HomeUncategorizedIs this what you have been waiting for? A thread dedicated to Hillary’s book launch!
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Last Friday, in an attempt at humor, we shared a satirical note from The Onion suggesting that Hillary had already begun work on a follow-up book, entitled “What Also Happened,” intended to define precisely who was to blame for the failure of her first book, “What Happened.”

Alas, if prices are any indicator of demand, which they’re pretty much universally accepted to be unless you’re discussing minimum wages with Bernie Sanders, then Hillary may want to double down on efforts to rush out the sequel as both Amazon and Walmart have decided to slash prices of “What Happened” by 40% before the books even hit shelves.

After Hillary’s publisher Simon and Schuster suggested a price of $30, Amazon slashed prices to $17.99 earlier today…

What Happened To “What Happened”: Amazon Slashes Hillary’s Book Price 40% Before It Hits Shelves


Rassmussen poll Reports 61% say it time for $hill to retire.
Its Trumpcorps favorite poll but I think its probably close



I can empathize a little with Clinton on her rejection in the election in some respects. But with each empathetic response I have a dose of criticism. She was the resume candidate–a Fortune 500 executive type on paper. She haf been an administrator of a major cabinet in government and she had been in the Senate as an elected official with some legislation as accomplishments. She got in the senate though because of her spouse’s name; she sort of lost sight of that. She figured as she helped Bill to get to the WH (not to mention being one of the best fundraisers with corporate donors and some of the drudge work she did for the party in the 70’s) she figured she would have more support. When a little known Jewish politician challenged her and at one point outraised her in fundraising, it was un-nerving to her and the party. Obama had hand picked her in return of her loyalty to him as an employer and a major player in the party. Related to the first point, Clinton was the first female nominee of her party. Never mind they tipped the scales, she did all of the right things as far as 53% of the party was concerned, and she laid the groundwork for getting the delegates before she made her formal announcement. I believed some of the delegates wanted to flip as not everyone is comfortable with the authoritarian style that Clinton exuded in the primaries and within the party. But many feared the Clinton machine and of her reprisal. Her revenge is showing its primary colors, not just punishing Nina Turner. Also related to the first point, I think Bernie’s consultants gave him some bad advice to say at one of the debates that she was unqualified. What he meant was that her decisions, particularly on foreign policy, were questionable; he did say that. He could have gotten into more than just Iraq but also policies returning undocumented children, but the media was not willing ally, especially in debates. They touched upon foreign policy but not often enough because the media was too interested in their fundraising as well as being the subject of an investigation (which Bernie could have gone for the jugular…and didn’t, but decided it would be better to ride out the investigation first) for her e-mail server. Another problem with Bernie’s national campaign experience (JMO) is that he underestimated Clinton’s debate abilities, especially when she nuanced his votes on bills that had more good parts to them, but highlighted the negatives. If Bernie were to run again, he should prepare more because by now and in the future, debates are not five minutes per response. He would have to figure out how to respond to Trump (or Pence) and Trump’s insult comic dog antics. Clinton did better in the debates as she was well prepared, even against Trump except for one aspect, which I will get to in my next point. In her interview with Pauley, she mentioned how she practiced her steps in handshakes and personal space, should that problem arise with Trump. However, she also let slip that she had practiced those things knowing about the Access Hollywood tape which delineated Trump’s disgusting misogynist behavior. I checked both the dates of when the Access tape was revealed to the public (October 7th for the discovery, debate was on the 9th) and when Phillipe Reines, Clinton’s debate prep partner who portrayed Trump. Reines tweeted the practice video clip which he says occurred on September 27th. https://twitter.com/Peace2484/status/865783077976637440 Wouldn’t that indicate in that a billion dollars of cash that the Clinton family, the DNC, and Tim Kaine raised (62 fundraisers between the convention and election day), Clinton had prior knowledge of the tape as her campaign team had also done some sleuthing about Trump’s demeanor in encounters with women? But where she screwed up in the debate, and she is correct in the interview, is that she probably should have called out Trump for invading her personal space just as she did with Rick Lazlo years ago when she debated him for the US senate race. Back in January, NYU did a recreation of that debate, switching genders for Trump and Clinton respectively. The audience who saw that recreated debate thought Clinton (as a male) was too smug based on gestures and responses and that Trump (as a woman) fought back time and time again. This reversal of perceptions stunned the researchers. https://twitter.com/jihchs/status/839453204383432704 I saw this clip, and I must admit, I was surprised too as I had thought gender may have been a factor for likability. But in this instance, it was not. Notice Clinton’s words (but portrayed by a man): “We know better, you can read more about my plans, blah blah blah. etc.” It really went back to Clinton’s elitist attitude of being the smartest lawyer in the room. I suspect that “smarter than you are” attitude did not set well with millennials as well as the working class women that she hoped to reach in the campaign. She assumed all women, regardless of party, would vote for her because she was a qualified woman. The working class women (or those who were civil servants, underpaid teachers and service workers) were grossly underestimated in the polls. Yet in that interview with Pauley, Clinton continued to be tone-deaf. The metaphor she used about being at Trump’s inaugural “out of body experience” is the gear she is still in with her grief, her shattered worldview that she should have been the president. She prepared for a victory speech and not for a loss, as she said in the interview. I hope Clinton is sincere that she won’t run for an elective office again. But I also wish she would step back and realize that she and her husband, who accused Bernie Sanders of disrupting the party, not to win as a Democrat, that she and Bill did that 25 years ago. They tried… Read more »


To my point about being the smartest girl in the class, the most qualified:

In an interview with WNYC, the former secretary of State reflected on being the first female presidential nominee of a major political party. She said that because of the hurdles women face, she would have been hailed as brilliant if she won.

“I thought it was pretty revolutionary that I was the first woman to have a realistic chance of becoming president,” Clinton said. “So I don’t know how any woman who is not familiar to people, since we have so many hurdles to overcome, could have even been in that position that I found myself.

“So if I had won, you know, I would have been seen as a genius; my campaign would have been seen as perfect,” she added. “I understand all of that.”


The gift that keeps on giving to the R’s and keeps the Dem Party in disarray. Harms her more though. She’s been hanging out too much at the Squirrel’s nest (Sick of Bernie blog)



LTE at USA Today:

Hillary Clinton blaming Sen. Bernie Sanders for her loss is deeply offensive and beyond the pale.

Millions of citizens from all walks of life (myself included) supported Sanders passionately because we loved the positions he was willing to fight for and the fact that he was not beholden to wealthy corporate donors.

Clinton represents everything that is wrong with the political class in this country, in both the Democratic and Republican parties, which have lost touch with the real needs and cries of the people they’re supposed to represent. I sincerely hope that Sanders joins the growing movement for a viable new progressive party.

With her latest blame game, Clinton has only further alienated every true progressive who didn’t support her to begin with.

Roanoke, Va.

More: Dear Hillary Clinton, please stop talking about 2016

Comments are edited for clarity and grammar:

I voted for Clinton, but in the primary I wanted Sanders. One problem was that Democrats had Clinton anointed.

— KB

Clinton blames Donald Trump, Sanders and just about everything and everyone for her failed run for the White House. How about looking in the mirror? She did not campaign very hard. She did not visit key states. She lost in the final weeks. She thought she had it in the bag. The ultimate example of entitlement.

— SR





Klein interviewed Clinton about policies she was looking into if she had become president.

OMG, she wanted to do Universal Basic Income based on Alaska model of writing checks to everyone when they extract minerals and more pipelines.




Clinton says that her wonkiness is who she is. (Paraphrasing) Klein asks if wonkiness is everything and in a sense not having an emotional connection in the campaign. She said details mattered, and that those saved her husband’s candidacy in 1992.

My memory of Bill Clinton’s wonkiness in a debate is this:

Did Bill answer the question? No, he pivoted and connected to the voter’s pain. 180 degrees from Bush’s answer that would have been similar in style how the baroness would have done.

(More of my debunking the Clinton machine)

Clinton also said Obama was full of details in his campaigns. In 2008, he gave hope and platitudes, not details. We ended up getting a really watered down ACA because he let the lobbyists in and rob the table, leaving Republican scraps to fight over, and the R’s were not going to support him at all.


From a comment at TOP:

Just ordered mine on Kindle — Amazon claimed it wasn’t eligible for Prime, no idea why.



Perfect rebuttal to the baroness in a tweetpic.


Clinton wanted to scold young women who didn’t vote (and the tweet has an example from the book), and also enraged at women who marched, but didn’t show their outrage in the streets during the campaign?



says that Sen. Bernie Sanders’s (I-Vt.) reluctance to concede the Democratic presidential nomination to her was hurtful and “disrespectful.”

In an interview on the podcast “Pod Save America,” Clinton recalled how Sanders “just kept going” during the Democratic primaries, despite the fact that she had emerged “by March and April” as the clear nominee.

“I had such a different experience in ’08,” she said, referring to her 2008 race against then-candidate Barack Obama. “Once it was over, it was over. And I quickly endorsed President Obama. I worked really hard to get him elected.

I didn’t get anything like that respect from Sanders and his supporters,” she added. “And it hurt, you know, to have basically captured the nomination, ending up with more than 4 million votes than he had. And he dragged it out.”

Clinton went on “Pod Save America,” a political talk show run by former Obama staffers, to promote her campaign memoir. Clinton’s new book, “What Happened,” was released on Tuesday.

Skip to toolbar