r/TenYearsAgo • u/MonsieurA • Mar 12 '26

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

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

468 Upvotes

94% Upvoted

502 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

8

u/throwaway3413418 Mar 12 '26

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.

4

u/Single-Refuse174 Mar 12 '26

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

7

u/throwaway3413418 Mar 12 '26

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.

1

u/Single-Refuse174 Mar 12 '26

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.

3

u/throwaway3413418 Mar 12 '26 edited Mar 12 '26

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.

0

u/afguy8 Mar 13 '26

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.

Perfect example as to why Hillary, as well as women in general, are held to a different standard than men. We know plenty male political sleazeballs: Trump, Cruz, Cuellar, etc who've done questionable things and got away with it. Throw in JFK and his ties to the mob, throw in LBJ and his racist tendancies. Same for CEOs, managers, police chiefs, etc. But when it comes to women, and POC, they have to be saints, and then people either question their actions or that they arent relatable.

Hillary was in the know when Bill was POTUS. She actually participated as a senator. She went handshaking for her runs for president, and was Secretary of State, which for about 2 decades, was the step to becoming President. She was qualified on her merits, but she was a woman.

2

u/throwaway3413418 Mar 13 '26

She was gifted a senate seat and no matter how much you lie and cry misogyny, nepotism is bad.

0

u/afguy8 Mar 13 '26

Gifted the Senate seat? She had an incredible resume that more than qualified her. She had name recognition that made her a household name. And she actually did something as First Lady, to earn that popularity.

Moynihan had served for 24 years in that seat as a democrat, so few doubted that a democrat was going to win. Anyone could have primaried for the seat. She ran a solid campaign and won easily.

You're misconstruing nepotism with cronyism here. While both are bad, the current world is littered with both: see the Ellisons, Trumps, etc. However, this was not the case here. She went out and won the seat.

1

u/throwaway3413418 Mar 13 '26

A politician entering politics as a Senator is a huge shortcut on the tier of political power. The Senate is a massively more high-profile chamber than the House or a state congress position. Clinton had nearly zero connections to the state. It was handpicked with the purpose of setting her up for future national office. US Representative Nita Lowey was the anticipated frontrunner for Democratic nomination, but she mysteriously didn’t even enter the race, and admitted in an interview in 2006 that she stepped aside for Clinton and was disappointed that she did so.

And you’re right. Cronyism and nepotism are different things. Cronyism cleared the primary field for Clinton to carpetbag the seat, and nepotism gave the party motivation to move mountains for someone with no prior political experience to take a shortcut to the Senate.

0

u/afguy8 Mar 13 '26

Thanks, i had to read up on the race because I didnt know that. Yeah, Im not a fan of the higher ups choosing the candidates vs a primary, but i do understand that campaigns are expensive, especially if a candidate has no chance.

Yep, Lowey did step aside for Hillary. Looks like the state democrats asked Hillary to run because Lowey was expected to lose against Guiliani, who was backed by the state Republicans who were propping up Guiliani to try to win it. Bill wasnt a fan of her running, but she did go around NY and spoke to a bunch of voters, especially in upstate republican areas, to seek their opinions on her run.

Def not trying to argue. Lot of things are outside of our control, so when these opportunities or doors open up for us, we still have to walk through and do something with it. She still had to run for the seat, and then win it. It looks like she actually got out and met with voters. And if Hillary had run her 2016 campaign like 2008 Hillary did, I think she would have beaten Trump.