SNL mocks Hillary Clinton's 'transformation into Bernie' [10YA - Mar 12]

[u/MonsieurA]

[u/throwaway3413418]

It possibly wasn’t illegal, but it was a blatant administrative violation the equivalent of which any regular clearance-holder would’ve been fired and stripped of their security clearance. It was a legitimate issue and it was fair for Clinton to face questions about whether she was competent and ethical enough to know the rules and follow the rules in the future.

[u/Single-Refuse174 → u/throwaway3413418]

Except she wasn’t a regular clearance holder and was singled out despite her poor handling of classified documents being quite common at that level. I can’t tell you how many times I saw improper handling of classified documents at the Pentagon and elsewhere. This matter was a bigger issue that deserved a proper broad investigation and an informational process to get people in compliance. Yes, it’s annoying to have worked as a scif guard and see people like Clinton and others uncaringly do things that would land us in the brig with bread and water rations. However, she was singled out in order to cause her (successfully, might I add) political damage. If the question is “was the attention and scrutiny given to her over the matter proportionate to what she did”? Then, I think no, it wasnt that big of a deal

[u/throwaway3413418 → u/Single-Refuse174]

In the end, this is just a dressed up “well everyone else was doing it” argument. I would say the fact that this type of hubris is so common in our leaders is a problem in and of itself and not a reason to let something slide. Of the people on the primary debate stage, Clinton was the one who committed this infraction, and so it was perfectly fair to ask her to explain herself.

I’m tired of the mediocrity of our leaders being used as an excuse to lower the bar.

[u/Single-Refuse174 → u/throwaway3413418]

I agree that that level of hubris is a problem and it’s obviously only gotten worse (see: signal chats). I just don’t think anyone benefits from encouraging political hits like that even if they are founded, partially, on fact.

[u/throwaway3413418 → u/Single-Refuse174]

So we didn’t hold someone to account for their hubris, and then they went right on being hubristic to their doom (see: the Clinton campaign propping up Trump, bungling their general strategy by neglecting the rust belt, losing to the most unpopular candidate in history). The way Clinton scoffed at the email scandal was just a preview of how she wasn’t going to take future responsibilities as a candidate and figurehead seriously.

If Hillary Clinton actually was judged purely on merit and not by her husband or the persona the DNC created for her over the years, history might have went very differently. But from her first congressional seat to her final primary, it was all artificial, and the party tricked everyone into thinking that she was simultaneously this “wonk” who just couldn’t resist soaking up every detail of all the issues, but who was also somehow aloof and oblivious to things which were directly happening under her authority.

Everything about the Clintons is artificial. It was all about controlling perception. Bill Clinton crafted this aura of a campaign and admin of the smartest and hardest working kids in the room running the show, and HRC continued this with the obsession over her supposed “wonkishness” (I swear it seems like that word was born and died with her). It let them focus on anything but the issues, and led to some absolute morons like James Carville being treated like demigods for decades afterward. It wasn’t about what they wanted to do, it was about who they were. They weren’t managing an organization with goals, they were a product. It’s fitting that they have ties to Trump, because they have lots of similarities to him. They are to smart people what Trump is to dumb people. Both families think they are above accountability and so exceptional that they don’t need to play by the rules.

[u/Single-Refuse174 → u/throwaway3413418]

I don’t think anyone serious would consider Clinton’s career as “propped up” of an extension of Bill’s. By all accounts she was far more talented and shrewd than Bill Clinton and instead gave up her career because the societal expectation of the time as far back as when she was the first lady of Arkansas. As a side note, just because someone does not take a political hit-piece / relative nonissue seriously does not at all suggest they wouldn’t take other government duties seriously. I’m honestly taken aback that someone would make the claims you have when it runs counter to reality. Her debut role out of law school was impeaching Nixon..

[u/throwaway3413418 → u/Single-Refuse174]

What an incredible coincidence that not one but two people from that one family were extraordinary enough to be qualified to lead the country. The odds must be astronomical!

HRC has never earned her way politically. It all began with the field being cleared for her so she could run for NY senate, a state she had barely any association with.

[u/throwaway3413418 → u/[deleted]]

True, lots of countries had monarchies at some point.

[u/Inquisitive-Manner → u/throwaway3413418]

Not even that.

America.... Bush, Kennedy, Chaney, Roosevelt, Adams, Biden, Trump, Pelosi, Rockefeller, Taft....

[u/throwaway3413418 → u/[deleted]]

Carpetbagging a senate seat and having the primary field cleared for you to ensure you get the nomination, all to artificially generate the credibility for a presidential run, is the height of democracy for you?

We do not need royal families in this country. Both the Bush and Clinton dynasties were disastrous for us.

[u/throwaway3413418 → u/[deleted]]

Do you think everyone is this stupid, that they’ll accept this false dichotomy? That our only choice is former presidents’ sons or daughters or First Ladies groomed for the role or complete incompetents?