Welcome to the World of Pulitzer Prize Winning Political Cartoonist Michael P. Ramirez
Responsibility, Clinton Style 06-05-17
It all really depends on what the meaning of "I take responsibility for every decision I made", is.
Hillary vs. DNC Data
Was the Democrats' vaunted tech operation a disaster?
12:00 PM, JUN 05, 2017 | By ALICE B. LLOYD THE WEEKLY STANDARD
Hillary Clinton spread around the blame in a candid interview with Recode last Wednesday. She called her private email server a "nothingburger" and the Timesendorsement of her candidacy a hypocritical reversal—they reduced up the scandal to "a matter for the help desk," after having "covered it like it was Pearl Harbor." She even noted her hosts' hypocrisy, pointing out that Recode's annual Code Conference takes cash from Goldman too.
"I take responsibility for every decision I made," she said, "but that's not why I lost."
The subject of the conference, and the Clinton interview within it, however, was not Hillary Clinton's knowing the difference between the things she can and cannot change. It was media and technology. And here, Clinton also apportioned the blame outside herself. She didn't just rail against Russian interference in the election, but unloaded on the Democratic National Committee's "bankrupt" and "non-existent" data operations.
Comparing the data at her disposal to what the RNC was working with, Clinton told Kara Swisher and Walt Mossberg: "Let me just do a comparison for you. I set up my campaign and we have our own data operation. I get the nomination. So I'm now the nominee of the Democratic Party. I inherit nothing from the Democratic Party."
"What do you mean nothing?" Mossberg said.
"I mean it was bankrupt, it was on the verge of insolvency, its data was mediocre to poor, nonexistent, wrong. I had to inject money into it."
Clinton then went on to praise the RNC data operation (which during the campaign was considered to be in a rush to catch up with Clinton) and explain that Trump was further bolstered by help from the data analysis firm Cambridge Analytica, which is partly owned by hedge-fund manager Robert Mercer, and was recruited for the Trump team by its digital director Brad Parscale. Cambridge, known for its "psychographic" voter analysis, worked the Leave campaign in the United Kingdom, and then for Trump (through his son-in-law and current White House adviser Jared Kushner).
As Clinton put it to Recode: "Trump becomes the nominee and he is basically handed this tried and true, effective foundation. Then you've got Cambridge Analytica and you know, you can believe the hype on how great they were or the hype on how they weren't, but the fact is, they added something."
It's worth noting first off that Clinton's criticism, on its face, runs directly counter to the perception of the two campaigns. For a year, the press wrote about how technocratically up-to-the-minute the Clinton operation was, as opposed to the Trump team, which flew by the seat of its pants, skimped on resources, and carried their ground game in their hearts. read more at the Weekly Standard
Was the Democrats' vaunted tech operation a disaster?
12:00 PM, JUN 05, 2017 | By ALICE B. LLOYD THE WEEKLY STANDARD
Hillary Clinton spread around the blame in a candid interview with Recode last Wednesday. She called her private email server a "nothingburger" and the Timesendorsement of her candidacy a hypocritical reversal—they reduced up the scandal to "a matter for the help desk," after having "covered it like it was Pearl Harbor." She even noted her hosts' hypocrisy, pointing out that Recode's annual Code Conference takes cash from Goldman too.
"I take responsibility for every decision I made," she said, "but that's not why I lost."
The subject of the conference, and the Clinton interview within it, however, was not Hillary Clinton's knowing the difference between the things she can and cannot change. It was media and technology. And here, Clinton also apportioned the blame outside herself. She didn't just rail against Russian interference in the election, but unloaded on the Democratic National Committee's "bankrupt" and "non-existent" data operations.
Comparing the data at her disposal to what the RNC was working with, Clinton told Kara Swisher and Walt Mossberg: "Let me just do a comparison for you. I set up my campaign and we have our own data operation. I get the nomination. So I'm now the nominee of the Democratic Party. I inherit nothing from the Democratic Party."
"What do you mean nothing?" Mossberg said.
"I mean it was bankrupt, it was on the verge of insolvency, its data was mediocre to poor, nonexistent, wrong. I had to inject money into it."
Clinton then went on to praise the RNC data operation (which during the campaign was considered to be in a rush to catch up with Clinton) and explain that Trump was further bolstered by help from the data analysis firm Cambridge Analytica, which is partly owned by hedge-fund manager Robert Mercer, and was recruited for the Trump team by its digital director Brad Parscale. Cambridge, known for its "psychographic" voter analysis, worked the Leave campaign in the United Kingdom, and then for Trump (through his son-in-law and current White House adviser Jared Kushner).
As Clinton put it to Recode: "Trump becomes the nominee and he is basically handed this tried and true, effective foundation. Then you've got Cambridge Analytica and you know, you can believe the hype on how great they were or the hype on how they weren't, but the fact is, they added something."
It's worth noting first off that Clinton's criticism, on its face, runs directly counter to the perception of the two campaigns. For a year, the press wrote about how technocratically up-to-the-minute the Clinton operation was, as opposed to the Trump team, which flew by the seat of its pants, skimped on resources, and carried their ground game in their hearts. read more at the Weekly Standard