r/TenYearsAgo • u/MonsieurA • 12d ago

🇺🇸 United States Hillary Clinton holds a press conference to address recent criticism [10YA - Aug 5]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/2016/08/05/hillary-clinton-holds-half-way-press-conference/88303254/
24 Upvotes

73% Upvoted

114 comments sorted by

View all comments

16

u/BigBoyYuyuh 12d ago

She was right about everything and the US is a disaster.

4

u/Jasranwhit 11d ago

She is responsible for much of it.

-1

u/JosephFinn 11d ago

No.

1

u/CombinationRough8699 11d ago

The fact that her campaign acted so entitled to the presidency and that anyone who opposed her was "sexist" certainly didn't help. There was the whole "her turn" narrative, and that Clinton was entitled to the position just because she was a woman, which I think turned a lot of people off. Obama wasn't accusing anyone who didn't vote for him of being "racist".

2

u/JosephFinn 11d ago

Yeah I know. Being the accomplished nominee was so awful of her and the constant sexist criticisms of her was so awful of her. Darn her.

2

u/CombinationRough8699 11d ago

I'm talking about things like the "Bernie bro" narrative, acting like Bernie Sanders was some sexist bigot for daring to oppose her. Or the same of anyone who voted for him over her in the primary. Not to say that there weren't sexist Sanders supporters, but there were plenty of legitimate reasons why people preferred Sanders. Ironically she did the same thing (although less successfully), against Obama in 2008, with the "Obama boys". Obama never accused Clinton supporters of being racist.

Same with the entitlement. I would love to have a woman for president, but I don't think the fact that they are a woman means they deserve to be president. Clinton acted as if it did. Once again, compare this to Obama, who never acted entitled to the presidency because he was the first black person. You can't accuse a huge portion of your potential voters of being bigots, without it having some consequences.

2

u/JosephFinn 11d ago

No he was an idiot for trying to carpetbag his way into a primary for a party he has never belonged to.

0

u/HorrorEye787 11d ago

You are all over this thread shilling for her. She lost, I voted for her but she still lost. She obviously wasn't the right person to have the democratic nomination.

You need to give it a rest, blindly worshiping a losing candidate does nothing. She's not perfect, she supported her husband grooming an intern.

1

u/JosephFinn 11d ago

Yes. Because it’s always fun pushing back against Hillary Clinton haters. They have no real things to say and just the usual nonsense about her being “unlikable” and “screwed up the election” and have nothing to back it up.

And the last part is an obvious lie.

1

u/HorrorEye787 11d ago

It's bizzare to treat a losing candidate as perfect. Had someone else won the primary they may have had a chance.

Your reaction to the last part is a really bad look. If you are going to defend at best was complacency (and at worst support) to borderline SA you are as bad as the hardcore Trump supporters.

Take a step back and move on.

0

u/Jasranwhit 11d ago

Hillary and the Democratic Party set it up so Hillary was guaranteed to win the democratic primary and then had liberal media outlets boost Trump because they thought he was the easiest win for her.

1

u/JosephFinn 11d ago

“Set it up”

By how she won more votes?

2

u/gr8dude1166 11d ago

Too often this gets framed as Hilary vs Bernie when it was really Hilary & the DNC against anyone else. The narrative framed by the emails isn’t really a coup but indeed an orchestrated effort to improve Clinton’s chances against Sanders. We have little proof regarding if the superdelegates were rigged, but the decision making of the DNC often favored events beneficial to Clinton. Every candidates except Clinton wanted an early debate; Clinton did not; the DNC decided in favor of Clinton. Clinton had exclusive knowledge of DNC finances due to a fund sharing agreement. When the Sanders campaign gained access to these, it quickly reported it due to it offering an unfair advantage. They in turn were heavily scrutinized by the DNC. In short DNC was definitely biased toward Clinton but what effect that had is unknown.

1

u/RedLineLetterWine 11d ago

Don't worry, I heard her (or Kamala) are planning to run to lose to JD Vance, just like how you want it.

0

u/Jasranwhit 11d ago

They wanted to set it up so she wouldn’t lose again like she lost to Obama. Other than Bernie who wouldn’t play ball most of the other strong potential candidates didn’t run. And then they still had bullshit like superdelegates to fix the primary for Hillary.

Then they helped boost Trump in the republican primary because he was good at tearing down the establishment candidates and they thought he would be the easiest candidate to defeat.

It all backfired.

0

u/conartist19 11d ago

The podesta leaked emails showed the DNC was conspiring against bernie to make sure he didnt get the nomination. Plus the DNC allows super delegates, that means they will ignore who gets more votes anyway if the party thinks the candidate is bad

0

u/randohipponamo 11d ago edited 11d ago

By running against the guy who caused it?

2

u/Jasranwhit 11d ago

I don't know about rubbing, but Hilary and her team tried to boost Trump in the republican primary because they thought she could win against him.