she’s clever—it’s both a line in the sand and an olive branch at the same time.

Oh, shit! Two other things I forgot about:

Same with the NY Times, meaning once again, Trump gets his free pass. Hillary had a pretty damning, lawyer-like condemnation about Donald Trump based on fact. Trump just did his blowhard thing and so now they all have to play “both sides did it” when it’s really somebody said cold hard facts and the other person said…

This speech was ridiculously smart, for all of the reasons you stated. And I think it really, really highlighted the differences between not just the two candidates, but the two campaigns. This wasn’t a reactionary, off-the-cuff statement— it was a cold, calculated move that went at Trump with surgical precision. And…

Well yeah but c’mon as much as I’d love for her to say it, Hillary can’t get up there and say “republicans have made this bed and now they have to lie in it, Trump is different from them only in tone not in substance.” She can’t do that because she needs those moderates to either vote for her or not vote at all... or…

Of course you’re right that this kind of racism existed in more subtle terms in the Republican party, but I am absolutely okay with this. She’s explicitly calling out Trump as a racist (which is a pretty gutsy thing for a candidate to do to their other candidate), and it absolutely will sway SOME fence-riding moderate…

Can you really not see what Hillary is doing here, and what a master-stroke it is? We all know (including her) that the entire Republican party is to blame for the creation of Trump, but if she says that, people who think of themselves as “non-racist” Republicans are only going to dig in their heels and refuse to…

I would love to hear the oral history of this speech someday, because the rhetorical strategy behind it is something Bill Clinton and Barack Obama have both been terrific at. I’m curious if there are specific organizational connections to those past campaigns and administrations, or if this was Hillary and her people…

Are each of these on a separate line because they are some mantra you repeat to yourself?

This is all true and correct. The strategy of the Republican Party since 1960, formulated by William Buckley, has been to merge Northern corporate interests upset with the New Deal with apartheid believing Southerners upset with Civil Rights legislation.

Cool story bro.

I hate to be “that guy” but the Impact font face was created 48 years ago.

Would your morals even allow you to accept congratulations from an amoral monster like myself?

Why should she be held responsible for not burning down the entire Republican Party? By not coming at this as “Fuck all Republicans, y’all are all racists,” she’s giving ideological cover to moderate Republicans, and that sort of outreach might wind up paying dividends when (or rather, if) Congress decides to get…

Thanks, it feels nice to be congratulated.

I am thoroughly amused by how convinced they are that more attention is good for their movement. Clearly, the rarity of racist Pepes is the only reason middle America has not embraced white nationalism.

Well sure she’s wrong in her logic, but she’s a politician who’s trying to win an election, and you don’t with those with logic; you win them with emotion.

Let’s not forget that Mitt Romney made at least one “birther” joke during his campaign. Which is (in part) why his chastising of Trump was so laughable.

Okay wait. What is to be gained by taking any approach other than, “alright, I’ll ignore the shit I can’t do anything about. You don’t have to be scared of me.” It sure looks like Clinton will be President, of us all. Calming down the country is a commendable act. The other side certainly isn’t taking that tact.

Yeah, Republicans had this coming-