Tuesday, October 10, 2017

How Hillary Lost?

Hillary Clinton has been running across the country trying to explain how she lost an election to Donald Trump. We will not replay her litany of excuses, but a recent story emphasizes a major failing. She would have won if she had taken advice from her husband.

After all, Hillary had one of America’s most skilled politicians in her corner. She was married—in a manner of speaking—to one of the greatest politicians of his generation. And she apparently chose to ignore his advice. Having spent the better part of her adult life enabling a sexual predator she rejected her well-earned compensation. For ideological principle.

Apparently, she had drunk the ideological Kool-Aid that told her to be independent and autonomous, not to rely in any way on any member of the male gender. Thus, she rejected Bubba’s advice, on feminist principle, because it would have made her feel subservient and dependent. 

I draw this conclusion from a preview of a new book by Ed Klein. One understands that one needs to take Klein’s views with a few dozen grains of salt, but still, this story rings true. It only involves the campaign peripherally, but we can see in the dust up between Bubba and Hillary a replay of what might well have happened during her campaign.

It turns out that Bubba was decidedly against Hillary publishing her book, What Happened. He proposed significant changes.

The Daily Mail has the story:

Bill and Hillary Clinton are not speaking to each other after a blazing argument over her election book, it has been claimed.

The former President threw a manuscript in the trash after Hillary ignored his advice not to publish it, according to author Ed Klein.

Bill had red-penned the book in an attempt to improve it, a friend allegedly told Klein, but flew into a rage when Hillary refused to read any of his notes.

Think about it. You are married to someone who is a great politician and you refuse even to read his notes. Doesn’t that look like a symptom? Doesn’t it define an ideologically driven woman who would rather pretend to be independent than to risk looking like a fool.

What was Bubba’s criticism?

According to Page Six, the friend said: 'He told her the book made her look bewildered, angry and confused, and that those were poor qualities in a person who aspired to be a world leader….

'He hated the title because calling it "What Happened" would only make people say, "You lost." 

'He urged her to postpone the pub date and rewrite the book, but she yelled at him and said: "The book is finished and that’s how it’s going to be published".'

In truth, Bubba's criticism summarizes most of the reviews that the book has receives. Apparently, Hillary chose ideology over the presidency. She showed how to lose an eminently winnable election and how to be relegated to an historical footnote. 


Christopher B said...

She showed how to lose an eminently winnable election

This estimation was actually part of her (and many others) hubris regarding Trump. Transfer of political capital or advice from one pol to another is tricky business at the Presidential level. In over a century since 1900 only three times have different people from the same party won three or more consecutive elections (Harding-Coolidge-Hoover, FDR-Truman, and Reagan-GHWB), and only the latter pair did it without a VP ascending to the Presidency first. Nixon couldn't repeat after Eisenhower, Johnson never got out the starting gate in 1968, and Gore failed (barely) in 2000. There was ample evidence from 2010 on that Obama's coalition would not vote for anybody but Obama, even when he was leading the ticket.

GHWB was only able to repeat by being closely associated with a very popular President, in a time of peace and prosperity, full qualified to serve without VP experience, and running against one of the worst candidates nominated by the Democrats since McGovern and before Hillary.

The election might have been closer of Hillary had followed her husband's advice but she had more of an uphill battle than many realize.

Sam L. said...

Who knew the flyoverlandia people did not trust the media? And the pollsters? And dang near every talking head on TV? The media, pollsters, and talking heads didn't. Fat, dumb, and happy is no way to go thru life, folks.

Anonymous said...

Hillary's problem is trust. Few may trust her, but everyone knows she's not trustworthy. That's the explanation. She can write books as much or as long as she wants, but the truth is that she is not trustworthy. When people don't believe you, they're not going to like you much, either. Hillary's negatives are sky high. Every time she opened her mouth with an implausible answer, explanation or narrative, it just fell flat. She is the walking embodiment of every negative female stereotype there is. That hurts.


Ares Olympus said...

There's nothing about the gossip is particularly unbelievable, but we should still consider the source. If you make your money digging up dirt, why bother with facts when you can just make things up? Even Hillary-hater Limbaugh questions Klein's gossip.
Klein received extensive criticism for his 2005 biography of Hillary Clinton, The Truth About Hillary. Politico criticized the book for "serious factual errors, truncated and distorted quotes and overall themes [that] don't gibe with any other serious accounts of Clinton's life." The conservative columnist John Podhoretz criticized the book in the New York Post, "Thirty pages into it, I wanted to take a shower. Sixty pages into it, I wanted to be decontaminated. And 200 pages into it, I wanted someone to drive stakes through my eyes so I wouldn't have to suffer through another word." In the National Review, conservative columnist James Geraghty wrote, “Folks, there are plenty of arguments against Hillary Clinton, her policies, her views, her proposals, and her philosophies. This stuff ain’t it. Nobody on the right, left, or center ought to stoop to this level.”

Klein has also come under fire for his use of anonymous quotes, purported to be from the subjects of his books, which he claims he received from anonymous insiders. The credibility of such quotes has been questioned by writers such as Joe Conason, Salon's Simon Malloy and conservative commentators Rush Limbaugh and Peggy Noonan. "Some of the quotes strike me as odd, in the sense that I don't know people who speak this way," Limbaugh said of Klein's work, describing the sources as "grade school chatter."

Ares Olympus said...

Gossip is a tricky thing. Apparently news media can report anonymous sources as long as they also give the official statement as well, and let the public decide which version seems more credible.

In addition to Trump's unrestrained tweet storms and his alleged feuds with his own Cabinet, Trump reportedly vented to his security chief Keith Schiller: "I hate everyone in the White House! There are a few exceptions, but I hate them!"
The White House offered a different version of the story: "The president's mood is good and his outlook on the agenda is very positive," an official reassured.

Maybe Trump is right, and it is all "fake news", and at least we know because he told us pridefully that he invented the word "fake", seemingly because it helps him explain his cognitive dissonance.