The Guardian Person of the Year: Hillary Clinton

[Born To Slay 10,996]

9 minutes ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

 

She has though  She's spoken a few times since her loss in fact  Idk what you want her to do, co-sponsor a bill? Make more Facebook posts?  

The Trump campaign basically put a target on her back for something she literally didn't do. Can you imagine if she tried to run for public office now? Tried to do X now? A good percentageof this country thought that she was a dangerous criminal who leaked government secrets and killed some rando people and some people thought these rumors of corruption with the Clinton Foundation and what not were enough to warrant voting in someone who is definitively a corrupt liar with a bad track record in the one thing that he claims to be good at  It'd be hard for her to take any significant roles within the party or maybe even behind the scenes. Name association is strong. You realize how many people Trump swayed over to his side by repeatedly saying "Obama" every time he referred to Clinton? Throwing Clinton's support behind a bill, act, movement, etc. might actively hurt said cause at the moment. I'm not saying she should never try to do anything again, but the damage has been done and I don't really think she will ever pursue public office again, which is a damn shame because she's been working for the American people's best interests for decades  

Not mutually exclusive  

People are a summation of their actions, words, and accomplishments and failures, etc. It's simple. 

Having Hillarys name attached to a cause wouldn't hurt it imo. She may be unpopular but she still has a lot of influence and fighting for progressive values would probably help her popularity rating among progressives. 

I feel she solid be out there with Bernie, Warren, etc in speaking about against Trump and the Clintons should be out there trying to rally the public against Trump. 

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

Just now, Born To Slay said:

Having Hillarys name attached to a cause wouldn't hurt it imo. She may be unpopular but she still has a lot of influence and fighting for progressive values would probably help her popularity rating among progressives. 

I feel she solid be out there with Bernie, Warren, etc in speaking about against Trump and the Clintons should be out there trying to rally the public against Trump. 

Bernie and Warren (etc) are in public office positions where they can speak out against these things more effectively than she can. She has said some, and probably will in the future (again; recuperating) but maybe not to the extent you want her to, and I think that's perfectly okay. 

[Born To Slay 10,996]

Just now, ItsTommyBitch said:

Bernie and Warren (etc) are in public office positions where they can speak out against these things more effectively than she can. She has said some, and probably will in the future (again; recuperating) but maybe not to the extent you want her to, and I think that's perfectly okay. 

Listen, I'm not trying to argue that she should do anything she doesn't want to. If she doesn't wanna be on the front lines anymore, then fine. But then don't give her an award over Bernie. I'm not arguing she's a bad person or unsuccessful, just that Bernie deserves the award.

Even tho she's not in a public position, she could be rallying the public behind legislation that Sanders and Warren are pushing. 

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

27 minutes ago, Born To Slay said:

Listen, I'm not trying to argue that she should do anything she doesn't want to. If she doesn't wanna be on the front lines anymore, then fine. But then don't give her an award over Bernie. I'm not arguing she's a bad person or unsuccessful, just that Bernie deserves the award.

Even tho she's not in a public position, she could be rallying the public behind legislation that Sanders and Warren are pushing. 

This is their criteria by which they decided to give her the award:

"For making history as the first woman to get that close to the American presidency, for standing out among men and women, for standing up for her beliefs and standing against the dark forces of discrimination and oppression, for being a banner of hope to all women of all races or colour around the world and an inspirational force for the girl-child, Hillary Rodham Clinton is The Guardian’s PERSON OF THE YEAR 2016"

It's valid. It's not a general award for "energizing youth independents the most" or anything, in which case, Bernie should surely win. 

These things basically boil down to "Did X person do something valid this year? Can we give them a symbolic award?" Then they build it from there  Again, it means nothing.

[Luc 4,776]

I agree. She's an icon for me and shows what it means to work hard for what you want, and that sometimes it just doesn't work out.

[SKANK 14,288]

1 hour ago, Born To Slay said:

Hillary may have won the primary but aside from that and getting to compete with Trump, what'd she do to deserve person of the year that Bernie didn't? 

 

Even as a Sander's supporter myself, I can't imagine the delusion required for someone to claim that Bernie Sanders had a greater historical impact on 2016 than Hillary Clinton.

Clinton became the first female presidential nominee of a major political party in our country's 230 year history. She won the popular vote by a margin larger than any other losing candidate in our country's 230 year history.  As the The Guardian correctly states, "Clinton made history by being the history that was never made."

 

[Born To Slay 10,996]

49 minutes ago, SKANK said:

 

Even as a Sander's supporter myself, I can't imagine the delusion required for someone to claim that Bernie Sanders had a greater historical impact on 2016 than Hillary Clinton.

Clinton became the first female presidential nominee of a major political party in our country's 230 year history. She won the popular vote by a margin larger than any other losing candidate in our country's 230 year history.  As the The Guardian correctly states, "Clinton made history by being the history that was never made."

 

Historical significance, yeah sure but I don't think that should make her person of the year. Trump also made history but that doesn't mean he should win anything ever. 

[PartySick 172,486]

4 hours ago, Born To Slay said:

I feel she solid be out there with Bernie, Warren, etc in speaking about against Trump and the Clintons should be out there trying to rally the public against Trump. 

I'd love to see her more active now too (even though I agree with SKANK that she deserves some time to just relax), however if she were to actively speak out against Trump now, I think it'd be taken as her being a sore loser. Actually, I'm sure that's exactly what Trump would say the second she opened her mouth

She's playing it smart. She knows that, at least for now, she should back off some 'cause any anti-Trump cause she gets behind will be delegitimized due to the fact that she was his opponent and she lost.

After Trump's first real f*ck up (a conflict with China, Russia, or ISIS; crashing our economy; getting caught in some sex scandal; idk, take your pick, the guy's messy enough and anything is possible), then she can come out and subtly say "you could've had all this lmao"

[Goosey 3,017]

1 hour ago, Born To Slay said:

Trump also made history but that doesn't mean he should win anything ever. 

Nnn; what!? The Donald's all about winning!

[En_Sabah_Nur 9,366]

5 hours ago, Born To Slay said:

I think Bernie contributed more to this year then Clinton did. Bernie brought the younger generation into politics and is ushering change in the Democratic Party. He proved you could run a national campaign without big donors. He got more individual contributions then any other campaign in history.

Some good all those things did, since we still lost everything anyway....  

 

[Whispering 18,865]

9 hours ago, En_Sabah_Nur said:

Some good all those things did, since we still lost everything anyway....  

 

Exactly! A younger generation that didn't show up to vote. They weren't reliable voters, so their power is diminished. This progressive movement won't have great influence unless they become a reliable voting block. 

[En_Sabah_Nur 9,366]

40 minutes ago, Whispering said:

Exactly! A younger generation that didn't show up to vote. They weren't reliable voters, so their power is diminished. This progressive movement won't have great influence unless they become a reliable voting block. 

AMEN!  ^^

Sometimes the unseen are also the unheard.  🙌

 

[TiphEret 1,320]

21 hours ago, Goosey said:

Nnn;

Corrupt establishment politico = 'banner of hope'

I don't if it's because Trump is worse in some ways or because she is a woman, but how can people praise Hillary, this is beyond me, she is not only corrupted but also look at her role in foreign affairs, it's criminal! 

[deeman 189]

The guardian is basically owned by the clintons/ blairites. Ofcourse they are going to give her an award. I can see how Bernie deserves it more but clearly Jill Stein should get the award. She was there on the ballot and Bernie wasn't. Jill has been campaigning all along not just in 2016 but for  the 2012 elections too and covering many important issues. She fought for election integrity where Clinton did not. She had very much the best platform and provided that much needed glimmer of hope trippling her score from 2012. Without Jill this really would have been so much worse. Even with the disappointing numbers that 1% meant so much more than all the protest voting for the other candidates. Jill definitely won the real vote FOR president among people with clue unlike the protest candidates campaigning for protest votes AGAINST each other thus subverting the entire system when it clearly states on the ballot to vote FOR one. Nobody  other than Hillary could have got Trump elected.