With no explanation, label the following with either "hyperpartisan" or "not_hyperpartisan".
By T.A. Frank; VanityFair: With Donald Trump busy spreading havoc around the world—most recently tweeting about James Comey’s testimony, or feeding into the crisis over Qatar—it’s reasonable to ask who can be bothered to gripe about Hillary Clinton. But I can. One makes the time. Or maybe one doesn’t, but in a two-party system there’s only one alternative to the party of Trump, and the role of Clinton in that party is therefore important. Lately, it has been increasing. Hillary has been making high-profile public appearances and started talking frankly about her distaste for Trump and her dismay over the people and things that cost her the election. She has even founded a PAC called Onward Together, a 501(c)(4) that will “advance progressive values.” Whether we like it or not, the Clintons are back in the game. It’s up to the rest of us to figure out if we approve. Just about everything we do lends itself to a generous or hostile interpretation. Our friends think we feed the poor because we have genuine compassion, and our enemies think we do so because we want to look good. The benign take on motives isn’t always closest to the truth, but it’s the better bet. (On the occasions that I’ve had an inside view of something in the glare of the press, those with the darkest take on it have usually been wrong.) I’ve been tough on Chelsea Clinton—hard not to be—but Hillary Clinton has a much higher accomplishment-to-self-regard ratio. So why not start generously? To read rest of article visit VanityFair. No compatible source was found for this video. By Brian Brinker; OpsLens: Now that Hillary Clinton is making her way back into the public spotlight, we’re starting to hear a lot more about who’s to blame for her loss. Of course, President Trump is at the top of her list. So too are members of her campaign staff, pollsters, The New York Times, supporters who didn’t show up at the polls, James Comey, Putin and the Russians, and various others. You know whose name you’re not going to find? Hillary Clinton’s own. Save perhaps for President Trump, no one else is singularly so responsible for her loss than Hillary herself. Yet, she has so far proven unwilling to take any of the blame. As Hillary stated in a recent interview, “I take responsibility for every decision I make—but that’s not why I lost.” In other words, the blame doesn’t fall on Hillary’s shoulders, at least in her mind. However, as the nominee and candidate for president, no one else should have to shoulder as much blame as Hillary. And I say this as someone who does believe that sexism and other “unfair” factors played a role. Still, it wasn’t sexism that inspired Hillary to ignore voters in Michigan and Wisconsin and to jet set out to California to meet with rich donors. And it wasn’t sexism that inspired a largely negative campaign that focused on why people should vote against Donald Trump, rather than why they should vote for Hillary Clinton. Turns out that her campaign didn’t inspire a lot of people to the polls. Sexism may have been a factor in Hillary’s inability to connect with voters, especially working and middle class voters. But there were many other factors as well. Hillary has a tendency of coming off as an elitist. She can’t pour a beer, she hasn’t driven a car in years, and she always seemed to struggle to relate to people directly. Her campaign, meanwhile, was mostly tone deaf. After winning the DNC nomination, she largely blew off Michigan and Wisconsin. The problem is that if you want midwestern voters, you have to meet with them and respect them. You can’t ignore them and skip off to sunny California to eat triple-digit meals and hob knob with celebrities and millionaires instead. To read rest of article visit OpsLens.
hyperpartisan.