' definition, literally everybody involved is responsible, but that isn't really a meaningful statement. If you mean the more common 'what one should do', neither Stein nor Sanders had any more responsibility than, say, the opposing football team playing yours.
 

xfire

New Twitter/X @cxffreeman
You have to be careful with your use of 'responsible'. If you're dialing down to the technical 'ability to respond' definition, literally everybody involved is responsible, but that isn't really a meaningful statement. If you mean the more common 'what one should do', neither Stein nor Sanders had any more responsibility than, say, the opposing football team playing yours.

Thanks for the lesson, though I don't blame anyone for Hillary's loss but Hillary, and said as much above.
 

Jagger69

Three lullabies in an ancient tongue
She was an extremely flawed and polarizing candidate and, not to sound misogynistic by any means but, had she been a man she never would have received the democratic nomination in the first place. I personally know supporters of hers that were totally oblivious to her stances on particular issues yet blindly supported her for no other reason than she was female. I wish to go on record as stating that I am all for a female president if, and only if, she possesses other attributes that would make her an otherwise good choice. I will admit that I did cast my vote for her last November but it was a less-than-enthusiastic one for sure and was really motivated much more by my extreme disdain for her opponent than by her attraction as a candidate. Conversely, I know quite a number of those who voted for Trump for the reverse reason....they couldn't stand Hillary. I feel certain it contributed in no small way to her defeat.

Even then, however, she still might have salvaged victory had she chosen Sanders as her running mate. Bernie would have energized his supporters and turnout would have been stronger and (and nothing at all against Tim Kaine) she might have been able to pull it off. For her to cast blame at Sanders is simply sour grapes from my viewpoint. She took the Great Lake states for granted and never campaigned for their support while Trump, to his campaign's credit, did and the rest is history. Now, the Democratic Party is in the process of redefining itself and I don't think she'll have a place at the table. Sorry, Hillary, but you have no one to blame but yourself.
 

ChuckFaze

Closed Account
What a Looooooozzzer! Sanders' attacks had nothing to do with her loss. Hell, Trump was called a cancer and every conceivable attack under the sun that could be conjured up and he still won.

Hillary lost because she bet the farm that the Latino vote was going to hand her the win on a platter. So, she butt-kissed and boot-licked, promised everything that the Latinos wanted to hear so as to get every last Latino vote that she could scrunge up. She just had to mention "immigration reform" and "build bridges, not walls" every chance she got.

That while ignoring the rest of the voters. Well, her strategy was flawed. She miscalculated ... counted on the Latino vote being much stronger than what it turned out to be. She got out-game planned by Trump.
 
If anything, the book shows her critical flaw: She's just unlikable.

Libs like to tout she got more votes than twump. Sure, but look at the big picture:
Less than 34% of Registered Voters cast ballots for Clinton
Less than 33% of registered voters cast ballots for Trump

Regardless of what the Electoral College did to the outcome of the election.....Hillary convinced just ONE THIRD of Americans to vote for her. The majority of Americans did not twump, but the majority did NOT want her as well.
SHE lost the election.
Not Bernie. By placing the blame on anyone but herself in the book just propagates the argument that she's an entitled bitch who never takes the blame ... ironically a trait she shares with twump.
 

meesterperfect

Hiliary 2020
Yeah. Please read my post here. I put a lot of thought into it.

On the face it simply seems that Trump had much more voter support.
I wont get into election fraud or the rigging of the Dem Primary.
Trump was filling huge areas, arenas, stadiums on a daily basis.
Everyday all over the country.
She was not. Seems only realistic he would win.
That despite all the forces against him The People had spoken.

But now I'm not 100% that is why Trump won.
Although I still think it is probably why.

He may have been chosen by the people who control the world.
No need to get into who they are either. (to deny there is a small group with unlimited money and power controlling things is very naive, there always has been). So at least assume there is for a bit please.

But they might have just told her again, "Look Hiliary, Tonights not your night".

Why would a Trump Presidency be better for the people who control things?

Well a Hiliary presidency would be just more of the same. Same war agenda for israel and the war profiteers that has bankrupted the country. Same mass corruption, same massive waste, same massive propaganda.
Basically the same bullshit as always but especially since 2000.

Only problem with that is people were catching on to the corruption and lies of the US GOV and its media.
A lot of people were starting to figure it all out in the year or two before election day.
They were beginning to realize that everything they are told and were taught their entire lives is a lie.
And the internet was booming with people exposing more and more (And I'm talking about phonies like A Jones).

With a Hiliary presidency that would have just continued and escalated until most everybody woke up and realized what theyve been doing.
The media, the US Ministry of Propaganda would not be able to suppress it, to control it.
Basically there would be mass awareness of The People.

They don't want this. They can't have this.

So it was bye bye hiliary. Go wear some purple and make a speech about how you'll be back.

And they went with Trump.
With a Trump presidency the people of the USA , the majority, were given some actual Hope that went beyond a slogan for morons.
Drain the swamp, Make it Great Again, ect. And the debates sure made it look real.
By Giving it to Trump they actually suppressed awareness for a while.
Stuck a pacifier in our mouths.
There was no need to keep exposing reality because someone had come along to make things better.
So the whole "Awareness" movement was basically stifled after the election. And sites like yootoob killed whatever was left of it in the months that followed.

But we got basically the same thing with Trump as we would have got from Hiliary didn't we?
Nothing has really changed and by now its not gonna.
Whether he was a puppet before or after the election doesnt matter, he is now.

So what did they get with A Trump Presidency that they wouldn't have with a Hiliary one?
Think about it.
They got the power to control again. Something they were losing with Hiliary.
Since the day after the election it began.
Trump is evil. Racist, gonna start WWIII and take my birth control.
With Trump they can divide and conquer again by using the full force of the Fake News.
They can much more easily brainwash the masses, create unrest, take focus off the real things, and control the masses.

Another aspect is this:
If She won The People would know they were tricked. They would have been pissedm disillusioned, and more and more would have began waking up to reality.
If Trump wins it will take years for the people who voted for him to catch on, and even then they wont do shit.
Give it to Trump and create as much chaos, fear, and confusion as they can for 4 years.
After that they can install who they want and the people will accept it. But as always nothing will change.
 
Less than 34% of Registered Voters cast ballots for Clinton
Less than 33% of registered voters cast ballots for Trump

Regardless of what the Electoral College did to the outcome of the election.....Hillary convinced just ONE THIRD of Americans to vote for her. The majority of Americans did not twump, but the majority did NOT want her as well.

If anything, this shows what kind of a train wreck this election was, with no candidates who convinced more than 1 out of 3 voters that they would make a good president
 

xfire

New Twitter/X @cxffreeman
Hillary was the wrong candidate, I said that before she ever announced her run.
 
Hillary was the wrong candidate, I said that before she ever announced her run.

Bingo. It really is that simple. We can debate why she didn't do this or that but it really comes down to the fact that she was just a flawed candidate. That's why I didn't vote for her. The Democratic party will be better off that she lost this election. It's short term loss for long term gain. I always get so much shit from other libs when I tell them that
 

Ace Boobtoucher

Founder and Captain of the Douchepatrol


Instead of looking in the mirror she deflects and projects her own skewed take on what happened. A shitty candidate is a shitty candidate. The fix was in for her from the outset. Superdelegates, fawning press coverage and a crooked DNC couldn't cover up the facts that she is a failure. Every thing she's ever touched has turned to crap. She's the polar opposite of King Midas.
 
Top