It's a shame.
I think she had the capacity to be one of the best Presidents.
Too bad she couldn't campaign for shit.
this old hag would have been worse than satan...
shareI honestly believe she would have been a competent president and Putin clearly thought the same; but I don't think she would have been a great president and I suspect she would have been more liberal republican than democrat. She would have provoked 8 years of republican dominance in the house and senate and nothing would have been accomplished.
shareAll the worst policies are bipartisan. Police state, TPP, war, bank bailouts, open borders. Trump caused a realignment:
https://theintercept.com/2019/01/11/as-democratic-elites-reunite-with-neocons-the-partys-voters-are-becoming-far-more-militaristic-and-pro-war-than-republicans/
As Democratic Elites Reunite With Neocons, the Party’s Voters Are Becoming Far More Militaristic and Pro-War Than Republicansshare
Putin was scared to death of her---former head of kGB KNEW she had more power. That WAS why they had to install Trump.
shareAgreed 100% but she did campaign in all the swing states, she hit them all in 2015 and 2016. If there were people who really refused to vote for her because "she didn't visit my town city state" then those people were/are part of the problem (and likely never had any intention of voting for the Democratic candidate to begin with).
If by 'bad campaigning' you mean her refusal to tear into Trump to his face (and on the campaign trail) about his lies and duplicity (he was for the Libyan intervention then he was against it, he "owned" the Chase Manhattan bank building on Wall Street [and owed billions to Wall Street...] and spent his life trying to be recognized as a powerful successful Wall Street magnate himself, he was for clean green technology investment then he was against it, he donated to the Clintons at a time when she defended partial-birth abortions yet was campaigning on anti-abortion, he was for the TPP then he was against it, he was for the Iraq war then was against it, etc), or her refusal to discuss something called Corporate Citizenship in an attempt to explain why it was important to work with the corporate world (not simply attack them to death and threaten to destroy them then hope they magically agreed to reforms), or her refusal to refute lies being disseminated about her being a "wall street stooge" (her record proved otherwise), lies about the TPP or her Iraq war vote or Benghazi or Honduras or the Clinton Foundation or being a "war hawk", her refusal to directly address so many accusations against her, her refusal to say, "hey, I ran a programme way back in the day called Saving America's Treasures and we saved a fair amount of American treasures, what treasures of America has Trump saved", or her refusal to say "hey, the Clinton Foundation has done hundreds of things right here in America, here's a list, what has the Trump Foundation done again....?", I definitely agree.....
Sorry TemporaryOne but it favours no-one, least of all Hillary and other Democratic candidates, to labour under the illusion that she fought a good campaign.
Hillary barely campaigned in the rustbelt states post-DNC Convention. She ignored Wisconsin entirely. And she used celebrity proxies like Beyonce and Jay-Z instead of speaking to crowds herself, suggesting she was afraid to engage with crowds. She used inflammatory and divisive terms like 'deplorables' and patronised struggling young Millennials by referring to them "living in their parents' basement...and are consigned to being a barista, some other job that doesn't pay a lot". A colleague of my spoke to John Podesta about the campaign and he still remains defiant that the coalition of minorities (even though many POC and Millennial voters who backed Obama turned away from Clinton in 2016) rather than accepting that it may have been wise to focus on engaging with working-class voters in general, as Bill Clinton successfully did in 1992 and 1996.
Look, I still maintain that it is a crying shame that Hillary lost in 2016, not simply because of Trump, but for positive reasons too. I think she has the savvy and drive to have been a great POTUS in theory. But, as I say, it helps no-one to pretend she had a good campaign. Whatever else you say about the bloviating bigot, Trump was campaigning across the country right up to the end of election day. By contrast the DNC was effectively doing a victory lap days before 8 November 2016.
There's nothing to be sorry about....
"but for positive reasons too. I think she has the savvy and drive to have been a great POTUS in theory."
Yep agreed 100%, she was/is an encyclopedia of knowledge and visionary policy and wisdom and compassion spanning countless issues, and she was/is stacked, simply stacked, with a staggering level of experience and accomplishments and intelligence, she embodies what it means to be American, to be a to be a global citizen, to serve Americans, to be a public servant, to serve humanity. Behind-the-scenes, her rapport with Republicans was astounding - they admired her and worked with her and praised her even as they publically vilified her. They absolutely feared the kind of visionary democracy she and the Democrats pushed for. There is not a moment that passes where I think and feel, f!kh America for turning their backs on that.
136,669,276 people voted. 65,853,514 voted for that vision. 70,815,762 did not. Which brought me to back to the IMDBb/MovieChat boards, continued disbelief and continued despair that people are doubling down on supporting Republicans/Trump, on supporting everything that is antithetical to the American spirit and humanity itself.
Thanks for your civil and courteous reply.
I am not the biggest fan of Hillary in the world, as you can probably tell. My own politics are much further to the left and I have not always approved of her judgement on certain issues, life for instance Iraq, and, as I say, I still have big criticisms of her campaign (not all of which I personally level at her, although she did, unfortunately, sign-off on them).
However, I am still convinced, for all the reasons you outline, especially her ability to build bridges with GOP opponents, in other words her diplomacy, as well as her savvy (she is a smart and shrewd operator, and sometimes, in order to get things done, you need that even more than you need idealism), that she had the potential to be a great POTUS. Most importantly, I believe she would have taken the world in the direction it needs to go in, in order to effectively tackle climate change and cyber-terrorism and the skills deficit.
All that and not a word about why you like her. Why pretend she didn't stump for the Iraq war even harder than John McCain when that is exactly the reason you love her so much? You're Jewish and the only thing you care about is more wars for Israel. That's why you hate Trump for not going along with your war against Syria. Syria was supposed to be dead by now just like Libya. Go fight it yourself.
shareIf TemporaryOne was such an Israeli militant, surely he'd be pro-Trump. Trump's approval figures in Israel are the only place in the world, except Russia, where they are positive, mostly thanks to his anti-Iran rhetoric and his decision to move the US embassy to Jerusalem.
shareWildly incoherent message there. If Ilhan Oman ran for the Democratic nomination and won I'd vote for her. She would learn quickly enough that Jewish-interest issues, which you seem to be obsessed with, are the least of America's problems.
I voted for the candidate and party that wanted to try to bring about a resolution to the Syrian military intervention (a no-fly zone would have been a great start), not continue it forever with expanded warfaring like Trump clearly intended to do.
Trump, your candidate, promised to send the military wherever terrorists were, he promised to step aside in Syria and let Russia take over, he promised to re-invade Iraq and "defeat" the ISIS/ISIL and take over Iraq's oil infrastructure for payment, he said he had the solution to end it all yet would not share it with the military commanders - allowing the war and humanitarian crisis to continue unabated when he claimeds he could have quickly ended it, he threatened a "shock and awe" bombing campaign against the ISIS/ISIL, he promised to not tell anybody any military plans in order to shock the ISIS/ISIL, he promised to wipe out the families of terrorists, he was clearly the war-monger with zero interest in ending any war.
We would ALL be much better off including DJT and his supporters. He wouldn't be in such hot water and his troopers wouldn't have such a focus on all their hate. The world would be safer and the Mexican border would have a sane policy for what's going on.
shareThe great economy Trump built would be a recession under Hillary. Trump got the US out of awful trade and climate deals, Hillary would have gotten the US into more of them. Trump is in peace talks, Hillary would have gotten the US into another war. Illegals would be flooding into the US via the southern border.
shareWow, you sound like opposite man. If Trump wasn't prez, we wouldn't have Mueller ! Everything Trump didn't do, HRC would have done, but not because Trumpf didn't do it. Seamless brilliance !!
shareDisagree about her as President.
Totally agree about her as a candidate.
Hell, look at how she still tries to marginalize her own role in how she couldn't beat a game show host at HER own game and you'll see she was in her own way as delusional as Trump.,
Not at all.
Hillary's campaign was her only saving grace. She spent a record 2 billion dollars, the biggest and best campaign money could buy, for the most corporate candidate of all time. Every word was polished and rehereased and coordinated with the media. She had everything on her side.
But along comes Trump and suddenly Hillary is no longer "female" "qualified" and "experienced". Now she has to talk about issues and she can't. It wasn't her campaign that was awful. It was her positions that were awful. No campaign could cover up for how bad they were. She would have won easily against anyone else.
I think there are a multitude of reasons why Hillary lost that election, one of them is her campaign, but few, if any of them, relate to her competency as a politician, or even for that matter her political platform. Some of them simply were down to bad luck. And no, I don't usually believe in the concept of 'luck' but what I mean by 'luck' in this instance are things like how no party has won three back-to-back elections since 1988. Even when things are going relatively well, a two-party democracy like the US, reaches a level of fatigue with the incumbents after eight years, and voters will feel it's time for a change (bear in mind that a Hillary victory was successfully dubbed by many 'a third Obama term'). To be honest, it's any wonder that Hillary did as well as she did under those circumstances, winning nearly 3 million more votes than Trump. If only her rustbelt strategy had been better...
share