Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
I Owe My Life to Piers Morgan
No, really! I mean, I was tempted, really tempted, to attempt to read through Hillary’s You-a Culpa, and then post a review and takedown of it here. I was willing to waste all of that time for you, I was willing to risk aneurysm, liver cancer, and chewing off my own fingernails in anger, dear readers, while I waded through the dark morass of Hillary’s Id, but Piers Morgan has saved me from that lonely fate. You see, he read it, and what’s more, he posted his own review of it. Normally Piers and I do not see eye to eye on much, but here he put his acid pen to formidable use in a vituperative and blistering evisceration of the Pant-Suited Horror with such brilliance that any review I might venture would be a mere shadow of his anger. And so I doff my cap in thanks and here turn the floor over to Piers: (emphasis my own)
‘What happened’ is the title of Hillary Clinton‘s new 464-page book.
The answer, it transpires, is the most whiny, self-pitying, deluded load of literary claptrap written since Kim Kardashian’s ‘I was empowering women’ defense for posting naked bird-flipping selfies.
By the time I’d finished wading through Hillary’s absurdly self-indulgent tome, I felt like I’d been lowered into a large vat of violently indignant, furiously self-justifying, boiling mad spittle.
This is the tormented, tragic work of a spurned woman who never thought she could possibly lose to Donald Trump, a man she considered her inferior opponent in every possible way imaginable from intellect and political experience to credibility and popularity.
That is just the opener! It gets better.
Yet she lost.
The reasons for this have been raked over so voraciously since last November that there is nothing new left to say.
But that hasn’t stopped Hillary saying it all over again, for page after page, chapter after chapter, moan after moan.
It’s not so much a book as an elongated case for the defense of abject failure, presented by a lawyer who’s just lost a slam-dunk court battle that no good lawyer should ever have lost.
Readers are left in absolutely no doubt who’s to blame, and it’s most definitely NOT Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Oh no, she’s absolutely the last name on the list of culprits for the most humiliating beat-down in US political history.
The list of people and entities that Hillary DOES blame is so long, it’s frankly laughable.
From here he lists all of her various scapegoats. We know them well, but you can hear his eyes rolling around in their sockets as he repeats them anyway.
Summing things up, Hillary asks herself: ‘What makes me such a lightning rod for fury? I’m at a loss.’
Hmmm, where do we start?
The truth is that everyone knows exactly what happened.
Hillary ran a diabolically elitist and blinkered campaign that basically boiled down to this mantra: ‘Trump’s disgusting, his supporters are a basket of deplorable idiots, I’m a brilliant woman, my husband used to be President, and I have lots of rich, famous friends – so vote for me.’
As sales pitches go, this was right up there with Pepsi trying to convince us Kendall Jenner could end all America’s racial tensions by handing out cola to cops at protest marches.
And I cannot improve on his conclusion either.
Hillary has become a walking, whining by-word for political disaster and carries with her an overpowering stench of electoral death.
This book is thus utterly pointless.
Nobody wants to hear any more about ‘what happened’.
It happened, and we all know why. End.
Now please Hillary, for the love of God, just accept you blew it and shut up, before you take your party down with you.
My only disagreement with his conclusion is this: I have an open bet with @jamesofengland and @fredcole that she nonetheless makes yet more pointless attempt in 2020, loser buys drinks for the winners. So come on Hillary, buck up and try again! I’ll be toasting your first debate appearance with free whisky sours (though I suppose to honor you I should hold the whisky and just drink in the sours with a few dashes of bitters too).
Published in Humor
That was brilliant!
But the broken clock and blind squirrel disclaimer applies.
Of course, but as a man of the Left himself, Piers’s criticism is especially poignant.
Thank for relieving me of any doubt as to the content of her book. I have no doubt we owe a great to the author, and you providing this glimpse of a review (further distancing us from the source), for saving us the abject horror and brain rot.
Hmm, I am going to take the middle road on this, not that I am a betting man. I don’t think she will make the splash (like a dive, only a pantsuit flop) in 2020. However, she also won’t go quietly into the night. She will pretend people still care about her opinion just like Obama. Isn’t he still running something in DC?
BTW, the humor of her trying in 2020 would have to be well worth the cost of a round of drinks. Here’s to hoping you are right :)
Are there any female reviewers pointing out how lame and cringe-inducing it is to have the first “credible female candidate” for president and leader of the free world cluelessly whining like this Yapping about her eMOtions and FEElings and chardonnay and Xanax? Any man who did this would be…well, it simply wouldn’t happen. She’s a misogynist’s poster girl: Let’s ban women from high office and maybe the franchise too.
Now that’s a keeper.
I could imagine her doing what Romney and Biden did for 2016: make lots of noises early on about how she’s considering jumping in again, give a few speeches, form an exploratory committee, then pull back sometime in September, and then spend the next year complaining to anyone in earshot that she should have run after all.
And while we’re on this topic…
Joe Biden’s daughter says ex-VP considering 2020 run
Run, Joe, run!
Okay, so who is Piers Morgan’s ghost writer??!! I keep seeing evidence that he’s actually coming around to the truth. Hillary is an embarrassment to women, the Democrats and humanity. I wouldn’t put it past her to run again. Oh please, no.
Yes, I thought exactly this when she was whining a couple of weeks ago on TV about how “creepy” and awful it was that Trump was standing too close to her in the debates. She wants to go eye-to-eye with Putin and that lunatic NoKo shrimp with the funny hairdo, and she’s weirded out because Trump is standing next to her on a stage, live in front of thousands of actual people, and tens of millions of TV viewers?
Good grief.
Still think Mark Steyn wins the prize for the most pithy summation, though: “If I follow Mr Espuelas correctly, he’s saying that America is getting round to its “historic vote” so late that “gender” is now such an advantage that any old female candidate can be dragged across the finish line, no matter how shopworn, wooden, charmless, tin-eared and corrupt.” (emphasis added)
This really started my day off right!
Silence, Morgan you idiot. I’m not through gloating yet.
I was about to say something similar. I am perfectly happy for her to take the party down with her.
Of course, I still think Morgan is a complete jackwagon. That he still believes the victory over Trump was an otherwise foregone conclusion shows that he hasn’t really learned anything, either. I don’t think Hillary is quite so much to blame as he suggests, and I don’t think Trump is quite so much responsible for his own victory as his supporters suggest. I think it was a perfect storm. And honestly, a great deal of this is directly the result of Obama’s presidency. That gets overlooked, but it is an important factor, and probably more so than either of those two candidates.
Oh please, yes! I’d even donate a dollar to her campaign.
The more I think it over, I would actually enjoy seeing Hillary run again, assuming that Elizabeth Warren (or another female Democrat of equal stature) also runs.
The reason is this: I probably agree with Warren even less than Hillary on most issues. But Elizabeth Warren, for all her faults, is much better than Hillary Clinton at actual politics: she seems to actually hold heartfelt opinions, she knows how to give a speech, she can think for herself, and she can connect with a group of voters.
It would be so gratifying to see another Democrat woman run laps around Hillary on the primary debate stage, if for no other reason than to rid Hillary of her last line of defense (“I only lose because society hates women!”), and finally force her to confront the obvious fact that she just plain sucks as a candidate.
Some of my favorite Prime Ministers have been women: Maggie and Golda come to mind. So I wouldn’t agree as a principal. But then Hillary is no Maggie or Golda.
Not gonna happen. She could come in dead last in a field of twelve female candidates, all lackluster, and not recognize the obvious fact.
Hahahahaha!
I’m totally stealing that.
Presidents and presidential candidates should take their cues from the likes of George Bush (either one) and Michael Dukakis.
If you are a former president, do good works in your retirement, don’t bash your successors, and avoid partisan politics. (Are you listening, Barack Obama?)
If you are a former presidential candidate who lost in a humiliating fashion, don’t write books about it. Just go away. (Are you listening, Hillary Rodham?)
As Secretary of State, Rodham set up a private email server, thereby avoiding scrutiny of her communications and defeating government control over such communications, demonstrating a reckless disregard for the country’s interest in keeping her communications secure, thereby reinforcing in the public mind that she considered herself above the rules and the law.
Remember when Leona Helmsley said, speaking of her husband and herself, “We don’t pay taxes; only the little people pay taxes”? Rodham and her husband believe that only the little people follow the rules, obey the law, avoid conflicts of interest, etc., etc.
But what does she blame for her election loss? Not the misdeeds themselves…no, no. It was the temporary reopening of the investigation into her misdeeds!
Steal away, I’m pretty sure I stole it from someone else over some different issue.
I will be stealing it in an upcoming podcast.
I’d say “give credit”, but I can’t take the credit myself and don’t know where I first heard it myself.
“a vituperative and blistering evisceration of the Pant-Suited Horror…” Skip, that’s just beautiful prose.
Having suffered through too many audio clips on Hugh Hewitt’s radio show of the Pant-Suited Horror’s interview with Anderson Cooper this week, I am re-living the joy I felt last November for many reasons, not the least of which is hardly ever having to hear her voice. The drone of her condescension. (shudder)