Hillary Clinton’s book of sour grapes?
From the description at The Hill, this sounds like a book of sour grapes, in which HRC blames everyone and everything else for her loss: James Comey, the Russians, sexism and misogyny.
Even Chuck Schumer is pulling away from this. Seems like he has come to realize that famous political advice from the past, like “it’s the economy, stupid” and “jobs jobs jobs” are still true. A campaign based on climate change, transgender rights and breaking the glass ceiling, isn’t going to inspire anyone to come out to the polls except for SJWs, and there aren’t enough SJWs to make up for the loss of proles.
Lion of the Blogosphere 
She’s just writing for the history books, so Schumer’s concerns (winning in the present environment) aren’t relevant to her.
Richard
July 26, 2017 at 10:25 AM
Hillary hasn’t given up on the limelight just yet. 99.9% chance she won’t run in 2020, but she hasn’t accepted reality just yet.
Sid
July 26, 2017 at 12:36 PM
>>99.9% chance she won’t run in 2020,
I say at this point, there is a 99% chance that she will run. Sounds crazy but she is crazy. She wants that prize more than anybody wants anything in this world.
If she keeps her marbles and doesn’t slip into dementia and she portrays robust health, she is running.
Daniel
July 26, 2017 at 6:03 PM
I appreciate your argument, but I don’t think Hillary will be able to run again, no matter how bad she wants it, and here are my three reasons:
1. As you alluded to, her health is a major issue. During the campaign she took days and days off, while Trump went from stump to stump. She had a collapse on September 11th of 2016. She also made outrageously stupid statements. Sure, the media covered for her last time, but when you’re 69, you don’t spring back into youth in four years. Her health will be even more of an issue in 2020 if she thinks about running.
2. An American political norm is that if you were a candidate in one presidential election cycle, you can run again for president. If you were the party’s nominee and lost, though, you don’t get a second chance. The last guy who pulled it off was Nixon in 1960 and 1968, but Nixon was young enough to pull it off, and no one has succeeded in doing that in nearly 50 years. Hillary isn’t young.
3. No one but her lackeys like her, and I’m sure they just keep their doubts bottled up. She will have a hard time getting back her donors (which for a bland, conventional politician like Hillary are essential) and the only time her voters genuinely pined for her to win was when she lost to Trump. She and Bill Clinton MIGHT be able to keep enough support within the DNC for her. Still, Trump threw water on this Wicked Witch, and I doubt the flying monkeys at the DNC still fear her the same way they used to.
Sid
July 26, 2017 at 8:31 PM
@ Daniel
> she portrays robust health
She couldn’t portray robust health this time around.
ScarletNumber
July 26, 2017 at 10:37 PM
99.9% chance she won’t run in 2020, but she hasn’t accepted reality just yet.
Don’t be so sure. The current field of Democrats is weak enough that Hillary’s power over the DNC machinery could swing the primaries to her again. If doctor’s can keep her in stasis long enough I’d expect her to try again.
The Undiscovered Jew
July 26, 2017 at 2:53 PM
Current field of Democrats is great. It is time to dispel with the fiction that the Democrats do not have a strong bench. The Democrats have a very strong bench.
Gillibrand, Duckworth, Biden or Booker would all be phenomenal candidates.
Hillary isn’t running again.
Otis the Sweaty
July 26, 2017 at 4:16 PM
Gillibrand, Duckworth, Biden or Booker would all be phenomenal candidates.
Not against Hillary.
The Undiscovered Jew
July 26, 2017 at 5:28 PM
I think Biden is now too old to run in 2020, but I otherwise agree with Otis’ list. Add Kamala Harris too. I don’t think those candidates could’ve overcome Hillary in 2016, but people are going to want fresh talent in 2020, so Hillary won’t be able to beat them.
Howard Schultz could probably pull it off. Mark Zuckerberg might too if he focuses on his communication skills and two or three defining issues he’ll focus on.
Trump can still beat all of these potential nominees in 2020 if the economy is strong and he hasn’t gotten into any new wars in the Middle East. If Oprah Winfrey decides to run, however, he’s toast. It’s not even funny how easily she would win. For all our talk about 4D chess and persuasion, Oprah Winfrey has those skills tenfold over Trump. And unlike Trump, who has also drawn scorn and derision to himself his whole life, everyone you’ll meet has a favorable impression of Oprah.
Sid
July 26, 2017 at 8:45 PM
but people are going to want fresh talent in 2020, so Hillary won’t be able to beat them.
Only true in terms of voter appeal. But the will of the voter isn’t a high priority in DNC politics. The DNC is a rigged machine and Hillary still has too many gremlins running the inner gears for an outsider Democrat to dismiss her.
The Undiscovered Jew
July 26, 2017 at 10:15 PM
…this sounds like a book of sour grapes, in which HRC blames everyone and everything else for her loss: ……sexism and misogyny.
Interesting that it is sexism and misogyny when she loses to a successful billionaire White man.
But when a black male nobody with no resume of significance beats her for the 2008 nomination – no sexism and misogyny there?
Rifleman
July 26, 2017 at 3:51 PM
Rock paper scissors. In the social justice hierarchy, a black closeted homosexual man beats a white bisexual woman. It’s close. But his race edges out her gender. Hillary knows better than to touch that one, Her husband made that mistake.
destructure
July 26, 2017 at 4:46 PM
“She’s just writing for the history books”
How many are going to remember Walter Mondale, Mike Dukakis, or John McCain? I suppose Hillary may get some historical traction based on the dynasty issue.
In terms of motivation, I would guess that the book was actually written by some ass-kissing sycophants trying to butter her up in hopes of landing a sweet no-show job at the Clinton Foundation.
fortaleza84
July 26, 2017 at 5:55 PM
I live in California and Upton Sinclair’s failed run for governor in 1934 as an avowed socialist still gets teary-eyed encomiums from left wing historians. If Hillary wants to be remembered by history she’d be wise to push the sexist, “we wuz robbed” narrative because the people most sympathetic to that version of history will probably be writing the history books that get approved on academic reading lists.
Richard
July 26, 2017 at 8:22 PM
because the people most sympathetic to that version of history will probably be writing the history books that get approved on academic reading lists.
A reality dumbass Rs can never seem to appreciate and act on.
Curle
July 27, 2017 at 9:26 AM
Lion,
Trump bans trans!! I’m excited to hear your take. This is great news. He’s standing up to at least some elements of the Left.
JerseGuy
July 26, 2017 at 10:47 AM
Look for Hollywood to make a movie on how transgender soldiers played a pivotal role in the Battle of the Bulge.
Lewis Medlock
July 26, 2017 at 11:44 AM
George and Martha Washington were actual the same person. He/she was both the Father and the Mother of our country.
Jimbonobo
July 26, 2017 at 2:02 PM
They have somebody in the form of a transsexual kook who supposedly was in the group of Navy SEALS who killed Bin Laden.
Rifleman
July 26, 2017 at 3:48 PM
Was just going to post the same thing. I’m guessing Twisher has already melted down with this Outrage du Jour. What a world, when a 100% perfectly sensible decision will cause howls of protest.
peterike
July 26, 2017 at 12:32 PM
I support the ban. But I’m thinking that individuals aren’t so much banned as the behavior. They can still enlist as long as they don’t dress in drag and take hormone injections. Obama had the military paying for sex change surgeries and hormone injections. Needless to say, trannies were using the military as a way to get free elective surgery. Queers were doing a similar thing during DADT. They would join the military to go to medical school and, as soon as they’d become doctors, they’d come out of the closet to get discharged. It really is amazing how skillful these allegedly discriminated groups (ie feminists, minorities, homos, etc) are at looting taxpayers and businesses. Dems are a coalition of grifters.
destructure
July 26, 2017 at 1:42 PM
Right. I don’t care if a Marine thinks he’s a girl deep down if he does his job. But US tax dollars sure as hell shouldn’t go into those despicable, absolutely barbaric surgeries and hormone therapies.
Sid
July 26, 2017 at 2:49 PM
“Needless to say, trannies were using the military as a way to get free elective surgery.”
That was really the entire purpose of letting them in. If you figure with the requirements for counseling, and hormones, before the surgery,none of those soldiers would have ever deployed. They would have gotten the surgery and gotten out.
Mike Street Station
July 26, 2017 at 9:32 PM
How can crooked Hillary blame misogyny when she won the popular vote! There is more justification for Trump to blame misandry for his losing the popular vote.
Mark Caplan
July 26, 2017 at 11:20 AM
Some number of people didn’t vote for her because she is female. Nobody knows what that number is for each state but it’s reasonable to hypothesize that it’s greater than the margin by which she lost in the critical states she lost, so that’s how she can blame misogyny.
Of course, some people voted in her favor because she is female.
On balance, I would guess that a man who was equally uncharismatic would have still lost.
fortaleza84
July 26, 2017 at 5:44 PM
LOL
Only SWPLs will bother reading all the excuses, err the book. It’s still white people’s fault.
Mario Cumo
July 26, 2017 at 11:48 AM
This isn’t the 90s. “Jobs Jobs Jobs” isn’t the answer anymore. Trump did not campaign on a Jobs platform, he campaigned on an Anti Liberal platform.
In any Trump district or state where a Dem attempts to run on a Jobs platform, all their Republican opponent needs to say is “Islam, BLM, immigration” and that will be that.
Hillary won the popular vote. The Dems current coalition of SWPLs and minorities is a political winner *if* they can hold on to the Romney-Hillary voters gained in 2016. Macron in France and Merkel in Germany have shown the way: social liberalism and economic conservatism. The worst thing that the Dems could do is attempt to become more populist economically because all that will do is scare off centrist whites.
Otis the Sweaty
July 26, 2017 at 12:43 PM
I think Democrats can run on climate change, but the problem is that the issue only appeals to SWPLs. Proles and NAMs don’t care about it at all.
The Democrats actually could run on a formidable agenda if they focused on creating a single-payer healthcare system, a responsible way for reducing student loan debt, and other issues Bernie ran on. Granted, they don’t necessarily need to copy his policy proposals, but they could win back white proles and the white middle class if they addressed those problems with smart ideas.
The problem, though, is that the Democratic Party is dominated by its rich, globalist donors, and its poor NAM constituencies. The donors wouldn’t benefit from a populist agenda, or even a technocratic one that would lower the cost of medicine and education for Middle America.
Blacks don’t want cheaper healthcare and education. Because of Medicaid, Affirmative Action, and education grants, healthcare and education is nearly free for them anyway, so why should they want to share the goodies with white proles?
So instead, the Democrats will continue to try to “resist” the Trump agenda and hope America turns into a minority-majority country the way California is. In which case, they can joy ransacking the country as a single-party state and hand out gibmedats to their donors and constituencies until the whole racket comes crashing down.
Sid
July 26, 2017 at 1:01 PM
Schumer is politically savvy. He was worried that Trump would lead with infrastructure and transcend partisanship.
Luckily for him, Trump and Paul Ryan are busy working on an agenda no one cares about: Obamacare repeal, more tax cuts, transgender issues, etc. If Trump does get to infrastructure it’ll be some weird public-private scheme with toll roads that Americans don’t really want.
Jimi
July 26, 2017 at 2:14 PM
Here’s a reason why the run in the mill liberal is a delusional loser, because they are absolutely appaling when it comes to math:
The NYC’s Liberal educational establishment blames failing NYC’s public schools on racial segregation, when more than 67% of the schools are black and Latino, and Whites comprise only less than 15% of the student population.
http://nypost.com/2017/01/05/the-trouble-with-desegregating-new-yorks-schools/
If you add the numbers, there are simply not enough White kids to integrate with the black and Hispanic kids in the schools to lessen the inequality. The only public schools that have a White majority are in the outlying prole area of Staten Island and in the outlying wealthy semi-island of Belle Harbor, Queens, and they aren’t any city-wide forced busing or forced integregation in place, simply because again, there aren’t enough White kids in the public schools to make this happen.
JS
July 26, 2017 at 2:52 PM
The only thing that integration does is chase out the productive workers. People won’t stay in a city where their children are going to be racially abused.
destructure
July 26, 2017 at 5:08 PM
In NYC, wealthy White liberals send their kids to private schools, and thus the paucity of White kids in the public schools. Proles are a minority in NYC.
JS
July 26, 2017 at 10:11 PM
White liberals aren’t losers. They dominate the universities, the prestige press, nonprofits, and museums. Conservatives keep talking about Western civilization but all the high arts such as opera, ballet, literary reviews, and such are dominated by liberals. Liberals have such power that the country moves to the left even as the entire government is controlled by the Republican party.
Conservatives are the losers in USA society. We have to rely on a crazy mediocrity like Trump because we have no one better. On cultural issues we sit on the sidelines for the opportunity to point out the hypocrisy and contradictions of the liberal ascendancy. Meanwhile liberals are slowly but surely molding the country to their vision.
Jimi
July 26, 2017 at 6:34 PM
They aren’t dominated by Liberals by virtue of Liberalism itself having virtue. Liberalism only dominates because the innate gifts of upper class whites & the society they have inherited from generations of more sensible ancestors.
Panther of the Blogocube
July 26, 2017 at 8:42 PM
Yes and no, but most White liberals are middle class in the likes of SJWs, not the tenured academic, and certainly not the college president who bank an annual $1 mil salary.
JS
July 26, 2017 at 10:07 PM
People are beginning to realize SJW’s don’t actually exist in that big of number, they are just really loud and make a lot of noise. I suspect in the near future businesses and politicians will be less afraid of them and what they think of them. Generation-Z seems to have less SJW’s then the previous one, so maybe the tides can turn a bit.
Yup
July 26, 2017 at 4:23 PM
For every SJW there are 10 proles.
Lion of the Blogosphere
July 26, 2017 at 4:39 PM
more like 1000. strident ‘sjws’ are phantom menaces in the internet ideology wars that comprise the same few thousand people on reddit, 4chan and tumblr
james n.s.w
July 26, 2017 at 6:48 PM
“more like 1000. strident ‘sjws’ are phantom menaces in the internet ideology wars that comprise the same few thousand people on reddit, 4chan and tumblr”
Maybe, but they control the culture and the media. The leading news story tonight on NBC News was the transgender story. It’s totally unimportant compared to everything else but to the media, it was the most important story of the day.
Mike Street Station
July 26, 2017 at 9:36 PM
Here’s a post by an idiot SJW (who helped turn his website from being funny if juvenile to an unreadable social justice fest) writing about how deplorable Gen-Z is turning out: http://www.cracked.com/blog/7-reasons-were-quietly-letting-racists-win/
Sid
July 26, 2017 at 5:14 PM
SJWs are prominent in the mind management fields of advertising, education, and the media so it’s not just a matter of pure numbers. There aren’t that many of them but they still have a great deal of influence.
Lewis Medlock
July 26, 2017 at 7:19 PM
I agree. I know many crazy conspiracy types believe that the media is getting orders from the top down to basically be a machine that promotes SJWism. However, I think that most people who get into media are mentally different than someone who gets into a technology career. I just think that being in media/arts/entertainment draws in human beings who are more accepting of others.
I think while SJWism is really bad for the USA, SJW types are a reason why the USA and Europe have been successful. They are people of high empathy and are a reason that Western Europe and the USA did so well as societies. Although their politics are destructive to these nations, they themselves are important to the country.
Yup
July 27, 2017 at 4:30 AM
.”For every SJW there are 10 proles”.
A lot millennial proles who voted for Bernie Sanders, are liberal, middle class, but not full blown SJWs. Most NAMs did not vote for Bernie Sanders.
The millennial proles who voted for Trump were either disenfranchised or nazi types.
You’ll see, this trend shows most young White Americans are inadvertently voting for a White identity, the kind of voting patterns you find in Europe, where unlike the US, NAMs are not part of the equation. Without NAMs, the US would be like Canada and much of Europe.
JS
July 26, 2017 at 10:39 PM
The Democrats are going to have serious issues settling on candidates for high office.
All white males will be out of consideration, possibly forever. Trying to keep together all of their disparate grievance groups will prove impossible for the next few Presidential elections.
If you thought black turnout was laggy for Hilary, wait til they run Elizabeth Warren.
Camlost
July 26, 2017 at 8:35 PM