Here's the book. You might remember that I was pulling out interesting quotes — here and here — as I went along, and the last one I had was 30% of the way through. Maybe it's me, but the book seemed to get tedious after the first third, as though they'd edited it more intensively but then didn't bother and just left us with dumped notes from their interviews with Clinton insiders. There was a lot of semi-digested material about the mechanics of getting speeches written and where to expend funds and how nervous and uncomfortable various people felt at various times. I got pretty bored.
But there were 3 more things I highlighted as I read. I'll give you these:
1. 34% of the way into the book: "While they were in the car, thinking about how Nevada could really turn the race on its head, [Democratic campaign operatives Tad] Devine’s phone rang. It was Podesta. The Clinton campaign chairman was upset. The day before, Bernie’s brother, Larry, had wondered aloud to a reporter whether Bill [Clinton] was 'really such a terrible rapist' or 'a nice rapist.' President Clinton doesn’t like being called a sexual predator, Podesta told Devine, especially not by a Democratic candidate. What kind of bullshit strategy is that? Devine tried to calm Podesta.... 'Did you see what I said?' Devine said of a television appearance he’d made the previous day. 'Larry is eighty years old. He lives in England. He gave this interview, and he’s not going to talk to the press anymore. This is not a strategy.' Podesta was not assuaged."
2. 67% of the way in: "But [Hillary] accepted the conventional wisdom that she could win or lose the presidency based on her performances [in the debates] against Trump — a rival who thrived on getting under the skin of an opponent. And what [Phillippe] Reines found, [playing the role of Trump] as he practiced against her, round after round, is that Hillary’s heavily nuanced policy arguments were boring and easy to pick apart with a sharp retort. Her strength and her weakness were one and the same: she mastered so much material. 'As the guy who would kick her ass over and over again,' it was obvious to Reines that Trump’s messaging was better, said a source with singular knowledge of his thinking.... [H]er stiffness and her inability to reply to specific questions with
thematic answers... were painfully obvious in the debate-prep sessions.
Reines had been able to exploit them and outperform her. Heading into
the first debate.... Hillary and her team were nervous that Trump might
do the same thing. "
3. 68% of the way: "As she had done before facing Bernie Sanders in the primaries, Hillary huddled with Klain, Dunn, Sullivan, and Podesta before the debate. This time, she seemed on edge. There was so much riding on a curious, nationally televised piece of performance art. It was such a poor test, she thought, of which candidate would make a better president. Normally so stoic, she betrayed the butterflies in her stomach by nervously joking with her aides about the outsize significance the debates took on. They tried to reassure her. Have fun, they advised. The winner of the debate was usually the candidate who appeared to be enjoying the moment more." (That was bad advice, don't you think? Her laughing, I'm-having-fun routine seemed phony, smug, and not well matched to the subject matter.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
102 comments:
"President Clinton doesn’t like being called a sexual predator, Podesta told Devine"
Clinton should have tried not being a sexual predator then.
My wife wants to read it so I guess I'll get a copy. If I do, I'll use your portal.
I'll have to ask her if she wants the Kindle version,
The debates. All I remember from the debates......"You'd be in jail!".
when Hillary laughs, an angel loses its wings.
Maybe it's me, but the book seemed to get tedious after the first third, as though they'd edited it more intensively but then didn't bother and just left us with dumped notes from their interviews with Clinton insiders. There was a lot of semi-digested material about the mechanics of getting speeches written and where to expend funds and how nervous and uncomfortable various people felt at various times. I got pretty bored.
I'm noticing this too. I started reading this as a break during a very long (and good) Andrew Jackson biography, but I might just toss it--I'm already skipping ahead.
Shorter version; as a candidate Hillary was a schlunk.
Hillary and her team were nervous that Trump might do the same thing.
So the media went out and built her up (how knowledgeable and well-prepared she was) and knocked Trump down (he's irrational, unpredictable and a moron) so that all he had to do was go out and not have a meltdown on live TV and he'd come out ahead.
And what [Phillippe] Reines found, [playing the role of Trump] as he practiced against her, round after round, is that Hillary’s heavily nuanced policy arguments were boring and easy to pick apart with a sharp retort. Her strength and her weakness were one and the same: she mastered so much material.
There it is again, the same old "Hillary as policy wonk". Like most Democrats, she is/was just too smart of all us hicks.
I don't care HOW well you understand a crappy policy position. The fact that it is a crappy policy position will prevent it from succeeding, not that we are too stupid to understand its nuances.
AND understanding your policies but being a complete and utter failure at every single thing you have touched in the last 20+ years will tend to not help your case.
There's an unfortunate tendency to stereotype rapists in a crude and derogatory way. Some effort should be made to differentiate their varying styles and ethos. Ted Bundy, for example, was far better looking than Bill Clinton and was not adverse to using charm to advance his ends. Not all rapists should be put in the same bag as Bill Clinton..
I give you credit for reading it - I certainly would not have the patience. My take on it is "What difference can it make now?"
The election is over. This chapter of national history is past. In 20 years it might be more interesting, but right now there is so much going on in the world that it is of little significance.
This bitter clinging to the Clintons seems like a tactic to evade reality, even for ardent Democrats. Looking ahead to the 2018 election races is what will make a difference for the Democrats. If the party can't get its head out of 2016 and start thinking about the issues in 2018, the party is in deep, deep trouble. The apparent DNC strategy of Trump referendums is a terrific failure.
"Have fun, they advised. The winner of the debate was usually the candidate who appeared to be enjoying the moment more."
Maybe they could have advised to her to act like a real human, rather than one who is attempting to appear to be something. Of course that would have been asking the impossible.
"[H]er stiffness and her inability to reply to specific questions with thematic answers... were painfully obvious." Of course, they have been obvious for decades. What her obvious awfulness really means is that the Clintons simply headed a posse, a coterie of hangers-on and paid-up cronies and establishment pols who wanted to push her through. What your quotes also display is the complete cynicism of everyone involved: everyone knows there is no ideological there there, everyone knows they are inflicting an incompetent old woman on the voters, everyone knows they are simply manipulating the knobs of the political process, with the active collusion of their equally cynical MSM pals. Pardon the confirmation bias, but I feel happily validated in my judgment of Hill and my cynicism about American politics.
Hillary Clinton mood rings would be nice promo item.
Hillary couldn't make adjustments and Trump made them constantly, often on the fly. The debates were crap and are dumb. Trump understood this.
The entire campaign as the author relates it was a stretch to preserve a narrative from encounters with truth that changed voter's perceptions.
But the drumbeat of Trump's truth just could not be erased with one 2005 Planet Hollywood trash talking video. And the real coup de grace on Hillary's narrative came from the WikiLeaks releases of Podesta's e-mails exposing the evil nature of the Dems.
First the campaign said Comeh was wrong to announce an investigation existed and closed in order to eliminate any suspicion she would not be prosecuted while in office. Then they said the only bad part of the second Comeh letter to Congress, coming out after Anthony's laptop was taken by the NYPD, was that Comeh was reopening a suspicion Hillary would be prosecuted while in office.
Of course Comeh had to do what he did to stop the NYPD from a real prosecution.
On the Russians favoring Trump, they actually felt old 1950s McCarthyite thoughts would destroy Trump. Silly Rabbits.
Her strength and her weakness were one and the same: she mastered so much material.
Her answers showed her focus was wrong. When asked about foreign policy she didn't answer how America could achieve its goal or what its priorities should be. She spouted as many names as she could as if the presidency should be awarded to the equivalent of a geography quiz champion.
This book has effectively exploded the myth of "most qualified candidate ever". She is shockingly incompetent.
Did they confirm that a teleprompter was installed in Hillary's podium for at least one debate? Hillary's team did it after they were given permission to adjust the height of her podium to minimize the height differential with Trump.
Why didn't everyone cooperate?
I would score the debates as Hillary 2, Trump 1, Pence 1. In terms of debate strategy, I think it was a mistake to put forward the pussy grabber tape when they did. Trump was able to parry that with the rapist theme, and that set up his win in the last debate.
There was another dynamic to the race which no one ever talks about - voting for a Hillary Clinton Presidency with a Republican Congress would have been asking for 4 years of highly partisan wrangling. One could see the resistance movement as being a disciplinary mechanism to force on the public what they sought to avoid.
Another problem with the Clinton message was their terrible ad strategy. At the end they were endlessly running the clip of Trump mocking the NYT reports while Trump was running his daughter Ivanka saying nice things about him. Trump out-niced the Clintons in the end.
But the drumbeat of Trump's truth just could not be erased with one 2005 Planet Hollywood trash talking video.
Trump grabbed her by the pussy.
I think it was a mistake to put forward the pussy grabber tape when they did.
The tape established that women are crazy.
Do they save the "Russia did it!" argument for the last page?
I will ask my library to get a copy. I do so reluctantly because its limited funds should go into better stuff, but as noted above this is prime material for future historians trying to explain Clinton Incorporated.
"most qualified candidate ever" - Of course, that was always ridiculous.
The apparent DNC strategy of Trump referendums is a terrific failure.
Right on the heels of the Walker Referenda failures, Multiple failures, in Wisconsin.
Nixon was almost totally devoid of charm or magnetism, but he won two elections. It can be done, but, as a general rule, it's always wise to field a candidate who can pretend to be a likable human being.......I'd would like to someday see Chelsea and Ivanka have a debate. It would be interesting to watch the various pundits explain how much better prepared and humane Chelsea was than Ivanka.......Remember that scene in "1984" when Winston Smith struggles to see the right number of fingers that his interrogator is holding up. That's the media explicating the virtues of the Clintons.
It was good advice. Hillary just isn't good at faking that she's having fun. If she had been genuinely "having fun", she wouldn't have been laughing inappropriately. I generally enjoy meeting with clients even though we're sometimes discussing serious subjects. You can discuss serious subjects without being somber. My enjoyment of the moment comes across as being engaged in what they're saying -- because I am! Hillary came across as if she thought the subjects themselves were funny, which is different.
Ted Bundy, for example, was far better looking than Bill Clinton and was not adverse to using charm to advance his ends. Not all rapists should be put in the same bag as Bill Clinton..
I think Ted preferred fucking them when they were dead. "Necrophilia" they call it.
Plus dead girls don't give BJs.
Cigars would probably work OK.
Differences with Bill.
The value of this book is the snapshot of the quality of the campaign and the mindset of the advisers and candidate. This is very useful in evaluating the thought processes of that milieu. The details, of incompetence, of missing the point, of being out of touch, of ivory-towerism, of lack of teamwork, and personal faults beyond counting, are telling.
It goes without saying that all this was due to the personality of the leader. Clinton was a very poor manager, especially seen in her selection of very second-rate subordinates.
I am surprised that her backers did not impose a better quality staff on her.
Hillary is not a real girl.
Hillary’s heavily nuanced policy arguments were boring and easy to pick apart with a sharp retort.
Nuance has became a synonym for bullshit.
More joy! This book, as a historical record, is quite fabulous.
"Maybe it's me, but the book seemed to get tedious after the first third, as though they'd edited it more intensively but then didn't bother and just left us with dumped notes from their interviews with Clinton insiders.'
it's not you. I'm having the same reaction. In spades. Thanks to Kindle it won't take up any space in my house once I'm done (or quit.)
It's instructive nevertheless, for showing what a mediocre leader and political talent Hillary Clinton is. Flaws and all, even with the bathroom server and all the other crap, she could have been elected. But she built an unmanageable campaign structure and hired fools and knaves to run it, a bad mistake when you are a poor manager yourself. Know your limitations. She blew it.
Nixon was a much better manager. And a far more intelligent person.
"I'm noticing this too. I started reading this as a break during a very long (and good) Andrew Jackson biography, but I might just toss it--I'm already skipping ahead."
Unlike with the history of the Jackson era, you know what happened in the 2016. You're in no danger of missing anything really. It just doesn't matter what crossed Jennifer Palmieri's mind on a particular day. You're not going to lose the thread of the story. If it's not hitting a useful depth, it's useless information. You feel like a fool not to start skipping.
You can sum up Shattered's go to meme as in an ordinary election Hillary's 3 flawless debate performances would have won it going away...but that Damn Trump played with the media using distraction after distraction until the authentic seeming, liar Trump, had out played the truth teller Hillary who was seen as not authentic because she was polished, rehearsed and prepared perfectly on every issue.
Yeah, right. It was a change election and Clinton. Inc was everything we wanted changed.
And the same meme could have been an excuse for the 16 odd RINOs and Conservative ideologists that Trump destroyed by communicating like Patton's Third Army facing the Italians.
Maybe they could have advised to her to act like a real human instead of a reptoid/human hybrid. An autistic reptoid/human hybrid.
"Maybe it's me, but the book seemed to get tedious after the first third, as though they'd edited it more intensively but then didn't bother and just left us with dumped notes from their interviews with Clinton insiders."
It's probably not just you, but I appreciate the blogging and book review.
Trump comes off as a completely different category of manager. His staff was extremely small vs the Clintons royal court. His resource-management was revolutionary, doing vastly more with vastly less.
We only see the outside of the Trump campaign though.
We may not get a useful book out of the inside of the Trump campaign, because of the very small staff in the first place, and his better security - letting people like these writers "inside" seems like an idiotic risk to begin with, with the potential of leaks and gossip and indiscipline.
And there is the factor of, to mangle what Tolstoy had about families, that all good management is the same (or it seems like it), but each ineffective management is so it its own way.
"President Clinton doesn’t like being called a sexual predator, Podesta told Devine, especially not by a Democratic candidate."
and Hillary! doesn't like being called untruthful congenital liar, especially not by anyone.
and Chelsea doesn't like being called a rich spoiled brat.......
"You feel like a fool not to start skipping." I'm at the scanning stage now. Will likely start skipping soon.
The plan of the authors was to get there first, and they did what they set out to do.
The daily thoughts of Palmieri are interesting data, if you want to go into that degree of detail of failure analysis. This book, as you say, has a very large amount of stuff like that. Thats one reason its important, it is a primary source.
You probably wont get much of that from, say, Palmieri, even if she herself writes a memoir.
The book was tedious the whole way through. But it revealed more by the way it tapped danced around many events to show they knew the events happened. But that is the mistake of the half truth teller. You can figure out the rest from that half true disclosure.
Only the Big Lie can suffice to fool all the people the people all the time. It must be all phony all the time and never a smidgen of truth admitted to be a Great Hoax. But that is Obama territory. And Hillary never figured that out.
The picture I get is that the writers themselves are as candid as the material their sources let them have. The tap-dancing seems to be on the part of the staff - the subjects themselves.
Ron Winkleheimer said...
Maybe they could have advised to her to act like a real human instead of a reptoid/human hybrid. An autistic reptoid/human hybrid.
4/27/17, 10:25 AM
OK, why did you have to H8 on the reptoid/human hybrids? Don't they already have it hard enough? Needing to keep to the hotter climates, the abundance of AC in the first world, always getting the stares when purchasing large quantities if live rodents. Now you lump them in with Hillary. Why can you all just leave them alone?
All these things are like, for instance, the Memoirs of Saint-Simon (good English translations are all over the Internet), the inside baseball of 17th century Versailles.
Unless one is a specialist in French politics and society of the period thats also a slog. Instructive though.
I would also note that memorizing reams of material does not mean you are necessarily all that intelligent. Knowing the name of the 2nd most powerful politician in backoftheworldistan doesn't mean that you are Einstein. It mostly means that you don't know what your priorities should be. It means you don't know the difference between information and knowledge.
Picture of Philippe the doppelganger and Hillary from 2008.
As more than a few Washington insiders know, Mr. Reines can be verbally ferocious and sometimes profane in dealing with political operatives, reporters and others he regards as a threat to Mrs. Clinton.
Maybe they should have had Hillary play Trump and Philippe play Hillary.
Nixon was almost totally devoid of charm or magnetism, but he won two elections.
Nixon was also a serious man during serious times. We, unfortunately, live in silly times and are apportioned candidates accordingly.
If the Democrats had any sense (now there's something that takes a great leap of faith!) they'd encourage as many of these books as possible. The Clinton machine is dead, now pound a stake through its heart, nail the coffin shut, and drop it into the Marianas Trench. The Dumbocrats need to put real people out as their candidates.
I have been thinking about buying the book, but from what is being blogged, it appears that it would only confirm what I already knew, Hillary Clinton is an awful politician and bad manager who would have been a disaster as POTUS.
A book I would be far more interested in is one concerning the fight between Clinton Inc. and Obama for control of the Democrat party.
Chelsea will run for congress in 2018 - and win. And might be running for President in 2020. It will be hilarious. Meanwhile Organizing For America will continue to collect funds that could have gone to the DNC, which will continue to become radicalized.
"Chelsea will run for congress in 2018 - and win."
-- I hope not. I grew up with Chelsea in the White House, and I always got the idea she did NOT want to be in the lime light, but also will do whatever her parents ask.
useless information...http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/
Forget this crap..I want an eyewitness account of what Hillary did on election night.......
I look forward to an insider writing a book on Obama and how he mostly watched ESPN's SportsCenter and slept late except on the weekends when he golfed.
Too bad the book doesn't have a happy ending-where Hillary goes to jail.
Clinton was a very poor manager, especially seen in her selection of very second-rate subordinates. I am surprised that her backers did not impose a better quality staff on her.
A more competent staff imposed by outsiders would have been a threat to the Clinton loyalists.
What Ron Winkleheimer said at 10:18AM and what CubanBob said at 11:07am.
I don't understand. Hillary won every debate. CNN told me so.
@Matthew Sablan
Why do you think the MSM is suddenly all over Chelsea's every move? And why is she suddenly getting all kinds of awards for being Chelsea? I forget who said it, but an influence peddling operation isn't any good if you don't have any influence to peddle.
Chelsea will win in some district where literally any Democrat will win. The current rep of that district will be convinced to step down so she will be unopposed in the primary. If I recall correctly, wasn't that how JFK first got elected to congress? Once in the House, she will be touted far and wide in the press as dynamic and the new, young face of the Democrat party. Ideally, she should become a Senator before running for President, but the Clinton's can't wait that long. In the primary I think she will get creamed. The radicals in the Democrat party never forgave Bill for going centrist and they control the party now.
The fact that even Vanity Fair is running a very good article on how people should stop trying to make Chelsea a "thing" and that her main talent lies in explaining how wonderful she is to raptly nodding sycophants pretty much tells you that the Clintons' are finished as a dynasty. But that doesn't mean they won't continue to try.
Despite everything, there isn't a day that goes by that I don't thank whatever gods there may be that Hillary will never be president. America didn't just dodge a bullet - we dodged a nuclear weapon.
>>I'd would like to someday see Chelsea and Ivanka have a debate. It would be interesting to watch the various pundits explain how much better prepared and humane Chelsea was than Ivanka
Wow...that's a very interesting point! Not so much the debate, but the concept that the news stories of this (never happened) debate could be written *today*!
"Unless one is a specialist in French politics and society of the period thats also a slog." I understand, but unlike the authors of Shattered, Saint-Simon is, in his own way, an outstanding writer. His memoirs are one of the most remarkable (series of) books ever written.
For anyone who read the book, did the topic of "the shimmy " from the first (?) debate come up? Was it regarded by the campaign as a delightfully winning moment of authenticity by candidate Clinton? Was there a yearning among her inner circle for more of those beguiling moments?
I suppose it's inevitable that someone in the Hillary crew will write a rebuttal, although I can't imagine who would buy it, let alone read it.
It's possible that the authors were writing and crafting the book as they went along in the campaign, and the first third of the book was basically done before November 8th. After that point, they probably didn't really want to be bothered to do much crafting on the unfinished 2/3s because they were too emotionally invested in the outcome. No doubt the book was originally intended to be a look inside a successful campaign, though I get from the excerpts they intended this to be a tale of brilliant bull-headed triumph over adversity- campaign staff succeeding in the face of a flawed candidate, and the candidate overcoming those same flaws through hard work and brilliance.
I think most of us over the age of 50 are probably familiar with this sort of thing- you start out eagerly on a task that you expect to have some great impact in some way, but half way through you learn it won't really have that sort of effect due to changed circumstances. If you can, you simply stop working on it, but if it still needs to be wrapped up, the effort declines to the bare minimum.
Chelsea Clinton can stop being in the limelight as soon as she stops trying to be in the limelight. She can drop the Twitter account, and can stop accepting awards for doing nothing and accomplishing nothing. One can tell that she may well be Webb Hubbel's daughter because she has all of Hillary's tone-deaf lack of charm, and none of Bill's folksy ways.
Sorry, but how she behaved in 1994 is pretty different from how she behaves today. Yes, there are thousands who will rally to her cause, just as there were thousands who would for the Kennedys. Of course, all of the Kennedy sycophants are dead now. The Clinton sycophants will be dying also.
"as though they'd edited [the first third] more intensively but then didn't bother [with the remaining 2/3rds]"
They and the publisher understand shelf life, so they got the foolish thing out ASAP knowing that it would be interesting only for a very brief window. In other words, this would not be a book for the ages.
> Her strength and her weakness were one and the same: she mastered so much material
Poor HRC, just too darn smart for her own good.
It's possible that the authors were writing and crafting the book as they went along in the campaign, and the first third of the book was basically done before November 8th.
I tend to agree. I ordered it for my wife and will probably read some of it.
The cover should be her doing that faceplant leaving the 9/11 ceremony.
"Nixon was almost totally devoid of charm or magnetism, but he won two elections."
Nixon : Clinton :: tape recorder : e-mail server
Both were fatal to their presidential ambitions.
The difference is, the public didn't learn about Nixon's tape recorder (and its 18 minute gap) until he was already serving his second term as president.
Blogger Rene' Saunce said...
when Hillary laughs, an angel loses its wings.
4/27/17, 9:21 AM
"I don't care who you are, that's funny right there" - Mater
Hillary once said something like: "How come I'm not 50 points ahead?", and the authors wrote a book explaining why.
"The difference is, the public didn't learn about Nixon's tape recorder"
The biggest difference was that Nixon cared about his underlings who had done a dumb thing, probably without his knowledge, and he cared about their welfare.
The Clintons and Obama would never do that. "Good morning Maam." "Fuck you !"
Buwaya raised an interesting point about what Trump accomplished with a relatively very small staff. I might add that Trump changed that staff frequently; he's not reluctant to "change out" a member of his management team if they no longer perform or are not what is needed at the time.
I had an interesting lunch conversation with a Never Trumper friend yesterday. He conceded that Trump was "not as bad as he had feared". From Trump's statements, one can infer that he has an interesting management style. He prefers not to have a structured day; his office door is "open" so to speak and he likes getting information from a variety of sources. Contrast that with Obama, where I suspect Valerie Jarrett rigidly controlled access, and Obama heard what ValJar wanted him to hear.
There are pluses and minuses in Trump's management style; the "open door" encourages contests for access among the courtiers, but then in the ValJar regime, the contest is for access through ValJar. The "open door" also carries the risk that the "boss" will follow the suggestion of the last person to catch his ear. Time will tell . But Trump's cabinet is interesting with strong people in it.
It's possible that the authors were writing and crafting the book as they went along in the campaign
I wonder what the working title was before the November election?
The Clintons, together, made an unstoppable team with Bill as the front man. It's just not a role for which Hillary is suited.
Journalism like this has become about telling the public what it should know during an election but waiting until after the election to tell it.
The "open door" also carries the risk that the "boss" will follow the suggestion of the last person to catch his ear.
That reminds me of the old saw about the problem with an honest politician is that he won't stay bought.
"Maybe it's me, but the book seemed to get tedious after the first third,..."
A reflection of her life perhaps? She was likely pretty normal up to about 21 and then the vision of her future revealed itself and she began the long and tedious task of chasing her dream - trying her best to convince the rest of us that hers was the way.
I wonder what the working title was before the November election?
The Awesomeness of Hillary Clinton
"But Trump's cabinet is interesting with strong people in it."
I agree but he has got to get those appointed slots filled with his people. Maybe he is letting the Secretaries choose their staffs but there are way too many Obama appointees still there operating as an underground enemy.
It was obvious to any sentient being that Hillary was a HORRIBLE campaigner, she's just not a "people" type person, simple as that. After 2008 and the Bernie thing in 2016 one had to be pretty dense not to see this lady had issues out on the stump.
My take on that last point is that her advisers told her to loosen up and have fun, but she is not merely incapable of doing so, she couldn't even understand what they were saying.
Her brain heard, "Look like you're having fun," which she tried to do. But such a joyless, miserable person couldn't pull it off.
"Loosen up, have fun," followed by ridiculously phony shimmying and awkward laughing feels like it comes right out of a sitcom as the younger, cooler people try and get the serious old lady to have fun.
"Hillary’s heavily nuanced policy arguments were boring and easy to pick apart with a sharp retort." Government, especially the federal government, is a blunt tool. By the time a policy filters down through the bureaucracy to be implemented any nuance will be lost. I wish the people who try to impress each other with nuance would figure this out.
Apologies in advance for the pedantry.
Nixon : Clinton :: tape recorder : e-mail server
This is an incorrectly-formatted analogy. The paired relationship is between the person and the technology, not person-to-person and technology-to-technology.
Nixon : tape recorder :: Clinton : e-mail server
(You could make an argument about whether it's the tape recorder vs. the audiotape which is being analogized...but I have my limits.)
Fortunately, Althouse has read the tiresome rehash so that the rest of us can skip it.
What's funny in the bits she highlights is how all the inside players were so concerned (so they now say) about Hillary!, when the conventional wisdom among the pundits at the time of the debates was that she had trounced Trump. At least they got it right in hindsight.
Thank you so much Ann, for consuming all that bland oatmeal and highlighting the toenails within so that none of us had to gag on this unholy concoction!!
Uh oh. Now you've done it.
If you, for even one second, think that "lifelong republican" Chuck is going to allow any criticism of Hillary to go unchallenged then you have another thing coming.
"Loosen up, have fun," followed by ridiculously phony shimmying"
At the time, it didn't look like shimmying to me. More like a weird little muscle spasm.
"heavily nuanced" - that's a vile phrase! (credit: Polonius)
I finished it too. One thing that irked me was the staff's pathetic complaint that "we can't have nice things" which is a lame mangling of "This is why we can't have nice things." It's supposed to be ironic, the cause either grossly understated or overstated.
And I don't think it once mentioned Podesta's hamhanded clicking on a phishing link. Now that is an example of why we can't have nice things.
madAsHell asked:
"I wonder what the working title was before the November election?"
I am guessing the title was also the same "Shattered", but subtitled, Mrs. Clinton Demolishes the Glass Ceiling.
I assume it would have been The Making of the President 2016. Instead, Roger Stone got to grab that one for his POS book. Unreadable. But I'll try again.
Really, I would like to read a decent inside story of both campaigns.
In addition to having a "people" problem, her skills as a manager while at the Dept of State was not exactly outstanding either. Add in those fainting spells or whatever they were and BOOM! it just wasn't to be. Of course, everyone knew this except the MSM, jesus, talk about a clueless bunch of hacks.
"mastered so much material"
"her inability to reply to specific questions with thematic answers"
These two statements conflict. I think somebody mistook "memorizing" for "understanding."
I haven't read a book about a campaign since Theodore White invented the genre after the election 57 years ago. I have found this one fascinating. I'm listening to it on Audible, and I think it "reads" better that way. Keeps me from being pedantic ("boggle is an intransitive verb!" or "gender is a grammatical concept!"). I like the fact that the authors were on Hillary's side, because it sounds more authentic than it would as a rant, but it is hilarious when they talk about how much the email scandal was talked about in the press. Really? Which press? Certainly the New York Times didn't go all Abu Ghraib on it, as they would have if a Republican had done it. I've gotten to the Democratic Convention, so it is slowing down a bit, since they're not screwing up like they had been. But, here comes the general...
gender isn't just a grammatical concept. Otherwise the term would be as well known as "genitive" or "ablative". Gender has multiple meanings in English, including but not limited to grammar.
Sorry, I probably need to listen to blog posts. I'm getting pedantic.
"If you can fake sincerity you've got it made." (paraphrasing)
Hillary! couldn't fake sincerity.
QED.
Post a Comment