Started By
Message

re: Report: podesta and mook planned the Russia narrative in case of loss

Posted on 4/24/17 at 1:37 pm to
Posted by ibldprplgld
Member since Feb 2008
24997 posts
Posted on 4/24/17 at 1:37 pm to
quote:

This is from the book "shattered" which is coming soon which uses insider leaks to describe her campaign



I'm currently about halfway through the book. Before I read it, I was of the mindset that Hillary somehow snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, and that her campaign was a well-oiled machine, but ran into the Trump Buzz Saw. But from what I've read so far, her campaign was a mess before it was even announced she was running.

There were so many problems. Just a few:

Hillary struggled with messaging. She had trouble acknowledging to her team (before she announced and even after) why she was running. She didn't know herself why, only that she was. There were entire meetings devoted to hammering out why she was running. She couldn't come up with the actual reason why she wanted to run.

There were too many chiefs. Hillary's trust in her advisors vacillated wildly. She had too many advisors and senior staff inside the campaign. Those senior staff all had proper titles, but there was no real delineation of responsibilities and authority. To the extent that any lines actually existed, they were blurred all the time. Hillary played favoritism and shut people out frequently. It was cyclical. One day you were in, and the next out, but you never really knew. Everyone was jockeying to get close to her and gain influence (often times for their own gain rather than Hillary's). There was constant in-fighting between the teams within the campaign. In addition to her actual staff, Hillary (and Bill) also had other advisors outside the campaign she leaned on quite a bit.

Bill was more involved than the campaign wanted the public to know. And the truth: he lost his touch. He wasn't the smooth operator with the spot-on political instincts he once had. He was rusty. He also (like Hillary) failed to account and adjust for how angry the electorate was at the establishment.

Hillary and her team underestimated Sanders's mettle and the groundswell he was riding. She was furious that she hadn't put him away easier and she (and Bill) lashed out at her team after the NH and MI losses that "blindsided" her. She constantly threatened staff shake-ups (especially Mook who no one really liked) but ultimately she didn't fire people because then they could spill all the dirt about the campaign. Instead, she kept them inside the "Clinton tent" so she could control them and prevent them from talking.

This was one of the big ones to me. She spent so much time after 2008 licking her wounds and preparing for 2016. She was crazed about not making the same mistakes in 2016 she thought the campaign made in 2008. Notice what I said: she thought the campaign failed her in 2008, not that she as a candidate failed. She changed everything in 2016 from her team to messaging, to tactics to bringing on a lot of Obama's campaign people. She was fanatical about her speeches (her announcement speech had no less than 10 people working on it), to her venues and stops. But for everything she changed on the campaign, she couldn't change the biggest issue: the candidate.


TL;DR: Hillary was a mess in both 2008 and 2016. She had no idea why she was running, only that she wanted to. Her campaign was a mess at the top. She and Bill lashed out frequently. She frantically changed everything from her 2008 campaign but she didn't realize she was the problem in both elections and it all followed from there.
Posted by Tigerdev
Member since Feb 2013
12287 posts
Posted on 4/24/17 at 1:46 pm to
Was the FBI complicit in this narrative? Last I checked the FBI was leading the investigation into collusion with Russia by the Trump campaign...not Podesta, Mook, or Hillary.


Think people. Challenge yourselves at least ffs.
Posted by BamaAtl
South of North
Member since Dec 2009
21895 posts
Posted on 4/24/17 at 1:54 pm to
Good on them to try to force Republicans to investigate shady dealings by their own candidate!
Posted by AaronDeTiger
baton rouge
Member since Jun 2014
1558 posts
Posted on 4/24/17 at 11:10 pm to
You obviously didn't read the article I linked from the Intercept because you wouldn't have posted those documents...

quote:

But look more closely at the above and you can’t help but notice all of the qualifying words: Possibly, appears, connects, indicates. It’s impossible (or at least dishonest) to present the evidence for Russian responsibility for hacking the Democrats without using language like this.
This post was edited on 4/24/17 at 11:29 pm
first pageprev pagePage 3 of 3Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram