You could see it coming. Hillary should never have run in 2016.

[mtnsnake]

By 2016, she was way too flawed, had too much baggage, plus she wasn't one of the better campaigners. In fairness to her, though, 2016 would have been a little more difficult election for any Democrat to win because it is rare in modern times for a party to win 3 consecutive terms in a row.

If she hadn't lost to Barack Obama in the 2008 primaries, she would most likely have won the general election and become the first woman president back then. Eight miserable years of Bush and Cheney helped to open up the doors for us in 2008. Running in 2016 was a different story.

Even though Hillary was such a qualified candidate, she had way too much baggage, she was not nearly as good a campaigner as someone like Obama was, and it's hard for one party to win 3 consecutive elections in a row. The only ray of hope she had of winning this time around was when Trump became her opponent. It was perfect. Nobody could possibly lose to that disgusting piece of shit liar. Yet she couldn't even beat that bum in any of the states where it counted. Yes, Comey may have had a hand in it, but come on, this was Trump we were running against, not Reagan.

Had Obama not come along to make history, 2008 would have been Hillary's year to make history, not 2016. By 2016 too many people across the country had had enough of the Bushes and Clintons. But she just had to be the first woman president.

[Table]

1. No, she won the popular vote. She is going to win in 2020. The glass ceiling WILL BREAK.

[LanternWaste]

123. So flawed as to win the most votes. Consistent way to continue the biased narrative, though.

So flawed as to win the most votes. Consistent way to continue the biased narrative, though.

[Demsrule86]

153. She won't run...and I hope you are not suggesting we let the GOP pick our candidate...

There will never be a Democratic candidate who will not be attacked and vilified...she would have made a great president...and instead we have Trump...I believe the bitter primary divided our party, hope we can put it back together again.

[TheCowsCameHome]

17. She will not run again.

Not a chance.

[Raster]

31. NO! It is time for Hillary Clinton to move on.

[RiverStone]

42. Gawd no!!! We need an Elizabeth Warren progressive!

In fact, let's elect her Prez in 2020!!

[CentralMass]

133. Well she sure as hell isn't one now..

[BobbyDrake]

138. Why does Warren's decision to wait until her 40s to switch not matter when the left

made such a big deal about Clinton being a Goldwater supporter when she was only a teenager? Because hypocrisy!

[RiverStone]

139. Are you on the right forum?

HRC partially lost because of her big ties to Wallstreet, Iraq War vote, and flying over the rust belt. Elizabeth and Bernie have consistently preached regulating WS and breaking up the big banks. If Elizabeth is too "rethuglican" for you, what progressives do you recommend to take the fight to the facist regime?

[mythology]

143. Your use of the word retarded is offensive

[Statistical]

57. She isn't going to win in 2020 because she isn't going to run.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

61. Oh, dear lord I hope she doesn't run again.

She was a terrible candidate in 2008. In 2015 she started raising tons of money with the express purpose of scaring off other Democrats. Bernie would have gotten the nomination had he gotten any real coverage in the mainstream media, or had the DNC not gone out of their way to make sure she got the nomination.

I recall thinking two years ago, when various possible candidates' names were being bandied about was, Isn't there anyone NEW?

Elizabeth Warren should run in 2020. She should have run this past time, but Hillary's presence kept her out. Warren is a person of genuine integrity, and that's what we will need down the road.

[renate]

96. yeah. I came to like and admire her after preferring Bernie, but she's had two chances

Elizabeth Warren would be phenomenal. Oh please oh please oh please....

[Retrograde]

73. Good Dog no!

For all her merits, Hillary Clinton is the past. For our party to be relevant going forward we need to find and grow a new generation of Democratic leaders.

[Chitown Kev]

84. God, no!

[SMC22307]

88. Anyone who thinks Americans will vote for a...

two-time loser (Obama and now Trump) is delusional.

[jfern]

91. More like we'll all be killed by shattering glass after she loses again.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

127. Elizabeth is always a possibility.

[Cobalt Violet]

92. No!

How much more do you want to keep losing?

[Begabig]

97. Not by her...

This last campaign was the straw that broke her back. She's done...

Could be someone else though.

[Raine]

98. Hell NO!

[get the red out]

112. I hope she doesn't run

I will leave the Democratic party and become an independant if she does. Way too much baggage, it would prove that the party is so out of touch that it would need to be replaced.

[jake335544]

163. Trump was a joke candidate, we should've sweeped the floor...

Any Democratic candidate we ran should've sweeped the floor with Donald **$( Trump. He was a joke candidate. The Republicans would have had a hard time choosing a weaker candidate.

If we care at all about the popular vote vs. electoral vote difference, then let's make the electoral college a *major* issue in between elections. And not just when we lose.

[geek tragedy]

2. it wasn't the past 'baggage'

people had priced all that in.

what killed her was the new stuff--Clinton foundation stuff, email server, and stunningly stupid decision to spend two years giving highly paid speeches to banks

[JHan]

5. stupid decision to give those speeches but I loved those excepts though..

She had it tough this year - too much was coming at her.

She explained and apologised for the email server BS but she needed to do it sooner, and nip it in the bud.

It remains the most ridiculous "Scandal" I've ever seen.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

20. The email scandal was ridiculous only in magnitude

But people have been fired where I work for doing the exact same thing and would be almost anywhere else too. The issue was blown out or proportion but but pretty much inexcusable even in it's own context.

[JHan]

22. hmm, what do you make of this take on it: ...

seems reasonable and in keeping with my first reaction..

It seems Government ineptitude when it comes to communications is more to blame:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/admit-it-the-clinton-email-controversy-bothers-you_us_580f5b67e4b099c434319bcf

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

25. I don't like having to swipe my card key four times to get to my car out of the garage

That doesn't mean I get to park on the lawn instead.

[JHan]

28. Yet wanting to streamline her communciations - which would have been high traffic - seems reasonable

No?

If Officials have attempted to find creative means to fix this problem , in possible violation of guidelines, why wasn't it addressed?

[Raster]

35. As I have posted before, I work in a very high security job in the financial industry...

...I ALWAYS heed the security rules and regs and NEVER cut the corners. It was NOT Clinton's decision to make. There were protocols in place for government email, and if she was going to do the job, she should have adhered to established email security policy. AND MAKE NO MISTAKE, she used her own email server FOR HER CONVENIENCE.

[JHan]

41. And no one saw this or noted it....? Or raise an eyebrow?

to me that's the point. Hillary even reached out to a former Secretary of State to discuss ways and means of circumventing the problem with Powell - ( he didn't recommend she use a server though) but that tells me this was a problem.. ignored.

but yes, it was for her convenience.

[Raster]

44. OH NO, Clinton was urged by EVERYONE that knew she was going to use her...

...own email server NOT TO DO SO. Colin Powell even went on record plainly stating he did not urge her to do so, and in fact, advised against it. Her own staffers commented privately -as we discovered from the Podesta Wikileaks emails- that this would/could be a problem down the line.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/colin-powell-clinton-emails-228135

<snip>

On another occasion, Powell complained in an email to Lawrence Wilkerson, his former chief of staff.

"HRC and her mishandling of this has really given her a major problem I do not wish to get involved in, despite the best efforts of her team to drag me in," Powell wrote on Sept. 7, 2015.

[JHan]

52. Yes, she messed up.... but Powell also dismissed security protocol:

He emailed foreign leaders using his personal email, bypassing the State Department servers
"Powell has previously admitted using a laptop on a private line and sending notes to ambassadors and foreign ministers via personal email, according to a report by the state department’s inspector general."

he also fussed a bit about PDA's

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/08/colin-powell-hillary-clinton-email-state-department

I assess that conversation they had - noting that using her own server was a mistake- with disbelief because - how did this "scandal" became the monstrosity of 2016- a scandal so huge it dwarfed more important things - like a Candidate's fiscal policy, or any kind of in depth discussion of their voting record or policy proposals. It was all political theatre.

[Raster]

55. Yes, but Powell was not running for POTUS.

[JHan]

64. which is why the press and its obsession with emails was so egregious..

She was running for Potus - but instead of a year where we really got to dissect these candidate's policies, ergo the things that that really affect us all - there was this...With no attention paid to context, horrible reporting by the media (HRC herself didn't help things with her first torturous explanations) a "scandal" was deliberately morphed into a Kraken which almost fully consumed the election cycle of 2016.

So while I acknowledge Hillary's mistakes here , I'm also side-eyeing the magnitude and fuss over it - meaning none of the things that mattered to me as a voter was really engaged with - For.The.Whole.Year.

[JHan]

71. No I don't, because there's no evidence of that.

[emulatorloo]

72. Take your Breitbart lies somewhere else.

Thats' fucking bullshit and you should be ashamed of yourself.

[spin]

75. If you ask those who have held a government security clearance and actually ...

handled such information on a daily basis if they feel they would have got off scot-free if classified email had been found to have been received and sent to and from their unauthorized and improperly secured private server, the overwhelming majority would laugh in your face and ask if you were joking.

I held a government security clearance for forty years before I retired. While I never handled the highly classified information Hillary did I worked with classified infomation and documents every day at work. If an employee left a safe unlocked or a classified document out when he was the last employee to leave the secure area I worked in and the guards discovered it the shit would hit the fan. He wouldn't be prosecuted or lose his clearance but he would find out how serious security violations can be. Be aware that access to the secure area while it was unoccupied required first opening a combination padlock then calling the guards desk, having a coded badge to allow you to unlock the door and of course the proper level of clearance for the area. Still an unlocked security cabinet or an classified document left out was considered a really big deal.

Of course maybe at higher levels of our government security is treated as just more chicken shit. That might explain why Hillary wasn't all that concerned about "careless" handling it. Perhaps almost everybody in the State Department was sloppy with classified info. That would explain a lot.

I do know this since I am just one of the "little people" the rule of law definitely applies to me. However I'm beginning to suspect that it doesn't apply equally to certain elites in our nation both Republican and Democrat. Perhaps if the rule of law applied equally to all and especially to those that rule us, we would live in a far better nation.

[mythology]

144. And Powell doesn't have 2 decades of Republican hatred

Clinton should have known they would make it an issue and gone above and beyond what is required.

Yes Republicans would have gone after her on other things, but given how the late deciding voters broke for Trump and the Comey announcements, it might have made a difference in the outcome.

[JHan]

158. I recognize that..but to put the bullshit in perspective for a min:

It is impossible to survive with such microscopic analysis directed at you..and I want the double standard recognized as well.

22 million emails were deleted during the Bush years - no outrage
hundreds of americans died during previous embassy attacks where the SoS was more directly implicated - no outrage
we had 22 hearings into 9/11 where thousands of Americans died - 21 hearings into Benghazi where 4 americans died -Seriously WTF??

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

37. The desire isn't unreasonable, the implementation was absurd.

You can't take your office correspondence outside of your employer's compliance, record keeping and e-discovery practices. And anybody in any sort of office-type employment knows that intuitively. Seeing a candidate doing something that they know damn well they would themselves be fired for is really bad optics.

[SpareribSP]

50. People in state did try

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/281383-state-aide-thought-clinton-email-was-for-family-and-friends

However it seems like it was never implemented, for reasons that were never revealed. It also seems like some people in state were unaware that the email there wasn't purely personal. We just don't know the whole story.

[zipplewrath]

148. Hardly

It really depends upon what you think the "scandal" was. Not noticing material that was supposed to be classified really isn't going to get you fired in and of itself. Carelessness or intent is usually required. Choosing to use a private server as opposed to the official one isn't something most people could set up, even if they wanted to. It was colossally bad judgment on her part, especially after a similar issue came up during the Bush Administration over the use of GOP email addresses for "official" business. But it is hard to really claim that there is much precedent for prosecution or termination for such an act since there is little to compare. The really bad judgment part was to throw in the lawyers from the get go. To a great extent that got the FBI involved. She should have just turned over the whole kit and caboodle to the archives. But I'm sure that the Clinton's are extremely sensitive to offering up that much data to the GOP. Sad part was that they basically got most of it anyway in the long run. But that's a lot of 20/20 hindsight at this point.

[jmg257]

40. I think alot of it was. There was no changing the minds of MANY people who already disliked her.

No matter what trump did, they weren't going to go for Hillary.

The new stuff, especially Comey, just confirmed it for people who already had their minds made up, or may have been wavering, that they made the right choice.

[TexasBushwhacker]

62. Buy once those speeches came out

There wasn't much there. She should have published them early in the campaign. She could have dealt with the blow back early in her campaign and it would have done a lot for her "trustworthiness".

[Drunken Irishman]

132. The e-mail story doomed her because it never went away.

Clinton should have known better. She certainly knew she'd run for president again, and how the media works with trumped up scandals, and yet it didn't cross the mind of her, or anyone associated with her, that maybe this was going to be a problem if she ever did run for president? She admitted to making a mistake, the deleting of all those e-mails and the unsecured private server, so, I know she at least had some idea it wasn't good. But worse, it wasn't good politics. She would be president right now had she never established that server. The Clinton Foundation and speeches hurt - but it was the e-mails that continually dogged her campaign, and, at the very end, still dominated it.

I'd wager Comey's letter clearing Hillary did more damage than it did to help, mostly because it was the last thing we heard before voting - Clinton's e-mails...it brought it home. To be sure, the original Comey letter helped do her in, but I think she might've staved off Trump had he never released that second letter...because, again, not only did it bring the e-mails back into the discussion at literally the final hours of the campaign, but it also riled up Republicans, who felt she was once again being let off easy.

It wasn't that dissimilar to the polling drop she saw after the FBI initially cleared her in the summer. Her numbers took a hit, even when she was cleared.

But oh well. What done is done.

[Skinner]

4. "She just had to be the first woman president."

What if she just wanted to be president?

[JHan]

6. Apparently Barack didn't want to be the first President "of color"..

Hillary is not allowed to want to be the first woman president.

It's a silly point.

[mtnsnake]

12. Sorry but that's what it seemed like to me, Skinner. She wanted it so bad.

I felt real sorry for her back in '08 after she lost to a much better campaigner in Obama. She was in her prime then and she excited a lot of people. When she ran this time, I thought it was more about her wanting to be the first woman president than just being president. This time I didn't feel so sorry for her for losing as I did 8 years ago. I feel more sorry for us that she ran. I think she's the only candidate we had who could possibly have lost to Trump. OTOH, though, I think Hillary is the only candidate Trump could have beaten.

[Skinner]

14. Shame on her for wanting to be president.

Not like those other presidential candidates who don't actually want the job.

[mtnsnake]

18. So you don't think her wanting to make history so badly had anything to do with her running in 2016?

Maybe I'm wrong, but I sure do.

[Skinner]

21. Name another candidate for whom wanting to be president is considered a negative.

They all want to be president.

She ran because she wanted to be president. There is nothing wrong with wanting to be president if you are running for president. It's actually a prerequisite for the job.

[mtnsnake]

24. Of course there's nothing wrong with wanting to be president

and I don't think there's anything wrong with thinking that part of her motivation for running was because she wanted to be the first woman to be president. I notice you didn't answer my question either.

[Skinner]

34. Her motivation is irrelevant!

Basically what you are saying is that it is ok to run for president if you are a white dude because your motivation is not corrupted by some ulterior motive.

But if you are a woman your motivation to be president is suspect because you have this ulterior motive of also wanting to be the first woman president. As if it were somehow possible to untangle the appropriate motive from the inappropriate one. That's the point I was trying to make. What if the woman thing was not her primary motivation. What if she just wanted to be president? Would that be ok? Would she have your blessing to run for president if she was doing it because she wanted to be president?

[mtnsnake]

43. Thanks for putting words in my mouth

because that's exactly what you're doing. That "white dude" stuff you laid on me was just ridiculous, as is the extent you're taking this notion that you think my post was ONLY about her wanting to make history so bad is why she ran. I suppose I'm wrong about all the other reasons I mentioned why she shouldn't have run, too, right?

[TwilightZone]

63. You kind of undermined any point you thought you were making with the "woman president" nonsense.

After that, the rest just looks like window dressing.

It's like starting a sentence with, "I'm not a sexist, but...."

Hillary ran because she wanted to be president, just like everyone else who's ever run for president (with the possible - and perhaps ironic - exception of Donald Trump). Applying standards to her that aren't applied to anyone else is pretty misguided.

[Skinner]

66. Now that we know the outcome it is easy to say she shouldn't have run.

For all the reasons you list in your OP.

But here's the deal. For better or worse she was the obvious front runner in 2015. Expecting her not to run when she appeared to be in such a dominant position seems unreasonable to me. I can't think of another presidential primary candidate in recent history who was in an equally dominant position who declined to run. (Maybe Cuomo in 1992 -- but remember that he declined to run because he thought Bush I was unbeatable by any Dem. It wasn't because he thought he would hurt the Dems' chance of winning the presidency by running himself.)

[StevieM]

80. I think it would have looked a bit silly if a candidate who was polling in the 60s

decided not to run. He lead was unprecedented.

And let's not forget that she was incredibly popular when she was Secretary of State. She was polling in the 60s for years, for job approval and favorability.

And in 2014 she was the one Democrat who was ahead of possible Republican candidates in the early polling.

There was no way of knowing how well the GOP would sell the fake email scandal. There was no way of realizing how long they would shamefully try to turn a terrorist attack in Benghazi in to a scandal, constantly pumping false conspiracy theories that they knew to be lies.

We also don't know what they would have done to Bernie Sanders. By the end of the race they might have turned him into Hugo Chavez, however unfairly. They certainly WOULD NOT have run against him as a decent man who they disagreed with on the issues. They would have cultivated a fictional scandal and labeled him a bad human being. In fact, didn't they already have one picked out? Some nonsense about the college his wife worked at?

I can only imagine what they had in store for Martin O'Malley. But rest assured, there would have been something. And he would have turned out to be a bad person too.

[emulatorloo]

76. You 'feel' something, so it must be true.

In otherwords, you've fabricated something based on your bias and we're supposed to just accept it as fact.

[bettyellen]

58. Oh please, we heard over and over again that she was too ambitious as if Sanders was running by

Accident or something. The idea is ridiculous. They both wanted the job, they're both damned ambitious.

[JHan]

67. Everyone who runs for President wants to make history..

[yeoman6987]

30. 18 of them from both parties won't be president in 2016

Heck Carley forena seemed like she wanted to be president too.

[LisaM]

45. Well I felt worse this time around.

She would have made a kick-ass president. It's to our shame that people in this country couldn't see it and went for a reality TV star instead. I've had it with worrying about what other people deem charismatic as far as picking candidates. I find intelligence, passion, competence, and experience to be quite charismatic. People like Trump and GW Bush just flat out turn me off. I don't know how people can even listen to their voices.

One thing I am so sick of that I could scream is the concept of disruption. Yes, let's play that game and disrupt people out of jobs, livelihood, security, healthcare, and now personal safety because some people want their candidate to be a TV star!

I don't know when we began to denigrate experience as a job qualification.

[BlueProgressive]

166. The only reason either Trump or Hillary had a chance to win

was because they were running against EACH OTHER.

[riderinthestorm]

83. She's always also emphasized the "1st Female President " meme "

It's crazy to dismiss those who voted for her solely because she's a woman.

[seaglass]

99. Really? You admitted on JPR that you wrote in Bernie for President and you drop this here? Did you

not realize per Skinner ONLY people who voted for Hillary or supported her if ineligible to vote are welcome here?

YOU are part of the problem.

[yardwork]

106. Don't you have some threads to rec on JPR? Photoshops of Hillary with feces?

[MineralMan]

7. Your last sentence gives you away.

Ugh!

[R B Garr]

8. You could see it coming. Bernie should never have run in 2016.

His whole primary platform was based on divisiveness. He badmouthed the Democratic party for years. He badmouthed Clinton as a mainstay of his whole candidacy. The Wall Street meltdown was eight years ago, but he talked about it as if Clinton herself was responsible. He offered no real solutions, just pie-in-the-sky. He saw an opportunity to push Clinton aside and he selfishly took it without any regard to the damage he was causing.

Trump thanked Bernie for handing him the Clinton smear book. Looks like Bernie now wants to take credit for Trump's win, but from that perspective, it's clear he now admits how much he damaged Clinton with his own selfish pursuits.

[lunamagica]

10. Bravo!

[Paladin]

15. Dead-bang perfect, RBG. Thank you.

To hell with Bernie, and to hell with Bernie's worshipful minions.

[TheCowsCameHome]

16. Oh, please.

Nothing is ever her fault.

[elehhhhna]

74. Right? Like she would've won the election if we wouldn't have bothered to even have a primary

The OP is loaded with sour bullshit but I don't even understand why we're discussing this now

[Raster]

29. EVERYTHING, and I do mean EVERYTHING used against Clinton...

... was available in the public domain for years. Trying to blame Clinton's faults and foibles on Sanders is just plain wrong.

And I agree: The desire to be the first female POTUS may have clouded the judgment of the DNC, who apparently cleared the decks for a Clinton run.

[R B Garr]

141. Not *everything* was there. Not at all, and no one from the Democratic party

attacked her so viciously as Sanders, and he was never able to prove his allegations when asked to do so.

Anyway, I just posted that response in this thread as a juxtaposition to the original claims against Hillary, and am reluctant to kick this thread anymore.

But the OP's claims about Hillary are quite farcical and, when you really analyze them, are a big reason that mainstream voters stayed away from the irrational Hillary bashing. Saying the only reason for Clinton's candidacy is because she was a woman is just pure wishful thinking and speculation about people's motives. Sanders did that his whole candidacy and, in the end, he was rejected and lost the primary.

[aikoaiko]

39. Its amazing how fast Bernie went from sheepdog to scapegoat between June and November.

Please proceed.

[Raster]

47. NOT. AMAZING. AT. ALL...

...Anyone and everyone seems to be at fault, except, of course, for the Clinton campaign.

[LisaM]

49. Thank you.

What does he care? He got a leadership position, and will have a cushy retirement funded by 30 years of government office.

[shawn703]

56. Maybe the establishment shouldn't have pushed a candidate

That was so flawed on those issues? Whose fault is it the only person that wanted to run was the one most vulnerable to the platform Sanders was running on? It wouldn't have even been close for him if Warren ran instead.

[johnp3907]

151. Yep!

No more non-Democrats in our primaries!

[La Lioness Priyanka]

170. Well stated

[MadamPresident]

9. It sucks that qualification doesn't matter at all.

She's not a great campaigner but she's adequate enough that her gravitas and policy knowledge should have carried her to victory over this vulgar political novice. She killed him in the debates and in every aspect that should matter in a contest as serious as this.

But sadly, it's all style over substance in this case. It just happens that Bill Clinton and President Obama have both and won easily.

2008 was indeed her time.

[NCTraveler]

11. You call her "such a qualified candidate"

Then say "But she just had to be the first woman president"

That's overt. Not trying to hide it at all.

[Paladin]

13. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, isn't it?

And that "baggage" you and other Hillary Haters keep spewing about was concocted over decades by the right-wing media in this country---you're spreading shit that the likes of Limbaugh and Hannity have been poisoning this country with for way too long. That "baggage" you keep referring to has been disproven, time and again. Damned decent of you to admit that Comey just might have contributed to Trump's success, though.

Check back with us in a year and try out the same Hillary-trashing tap dance---that is, if sites like Democratic Underground are even allowed to exist by then.

[mtnsnake]

19. I used to support her like crazy here. Gawd, I was the one who used to call her the Goddess of Peace

on this forum back in the years leading up to the 2008 primaries. So you're wrong, Paladin. I've never been a Hillary hater. I was one of her biggest supporters, and I still like her, but I wish she never ran in 2016.

[Dem2]

27. You are missing the point

Just saying.

[SpareribSP]

54. Are you really trying to say Hillary had no baggage at all?

[DemonGoddess]

23. Seriously???

[Dem2]

26. Oh dear

Okay everybody get it out of your system. The person that got 66 million votes

[LenaBaby61]

79. People mad that Hillary ran really need to wake the hell UP...

And get off that NOW ....

Because we don't know if in 2020 we'll have "A" proper playing field to vote on, or IF under a tRump DOJ/FBI after 4 years, we as Dems or others who oppose a Pence/Putin/tRump presidency or a Rethug Senate/House or if Russia will be even more of a fixture in our elections than Dems/others are. Bad enough tRump and his Nazi Bannon feel that Putin IS a better leader than our OWN President. Bannon also has voiced an opinion that blacks really don't NEED to vote period. In fact that Nazi said he doesn't care if anybody but people who support them and their agenda have the right to vote. In other words, he ONLY wants rich white males and perhaps white women to vote but no to anyone else. Racist, woman-abusing, fat POS.

Like Bannon, and a Pence/Putin/tRump DOJ/FBI or a Rethug Senate or racist tea-thuglican House cares one damn about if Dems have more input into their own elections in the USA than Russia/Putin does.

People worrying about and in a way mocking Hillary better hope we can vote in enough numbers PERIOD in 2016 and beyond. Like Bernie would have fared any better with what Hillary had to endure. Bannon was going to turn Bernie into not only a Commie/Castro-loving/Socialist, but also into a Pedophile/Rapist IF he had won the Dem nomination. Would have been just as brutal for him, and we know that this media would have ran with the Pedophile/Rapist meme's while mostly ignoring what that lying, p***y-grabbing, sexist, racist, dumb, POS was doing and saying.

[Squinch]

32. You could only see it coming if you knew the number of Democrats who were buying every one of

the GOPs lies and falling for every groundless story that was written about her. Personally, I was surprised by all those useful idiots in our own party.

[AgadorSparticus]

33. What garbage! Welcome to the new world order. This is what happens to EVERY opponent of the gop now.

This is NOT about Hillary. If you think this is about Hillary, you need to turn off the teevee. Too much media propaganda, folks.

[Fast Walker 52]

101. agree--- we HAVE to find better ways of dealing with their crap

[AgadorSparticus]

160. We need to find a way to deal with a media that reports nothing but propaganda.

This is not a HILLARY issue. This is a MEDIA issue.

[AgadorSparticus]

171. Yes we do & It really comes down to the media. We need to either have our own media stations

Our regulate the POS media we have now. But the current situation is just pure propaganda. It is insidious and needs to be stopped.

[Tatiana]

36. She is not good at campaigning.

She admits this and even says that she's not as good as her husband or Obama at giving speeches.

She came across as fake or unlikable to people who were not die-hard Dems. I'm a teacher and it made my skin crawl to think about how many public education teachers expressed their intention to vote for the Donald. Even when his horribleness was pointed out, they didn't care -- at least he was "real" and not "fake" like Hillary. Instead of addressing the issues head-on, and apologizing when warranted, Clinton's campaign never found a simple, heartfelt, and believable response to the right-wing charges.

Let's be honest -- if Obama could have run for a third term, he would have won. Biden would have won. They know how to campaign. There are lots of reasons why Hillary lost -- racism, sexism, economic insecurity, etc. But this election was a popularity contest and Clinton just wasn't popular enough. This should not have been close at all.

It's an unfortunate situation. I truly believe she would have been a better President than Obama and that she would have actually delivered on many of the promises she made during her campaign.

[Buckeye_Democrat]

38. I feared that she wouldn't win in 2008. I was relieved when Obama won the nomination.

I mostly just wanted a Democrat to win. Maybe she would've won the 2008 general election too after the Bush debacle, but I felt far more confident in Obama since he was a "fresh face" without the years of conservative propaganda going against him.

[ismnotwasm]

46. Bullshit.

[asuhornets]

48. The Democratic voters said something different

and we wanted her as our nominee and she was just that. "Flawed candidate"-such a cliche'. Sounds like you are just following the crowd. Everyone is flawed in some way. Over 2million more votes than the orange guy. America chose her to be President.

[MFM008]

51. It was lies and cheating

And theft of this election.
The maggot lost by going on 3 million votes.

[guillaumeb]

53. But Trump, like Reagan, appealed to racism and hope.

Sure he is a crude racist who did nit hide his racism, or his sexism, or his Islamophobia, but he also had a simple slogan about making America great again.

Advertisers know that simple sells. But he still lost the popular vote.

[Statistical]

59. I agreed with most of it until the last sentence. Disgusting man just disgusting.

[mtnsnake]

69. I doubt if anyone on this forum has defended Hillary over the years as much as I have in the past

in all the years leading up to the 2008 primaries here on DU. When she ran, I wanted her to be not just president, but the first woman president ever, as much as anyone, but I just don't think she should have run in 2016 for the good of the party. The party IMO would have been much better off if Hillary had retired after her Secretary position and let a new generation have a go at it. Elizabeth Warren would have been a much better choice in 2016. Hillary was just too flawed by the time 2016 came around. Capable enough but too flawed as a candidate to win.

You folks can all play your little game of spinning and sensationalizing, but the truth of the matter in this case is that you just can't bear to hear the truth. I'll leave it at that.

[Cobalt Violet]

94. they can't bear to hear the truth is so true.

Doesn't give me much hope for the party atm.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

65. " By 2016 too many people across the country had had enough of the Bushes and Clintons."

That is essentially it.

And to those who are trashing "she just had to be the first woman president" you are wrong and mtnsnake has it right. All through the campaign I listened to her supporters ooh and ahh over her being the first woman president as if nothing else mattered. And yet, other things really did matter.

And stop trashing Bernie. Had the primary been fair, he'd have been the nominee. Never forget that plenty of polling showed him beating Trump and her losing to him. He did campaign for her, but she really did have too much damage, plus a lot of new stuff, plus her campaign never talked about things like climate change. Meanwhile, Trump said lots of things too many people wanted to hear: things like what's wrong with this country are illegal immigrants, muslim extremists, voting fraud.

My sincere hope is the Elizabeth Warren will hammer on Trump ceaselessly and she will become our next President.

[hueymahl]

130. This may be it

It is an incredibly simplistic view on the election, but at my deepest core, I think you are right. Everyone was sick of the Bushes and Clintons, which is another way of say everyone was sick of the establishment.

[NRQ891]

157. yes, I heard 'no more Bushes or Clintons over and over'

even Jeb's own mother said it

[MichMan]

68. I agree as well with everything but the last sentence too

Wouldn't be the first time (Bob Dole) that someone got the nomination because it was their turn failed to energize the base and independents.

Also, 100% agree with difficulty for the same party to win three in a row, and people just tired of Clintons and Bushes.

[emulatorloo]

77. Translation: "If only she would have stayed home and baked cookies."

[mtnsnake]

82. My last sentence had nothing to do with being sexist. Skinner spun it like that so everyone piled on

afterward. I'm hardly surprised.

My last sentence had only to do with my opinion that Hillary ran in 2016 because she just couldn't stand the thought of someone else making history that she felt she was destined to make. I don't mind people disagreeing with me for thinking Hillary is self serving in that respect, but I don't appreciate it when the meaning of something I said gets distorted in the fashion it did here. It had nothing to do with being sexist. I've mentioned several times that I thought Elizabeth Warren would be my favorite to become the first woman president. Maybe there's something wrong with saying that, too, I suppose.

[emulatorloo]

85. Everybody has an opinion. Yours is fact-free speculation and Skinner was right to call you out.

You don't have access to HRC's soul.

You're just regurgitating the egregious "vagina voter" smear put into play this primary by some folks who claimed they were Bernie supporters.

HRC has had a long productive career as a public servant and it was never about her vagina.

[Gothmog]

78. You are wrong

Clinton won the popular vote and ran a good campaign despite some illegal actions by the FBI and Putin

[davidn3600]

81. So the Democrats shouldnt make any changes... just keep the status quo?

Dont do anything to reach out to rule voters. Don't demand changes to stale and poor party leadership?

1/3rd of the Democratic reps in the House come from only 3 states....CA, NY, and MA. This is a party that is now only relevant in New England and the west coast. That's the only places the Democrats are doing well. Yeah, those are very heavily populated regions which is why Hillary won the popular vote.

But once you move inland a little bit....people hated her.

There is a huge disconnect between rural and urban America. Our current leadership in the Democratic party is not going to solve this divide.

[NRQ891]

86. Jeb Bush went down like a lead balloon

and he had more money and establishment backing than anyone - that was a red flag for Hillary

[Locrian]

102. my big red flag was "I'm with her"

How easy it would have been for a candidate to use that and to say instead "I'm with YOU"

[NRQ891]

116. or simply 'She's with you' nt

[zonkers]

87. Pretty easy to call it in hindsight.

[Cobalt Violet]

95. It was pretty easy to call it beforehand for some of us too.

But we where shouted down and alert stalked and still are.

[andym]

89. I couldn't see it coming and others probably feel similarly

I didn't realize how strong the innuendo from the email server incident would be. She had achieved high levels of public trust going into 2015. I thought she was going to be a strong candidate, but she her public image was destroyed in the last 18 months or so.
That is what made her vulnerable to Trump. I think she wins big without the email, foundation, and wikileaks. The FBI investigation in particular was a big problem. By the summer, I knew she would have to overcome historically high unfavorables, but was happy she was running against someone who had even worse ones, until I saw the results of the election.

[akbacchus_BC]

90. You are being too hard to SOS Clinton. Perhaps she was flawed, but she was the best

the Dems had running. Bernie was no match for trump and O'malley was an unknown. Do remember CNN and MSNBC gave trump so much free time and did not have the intelligence to cut his ass off when he started to mimic a reporter and saying shit about Kelly. MSNBC and CNN are responsible for trumpt to be elected President. They never focussed on Clinton or Sanders. They trumped him 24/7!

Glad to have you back!

[melman]

93. She should have been out of the running

after losing in 2008. Lose once and you're done. No try-overs.

[Justice]

100. Completely disagree. So freaking tired of this post-mortem.

Its just one ugly post after another. Nothing productive, just people digging in on their pre-election positions. Lots of Monday morning quarterbacking.

So many who say HRC was our candidate, but have to add a sentence or clause that they voted for Bernie in the primary, and how much they loved him - swooning. Some then add that in their opinion Bernie could have beat Trump.

So many who point out this and that reason why she lost.

So many who point out this and that reason why Trump won.

WE WERE THERE! WE LiVED IT! WE KNOW why Trump won, why HRC lost.

We know Bernie voters swoon over him still. That they "held their nose" and voted for HRC or something like that.

Enough! I don't think this is helpful at all.

[stonecutter357]

103. She was the only Democratic party Members running.

[BlueProgressive]

167. Nice of you to throw Martin O'Malley under the bus....

[Lil Missy]

104. Thank you so much for your concern.

[babylonsister]

105. Well, well,

WELL! I missed you stirring it up.

[mtnsnake]

117. hey

[yardwork]

107. Take this crap back to JPR.

[mtnsnake]

115. What is JPR? I took an 8 yr break from here so I'm not up on the latest acronyms

I googled 'what is jpr' and didn't find anything, so I'm sorry, yardwork, but I don't know how to respond to your post if I don't know what it stands for

[musicblind]

120. It is a Bernie or Bust website full of fake progressives who left DU

after their candidate did not win the primary.

They are the 2016 PUMA's only even worse.

[mtnsnake]

124. thanks

I preferred Bernie because I've been a big fan of his almost all my life, but I'm not one of those Bernie or Buster people and I've never seen that JPR website.

[yardwork]

126. My apologies, then. However, this thread is full of people who now post on JPR.

JPR is full of vile bigotry directed at Hillary Clinton. Threads and threads full of conspiracy theories, even ugly photoshops of Hillary to make her look incontinent. They routinely refer to Hillary there by demeaning and bigoted nicknames, and this is celebrated by the moderators.

It's unfortunate that the posters who have been hanging out at JPR are returning to DU, bringing their ugliness and brainwashed conspiracy theories with them. They appear to believe every false story about the Clintons that has ever been promulgated.

[mtnsnake]

135. No problem, but thanks.

The only place I've ever posted anything politically is here on DU and also a long time ago on a hockey forum where I used to hang out where a heated political discussion would sometimes occur.

Up until the election, I hadn't posted on DU in ages, I think it's been 7 or 8 years. Fun as it was, it became too time consuming for me. Believe it or not, I used to take endless grief on DU for always defending Hillary, especially in the years leading up to her primary run in 2008. People back then used to accuse her of being a warmonger, so in my defense of her, I started calling her The Goddess of Peace, and they practically ran me out of dodge for that. I was one of her biggest supporters ever, and while I think she would have made a good president, I just don't have the same excitement for her now that I did back then.

[yardwork]

137. Welcome back. Hillary is referred to on JPR as a mass murderer.

[Buzz Clik]

108. I'll join the chorus of jeers: Great hindsight!

[NCTraveler]

109. Rally cry of the Bernie Bro.

And people tried to dismiss it.

"But she just had to be the first woman president."

That is a very deeply rooted aspect of who they are. Transparency is wonderful.

[Paladin]

114. Well said. (nt)

[Nonhlanhla]

110. Sure, how dare a woman be ambitious?

I mean, who did she think she was? Like, former senator and Secretary of State with tons of knowledge and experience an high poll numbers, or somethin'? I mean, really, the uppitiness of her, to think she could run?!!!!

[mtnsnake]

113. Oh for gods sake it had nothing to do with that & if you can't figure that out

then I don't know what else to tell you. But I'll try...

The last sentence, which some people on here seem to be having a meltdown over, is my opinion that part of what motivated Hillary to run for president for a second time was because of how badly she wanted to be THE person who would make history. And to me that is self serving. My opinion.

If you want to disagree with me, at least disagree with me for the right reason, but please don't spin this as some sort of sexism just because some others have.

[Nonhlanhla]

119. You can spin this all you want

but that last sentence is a dead giveaway.

Hillary had every right to run. She ran a solid campaign, and she won more votes than any of her opponents in both the primaries and the GE. She was just extremely unlucky in where those votes were located in the GE. This had nothing to do with her wanting to just be THE FIRST. It simply had to do with her wanting to be president, just like any other candidate. And she would have made a great president, unlike the Tweeting Toddler who will be occupying the White House for the next 4 years.

Perhaps if too many people did not dislike uppity women so much, the story would have been different.

[Vinca]

111. I have to agree. She was definitely the best candidate for the job, but it was an "outsider" year.

[leftofcool]

118. Why am I not surprised to see this crap?

[musicblind]

121. Well that is a pretty awful original post. n/t

[mtnsnake]

122. Sure it is because the truth hurts.

[LanternWaste]

125. I'd pretend my unsupported premise lacking any objective evidence is a truth also...

I'd pretend my unsupported premise lacking any objective evidence is a truth also if my biased narrative compelled me to...


Looking forward to the rationalization alleging otherwise... it will be bemusing.

[musicblind]

140. It's not the truth. n/t

[Justice]

128. Hillary Clinton received more votes for president than any white male that has ever run

[hueymahl]

131. True, but statistics are misleading

Percentage-wise, it is not even close.

[VOX]

134. Fighting the primaries all over again accomplishes nothing.

Complete waste of time and energy. What has this thread accomplished, other than open old wounds? There's nothing constructive going on here, just an exchange of punches.

[Jakes Progress]

136. Your "thinking" is one

of the reasons trump won. Not the only one, but enough of one to give him the edge. Enjoy the fruit of your small thinking.

[CajunBlazer]

142. BS!!!!

[lumberjack_jeff]

145. Anyone can run. It's not really her fault.

Fault belongs to those who pushed her without regard to her electability or to the exclusion of other candidates.

It wasn't Clinton's decision to minimize the number of primary debates and maximize their obscurity.

[JudyM]

146. Anyone except, apparently, Sanders.

Where is your source for stating that Hillary did not have significant input into the debate schedule decisions? Seriously, do you have a source for that?

[Glassunion]

147. Is there a source for stating that Hillary did have a significant input into the debate schedule

decisions?

Absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence.

[JudyM]

154. Plenty. Since DWS was working for her.

[Glassunion]

159. DWS was chair of the DNC, and working for the party not Clinton.

Now there is clear evidence that DWS and the DNC were working towards the goal of a Clinton nomination instead of being impartial. That said, is there evidence that Clinton was directly driving input into the debate schedule?

[JudyM]

162. Oh I'm sure she stayed neutral on the subject. Even though she was personally involved in

negotiating changes to the schedule before N.H. C'mon.

[BainsBane]

150. No one stopped Sanders from running

I'm sorry you didn't think the campaign was long enough or expensive enough for your tastes.

[JudyM]

155. Check your old posts, BB.

[JTFrog]

156. Still pushing that myth?

http://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-election-521044

The first big criticism this year was that the DNC had sponsored “only” six debates between Clinton and Bernie Sanders in some sort of conspiracy to impede the Vermont senator. This rage was built on ignorance: The DNC at first announced it would sponsor six debates in 2016, just as it had in 2008 and 2004. (In 2012, Barack Obama was running for re-election. Plus, while the DNC announced it would sponsor six debates in 2008, only five took place.) Debates cost money, and the more spent on debates, the less available for the nominee in the general election. Plus, there is a reasonable belief among political experts that allowing the nominees to tear each other down over and over undermines their chances in the general election, which is exactly what happened with the Republicans in 2012.

Still, in the face of rage by Sanders supporters, the number of DNC-sponsored debates went up to nine—more than have been held in almost 30 years. Plans for a 10th one, scheduled for May 24, were abandoned after it became mathematically impossible for Sanders to win the nomination.

Notice that these were only DNC-sponsored debates. There were also 13 forums, sponsored by other organizations. So that’s 22 debates and forums, of which 14 were only for two candidates, Clinton and Sanders. Compare that with 2008: there were 17 debates and forums with between six and eight candidates; only six with two candidates, less than half the number in 2016. This was a big deal why?

The next conspiracy theory embraced by Bernie-or-Busters was that the DNC-sponsored debates were all held on nights no one would watch. Two took place on a Saturday, two on Sunday, three on a Thursday, one on a Tuesday and one on a Wednesday. In 2008, the DNC scheduled two on a Monday (one was canceled), and one each on a Sunday, Wednesday, Tuesday and Thursday. Not including any of the 2016 forums, there were 72 million viewers for the DNC-sponsored debates, almost the same amount—75 million viewers—as there were for every debate in 2008, including those sponsored by other organizations. And those Saturday debates, which Sanders fans howled no one would watch, were the third- and fifth-most watched debates (one of them was 3 percent away from being the fourth-most watched).In other words, the argument that the DNC rigged the debates is, by any rational analysis, garbage. For those who still believe it, hats made of tin foil are available on Amazon.

[JudyM]

161. The bias is so palpable in this write up (see, e.g., the last line) that it doesn't pass for

journalism.

[JTFrog]

165. Lol, ok. Are you saying he made those numbers up?

There is a clear bias, but not the one you speak of.

[BainsBane]

149. You must not want Democrats to hold office

If your standard is that they have Obama's campaigning skills.

Clearly she was the best candidate in the 2016 primary, which is why she won by 3.75 million votes. Believe it or not, no one needs your permission to run for office.

I also find it stunning that people assume someone else would have won. No Dem has been elected following a two year incumbent since Harry Truman.

[Demsrule86]

152. she won the popular vote...

Bernie should never never have run...it was a disaster for our party...no more independents ever running...never.

[baldguy]

168. Thank you for your "concern".

We know where it's coming from.

[TrishaJ]

169. Agreed

2016 was a "NO BUSH and NO CLINTON" election in the minds of many voters, IMHO. We see how that eventually played out.