Since Donald Trump’s nomination, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and other democratic officials have been fighting the new administration every step of the way. Sanders and Warren grilled Betsy DeVos about her qualifications to be the Secretary of Education, and Democratic members of congress, as well as republicans John McCain and Lindsey Graham, fought against Trump’s Muslim ban. Warren participated in the Women’s March around the United States, while Senator Sanders and Charles Schumer have been fighting for universal health care. There has been almost non-stop conflict since Trump took office. So in all of this fighting, where is Hillary?
Since she lost the election, Hillary Clinton has almost completely avoided the public eye. After her concession speech, she hasn’t made any big public statements about anything that’s been happening within our government. The last time she was seen at a public event was at the inauguration, where she avoided the press. She tweeted about how she was inspired by the Women’s March, but failed to appear or publicly speak about it, even though, some would argue, the march was inspired by her attempted presidency. When Trump reinstated the global gag rule, and said he was going to sign for the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines to be built, Clinton was silent. When Trump signed the Muslim ban, she tweeted about standing with the people to fight against him. When the Supreme Court shut down Trump’s Muslim ban, Clinton tweeted about his loss against the judicial system. Besides a couple of updates on twitter, Clinton has disappeared from the spotlight.
Ad
One could argue that this disappearance is from the shame of losing the election. This claim is understandable, however, Bernie Sanders’ loss at the Democratic National Convention didn’t cause him to go into hiding. On the contrary, Senator Sanders arguably became more vocal about his political views. He went all over the United States to advocate for Clinton and did everything in his power to try and prevent Trump’s presidency. Even after Trump won, Sanders has been fighting against him in the Senate. Specifically, he fought against Betsy DeVos’ nomination as Secretary of Education and against Trump demolishing Obamacare. Sanders has done a significant amount since his loss at the DNC, which means Clinton’s loss is no excuse to go into hiding.
For whatever reason Clinton is avoiding the public eye, it proves that she wasn’t what America needed. It’s true that we need a female president, and it’s true in many people’s eyes that Clinton would have done a better job as our president than Trump. However, she was lacking the passion and the commitment to this country that we need as a president. People were so eager to see a woman in office that when she became an option, they jumped on her campaign without a second thought, even though a better option was standing right in front of them.
Many people, especially liberals, think Clinton needs to take a stand against Trump’s presidency. Allie Ruckman, the publicity organizer of Colorado State University Democrats said “I think a brief recess from the public eye is warranted, though I’d like to see her taking more aggressive measures to combat Trump’s policies. While she is an unpopular political figure for many, I think it’s her duty to remain active and defiant in the face of the new administration.” Ruckman said, like myself and many other Americans, is wondering why Clinton isn’t fighting alongside Sanders and Warren.
Swagman • Mar 1, 2017 at 1:32 pm
Hillary’s hiding b/c it was never about “the people” – not even those who voted for her hence her refusal to speak on election night. This entire charade was about continuing the Clinton legacy and when that was stolen (in her eyes) she showed precisely what and who she cares about: Hillary and Hillary only.
Richard Murray • Feb 28, 2017 at 11:48 pm
“…it’s clear we need a woman President…”, well the DNC tried that and failed miserably…America voted for the lesser of two evils, Trump won. The people saw what was evolving within the Beltway and were scared a dynasty of Élitist oldtimers would be leaching the system dry. Who can trust the Democrats after what they did to Bernie (Dead Before Arrival), one of their own nominees essentially politically assisinated. Before we decide we need a woman candidate, let’s first select a qualified candidate, HRC wasn’t of that nature. The DNC also needs to revamp their thinking on where to pound the bricks for a Vote. California was already in the bag, time would have been better spent in the Upper Midwest, you don’t need 90% of the Calif Vote, 51% will do.
Phi Lemon • Feb 18, 2017 at 2:50 am
16 comments, better than none
Phi Lemon • Feb 18, 2017 at 2:18 am
Collegian Headlines: “Parking”, “Tennis”, “Kitchen”,”Where is Hillary” –so captivating — well done Collegian editors! Consider putting things in print worth reading like perhaps “Tony Frank is paid way too much to rip students off”
Sam Adams • Feb 17, 2017 at 2:58 am
“We NEED a female president?”
I suppose you are oblivious to the fact that your statement is blatantly sexist.
Barbara • Feb 17, 2017 at 10:53 am
Referring to gender doesn’t make it a sexist statement.
This is the most favorite claim of those who feel they are white and oppressed.
Sam Adams • Feb 17, 2017 at 7:34 pm
If one were to say. “We need a white president!” The outcry of racism could be heard in the dark side if the moon.
Moreover, why do we “need” a woman president? Is there some unique characteristic of a woman that would make her a superior chief executive?
Björn Friberg • Feb 18, 2017 at 3:58 pm
Sweden have never had a female prime minister. Yet we’re one of the most gender equal nations on this planet. It’s not like we lack good women candidates for the post. We have women who are heads of their different parties, and they are all over the political spectrum.
Gender should never be a deciding factor, and if symbolism hampers progress, it’s really not worth it.
Barbara • Feb 19, 2017 at 9:53 am
This is why I said your unoriginal thought was a typical conservative spin.
Fletcher • Feb 16, 2017 at 4:38 pm
Bernie Sanders, and other candidates who lost the primary, continue to speak out because they have positions/jobs/appointments that demand they do so. She is not in elected office and, by design (due to the campaign), is not in a leadership position in the Clinton Foundation. She has no platform from which to speak.
If she did decide to speak out, she may just as easily be painted as a sore-loser, trying to undermine the winning candidate (the current administration and the GOP would very likely paint it that way), which itself undermines whatever message she would like to convey.
As much as I would love to hear from her, I don’t know that she can be an effective organizer right now. Given her recent loss, the persistent sexism that informed her coverage, and what a divisive figure she still is for politics at large, I think silence is her best option until she has some sort of larger announcement about what she may do next.
Björn Friberg • Feb 18, 2017 at 5:12 pm
I’m not sure, to be honest. I mean, she has a lot of support still which is a good indication of the attention she’s still getting.
With the way Donald Trump is manhandling your bureaucracy right now (and embarrassing the U.S. when talking to, or meeting other world leaders) , instead of being afraid of criticism (which she has, perhaps some justly, but mostly unjustly, pushed upon her for decades), she could use her connections in trying to show the American citizens that she has not abandoned them and that she is supporting the efforts in resisting Donald Trump and his cabinet of horror.
Bernie Sanders is right now one of the bigger obstacles to Donald Trumps attempts of policy implementation (I’d like to think that the legal justice system is the biggest obstacle ;P ), yet I know not of any attempt on her part, to unite the democratic party in opposition to Trump.
Something Bernie Sanders did when he lost the nomination.
That’s why I’m not so sure that she really have an excuse to be laying low for as long as she has now. After all, she still has considerable influence in the democratic party and a favoritism among many U.S. citizens.
Barbara • Feb 16, 2017 at 2:55 pm
The Dem party has taken a big hit and while I stand with her the absence might be because the party is in the process of re-organizing. There is healing needed by liberals who were split between her and Bernie. This is something difficult to explain to Republicans who ultimately realized that only a small % actually care if someone is Tea Party or Moderate. Conservatives can’t get past Benghazi even as seen as a response to Flynnghazi. Then there is Trump still tweeting about her.
Bernie and Warren hold office which is one big reason they won’t stop fighting. Hillary doesn’t which is why keeping a low profile is the best strategy. The Dems need to be under new management. Colorado just changed many of the County Chairs and people who felt the Bern are in charge.
Sam Adams • Feb 17, 2017 at 3:09 am
“Flynnazi.”
That’s a cute jingoistic, invented libword.
However, it is utterly meaningless. I’m wondering… For instance, do you know that nazi is actually a German acronym which means “national Socialism?”
I also wonder if you are actually aware of the incredible criminal atrocities committed by the Nazis in World War II… And how your use of the word in present context is completely and insultingly inappropriate… Particularly to those of us who had families murdered by the Nazis?
Barbara • Feb 17, 2017 at 10:39 am
I said FlynGahzi which makes your comment irrelevant.
It has nothing at all to do with the word nazi. For pete sake I even used the word of origin.
Björn Friberg • Feb 18, 2017 at 4:47 pm
I don’t think many people know that Sam, so I’ll just throw in the whole word for anyone curious: “Nationalsozialismus”
I also would like to point out that their interpretation of “socialism”, is completely different from (as an example), my own nation of Sweden and the social democracy we enact here (which is really just capitalism with more investments into our social institutions such as education and health care).
Encyclopedia Britannica explains: ( https://global.britannica.com/event/National-Socialism )
Quote from above link: “In its intense nationalism, mass appeal, and dictatorial rule, National Socialism shared many elements with Italian fascism. However, Nazism was far more extreme both in its ideas and in its practice.”
Paul • Feb 17, 2017 at 3:30 pm
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/king-hillary-join-crowd-democrats-bail-promises-article-1.2925441
emw12 • Feb 16, 2017 at 11:30 am
She was the person who should have been president. The republicans have been tearing her down pretty much since she first came into to public life with lies, and those lies have worked on the uneducated. I think it’s good she’s staying out of the public eye at this point. Her appearances would give the right ammunition to degrade all the protests around the country. And we’d still be talking about her effing emails, which would detract from Donald’s lack of qualifications for the job he’s in now.
Sam Adams • Feb 17, 2017 at 3:04 am
Please….elaborate. Please list the “lies” told about Mrs Clinton…then refute same with verifiable facts/evidence, cited correctly and in context.
Let’s start with the “lie” about Mrs Clinton’s home-brew server and the fact SHE lied when she said she neither received or kept classified information on that server.
( I will be fascinated to read how you factually refute the FBI director’a revelation that Mrs. Clinton lied in that regard.)
Barbara • Feb 17, 2017 at 10:51 am
Conservatives often feel as if an opinion must be explained to them.
No one owes you an explanation. Let’s start with the RNC running their own server within the white house and no one being locked up when Rove and Busch lost thousands of emails. Go fascinate yourself by looking that the FBI director no where said she lied. Perhaps you need to check your alternative facts before you demand answers from others.
Paul • Feb 17, 2017 at 3:26 pm
“Please….elaborate. Please list the “lies” told about Mrs Clinton…”
Barbara • Feb 19, 2017 at 9:35 am
The one about her health for starters.
How about that fake Uranium deal.
Again the conservative likes to act like they can’t look up facts themselves.
Paul • Feb 21, 2017 at 9:03 pm
Don’t know if you saw the video of her being bundled into a vehicle at the 9/11 memorial, but it was certainly a cause for concern. Handled poorly by the Clinton spokespeople afterwards, btw.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0
Same goes for the Uranium venture. No real investigation to speak of and no charges filed…obviously. Quite likely no crime committed, but certainly ethically questionable. Hardly falls into the realm of lies.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0
I’m about as far as one can get from being a conservative as one can be, and am fully capable of looking up facts. Consequently, my opinion on the matter is that Clinton was the only candidate who could have lost an election to Donald Trump. And she did. That’s a fact no one needs to look up.
Barbara • Feb 22, 2017 at 3:30 pm
Sure I saw that and it was explained that she had pneumonia. When she was helped up the stairs it was explained that the stairs were icy.
These links are not actually proof that you are correct. The uranium story from the NYT times was corrected as the reporting was found to be incorrect.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/04/24/nbc-news-just-admitted-the-ny-times-story-based/203412
Paul • Feb 23, 2017 at 7:35 am
“These links are not actually proof that you are correct.”
I’m not trying to prove anything, only point out that there were causes for concern. The one opinion I do assert is that Hillary was the only candidate who could have lost an election to Donald Trump. The one fact no one can refute is that she did.
Barbara • Feb 23, 2017 at 12:11 pm
Trolls are an odd bunch that ask for an example and then go on to make assertions. Lol – in this instance all to point that Hillary lost an election.
Paul • Feb 24, 2017 at 8:06 am
Everyone apparently fits into neat little categories for you, don’t they Barbara? Conservative, white and “oppressed”, trolls, etc. The irony being that you exhibit the very same Trump-like qualities of bullying, name-calling, and abuse that you claim to find so abhorrent in The Donald.
Barbara • Feb 24, 2017 at 3:39 pm
Now the troll insults in an attempt to solicit a response when anyone who can read can see the troll is wrong.
Paul • Feb 25, 2017 at 8:35 am
Just pointing out the obvious. Wasted on you, apparently. There is no substance to your arguments beyond your unwavering belief in your own opinions. Citing a website run by David Brock is hardly the epitome of unbiased reporting, not to mention Hillary’s “explanations” for genuine health concerns.
Barbara • Feb 25, 2017 at 6:19 pm
The claims about her health and the uranium deal were fake. Anyone can fact check from the source I left.
Now you are just being a needy troll.
Paul • Feb 25, 2017 at 9:00 pm
You didn’t leave any source. What you did was spout some nonsense about the Hillary camp claiming pneumonia with regards to the 9/11 memorial incident, along with a link to the David Brock website for the uranium incident. All I can glean from that is your critical thinking capacity is non-existent.
This is you, Barbara. Blind, bitter, and close-minded.
http://i.imgur.com/meI28h3.jpg
Barbara • Feb 27, 2017 at 5:08 pm
Proving that needy trolls have no reading comprehension.
Trolls seem to make up a false summary like the right makes up Alt facts.
Paul • Feb 28, 2017 at 7:58 am
I don’t think you’re a bad person, just gullible and sad. Given that, this forum does not lend itself to actual discourse. We talk at each other, and not to each other. I don’t know who you are, and subsequently may misinterpret your meaning. Tell me, what is it you want for the country. If you could change one thing, what would it be? And why?
Barbara • Mar 1, 2017 at 1:12 pm
LMAO. Sad Troll.
Paul • Mar 1, 2017 at 8:39 pm
“Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish.”
― Euripides
Sam Adams • Feb 17, 2017 at 7:37 pm
Oh, Babs….you’ve putted yourself as yet another eternally angry womyn who can’t let go of the fact that Mommie Dearest was a horrible candidate.
Whassamatter Babs? Daddy leave Mommy when you were little?
Björn Friberg • Feb 18, 2017 at 4:20 pm
Too far mate. That’s crossing the line and there is no need for it. Just stick with the facts and leave personal attacks out of it.
Barbara • Feb 19, 2017 at 9:48 am
You are the only one acting triggered Sam. This does explain your lack of reading comprehension and your inability to string thoughts together.
Again a typical hateful childish reaction from a conservative.
Björn Friberg • Feb 18, 2017 at 4:18 pm
You are right Barbara. I too, didn’t hear or see FBI direct Comey claim that Hillary lied. Why?
It was clear from the investigation when you compared it with the actual statements by Hillary herself, as is used in this segment from “The Daily Show” below.
She lied to congress, the press and the U.S. citizens about her handling of classified information. The investigation proves this, and while it’s true that people before her (like Bush) have done the same idiocy while not being held accountable like she was, it is NOT an excuse to continue the trend.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YunIdTQ4HS8
Barbara • Feb 19, 2017 at 9:32 am
You feel she lied. There is a difference.
Björn Friberg • Feb 19, 2017 at 12:54 pm
Did you even bother to look at the clip?
This is not me “feeling” that Hillary is lying, she is incriminating herself with her own words. The investigation clearly showed that what she said and what they found, does not match!
Side by side, one after the other, there is Hillary defending her actions and then Comey reading up what the investigation has found. It’s not animated and it’s not actors impersonating the respective individuals. It is actual press conference coverage.
The only way that this is false, is if the FBI have falsified their investigation to promote an agenda to hurt the public image of Hillary Clinton.
So, either your Federal Bureau of Investigation is working for national extremists interests … or Hillary Clinton was lying.
Barbara • Feb 20, 2017 at 12:57 pm
Nope I sure didn’t bother.
You are wasting energy making guesses.
Björn Friberg • Feb 20, 2017 at 1:45 pm
Well then, if you can’t deliver on your claims, feel free to have your monologue in peace.
To think, that I actually believed that you where trying to prove something, or convince people of your arguments. I feel ashamed for having expected something decent from you. Disgusting.
Barbara • Feb 20, 2017 at 10:57 pm
Please review the thread where I made no claims. After you told me I was correct and yet liked Sam’s false information you attempted to tell me of other places where you felt she lied although millions of dollars later we’ve found a discrepancy with ONE email. All the while the WH and many servers were hacked.
http://theproudliberal.org/fbi-forced-to-release-anthony-weiner-warrant-proves-election-was-stolen-from-hillary/
Björn Friberg • Feb 21, 2017 at 4:59 am
Allow me to quote you:
“Conservatives often feel as if an opinion must be explained to them.” That is a claim.
“Let’s start with the RNC running their own server within the white
house and no one being locked up when Rove and Busch lost thousands of emails.”
That is a claim.
“You feel she lied.”
That is a claim.
“Please review the thread where I made no claims.”
Even this is a claim in and of itself.
You tell me what you see as the truth, you do not back it up with any credible sources what so ever.
You ignore sources I present to try and have a genuine back-and-forth conversation with you on this matter.
You are rude, arrogant and that make me feel disgusted talking to you.
There are no lies in what I have said and you are MORE then welcome to try and prove me wrong, because that would mean that you would actually have to confront my arguments instead of ignoring them.
Barbara • Feb 21, 2017 at 12:07 pm
I have not been rude and you feeling disgusted is your problem not mine.
Kristin • Feb 16, 2017 at 10:40 am
It’s a shame Hillary Clinton was deliberately not invited to participate in the Women’s March on DC. But she will reemerge and continue to do great work. Give her time. I TOTALLY disagree that her decision to take a break now means she wasn’t what the country needed. None of us can know what it’s like to be in her shoes.
Sam Adams • Feb 17, 2017 at 3:05 am
Please list, and support with verifiable facts/evidence, ANY of the “great work” Mrs. Clinton has ever achieved.
Paul • Feb 26, 2017 at 5:53 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Re72di5phM0