I think Ta'Nehisi Coates, who is not a big Clinton fan at all, had two of the best insights into people's reaction to Hillary.
-First he said that the messenger mattered more to some people than the message. That Hillary took up many causes of the left, but people dismissed her and looked pass her progressive platform because it was Hillary Clinton speaking.
In other words, the lady that said Super Predators can't really be trusted to fight for criminal justice reform, the woman whose husband passed NAFTA can't really be for helping the Rust Belt, the New York politician would not really regulate Wall St, and the person who championed means testing so much isn't really out to help the poor.
-Second, the media punished her whenever she told the truth, especially when she told big truths. No one in the mainstream media tried to look into the truthfulness of the "deplorables" comment. They just talked about how much she should not have said it. It being true or not didn't matter. Also when she straight up told Coal Country their jobs are not coming back and she would look to help them in other ways, the media presented it as a gaffe and never brought on an economist or energy wonk to explain where that comment was coming from. Even with single payer, she was honest that Bernie was selling a political pipe dream, yet progressives media on the left got mad at her
It is kinda weird. You distrust someone because you think they are never honest, but you flip out when they keep it #100. It incentivizes them to not be fully sincere in the future.
There are a lot of criticism to give the Clintons and Hillary, but folk need to come to terms that much of it is irrational. Based in emotion and suspicion, rather than hard fact.
Edited by RustyShackleford - Today at 8:23 am