Reddit Reddit reviews Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton's Doomed Campaign

We found 39 Reddit comments about Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton's Doomed Campaign. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.

Biographies
Books
Leaders & Notable People Biographies
Political Leader Biographies
Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton's Doomed Campaign
CROWN
Check price on Amazon

39 Reddit comments about Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton's Doomed Campaign:

u/Zenmachine83 · 66 pointsr/politics

>And his endorsement speech was not nearly as full-throated as previous candidates. Stuff like that matters. Sanders misled his supporters for 36 days into thinking he was contesting the convention. That foments division, which was and continues to be a huge problem.

One, Sanders offered to campaign for HRC in rust belt states and was denied. You know, those three states that cost us the electoral college. Two, Sanders campaign staff worked hand in hand with HRC staff to quell the revolt at the convention which could have been far worse than it was. Three, the Sanders camp took down ads that the Clinton campaign thought were too damaging in certain states. Seriously read Shattered and you will get a pretty good feel for the relationship between the two campaigns. Hillary took Sanders campaign personally and therefore wasn't able to put her anger aside and team to campaign in any meaningful way. That and the decision to completely give up on grassroots organizing were huge blows to her campaign in MI, PA, and WI.

u/mugrimm · 27 pointsr/politics

I worked for OFA as well as the DCCC and a few other national candidates as well. I can 100% tell you her campaign was significantly worse than average. No matter what you think of Clinton as a person her campaign structure fucked up over and over again, from refusing to campaign in the midwest, to ignoring the server issue until it was too late (she literally had no response or apology for like 6 months), to running a base turnout campaign that somehow focused on moderates instead of the base, to wasting way too much money on ads (ad money that her campaign workers got a cut of just for buying btw), to not having any central vision, and having a completely undefined message and a super obscured political structure. There was like a one month period where she just chilled and didn't campaign publicly at all. I've worked with multiple presidential campaigns and I've NEVER heard of a situation where paid staff can't get through to the candidates inner circle to tell them things like "We're losing our state" or "You need to poll now and stop relying entirely on analytics".

If you haven't read Shattered, I highly recommend you do. The authors are former staff of Debbie Wasserman Shultz. It's not a hit piece on HRC, it's people who were on the ground with HRCs people and saw the same disorder and disarray that was in her 2008 primary campaign as per Game Change. The similarities are STUNNING. Her hating the media and them returning the favor. Her refusal to make decisions when staff disagreed resulting in constant power struggles. Her hiring multiple staff to do the same thing resulting in them working against eachother. The guys who wrote it like HRC but they saw a massive clusterfuck and wrote it down. Much of it was corroborated by the leaked emails.

She's the Tony Romo of the Democrats. She should do amazing, but she always trips over her dick right when she needs to do well.

Trump getting elected required everything to go his way, and many of those things the campaign had direct control over.

Other countries try to interfere in our politics all the time. Nixon and China, Reagan and Iran. For it to work though the other person needs to be fucking up.

u/the_popcorn_pisser · 17 pointsr/subredditoftheday

You guys are being disingenuous. For such defenders of Hillary you really don't seem to know much about the campaign. That very specific phrase didn't come from Hillary, it came from her staffers, another show if the incompetence of her team and her campaign in general. I strongly suggest you read this book. https://www.amazon.com/Shattered-Inside-Hillary-Clintons-Campaign/dp/0553447084

u/thermoroach · 10 pointsr/ShitPoliticsSays

Anyone going to buy Hillary's explanation for the 2016 campaign 'What Happened'?

Looks like it'll be really great to read, I'm sure it'll be completely honest and not at all a blame fest.

Better is Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton's Doomed Campaign.

Actually discusses some of the hubris and poor strategy employed during the campaign. Would recommend reading, even if you're pro-Trump (which I think a good portion of this subreddit is, or at least conservative-leaning) it's a good look at what actually happened.

u/NoFunInBand · 8 pointsr/bidenbro

Yep. This is what it looks like.

u/Pisoo · 7 pointsr/PoliticalDiscussion

Regarding polling, you're right, it doesn't give a complete picture. Often people will answer polls but not vote, or not answer polls and vote, many polls focused on the PV as opposed to the EC. They're useful tools, no doubt, but they're not perfect.

I haven't read the book Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton's Doomed Campaign but from reviews of the book and other analysis, an overemphasis on campaigning based on data relative to campaigning on message, internal campaign politics to stifle constructive change, ignoring calls by Bill to focus on white blue-collar workers were issues, broadly, with the campaign.

And I agree that it's difficult to determine how much of an impact things like campaign mismanagement or Russian interference or whatnot had, but the Comey letter is something you can create a more accurate image of, regarding its impact on the election.

u/UncleDan2017 · 6 pointsr/politics

Hey Hillary, I have some reading for you in your retirement https://www.amazon.com/Shattered-Inside-Hillary-Clintons-Campaign/dp/0553447084

u/3IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIID · 5 pointsr/worldnews

And he links to a book on Amazon, but embedded a "breitbart" referral tag. What's with that? Does he really work for Breitbart? https://www.amazon.com/Shattered-Inside-Hillary-Clintons-Campaign/dp/0553447084?tag=breitbart035-20

u/der_triad · 4 pointsr/PoliticalDiscussion

> Yes it is
> Here's a great example
> Like did you just not pay attention to the general election at all

This is a single campaign ad. It's not the overarching strategy or theme of the campaign. This strategy I mentioned is spoken about heavily in this book that was written over the course of the campaign. I'm not going to dig through the book again to find an exact source for it, but I found an article that discusses this point about the book here.

> That's less of an assessment and more of a talking point

It's an actual assessment. There were multiple focus group studies conducted of Bernie supporters and the results were abysmal. They couldn't even run ads Bernie did for the campaign since they performed so poorly.

> Is this why they continued to fight to push the DNC to include genuine progressive reforms into the official party platform (literally all of which were summarily voted down by Clinton's committee majority)

This is being misrepresented a bit. Bernie's share of representatives on this committee was disproportionately large in comparison to what the runner up nominee got in prior elections. Your views on this seems a bit odd as well. You're acting as though it's an outrage that the Clinton team did not agree with everything the Bernie people put forward. It's their right to disagree and propose competing ideas, that's not some type of injustice or scandal.

> Like, you can't say that there's nothing that Clinton could have done to court genuine progressive liberals when she not only avoided any attempt whatsoever to do so, but further remained continuously dismissive at best, often reaching the point of blatant condescension for the entirety of her campaign.

This was a leaked outtake of something she said in a fundraiser, not exactly a campaign strategy they implemented. In context I don't disagree with anything she said here.

>Policy was irrelevant
>Are you insane

No, I'm not. The electorate votes on how candidates make them feel and which of the candidates they like more. The reality is policy is utterly irrelevant, the people who care about policy are usually partisan voters that follow politics closely and even those people aren't capable of determining what is a good liberal policy or bad liberal policy.

>Yeah I uh
>I think I already covered this kind of thing
>You seem to be generally out of touch with members of the party over here on the left end of the spectrum, but if you have an authentic desire to reach out in the interest of understanding, and in working towards figuring out how the center-right portion of the party might be able reach some actual, meaningful compromises with the genuine left, then I am more than happy to engage in such a discussion

I've worked with the Democratic party and I've also worked with local grassroots movements like indivisible. I'm not out of touch at all, which is why I know it's hopeless. Your entire post is a great example of why it's utterly hopeless.

u/-absolutego- · 4 pointsr/Drama

I read it in Shattered, I will see if I can find an article saying the same.

u/murphysclaw1 · 4 pointsr/neoliberal

Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton's Doomed Campaign

It's got a 3.5 star on Amazon because BernieBros don't like how the authors call out the desperation of Bernie to hurt Clinton, even when he had mathematically lost.

Another really good book though is Chasing Hillary. It's a bit less in depth about the campaign but also is very readable and shows what it's like to work in the media chasing an election campaign.

u/winksup · 3 pointsr/conspiracy

Good point, you're right. Thanks for clarifying. Well I guess time will tell, I hope it's just some newer policy.

I looked at his 2015 book and it was pretty much the same, tons of 1-star reviews from people that weren't verified purchasers, but hopefully that's because it's 2 years old. I also looked at the book Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton's Doomed Campaign and that had a lot of 1-star reviews from people without verification. Unbelievable: My Front-Row Seat to the Craziest Campaign in American History just came out yesterday I think and has almost 2 pages of 1-star reviews just from unverified people.

In the end I think it's weird they removed any negative comments since it seems like they aren't doing that everywhere, and are still allowing some for the Clinton book being talked about here.

u/mittensmadefromkitte · 3 pointsr/politics

Read "Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton's Doomed Campaign"

https://www.amazon.com/Shattered-Inside-Hillary-Clintons-Campaign/dp/0553447084

u/FreezinginNH · 2 pointsr/CringeAnarchy

I'm pretty sure it's from this new book:

Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton's Doomed Campaign

u/jlarrison · 2 pointsr/howardstern

If you want to see how f'ing dysfunctional the HRC campaign was you should read Shattered it is a great book and will scare the hell out of you that the people that advise and run our country are incompetent. https://www.amazon.com/Shattered-Inside-Hillary-Clintons-Campaign/dp/0553447084

u/justinmchase · 2 pointsr/BernieSanders

Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton's Doomed Campaign

A quote from the book:

> That strategy had been set within twenty-four hours of her concession speech. Mook and Podesta assembled her communications team at the Brooklyn headquarters to engineer the case that the election wasn’t entirely on the up-and-up. For a couple of hours, with Shake Shack containers littering the room, they went over the script they would pitch to the press and the public. Already, Russian hacking was the centerpiece of the argument.

Also regarding Comey leading the investigation, was he actually leading it?

Peter Zeidenberg was recently quoted by the AP as saying "It is an ongoing investigation; there is no possible way that Comey could a) know that Trump was cleared of any misconduct at this stage of the investigation..."

If Comey couldn't even know whether or not Trump was cleared of misconduct, how closely was he actually involved in the investigation? Similarly why was he out flying around giving speeches to law enforcement recruits if he was so directly involved in these important investigations?

Additionally , the new acting director has said there is "No effort to impede" the Russia investigation. And said that the investigation will continue.

u/CykoNuts · 1 pointr/POTUSWatch

>Just look at how the Democratic party is blaming their loss on Russia.

>The first sentence I disagree with. I don't see anyone besides some off-kilter people using this as an excuse.

WashingtonPost - Hillary Clinton Blames Russian Hackers and Comey

Hillary Clinton and President Obama increasingly pointing to Russia to help explain her loss

New book where Hillary staffers reveal that the DNC Chair Podesta & Hillary campaign manager Mook devised a plan to blame Russia within 24 hours of her loss. [Shattered:Inside Hillary's Doomed Campaign]
(https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0553447084/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1498631657&sr=8-1&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_FMwebp_QL65&keywords=shattered+inside+hillary+clinton%27s+doomed+campaign&dpPl=1&dpID=51yTq5B34JL&ref=plSrch)

It's just how the game is played. Politics is all about reputation. You never see a politician offer up any confession or say sorry. Even when some evidence surface, they say things like "I did not inhale" or "I'm not a crook". Just look at the refugee crisis caused by the bombing of Libya. Hillary says Obama made the decision, while he said she went there and did all the negotiating. They blame each other and no one admits fault, so I don't see why Trump should be held to a higher standard. Would I like him to be able to admit fault? Yes. But because he didn't, doesn't make him any worst than Obama or other past president.

 

>I mean, I don't think I can convince you to consider Trump negatively nor do I necessarily want to.

I agree, that's why this sub exists to discuss to come closer to the truth. I'm not here to convince you, but to provide you some of the information I've come across and to hear what you've come across. I'm not here to win a debate, but to find out things I didn't know.

 

>It may be easy for you to lock this away in the back of your mind and say he was just "doing what he needed to do,"

That's not my thoughts at all. I always try to put myself in Trump's shoes, and figure out what his thoughts were. I personally haven't come across any evil or ill-intent message. I don't believe he was "doing what he needed to do", as in the end justifies the means. If you have any specific quote you're referring to, let me know. To give you an idea of my thoughts. Here's a doctor's blog. He dislikes Trump, but admits that his campaign rhetoric actually was "feel-good pro-diversity rhetoric", he wrote this blog to get people away from false accusations against Trump, and focus on real things to be upset at Trump. Btw, some of the things the doctor writes about, he doesn't have the full picture. For example, he believes Trump was really mocking a disabled reporter, but after my research, that's most likely not the case. Let me know if you want more details.

 

>Regarding how Trump is with staff and people who he doesn't need to necessarily cozy up to for his own benefit

I read through the sources:

  1. First article - only staff named with a bad experience was Bernard Goupy. He said he was fired after 6 months because a customer didn't like his ceaser salad. Trump confronted him, Groupy insults Trump, then Trump furiously storms off and fires him the next day. Theres obviously another side to this story. How could he insult Trump and Trump just storms off? Sounds like this guy has a grudge against Trump (being fired then tried suing but lost). Sounds like he might have been rightfully fired. This article even says Trump doesn't like to fire people, and his VP said he never heard Trump say the words. He always wants someone else to do it. I'm not sure what that means, maybe he doesn't find pleasure from firing people? Also, they mentioned Corey Lewandowski in here, as an example that Trump doesn't hire experienced people. Trump trusted him and supported him dispite other staffers not liking him. The article claimed his kids orchestrated his dismissal. How is this Trump mistreating his staff?

  2. Second Article - this is about Trump asking around to get a feel for how others think his staff is doing. I'm not a businessman, but it kind of sounds like what you should do. One criticism of Trump is that he doesn't listen or get advice from others. But here he clearly does. The article doesn't mention any unfair treatment of any staff. It's just merely the fact that he's getting other people's opinions which is considered disrespectful, and he should fire people secretly based on his own personal opinion without input from others.

  3. Third Article - this article isn't really about Trump treating staff bad. They are mainly talking about micromanaging. Randall Pinkett says Trump micromanaging, not caring about diversify or his low level staff. Says he hires people that look like Trump (I'm assuming he means 'white' due to his earlier statement about diversify.) Note that Randall is a Democrat. Served as chairman for a Democrat's transition team. Almost selected as lieutenant governor by another Democratic candidate. And chair of the NJ State Democratic Committee. He sounds very biased, especially since he stands to gain power for his political party by defaming the Republican Candidate. Blanche Sprague says Trump treated her like a nanny. Blanche fired an employee for being pregnant. Resulting in the employee suing Trump's organization, Trump in turn fired Blanche, and she sued Trump as well. However she admits that she's still I'm awe with Trump. Sounds like there's a grudge here, with the firing and lawsuit. Louise Sunshine says Trump wants to build a wall because he can relate to construction. This is just speculation. Justin Goldberg says Trump negotiated deals down to the smallest details. (This is an argument that he micromanages). Aaron Sigmond says Trump picked out every cover photo for their magazine (Another argument for micromanaging). The rest of the article is about people who thought Trump was great, he treated men and women equally. His friends mother made breakfast for Trump one morning, and instead of sugar on the cereal, she poured salt.
    >Trump, trying to mind his manners, ate the whole salty, soggy breakfast. “I thought that was pretty impressive,” said Goldberg.

    >“He’s a billionaire without being elite,” said Stone

    Honestly, the third Article made me like Trump more. To summarize my thoughts on the three articles - they are mainly hit pieces and don't really show any mistreatment of staff. You can start seeing why I started liking Trump. I initially trusted these types of articles, didn't like Trump, but after I started doing deeper research, I started to find out how misleading they were and Trump's not that bad of a guy. They want you to hate Trump. From my experience, first two news sites are heavily anti-Trump, last one tends to have an Anti-Trump lean. They found people who has some type of grudge or something to gain (they represent Democrats), or twist something to try to paint a negative picture of Trump.

     

    >Either way, Trump shows a history of dehumanizing people he doesn't need on his side

    I have not found this to be true. There's an abundant history of him treating many people with dignity, from his senior execs down to low level staff like his driver. The media cherry picks people who've been fired or Democrats running for office. I've already given you examples of many neutral sources, people who don't stand to benefit in any way. Like askReddit, those people have nothing to gain to tell us that Trump provides them with free room and treats them with respect. When Rosie O'Donnell got a heart attack, he even wished her well dispite their feud. She said she was shocked and thanked him. There are tons of stories like this. Like the salt in the cereal. He's willing to eat salty cereal, would you be willing to do that? Can you imagine a billionaire doing that?

     

    >Interestingly, I trust a lot of Trump's cabinet

    Even John Kerry said Trump was very thoughtful in his cabinet selections. I like Tillerson and Sessions alot. I know Devos has experience with education, but I have no personal opinion. I've read some articles that says she's actually a good pick, but most articles say she's bad.


     

    >Anyway, I can tell we'll probably never reach an agreement about Trump

    Personally, I don't think that's the point. I feel it's about digging for truth, and based on those truth, everyone will have their own opinions. Let me just throw out a wild example. I think Trump never killed anyone, and you think he's killed many people. Obviously what we think of him will be different. But let's say, after we both presented facts, we've come to the conclusion that Trump fell asleep at the wheel, crashed, and killed his passengers. We still can have different opinions, but at least we both are working off of the same information now. I might think, he didn't mean to kill. You might think, driving while tired means he purposely put his passenger's lives in danger.

    That's why I want to get the information you've been viewing, to see if we have the same information, and if not, how does it affect my views.
u/angrylibertariandude · 1 pointr/AskAnAmerican

Sigh, the way Hillary's campaign ran like after reading the book Shattered(by Jonathan Allen and Arnie Pines, https://www.amazon.com/Shattered-Inside-Hillary-Clintons-Campaign/dp/0553447084 ), I'm convinced it was THAT bad. I really don't know why she didn't campaign harder in swing states like Michigan, Wisconson, etc.

Another Redditor said Democrats often are notorious for screwing up general election campaigning, and sadly I'd say that's true.

u/Usdom · 1 pointr/Political_Revolution

>BLATANT lie right here. Fucking slimy.
Did you read the book Shattered? It's in the book.
https://www.amazon.com/Shattered-Inside-Hillary-Clintons-Campaign/dp/0553447084

>How do you know? We know they tried. But NO ONE HAS EXAMINED THE VOTING SYSTEMS.

Actually, there were audits done after the 2016 primary and they found that if you counted the paper ballots and compared them with the machine count the machines always erred in favor of Hillary Clinton, almost like the voting machines were rigged to guarantee she won. But don't worry, the board of elections for that state promised they would look into it after the November election.

But don't take my word for it, let the video speak for itself.
https://youtu.be/TmYYvZASoks?t=44s

If anyone was cheating for anyone, it was the establishment cheating for Clinton and that makes her defeat even more embarrassing.

u/NonchalantRevelation · 1 pointr/The_Donald

Ah! I didn't see it at first but here you go!

u/GingerJack76 · 1 pointr/AskThe_Donald

>I disagree strongly. I voted for Clinton because I liked her platform and I thought she would have been a great president.

That's great and all, but that doesn't exclude the fact that when asked why she would make a good president, she said it was because she was a woman. Not only that, but the multiple comments degrading people who were voting for Trump as deplorable. There were even admissions within her own campaign staff that she didn't seem like she stood for anything, and that the only real thing to go on was the fact that she was a woman. But all we really have to look at is the fact that you didn't even bother to list examples of why you supported her.

>but memes aren't a great start to a respectful conversation so I decided to not respond.

Then why are you talking to me now? It's really clear you didn't have a proper answer for it.

u/nx_2000 · 1 pointr/AskThe_Donald

The only book about the election I have read thus far is Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton's Doomed Campaign, by Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes. The authors are sympathetic to Hillary of course, but it comes across as an even-handed account of the Clinton campaign and its operators. I don't know that I'd recommend it, unless you're genuinely interested in all the ways they screwed up. I read it because it's the one aspect of this whole election voracious consumers of news like me were not exposed to. Throughout the campaign, there was nothing in the media coverage about the dysfunction in Brooklyn. I don't need to read a book about the Trump campaign apparatus or why people voted for him. I already know all that.

u/errantventure · 1 pointr/neoliberal

I prefer my reading material lightly salted.

u/66_Chevelle_SS · 1 pointr/MarchAgainstTrump

That's wikileaks twitter account, tweeting an excerpt from a book.

This is the source:

https://www.amazon.com/Shattered-Inside-Hillary-Clintons-Campaign/dp/0553447084

Written by Jonathan Allen.

"Jonathan Allen is an award-winning political journalist and New York Times bestselling author. He is the head of community and content at Sidewire, a columnist for Roll Call, and an adjunct professor at Northwestern University. He is also the host of the DC/BS podcast and can be booked for speaking engagements through the Bright Sight Group."

u/Sigma__Phi · 1 pointr/OurPresident

If you wanna talk about Occam's Razor:

  • "Idiot" Donald Trump conspired with Russia to hack the election and covered it up well enough that the only documentation remaining was enough to fill a blackmail dossier that says he hired hookers to pee on a bed Obama may have slept in.
  • Hillary's campaign advisors used "Russian hacking" as an excuse for why they lost, to keep their base agitated and convinced of his supposed illegitimacy.

    You somehow find the first scenario more likely. Despite insider testimony supporting the second scenario. (here's an archive with direct quotes [link])

    And before you ask (because of course you will): no, Shattered was not written by right-wing conspiracy theorists, the authors write for the NYT, The Hill, and Politico.

    Speaking of conspiracy theories: relevant xkcd.
u/PracticalKey · 1 pointr/politics

Thanks for taking the time to put this together and continue the discussion. I'll be the first to admit that my knowledge of the precise sequence of events regarding the discovery of Clinton-related emails on Weiner's laptop is very shallow, your comment from pre-election raises strong points to consider.

I checked out your sources (minus the NPR episode) and I think the ProPublica piece in particular offers a great, balanced account. I want to respond to a few of the points you brought up by countering with my take on Clinton's (far greater) role in these events compared to Comey.

There is little question in my mind that Clinton is completely culpable for the repercussions of the email issue, although I concede that the FBI could have handled large aspects of the investigation in better ways. There are two aspects that I feel strongly affirm Clinton's responsibility for the issue and its repercussions: 1) her willful decisions to mishandle data, and 2) her misleading statements on the issue, whether they were intentional lies or not.

  1. Mishandling data. I think this NPR analysis from April 2015 addresses the policy considerations very well. A reading of the relevant policies outlined here establishes clearly that the ethical responsibility was solely on Clinton to conserve all work-related emails even though her choice to use personal email was not illegal. It's a matter of common knowledge that she did withhold numerous work-related emails, as the FBI retrieved thousands of the deleted emails from various sources.

    > "The final arbiter of what's public or what's turned over to Congress shouldn't be private staff working for Hillary Clinton. It should be State Department employees who are bound by duty to the public interest."

    There was a fundamental conflict of interest in having her privately hired lawyers review the emails before turning them over to the government. By doing so, she created a situation where on the surface it was impossible to determine whether or not she broke the law, leaving an investigation as the only means of making that determination. This is an outcome that Clinton could have easily anticipated and prevented by being more forthright with the data.

  2. Her misleading statements. The American Prospect piece you linked suggests her statements were "misstatements without the intent to deceive," but this characterization falls flat when considered with the established data trail. The crucial piece here is that she made those statements after her lawyers had reviewed all the emails. If she genuinely did not know at that stage that there were classified-marked emails, that is negligent on her part and she should have ensured that she knew. If she did know, then her statements were intentionally deceptive. Neither possibility absolves her from responsibility for creating the situation. If you have any other potential explanations that can reconcile her lack of knowledge despite her internal legal review, I'd like to hear them.

    I take the opposite position as you and argue that the burden on Clinton to account for unintended consequences and take adequate precautions is greater than Comey's burden at every step of the way. From her decision to use a single blackberry and store emails on a private server, to her withholding of emails, to her handling of the fallout, the burden was on her to take responsibility for her actions and control the narrative.

    I'd encourage you to read Shattered if you haven't already. The book is extremely thorough and well-vetted, and comes from authors unbiased on the issue who had written positively about Clinton in the past. The accounts from her associates and campaign staff of her conduct as candidate leave little doubt as to her complete responsibility for the outcome.
u/theleftisinsane · 1 pointr/politics
u/shotgunlewis · 0 pointsr/technology

ooooh burn! I get it, you're in "argument on the internet" mode. But self-righteous sass and personal attacks don't get us any closer to fixing America's broken political system.

I never said I'm the only woke person, or even that I am woke. Just that you're making some ignorant statements with a lot of conviction

Her foundation does do good things. However, people's donations could instead go to a charity that doesn't embezzle money.

In the Obama administration, Hillary approved the sale of Uranium to a Russian company who conveniently donated $2.35 million to the foundation. One of several examples of her using the foundation as a "pay-to-play" proxy.

It's good that you have your finger on what sucks about today's American politicians.

Did you realize that Bernie is against all of those evils? Campaign finance reform was a pillar of his platform and he doesn't have a scandal to his name. He's there because he wants to serve, unlike Hillary, who is there for herself.

I encourage you to read some excerpts from Shattered, written by people inside Hillary's campaign. A really telling insight was that she was never able to articulate why she even wanted to be president or what she wanted to accomplish if she won. Just that it seemed like the next logical step in her career. Actually not unlike Trump, in that respect

edit: reopening the Bernie would've won if he had been nominated point since I'm always happy to drop some knowledge. Besides the fact that Hillary was a scandal-ridden, wet-noodle of a candidate:

a) Bernie beat Hillary in the rust belt: Michigan, Ohio, West VA, PA, all states that swung the election for Trump

b) Bernie appeals to the anti-establishment voters who went Trump or 3rd party (myself included)

I'm no fortune teller but he probably would've beat Trump. Bringing it back to my original point which you took exception to: we're stuck with a mad clown in the White House because the DNC rigged the primaries in favor of a weak candidate due to her party connections

u/blindcomet · 0 pointsr/ukpolitics

It's in the book Shattered. Go and read it for yourself

u/Shaper_pmp · 0 pointsr/WikiLeaks

>The article provides no evidence, and little reason to suspect that this was the case... The article provides no evidence of this claim either.

But it does refer you to a book on Amazon with a Breitbart affiliate link[1] generating them referral fees for anything you buy after following the link.

Hmmmmm.

-----

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Shattered-Inside-Hillary-Clintons-Campaign/dp/0553447084?tag=breitbart035-20 , in case they change it.

u/Trumptron3000 · 0 pointsr/AdviceAnimals

>This is a false equivalence.

Your honor, I rest my case.

-----------------------
People like to compare this to Watergate because they want the same end result: to have the current president out of office ahead of schedule. That is very unlikely, but it was made to seem so because two things (one real and one fake) were conflated as being just one thing: Russian Manipulation and Russian Collusion.

As Comey himself testified, the actual investigation the FBI began last year was into Manipulation, and by Comey's own statements Flynn's contact with any of that was vaguely tangential and came up clean, and Trump wasn't a part of it at all. The Collusion narrative (not real) was tacked onto the Manipulation investigation (real) to provide convenient ammunition to try to salvage the disaster of November 8th for the DNC. In fact, it's even remarked on in a NYT Bestseller. It's no secret that the Collusion narrative was fake, it's just that a lot of people desperately want it to be true or at least to not have been so wrong. Sort of like how some people react after falling for a prediction of the Rapture.

edit:

>Besides, these two investigations are happening 40 years apart. Investigative methods for the FBI as well as resources available to a special counsel and their team are vastly different from the Nixon era. Thus, to use the Watergate timeline as an exact match for the investigation in the present day is a fool's errand.

You're right. They can work faster today, which puts yet another hole in the story.

u/SpiceAndEvNice · -1 pointsr/pics

With that I mind I really suggest this book:

Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton's Doomed Campaign https://www.amazon.com/dp/0553447084/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_j6aSCbTQBNKWQ

It wasn't only muhh Russia or muhh Assange: HRCs campaign was an absolute disaster to the point it lost to Trump of all people.

It's really impressive that after a couple of years some of you can't even reconcile with this simple fact.

u/GudSpellar · -1 pointsr/politics

That's not the author's opinion. That's the title of this book review for a book chronicling Clinton's 2016 campaign. The full title of the review is:

Why Hillary Clinton Really Lost;
An insider book on Campaign 2016 reveals a paranoid Hillary Clinton who spied on staff emails after losing in 2008 and carried her political dysfunction into her loss to Donald Trump


The book is written by campaign reporters Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes and is called "Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton's Doomed Campaign"

Mark Halperin and John Heilemann, who wrote “Game Change” in 2010 and “Double Down” in 2013 have their book coming next year.

u/Rimacrob · -2 pointsr/worldnews

Again, sorry to say, but it takes more than a few paragraphs of internet comments to explain. If you want to actually learn the answers to your questions and not just confirm biases bordering on obsession, crack a fucking book.

https://www.amazon.com/Shattered-Inside-Hillary-Clintons-Campaign/dp/0553447084/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1495219671&sr=8-1&keywords=shattered+inside+hillary+clinton%27s+doomed+campaign

u/Top_Poppy · -4 pointsr/The_Mueller

>“Within 24 hours of her concession speech, [campaign chair John Podesta and manager Robby Mook] assembled her communications team at the Brooklyn headquarters to engineer the case that the election wasn’t entirely on the up-and-up. For a couple of hours, with Shake Shack containers littering the room, they went over the script they would pitch to the press and the public. Already, Russian hacking was the centerpiece of the argument.”

From the book "Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton’s Doomed Campaign"