What was Hillary Clinton's Campaign message?

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > C-SPAM > What was Hillary Clinton's Campaign message?

«‹›37 »

Homeless Friend: Jul 16, 2007

Nonsense posted:

# ? Apr 20, 2017 20:58

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 7, 2024 23:06

CassandraZara: Oct 21, 2012; by Nyc_Tattoo

That DICK! posted:

there's some show movie where a woman character just starts saying "Me.... me me ME!!!!!" over and over again cackling, IIRC, if anyone could find it, that's it

You might be thinking of Julia Roberts in Family Guy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kk9ltMibm9k

# ? Apr 20, 2017 21:47

Thoguh: Nov 8, 2002; College Slice

Nonsense posted:

I'm the plant.

# ? Apr 20, 2017 21:49

Andorra: Dec 12, 2012

"Trump voters are all racists/sexist"
"Trump is racist/sexist"
"Vote your conscience"
"No wait why are you voting for him"

# ? Apr 20, 2017 22:00

That DICK!: Sep 28, 2010

CassandraZara posted:

You might be thinking of Julia Roberts in Family Guy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kk9ltMibm9k

that's it. that's the campaign message. thanks.

# ? Apr 20, 2017 22:00

Montasque: Jul 18, 2003; Living in a hateful world sending me straight to Heaven

Andorra posted:

"Trump voters are all racists/sexist"
"Trump is racist/sexist"
"Vote your conscience"
"No wait why are you voting for him"

Vote your racist/sexist conscience

# ? Apr 20, 2017 22:11

Uncle Wemus: Mar 4, 2004

Im with her and its her turn were profoundly terrible slogans

# ? Apr 20, 2017 23:18

Typo: Aug 19, 2009; Chernigov Military Aviation Lyceum
The Fighting Slowpokes

Nonsense posted:

holy poo poo i didn' realize that's palin

# ? Apr 20, 2017 23:24

Nix Panicus: Feb 25, 2007

Typo posted:

holy poo poo i didn' realize that's palin

I thought it was a weird Tina Fey thing at first too

# ? Apr 20, 2017 23:55

etalian: Mar 20, 2006

Homeless Friend posted:

# ? Apr 21, 2017 00:20

That DICK!: Sep 28, 2010

etalian posted:

"Cum."

# ? Apr 21, 2017 00:21

Montasque: Jul 18, 2003; Living in a hateful world sending me straight to Heaven

quote:

There is a critical scene in Shattered, the new behind-the-scenes campaign diary by Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes, in which staffers in the Hillary Clinton campaign begin to bicker with one another.

At the end of Chapter One, which is entirely about that campaign's exhausting and fruitless search for a plausible explanation for why Hillary was running, writers Allen and Parnes talk about the infighting problem.

"All of the jockeying might have been all right, but for a root problem that confounded everyone on the campaign and outside it," they wrote. "Hillary had been running for president for almost a decade and still didn't really have a rationale."

Allen and Parnes here quoted a Clinton aide who jokingly summed up Clinton's real motivation:

"I would have had a reason for running," one of her top aides said, "or I wouldn't have run."

The beleaguered Clinton staff spent the better part of two years trying to roll this insane tautology � "I have a reason for running because no one runs without a reason" � into the White House. It was a Beltway take on the classic Descartes formulation: "I seek re-election, therefore I am... seeking re-election."

Shattered is sourced almost entirely to figures inside the Clinton campaign who were and are deeply loyal to Clinton. Yet those sources tell of a campaign that spent nearly two years paralyzed by simple existential questions: Why are we running? What do we stand for?...

...In the Clinton run, that problem became such a millstone around the neck of the campaign that staffers began to flirt with the idea of sharing the uninspiring truth with voters. Stumped for months by how to explain why their candidate wanted to be president, Clinton staffers began toying with the idea of seeing how "Because it's her turn" might fly as a public rallying cry.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/taibbi-on-the-new-book-that-brutalizes-the-clinton-campaign-w477978

Was this her message?

Montasque has issued a correction as of 02:06 on Apr 21, 2017

# ? Apr 21, 2017 02:01

Homeless Friend: Jul 16, 2007

Montasque posted:

Was this her message?

# ? Apr 21, 2017 02:12

Montasque: Jul 18, 2003; Living in a hateful world sending me straight to Heaven

"Stumped for months by how to explain why their candidate wanted to be president, Clinton staffers began toying with the idea of seeing how "Because it's her turn" might fly as a public rallying cry."

My god... It's perfect.

# ? Apr 21, 2017 02:19

Alpha Mayo: Jan 15, 2007; hi how are you?
there was this racist piece of shit in your av so I fixed it
you're welcome
pay it forward~

Montasque posted:

"Stumped for months by how to explain why their candidate wanted to be president, Clinton staffers began toying with the idea of seeing how "Because it's her turn" might fly as a public rallying cry."

My god... It's perfect.

rename CSPAM to this please

# ? Apr 21, 2017 02:48

Homeless Friend: Jul 16, 2007

I'm reading through this article and Hillary really reminds me of a vault overseer lol

like theres some hosed up contrived gimmick they have to overcome (only two people can talk to hillary)

Homeless Friend has issued a correction as of 02:53 on Apr 21, 2017

# ? Apr 21, 2017 02:49

Shear Modulus: Jun 9, 2010

if hillary's campaign employees wanted to talk to her they should've paid $300k just like everyone else

# ? Apr 21, 2017 03:28

etalian: Mar 20, 2006

Homeless Friend posted:

I'm reading through this article and Hillary really reminds me of a vault overseer lol

lmao

# ? Apr 21, 2017 03:30

Jewel Repetition: Dec 24, 2012; Ask me about Briar Rose and Chicken Chaser.

GlyphGryph posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaPkllQziio

Holy poo poo

# ? Apr 21, 2017 03:33

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

I keep seeing all this juicy stuff, but it's only really coming from this one book. How reliable is it?

# ? Apr 21, 2017 03:37

WampaLord: Jan 14, 2010

Homeless Friend posted:

I'm reading through this article and Hillary really reminds me of a vault overseer lol

like theres some hosed up contrived gimmick they have to overcome (only two people can talk to hillary)

It's spot on.

It's like the gave an overseer chems that would make them paranoid, and then encouraged a free press to constantly hound the overseer.

WampaLord has issued a correction as of 03:40 on Apr 21, 2017

# ? Apr 21, 2017 03:37

anime was right: Jun 27, 2008; death is certain
keep yr cool

rudatron posted:

I keep seeing all this juicy stuff, but it's only really coming from this one book. How reliable is it?

they're more concerned with finding out the source of the leaks than calling anything false

# ? Apr 21, 2017 03:45

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

That's probably a pretty good sign then.

Like, just for the sake of dramatic irony, I really, really want this to be true:

quote:

Beyond that, Hillary after 2008 conducted a unique autopsy of her failed campaign. This reportedly included personally going back and reading through the email messages of her staffers:

"She instructed a trusted aide to access the campaign's server and download the messages sent and received by top staffers. � She believed her campaign had failed her � not the other way around � and she wanted 'to see who was talking to who, who was leaking to who,' said a source familiar with the operation."

Some will say this Nixonesque prying into her staff's communications will make complaints about leaked emails ring a little hollow.

# ? Apr 21, 2017 03:45

mugrim: Mar 2, 2007; The same eye cannot both look up to heaven and down to earth.

rudatron posted:

I keep seeing all this juicy stuff, but it's only really coming from this one book. How reliable is it?

So I've actually been waiting for this book for a long time. I wanted a 'Game Change' for this election, but the writers of it are in bad journalists jail for a while for saying dumb poo poo. These authors wrote a (supposedly) neutral telling of HRC's tenure as secretary of state labeled "HRC". They had access to most of her staff during that book, so they leveraged it into a deal where they'd write about the campaign. The staffers seemed fine with it supposedly and as a result they collected over 100 sources. Unlike H&H's third game change book that won't come out for like 18 months, these writers were actually on the campaign trail. People had no problem making snide quotes supposedly because people were so certain it'd be an easy win all the way through that this book would come off like a "Look how hard it is for women to get a leg up" kind of thing but once she lost the context of all their angry careerism changed dramatically. They weren't allowed to publish it until the election was over as a condition which is why they weren't writing about it for any magazine or news paper other than talking about the project.

I'm not saying it's accurate, but at the very least it'll probably be the MOST accurate as they were actively watching and gathering quotes the entire time. H&H's book will probably have some decent sources, but they'll all be gathered after the fact in the context of a loss, not staff members whining about how no one is allowed to talk to their boss not realizing it might actually be a reason none of them have a desk in the white house.

# ? Apr 21, 2017 03:47

etalian: Mar 20, 2006

rudatron posted:

I keep seeing all this juicy stuff, but it's only really coming from this one book. How reliable is it?

The Clintons also avoided firing people this time around during campaign season since they got a meltdown over all the 2008 leaks.

# ? Apr 21, 2017 03:47

The Wiggly Wizard: Aug 21, 2008

GlyphGryph posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHrOo59LCas

Whoever wrote this script made it sound like the end of a Very Special Episode

*holds sport coat over shoulder with two fingers*
Hi there it's me Hillrod.
*Puts one leg up on a chair*
All kidding aside, marriage is between a man and a woman.

# ? Apr 21, 2017 03:48

mugrim: Mar 2, 2007; The same eye cannot both look up to heaven and down to earth.

etalian posted:

The Clintons also avoided firing people this time around during campaign season since they got a meltdown over all the 2008 leaks.

Nothing is funnier than the fact the Dems thought the best person to win an election is the candidate who you have to specify which set of internal leaks you're referring to by year and circumstance.

# ? Apr 21, 2017 03:50

Yossarian-22: Oct 26, 2014

GUM

*click*

# ? Apr 21, 2017 03:57

Azathoth: Apr 3, 2001

rudatron posted:

I keep seeing all this juicy stuff, but it's only really coming from this one book. How reliable is it?

I'd take it all with a grain of salt, but there's probably a lot of truth in there. The biggest reason to read critically seems to be that all the insiders seem to be piling on Robby Mook (and Hillary) while minimizing their own culpability. Now, maybe it's true that those two deserve all the blame for what happened, and maybe if you could be a fly on the wall throughout the campaign, you'd agree, but pretty much every inside source has a vested interest in minimizing their responsibility, since it's absolutely critical to their career to not be seen as having any responsibility for what is now seen as a catastrophic campaign failure.

For some historical perspective, here's a good article on the infamous Dukakis in a tank photo op where, 25 years after the fact, a bunch of retired political operatives all try to beg off any responsibility for it, despite the fact that one of them almost certainly was to blame.

# ? Apr 21, 2017 04:17

LinYutang: Oct 12, 2016; NEOLIBERAL SHITPOSTER

VOTE BLUE NO MATTER WHO!!!

Oh man, all those people trying to convince us that hillary was running a tight, competent ship ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

# ? Apr 21, 2017 04:58

Shear Modulus: Jun 9, 2010

Azathoth posted:

I'd take it all with a grain of salt, but there's probably a lot of truth in there. The biggest reason to read critically seems to be that all the insiders seem to be piling on Robby Mook (and Hillary) while minimizing their own culpability. Now, maybe it's true that those two deserve all the blame for what happened, and maybe if you could be a fly on the wall throughout the campaign, you'd agree, but pretty much every inside source has a vested interest in minimizing their responsibility, since it's absolutely critical to their career to not be seen as having any responsibility for what is now seen as a catastrophic campaign failure.

For some historical perspective, here's a good article on the infamous Dukakis in a tank photo op where, 25 years after the fact, a bunch of retired political operatives all try to beg off any responsibility for it, despite the fact that one of them almost certainly was to blame.

It's encouraging that all the Dem operatives think they can burn all bridges to Hillary.

# ? Apr 21, 2017 05:36

Azathoth: Apr 3, 2001

Shear Modulus posted:

It's encouraging that all the Dem operatives think they can burn all bridges to Hillary.

Yeah, that's probably the biggest counter-argument to the suggestion that she'll try again in 2020. If she really had designs on 2020, I'd expect to see a much more organized pushback on this kind of stuff from the principals involved in the book, since many of them would presumably form the core of her campaign. The book feels like a wake for Hillary's presidential ambitions.

# ? Apr 21, 2017 05:53

ate shit on live tv: Feb 15, 2004; by Azathoth

Shear Modulus posted:

It's encouraging that all the Dem operatives think they can burn all bridges to Hillary.

# ? Apr 21, 2017 07:04

Top City Homo: Oct 15, 2014; Ramrod XTreme

# ? Apr 21, 2017 08:18

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

Homeless Friend posted:

fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck this is sad

# ? Apr 21, 2017 11:25

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

Montasque posted:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/taibbi-on-the-new-book-that-brutalizes-the-clinton-campaign-w477978

Was this her message?

the corporate democrats seem to be struggling with this right now
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3J2C-U8KtuE

# ? Apr 21, 2017 11:27

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

Typo posted:

haha apparently even the clintonites thought the trumped up trickle down line was cringe worthy

can someone please reframe neoliberalism and the democrats as globalist trickle down tia

# ? Apr 21, 2017 11:27

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

Typo posted:

also haha just as I suspected in internal focus groups the clintonites realized that people couldn't differentiate between hillary's private email server, the dnc email leaks and john podesta's email leaks

I think if microsoft ran an ad for one of their email services and immediately after a clinton ad comes on trump gets a few thousand voters

did these same internal focus groups realize that when the media and democrats screech about russians hacking the elections, voters misinterpret this as russians literally hacking voting machines and changing votes as opposed to the allegation they just leaked some embarassing emails

"russian email leaks" just doesnt have the same misinformative ring to it as "RUSSIANS HACKED THE ELECTIONS"

comedyblissoption has issued a correction as of 11:34 on Apr 21, 2017

# ? Apr 21, 2017 11:28

Panzeh: Nov 27, 2006; Can't post for 6 hours!

Azathoth posted:

I'd take it all with a grain of salt, but there's probably a lot of truth in there. The biggest reason to read critically seems to be that all the insiders seem to be piling on Robby Mook (and Hillary) while minimizing their own culpability. Now, maybe it's true that those two deserve all the blame for what happened, and maybe if you could be a fly on the wall throughout the campaign, you'd agree, but pretty much every inside source has a vested interest in minimizing their responsibility, since it's absolutely critical to their career to not be seen as having any responsibility for what is now seen as a catastrophic campaign failure.

For some historical perspective, here's a good article on the infamous Dukakis in a tank photo op where, 25 years after the fact, a bunch of retired political operatives all try to beg off any responsibility for it, despite the fact that one of them almost certainly was to blame.

Yeah, I kinda think the specific anecdotes are more true than which names are where. I think the tendency is actually to try to be respectful of Hilldawg's inner character. It's more negative to Bill because from the campaign staff's perspective he was a gaffe waiting to happen, though he was also a better campaigner as people acknowledged. He could actually do town hall events and things like that. Hillary's campaign pallette was quite a bit more limited due to her personality.

She probably would have won if someone at the beginning of the campaign told her that her character was a real question and that she needed to do everything possible to seem less like a female Nixon. I don't think she was looking for that kind of honesty.

# ? Apr 21, 2017 11:36

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 7, 2024 23:06

Pener Kropoopkin: Jan 30, 2013; by Jeffrey of YOSPOS
(and can't post for 21 days!)

https://twitter.com/jstein_vox/status/854911248135327745

# ? Apr 21, 2017 13:32

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > C-SPAM > What was Hillary Clinton's Campaign message?

«‹›37 »