The Truth About Hillary

[SillyAmerican]

Just finished reading Ed Klein's book The Truth About Hillary. It appears to be a well researched chronicle of Hillary's life, and is worth a read. (It was published back in 2005).

Wrapping up the book (in a chapter he entitles "Nixon's Disciple"), Klein writes the following:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Any thoughts?

[ProudModerate2]

Garbage.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

Just finished reading Ed Klein's book The Truth About Hillary. It appears to be a well researched chronicle of Hillary's life, and is worth a read. (It was published back in 2005).

Wrapping up the book (in a chapter he entitles "Nixon's Disciple"), Klein writes the following:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Any thoughts?

Irrelevant in an election where her opponent is Donald Trump, who displays all of the traits listed above to the max.

[tinman64]

Meh. Book came out ten years ago. Most people know about her "shenanigans."

[catographer]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Klein

Read the well-sourced section on 'Criticism'.

[RaphaelDLG]

Has anyone ever seen Ed Klein and Dick Morris in the same room at the same time?!?  Methinks conspiracy

[SillyAmerican]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Klein

Read the well-sourced section on 'Criticism'.

Yes, I agree that a good chunk of the book appears to be over the top. I suppose I'll have to dig up the full text of some of the things quoted, to see what's what. (The MediaMatters citations are quite helpful...).

[Fuzzy Bear]

Just finished reading Ed Klein's book The Truth About Hillary. It appears to be a well researched chronicle of Hillary's life, and is worth a read. (It was published back in 2005).

Wrapping up the book (in a chapter he entitles "Nixon's Disciple"), Klein writes the following:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Any thoughts?

I believe that much of what Silly American quoted is how most folks, including many folks who will vote for Hillary, come to view her.

Pat Buchanan is certainly a partisan source, but he once rhetorically asked, "When has Hillary ever been RIGHT?".  And it's a good question.  She got it wrong on healthcare, she got it wrong on Iraq, she got it wrong on Wall Street reform and repealing Glass-Steagall.  It's fine to learn from one's mistakes, and I don't penalize a candidate from learning from the past and from experience, but Hillary's always a day late and a buck short on getting it right.  She's turning left now; that tells me that it's probably time to turn toward the center.  Why should anyone think she's any more ahead of the curve now than at any time before in her life.

[Wells]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Klein

Read the well-sourced section on 'Criticism'.

Yes, I agree that a good chunk of the book appears to be over the top. I suppose I'll have to dig up the full text of some of the things quoted, to see what's what. (The MediaMatters citations are quite helpful...).

That's an understatement.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Truth_About_Hillary

You must be logged in to read this quote.

BTW, there were two MediaMatters citations.

And a question: do you think Chelsea Clinton was conceived during marital rape?

[Gustaf]

Just finished reading Ed Klein's book The Truth About Hillary. It appears to be a well researched chronicle of Hillary's life, and is worth a read. (It was published back in 2005).

Wrapping up the book (in a chapter he entitles "Nixon's Disciple"), Klein writes the following:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Any thoughts?

I believe that much of what Silly American quoted is how most folks, including many folks who will vote for Hillary, come to view her.

Pat Buchanan is certainly a partisan source, but he once rhetorically asked, "When has Hillary ever been RIGHT?".  And it's a good question.  She got it wrong on healthcare, she got it wrong on Iraq, she got it wrong on Wall Street reform and repealing Glass-Steagall.  It's fine to learn from one's mistakes, and I don't penalize a candidate from learning from the past and from experience, but Hillary's always a day late and a buck short on getting it right.  She's turning left now; that tells me that it's probably time to turn toward the center.  Why should anyone think she's any more ahead of the curve now than at any time before in her life.

How did she get it wrong on healthcare?

Not that this is a particularly coherent idea. She was wrong on 3 things so she can't be president?

[BlueSwan]

Let's try to be realistic for one second here. Can we all at least agree that IF Hillary Clinton was a terrible politician and generally terrible person to work with, then most top democratic politicans would know about this?

How, then, would one explain the historically unprecedented levels of support that Hillary Clinton has had from the democratic establishment, giving her a massive lead amongst superdelegates even before the race started?

How would one explain Barack Obama almost demanding of her that she became Secretary Of State at a point in time where he had already won the election and she actually refused his first attempts to convince her?

How would one explain Barack Obama calling her the most qualified person to ever seek the white house and clearly taking great joy in making the case for her bid?

Sure, there is partisanship. Sure the Clintons are a powerful factor in the democratic party. However, the Clintons are also getting old with no heir to their political dynasty (Chelsea seems uninterested). Had Clinton lost this primary bid, it would likely have meant the end of the Clinton dynasty as we know it. If democratic politicans thought that Hillary was awful it seems very very far fetched that they would support her almost unanimously from the beginning.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

These threads just seem to be TRYING REALLY HARD to justify their hatred.

[HAnnA MArin County]

These threads just seem to be TRYING REALLY HARD to justify their hatred.

They know they can't attack her on the issues, so they go after her character.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Just finished reading Ed Klein's book The Truth About Hillary. It appears to be a well researched chronicle of Hillary's life, and is worth a read. (It was published back in 2005).

Wrapping up the book (in a chapter he entitles "Nixon's Disciple"), Klein writes the following:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Any thoughts?

I believe that much of what Silly American quoted is how most folks, including many folks who will vote for Hillary, come to view her.

Pat Buchanan is certainly a partisan source, but he once rhetorically asked, "When has Hillary ever been RIGHT?".  And it's a good question.  She got it wrong on healthcare, she got it wrong on Iraq, she got it wrong on Wall Street reform and repealing Glass-Steagall.  It's fine to learn from one's mistakes, and I don't penalize a candidate from learning from the past and from experience, but Hillary's always a day late and a buck short on getting it right.  She's turning left now; that tells me that it's probably time to turn toward the center.  Why should anyone think she's any more ahead of the curve now than at any time before in her life.

How did she get it wrong on healthcare?

Not that this is a particularly coherent idea. She was wrong on 3 things so she can't be president?

She got it wrong by pushing a plan that would not pass Congress.  One reason the Democrats were lambasted in the 1994 elections was that Healthcare didn't pass.  It's a contradiction, yes; vote for the folks that killed healthcare because the plan didn't pass, but it didn't pass because of miscalculations on Hillary's part (and Bill's part, for that matter).

Partisanship was nowhere near the level it is now in 1994.  The GOP was proposing its own plan, and the 1994 GOP proposal was, pretty much, the same plan that has been the basis for Romneycare and Obamacare.  It wasn't ideal, but it could have been a bi-partisan achievement that could have been tinkered with and built on. 

I would ask Hillary partisans the question:  On what issue was Hillary ahead of the curve?  On what issue has she truly been a leader to where folks can point at her and call her a trailblazer or a visionary?  I don't expect Presidents to be right on everything, but Hillary always seems to get it wrong the first time on major decisions.  Show me where I'm wrong on an issue that emerged while she was in public life.  She didn't exactly shine on the Iraq War (and never seems to be accused on pandering on that issue). 

[SillyAmerican]

Let's try to be realistic for one second here. Can we all at least agree that IF Hillary Clinton was a terrible politician and generally terrible person to work with, then most top democratic politicans would know about this?

How, then, would one explain the historically unprecedented levels of support that Hillary Clinton has had from the democratic establishment, giving her a massive lead amongst superdelegates even before the race started?

How would one explain Barack Obama almost demanding of her that she became Secretary Of State at a point in time where he had already won the election and she actually refused his first attempts to convince her?

How would one explain Barack Obama calling her the most qualified person to ever seek the white house and clearly taking great joy in making the case for her bid?

Sure, there is partisanship. Sure the Clintons are a powerful factor in the democratic party. However, the Clintons are also getting old with no heir to their political dynasty (Chelsea seems uninterested). Had Clinton lost this primary bid, it would likely have meant the end of the Clinton dynasty as we know it. If democratic politicans thought that Hillary was awful it seems very very far fetched that they would support her almost unanimously from the beginning.

I'd actually argue the other way: if Hillary Clinton is so beloved by Democrats, why did it take her so long to secure the nomination from a 74 year old socialist that started out with very little name recognition and very little in the way of organization? Why does the admired Hillary Clinton find it so difficult to win over the support of young voters? And why the apparent necessity to assign all those superdelegates to Mrs. Clinton prior to any primary or caucus taking place?

As to Mr. Obama calling her "the most qualified person to ever seek the white house" and "clearly taking great joy in making the case for her bid", what choice does he have? Yes, within the establishment, the Clinton name goes a long way, and Hillary has enjoyed a base of unshakable support within the ranks of the establishment from the beginning. But if you're going to try to make the case that among the list of top-level names in the Democratic party, that Barack Obama is extremely happy about backing (and would have prefered to be backing) Hillary Clinton over anyone else, I'd respectfully disagree. I believe that the high level of Clinton support really comes down to two simple factors: name recognition (Bill Clinton remains a very popular ex-president), and Hillary's ability to raise money (what Democratic candidate wouldn't want to tap into the Clinton money machine?) Hillary's support has very little to do with any abilities she's displayed as an executive, any laudable successes she's had as a legislator, or any deep felt attachment she enjoys with voters.

That's the way I see it, anyway.

[BlueSwan]

She got it wrong by pushing a plan that would not pass Congress.

Blaming Hillary for being too ambitious and idealistic. Well, she really can't win, can she?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Let's remember for a second that Hillary was new on the national political scene in 1993. Being first lady of Arkansas isn't Washington. She is not new on the scene in 2016.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Possibly, but Obamacare/Romneycare is really a terrible mess of a plan that nobody really likes. Hillarycare, while still far from the European standard of universal public health care, was still far better than Obamacare/Romneycare. I think it is fairly understandable, that democrats coming off a presidential win AND controlling both chambers of congress, were not willing to settle for such a mess of a plan.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Health care? Women's rights?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Same as above? Having said that, I don't think this is what the Hillary Clinton of 2016 is really about. She is about providing competent leadership and gradually moving the country in a progressive direction, which really is the only way that progress is made in democracies. Hillary is a pragmatic politician and usually that is the kind of politican it takes to get things done.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Regarding the Iraq war, let's remember that she didn't actually support the war.

[BlueSwan]

I'd actually argue the other way: if Hillary Clinton is so beloved by Democrats, why did it take her so long to secure the nomination from a 74 year old socialist that started out with very little name recognition and very little in the way of organization? Why does the admired Hillary Clinton find it so difficult to win over the support of young voters? And why the apparent necessity to assign all those superdelegates to Mrs. Clinton prior to any primary or caucus taking place?

Your not really answering my assertion, which had everything to do with the people in the know (superdelegates) and not with the public. Besides there are plenty of answers to that question and none of which have anything to do with Clintons abilities as a politican in office. Clinton is the type of politican you want in office, not on the campaign trail. She's not a demagogue.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I call BS on this. There are many ways to endorse a candidate. Obviously Obama was always going to endorse the democratic candidate, but do you honestly think he doesn't mean what he says here? He's taking very obvious delight in championing Hillary. You also ignored the fact that he insisted on making her SOS even if she didn't want the job.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, this sounds like wishful thinking to me. You are not looking at the actual facts infront of you. This is like the r/sanders4president poster who came up with this huge conspiracy theory about how Obama really wanted Clinton to be indicted so he could back the person he really wanted to back, which was Sanders.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Not very credible source.

While I agree that Hillary got a number of flaws, in the light of what the alternative is, I'd take it.

[skoods]

You must be logged in to read this quote.