- The American Conservative - http://www.theamericanconservative.com -

‘What Happened’? Hillary Cherry-Picks Through Historic Loss

What Happened, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Simon & Schuster, 512 pages. [1]

On Election Day 2016, Hillary Clinton garnered a 2.86 million vote plurality, but Donald Trump won the presidency. In its aftermath, America stands bitterly divided, Trump continues to tweet away, and Clinton mourns her fate, punting on her possible use of Xanax, even as she occasionally indulges in a glass of chardonnay. Her words, not mine.

Instead of delivering an inaugural address, the former senator, secretary of state and first lady has been left to write What Happened, in which she vents, emotes, settles scores, and delivers a thank you to her supporters. Most of all, Clinton attempts to come to grips with reality, while relitigating the campaign and its outcome.

Call it Clinton unbound and unguarded. What Happened is self-revelatory, and at times mordantly humorous. Although the candidate’s pain is plainly there for us to see, it does not elicit schadenfreude from the reader.


On one level, Clinton is understandably unapologetic for her loss. Whatever could go wrong, went wrong. There was Bernie Sanders and his “bros”; James Comey and his letters; Carlos Danger and his selfies; Julian Assange and his Wikileaks; and Russia’s Vladimir Putin, he who reigns in the Kremlin as Satan might rule in Hell. It is a tableau befitting Mardi Gras or a Boschian landscape, not an American presidential election

Yet, What Happened is not as politically insightful as it might have been. The book fails to demonstrate that Clinton absorbed Election Day’s biggest lessons: The white working class—nearly a third of the electorate—was still reeling from the Great Recession when it went to the polls, and the Trump Campaign was actually a movement of forgotten and neglected working Americans. The fact is that white Americans lost more than 700,000 jobs between November 2007 and late 2016.

First and foremost, Trump’s electoral win was about dyspeptic dad thundering, and the elites of both parties being forced to confront the reality that the American body politic was comprised of more than just coastal elites, the inner city, or both parties’ donor bases. Even the unfashionable had a right to vote, and this time they actually did.

While New York City and Silicon Valley had plenty to smile about as the economy recovered from the Great Recession, the stories from rural Ohio and Western Pennsylvania were markedly different. For the first time since 1993, American life expectancy had declined, driven by a jump in the mortality rates for middle-age and non-college graduate whites. Charles Murray’s imagined Fishtown from Coming Apart was no longer just an intellectual construct. It had become an opioid- and alcohol-fueled path to nowhere.

Unfortunately, What Happened makes no mention of how free trade created a whole population of left-behind Americans, Bill Clinton’s role in driving the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), or Hillary’s hand in crafting the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). At best, Clinton chalks up working-class decline to globalization and automation. But as a savvy politician knows, that’s not enough.

In case anyone forgot, President Clinton made NAFTA Exhibit A in his successful bid to demonstrate that he was a New Democrat. As luck would have it, Hillary Clinton was forced to [2] ingloriously abandon the stillborn TPP in the face of Democratic opposition. Calamities deserve empathy, and here Clinton came up short. As Clinton writes, “I do recognize that my campaign in 2016 lacked the urgency and passion that I remember from 1992.”

Likewise, Clinton drew no causal link between Obamacare and how it cost the Democrats both houses of Congress, and a record number of governorships. Reliably Democratic Illinois, Massachusetts, and Maryland all have Republican Governors. Much as Obamacare repeal has turned into a Republican albatross in 2017, it never was a political gift to the Democrats.

The party led by Obama lost the House in 2010 and the Senate in 2014. It was only then, but not before, that Sen. Chuck Schumer owned up to what most observers were thinking—namely that Obamacare was a political mistake, and that the Democrats’ obsession with healthcare translated into neglect of the middle class. As Schumer conceded, the Democrats focus on “the wrong problem” had cost the party dearly. As he put it, “we took [the public’s] mandate and put all our focus on the wrong problem—health care reform…When Democrats focused on health care, the average middle-class person thought, ‘The Democrats aren’t paying enough attention to me.’” In that sense, Clinton’s defeat two years later was just another point in a miserable continuum. But as we all know, it wasn’t just about Obamacare.

Adding to Clinton’s woes was our cultural divide, and here Clinton did all she could do to throw gasoline on an already combustible pyre. While Bill Clinton could feel America’s pain and Trump knew how stoke its fears, Clinton, circa 2016, could only play the critic. Gone were the days of the 2008 Democratic primaries, when Clinton embraced the role of beer-track champion.

This time out, Clinton told Ohioans that “we’re going to put a lot of coal miners and companies out of business.” At a tony Wall Street fundraiser, Clinton lashed as out at Trump supporters as “deplorables.” On that score, What Happened contains a lengthy attempt to explain away Clinton’s remarks about coal, but only offers a meager and half-hearted apology for denigrating Trump’s base. The disparity between the two is telling.

But Clinton finding herself on the short end of 2016’s culture war was not simply the result of unforced errors. Rather, it was the product of Clinton’s convictions, and the logical result of Clinton’s worship at the twin altars of identity politics and political correctness [3]. When it came to paying obeisance to the Catechism of the Coalition of the Ascendant, no item was too small for Clinton to ignore.

What Happened contains Clinton’s self-congratulatory musings for having the first presidential campaign to hire a chief diversity officer. It also memorializes her embrace of the Left’s latest doctrinal craze—intersectionality, in which an offense to one segment of the Democrats’ demographic base, no matter how microscopic or trivial, constituted a potential offense against all. Viewed against the decline in minority community turnout and support for Clinton, this was clearly not the path to 270 electoral votes.

Clinton also takes a bow for her campaign’s kickoff web video, which featured a montage of the Democrats’ voting coalition—that is Millennials, women, minorities, and a same-sex couple, but one that had no place for police and firefighters. Things have definitely changed. Back in 2008 [4], Clinton aimed to make communities “secure and safe,” called for 100,000 more cops, vowed to take on “the menace of meth,” and pledged to cut the murder rate of certain cities in half. Not any more.

Indeed, it is at the intersection of crime and political correctness where Clinton demonstrates how far the Democratic Party has travelled since then-Governor Bill Clinton stepped off the 1992 campaign trail to oversee the execution of Ricky Ray Rector, the self-lobotomized cop killer. What Happened also records Clinton’s conversations with Lezley McSpadden, mother of the late Michael Brown, but omits any context surrounding Brown’s death, which resulted in riots in the suburbs of St. Louis in 2014.

Clinton neglects to mention that Brown was shot by the police [5] after he had lunged for Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson’s gun. Likewise, she leaves out the part of Brown having tussled with a convenience store owner. Regardless, Clinton gets it right as she observes that “by nearly every measure, the Democratic Party has moved to the left over the past fifteen years, not the right,” which is not necessarily a good thing. The country could use a reasoned and powerful voice from the center.

Embarking on what would become her final candidacy, Clinton also lost sight of the electorate’s disdain for dynastic politics. Clinton was not the one-time frontrunner whose candidacy would ultimately fail, or whose slog toward the nomination would be anything but a coronation. Florida’s Jeb Bush fell flat, albeit without same the time, drama, and angst. After spending over $150 million, winning a grand total of three delegates, and losing every primary contest, Bush dropped out of the running on February 20.

Against this backdrop, the relative success of Sen. Sanders’ prolonged attempt to wrest the Democratic nomination away from Clinton should not have shocked her, but it apparently did. To put things in perspective, if Minnesota’s Sen. Eugene McCarthy could have forced President Lyndon B. Johnson out of the 1968 presidential race, and former White House speechwriter Pat Buchanan could have put a dent in President George H.W. Bush’s 1992 reelection effort, then Clinton had no right to expect a free pass.

Parenthetically and without a trace of irony, What Happened recalls the first Democratic presidential campaign Clinton worked on was Gene McCarthy’s. Suffice it to say, Clinton does not even try to explain away how McCarthy was any different from Sanders.

Looking back, Trump and Clinton are the two most loathed candidates of our lifetimes. These days, both suffer from double-digit negative ratings [6], with Clinton bringing up the rear on that score, and Trump confiding [7] to an advisor, “People really f—ing hate me.”

If there is any consolation for Clinton it is that she got one very big thing right—that Russia is no friend of the U.S. Hardly a day goes by without Trump, his campaign, his business, or his family members making the headlines for their ties to Moscow. Make no mistake, a Clinton presidency would have been dysfunctional in its own way. But the incumbent president is in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s cross-hairs, and the vice president and senior White House staff have all been forced to lawyer up. You can hear Hillary Clinton chuckling right about now, and saying “I told you so.”

Lloyd Green is the managing member of Ospreylytics, LLC, a research and analytics firm. He was opposition research counsel to George H.W. Bush’s 1988 campaign, and served in the Department of Justice between 1990 and 1992.


36 Comments (Open | Close)

36 Comments To "‘What Happened’? Hillary Cherry-Picks Through Historic Loss"

#1 Comment By Wilfred On September 12, 2017 @ 10:46 pm

Here’s a way Democrats could raise a quick $100 million:

Offer a video of Hillary’s election-night meltdown tantrum.

At $100 pay-per-view, at least one million people would pay to watch.

#2 Comment By RP_McMurphy On September 12, 2017 @ 11:07 pm

“The white working class—nearly a third of the electorate—was still reeling from the Great Recession when it went to the polls, and the Trump Campaign was actually a movement of forgotten and neglected working Americans. The fact is that white Americans lost more than 700,000 jobs between November 2007 and late 2016.”

And how did nonwhite Americans fare? The same or worse. But working-class blacks and Hispanics were strangely immune to the appeal of candidate Trump. Hmmm …

Hillary Clinton was a second-rate politician, who nonetheless would’ve won were it not for the last-minute intervention of James Comey. Donald Trump ran a racist campaign whose central message was one of white racial grievance, not economics. That’s 2016 in a nutshell.

#3 Comment By Fran Macadam On September 13, 2017 @ 12:06 am

You had me with you, right up until the end, when you say that Hillary got it right about the Russians. I don’t know whose friends they are, as they seem to just want to be left alone to do their own business without being regime-changed or carpet-bagged. But it would be proper to say, that those in charge of American policy are no friends of any Russians who don’t want that country to be a Wall Street satrapy.

#4 Comment By b On September 13, 2017 @ 2:44 am

The fact that she has a book out moping about it all says everything you need to know. She seems to always make it all about her. She did the same thing during the election and lost as a result. Meanwhile Trump claimed to make it about the country and won. What is odd is how someone known for his vanity actually convinced voters to look past it. Of course he had a lot of help from Hillary.

#5 Comment By Phil Giraldi On September 13, 2017 @ 9:10 am

I was more-or-less with you until the last paragraph. No one should have expected Russia to be a “friend of the U.S.” Most countries (the U.S. is an exception) behave according to their national interests and friendship does not enter into it. Whether Russia actually did anything vis-a-vis the election remains to be seen and the allegations about Trump’s team’s “ties to Moscow” in any criminal or ethically challenged fashion have also not been demonstrated.

#6 Comment By Nelson On September 13, 2017 @ 9:35 am

The author would do well to remember that it wasn’t trade that crashed the economy, it was the housing bubble.

#7 Comment By pw On September 13, 2017 @ 11:06 am

Interesting that you think there is an “official” autopsy. Wonder who gets that honor?

The email link to this article is “page not found” so y’all might want to fix your house

#8 Comment By Allen On September 13, 2017 @ 12:14 pm

The reasons the Democrats lose and will continue to lose for the foreseeable future are very simple.

1) They. Don’t. Listen.

2) They. Don’t. Learn.

see: Hillary Clinton

#9 Comment By MM On September 13, 2017 @ 12:29 pm

“Make no mistake, a Clinton presidency would have been dysfunctional in its own way.”

But there would’ve been no special counsel appointed to investigate her influence peddling via the State Department and Clinton Foundation. And had the Democrats taken over Congress last year, there would’ve been no investigations into Clinton whatsoever.

That’s also a big difference: The Democratic Party will never honestly investigate itself for wrongdoing, ever. The Obama administration proved that time and again. Establishment self-preservation, par excellence. The ends always justify the means, in the name of progress.

#10 Comment By b On September 13, 2017 @ 12:40 pm

In regards to the final paragraph…

Does anyone remember the famous Russian reset button? Not only did Hillary buy into the idea at the time that the US was all to blame but then she bungled the attempt to repair frayed ties. So she too was wrong about Russia. And then she failed to find a way to work with them as SoS.

#11 Comment By EarlyBird On September 13, 2017 @ 12:53 pm

Hillary Clinton is a terribly uninspiring politician under the best of circumstances, but was the worst possible candidate in 2016, the Ultimate Moneyed Politico when the electorate on both sides of the aisle was desperate to throw such bums out. She epitomized globalization, open borders and the “let them eat cake” posture of the elites. And whatever Bernie got traction with, anti-TPP and “free” college, she jumped on with a last minute “me too!” I wonder how much attention she gives that in her assessment of her loss.

As the article states, this go ’round she dropped any pretense of being among “the ordinary people” (and thank God she didn’t put us through more photo-ops of her knocking back slugs of whisky with Pittsburgh hardhats like she did back in 2008) and went full bore smug, elitist, coastal, up-to-the-minute progressive identity politics, expecting to inspire those Americans whose votes she actually needed with celebrities like Katy Perry singing girl power anthems. She didn’t even bother to set foot in a couple of the Rust Belt states that were so crucial to Trump’s victory.

She didn’t attempt to create an elevating or even over-arching theme to her election. It was, “Hillary! Finally!” Ugh.

#12 Comment By A Little Weird On September 13, 2017 @ 1:57 pm

Any mention of her failure to visit Wisconsin even once? I think that the book “How I Lost by Hillary Clinton” compiled from interviews and observations on the campaign trail is the more honest analysis.

#13 Comment By Siarlys Jenkins On September 13, 2017 @ 2:23 pm

I suppose there must be people somewhere in the world who would buy and read a book like this, or Simon and Schuster wouldn’t have put the money into publishing it, but I don’t think I know any of them.

How boring. Failed candidate rants about failed campaign. The reason Hillary sounded different in 2016 than she did in 2008 or in 1992 campaigning for her hubby is that she goes with the wind. She will be anything to anyone so long as she can get elected. Except, that didn’t work out so well, because its phony.

The Dems may be “left” in a superficial way, but not in a bread-and-butter working class way, which is exactly what could have worked this year. One thing Hillary had in common with Trump… they were both in love with the image of themselves being president.

#14 Comment By MM On September 13, 2017 @ 2:30 pm

RP_McMurphy: “Hillary Clinton was a second-rate politician, who nonetheless would’ve won were it not for the last-minute intervention of James Comey.”

Clinton just the other day: “The role that he [Comey] played historically was determinative.”

I guess Director Comey was the one who instructed Secretary Clinton to sign a NDA with the U.S. government stating that she understood the importance of maintaining classified information in a secure manner, and the criminal penalties for failing to do so. And then he must have forced her to leave classified information regarding intelligence agents in the field, North Korean nuclear installations, and drone strike targets on an insecure server for any hacker or foreign power to obtain. And I think he was also the one who compelled her to lie about said actions publicly 25+ times, then lie about what his own testimony before Congress regarding her conduct, and then lie about lying about the whole affair.

So yeah, I guess he was determinative. And she of course had absolutely nothing to do with her own predicament. He didn’t follow FBI protocol, and she must have followed the letter of the law and State Department procedures regarding the highest level of classified information.

“Donald Trump ran a racist campaign whose central message was one of white racial grievance, not economics.”

Boy, when they vote for the Democratic candidate, they’re proud Americans doing the right thing. And when they vote against the Democratic candidate, they’re racist scum and the worst of the worst.

Since we’re talking about the same people, those 5+ million Obama/Trump voters, which way should they go next time? And what will the Democratic party call them?

Absolutely gorgeous…

#15 Comment By David On September 13, 2017 @ 3:22 pm

At this point, Hillary, what difference does it make (why you lost)?

#16 Comment By Jeff Goodrich On September 13, 2017 @ 3:40 pm

In addition to several very funny satires of Clinton’s book (including The Onion’s “What Also Happened”, which analyses why “What Happened” so badly flopped), there is this nugget in the book that most others have missed:

“By nearly every measure, the Democratic Party has moved to the left over the past fifteen years, not the right”

This to me explains everything about “what happened”. Both Mr. Green and The Goldwater Girl cannot see how the Clinton Coalition’s enthusiastic support for Free Trade, Wall Street bailouts, Romneycare and the MIC — all of which were motivated by their greed/need for financial support (and excused by the truism that retail politics takes money) — moved the party to the right, not the left. She is attempting to blind her followers to this truth by defining the political “left” in purely social terms. Her vision of the left is that left-wing people: (1) accept the opinions of experts and well-meaning government authorities (unless those opinions and authorities are unacceptable to any of the many diversity groups that constitute the Clinton Coalition, such as BLM, women’s groups or the LBGTQ community); (2) support an imperial foreign policy, including the continuation of undeclared and unconstitutional wars throughout the world; (3) support free trade even at the expense of domestic employment, so long as the government supplies taxpayer funded job training or replacement employment for the unemployed; (4) are satisfied with the level and cost of medical care in America and only wish to expand insurance coverage if it can be done at little cost to existing medical cartels; (5) do not wish to reinstate Glass-Steagall, break up banks that are even larger today than before the GFC, or question the efficacy of monetary policy under the Federal Reserve; and (6) [most importantly] do not share the social views of the “hateful” people on the “right”.

It is #6 that allows her to claim that “by nearly every measure” today’s Democratic Party has “moved to the right”. This is because in today’s DNC there is only one such measure: identity politics. No other measures matter because she and others who think like her have already conceded the consensus opinion on measures 1-5. And they long ago conceded these opinions because they are the opinions of both parties’ donors.

#17 Comment By S P Robinson On September 13, 2017 @ 4:41 pm

“But Clinton finding herself on the short end of 2016’s culture war was not simply the result of unforced errors. Rather, it was the product of Clinton’s convictions, and the logical result of Clinton’s worship at the twin altars of identity politics and political correctness.”

You forget the third altar, Goldman Sachs, at which she regularly worshipped and gave sacrifice.

#18 Comment By Dies Irae On September 13, 2017 @ 4:57 pm

Although the candidate’s pain is plainly there for us to see, it does not elicit schadenfreude from the reader.

Haha, speak for yourself buddy. This is the most delicious feast of schadenfreude I’ve been treated to in a long time. And I think it’s going to go on for a long time. The longer she plays her act, the more oxygen she sucks out of the room for the left.

#19 Comment By Phil Giraldi On September 13, 2017 @ 5:35 pm

The Major: “She’s a fine woman, Fawlty!”
Basil Fawlty: “No she’s not.”

#20 Comment By Lenny On September 13, 2017 @ 7:21 pm

This is Hillaryous’

So many people out there jumping at the opportunity of blaming Hillary for the ills of the world as if they are mad she did not win and spare them this sorry spectacle that is called the American Presidency under the Trump.

Russian Spies conspired with the Trump team to steal the Presidency, and all of you are so happy that a real American did not win but asserting falsehoods as facts.

Mueller will shine a light on everything, but those with no shame will not repent. Hillary would have been fa better than this orange clown, but you are too hateful to admit your mistakes.

I guess, Rome will still retain the title of the longest lasting Empire after all. Pax Americana is coming to an end under the shear stupidity of its poulace

#21 Comment By Tyro On September 13, 2017 @ 9:10 pm

The republicans have made an interesting bargain with voters. I am not sure if it works electorally, but it certainly goes to the risk of a dysfunctional Clinton presidency:

Namely, the Republican bargain is: “if you elect a democrat as president, we will grind the government to a halt and make it nigh-impossible to craft decent policy while we focus Capitol Hill on endless investigations of non issues. This, you are all safer voting republican.”

Some of it is psychological: convince voters that government is a failure when a democrat is in office. But some of it is almost explicit: the republicans threatened to take the presidency hostage if Clinton was elected, and many voters no doubt felt Trump was a better deal in that case.

After all, where is Rep. Chaffetz now?

#22 Comment By Ray Woodcock On September 13, 2017 @ 9:15 pm

Nice article. Informative, not overtly ideological, probably about as close to factual as one could expect.

#23 Comment By Fuzzy On September 14, 2017 @ 6:59 am

Russia, really? Where’s the proof? Still waiting for it…

#24 Comment By John Lord On September 14, 2017 @ 7:42 am

What I find extraordinary is the notion amongst the Left that ‘diversity’in Western societies is a great thing and an end in itself. Of course they never really push with any enthusiasm, for this ‘diversity’ to be pursued in non Western socities, as if Western society is so uniquely bad, unlike others, that it can not be diluted down far enough. A society that gave us rule of law, equality before same, modern medicine, including aesthetics that work and antibiotics, the jet plane, splitting the atom, men on the moon, I could go in and on, the list is endless. I didn’t put in free speech, one of the bed rocks of Westernism, as it’s currently under sustained attack from conservative Islam (with some success)at one end, and leftist ‘hate crime’ ideology at the other. What’s so wrong with what makes us what we are that make the Left appear to want to diversify it out of existence? And when will the Nirvana of ‘peak diversity’be reached?
I suppose it’s good that many Leftists assume that Jestern society is more or less indestructible no matter what stresses and strains they place on it. It shows that behind it all they have an elevated opinion of their own society over others. Tut tut.

#25 Comment By MM On September 14, 2017 @ 2:02 pm

I think her book tour commentary should be included as an additional chapter in the softcover. Just yesterday, she opined there was “no absolution” for women who didn’t vote for her:


Note to fans of the Clinton Cult:

Yours is a vengeful, unforgiving god. Whoa unto those who do not genuflect at the altar of progress. You shall reap what you sow, hell on earth and eternal damnation…

#26 Comment By MM On September 14, 2017 @ 2:13 pm

“The Dems may be ‘left’ in a superficial way, but not in a bread-and-butter working class way.”

Typical equivocation and definitional retreat. The median registered Democrat has lurched left pretty consistently since 1994, just based on self-described “liberal” (re: progressive, not classical) terminology. Pew Research has been tracking this, and it’s visually obvious:


Interestingly, the median registered Republican actually moderated, moved towards the middle, between 1994 and 2004, before lurching right in the Obama years.

But the clear evidence that the party has an identity crisis, three personalities as far as I can tell: When asked directly, neither the DNC head nor the Presidential nominee could answer a simple, straightforward question like: “What is the difference between a Democrat and a Socialist?”

That says it all…

#27 Comment By Saldin On September 14, 2017 @ 4:35 pm

John Lord

You have a lot, yes, but you also have pagan polytheism, and ever increasing godlessness.

Biggest fails ever.

You will find out soon enough. Enjoy for now.

#28 Comment By Thrice A Viking On September 14, 2017 @ 5:01 pm

HRC makes a very basic mistake in lamenting the lack of passion and urgency in her campaign as opposed to her husband’s in 1992. The difference is that he was a D railing against 12 years of R rule in the White House. How could she do anything similar as a D campaigning during the 8th year of a POTUS of her party? Without alienating large numbers of her base, she couldn’t. It’s as simple as that, I think.

#29 Comment By Ben Pwn On September 14, 2017 @ 5:10 pm

“still waiting on proof [of Russia]”

Good god you’re an imbecile

#30 Comment By Sandra On September 15, 2017 @ 2:30 pm

Hillary Clinton lacks good judgement. This book proves it. All she had to do to be vindicated was to wait for the Trump presidency to implode.

#31 Comment By Ken T On September 15, 2017 @ 6:39 pm

Why I don’t understand is why those of you on the winning side are still obsessed with the loser. Hillary wrote a book – so what? Of course it’s a completely self-serving whine about how it was everyone else’s fault – what else would you expect? If Mitt Romney wrote a book about his loss, would you expect it to be any different? Certainly those of us on the Dem side – who thought all along that she was a horrible candidate – might be able to salvage some “What NOT to do” points from her book, and maybe prevent another comparable disaster. But all you are proving here is that “Clinton Derangement Syndrome” really DOES exist. And you all are infected with it.

#32 Comment By MM On September 15, 2017 @ 7:11 pm

“If Mitt Romney wrote a book about his loss…”

I guess I don’t see the point of your point, since no GOP loser has ever wrote a self-aggrandizing memoir about an election he lost. Nixon comes close, but no cigar.

I’m just wondering, do any Clinton supporters have a problem with Hillary behaving like a “narcissistic looney toon” on steroids? Does she make you proud?

It’s not really deranged to point out the obvious, that she’s validating every negative cliche and stereotype regarding left-wing Boomers, and then some…

#33 Comment By cka2nd On September 16, 2017 @ 2:34 am

“Even the unfashionable had a right to vote, and this time they actually did.”

Actually, many of them did not, of whatever color, as Clinton got fewer white working class and black votes.

“While New York City and Silicon Valley had plenty to smile about as the economy recovered from the Great Recession”

Well, the bourgeoisie and upper reaches of the petit-bourgeoisie, sure, but not the proletarian, lumpen proletarian or lower petit-bourgeoisie, all of whom are being priced out of the housing and rental market and are under pressure to work more hours for less pay and fewer benefits, if any.

“Much as Obamacare repeal has turned into a Republican albatross in 2017, it never was a political gift to the Democrats.”

Obama is really a piece of work. Lord knows I understand the drive to reform health care, but the Great Recession put jobs and housing and bankruptcy and financial reform at the front of the line. And then he compounds the problem by doing everything he can to give the insurance industry a gift instead of supporting single payer, a much simpler, fairer, cheaper and more efficient way of reforming health care.

Good points on NAFTA and the parallels between Sanders and Eugene McCarthey, but you could have said more about the Clintons’ ties to Wall Street.

#34 Comment By cka2nd On September 16, 2017 @ 2:42 am

By the way, I think Sanders made a similar mistake during his campaign to the Democrats’ error of focusing too much on health care in 2009. The few times I saw him speak on TV, he spent way too much time talking about Citizens United and big money in politics, legitimate issues though they be, when he should have been hitting even harder on the issues of jobs, low pay, so-called precarious work, automation, etc., etc. If he had called for a shorter work week PLUS a higher minimum wage PLUS a crackdown on forced overtime PLUS repealing Taft-Hartley while reinstating Glass-Steagall, in other words, a living wage and more control over one’s life for all, I think he would have taken even more working class voters away from Clinton in the primaries, of all colors, genders and sexualities.

#35 Comment By Hexexis On September 16, 2017 @ 11:45 pm

Does anybody truly believe that Ms. Clinton or anyone else whose full-time occupation is bathing in the spotlight—appearing on TV & speaking tour circuit—has time to write a book—512 pages? It takes a village, alright: of ghostwriters & content arrangers.

#36 Comment By IranMan On September 17, 2017 @ 2:33 pm

I am quoting a Washington Post commentator on Bill Maher’s show. “These are the kind of stuff you tell you therapist. She should have written a book title Why I Lost the Election”!

I agree with that completely.