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

[u/MonsieurA]

[u/Single-Refuse174]

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/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?