فيلم Hillary's America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party

Hillary's America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party

Hillary's America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party is a movie starring Dinesh D'Souza, Jonah Goldberg, and David Guyette. Documentarian Dinesh D'Souza analyzes the history of the Democratic Party and what he thinks are...

Other Titles
Hillary's America, The Secret History of the Democratic Party, Os Estados Unidos da Hillary: A História Secreta do Partido Democrata
Running Time
1 hours 46 minutes
Quality
480p, 720p, 1080p, 2K, 4K
Genres
Biography, History, Documentary
Director
Bruce Schooley, Dinesh D'Souza
Writer
Dinesh D'Souza, Bruce Schooley
Actors
David Guyette, Andrea Cohen, Dinesh D'Souza, Jonah Goldberg
Country
USA
Year
2016
Audio Languages
اللغة_العربية, English, Deutsch, Français, Italiano, Español, Svenska, Gaeilge, Nederlands
Subtitles
اللغة_العربية, 日本語, Čeština, Tiếng Việt, Português, 한국어, Australia, Filipino, हिन्दी

Documentarian Dinesh D'Souza analyzes the history of the Democratic Party and what he thinks are Hillary Clinton's true motivations.

Comments about biography «Hillary's America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party» (14)

Deborah P. photo
Deborah P.

The movie is filled with interesting facts, interviews, and personal stories of people involved in the 2008 presidential campaign. I was surprised to find out that the interviews were not in chronological order, which left me wondering what the filmmakers were trying to accomplish. That's not to say the film isn't valuable; it's extremely well done. The questions of what Hillary Clinton did in the campaign that were raised are all legitimate, as are the questions about how she managed to navigate the complexities of a campaign without the help of a campaign manager. Hillary Clinton was a highly accomplished woman who would be expected to be a skilled fundraiser. It would be difficult to run a presidential campaign and do so without having some political or political-like skills, and she had a very good grasp of those skills. She did not have an amazing amount of political knowledge. Her lack of political knowledge was expected, as was her lack of political savvy. Clinton's campaign was a big success, and she was a success in the campaign. A big part of the success was because she was charismatic, which she used successfully to persuade people that she would be the right person for the job. The documentary didn't cover that aspect of the campaign very well. While there is a lot of fact about the campaign, there is not a lot of political information, and the documentary doesn't cover that very well. The biographical material is very good, especially the interview with Michelle Obama. The fact that she worked with her father as an aide, and her mother, the first lady, was very interesting. I found it interesting that Michelle Obama has a lot of political knowledge, and her mother did not, but the documentary did not cover that. Clinton also managed to raise more than $150 million from small donors to fund her campaign. That is good business, and shows that small donors can be the source of the money that is required to fund a presidential campaign. However, while it was good to see how Clinton managed to raise more than $150 million, it was not good to see that it took over a year to raise all of that money. One of the big problems with the film was the decision to focus on her campaign manager, John Podesta, and the 2008 Democratic primary. This film did a good job of showing the campaign and Clinton's time leading up to the primaries, and that is all that was important. However, the focus on the campaign manager and the 2008 primary is what brought down the movie. I think the movie would have done a much better job of telling the story of Clinton's political career if it focused on the campaign. The film also should have taken a more detailed look at how her time at the State Department affected her ability to run a presidential campaign. The film would have been more interesting if it had covered that, and it would have been more

Shirley B. photo
Shirley B.

I'd just like to comment on the following: This movie is "not accurate". It's about Clinton, not Clinton's victims. It's about the Democratic party, not the Clinton campaign. It's about power, not power-hungry corporate people. It's about power. In fact, there are people in the movie that are quite clear about their point of view, and it's not about Democrats or Republicans or, for that matter, about Hillary Clinton. (For that matter, there are even more people who are quite clear about their point of view, and it's not about Hillary Clinton.) This movie is really not accurate. It's about a political party that is, in fact, something else, a party that does not always speak the truth about the corruption of it's members. It's about a Democratic party that, at times, is very clear about it's point of view, and that, at other times, is very unclear about it's point of view. It's about the Democratic party. Hillary Clinton's supporters are nothing but the mouthpiece of a very corrupt party. Their view is what the media would like them to see, and their view is what they would like to see. This is what they say, and that's why they say it. The media, in fact, are part of the problem, not the solution. (There are more layers to this movie, and they're much deeper, but I'll not say them.) In short, this is a very, very good movie, and it's very accurate about what's really going on in this country today.

David photo
David

The documentary follows a wide range of people, from politicians to activists, who became the leaders of the opposition to the 1994 US-supported coup in Honduras. In the case of the coup, the film provides both history and perspective in the use of the "United States of America" in the conflict. The film introduces the themes of "human rights" and "democracy" in the context of the coup and argues that US policy regarding human rights in the region has never been as "liberal" as many politicians claim. The film provides a wide range of information and analysis, which will appeal to a wide range of viewers and will not be too academic for many. The film is well organized, and it provides context to the US-led "sanctions" on the coup regime and explains how the US has historically promoted and encouraged these policies. Overall, this film is an important historical and critical examination of the US-backed coup in Honduras, and it will appeal to many viewers and will be of interest to those interested in history, politics, and foreign policy.

Laura Watkins photo
Laura Watkins

A great documentary about the US presidential elections from the perspective of the Republican party. For instance, the "Life of the Party" is a great story about how the Republican party ran their own Richard Nixon in 1976, while Hillary ran against the Democrats' Hubert Humphrey in 1968. There is also a great story about how the media was run by the Republican party in the 1970s and 1980s and how they managed to defeat the Democrats in the elections of 1972 and 1976. Also interesting is how the Democrats and the Republicans made their mistakes and acted on them. As the documentary is a bit long (at least for me) and has a lot of subjects and interviews, it is not perfect and it may be hard to follow at times. Also, it does not give you a clear picture about the candidates, or who they are. So if you have any doubts about who to vote for, it is not a bad idea to see this documentary. It is a great documentary and worth watching.

Roy photo
Roy

I have to say, this is a really good documentary. It is also pretty interesting to see how the Democratic Party started out and how it has changed over time. This is about the United States as it is in 2016, but you can see the way the party has changed and changed a lot over the years. It is interesting to see the way many Republicans have changed over the years. It is also interesting to see how many Democrats have changed. There are a lot of people in this documentary who have very little to do with the Democratic Party, but who have the power and influence to do things. The Democrats in the early days would never have considered voting for someone who had been a civil rights lawyer or a lawyer who had a college degree. In the beginning of the party, they really were in favor of segregation, but many years later, many of the people who are now in the Democratic Party are segregationists. They are not just Democrats anymore, but also segregationists. If you look at Hillary Clinton, you see that she was very close to her husband. She is also very close to the Democrats in the party. She is very close to Obama. When he was running for President, many of the Democrats wanted Hillary to win, but many of the Democrats who are now in the Democratic Party also wanted him to win. I think this is a very good documentary. I recommend it to anybody who is interested in politics and wants to know more about the Democratic Party.

Thomas Beck photo
Thomas Beck

The most striking aspect of this documentary is the film's focus on a woman's working life. Throughout the entire film, we are shown conversations between women in her work life. As soon as one of them starts complaining about her work situation, the conversation quickly turns to how her life has been a mess. There is a tone of negativity throughout the film that is reminiscent of the general negative perceptions of Hillary Clinton's campaign. The underlying message of the film is to believe in yourself, and take your chances. This is a film that is important for its portrayal of one woman, but also the importance of independent thinking.

Janet King photo
Janet King

This film is more of a conversation than an overview, but I thought it was a good one. Not everyone who reads this is going to see this film, but it is important to a large portion of the population. Clinton's political career began in Arkansas, so she comes across as more like an underdog. Her mother was a common housewife, not a New York City billionaire, so she comes across as a little like a fly on the wall in that respect. I thought she was very good at not saying too much, and at being candid. She would have been better at being more politically charged and more visible, but I thought her performance was good. All the other characters were good, but Clinton was the best. She really did get the political heat on her. There were a few more moments that I thought were very good, but this is probably the best film on Clinton's political career.

Timothy Turner photo
Timothy Turner

I read the book last week. My opinion is that the movie is not as accurate as the book. If you read the book, you will understand what I mean. I give this film an 8/10.

Mildred Armstrong photo
Mildred Armstrong

As a Democrat, I went to see this movie. But for me, it was a study of a group of people who were just trying to survive in a modern political system. They didn't look like Republican conspiracies. Some of them were just trying to do what was best for their community. And some were just trying to do what they thought was best for their country. And I think that is what the movie is trying to tell us. I do feel like it was a little bit too liberal for my tastes. I like the stories about John Kennedy. But some of the stories I felt were a little too political. It's like a movie that portrays JFK as a hero. So I think that's what they were trying to portray, but I think it is a little bit too political.

Patrick photo
Patrick

For me this was a very interesting film to watch. The first half hour was very slow, especially with some of the interviews, and the second half hour was definitely the best part. Although the film was very slow at times, it was still very interesting, and I would definitely recommend it. A lot of people hate Hillary Clinton, but I think she did a good job of portraying herself and her views. The way she portrayed the dangers of the Iraq War was really interesting, and I would definitely want to watch this again to see the different things she said. Although there were parts that were very over-the-top, I still think she did a good job. Also, I liked how the film showed how the Clintons are the dominant force in politics, because they are so much more powerful and influential than the other candidates. I think if Hillary were to run again in the future, she would probably be the one that would make the changes that the media would have wanted her to make. She is definitely more pragmatic than many of the other candidates, and it's a good thing. Overall, I would definitely recommend this film to anyone, because it is really well done.

Samuel photo
Samuel

I will start with the positives. The photography and design is wonderful. It is a great film. The music was great, and it fit the entire movie perfectly. It has a good balance of humor and drama. The acting is excellent and is a great way to get a deeper look at the history of the Democratic party. The voice of the film is very important and it sets the tone of the film. The documentary is narrated by Michael Moore, which is a good choice because he is a great filmmaker and an excellent narrator. The book is also good, but is a bit over long. It is very well done, and I believe that this book will benefit from some editing. However, I would recommend this film to anyone who is interested in the history of the Democratic party. There is a lot of information in it. I personally enjoyed the film, and it is very well done. I recommend it to anyone who is interested in politics, the Democratic party, or just looking for a good movie to watch.

Linda S. photo
Linda S.

Hillary Clinton's book, "Hard Choices", was one of the biggest political books of the year, it was out of print, and it was expected that a film version would be released. I am happy to say that this is the best political book of the year. The film follows the book with more respect, but not in the same vein as the book. The film was a great improvement over the book. The actors have better performance, but it is the story that takes you back to Hillary Clinton's life. This film was well produced and it was interesting to see how politics and her personal life had played out in the last 8 years. I would have liked to see more about the story of how she got to where she is in her career. The film was more political than the book, but not as political as the book. This film shows that the politics of Hillary Clinton's life were far from the politics of the 1990's. This film has some political humor in it, and it shows the political ideas of her husband's administration. The way she lost the election of 2000 to President George W. Bush is not in the book, but it is not even close. In this film, the movie does not compare to the book, it is the film that has the most "Clintonness" of the book. In the end, the movie does not go far enough with the political message of the book. The film also missed a great opportunity to show the story of how she was able to change the lives of millions of people with her husband's administration. If this film had been more political in it's message, it would have been an even better film than the book. Clintonism is not a film that I would watch again, but it is an excellent film that can be viewed many times. I give this film an 8 out of 10.

Samantha photo
Samantha

I love how the viewer is constantly bombarded with images of Clinton/Clinton Foundation. My favorite was when she was speaking in a classroom of mostly black students, and a man stood up and said, "Mr. President, I am black, and I'm tired of seeing people of color treated like second-class citizens. The way you treat people of color in the United States, is a disgrace to us. As a black man, I think the way you treat black people is racist, and I'm going to tell you why." The conversation was brief, but it showed how in a more responsible administration, the black community could be afforded better treatment. After the movie ended, I kept asking myself, "Why did I do that?" It really made me think about my own attitudes about racism. The movie is based on the book by Michael Isikoff, which describes how Bill Clinton, the only black candidate for president, came up with the idea to implement his "People's Pledge" in a community meeting in Arkansas. It involved him organizing a roundtable discussion on how the American people could best assist African Americans and Latinos through a new form of welfare. This was followed by the White House agreeing to implement this program. I was surprised by how honest this documentary was. It was not edited to tell you who was good and who was bad, what was great and what was awful. The focus was on the policy, which was admirable. The only negative about the movie is that it was longer than I expected, but it was still worth the price of the ticket. I highly recommend this movie.

Hannah C. photo
Hannah C.

Clinton's America is a documentary about the Democratic party. It traces the story of how the Democrats took control of the party, and it explores the effects of this on the party. The film covers the events that took place between 1968 and 1972 and how they changed the party. Clinton's America tells the story of how the Democrats got their big comeback and how this change is seen as the Democrats' biggest mistake. Clinton's America is a compelling documentary and it provides a good insight on the democrat party.