• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

It’s Time for Hillary Clinton to Bow Out of Public Life, Along with All Other Women

  • Thread starter Deleted member 80556
  • Start date
One thing that's kind of unique about Clinton is that she's had an air of inevitability going on 12 years now, and that's kind of off-putting.

Most failed candidates go back to their day jobs; Clinton's day job is running for president, at this point.
Huh? "Unique?" Because she tried... twice to be President? There ain't nothin' unique about that. Diamond Joe Biden did the same thing, yet no one says the same thing about him, about the whole inevitability thing (and many still would be happy to have him run, even with that). Not to mention the any number of Republican candidates that pretty much make a living off of campaigning for the Presidency every 4 years or so to sell books and stuff, which no one really seems to care about much either way. The only difference is how people treated it and reacted when Clinton did it compared to every other politician who had made multiple bids. Wonder what the difference is, that lead to those different reactions, and how it relates to this piece... Hmm...
 
I can't remember the last time someone lost a primary and then ran in the next cycle. It's unheard of!
The last time a primary retread candidate won was George HW Bush and he was a one-termer.

96 - Bob Dole (1980), lost
00 - Al Gore (1988), lost
08 - John McCain (2000), lost
12 - Mitt Romney (2008), lost
16 - Hillary Clinton (2008), lost

You may want to rethink your snark, champ.
 

Neoweee

Member
The last time a primary retread candidate won was George HW Bush and he was a one-termer.

96 - Bob Dole (1976), lost
00 - Al Gore (1988), lost
08 - John McCain (2000), lost
12 - Mitt Romney (2008), lost
16 - Hillary Clinton (2008), lost

You may want to rethink your snark, champ.

But if you expand it at all before that before that, it looks a lot different. Reagan tried to primary Ford, but then won (two terms). Nixon lost to Kennedy, and then later won (two terms).
 

shamanick

Member
The last time a primary retread candidate won was George HW Bush and he was a one-termer.

96 - Bob Dole (1980), lost
00 - Al Gore (1988), lost
08 - John McCain (2000), lost
12 - Mitt Romney (2008), lost
16 - Hillary Clinton (2008), lost

You may want to rethink your snark, champ.

I'm well aware of the campaigns from 92-on. It's still hilarious that the big punchline to this piece is Sanders running for president (gasp) again when it's exactly what Clinton did

Huh? "Unique?" Because she tried... twice to be President? There ain't nothin' unique about that. Diamond Joe Biden did the same thing, yet no one says the same thing about him, about the whole inevitability thing (and many still would be happy to have him run, even with that). Not to mention the any number of Republican candidates that pretty much make a living off of campaigning for the Presidency every 4 years or so to sell books and stuff, which no one really seems to care about much either way. The only difference is how people treated it and reacted when Clinton did it compared to every other politician who had made multiple bids. Wonder what the difference is, that lead to those different reactions, and how it relates to this piece... Hmm...

some of us were politically aware in the 90s and we have very good reasons to not want another Clinton in the WH. It's easier to cover yourself with accusations of sexism though, so go for it
 
Real Talk,

Clinton had a higher approval rating as a Senator than Trump has had as President.

Y'all acting like she's not liked at all can FOH.
 
I'm well aware of the campaigns from 92-on. It's still hilarious that the big punchline to this piece is Sanders running for president (gasp) again when it's exactly what Clinton did



some of us were politically aware in the 90s and we have very good reasons to not want another Clinton in the WH. It's easier to cover yourself with accusations of sexism though, so go for it

Yes, exactly what Clinton did and failed at. But Bernie will succeed because he's got some vestige of a penis.

thatsthejoke.jpg
 
D

Deleted member 80556

Unconfirmed Member
But if you expand it at all before that before that, it looks a lot different. Reagan tried to primary Ford, but then won (two terms). Nixon lost to Kennedy, and then later won (two terms).

I can't speak about Reagan, but Nixon served as Vicepresident for 8 years. Plus Robert Kennedy was assassinated during the Democratic primaries, plus the DNC riots, so it's not like he had a very tough fight ahead.
 

Joe T.

Member
This isn't exactly all that clever a satire piece and, the internet being what it is at this point in time, I have no doubt some people will read more into it than need be. I wasn't a Hillary supporter, not in 2016 anyway, but that headline alone made me want to slap the author silly, joke or not.
 
The last time a primary retread candidate won was George HW Bush and he was a one-termer.

96 - Bob Dole (1980), lost
00 - Al Gore (1988), lost
08 - John McCain (2000), lost
12 - Mitt Romney (2008), lost
16 - Hillary Clinton (2008), lost

You may want to rethink your snark, champ.

There is nothing to conclude from these without alluring to magical thinking.
 

kirblar

Member
But if you expand it at all before that before that, it looks a lot different. Reagan tried to primary Ford, but then won (two terms). Nixon lost to Kennedy, and then later won (two terms).
It's only ever worked on the GOP side.

The parties don't behave the same way - the "fall in line" part is related to this, as is the "first loser last time is the next frontrunner" thing.
 

kirblar

Member
I'm well aware of the campaigns from 92-on. It's still hilarious that the big punchline to this piece is Sanders running for president (gasp) again when it's exactly what Clinton did
Arguing for Sanders to run again is learning the exact wrong lesson from what Clinton did.
 

ApharmdX

Banned
If she rallies donors around a new, more progressive, better candidate, is that nothing constructive she can offer?

Hillary could absolutely do that, and I hope she does in order to end this disaster of an administration in 2020, but I wouldn't think she'd need a public presence to rally donors.
 
Satire is supposed to be funny, right? If so, this article is one of the worst failures of 2017 already and we're only halfway through.

I continue to be baffled by the constant defending of Hillary after she blew the most winnable election in American history. Did people ever defend Al Gore and John Kerry like this?
 

MIMIC

Banned
Is the author talking to liberal men, or all men? Because Sarah Palin wasn't summarily rejected from the public eye.
 

datbapple

Banned
At a very base level, nobody wants someone constantly hanging around trying again and again for a position. This is not an athlete chasing a ring, or Olympic medal, the optics are different! Unfortunately public perception is important no matter how dumb we may all think that mentality is.

Disclaimer for HilGaf: Before anyone wants to ride that "sexism" wave; I'm a black dude that voted for her, even when she probably would not have done as much for me and my kin as bernie could have. I am an adult that did not pick the foolish option of "not voting" and voting third party, or having some bullshit notion her and trump were the same.

I also want to take this opportunity to share this link that I found changed my perception about the debates. They had the genders swapped, with a male reading hillary's words and a woman for trump.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZYuLFJfKLI

When I watched this I was actually surprised at how much I found the role reversal unmasked how poorly hillary's message was when it was coming from a dudes mouth. The "go look/buy my book" response had me shaking my head in disbelief.

She was, and IS still better than the devil we got, but it is time to move on to someone else. I have said that before in another thread, and I hope this helps some of you understand why people like me want her to get gone and stay gone, for the good of the party.
 

Kettch

Member
Clinton won by 3 million votes, but against a candidate like Trump, one of the most disliked in history, it should not have been that close to begin with. Yes, there were many forces against her, and there will be many forces against the next democratic candidate as well. Let's be sure to nominate someone who can adequately defend themselves next time.

I have nothing against Clinton. I think she would have been a wonderful president, and I have absolutely no problem with whatever she decides to do moving forward. I'm not a fan of other people making excuses for her loss though. She was clearly not a good candidate and we need to do better, not whine about how the other side is being mean or that we got unlucky with the vote spread.
 

FiggyCal

Banned
Satire is supposed to be funny, right? If so, this article is one of the worst failures of 2017 already and we're only halfway through.

I continue to be baffled by the constant defending of Hillary after she blew the most winnable election in American history. Did people ever defend Al Gore and John Kerry like this?

I guess satire doesn't have to be funny. I think it's clear the author was trying his best though; with the punchline being the concluding paragraph.
 
I continue to be baffled by the constant defending of Hillary after she blew the most winnable election in American history. Did people ever defend Al Gore and John Kerry like this?

You already know the answer to that question. It's truly fascinating; on the GOP side, you didn't see anything like this for Bush I, Dole, McCain, or Romney, either.
 
because she and her staff ran a terrible campaign that lost to a sexist, race bating, lying pig by failing to take him seriously as a challenger

And just to think that Sanders lost to her. We are doing this again, right? I mean I know it is fucking nearly August of 2017, but lets go in.

I continue to be baffled by the constant defending of Hillary after she blew the most winnable election in American history. Did people ever defend Al Gore and John Kerry like this?

I don't know, when did people stop trying to take giant shits on Al Gore and John Kerry?
 
Satire is supposed to be funny, right? If so, this article is one of the worst failures of 2017 already and we're only halfway through.

I continue to be baffled by the constant defending of Hillary after she blew the most winnable election in American history. Did people ever defend Al Gore and John Kerry like this?

The least surprising post in this entire thread already
 

kirblar

Member
You already know the answer to that question. It's truly fascinating; on the GOP side, you didn't see anything like this for Bush I, Dole, McCain, or Romney, either.
The GOP is having quite a bit of infighting right now as well!

The VA Governor's race is a mess.
 

FiggyCal

Banned
One can support Clinton when the choice was between her and Sanders while still wishing she had bowed out of the process beforehand.

Yes. I think she was the most qualified out of the other candidates. But I also meant just as a citizen - who was more qualified than her?

But I guess I'm just not sure what the lesson we were supposed to learn from the last election was - especially if we exclude Bernie. That probably reflects poorly on me.
 

shamanick

Member
People still refuse to blame the white people that elected this man into office.

For sure the Trump voters are to blame. It's also reasonable to expect that the candidate who lost would take some type of responsibility other than a throwaway line in one interview. It frustrates folks who see this campaign completely passing the buck. It's wise to learn from campaign mistakes. It's also frustrating that some folks who supported this campaign brush off any criticism as sexism, which this piece is a stark reminder.
 

SlimySnake

Flashless at the Golden Globes
We know that's the name of the game though. Why did Clinton lose all of those counties that previously went to Obama? Genuine question.

Because maybe Obama didnt do much for them. Sure the economy improved and more people have health care but that's mostly true for bigger cities. All those manufacturing jobs just kept leaving under Obama and he didnt do much to prevent it. Hillary looked at his approval numbers and presented herself as more of the same, but those counties likely felt abandoned by Obama and punished her for it. Just my guess.

Obama had 8 years to help out those dying towns and aside from the auto bailout early on in his first term, i dont remember what he did to retain those votes. Hell he pretty much sat by and watched Republicans gut collective bargaining in most midwestern states. Both Hillary and Obama should've gotten together after 2012 and introduced plans to save Manufacturing jobs and other factories to make sure those votes remained a lock. You pretty much have to buy those votes. Dems better start creating legislations to bring jobs back to those counties or it will be a repeat of 2016.
 

kirblar

Member
Yes. I think she was the most qualified out of the other candidates. But I also meant just as a citizen - who was more qualified than her?

But I guess I'm just not sure what the lesson we were supposed to learn from the last election was - especially if we exclude Bernie. That probably reflects poorly on me.
Retread candidates go very poorly for Dems. There's an anti-authoritarian/establishment element to the party (and also to a lesser degree in the overall electorate) that really doesn't like being "told what to do."

Obama himself likely would have won a third term. Unfortunately, the knee-jerk post-FDR amendment exists that prevented us from maintaining a popular young president.
 

Morrigan Stark

Arrogant Smirk
That's some damn good satire.

Satire is supposed to be funny, right? If so, this article is one of the worst failures of 2017 already and we're only halfway through.

I continue to be baffled by the constant defending of Hillary after she blew the most winnable election in American history. Did people ever defend Al Gore and John Kerry like this?
Uh, the whole point of that satirical piece is to show the double standards, because Al Gore and John Kerry (and McCain and others who lost the presidency) have never been vilified to the extent that Clinton has, and no one vociferously demanded they leave public life for good, unlike Clinton.

I mean, you can think satire is funny or not, but obviously you won't when the very obvious point is whooshing over your head...
 

JWiLL

Banned
Do people truly like Hillary though? Do they REALLY believe she was the best candidate? If so, why?

I'd urge all those "yas queen"ers to go read some of the stories former Secret Service agents wrote (one literally wrote an entire book) about working with the Clintons.

The TLDR of them is: Bill is genuinely a nice guy, but sleezy. Hillary, on the other hand, is a 2-faced raging sociopath.

She's definitely not Trump, which is fantastic, but she has a long history of being a horrible person in private before putting on her fake smile for the cameras and constantly shifting opinions to win over a crowd.

I know this story is satire...but she really does need to go away, for the good of the democratic party. Her family has enough money to live quietly away from the spotlight. Let some fresh faces take over.

It has nothing to do with her being a woman, people are just tired of the Clintons.
 
Top Bottom