A hilarious new book (I’m assuming this is supposed to be comedy) details how Hillary Clinton prepared for her losing run for the presidency, in 2016.
If you’re like me, you’re wondering how many different takes there can be on just how awful Hillary Clinton was, as a candidate. How many different angles are there from which to consider her fantastic crash-and-burn?
Seriously. She lost to Donald Trump.
I imagine they’ll keep cranking out these tomes for the foreseeable future, given that Hillary Clinton has trouble letting go.
So how did Queen Hillary prepare for debates?
“You want authentic, here it is!” Clinton yelled during one preparation session, followed by a “f**k-laced fusillade” about Trump being a “disgusting” human, campaign reporter for the New York Times, Amy Chozick, writes in her new book, according to the Guardian.
“Aides understood that in order to keep it all together onstage, Hillary sometimes needed to unleash on them in private,” Chozick writes in Chasing Hillary: Ten Years, Two Presidential Campaigns and One Intact Glass Ceiling, which was released Tuesday.
Who are the aides that would let someone verbally abuse them, simply because she needed it? If she “needs” to be verbally abusive to keep it all together, there are some emotional problems that need immediate attention.
This is the book by the Clinton acolyte, that further details Clinton’s mewling pity-grab, when she declared that “they” were never going to “let” her be president.
It’s not about “letting” anyone win. It’s about EARNING the trust of the voters and Hillary Clinton couldn’t do that.
But sure, let’s talk about the “empowered woman” needing things given to her, in order to get ahead, then claiming a glass ceiling when it doesn’t happen that way.
The book also points out that the campaign tossed around various slogans, in an attempt to give Clinton the feel of authenticity.
There were 84 slogans bandied about, such as “No quit” and “You’ve earned a fair chance.”
Earned, earned, EARNED!
Not “given,” or “owed,” but earned. Learn the difference.
Also while preparing for debates:
“Hillary would take a couple of steps toward the questioner, make eye contact, empathize,” Chozick writes.
And how did that work out?
Let’s face it: 2016 was a contest of the horribles. It could have gone either way, and in fact, fewer people found Clinton repugnant, but fewer people in the right parts of the country found Trump more repugnant, so he grabbed those important Electoral College votes.
The hope should be that we never have a repeat of 2016 and voters on both sides of the aisle demand better candidates.
Or a competent, serious third party emerges, in the meantime.