George Clooney on Hillary Clinton: ‘I never saw her elevate her game’

74th Venice Film Festival - Suburbicon - Photocall

George Clooney is still talking and still promoting Suburbicon. Maybe he actually stopped talking at this point, and reporters are only getting around to posting his full interviews now. I say that because I feel like I’ve read half of these quotes before, possibly in his USA Today or Hollywood Reporter interviews. The Daily Beast published their long-read interview with George over the weekend – he talks again about how he’s not the guy to direct movies about the black experience, and how it should be a no-brainer for the president to come out and say that Nazis are bad. There’s new stuff in this interview too, like George’s take on Hillary Clinton’s campaign. You can read the full piece here. Some highlights:

Not all racists are hicks from the South: “I remember the movie Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner and, although not a perfect film, there’s something great about the idea of, “Yeah, I’m a liberal, but don’t marry my daughter!” And it was fun because, having grown up in Kentucky, when I see movies depicting any type of racism it always sounds like Mississippi Burning—hick accents and all. And when I was looking at the crisis of Levittown, these people sounded like they’d come from the East Coast and they were still hanging Confederate flags on houses and saying all these racist things. It’s good to remember that it wasn’t just the South that was f–ked up. It played out everywhere.

Telling the African-American version of Suburbicon: “…One of the things I talked to the actors about—including Karimah, who plays Daisy Myers—was that there’s somebody out there that would be the perfect person to do the African-American version of this story. That’s not where my expertise lies, and probably where it shouldn’t lie, but I do have a fairly strong sense of white males worried about losing their place in society and blaming minorities. I grew up around that so I can speak to that, and we wanted to focus on that version of it.

Whether the election was “a referendum on women.” “I think it was. Here’s what I see from Hillary. Hillary, for years and years and years, has been the presumptive nominee, and quite honestly, she was incredibly qualified for the job. But being qualified for the job does not necessarily mean you’re the right person to be president. Here’s what I mean. She was more qualified than even her husband was when he was elected president, but she’s not as good at communicating things. That’s simply true. When she got up and gave a speech, it didn’t soar. Now, that doesn’t mean that she wouldn’t have done a great job as president, and I supported her because by the time we did the fundraiser the primary was over at that point and it was time to get on with picking someone to move forward, and she was the right person to side with.”

Hillary’s elevated game: “It was frustrating because I never saw her elevate her game. I never saw it. And I had a lot of liberal friends who were like, “She’s not good at this.” And I see that, and I understand it. I also think, though, that if it was a guy it wouldn’t have been so polarizing. I think the fact that she’s a woman made it a much harder uphill battle. They’ve had the “Arkansas Project” where for twenty-five years the Clintons have been accused of murdering Vince Foster and accused of tons of stuff, so I thought it was a raw deal. I think that she wasn’t particularly good at articulating the things that she wanted to do, and unfortunately we live at a time right now where articulating what you want to do is more potent in the electorate than the other way around, obviously, when Trump only said he was going to “Make America Great Again.” Don’t you think the next Democrat who runs should just run with a blue hat that says, “Make America Great Again?”

[From The Daily Beast]

The Hillary quotes are being carried under headlines like “George Clooney slams Hillary” and “Clooney says Hillary lost because she never elevated her game.” I think there’s a particular context and in that context, he’s not wrong. He’s acknowledging that Hillary was judged (unfairly) by a different set of rules as a woman, that she faced the historic challenge of already being a target of a “vast right-wing conspiracy” for three decades, that she had been a high-quality public servant but she wasn’t the best campaigner. I like and love Hillary Clinton and I can admit to myself and to all of you that she wasn’t the best campaigner either. She wasn’t. Now all that being said, if you refused to vote for Hillary Clinton because she wasn’t a great campaigner, then you suck as a person. People who watched the election unfold and saw the crazy sh-t Donald Trump said and did and then thought “but her emails, and her vocal fry!” Yeah. The problem wasn’t that Hillary wasn’t a great campaigner. It must have been something else.

74th Venice Film Festival - Suburbicon - Premiere

Photos courtesy of WENN.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

104 Responses to “George Clooney on Hillary Clinton: ‘I never saw her elevate her game’”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. HadToChangeMyName says:

    The only way Hillary could have “elevated her game” any more was if she turned around at one of the debates and told Trump to STFU. Seriously. She did everything right. She was prepared. She had research. She had experience. Trump had nothing, because her e-mails.

    • Jean says:

      Exactly. If she’d been more emotional she’d have been accused of being a hysterical woman.

    • Belle Epoch says:

      My first reaction was WHAT? How is the most accomplished and most experienced woman supposed to do MORE? Hillary knows she’s not flashy. But who needs flashy? We got an “elevated” GAME from Trump and look what happened. At least GC added that as a woman it is harder.

      • Emily says:

        But I think that’s his point. “We” (Americans in general) obviously wanted flashy, because flashy won. So rational, measured, and knowledgable lost. Now, had she been flashy in addition to all those things, maybe she could have won. But knowing what I know now about my fellow Americans…she was screwed from the start because she’s a woman.

      • Pineapple says:

        This whole, “she’s so qualified but didn’t connect” take doesn’t explain why she lost to the most obnoxious public misogynist on the planet. This isn’t American Idol. American voters aren’t that stupid. She doesn’t have to be likeable but she has to have a policy platform that appeals.

        She lost largely because her policy platform was more of the same. Obama, Bill Clinton, Hillary, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, and Deval Patrick, etc, are corporate/centrist Democrats who have strong ties to Wall Street and big business. The shift to the center economically speaking, starting with Bill, has led to Dems losing control in the legislature, judiciary, and the executive. This has been written about extensively by people like Thomas Frank, Matt Stoller, Ryan Cooper, etc, etc, since the election and well before it.

    • Marion C says:

      She did everything right to be President, but by almost all accounts she did not run a good campaign and that is her major weakness. And think about it, many of the arguments on why she should have won over Trump also could apply on why she should have been the candidate over President Obama. I loved him as much as anyone, but even then she was far more qualified, experienced, etc.

    • Teebee says:

      Am I living in Crazytown????

      Trump ran an unhinged, unprofessional, unqualified, antagonistic, racist, hateful, pandering, incompetent campaign. At every turn. Controversy after controversy. Scandal after scandal.

      And HRC is the one that should have done better????

      Oh. My. God.

      Hilary lost because she’s a woman. Clinton’s loss of the election is the absolute definition of Entrenched systemic misogyny. no one wants to hear that argument anymore. But that’s why it’s so important. Until society, especially in the US recognize their resistance to change, to making things significantly different, to finally levelling that playing field, smashing that ceiling, nothing will get better. No woman has a chance in hell of reaching that ultimate position.

      Sadly, entrenched and systemic racism is still so evident today as well.

      I’m just so, damn tired. Tired of the arguments, debate, analysis. It’s all floating above the real issues. So nothing is going to change. Because there is not a movement big enough, a voice loud enough to bring meaningful attention to the embedded, deep, long long simmering poisonous roots of racism, misogyny, corruption and greed that brought someone like Trump to power.

    • Carrie1 says:

      Seriously. I stopped reading his quotes above after he said she doesn’t communicate effectively. She was f’n brilliant and substantive and still is.

      George Clooney did that movie interview with Julianne Moore for something recently… she had good comments in an interview clip from that. But he really struck my b.s. Meter too for the first time! He’s so full of himself I can’t stand it!

      Stfu Clooney. He’s like Biden to me now. Criticizing Hillary is really shady and epitome of men in power disrespecting women and being unable to see their own bias.

    • anon says:

      i love hillary clinton but she lost because of the deplorable comment. As leader it’s your job to convince people why your ideas and ideology is better. That’s how segregation ended( well at least started to end), gay rights were won. You don’t win hearts by calling someone deplorable. at that point you just lose them permanently.

  2. mishka says:

    I voted for Hillary Clinton regardless of her campaign. She is intelligent and has experience in the public sector. Unfortunately she would be up against a misogynistic congress and would be rolled over if she won.

  3. Marion C says:

    He’s not wrong. I saw Hillary twice during the campaign, both times in the northeast. While they were huge audiences, lots of signs, etc. when she spoke it almost drained the energy in the room. She was very measured, I liked what she said, but just too calm/practiced almost. By comparison, a friend saw Trump at a rally (not a supporter, but wanted to experience) and he said he was inarticulate and made no sense but was great at getting folks into a frenzy.

    She just didn’t have that “it” factor people want during campaigns. She, and her team, also did not seem to learn from her loss to Obama and adjust, almost seems like they just thought his method of engaging was a fluke and then the world would go back to the old school way of running a campaign. Plus ignoring states completely, not smart. Even if they didn’t matter in the technical part when it came to numbers, they were still people she would have been leading as part of the US.

    • Bijou says:

      Agree completely. She was not a very exciting candidate, isn’t the most charismatic, and she should have tried harder with red states…she could have at least visited and made an attempt.

    • lucy2 says:

      I get his point, and I think you did a good job expressing it as well. That’s interesting to hear about the differences in the rally energy.
      What’s sad is it shouldn’t matter. She was so well qualified and experienced, and let’s face it, was running against a barely sentient cheeto fart. How exciting she was never should have mattered.

      And if she had tried be more exciting or whatever, she would have been trashed for it.

    • JC says:

      Completely agree. She and her campaign were a perfect storm of arrogance and stupidity. They knew she needed to win the electoral college—not the popular vote. Really dumb to skip so many states. The constant refrain is that she’s so qualified and experienced—but what good are qualifications or experience if you fundamentally can’t manage to apply them in real life situations?

    • magnoliarose says:

      Her campaign was terrible.
      It was frustrating because everyone who has met her or spent time with her have a very different view of her than how she came across during her campaign. My mother said you don’t know how impressive she is until you meet her and see her in action. HRC is a badass bitch is how my sister defines her, but she could not unleash her power, if that makes sense, because it would have scared the little men/boys.
      The presidents that people remember in history were able to move people with speeches that could also get their message across. I wish they would have given her acting and speech lessons to help her learn how to speak and grab attention.
      Maybe this will change now as a result of this election and voters will pay more attention to details and not delivery.

  4. littlemissnaughty says:

    Uh huh. *sigh* He’s not wrong but it’s also not really the point. If you voted Orange Teletubby over Hillary Rodham Clinton, you didn’t do that because she didn’t soar. And she CAN elevate her game, she CAN speak candidly, and she CAN soar. She is doing it promoting her damn book (it arrived today, I can’t wait). I was floored when I watched the interviews, she’s like a different person. So why was she so controlled and “uninspired” before? The woman has been through some sh*t. She’s been attacked over and over again over decades. It was drilled into her, which is why she never told Trump to back off on that stage. It is so f*cking unfair to tell women they need to be cool, calm, collected at all times and then THAT is the issue in the end? GTFO. She was goddamn qualified. He is a racist. There is no debate.

    • Kate says:

      It’s not about the people who voted for Trump. She lost very few actual Dem voters to Trump.

      It’s about who didn’t vote at all. If Democrats had come out for her she’d have won easily. Hell, if she could have captured even 10% of the Democrats who came out for Obama but not her, she’d have won.

      • littlemissnaughty says:

        Again, how is this about her soaring? How is being experienced and qualified not enough to bring out Democrats? What do these people want? A car? She’s not Oprah. This doesn’t make her look bad, it makes voters look terrible.

      • ORIGINAL T.C. says:

        Yes. What Trump and the Russians did was to try and suppress the vote. If they could get most Democrats to stay at home, Trump can win with his 35% of voters. So we had the Facebook fake news posts about HRC being crooked, corupt, killed her business partners. I remember getting those links from my Bernie voting friends. They refused to believe that it was all lies. There was a video cutting and pasting lots of speeches to prove she was a liar. You can do that to ANY politician, even Bernie but nope only HRC’s video was made. Then of course the Southern strategy of suppressing voting rights from POC.

        And Muller’s announcement dropped like a lead ballon on every single channel, streamed for hours with the headline also streamed across the TV. It pretty much made it seem like she was guilty and was going to go to jail. My heart just dropped that day.

        The Republicans are going to be a minor party. They know the numbers are not in their favor so the only choice is to stop 60-70% of the population from voting. I know liberals think we are the smart ones but many, many, many liberals fell for fake news and believed anything negative posted about HRC on the web. I met a lot of these people in real life. So yeah it’s not about winning over Trump voters, it’s about getting Democrat to show up at the polls.

      • Aiobhan Targaryen says:

        It is not that some Dems did not want to come out for her, it is that some could not come out and vote due to voter suppression.

      • JG says:

        I remember reading that more blacks and latinos voted for Trump than voted for Romney in 2012. I’ll try to find a link.

      • KC says:

        ^^^^^^What Kate said. If she had campaigned differently, been a bit more charismatic NO, she wouldn’t have gotten the Trump voters but she might have gotten some swing voters and I think she would have definitely persuaded enough of those who didn’t show up to vote for her and we wouldn’t have been so shellshocked on Election Day. It’s not the bigots, racists, misogynists who Trump enthralled it’s that group who didn’t want Trimp but weren’t convinced by Hilary and not having a candidate they were confident about sat this election out.

      • HOWE areya says:

        You want my intuitive opinion? She’s clearly the more qualified candidate, but she came across as arrogant. Sorry, but That’s my take. Too much “high road” stuff. Sounded very condescending. And of course she was tarnished with all the scandals they put on her. (Let’s not leave that out here). It was very real guys. Be honest. Beyond all this….was Hillary the “qualified”. But she was draped in a shell of controversy (real or otherwise).

    • ellieohara says:

      Okay, so the voters look “terrible”. So what? Getting people to vote is the bedrock of politics. You can’t change the voters, only the campaign.

      • littlemissnaughty says:

        What? NO! Voting is a right and a privilege and everyone who thinks they deserve a cookie for voting is a spoilt moron! Oh my god if this is the attitude, no wonder US politics is in the toilet.

        Voter suppression is one thing but laziness is a whole different issue. One I have no patience for.

    • jetlagged says:

      I attribute Hillary’s uber-controlled manner during the campaign to trying very hard to look “Presidential”. She had no choice but to appear calm, cool, collected and supremely knowledgeable or she would have been branded a hysterical female and unfit to be Commander-in-Chief. She may have over-compensated but what was the alternative?

  5. BearcatLawyer says:

    Hillary could have elevated her game to Michael Jordanesque heights, but that would not have stopped Russia from interfering with the election and allowing fake news to proliferate.

    • Betsy says:

      Winner winner chicken dinner.

      I get so po’d at this idiot line from people like George. EVERYONE knows she’s not a great campaigner, but she’s insanely intelligent, diligent, dedicated…. but she has that vagina.

      • Walkerfan says:

        https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cz3zi8sweYA 50 seconds in, to your point. Wholehearted YES from me. As long as that fear, in all it’s forms continues: of all women, of all races, ethnicities, religious beliefs, socio-economic backgrounds, gender identifying, young to elderly (apologies to any I left out). Every last one of us will continue to be suppressed, maligned, put through purity tests, forced to fight for control over our medical rights, shamed for our sexuality, in order for those men who can’t get past their own insecurity to keep a death grip on power.

  6. Kate says:

    The whole election I kept waiting for the moment when she’d change things up and try to steal back some of the spotlight, but it never came.

    Trump kept rising and rising in the polls, but her campaign strategy just remained ‘I’m the better candidate’ throughout, which, true as it may be, is a really, really weak platform, not to mention one that had already failed her profoundly once and led to much more of a race than expected in the primaries.

  7. Nicole says:

    He’s not wrong and the headlines are so clickbaity. But HRC’s campaign did fail in some key states. When you don’t visit a state until weeks before the election then you dropped the ball.

    • Aims says:

      I said the same thing weeks ago and got my ass chewed for it. I feel like everyone thought it was in the bag, including Hillary . I like her now on this book tour. She seems way more open and relatable . There’s no question she very smart, and with her experience , she was the better choice . Like it or not the person who makes the connection with people have the leg up, even though they’re not qualified . Case in point .

    • Betsy says:

      Hillary didn’t have billions of dark money pushing her along like the short fingered vulgarian did. Campaigns have to make choices. She did.

      • Nicole says:

        She had enough money to make day stops in those key states. She didn’t visit some places AT ALL. That’s poor planning

      • Pineapple says:

        We don’t know how much the Russians put in but the Facebook ads were only around $100K, if I remember correctly. Hillary spent DOUBLE what Trump did.

        Why are people still making excuses for her? It’s not her communication style; it was her platform. She was “more of the same.” The Democrats, historically the egalitarian party, left the working class/middle class behind in favour of the 10, 20% professional class. This started as far back as Bill Clinton, who shifted his economic policies to the center because he was convinced going corporate, going pro-business was the future. The middle class saw Obama refusing to punish Wall St – even though he had all the power he need to fire top CEOs – among a lot of other things and they said, “Nope, anyone but Ms. More of the Same.”

        Bottom line, to win, the Dems need to work out how far back to the left they can shift to let non-professional workers have a bigger slice of the pie, without alienating too much of big business and the professional class.

  8. TurkeyLurkey says:

    The one who needs to elevate his game is George. How many flops will this be for him now?

    If you don’t want to support a candidate then don’t.

    Maybe the unicorn was promised a gig if she won in exchange for the fundraiser. 😃. Sounds like sour grapes to me.

    • hey-ya says:

      …hes probably speaking less as an actor & more as a billionaire owner of casamigos alcohol…so he gets to say anything he wants…I read the same analyses..HRC could not get enough African Americans & Hispanics to vote for her..they stayed at home…

    • Sasha says:

      To add to that, don’t forget how he said that Trump was never going to be president.
      So, you see, the truth of the matter is that George wasn’t really wrong when he said it, it was Hillary’s fault for ‘dropping the ball’ in the fourth quarter.

  9. HK9 says:

    Was it really that she didn’t elevate her game or did people just look for excuses not to listen to what she was communicating?

    • Nastygirl85 says:

      @HK9: Thank you for this comment! +1000

    • Angela82 says:

      Also misogyny. I am sure there are things HRC could have done differently (although fake news and Russia and Bernie all played roles too IMHO). But I also can’t help thinking we wouldn’t be having this discussion if she was a man. DJT is the least likable person and yet he won. Women are supposed to be “likable” and “relatable” in all aspects and heaven forbid they make a mistake. All the while men get away with mediocrity. This goes triple for white men.

      • Kate says:

        This conversation happened after Gore and Kerry lost. The dissection of their personalities, their campaigning style, the way they spoke…

        Honestly Hillary’s getting off pretty lightly. For a long time Democrats hated Gore for failing just as much as they hated Bush for winning, and Kerry was loathed for a while too.

        Honestly they should have served as a warning for the Democrats. They both thought they would win simply because they were obviously better than the other candidate. It doesn’t work like that. It’s never worked like that, and the Dems have lost so many elections because they just refuse to accept that personality and charisma and the ability to get people hyped matter.

  10. Merritt says:

    It wouldn’t have mattered what Hillary did. The media was too busy giving Trump a pass. That along with Russian interference, Comey’s lies, and fake news did in her campaign.

  11. Nastygirl85 says:

    This mysogynistic nonsense is killing me. This “charisma” and “charm” thing predominately benefits men over women. Lets be honest. The political game was started by men; they created the road map on what it meant to successfully campaign (I’m specifically talking about Presidential) — so this works against women candidates. The whole “she’s totally qualified … BUT” argument going on is a joke and obfuscates the main issue — many people were (and still) not ready to have a woman President. President Obama wasn’t necessarily qualified, but it was OK because he was a good campaigner? Pres. Bill Clinton wasn’t as qualified to run BUT he knew how campaign, so it was OK that he won?

    For instance, we are ALL NOW loving First Lady Michelle Obama, but if she were to campaign, all of the old dog whistles would come out about how she doesn’t know how to “connect” with people and is not a “good campaigner.” The same issue would apply for Senators Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren. The goal post for winning the Office of the Presidency (as with many things in our society) gets moved when it comes to women. As a black women, this argument kills me. And don’t even get me started on Joe Biden coming out saying that he would have won …

    • Adele Dazeem says:

      Nastygirl85 for president!! Best comment ever! Always a “BUT” when it comes to a female in any kind of power in this country.

      I’m off to burn my bra. Too much misogyny for me today.

    • lucy2 says:

      You know, I get what George is saying and he’s got a few fair points, but you are so right with the idea of moving goal posts. No matter what she would have done, it was always a different bar for her to cross than any other candidate ever.

    • idontknowyouyoudontknowme says:

      Agree 100% with this comment. Plan and simple, as sad as it might be. :(
      Somehow I felt this would happen though.. after finally having diversity and more equal representation, making history, it could be expected that a backlash would be coming to retaliate. There was so much ugly racist rhetoric during the Obama presidency, its not surprising that they chose the whitest, most privileged and “pro-establishment” figure they could, the white savior to make everything right. They would not give the benefit of doubt to a woman.. I wonder whether we will ever get the chance.

  12. Jayna says:

    She and President Obama both said campaigning is not her strength. I really felt she had trouble getting some of her message out there in a strong way, like her fixes for Obamacare. I thought far too many of her ads were against Trump, using his words against him, even after she said she was going to stop but didn’t, with her plans getting lost too often. There’s more than what I’m saying, but on my iPhone at work. She was so much better in town hall meetings.

    It’s still hard to think about what coukd have been

  13. Rapunzel says:

    This attitude of Clooney’s is precisely what’s wrong with American politics and American.voters. Running a country is not a game. It is not about soaring speeches and inspiring people. It’s not about having the most dynamic rhetoric. It’s about being qualified, prepared and ready to do the work. The job is long and hard and requires a lot of homework. And yes, it even requires being measured and boring. It’s a dull job. HRC was the only ready. There was no excuse to vote for someone else. Or not vote.

    Why do we let voters think it’s okay to treat voting for President like they would treat voting for American Idol? F#%k this HRC was a disappointing candidate nonsense. It’s voters who needed to elevate their game. And f#%k Clooney for even opening his mouth on this. He’s just perpetuating the stupidity that got us Trump. Soaring game, my foot.

  14. Big D says:

    I think politics in general and American politics in particular rely more on the entertainment factor and “perception” than reality. Trump was a loose cannon and wasn’t politically correct and like it or not, it was refreshing(for a while at least) to hear what he was saying. Obama was a charismatic, articulate black man who you simply couldn’t ignore, ditto Bill Clinton. I still believe if the electorate were really interested in electing somebody on the basis of their competence and qualifications they would have elected Hillary- whether she was “charismatic” or not. But of course that’s rarely how elections work. It’s how you are perceived that resonates, not how you really are. If the opposite applied then trump would have never been elected.
    To this day I still can’t believe how the American system elected this. Christ..

  15. homeslice says:

    I’m really disliking him now. STFU about a woman who has accomplished more her life than almost any other person who ran for public office.
    I can’t wait to see Clooney 2.0 run his “elevated” campaign…so many eye rolls!!!

  16. Carrie1 says:

    It occurs to me that Sarah Palin had the “IT” factor, which many are lamenting Hillary didn’t have. And look what happened there. I think Trump has dementia, experiences sundowning, and yet is still somehow President. Go figure.

    This seems to be a combo of keeping women from power, Russian interference, and let’s not forget the FBI helping end Hillary right before voting day.

  17. adastraperaspera says:

    Clooney is acting like many male Democrats acted during the campaign. This tepid kind of tongue in cheek support that makes sure to let other guys know that he’ll vote for her but he’s still not too into females being in charge, heh heh. I am sick of the argument that a leader has to be the most popular and charismatic person in the group. This is just code for “we like men in front of the room and not women.” I mean, female comedians talk about this problem all the time. So do female executives. And it’s pretty telling when you look at the vast majority of leaders in biz, religion, academia, law–all men. How many of them give a heck of a speech every time they get in front of an all hands meeting? How many of them “elevate their game” over their careers? What percentage of them are razzmatazz and jazz hands? Puleeze. Male leaders constantly bore people to tears, and they aren’t ever called on it–ever listen to Sen. Grassley? Why don’t we start asking why American citizens at meetings expect to be wowed and entertained? Running a country is an incredibly complicated endeavor! If you want a couple sound bites, some flag waving and a funnel cake, go to the County Fair! With Hillary, as with most women who try for leadership positions, there will always be complaints of something missing. I think I know what she is missing. It’s what all men have and women don’t. And it doesn’t have a darn thing to do with leadership abilities!

  18. Ana says:

    I think what happened with Hillary Clinton is a huge lesson to every democracy in the world, and that is you can’t win by default. No matter what a clown your oppositor is, or how far ahead you seem to be on polls, in politics you don’t win until you win. Many people are easily swayed, especially in times of crisis. The disappointing thing is that with all her experience, she didn’t see that in time and understimated both the voters and the country’s issues that led to Trump’s (very misguided) victory. There was a lot of hate against Hillary, and she didn’t care enough to try to address that part of the population. Just because she was a good candidate on paper didn’t make her a good candidate in the field, as proven by the fact that the most stupid and insufferable man in recent American culture is now in the government.

    • magnoliarose says:

      I know. Hating on George doesn’t change that he is right and he didn’t say anything bad about her or that it was fair.

      • lavin says:

        But he’s not right. He’s another male bashing one of the most accomplished women in the US who has dedicated her life to serving in various offices. George can sit on the sidelines and say anything but he has no clue what it takes to run a campaign. Hillary was besieged from all sides and still managed to win more votes from the American public than all the makes who ran from Trump , to Bernie in the Primary.

        When George gets 68milllion votes and has been a Senator, Secretary of State, a Presidential candidate in REAL LIFE and not just in his dud movies, then maybe I’ll listen to what he says. He has no formal education, he has no formal experience in running a political campaign, he is a blowhard and taking a easy bash at a women who worked her heart out. I am so tired of men who haven’t won Squat talking about this accomplished women.

        MOST Americans voted for her and I did proudly.

        Russian and influence around this election was entirely shady.

  19. ValiantlyVarnished says:

    No lie detected. There were many factors that played a role in why HRC lost, and one of those factors was her inability to really grab attention and hold it. And I don’t think that’s a woman/man thing. It’s simply a charisma thing. And should votes be based on charisma? Nope. But they have been since the beginning of our democracy so it would be naive to think otherwise. Having said that Agent Orange has zero charisma as well. But – he knew exactly what to say to his rabid rasict base to get them excited and motivated.

  20. CharlieBouquet says:

    Oh so that’s it! She was overly qualified but had no slogan stitched in blue on blue hats. Woosh. What a relief.

  21. Jayna says:

    At lot of what George said really isn’t bad, just honest. I just don’t feel it’s helpful because he didn’t go into more detail about how her governing as a president would have been to the benefit of the country compared to what the white working class rural voters think think they are getting, jobs back.

    And as someone earlier mentioned, all campaigns of the party nominee for the presidency are dissected. Reading a long in-depth article about John Kerry’s campaign and loss was painful and the dysfunction behind the scenes. Actually the whole magazine was devoted to it, either Time or Business Week. I was suffering acutely from his loss, because I despised the thought of another four years of Bush/Cheney.

    And just remember the Republican Party (I’m talking the senate and the house, etc.) was also ousted with a Trump win as president. It was a fvck you to them. Sadly, what people don’t understand is in politics a lot of deals are done behind doors with Republicans and Democrats, or used to be done. It’s harder and harder now. But it’s how progress can be made and get things done,a president’s agenda moving forward, bills passed, a give, a take. He can’t even work with his own party, much less the Democrats.

    Trump told his base he was the one who could get things done,unlike anyone in the establishment GOP or Democratic Party, and people fell for it. No, he can’t. He hasn’t a clue. He’s a freakin’ dictator and that doesn’t work. Hillary understands that world, lived it with her husband in the governor’s office, in The White House, lived it in the senate. And the Republicans learned their games for the last four years, obstructionism, really didn’t help them. The base may have acted like it’s what they wanted, but in the end were sick of the establishment and feeling like things weren’t getting done, not just as usual just blaming the Democrats, but turning on their own party also.

    An excerpt from a Hillary Clinton interview in The New Yorker. It’s before Trump won. How prophetic. And Hillary cares about this country, unlike the narcissistic, bigoted, orange, wanna-be dictator we have now.

    “Hillary Clinton is a strange fit for this moment. She’s a lifelong institutionalist at a time of bitter distrust in institutions, a believer in gradual progress faced with violent impatience. She has dozens of good ideas for making the country fairer, but bringing Americans together to support the effort and believe in the results is harder than ever. Clinton lacks Obama’s rhetorical power, his philosophical reach. Her authority lies in her commitment to policy and politics, her willingness to soldier on.

    As she ended our conversation in the hotel basement—she had to get to the evening’s fund-raiser—I asked how she could hope to prevail as President. She talked about reminding voters of “results,” and of repeating a “consistent story.” Then, as if she found her own words inadequate, she leaned forward and her voice grew intense. “If we don’t get this right, what we’re seeing with Trump now will just be the beginning,” she said. “Because when people feel that their government has failed them and the economy isn’t working for them, they are ripe for the kind of populist nationalist appeals that we’re hearing from Trump.” She went on, “Look, there will always be the naysayers and virulent haters on one side. And there will be the tone-deaf, unaware people”—she seemed to mean élitists—“on the other side. I get all that. But it really is important. And the Congress, I hope, will understand this. Because the games they have played on the Republican side brought them Donald Trump. And if they continue to play those games their party is going to be under tremendous pressure. But, more important than that, our country will be under pressure.” I asked her if she thought that, after the Trump explosion, Republican leaders were ready to reckon with the damage. “I hope so,” she said. “I’m sure going to try to have that conversation with them. Yeah, I am.” ♦

  22. Pineapple says:

    Is he vapid or what? Trying to distance himself from Hillary now because he’s obviously going for office. He has zero ideas and hangs around with corporate Democrats like Hillary and Obama. If he had any solid ideas about income inequality and economics – the issues that massively contributed to Hillary’s defeat, that corporate Dems won’t admit were super important – he’d have given a hint of it by now. But no, it’s all “she’s a bad communicator” and more cultural wars stuff. And she wasn’t charismatic or engaging, etc. Is this American Idol we’re talking about? American voters are smarter than this.

    It says a lot about his narcissism to think he could actually be useful in public service. A guy who got paid $40 million plus for a few annoying coffee ads from a known enabler of human rights violations (slave labour, child labor). Doesn’t he see he’s part of the problem and how someone like Trump gets voted in in a tide of voter anger against the establishment? The way he’s talking about it, it’s like he thinks someone like him – more of the corporate Dems and the old establishment – could get elected as long as they were good communicators and packaged themselves better. Yikes.

    • Jayna says:

      “American voters are smarter than this.” Yeah, they’re so smart, look what was voted into office. A buffoon, a candidate making fun of the disabled, a candidate making fun of another candidate’s wife’s looks, a man who is crude, a man who speaks like a fifth-grader, a narcissist.

      • Pineapple says:

        But you do realise lots of them voted in anger against the establishment? It’s the Jesse Ventura effect again. Most polls suggest Bernie Sanders would have won against Trump. Undoubtedly a lot of deplorables voted for Trump but the fact someone like Sanders would have won against him suggests many of those who voted for Trump were casting an anti-establishment vote.

      • Lavinroar says:

        Bernie a man who LOST the Primary by 4 million but somehow is not asked to explain why, only Hillary has to explain when she loses,. Oh please stop with the Sanders could have won, the man had virtually No African America base and lost almost all the big states and won mostly caucuses and lost by 4Million to Hillary in the Primaries.
        . He is not a Democrat and they are not letting in that Trojan horse who only aided the GOP and helped give Trump more talking points to divide.
        Hillary had to fight numerous nonstop attacks, Trump, GOP hate machine, Bernie and his bros, Russian interference, Putin, Faux News ,and a American news media that promoted Trump 24/7 nonstop and she still managed to get more votes, it’s a wonder the woman is still standing, I applaud her and am sick of men telling her how she should behave and that includes smug George Clooney.

      • Pineapple says:

        Lavinrorar, my long answer to you got delete by the whimsical mods for some reason. I pointed out Bernie remains the most popular politician in the US today and the decline of the Dems is due to pro-business, pro-professional class policies since the Bill Clinton era. And that the Dems need to stop looking for excuses and casting Hillary as a victim and start realising they’ve been in the minority in the legislature as well as losing the executive because of their policies. Shift a little or a lot back to the left and start appealing to the work/middle class without losing the business and professional voters.

  23. Lavinroar says:

    When George gets around 67 to 68Million votes for a political office, then maybe I’ll listen to the man who lives in a bubble and constant media image handling. Hillary won 94% of African American women voters , they did not fall for or need that dazzle, dazzle bullcrap, to see who was the qualified candidate, and she also won more votes than Trump. George just comes off as yet Another man bashing one of the most accomplished women in the Country. George sounds like he is just piling onto to the Hillary bash train. A woman who has fought for generations in various capacities and offices for Minorities, Women, Childcare for mothers, tried to get healthcare for Americans who could not afford it way back in the 90′s. I am sick of it.
    Now the same shite is slyly being done to women like Kamila Harris, by Bernie followers. I’m sick of it. George and so many other males who have bashed Hillary ,can’t seem to see that Trump was a raging racist and insulted every minority group possible and got the racists vote. IMO Anyone who stayed home, didn’t vote or was DUMB enough to throw away their vote and write in someone else is responsible for this mess.
    Hillary campaigned her heart out to the point of exhaustion. Hillary actually has held high offices, both run and won and loss various offices, held positions in government. She’s not a political pretender like you, George, in your movies which are usually duds.

    • Pineapple says:

      On Kamala Harris, that Mnuchin controversy suggests she’s just like Obama: all talk about punishing white collar crime and never following through when they have all the power to do it and put out a clear warning that banks and financial institutions can’t screw the average person over.

  24. bookgrl63 says:

    He’s not wrong at all. The whole thing’s a popularity contest. Obama managed to win two terms in the face of awful racism because he was charming. Trump, a reality star, knew how to charm a crowd. And, I think in the end she has herself to blame. She won the popular vote but in this fucked up system, it’s the electoral vote that matters. Which means that certain states are more important to campaign in than others. I guess she thought she had it in the bag. I’m honestly really starting to dislike her. I voted for her in both the general and primary elections, and I was totally rooting for her, but from what I’ve seen of the book, she doesn’t seem to be taking any responsibility for what happened. I don’t know, maybe the whole election has radicalized me. My teenage brother has gone full blown Marxist in the past year and I’m not too far behind him.