What do you think?
Rate this book
The Destruction of Hillary Clinton
A play-by-play of the political forces and media culture that vilified and ultimately brought down Hillary Clinton during her 2016 Presidential campaign
The Destruction of Hillary Clinton is an answer to the question many have been asking: How did an extraordinarily well-qualified, experienced, and admired candidate—whose victory would have been as historic as Barack Obama's—come to be seen as a tool of the establishment, a chronic liar, and a talentless politician?
In this masterful narrative of the 2016 campaign year and the events that led up to it, Susan Bordo unpacks the rights' assault on Clinton and her reputation, the way the left provoked suspicion and indifference among the youth vote, and the media's unprecedented influence.
Urgent, insightful, and engrossing, The Destruction of Hillary Clinton is an essential guide to understanding the most controversial presidential election in American history.
The Destruction of Hillary Clinton is an answer to the question many have been asking: How did an extraordinarily well-qualified, experienced, and admired candidate—whose victory would have been as historic as Barack Obama's—come to be seen as a tool of the establishment, a chronic liar, and a talentless politician?
In this masterful narrative of the 2016 campaign year and the events that led up to it, Susan Bordo unpacks the rights' assault on Clinton and her reputation, the way the left provoked suspicion and indifference among the youth vote, and the media's unprecedented influence.
Urgent, insightful, and engrossing, The Destruction of Hillary Clinton is an essential guide to understanding the most controversial presidential election in American history.
256 pages, Kindle Edition
First published April 1, 2017
119 people are currently reading
1231 people want to read
About the author
Susan Bordo
19 books224 followersSusan Bordo is known for the clarity, accessibility, and contemporary relevance of her writing. Her first book, The Flight to Objectivity, has become a classic of feminist philosophy. In 1993, increasingly aware of our culture's preoccupation with weight and body image, she published Unbearable Weight: Feminism, Western Culture, and the Body, a book that is still widely read and assigned in classes today. During speaking tours for that book, she encountered many young men who asked, "What about us?" The result was The Male Body: A New Look at Men in Public and in Private (1999). Both books were highly praised by reviewers, with Unbearable Weight named a 1993 Notable Book by the New York Times and The Male Body featured in Mademoiselle, Elle, Vanity Fair, NPR, and MSNBC. Both books have been translated into many languages, and individual chapters, many of which are considered paradigms of lucid writing, are frequently re-printed in collections and writing textbooks. The Creation of Anne Boleyn: A New Look at England's Most Notorious Queen, was published to critical acclaim by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt in April, 2013. The Destruction of Hillary Clinton followed in 2017. She lives in Lexington, Kentucky with her husband, daughter, three dogs, a cat, and a cockatiel.
Bordo received her Ph.D. from the State University of New York at Stony Brook in 1982. She recently retired from her position as Otis A. Singletary Chair in the Humanities and Professor of Gender and Women's Studies at the University of Kentucky.
Bordo received her Ph.D. from the State University of New York at Stony Brook in 1982. She recently retired from her position as Otis A. Singletary Chair in the Humanities and Professor of Gender and Women's Studies at the University of Kentucky.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 91 reviews
August 4, 2017
I'm only halfway through my afternoon Monster energy drink, so I'll try to make this review sound somewhat eloquent under the circumstances: I've seen some criticisms floating around about this book already from the same old lefties Susan Bordo takes to task. I can't help but think that they miss the point she is making. Yes, Bordo seems unwilling to criticize Hillary, but I think that's less because she wants to pretend Hillary is perfect and more because there are so many others who have been more than willing to do so to the point that "when it came to Hillary Clinton... sorting out fact from politically motivated fiction" has become next to impossible. No one talks much about how much of that criticism is actually fair and, certainly, no one doing the criticizing seems willing to self-reflect long enough to question if they were overzealous at times and, if so, what the consequences of that were. Even if you are a reader who doesn't think Hillary is deserving of any sympathy, I still think you should read Bordo's book. This isn't so much a defense of Hillary as it is a critical look at those of us who consider ourselves progressive but nevertheless fail to check ourselves on sexism and hypocrisy whenever we think we're right about something (which is something I personally have been and continue to be guilty of quite often). It's a reminder that people can't always be easily separated into categories of "good vs. evil," "woke vs. problematic," "deserving of sympathy vs. undeserving" without perhaps compromising our own values.
September 15, 2017
‘One of the most incisive social critics working today—and one of the best writers, too. Whether she’s dissecting Lolita, movie and book, or Marlon Brando, 50s icon and symbol of masculinity, she’s never predictable and often profound.’
Katha Pollitt
‘To read Susan Bordo is to take a wild ride through the cultural images that form our daily lives, and to see them with a startling X-ray vision that reveals their blood and guts and bones, a vision that reveals us, finally, to ourselves.’
Leslie Heywood
‘Bordo’s feminist analysis is concise and incisive. She moves from the double standards faced by female politicians, often in the form of the likability penalty, through to a discussion of the ultimate red herring, “the emails.”’
Quartz
‘Due to no fault of Bordo, who writes in an accessible and enjoyable style, the reading experience is as sickening as ingesting medicine meant to induce vomiting because we know how awfully the story ends. Bored sharpens her focus most clearly and closely on sexism, exposing how gender stereotypes, misogynistic assumptions and chauvinistic typecasting have made it nearly impossible for Clinton or her supporters to influence, much less control, public perceptions about her ideology and candidacy.’
Salon
‘This perceptive, thoroughly readable book will strike a chord with her supporters and prove enlightening to many others hoping to make sense of a contentious election.’
Booklist
‘Thorough, accurate and convincing.’
Missourian
‘Bordo’s explanation for how these voters — not misogynists, not automatic Trump voters — came to see “elitist”, “corporate whore” Hillary as unsupportable is important for us all to digest, especially if we ever hope to see a woman lead the United States.’
Conversation
‘Bordo is, of course, right to note that Clinton was the subject of vicious, misogynist attacks. The stark contrast Bordo draws with the 2012 campaign and the reaction to Mitt Romney’s ‘binders full of women’ gaffe and the disgusting, misogynist bile that issued from the mouth of the current president is striking.’
Daily Review
‘In this political version of Cluedo, Susan Bordo seeks to discover who killed Hillary Clinton’s hopes of becoming US President…This is a deeply passionate book, a chronicle of “pain, anger and frustration” at how Clinton was sometimes treated, and Bordo does not hide her dismay at the price America paid.’
Herald
‘Chicken soup for the Clintonite’s soul.’
Washington Post
‘With x-ray vision, Bordo’s book offers a razor-sharp insight into a complex, accomplished and still much-admired woman.’
Toowoomba Chronicle
‘Susan Bordo is one of Clinton’s “true believers”, and her book is a howl of rage against the forces she believes came together to defeat her candidate.’
Sydney Morning Herald
‘An excellent catalogue of the smears that have been levelled at Clinton over the years…certainly the result of groups on the right unable to accept her place in the corridors of power.’
Australian
Katha Pollitt
‘To read Susan Bordo is to take a wild ride through the cultural images that form our daily lives, and to see them with a startling X-ray vision that reveals their blood and guts and bones, a vision that reveals us, finally, to ourselves.’
Leslie Heywood
‘Bordo’s feminist analysis is concise and incisive. She moves from the double standards faced by female politicians, often in the form of the likability penalty, through to a discussion of the ultimate red herring, “the emails.”’
Quartz
‘Due to no fault of Bordo, who writes in an accessible and enjoyable style, the reading experience is as sickening as ingesting medicine meant to induce vomiting because we know how awfully the story ends. Bored sharpens her focus most clearly and closely on sexism, exposing how gender stereotypes, misogynistic assumptions and chauvinistic typecasting have made it nearly impossible for Clinton or her supporters to influence, much less control, public perceptions about her ideology and candidacy.’
Salon
‘This perceptive, thoroughly readable book will strike a chord with her supporters and prove enlightening to many others hoping to make sense of a contentious election.’
Booklist
‘Thorough, accurate and convincing.’
Missourian
‘Bordo’s explanation for how these voters — not misogynists, not automatic Trump voters — came to see “elitist”, “corporate whore” Hillary as unsupportable is important for us all to digest, especially if we ever hope to see a woman lead the United States.’
Conversation
‘Bordo is, of course, right to note that Clinton was the subject of vicious, misogynist attacks. The stark contrast Bordo draws with the 2012 campaign and the reaction to Mitt Romney’s ‘binders full of women’ gaffe and the disgusting, misogynist bile that issued from the mouth of the current president is striking.’
Daily Review
‘In this political version of Cluedo, Susan Bordo seeks to discover who killed Hillary Clinton’s hopes of becoming US President…This is a deeply passionate book, a chronicle of “pain, anger and frustration” at how Clinton was sometimes treated, and Bordo does not hide her dismay at the price America paid.’
Herald
‘Chicken soup for the Clintonite’s soul.’
Washington Post
‘With x-ray vision, Bordo’s book offers a razor-sharp insight into a complex, accomplished and still much-admired woman.’
Toowoomba Chronicle
‘Susan Bordo is one of Clinton’s “true believers”, and her book is a howl of rage against the forces she believes came together to defeat her candidate.’
Sydney Morning Herald
‘An excellent catalogue of the smears that have been levelled at Clinton over the years…certainly the result of groups on the right unable to accept her place in the corridors of power.’
Australian
May 14, 2017
It seems absurd to think that media preference for theatre over investigative fact, blatant ignoring of the double bind, persistent post-modern dismissal that "truth" even exists, and verified foreign interference all took place to such an unprecedented level, only to be waved away as 'unimportant'.
A very well-written and rigorous investigation by Susan Bordo.
May 25, 2017
This is a book I've been needing to read, I'm grateful it was written and have found it therapeutic. Being of Bordo's generation, I share her support of Hillary Clinton and her assessment of the election of 2016 as a 'trauma' - personal and collective. But this is not a book to make Clinton supporters feel better, and at some point--like before the next election--it would be instructive for all of us to take a look at what actually happened. To start off with, Bordo presents a timeline of Clinton's life and major events during the primary and the election--one that to many voters would seem foreign to read. In one of the many quotes in the book, is this from Bill Clinton: "...a real change-maker represents a real threat. So your only option is to create a cartoon. A cartoon alternative. Then run against the cartoon." It is the construction of this cartoon image she is out to document.
In her Preface she poses her question: "How could such an extraordinarily well-qualified, experienced, admired, accomplished candidate, whose victory seemed assured and would have been as unprecedented as Barack Obama's come to be seen as a tool of the establishment, a chronic liar, and a talentless politician? How did this happen?" Of course, it is this question that most infuriated the opposition, Republicans, of course, as they had a long history of creating 'cartoon Hillary,' but particularly Sanders' supporters who actually took the cartoon for the candidate.
Bordo speaks with open-hearted honesty about the repudiation of my generation's feminism. 'Lived' feminism, as Hillary put it. She reminds readers that in our lifetime huge gains were accomplished: Domestic Violence became a crime, birth control pills were invented, abortion became legal and girls could wear pants to school (my senior year was the first at my high school). She recalls a life we started out in as young adults, when you could get fired for being pregnant--or newly married so probably going to be getting pregnant. She also reminds us of the intervening years when the ERA did not pass, the wage gap did not shrink, the percent of women in Congress barely budged and men did not take up housework.
It is against this backdrop of continuous feminism and unfinished business--not discrete waves in competition--that Hillary Clinton makes sense. We had enjoyed the falling away of barriers our mothers faced, just as their mothers flocked to factories in the Rosie the Riveter days, and their grandmothers had fought to get the vote. Hillary had weathered her own version of being female in a changing landscape, had survived the marriage crisis, the identity crises of dress and hair, speech and mannerisms, navigated the same barriers the rest of us had (and more) as a working woman, crafting a model of female authority in the public sphere, become a mother and grandmother--and she was running for President.
When Bordo says 'her victory seemed assured' (another trigger for Sanders' supporters), it was because Trump was a weak candidate, and Sanders was no match for her in experience or qualifications. Worse, he had no experience in party politics. What was taken for revolutionary was often a function of ignorance, magnified by his increasingly indignant supporters and leveraged by Wikileaks. Sanders' inexperience with and suspicion of the Democratic Party was most glaring when he failed to concede to and support Clinton after her win, and shepherd his voting bloc to support the one candidate who could defeat Trump, leaving his supporters on their own to deal with the disappointment that his 'revolution' turned out to be. Cinton was a senator for New York, a Secretary of State with experience representing the US--and respect--worldwide, a successful lawyer, a lifetime advocate for children's rights and feminism on the international stage, an active member of the Democratic Party all of her adult life and headed up a national task force on health care--the first this country had seen. Her victory seemed assured because she was the most qualified, and because with Obama's presidency, it seemed the country had turned a corner. She was the one candidate who would continue that momentum.
But, as Bordo writes, the joy was stolen from that moment that should have been a culmination of a woman's career of service, and more importantly, a landmark achievement for my generation of feminists, as well as a continuation of Obama's 8 years of chipping away at the hierarchies of white supremacy and misogyny, and their infrastructure of of poverty, policing, prison, lack of representation, unfair wages and exclusion from political dialogue and historical tropes. The joy was stolen not only from feminists but also African Americans, who saw the election as a repudiaton and racist backlash of President Obama's tenure. Yes, there was unfinished business, but we had learned the hard way that representation, presence and a seat at the table where decisions are made are the ways that women--as a group--will get ahead.
The moment we had long dreamed of turned out to be nothing like we expected. There was no younger generation to take up the torch and continue the struggle, there was not even an acknowledgement of the struggle or the achievement. As horrifying as the rising power of the Tea Party and Trump demographic, it was equally shocking and frightening to see the re-defininition of progressive and feminist agendas to exclude women's rights and equal representation, and to some extent racial justice, gun control, prison reform,, and especially preserving the balance and efficacy of the Supreme Court where most of our gains had been made.
In the first few chapters of the book, Bordo addresses how women in politics pose and face unique challenges in a system constructed for male competition, where the score is kept using a gendered scorecard. Here Bordo delves into the perceptions that became accusations and then liabilities for Clinton, that old-school feminists understand as sexist: bitchy but fragile, secretive but predictable, manipulative but weak, overly prepared but inept, too macho but playing the woman card, a loner but sickly and dependent. Next, Bordo introduces a theme that threads throughout, one of generational differences. Women's issues lost their place in a 'progressive' agenda by a premature declaration of victory by 'new feminists' who had only or mainly known the Obama years. This was done in spite of an unprecedented attack on the very gains that were argued to be a done deal and 'passe.' The remaining two thirds of the book is a chronological account of election events and their media coverage, and Bordo ends with an extensive bibliography of print and online sources.
Bordo is thorough with a broad focus. She touches on the 2008 election--and doesn't let Barack Obama off the hook. She acknowledges the foreign influence, the goal of Assange, baldly stated to 'influence' the election, Giuliani's pre-emptive announcements and Bannon's influence on the clueless candidate's agenda. She points the finger at mainstream media, so easily manipulated into following the planted cues and choreographed non-events. The book was written quickly, and there are 5-6 typos that got through editing. Some later developments are not included, but she does mention 'Putin or Assange' and that still is an unresolved question. Some of the later analysis of the voting breakdown is missing, but Bardo does note the support of black women, who voted for Clinton at 98%. Still, she mentions the low black turnout that didn't match the Obama years, but if there is a flaw in her analysis is the missing element of voter suppression. As for 'party politics,' for Bordo that's a given in politics where there are 2 parties and each presidential election produces a winner from one of them.
In an excellent compare-and-contrast, Bordo places Rachel Maddow's critique of Bill Clinton's convention speech as 'shocking and weird' against a 1998 Toni Morrison article in the New Yorker on the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal in which Morrison articulated the often-quoted "white skin notwithstanding this is our first black president." Why? Not the saxophone, junk food, impoverished upbringing by a single mother...'tropes of blackness' per Morrison. No, rather it was "When the President's body his privacy, his unpoliced sexuality became the focus of persecution, when he was metaphorically seized and body-searched" that was how "he was being treated like a black on the street, already guilty, already a perp." http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/199... This reminder let me remember I was not mistaken. The Clintons were not always hated, as many claimed during the election.
In another comparison, and on the topic of Bill Clinton's 'sex scandals,' Bordo recounts Trump's ongoing threats to 'talk about Bill' if Hillary wasn't 'nice.' After the 'locker room' audio tape, followed by 12 women coming forward with assault accusations, a debate where Hillary was 'not nice,' Michelle Obama's speech and even reactions from Republicans at the time, Trump was being urged to quit by some Republicans, and was an embarrassment to all. Instead, he decided to make good on the threat. Bannon is nothing if not a 'fixer,' and orchestrated a parade of Bill Clinton accusers. Hillary was (again) vilified for sticking with Bill--and for her husband's behavior. "New feminists" faced a moment of paralyzed 'shock,' like Maddow. It was this generation's Clarence Thomas v. Anita Hill moment. Part of that 'complexity' that doesn't exist in a meme-driven cartoon world. This is when Sarandon found her spotlight and put forth. Gloria Steinem had been thrown under the bus by 'new feminists' months before (along with the rest of us mothers and grandmothers) so in this feminist vacuum, an accused rapist whose taped confession of sexual assault was public record was deemed the 'lesser of two evils' in comparison with Hillary Clinton, the first woman candidate for President.
But Monica Lewinsky, the woman around whom Bill's most infamous scandal centered, did not show up for the parade, Bordo notes. She has always maintained the relationship was 'consensual' and 'respectful,' and in a quote from her book we are reminded that Lewinsky agreed with Hillary Clinton that there was a 'vast right-wing conspiracy' to discredit the Clintons, distract and dilute the potential of Bill's 8 year term. This conspiracy and the Cartoon Hillary it spawned was not only vast, but decades in the making and well honed. Chunks of it were handed out in bits and memes, swallowed whole by a new generation with no context and seemingly unfamiliar to the ubiquitous and time immemorial relationship of sexual scandal to politics. Bill Clinton's sounded more like Trump's and neither was anything like Weiner's penis pics which were at least relatable. In one of the most sexist contortions of the election, Hillary-and-Bill became conflated into one entity, and Hillary took a hit for Bill's infidelity. This, after decades of fighting for the right to have our own names instead of Mrs. Somebody. Whether too long-suffering or a vindictive punishing spurned wife, either way, it didn't matter. The outcome was the same. A woman candidate would not stand on her own merits alone, and this fact alone makes the story of Hillary Clinton relevant to the future prospects of equal representation for women in government.
In the chapters tracing the election, the book form has an advantage over internet-based narrative, which dominated the election. Online, things are encountered out of sequence, cannibalized, resurface, they "go viral." There is no retraction, correction, apology or counter-argument which goes viral along with the original content. A book has a forced chronology, and using the advantage of this format, Bordo traces and critiques the trajectory of some of the stories that shaped the 'cartoon' Hillary and the outcome of the election. Others have done this as well, and as I write this, the investigation into Russia's influence is ongoing, with the media emerging as a major player when a timeline of 'events' is examined. It is becoming clearer--as Bordo frequently points out--the media has a hard time distinguishing between an 'event' IRL and a 'viral story' or leaked disclosure. It is now common practice to watch television news and see not reporters but people huddled over screens, presumably googling similar topics to what their viewers are googling at home while simultaneously watching the news.
When I say the book is therapeutic, it's because I relate to the generational cohort Bordo and Clinton represent, yes, but also because I find the presentation of facts in logical, sequential order to be familiar and understandable. While I now get most of my news online, I still look for the same thing: cause and effect, consequences, variations, contextual or simply independently co-existent. Once a thesis is stated, what naturally follows is a defense of the thesis. A piece is well done if it coherently presents and defends each thesis, and logically builds a narrative. Online content exists out-of-time and within a broader ideological context, not just because of the technology but also as a matter of style. Content prepared for online consumption is a jumble of narrative, links to outside sources or related material, photos and video. The screen is busy with side-bars of other supporting stories and pop-up videos that distract with peripheral movement and audio that competes with any attempt to actually read the chosen content. With so much click-bait, it's easy to not only lose the chronological thread of events, but fail to carry out our internal process of assessing a thesis or rejecting it, of bracketing it or believing it. "Confirmation bias" may not be so much a logical fallacy as a function of how we got the information in the first place.
Bordo lists the many flaws in the medium of online news, and takes on the task of analyzing online content and 24-hour cable news, not for their accuracy in reporting events, but their function in shaping 'news' and at times creating 'events' that were not, in fact, happenings in the real world. "News" can be an epiphany from a blogger or something suddenly 'found' that happened months--or years--ago. (If you remember the original story, it's a surreal moment when it's presented as a 'bombshell.) Or news can be a leak - some revelation not meant for public consumption that is presented contextualized and with intent inferred by whoever posts it online. Or in the case of FBI Director Comey, a partisan 'crisis of conscience' he felt necessitated a devastatingly timed announcement of a non-event. Bordo slows down the action in the last month of the election cycle, and is a chronological sequencing of real events and content non-events, paired with Clinton's plummeting poll numbers in the last 3 weeks of the election, she makes a strong case that the outcome of the election was the culmination of the 'vast right-wing conspiracy' in combination with a carefully crafted marketing campaign timed to 'go viral' precisely during peak voting season.
I enjoyed reading the book, though it brought up painful memories, as well as a bit of catharsis and clarity. It gave me a sense of my life's trajectory, and helped me see how Hillary shares and reflect that, and how much of a stake I had in her historic run. It was helpful to hear it articulated why it so profoundly affected me, why it was so personal. I wish I had found Bordo sooner, and those secret Hillary nooks and crannies online, since virtually none of my friends or family shared my support of her. Yes, Bordo writes a vindication of Hillary Clinton, and for this reason, her book may not be widely or fairly read. I may simply like it because I share her bias. She's not attempting unity, but to me she's doing something far more useful in shifting the focus away from the Tea Party/Trump constituency for a minute. Clinton won a majority of the popular vote, so her candidacy may not have been as much a problem as people say. But that was not translated into political victory, because it takes a party to win in a 2-party system. The Democratic party was blatantly attacked, hacked, humiliated and also undermined by Sanders' in a crass and reckless disruption of party politics. But it is Bannon who says 'disruption is power.' Meanwhile, we await the verdict on the Russia-Trump campaign collusion, there's a new president, and as always in politics, there's an election coming up.
In her Preface she poses her question: "How could such an extraordinarily well-qualified, experienced, admired, accomplished candidate, whose victory seemed assured and would have been as unprecedented as Barack Obama's come to be seen as a tool of the establishment, a chronic liar, and a talentless politician? How did this happen?" Of course, it is this question that most infuriated the opposition, Republicans, of course, as they had a long history of creating 'cartoon Hillary,' but particularly Sanders' supporters who actually took the cartoon for the candidate.
Bordo speaks with open-hearted honesty about the repudiation of my generation's feminism. 'Lived' feminism, as Hillary put it. She reminds readers that in our lifetime huge gains were accomplished: Domestic Violence became a crime, birth control pills were invented, abortion became legal and girls could wear pants to school (my senior year was the first at my high school). She recalls a life we started out in as young adults, when you could get fired for being pregnant--or newly married so probably going to be getting pregnant. She also reminds us of the intervening years when the ERA did not pass, the wage gap did not shrink, the percent of women in Congress barely budged and men did not take up housework.
It is against this backdrop of continuous feminism and unfinished business--not discrete waves in competition--that Hillary Clinton makes sense. We had enjoyed the falling away of barriers our mothers faced, just as their mothers flocked to factories in the Rosie the Riveter days, and their grandmothers had fought to get the vote. Hillary had weathered her own version of being female in a changing landscape, had survived the marriage crisis, the identity crises of dress and hair, speech and mannerisms, navigated the same barriers the rest of us had (and more) as a working woman, crafting a model of female authority in the public sphere, become a mother and grandmother--and she was running for President.
When Bordo says 'her victory seemed assured' (another trigger for Sanders' supporters), it was because Trump was a weak candidate, and Sanders was no match for her in experience or qualifications. Worse, he had no experience in party politics. What was taken for revolutionary was often a function of ignorance, magnified by his increasingly indignant supporters and leveraged by Wikileaks. Sanders' inexperience with and suspicion of the Democratic Party was most glaring when he failed to concede to and support Clinton after her win, and shepherd his voting bloc to support the one candidate who could defeat Trump, leaving his supporters on their own to deal with the disappointment that his 'revolution' turned out to be. Cinton was a senator for New York, a Secretary of State with experience representing the US--and respect--worldwide, a successful lawyer, a lifetime advocate for children's rights and feminism on the international stage, an active member of the Democratic Party all of her adult life and headed up a national task force on health care--the first this country had seen. Her victory seemed assured because she was the most qualified, and because with Obama's presidency, it seemed the country had turned a corner. She was the one candidate who would continue that momentum.
But, as Bordo writes, the joy was stolen from that moment that should have been a culmination of a woman's career of service, and more importantly, a landmark achievement for my generation of feminists, as well as a continuation of Obama's 8 years of chipping away at the hierarchies of white supremacy and misogyny, and their infrastructure of of poverty, policing, prison, lack of representation, unfair wages and exclusion from political dialogue and historical tropes. The joy was stolen not only from feminists but also African Americans, who saw the election as a repudiaton and racist backlash of President Obama's tenure. Yes, there was unfinished business, but we had learned the hard way that representation, presence and a seat at the table where decisions are made are the ways that women--as a group--will get ahead.
The moment we had long dreamed of turned out to be nothing like we expected. There was no younger generation to take up the torch and continue the struggle, there was not even an acknowledgement of the struggle or the achievement. As horrifying as the rising power of the Tea Party and Trump demographic, it was equally shocking and frightening to see the re-defininition of progressive and feminist agendas to exclude women's rights and equal representation, and to some extent racial justice, gun control, prison reform,, and especially preserving the balance and efficacy of the Supreme Court where most of our gains had been made.
In the first few chapters of the book, Bordo addresses how women in politics pose and face unique challenges in a system constructed for male competition, where the score is kept using a gendered scorecard. Here Bordo delves into the perceptions that became accusations and then liabilities for Clinton, that old-school feminists understand as sexist: bitchy but fragile, secretive but predictable, manipulative but weak, overly prepared but inept, too macho but playing the woman card, a loner but sickly and dependent. Next, Bordo introduces a theme that threads throughout, one of generational differences. Women's issues lost their place in a 'progressive' agenda by a premature declaration of victory by 'new feminists' who had only or mainly known the Obama years. This was done in spite of an unprecedented attack on the very gains that were argued to be a done deal and 'passe.' The remaining two thirds of the book is a chronological account of election events and their media coverage, and Bordo ends with an extensive bibliography of print and online sources.
Bordo is thorough with a broad focus. She touches on the 2008 election--and doesn't let Barack Obama off the hook. She acknowledges the foreign influence, the goal of Assange, baldly stated to 'influence' the election, Giuliani's pre-emptive announcements and Bannon's influence on the clueless candidate's agenda. She points the finger at mainstream media, so easily manipulated into following the planted cues and choreographed non-events. The book was written quickly, and there are 5-6 typos that got through editing. Some later developments are not included, but she does mention 'Putin or Assange' and that still is an unresolved question. Some of the later analysis of the voting breakdown is missing, but Bardo does note the support of black women, who voted for Clinton at 98%. Still, she mentions the low black turnout that didn't match the Obama years, but if there is a flaw in her analysis is the missing element of voter suppression. As for 'party politics,' for Bordo that's a given in politics where there are 2 parties and each presidential election produces a winner from one of them.
In an excellent compare-and-contrast, Bordo places Rachel Maddow's critique of Bill Clinton's convention speech as 'shocking and weird' against a 1998 Toni Morrison article in the New Yorker on the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal in which Morrison articulated the often-quoted "white skin notwithstanding this is our first black president." Why? Not the saxophone, junk food, impoverished upbringing by a single mother...'tropes of blackness' per Morrison. No, rather it was "When the President's body his privacy, his unpoliced sexuality became the focus of persecution, when he was metaphorically seized and body-searched" that was how "he was being treated like a black on the street, already guilty, already a perp." http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/199... This reminder let me remember I was not mistaken. The Clintons were not always hated, as many claimed during the election.
In another comparison, and on the topic of Bill Clinton's 'sex scandals,' Bordo recounts Trump's ongoing threats to 'talk about Bill' if Hillary wasn't 'nice.' After the 'locker room' audio tape, followed by 12 women coming forward with assault accusations, a debate where Hillary was 'not nice,' Michelle Obama's speech and even reactions from Republicans at the time, Trump was being urged to quit by some Republicans, and was an embarrassment to all. Instead, he decided to make good on the threat. Bannon is nothing if not a 'fixer,' and orchestrated a parade of Bill Clinton accusers. Hillary was (again) vilified for sticking with Bill--and for her husband's behavior. "New feminists" faced a moment of paralyzed 'shock,' like Maddow. It was this generation's Clarence Thomas v. Anita Hill moment. Part of that 'complexity' that doesn't exist in a meme-driven cartoon world. This is when Sarandon found her spotlight and put forth. Gloria Steinem had been thrown under the bus by 'new feminists' months before (along with the rest of us mothers and grandmothers) so in this feminist vacuum, an accused rapist whose taped confession of sexual assault was public record was deemed the 'lesser of two evils' in comparison with Hillary Clinton, the first woman candidate for President.
But Monica Lewinsky, the woman around whom Bill's most infamous scandal centered, did not show up for the parade, Bordo notes. She has always maintained the relationship was 'consensual' and 'respectful,' and in a quote from her book we are reminded that Lewinsky agreed with Hillary Clinton that there was a 'vast right-wing conspiracy' to discredit the Clintons, distract and dilute the potential of Bill's 8 year term. This conspiracy and the Cartoon Hillary it spawned was not only vast, but decades in the making and well honed. Chunks of it were handed out in bits and memes, swallowed whole by a new generation with no context and seemingly unfamiliar to the ubiquitous and time immemorial relationship of sexual scandal to politics. Bill Clinton's sounded more like Trump's and neither was anything like Weiner's penis pics which were at least relatable. In one of the most sexist contortions of the election, Hillary-and-Bill became conflated into one entity, and Hillary took a hit for Bill's infidelity. This, after decades of fighting for the right to have our own names instead of Mrs. Somebody. Whether too long-suffering or a vindictive punishing spurned wife, either way, it didn't matter. The outcome was the same. A woman candidate would not stand on her own merits alone, and this fact alone makes the story of Hillary Clinton relevant to the future prospects of equal representation for women in government.
In the chapters tracing the election, the book form has an advantage over internet-based narrative, which dominated the election. Online, things are encountered out of sequence, cannibalized, resurface, they "go viral." There is no retraction, correction, apology or counter-argument which goes viral along with the original content. A book has a forced chronology, and using the advantage of this format, Bordo traces and critiques the trajectory of some of the stories that shaped the 'cartoon' Hillary and the outcome of the election. Others have done this as well, and as I write this, the investigation into Russia's influence is ongoing, with the media emerging as a major player when a timeline of 'events' is examined. It is becoming clearer--as Bordo frequently points out--the media has a hard time distinguishing between an 'event' IRL and a 'viral story' or leaked disclosure. It is now common practice to watch television news and see not reporters but people huddled over screens, presumably googling similar topics to what their viewers are googling at home while simultaneously watching the news.
When I say the book is therapeutic, it's because I relate to the generational cohort Bordo and Clinton represent, yes, but also because I find the presentation of facts in logical, sequential order to be familiar and understandable. While I now get most of my news online, I still look for the same thing: cause and effect, consequences, variations, contextual or simply independently co-existent. Once a thesis is stated, what naturally follows is a defense of the thesis. A piece is well done if it coherently presents and defends each thesis, and logically builds a narrative. Online content exists out-of-time and within a broader ideological context, not just because of the technology but also as a matter of style. Content prepared for online consumption is a jumble of narrative, links to outside sources or related material, photos and video. The screen is busy with side-bars of other supporting stories and pop-up videos that distract with peripheral movement and audio that competes with any attempt to actually read the chosen content. With so much click-bait, it's easy to not only lose the chronological thread of events, but fail to carry out our internal process of assessing a thesis or rejecting it, of bracketing it or believing it. "Confirmation bias" may not be so much a logical fallacy as a function of how we got the information in the first place.
Bordo lists the many flaws in the medium of online news, and takes on the task of analyzing online content and 24-hour cable news, not for their accuracy in reporting events, but their function in shaping 'news' and at times creating 'events' that were not, in fact, happenings in the real world. "News" can be an epiphany from a blogger or something suddenly 'found' that happened months--or years--ago. (If you remember the original story, it's a surreal moment when it's presented as a 'bombshell.) Or news can be a leak - some revelation not meant for public consumption that is presented contextualized and with intent inferred by whoever posts it online. Or in the case of FBI Director Comey, a partisan 'crisis of conscience' he felt necessitated a devastatingly timed announcement of a non-event. Bordo slows down the action in the last month of the election cycle, and is a chronological sequencing of real events and content non-events, paired with Clinton's plummeting poll numbers in the last 3 weeks of the election, she makes a strong case that the outcome of the election was the culmination of the 'vast right-wing conspiracy' in combination with a carefully crafted marketing campaign timed to 'go viral' precisely during peak voting season.
I enjoyed reading the book, though it brought up painful memories, as well as a bit of catharsis and clarity. It gave me a sense of my life's trajectory, and helped me see how Hillary shares and reflect that, and how much of a stake I had in her historic run. It was helpful to hear it articulated why it so profoundly affected me, why it was so personal. I wish I had found Bordo sooner, and those secret Hillary nooks and crannies online, since virtually none of my friends or family shared my support of her. Yes, Bordo writes a vindication of Hillary Clinton, and for this reason, her book may not be widely or fairly read. I may simply like it because I share her bias. She's not attempting unity, but to me she's doing something far more useful in shifting the focus away from the Tea Party/Trump constituency for a minute. Clinton won a majority of the popular vote, so her candidacy may not have been as much a problem as people say. But that was not translated into political victory, because it takes a party to win in a 2-party system. The Democratic party was blatantly attacked, hacked, humiliated and also undermined by Sanders' in a crass and reckless disruption of party politics. But it is Bannon who says 'disruption is power.' Meanwhile, we await the verdict on the Russia-Trump campaign collusion, there's a new president, and as always in politics, there's an election coming up.
April 23, 2017
Hard for Susan to write the book’s 188 pages. Probably too much rage induced when Susan had to organize her thoughts on how 63,000,000 derps doomed this nation to four years of outrage. Too much rage induces the digits to form a fist making typing all but impossible. Hard for me to read and even harder for me to sit here and type out a response.
A "4" because, outside of a very brief mention, she left out racism as a cause. Then again, Susan's cause is feminism. The big deal in Election 2016 was that a woman was at the top of the ticket of a major party. Color was 2008, 2012. A current event book must, by its very nature, get to publication in haste. Only so much can be covered. Also, calling derps racists is, for a journalist, defeating I suppose. To be honest though, racism was the first and overwhelming reason a blackguard like Trump now fouls the Oval Office. Also, Susan did not mention Obama's complicity in the Comey debacle. It was Obama who, in one of his obsequious moments, put that POS in the catbird seat. As for what Susan did write, it was excellent. The only thing new to me was just how negatively Bernie Sander’s run for the nomination affected Hillary’s chances. I read the news daily (I’ve done so since reading about Sputnik, October 1957, as a 10-year old.) so most of the events covered in this book were not new. However, anything about, of, or by BS, I don’t bother reading. I get it and can do nothing to influence it. The complaisance of Democratic voters was both maddening and frightening. As the election results came in, my anger and fears were justified.
Halfway through, I stopped taking notes and just underlined, circled, and scribbled in the margins. I like to keep my books clean but I could no longer contain myself. Like I said, it was hard reading. Harder still to think of all the cruelty and harm about to descend on the lives of so many innocents, including those yet to be born.
Page 53, about the free promotion Trump received from our vaunted freedom-loving-media versus their never-ending attacks against Hillary, “It was relentless-and if you think this is an exaggeration, just take a look at the June report from Harvard’s Shorenstein Center which showed that even when “scandals” were not involved, 84 percent of Clinton’s coverage was negative compared to 43 percent of Trump’s and 17 percent of Sander’s. The report notes: “Clinton’s negative coverage can be equated to millions of dollars in attack ads, with her on the receiving end.” Fund raising took a backseat to media bias in affecting the electorate’s opinion of the candidates. How could a dozen women charging Trump with assault become a non-story? The bias against Hillary was and is mind-boggling.
BS was likable, I liked him, but, and it’s a big “but”, he should have quit once it was obvious Hillary would be the nominee. He should have been more forceful in his handling of the obnoxious Bernie Bros. As with Obama, what BS did not do was as harmful as what he did. His attacks during the primaries equated Hillary with the pro Wall Street establishment. By alienating the youth from Hillary, he crippled Hillary’s effort to fire up the Dems to storm the polls and vote. Life will be sweet for BS. Much sweeter than for the common folks who will be so badly hammered by the now unfettered Republicans.
Susan sedulously picks apart the email nothing-burger. This phony scandal dominated way too many news cycles. Time that would have been better spent on analyzing the many oozing sores and pustules on Trump’s bloated carcass. The media could not be bothered by putting her server into any kind of historical context. Hillary was not the first nor the last to use a private email server instead of the cumbersome government service. They had Hillary’s use of a private email server stand alone when what was needed was an honest comparison with the practices of other politicians and government employees. A paragraph from page 140 illuminates how dunderheaded our government is in adapting to new technology. “On May 26, however, Clinton was vindicated when the State Department inspector general released its 83-page evaluation of email management. Its major criticism, as Rachel Maddow reported-and visually demonstrated with a huge, unwieldy stack of paper-was reserved for the “archaic archiving system” that Clinton had to work with: an “abysmal system of record-keeping in which the only approved method for archiving emails was by printing and boxing each one that was received or sent. No indexing or electronic storage, just physical “filing” of thousands and thousands of pages in box after box of printed emails.” Sounds like something Dilbert’s Pointy-Haired Boss would order him to do.
Trump is just the knob on the boobie hatch wherein Republican devils dwell. Trump should not distract from the real problem. One of the two major political parties that make up our government is dedicated to the aggrandizement and enrichment of the 1% at the expense of remaining 99%.
As an election post-mortem book, Bordo’s is a worthy read. I don’t usually read books covering current events but Trump’s win has stressed the hell out of me. Does rehashing help? Not sure about that. For now, Racism and Misogyny rule. There is a price to be paid for historical ignorance. I fear there will be many an unfortunate who will pay that price with their life.
Note: pages 193-233, A list of sources provides some interesting “further reading”. Just a few examples:
194: Bordo, Susan, “How to Try a Witch in the 21st Century.” Huffington Post June 20, 2016.
206: Pollitt, Katha, “Why Bernie Didn’t Get My Vote.” The Nation, May 4, 2016.
209: Cohn, Jonathan, “If the Media Treated Trump Like Other Candidates, Yesterday Would Have Ended His Campaign.” Huffington Post, June 1, 2016.
209: Daou, Peter, “Trust Me, Hillary Supporters: The Media Will NOT Be Your Friend In 2016.” Blue Nation Review, May 27, 2016.
210: Easley Jason, “One Chart Exposes How the Media Bashes Hillary Clinton While Promoting Donald Trump.” Politicus USA, June 18, 2016.
215: Parton, Heather Digby, “Press, lies and Hillary’s campaign: Years of smears have created a fictional version of Clinton.” Salon, Sept. 6, 2016.
221: Yglesias, Matthew, “The real Clinton email scandal is that a bullshit story has dominated the campaign.” Vox, November 4, 2016.
226: Allen, Jonathan, “Confessions of a Clinton Reporter: The media’s 5 unspoken rules for covering Hillary.” Vox, July 6, 2015.
A "4" because, outside of a very brief mention, she left out racism as a cause. Then again, Susan's cause is feminism. The big deal in Election 2016 was that a woman was at the top of the ticket of a major party. Color was 2008, 2012. A current event book must, by its very nature, get to publication in haste. Only so much can be covered. Also, calling derps racists is, for a journalist, defeating I suppose. To be honest though, racism was the first and overwhelming reason a blackguard like Trump now fouls the Oval Office. Also, Susan did not mention Obama's complicity in the Comey debacle. It was Obama who, in one of his obsequious moments, put that POS in the catbird seat. As for what Susan did write, it was excellent. The only thing new to me was just how negatively Bernie Sander’s run for the nomination affected Hillary’s chances. I read the news daily (I’ve done so since reading about Sputnik, October 1957, as a 10-year old.) so most of the events covered in this book were not new. However, anything about, of, or by BS, I don’t bother reading. I get it and can do nothing to influence it. The complaisance of Democratic voters was both maddening and frightening. As the election results came in, my anger and fears were justified.
Halfway through, I stopped taking notes and just underlined, circled, and scribbled in the margins. I like to keep my books clean but I could no longer contain myself. Like I said, it was hard reading. Harder still to think of all the cruelty and harm about to descend on the lives of so many innocents, including those yet to be born.
Page 53, about the free promotion Trump received from our vaunted freedom-loving-media versus their never-ending attacks against Hillary, “It was relentless-and if you think this is an exaggeration, just take a look at the June report from Harvard’s Shorenstein Center which showed that even when “scandals” were not involved, 84 percent of Clinton’s coverage was negative compared to 43 percent of Trump’s and 17 percent of Sander’s. The report notes: “Clinton’s negative coverage can be equated to millions of dollars in attack ads, with her on the receiving end.” Fund raising took a backseat to media bias in affecting the electorate’s opinion of the candidates. How could a dozen women charging Trump with assault become a non-story? The bias against Hillary was and is mind-boggling.
BS was likable, I liked him, but, and it’s a big “but”, he should have quit once it was obvious Hillary would be the nominee. He should have been more forceful in his handling of the obnoxious Bernie Bros. As with Obama, what BS did not do was as harmful as what he did. His attacks during the primaries equated Hillary with the pro Wall Street establishment. By alienating the youth from Hillary, he crippled Hillary’s effort to fire up the Dems to storm the polls and vote. Life will be sweet for BS. Much sweeter than for the common folks who will be so badly hammered by the now unfettered Republicans.
Susan sedulously picks apart the email nothing-burger. This phony scandal dominated way too many news cycles. Time that would have been better spent on analyzing the many oozing sores and pustules on Trump’s bloated carcass. The media could not be bothered by putting her server into any kind of historical context. Hillary was not the first nor the last to use a private email server instead of the cumbersome government service. They had Hillary’s use of a private email server stand alone when what was needed was an honest comparison with the practices of other politicians and government employees. A paragraph from page 140 illuminates how dunderheaded our government is in adapting to new technology. “On May 26, however, Clinton was vindicated when the State Department inspector general released its 83-page evaluation of email management. Its major criticism, as Rachel Maddow reported-and visually demonstrated with a huge, unwieldy stack of paper-was reserved for the “archaic archiving system” that Clinton had to work with: an “abysmal system of record-keeping in which the only approved method for archiving emails was by printing and boxing each one that was received or sent. No indexing or electronic storage, just physical “filing” of thousands and thousands of pages in box after box of printed emails.” Sounds like something Dilbert’s Pointy-Haired Boss would order him to do.
Trump is just the knob on the boobie hatch wherein Republican devils dwell. Trump should not distract from the real problem. One of the two major political parties that make up our government is dedicated to the aggrandizement and enrichment of the 1% at the expense of remaining 99%.
As an election post-mortem book, Bordo’s is a worthy read. I don’t usually read books covering current events but Trump’s win has stressed the hell out of me. Does rehashing help? Not sure about that. For now, Racism and Misogyny rule. There is a price to be paid for historical ignorance. I fear there will be many an unfortunate who will pay that price with their life.
Note: pages 193-233, A list of sources provides some interesting “further reading”. Just a few examples:
194: Bordo, Susan, “How to Try a Witch in the 21st Century.” Huffington Post June 20, 2016.
206: Pollitt, Katha, “Why Bernie Didn’t Get My Vote.” The Nation, May 4, 2016.
209: Cohn, Jonathan, “If the Media Treated Trump Like Other Candidates, Yesterday Would Have Ended His Campaign.” Huffington Post, June 1, 2016.
209: Daou, Peter, “Trust Me, Hillary Supporters: The Media Will NOT Be Your Friend In 2016.” Blue Nation Review, May 27, 2016.
210: Easley Jason, “One Chart Exposes How the Media Bashes Hillary Clinton While Promoting Donald Trump.” Politicus USA, June 18, 2016.
215: Parton, Heather Digby, “Press, lies and Hillary’s campaign: Years of smears have created a fictional version of Clinton.” Salon, Sept. 6, 2016.
221: Yglesias, Matthew, “The real Clinton email scandal is that a bullshit story has dominated the campaign.” Vox, November 4, 2016.
226: Allen, Jonathan, “Confessions of a Clinton Reporter: The media’s 5 unspoken rules for covering Hillary.” Vox, July 6, 2015.
May 24, 2017
Total garbage. Hillary sold 20% of our nations uranium to Russia to get $,millions donated to her foundation of which only 10% was used for the charities. 90% administrative costs. Conspired with Schultz to cheat Bernie out of fair chance. Got the debate questions priir to the debate. She deleted 30,000 emails and had classified emails on an illegal server. It goes on and on and some people think she's a good person...wrong!
October 31, 2019
Dr. Bordo expends her considerable talents for naught. Despite her best efforts, she cannot redeem HRC. Instead, she projects her own second wave feminist ideal onto Clinton and thus just can’t understand the way that other voter cohorts don’t share the same enthusiasm for Nixon in a pant suit Hillary that she does. As more and more of the primary rigging and Clinton Foundation corruption is verified by insiders like Donna Brazile, Bordo’s screed will read more like an unduly long freshman hagiography of her heroine. Blessedly shorter and better written than “What Happened,” “Destruction” is already deconstructing itself. No need to read.
June 23, 2017
Everything I've been thinking for the past 8 months and more.
August 29, 2017
Interesting take on why Hillary lost the 2016 election. I agree in large part of the way the media, and ultimately Trump and supporters painted her as cold, calculating, crooked, etc. It was hard to listen to the chapters about Bernie Sanders and his "millennial feminist supporters" as I was very much a hardcore Bernie millennial feminist. That being said, there is some truth to the way we reacted and treated Hillary throughout the career that no doubt fueled the opposing side's smear campaign against her. It's interesting to see how everything played out, and even living through it I agree with this book because it was right in front of us the entire time. Was Hillary perfect? No, not by any stretch of the imagination, but as stated several times in this book, she was no doubt one of the most qualified candidates for the presidency. I think, though this book is obviously biased, everyone should read and maybe take a slice of humble pie and learn from our mistakes and how we allowed this to happen to someone that could've effected positive change.
August 5, 2017
This was a hard book to get through, not because it's difficult or boring but because it's so enraging. Maybe it's coming out too soon after the 2016 election to read it without all the anger and heartbreak the election unleashed affecting one's reading experience. But I don't think there will ever be enough time to put emotional distance between the 2016 election and my personal or political feelings. I don't think I'll ever be able to forgive and forget the 2016 presidential election and the treatment of Hillary (and of women in general) by both the right and left during her campaign.
June 15, 2017
Susan Bordo, academic, cultural critic, and ardent feminist has taken to task our modern culture's mainstream media, political nastiness, and societal biases in her most recent book THE DESTRUCTION OF HILLARY CLINTON. Throughout, she notes important events in Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign and how the treatment and framing of those events, by others, led to her not being elected president. It is with her clear, concise, and unflinching language that the author presents a portrait of perhaps the most qualified presidential candidate in America's history, and how she could still lose the electoral college.
To give some context, Bordo first provides a timeline of Hillary's life, and discusses her early career and public life with Bill Clinton. The author explores the personal experiences and activism that shaped Hillary; she consistently favored arenas where she could act in benefit to those from marginalized groups. Susan presents an actual list of accomplishments of Ms. Clinton, and refers back to this in later discussions, where politicians and rivals question if she had ever actually "done anything" in her life.
The most compelling substance of the book focuses on the main components that, based on the author's research and conviction, overwhelmingly contributed to Hillary's loss in the election. These include: Vladimir Putin, the GOP, fake news, overt sexism, unconscious biases, Bernie Sanders' fractioning of the Democratic party, and FBI Director James Comey's direct and unethical interference in the days before the election. Bordo argues that none of these items, on their own, would have directly affected the outcome of the election, but mutually reinforced each other. Further yet, when the mainstream media focuses on headlines and stories that aren't fully researched, or are based on assertions, attacks, distortions, and/or lies, it makes it a completely losing battle for the candidate.
For those of us who are still, many months after the election, wondering "what happened?" Susan Bordo's book THE DESTRUCTION OF HILLARY CLINTON might help shed some light. There were many factors at play, most of which were fully outside of the Clinton campaign's control. What erupted at the intersectionality of sexism, divisive politics, sensationalistic media, corruption, and deliberate misinformation led to the destruction of Hillary Clinton.
To give some context, Bordo first provides a timeline of Hillary's life, and discusses her early career and public life with Bill Clinton. The author explores the personal experiences and activism that shaped Hillary; she consistently favored arenas where she could act in benefit to those from marginalized groups. Susan presents an actual list of accomplishments of Ms. Clinton, and refers back to this in later discussions, where politicians and rivals question if she had ever actually "done anything" in her life.
The most compelling substance of the book focuses on the main components that, based on the author's research and conviction, overwhelmingly contributed to Hillary's loss in the election. These include: Vladimir Putin, the GOP, fake news, overt sexism, unconscious biases, Bernie Sanders' fractioning of the Democratic party, and FBI Director James Comey's direct and unethical interference in the days before the election. Bordo argues that none of these items, on their own, would have directly affected the outcome of the election, but mutually reinforced each other. Further yet, when the mainstream media focuses on headlines and stories that aren't fully researched, or are based on assertions, attacks, distortions, and/or lies, it makes it a completely losing battle for the candidate.
For those of us who are still, many months after the election, wondering "what happened?" Susan Bordo's book THE DESTRUCTION OF HILLARY CLINTON might help shed some light. There were many factors at play, most of which were fully outside of the Clinton campaign's control. What erupted at the intersectionality of sexism, divisive politics, sensationalistic media, corruption, and deliberate misinformation led to the destruction of Hillary Clinton.
December 10, 2021
This is the first book about the 2016 election I've been able to read in its entirety.
First...many of the reviews here lambast Bordo for her pro-Hillary bias. And, I'm just....so confused. Because have any of you ever read a nonfiction book EVER that didn't have a bias? Like. The WHOLE point of writing a book about something is that you're so passionate about it, you need to get your thoughts down. So, like...fucking of COURSE she's biased. That's....not something she tried even a little to NOT be.
Secondly...someone being biased toward a subject doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong. So, like, again...just don't understand why people have such a hard time wrapping their head around that. As a nonfiction reader, I'm pretty accustomed to taking everything with several grains of salt. Because, again, that's kind of...the deal, right? I mean, even if you quote something directly, whoever made THAT quotation had their own bias too.
Thirdly...goddammit, I'm so retroactively angry and sad. I think the reason I was able to read this is because it's 2021, and the LIVING NIGHTMARE of Trump's presidency is over. And while I can say I survived it, A LOT OF FUCKING PEOPLE DIDN'T. Would that have been different if HRC was elected? I don't know, no one does. Do I think we would have been better off as a nation having a person in charge who wasn't a raving psychopath? I mean, yes...obviously.
All this to say, things happen due to several different types of circumstances all happening at once. It's rarely ever ONE thing. And that's Bordo's main point. This was never one thing. It was a giant storm of several things, and I think she did a very good job of outlining what many of those things were. I can't speak to a lot of the information presented, because I simply don't have the facts; but a lot of it was stuff I hadn't taken into account, and a lot of it was reiterating what I'd already thought.
Either way, can we please not do this again? I'm so tired.
First...many of the reviews here lambast Bordo for her pro-Hillary bias. And, I'm just....so confused. Because have any of you ever read a nonfiction book EVER that didn't have a bias? Like. The WHOLE point of writing a book about something is that you're so passionate about it, you need to get your thoughts down. So, like...fucking of COURSE she's biased. That's....not something she tried even a little to NOT be.
Secondly...someone being biased toward a subject doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong. So, like, again...just don't understand why people have such a hard time wrapping their head around that. As a nonfiction reader, I'm pretty accustomed to taking everything with several grains of salt. Because, again, that's kind of...the deal, right? I mean, even if you quote something directly, whoever made THAT quotation had their own bias too.
Thirdly...goddammit, I'm so retroactively angry and sad. I think the reason I was able to read this is because it's 2021, and the LIVING NIGHTMARE of Trump's presidency is over. And while I can say I survived it, A LOT OF FUCKING PEOPLE DIDN'T. Would that have been different if HRC was elected? I don't know, no one does. Do I think we would have been better off as a nation having a person in charge who wasn't a raving psychopath? I mean, yes...obviously.
All this to say, things happen due to several different types of circumstances all happening at once. It's rarely ever ONE thing. And that's Bordo's main point. This was never one thing. It was a giant storm of several things, and I think she did a very good job of outlining what many of those things were. I can't speak to a lot of the information presented, because I simply don't have the facts; but a lot of it was stuff I hadn't taken into account, and a lot of it was reiterating what I'd already thought.
Either way, can we please not do this again? I'm so tired.
September 6, 2017
Bordo's account of the destruction of Hillary Clinton as a public figure and political candidate is expertly written in clear and clean prose. I couldn't put it down. The case that Bordo lays out to explain why Clinton's campaign for the US Presidency failed is quite compelling. The evidence is incontrovertible.
In essence, Clinton was no better at the campaign stuff than most presidential candidates but her loss can be mostly attributed to (1) a media that is profit and ratings driven and that mostly abdicated it's responsibility for truth finding in favor of horse race coverage and false equivalencies, (2) a highly profitable and decades-long smear campaign from the right that shape-shifted and changed its arguments in self-contradictory ways to fit the current narrative, (3) Bernie bros and the "Bernie-or-bust" call-out campaign from the left that threw Hillary out of their self-defined "progressive" camp, (4) a rogue FBI Director, and, YES, (5) entrenched misogyny and gendered ideas of leadership. All of this Bordo deftly defends in the book.
It was healing to read an account that didn't blame Clinton for everything from bed bugs to long lines at Walmart. In truth, Clinton was the most progressive Democratic candidate ever nominated as well as (arguably) the most prepared and distinguished major party candidate in history. The lessons from the 2016 election are much more disturbing than if we simply say Clinton was an awful candidate who defeated herself. The actual explanations are more complex and difficult to swallow. I expect reading this book will be a healing and vindicating experience for Hillary's fans (myself included) but will infuriate those who already rejected her. Of course that fury would underscore Bordo's thesis. I loved this book and I highly recommend it to anyone with an open mind or anyone who was and is inspired by Clinton.
In essence, Clinton was no better at the campaign stuff than most presidential candidates but her loss can be mostly attributed to (1) a media that is profit and ratings driven and that mostly abdicated it's responsibility for truth finding in favor of horse race coverage and false equivalencies, (2) a highly profitable and decades-long smear campaign from the right that shape-shifted and changed its arguments in self-contradictory ways to fit the current narrative, (3) Bernie bros and the "Bernie-or-bust" call-out campaign from the left that threw Hillary out of their self-defined "progressive" camp, (4) a rogue FBI Director, and, YES, (5) entrenched misogyny and gendered ideas of leadership. All of this Bordo deftly defends in the book.
It was healing to read an account that didn't blame Clinton for everything from bed bugs to long lines at Walmart. In truth, Clinton was the most progressive Democratic candidate ever nominated as well as (arguably) the most prepared and distinguished major party candidate in history. The lessons from the 2016 election are much more disturbing than if we simply say Clinton was an awful candidate who defeated herself. The actual explanations are more complex and difficult to swallow. I expect reading this book will be a healing and vindicating experience for Hillary's fans (myself included) but will infuriate those who already rejected her. Of course that fury would underscore Bordo's thesis. I loved this book and I highly recommend it to anyone with an open mind or anyone who was and is inspired by Clinton.
June 22, 2017
Nothing groundbreaking, but very succinct and effective at making the argument that so much of the election was out of Clinton's control. And let's face it, she was/is far more awesome than the media ever gave her credit for, especially when compared to her awful, awful, awful Republican opponent. As a Bernie fan who 100% voted for Clinton but wasn't all too excited about it, this book made me mad.
Even if the worst of what they said about Hillary was true, she was still clearly the better candidate compared to Trump by miles. However, most of the attacks against her were complete and utter garbage that somehow warped people into believing that Trump was even 5% on par with this incredible woman who has been fighting for progressive causes for decades (vs. a man who has fought for basically nothing, good or bad, until recently). I didn't give her enough credit during the election, which is partly why I read this book in the first place.
If you're going to read Clinton Cash or some other garbage, you should at least read this to balance your mind out. And if you're like me, a Bernie fan, it will help mend the strains between you and your fervent Hillary-supporter friends.
In sum, this book fosters greater understanding of what we all went through in the crazy 2016 election. At the very least, it helped me process my own thoughts on the candidates, the American public, and the society in which we're currently living. Highly recommend.
Even if the worst of what they said about Hillary was true, she was still clearly the better candidate compared to Trump by miles. However, most of the attacks against her were complete and utter garbage that somehow warped people into believing that Trump was even 5% on par with this incredible woman who has been fighting for progressive causes for decades (vs. a man who has fought for basically nothing, good or bad, until recently). I didn't give her enough credit during the election, which is partly why I read this book in the first place.
If you're going to read Clinton Cash or some other garbage, you should at least read this to balance your mind out. And if you're like me, a Bernie fan, it will help mend the strains between you and your fervent Hillary-supporter friends.
In sum, this book fosters greater understanding of what we all went through in the crazy 2016 election. At the very least, it helped me process my own thoughts on the candidates, the American public, and the society in which we're currently living. Highly recommend.
May 29, 2017
Bardo states her bias at the beginning. She is definitely there to defend Hillary Clinton but she also offers up clear evidence to support her theory that misogyny played a huge role in Clinton's loss. This, coupled with Comey's unprecedented updates about an open investigation - note: he wasn't this open with investigations taking place about Trump and his campaign - were catastrophic. The media's focus on the email "scandal," and Bernie's young supporters meant Clinton had to be darn near perfect in every aspect of her campaign. This was an impossible standard only applied to the female running. The man was given a free pass for nearly every transgression. It's an appalling read because of how brutal it all looks when taken together. It hurt. But it was worth it to see it in print, to know that someone was paying attention, and to know that history will not forget what happened in this election. Lord knows, we do not want the events leading up to the 2016 election to only be told by the winners (i.e. Trump and his motley crew of asshats).
June 30, 2017
I read Bordo's book on the female body that came out 10 years ago or more. It was insightful, relevant, grounded in theory, analytical, and engaging. I was hoping for a similar theoretical analysis of Clinton. But that's not what Bordo provided. It's mostly a day by day rehash of the double standard the media, the public, and politicians have applied to Hillary. There were a few new nuggets, but I would have liked more of a framework for all the description. I remember all this, I'd like the author to help me see something different or new.
July 7, 2017
I thought this would be an unbiased factual review of how Hillary lost the 2016 election. The author stated that she was an early passionate Clinton supporter. I respect her political right; I like to read both sides of all the political candidates. However, this book was just a disappointing barrage of blame on everybody except Hillary's team.
August 14, 2017
Susan Bordo acknowledges her perspective from the beginning: she was a Hillary Clinton supporter and admirer long before the 2016 election, and The Destruction of Hillary Clinton does not delve into the problems of Hillary's own doing in the campaign. There are many books and articles that readily detail the mistakes Hillary's campaign made. Did Hillary make blunders on the campaign? Of course! Do those gaffes fully explain the confluence of factors that compounded questions of her trustworthiness, likability, and character? No. Bordo is more interested in tracing the "crooked" caricature of Hillary that obliterated her high favorability ratings as Secretary of State once she started running for president.
I'm too young to remember the early attacks on Hillary Clinton during the Clinton White House years, but Hillary has always seemed to loom large in the public imagination, for better or worse. The special disdain and rage reserved for Hillary from the right has existed for over 25 years. While Hillary served as a lightning rod for her detractors and a representative of cultural shifts in American society, it's always been difficult to put a finger on the origins of the rage directed towards her.
Bordo discusses the role the media played in producing disproportionately negative stories on Clinton, partially stemming from a desire for apparent impartiality and partially driven by ratings. Treating every story as breaking news drives more eyeballs to the TV, fueling Trump's rise and blowing Hillary's email "scandal" out of proportion. Hillary's prominence and sense of inevitability made her vulnerable to attacks from Republicans several years in advance of her campaign. She was the probably the most well-known politician running, and her opponents on both the right and left could project the country's issues on to her with the help of media outlets.
Perhaps the most contentious subject of the book is the role Bernie Sanders played in Hillary's defeat. Bernie Sanders supporters rejected Hillary in part because of her perceived "flip-flopping" on key issues, but they failed to recognize that Hillary's positions were often molded in part by public pressure to conform to societal ideals. There was little sympathy for a politician who couldn't pass a purity test and limited patience for evolving viewpoints. Hillary had to prove her strength as a woman in public life in a way Bernie Sanders never faced, influencing her outward facing behavior. I greatly admire Bernie's ability to bring important issues to the forefront of political debate, but the weaponization of Hillary's Wall Street ties and connection to "the establishment" proved fatal in alienating young voters. Too many left-leaning people I know equated Hillary's politics with Trump's and as antithetical to progressive values. Bernie supporters may bristle at the connection Bordo makes, but Bernie ultimately fed into these beliefs, and these sentiments were in turn echoed by Trump to the detriment of millennial voter turn out.
Bordo discusses the parallels between her experiences and Hillary's life, growing up as a child of the Baby Boom and in the midst of the feminist movement. Bordo shows the near impossibility Hillary faced in presenting herself as an "acceptable woman" in society, when the possibilities of womanhood were constantly being redefined and challenged. My generation associated Hillary with an outdated political establishment without acknowledging her struggle to adapt to politics hostile to women. We assumed that being a woman wasn't a major hurdle to the presidency anymore and believed that we would have a woman president eventually. Bordo and other Baby Boomer women knew otherwise. Bordo points to Hillary's role as a powerful independent attorney and equal partnership with her husband served as a sort of generational rorschach test of the anxieties of female power. Hillary was held to an impossible standard and responsible for the struggles of the past 25 years, yet no other politician was held to similar account.
I wish Bordo had gone deeper into the reversal of the role of women in the 2012 and 2016 elections. Republicans were accused of raging a "war on women" following Mitt Romney's "binders full of women" quote and Republican politicans' comments on rape and reproductive rights. It felt like the tide was changing in what was acceptable to say about women in public discourse. It felt like women's issues were no longer going to be relegated to secondary concerns. Women were united in saying no to politicians spouting misogyny. So what happened in the intervening 4 years? I don't think there's any one explanation for the reversal in public mood (maybe the possibility of electing a woman president or backlash after 8 years of an African-American president), and Bordo presents the contrast to show the change between 2012 and 2016. It would have been interesting to read Bordo's analysis a bit deeper on the subject, but I understand that it might have been too much of a diversion from her central claim. Maybe this is something we can only reckon with in a time farther removed from 2016.
Bordo weaves together a damning analysis of the factors that led to Hillary's defeat that serves as necessary reading for anyone interested in the role sexism played in the 2016 election. Bordo's book is catharsis for Hillary supporters in the age of Trump, but it is filled with important insights into how we treat powerful female figures. Hillary deserved better from the media and the American people. Hopefully this book can be an initial guide to reflecting on the role we all played in bringing down Hillary Clinton.
I'm too young to remember the early attacks on Hillary Clinton during the Clinton White House years, but Hillary has always seemed to loom large in the public imagination, for better or worse. The special disdain and rage reserved for Hillary from the right has existed for over 25 years. While Hillary served as a lightning rod for her detractors and a representative of cultural shifts in American society, it's always been difficult to put a finger on the origins of the rage directed towards her.
Bordo discusses the role the media played in producing disproportionately negative stories on Clinton, partially stemming from a desire for apparent impartiality and partially driven by ratings. Treating every story as breaking news drives more eyeballs to the TV, fueling Trump's rise and blowing Hillary's email "scandal" out of proportion. Hillary's prominence and sense of inevitability made her vulnerable to attacks from Republicans several years in advance of her campaign. She was the probably the most well-known politician running, and her opponents on both the right and left could project the country's issues on to her with the help of media outlets.
Perhaps the most contentious subject of the book is the role Bernie Sanders played in Hillary's defeat. Bernie Sanders supporters rejected Hillary in part because of her perceived "flip-flopping" on key issues, but they failed to recognize that Hillary's positions were often molded in part by public pressure to conform to societal ideals. There was little sympathy for a politician who couldn't pass a purity test and limited patience for evolving viewpoints. Hillary had to prove her strength as a woman in public life in a way Bernie Sanders never faced, influencing her outward facing behavior. I greatly admire Bernie's ability to bring important issues to the forefront of political debate, but the weaponization of Hillary's Wall Street ties and connection to "the establishment" proved fatal in alienating young voters. Too many left-leaning people I know equated Hillary's politics with Trump's and as antithetical to progressive values. Bernie supporters may bristle at the connection Bordo makes, but Bernie ultimately fed into these beliefs, and these sentiments were in turn echoed by Trump to the detriment of millennial voter turn out.
Bordo discusses the parallels between her experiences and Hillary's life, growing up as a child of the Baby Boom and in the midst of the feminist movement. Bordo shows the near impossibility Hillary faced in presenting herself as an "acceptable woman" in society, when the possibilities of womanhood were constantly being redefined and challenged. My generation associated Hillary with an outdated political establishment without acknowledging her struggle to adapt to politics hostile to women. We assumed that being a woman wasn't a major hurdle to the presidency anymore and believed that we would have a woman president eventually. Bordo and other Baby Boomer women knew otherwise. Bordo points to Hillary's role as a powerful independent attorney and equal partnership with her husband served as a sort of generational rorschach test of the anxieties of female power. Hillary was held to an impossible standard and responsible for the struggles of the past 25 years, yet no other politician was held to similar account.
I wish Bordo had gone deeper into the reversal of the role of women in the 2012 and 2016 elections. Republicans were accused of raging a "war on women" following Mitt Romney's "binders full of women" quote and Republican politicans' comments on rape and reproductive rights. It felt like the tide was changing in what was acceptable to say about women in public discourse. It felt like women's issues were no longer going to be relegated to secondary concerns. Women were united in saying no to politicians spouting misogyny. So what happened in the intervening 4 years? I don't think there's any one explanation for the reversal in public mood (maybe the possibility of electing a woman president or backlash after 8 years of an African-American president), and Bordo presents the contrast to show the change between 2012 and 2016. It would have been interesting to read Bordo's analysis a bit deeper on the subject, but I understand that it might have been too much of a diversion from her central claim. Maybe this is something we can only reckon with in a time farther removed from 2016.
Bordo weaves together a damning analysis of the factors that led to Hillary's defeat that serves as necessary reading for anyone interested in the role sexism played in the 2016 election. Bordo's book is catharsis for Hillary supporters in the age of Trump, but it is filled with important insights into how we treat powerful female figures. Hillary deserved better from the media and the American people. Hopefully this book can be an initial guide to reflecting on the role we all played in bringing down Hillary Clinton.
December 3, 2025
I fear the disparity in the reviews on this book may in fact prove its point.
June 6, 2017
originally posted on HellyReads
I started reading this a while ago, but put it to one side because it was making me feel really sad! Then I started reading Post-Truth and thought that the two fit really well together.
This tells the story of how Hillary Clinton was fighting an uphill battle from way before she even won the Democratic nomination. There are explanations of double standards within the political system, misogyny, basic sexism, differing expectations, manipulations of facts and many more things that all added together meant that she didn't really stand a chance.
We all know what happened in the 2016 Presidential contest and election, but this does an amazing job of explaining WHY things panned out in the way they did.
I admit that there is an obvious pro-Hillary bias here, but it can be seen that the timelines discussed=something pretty fishy...
Judge for yourselves. A highly recommended political read!
I started reading this a while ago, but put it to one side because it was making me feel really sad! Then I started reading Post-Truth and thought that the two fit really well together.
This tells the story of how Hillary Clinton was fighting an uphill battle from way before she even won the Democratic nomination. There are explanations of double standards within the political system, misogyny, basic sexism, differing expectations, manipulations of facts and many more things that all added together meant that she didn't really stand a chance.
We all know what happened in the 2016 Presidential contest and election, but this does an amazing job of explaining WHY things panned out in the way they did.
I admit that there is an obvious pro-Hillary bias here, but it can be seen that the timelines discussed=something pretty fishy...
Judge for yourselves. A highly recommended political read!
July 21, 2017
Overall, I think the author makes some valid points. The GOP spent the last 25 years turning HRC into a she-devil, and the media was all too eager to help them to do so. The author did get a couple of minor facts wrong, though...for example, talking about Sarah Palin in 2012, rather than 2008, and labeling Steve Bannon as Trump's campaign manager.
The author is clearly dedicated to the Clintons, and for better or worse, that dedication comes through vividly in her writing. She attempts to cast the blame Clinton's loss entirely on people and entities other than Clinton herself or her campaign, but I think this is neither fair nor accurate. Clinton and her campaign do share some of the blame. While I think most of us can agree that Comey's interference just 11 days out from election day was unprecedented and a serious violation of FBI and DOJ protocol, the campaign should have had a bombshell on Trump waiting in the wings for just such an occasion in order to redirect the narrative away from her. That the campaign clearly didn't is pure political incompetence.
The author is clearly dedicated to the Clintons, and for better or worse, that dedication comes through vividly in her writing. She attempts to cast the blame Clinton's loss entirely on people and entities other than Clinton herself or her campaign, but I think this is neither fair nor accurate. Clinton and her campaign do share some of the blame. While I think most of us can agree that Comey's interference just 11 days out from election day was unprecedented and a serious violation of FBI and DOJ protocol, the campaign should have had a bombshell on Trump waiting in the wings for just such an occasion in order to redirect the narrative away from her. That the campaign clearly didn't is pure political incompetence.
August 20, 2017
I'm biased, so if you don't like HRC, don't read this review. As a 50-something female veteran and engineer, I've seen firsthand that this is man's world, but the depth of hate-filled attention on Ms. Clinton is vile. This book documents just that, a long trail of mean-spirited and evil media representation just to get people agitated.
She is a former Senator, Secretary of State, FLOTUS and attorney. Yet still a lot of shameless Americans will call her "bitch" or chant "lock her up". It's sickening.
A long time ago I read "Women in the Military" and this book reminded me of that one -- where all the arguments and attention about how *she* doesn't belong or *she* has a hidden agenda or *she* isn't qualified is just BS.
Read this book -- and even if you think the author is biased (as am I) even a small portion of what was smeared on HRC was too much. When the facts come out, as they will, that trump had Putin on his side and has deals in Russia will we never fully understand, mark my words. She should have been President.
She is a former Senator, Secretary of State, FLOTUS and attorney. Yet still a lot of shameless Americans will call her "bitch" or chant "lock her up". It's sickening.
A long time ago I read "Women in the Military" and this book reminded me of that one -- where all the arguments and attention about how *she* doesn't belong or *she* has a hidden agenda or *she* isn't qualified is just BS.
Read this book -- and even if you think the author is biased (as am I) even a small portion of what was smeared on HRC was too much. When the facts come out, as they will, that trump had Putin on his side and has deals in Russia will we never fully understand, mark my words. She should have been President.
August 21, 2017
I'm confused. It must be because I lack a post-graduate degree like all the authoress' and Clintons' friends have.
Nearly every media person voted for Clinton. How could her loss be their fault? Not once does Bordo acknowledge what a horrible candidate Clinton was; or her utter contempt for ordinary people. Email scandal? No big deal. Benghazi? No big deal. Watergate? Also, I'm sure, no big deal.
The most-ever qualified candidate for president was George H.W. Bush, not Hillary Clinton. They have something in common: Never has someone with such an impressive resume accomplished so little.
No book on the election is complete without conceding Clinton deserves blame for her loss. We'll find out what she says when her own book hits the street Sept. 11.
Nearly every media person voted for Clinton. How could her loss be their fault? Not once does Bordo acknowledge what a horrible candidate Clinton was; or her utter contempt for ordinary people. Email scandal? No big deal. Benghazi? No big deal. Watergate? Also, I'm sure, no big deal.
The most-ever qualified candidate for president was George H.W. Bush, not Hillary Clinton. They have something in common: Never has someone with such an impressive resume accomplished so little.
No book on the election is complete without conceding Clinton deserves blame for her loss. We'll find out what she says when her own book hits the street Sept. 11.
May 14, 2017
As someone who is still heartbroken over the election, this book did not heal a broken heart but instead made me want to resist Trump even more (if that is possible.)
I appreciate the author laying out the path, starting with the early years, as to why so many were against Hillary. I also appreciate how much research went into this book and brought up points I had forgotten such as Comey stating the three emails were not labeled with the appropriate classified header.
I definitely recommend this book however, make sure and have a bottle of bourbon with you during it. You'll need it when you go down memory lane of how our nation became a reality show.
I appreciate the author laying out the path, starting with the early years, as to why so many were against Hillary. I also appreciate how much research went into this book and brought up points I had forgotten such as Comey stating the three emails were not labeled with the appropriate classified header.
I definitely recommend this book however, make sure and have a bottle of bourbon with you during it. You'll need it when you go down memory lane of how our nation became a reality show.
August 7, 2017
Written like a series of Huffington post blogs, there isn't anything new or insightful in this book. No new information or hard hitting analysis of why Clinton lost. Just a rehashing of the prejudice that lead to the disastrous election.
November 28, 2017
I picked up this book at the library, interested in what this author, whom I knew nothing about, had to say. I quickly realized that Ms Bordo's take on "The Destruction of Hillary Clinton" was not the same as mine. I was happy, she was sad. OK, no problem. I have my own ideas, but let's see what her analysis is.
I am sorry to report that
However, if that's what the author believes was HRC's downfall, so be it. I think she is partially right. That's not why I awarded 1 star. The book gets 1 star for a few reasons. The majority of the book is Ms. Bordo defending HRC, saying why everyone who was responsible for taking Hillary down was wrong, duped, or dishonest. I expected to learn why HRC was "destroyed", not why her "destruction" was unfair, wrong, whatever. There was more on the latter, less on the former.
Throughout the book, Bordo shares her low opinion of Trump and his supporters. Again, that's not what this book is presented to be about. Maybe that's the publisher's fault, not the author's, but whose fault it is doesn't matter to the reader. We judge the finished product as released.
Too often Ms. Bordo engages in sophistry and lacks rigor. I expected better from a person with her credentials. Examples follow. I started taking notes on page 61. I could have, and in hindsight should have, started sooner.
Page 40-41. (I went back and got this one.) Bordo is talking about Bill Clinton's defeat and then election as governor of Arkansas. "...many believed his 'radical feminist' wife contributed to his loss..." (Note: Bill Clinton won with his same wife the election prior.) "So she straightened her hair, got rid of her owlish glasses, put on some makeup, and changed her name [from Rodham to Clinton]. And Bill won the next time he ran." True, he won, but Bordo gives the impression that he won BECAUSE Hillary made these changes. Cause: effect. I've read enough about Bill Clinton's career to believe that there was more to it than Hillary's makeover.
Page 61, straw man argument. She says Pence put forth a "bill requiring ... that all fetal remains from abortions and miscarriages be buried or cremated." I believe the intent of this bill was to prohibit remains to be used (sold) for research and also to be treated with respect. Bordo concludes that "if Mike Pence had his way, [female millennials] would be holding funerals for any fetuses they aborted or miscarried." That's a cheap debate tactic. Grotesquely exaggerate your opponent's position, and then mock the position that he never took.
Page 66. "Factually, the notion that Clinton ... was campaigning only 'on her gender,' is ridiculous." I don't know anyone who thought or charged that Clinton was campaigning ONLY on her gender. It WOULD be ridiculous. But since no one thought that, why say they did? Another straw man.
Page 78. "For while Trump supporters... [forgave] every crime...". What crime was Trump ever convicted of? Bordo wants proof beyond a doubt of Hillary's shortcomings. But she won't afford Trump the same courtesy.
Page 93. Here Bordo is refuting the notion that the system was rigged in Hillary's favor. She asserts Sanders got a "huge boost ... from caucuses, which favored young, healthy, economically privileged students who could spend hours hanging out at them without having to worry about child care or money lost from time off work." Wow! Let's diss the Sanders supporters. Is that how Democratic party caucuses work? I seem to recall that Obama did well in the Democratic caucus states in 2008. Maybe Hillary should have learned from her 2008 experience and devised a more effective strategy in those states in 2016?
Page 105. "In September, Hillary had pneumonia." Did she? It took the campaign awhile to come up with that explanation. Bordo accepts Hillary's explanation as fact. I'm more skeptical, but let's move on. Bordo excuses her nearly fainting as something that can happen to someone "standing in the sun at long political events." I thought she was sitting, not standing, but I might be wrong about that. I do recall that it was reported that it was not a hot day. Bordo believes the reporting Hillary got on that incident was unfair.
Bordo also brings up the fainting episodes that often occurred at Obama rallies in 2008. I've never heard anyone say that these episodes were orchestrated, but they always seemed like they were to me. They happened too often, right on cue. I don't remember hearing about anyone fainting at anyone's rally in 2015 or 2016.
Page 109. "Is Hillary actually untrustworthy? The fact-checkers say, unequivocally, no." What fact-checkers? Bordo never says.
Page 112-113. Bordo takes Bernie to task for not controlling his supporters' "increasingly violent, misogynistic outbursts." "He knew he had tremendous influence, particularly with his younger fans, and exploited it throughout his campaign. But he never criticized the misogyny in their attacks on Clinton." Maybe that's an argument for putting the voting age back to 21, I don't know. But back on point, I don't recall Hillary reigning in HER supporters.
Page 118. Bordo is talking about how journalism has changed. "Men like [Walter] Cronkite, who believed in reportage that 'required careful examination though text,' were skeptical about the informational value of such a visually oriented format as television...". Didn't we learn years after Cronkite retired that he and CBS News manipulated Vietnam war coverage to promote their own beliefs about the war? I think Cronkite's star doesn't shine as brightly as it used to.
Pages 125-126. Bordo brings up Oliver Stone's JFK movie, climate change, and the OJ trial, all within a page-plus. I thought that was worth a mention. Remember that the book is "The Destruction of Hillary Clinton."
Page 154. "...Bill Clinton found himself on the same tarmac ... as [AG] Loretta Lynch. He pulled a Bill Clinton and impulsively visited her airplane to chat." How about that! An innocent coincidence. That rascal Bill Clinton... you never can tell what he might do. Yep, Bordo is buying that explanation. I've got a bridge to sell her.
Page 236. This is in the Acknowledgments. Bordo thanks her students "for being so gracious about being abandoned during the last few months." Wait, what? Professor Bordo is supposed to be teaching a class or classes at the University of Kentucky, but she "abandons" her students for a "few months"? Did the students (or more likely, the parents) get their course tuition back? Excuse me, Professor Bordo, but if you are to teach a class to me or my kid, I damn well expect you to show up and teach the class. This last little bit speaks volumes about the author. One star.
I am sorry to report that
However, if that's what the author believes was HRC's downfall, so be it. I think she is partially right. That's not why I awarded 1 star. The book gets 1 star for a few reasons. The majority of the book is Ms. Bordo defending HRC, saying why everyone who was responsible for taking Hillary down was wrong, duped, or dishonest. I expected to learn why HRC was "destroyed", not why her "destruction" was unfair, wrong, whatever. There was more on the latter, less on the former.
Throughout the book, Bordo shares her low opinion of Trump and his supporters. Again, that's not what this book is presented to be about. Maybe that's the publisher's fault, not the author's, but whose fault it is doesn't matter to the reader. We judge the finished product as released.
Too often Ms. Bordo engages in sophistry and lacks rigor. I expected better from a person with her credentials. Examples follow. I started taking notes on page 61. I could have, and in hindsight should have, started sooner.
Page 40-41. (I went back and got this one.) Bordo is talking about Bill Clinton's defeat and then election as governor of Arkansas. "...many believed his 'radical feminist' wife contributed to his loss..." (Note: Bill Clinton won with his same wife the election prior.) "So she straightened her hair, got rid of her owlish glasses, put on some makeup, and changed her name [from Rodham to Clinton]. And Bill won the next time he ran." True, he won, but Bordo gives the impression that he won BECAUSE Hillary made these changes. Cause: effect. I've read enough about Bill Clinton's career to believe that there was more to it than Hillary's makeover.
Page 61, straw man argument. She says Pence put forth a "bill requiring ... that all fetal remains from abortions and miscarriages be buried or cremated." I believe the intent of this bill was to prohibit remains to be used (sold) for research and also to be treated with respect. Bordo concludes that "if Mike Pence had his way, [female millennials] would be holding funerals for any fetuses they aborted or miscarried." That's a cheap debate tactic. Grotesquely exaggerate your opponent's position, and then mock the position that he never took.
Page 66. "Factually, the notion that Clinton ... was campaigning only 'on her gender,' is ridiculous." I don't know anyone who thought or charged that Clinton was campaigning ONLY on her gender. It WOULD be ridiculous. But since no one thought that, why say they did? Another straw man.
Page 78. "For while Trump supporters... [forgave] every crime...". What crime was Trump ever convicted of? Bordo wants proof beyond a doubt of Hillary's shortcomings. But she won't afford Trump the same courtesy.
Page 93. Here Bordo is refuting the notion that the system was rigged in Hillary's favor. She asserts Sanders got a "huge boost ... from caucuses, which favored young, healthy, economically privileged students who could spend hours hanging out at them without having to worry about child care or money lost from time off work." Wow! Let's diss the Sanders supporters. Is that how Democratic party caucuses work? I seem to recall that Obama did well in the Democratic caucus states in 2008. Maybe Hillary should have learned from her 2008 experience and devised a more effective strategy in those states in 2016?
Page 105. "In September, Hillary had pneumonia." Did she? It took the campaign awhile to come up with that explanation. Bordo accepts Hillary's explanation as fact. I'm more skeptical, but let's move on. Bordo excuses her nearly fainting as something that can happen to someone "standing in the sun at long political events." I thought she was sitting, not standing, but I might be wrong about that. I do recall that it was reported that it was not a hot day. Bordo believes the reporting Hillary got on that incident was unfair.
Bordo also brings up the fainting episodes that often occurred at Obama rallies in 2008. I've never heard anyone say that these episodes were orchestrated, but they always seemed like they were to me. They happened too often, right on cue. I don't remember hearing about anyone fainting at anyone's rally in 2015 or 2016.
Page 109. "Is Hillary actually untrustworthy? The fact-checkers say, unequivocally, no." What fact-checkers? Bordo never says.
Page 112-113. Bordo takes Bernie to task for not controlling his supporters' "increasingly violent, misogynistic outbursts." "He knew he had tremendous influence, particularly with his younger fans, and exploited it throughout his campaign. But he never criticized the misogyny in their attacks on Clinton." Maybe that's an argument for putting the voting age back to 21, I don't know. But back on point, I don't recall Hillary reigning in HER supporters.
Page 118. Bordo is talking about how journalism has changed. "Men like [Walter] Cronkite, who believed in reportage that 'required careful examination though text,' were skeptical about the informational value of such a visually oriented format as television...". Didn't we learn years after Cronkite retired that he and CBS News manipulated Vietnam war coverage to promote their own beliefs about the war? I think Cronkite's star doesn't shine as brightly as it used to.
Pages 125-126. Bordo brings up Oliver Stone's JFK movie, climate change, and the OJ trial, all within a page-plus. I thought that was worth a mention. Remember that the book is "The Destruction of Hillary Clinton."
Page 154. "...Bill Clinton found himself on the same tarmac ... as [AG] Loretta Lynch. He pulled a Bill Clinton and impulsively visited her airplane to chat." How about that! An innocent coincidence. That rascal Bill Clinton... you never can tell what he might do. Yep, Bordo is buying that explanation. I've got a bridge to sell her.
Page 236. This is in the Acknowledgments. Bordo thanks her students "for being so gracious about being abandoned during the last few months." Wait, what? Professor Bordo is supposed to be teaching a class or classes at the University of Kentucky, but she "abandons" her students for a "few months"? Did the students (or more likely, the parents) get their course tuition back? Excuse me, Professor Bordo, but if you are to teach a class to me or my kid, I damn well expect you to show up and teach the class. This last little bit speaks volumes about the author. One star.
January 7, 2019
This account of the downfall of Hilllary Clinton provided an interesting insight into one Democrat woman’s reasoning as to why she was not successful in gaining the US Presidency in 2016. Bordo analysed a range of factors and revealed how timing and superficial media coverage in particular shaped many erroneous insights about this candidate and her suitability or otherwise for the role. Bordo was especially scathing of Sanders supporters who did not get behind Clinton once he was no longer likely to secure the Democrat candidacy in the way Clinton had supported Obama and she was also highly critical of young Democrat female voters who did not accurately assess her manner and motives in comparison to older Democrat supporters. Having just read Michelle Obama’s memoir ‘Becoming’ this was a very interesting interpretation of how to explain Clinton’s defeat despite her and Barack’s public endorsement.
November 4, 2017
Trenchant analysis of many factors contributing to Clinton's loss.
October 11, 2017
If you're already familiar with the Clinton backstory--if you know about her activism and efforts on social justice issues and her accomplishments--you'll like and be persuaded by Bordo's book.
If all you know about Clinton is the media narrative as published relentlessly every time she entered an electoral race, you won't.
Bordo doesn't include enough about the backstory to persuade people who don't already know it. It's a shame, because that backstory is worth telling, and would have made for a much better book.
If all you know about Clinton is the media narrative as published relentlessly every time she entered an electoral race, you won't.
Bordo doesn't include enough about the backstory to persuade people who don't already know it. It's a shame, because that backstory is worth telling, and would have made for a much better book.
July 1, 2017
the destruction of hillary clinton is a compelling depiction of the many ways in which the media and other factors has actively worked to destroy hillary clinton, using tactics and claims that in many cases are lies, often resorting to sexist propoganda or a deep seeded double standard. it follows her up through her early days as a lawyer through bill clinton's presidency and her time as a senator and secretary of state, along with her 2012 candidacy, but the bulk of the book focuses on the 2016 presidential election and the ways in which these pilings on delivered their intended long term effect.
it is a book written well by a clinton-enthusiast, who proves without a doubt that there is an inherit bias when people are dealing with clinton. it also deeply misunderstands millennials, and attributes every reason they have to question clinton as being a product of this machine and a lack of historical context for the struggles clinton has gone through as a second-wave feminist. it dismisses comcepts of intersectionality, and is especially quick to dismiss Bernie Sanders' focus on economy, as though the economical plight werent something deeply entrenched in the ideals of feminism, as though it didnt especially effect women of color.
susan bordo here gives us an important text to understand what happened during the 2016 election. it offers a deep historic context in service of th destruction of one woman; but this text does not come without its own biases, because it exists in service of the restoration of one woman.
it is a book written well by a clinton-enthusiast, who proves without a doubt that there is an inherit bias when people are dealing with clinton. it also deeply misunderstands millennials, and attributes every reason they have to question clinton as being a product of this machine and a lack of historical context for the struggles clinton has gone through as a second-wave feminist. it dismisses comcepts of intersectionality, and is especially quick to dismiss Bernie Sanders' focus on economy, as though the economical plight werent something deeply entrenched in the ideals of feminism, as though it didnt especially effect women of color.
susan bordo here gives us an important text to understand what happened during the 2016 election. it offers a deep historic context in service of th destruction of one woman; but this text does not come without its own biases, because it exists in service of the restoration of one woman.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 91 reviews