Tollie,
Maybe the name of this thread should be changed to "How Donald J. Trump Became President (Horror Reality)" or some such since it is not properly in the realm of fiction any more. Just my $0.019999999...
TollandRCR wrote:I did not urge Hillary to discuss her bout of pneumonia. I suggested something far broader: discuss her health. Nor did I suggest that she lost solely because of the scene at her van.
I think that she partially enabled the strong personal attacks on her by being too closed for too many years.
I agree. She was neither above the appearance of impropriety nor was she transparent. Both of those things are on her. The Russians exploited the weakness and both Trump and the media helped enable their manipulation of the election, but Hillary left them an opening. Too. also. her failure to have a strong vision for her presidency --- you cannot get a mandate to do something unless you ask for it --- deprived her of another narrative to counter Russian propaganda.
TollandRCR wrote:Hillary did not address her e-mail situation until it was a problem. She does not talk about her health. I think both of these hurt her. I remember that MikeD outlined the steps that Hillary should have taken on the e-mail.
Link for Rikker?
Much the same was necessary for health. Her urge for extreme confidentiality does not work in politics. It causes her to lose control.
Specifically it caused her to lose control of the narrative, in my opinion.
listeme wrote:Obviously I disagree.
[To Tollie's comment]
There's nothing obvious about your disagreement. Looking at what you said, I can find no substantive argument against Tollie's comment. It's clear that you don't like any criticism of Hillary or her campaign, but you've never even made an argument regarding why criticism of an unsuccessful campaign which probably cost over $1 billion is unwarranted.
Every single thing hurt her.
Yes, so? Tollie was talking about specific failures that hurt her. The existence of other things that hurt her is not really relevant.
She released like 40 years of her taxes versus zero for her primary and general opponents.
Which goes to show that a good enough propaganda machine can beat a legitimate issue. Of course Trump's strategy was to delegitimize everything. More importantly, what has this to do with anything Tollie said? Do you agree with the steps MikeD outlined? Did you even read them? (Can Tollie provide a link for Rikker?)
She doesn't talk about her health.
Which, as Tollie said, hurt her.
She testified in front of idiot panels of congress.
I have no idea how this relates to a response to Tollie's comment.
She blew off some of the email questions.
Is this the only thing you think she did wrong (or hurt her) regarding her use of a private email server?
All those four things hurt her equally.
What?
Certainly all four of those things --- and many more both within and outside her control --- hurt her, but equally? What is your basis for saying that? You are certainly entitled to that opinion, but the statement seems absurd to me. I'm not just being a dick here, I have an important point: the ability to judge the relative significance of things has been under attack by the right wing for as long as I've been aware and now science itself is under attack. If everything is equal then there is no way to triage problems, allocate resources, or set goals effectively --- it is in empirically and quantitatively investigating our past mistakes that gives us the understanding that will lead to future successes.
It's not
only about what she says or does.
FIFY. Although it still contradicts what you said above. Nothing I could do about that.
But I still can't see a single reason for her to talk about her pneumonia diagnosis whether or not she ever runs for office again.
If she were to run for office again she would have to become much more open about many things --- including her health (not necessarily the pneumonia specifically) --- if she wanted to be a viable candidate. If she never runs for office again then what she decides to talk about is her own business and should be judged on its merits.
It's ludicrous even if she WERE to run, but as a private citizen, to have people demanding that she account for herself on private health matters because they think she lied? No.
It's not ludicrous, it's just the reality of the business she is in. President Obama didn't just ignore the birthers because their charges were frivolous and baseless, he had lawyers represent him in court, had the State of Hawai'i verify his COLB, and released his LFBC. If Hillary doesn't run again, she can certainly do what she likes and has no need to listen to anyone still demanding her records, but I hope she would be candid about how her health and public perception of her health was used against her --- this seems like a tactic the Republicans will probably reuse whenever they get the opportunity.
Ever since I read the autobiography of Richard Feynman, I've aspired to the level of objectivity and integrity that he felt necessary for a scientist: the ability to focus your most vigorous criticism on oneself. I was at conference in February of a dozen or so of the top people in the renal modeling community (long story) and one of them said something that I think embodied the same spirit that Feynman was trying to convey. He said that being wrong is the most exciting part of our jobs, because when we're wrong (and we admit that we are wrong) it means that we are about to learn something.
Admitting that Hillary made mistakes isn't disloyal and doesn't hurt her in any way, rather it is the first step in gaining the understanding that will lead to future successes. It is also a way to break out of the unscientific partisan framing* that currently shapes our political discourse.
* I saw this article by George Lakoff about
mental frameworks posted somewhere on the Fogbow in December and think it is a must-read. Relevant excerpt from (long) article --- mucho moar at link:
2. Framing: Crooked Hillary. Framing Hillary as purposely and knowingly committing crimes for her own benefit, which is what a crook does. Repeating makes many people unconsciously think of her that way, even though she has always been found to have been honest and legal by thorough studies by the right-wing Bengazi committee (which found nothing) and the FBI (which found nothing to charge her with.) Yet the framing worked.
There is a common metaphor that Immorality Is Illegality, and that acting against Strict Father Morality (the only kind off morality recognized) is being immoral. Since virtually everything Hillary Clinton has ever done has violated Strict Father Morality, that makes her immoral to strict conservatives. The metaphor makes her actions immoral, which makes her a crook. The chant “Lock her up!” activates this whole line of reasoning.