I think you’re misinterpreting me. I’m not making an either-or dichotomy, I’m saying both forks are true and too many people are considering only one. That is, it’s not enough to blame Clinton, convenient though it may be; we need to reflect on the fact that it is we who failed to elect her.
That’s okay, I’ll still blame you just as much as I blame myself. 
[Bolding mine]
Clinton had an extensive range of detailed policies that she campaigned on. Of course, between the media only wanting soundbites, Trump drawing all the newscycle oxygen out of the room with his latest daily outrageous pronouncement, and the right-wing smear machine continuing its decades-long campaign against her, it kind of got lost in the noise. Yes, she had plenty of blunders along the way and the work she did was often not the right work to win over voters, but “She campaigned on name calling and it’s my turn” is a gross mischaracterization of her campaign.
Perhaps the question you need to ask isn’t why she didn’t work enough but rather why so many people have such a skewed view of what she did do.
I have a better idea. You can take as much blame as you like, and I’ll pass. Win-win. 
The fact that the more ‘progressive’ policies were not what she started with, but simply adopted over the campaign to counter Dread Pirate Sanders and his terrifying Bernie Bros, as in 'I can promise Left stuff too ( but not too Left )', led to a considerable understanding that having won she would junk those extreme policies she would reconsider as unwise, and swing like a teetotum back to the Right-Centre. It’s not as if she was known for an iron integrity in sticking to positions right or wrong.
‘Here I stand [ for now ], I can do no other [ unless there are more votes to be got by flip-flopping ].’
I don’t think it’s a matter of keeping a word count. She wasn’t good at the smear tactics, they didn’t strike a chord with Trump’s base, and didn’t do anything to get her own base out to vote. She didn’t develop a negative narrative about him, just pot shots. Part of the problem was that she and the DNC were convinced they had the election sewn up instead of mounting a serious consistent negative campaign against him.
IOW, it’s not about stuff you can measure and cite, it’s about my own untestable subjective impressions.
How could Hillary possibly go after Trump on his business ventures when she has zip knowledge of business herself?
Yes, she was a business lawyer but she got that thru an inside channel. Her and Bill have never owned a successful business. The Clinton foundation is full of scandal too.
So frankly if she tried he would just say “so what the hell do you know about business?”.
Hillary a Christian? She had Beyoncé as her spokesperson. Have you ever seen her videos?
So basically, “Vote Clinton or GO TO HELL!!!” Literally. I don’t recall God telling me that I had to vote for Clinton or my Immortal Soul was in danger of Everlasting Hellfire.
Yeah, that’s more their schtick.
ISTM you think your viewpoint/opinion = “God’s moral guidance.”
Fair enough; at least you admit it.
Do you not read the words of His blessed vessel, Big T, who channels His Righteous Decrees, reverently and in obedience ?
‘What must I do, to save my soul alive ?’ Hearken to His messenger.
It’s also not the first time he has expressed such views that his opinion equals the word of GOD!
She was a very able lawyer for Walmart, serving on their board, and earning deep accolades from Old Sam Walmart: his daughter is one of her richest supporters.
Certainly, her expertise may have been in blocking Unions and encouraging them to hire more women like her rather than stock-control and accountancy, but rightwingers should admire that. Reason Magazine praises her Walmartian ties.
What on earth are you talking about? You are aware of the result of the election right? Hillary lost despite her repeating the magic words you cited. How can you explain that? Do you suppose an election might be more complicated than just uttering the right buzz words while campaigning?
She had an extensive range of detailed policies, but I never felt like she campaigned on them. She mainly talked about how terrible Trump was. She gave speeches aimed at Republicans saying that Trump is so bad, and so unlike a normal Republican, that it’s ok to vote for her just this once. I don’t recall her making any big pushes based on policy. She had a position on the minimum wage listed on her website, but when did she ever hit the stump for it? She had a plan for student debt relief, but did she ever go campaigning in college towns to advocate it? We all know she was more pro-immigrant than Trump, but where were the campaign events promoting her comprehensive immigration reform plan? One of the biggest lines of attack against her was that she was in bed with Goldman Sachs, so why didn’t she go around talking about financial regulation? She had all these positions, but she didn’t do a good job (or much of a job at all) of publicizing them. Trump’s policies were half-baked at best, but he did campaign on things like building the wall. He also had the “lock her up” stuff, but it wasn’t just that.
She’s really a lot more like a kid who got As in high school so figured she could coast in college. So she didn’t sit at the front of the class, take notes, or ask questions, instead she was sure she already knew what to do and didn’t need anyone else (including her husband) telling her any information, or to pay attention to any polls that said she might be having problems. She didn’t turn up to class or do the homework if it was a hard or boring (skipped Wisconsin entirely, mostly ignored flyover country) and preferred to go to parties rather than study (big celebrity rallies instead of the campaign work that she considered beneath her). Meanwhile Trump is the guy who wasn’t very bright but turned up at every class, actually took notes, and had a tutor come and help him who he listened to - he had strategists and listened to them, and he paid attention to poll results. He went to all of the classes and did all of the boring homework like campaigning in flyover states.
Then in the end she’s shocked that she lost because she got an overall D (but she got a B- in California! and she got a plurality, but not a majority, of the vote for ‘most likely to succeed’) and he got a C-, edging her for the highest grade award. I don’t doubt that she sees it like your analogy, but the fact is that she simply wasn’t anything like a straight-A student who sat at the front of the class.
Same here - there just wasn’t much emphasis on them, and very little message made it’s way out, much less made its way to the mouths of her supporters. Yeah, there was some substantive policy stuff on her website, but that’s not pushing the policies, that’s just barely putting them out for really motivated people to see. And it doesn’t help that no one really expected her to stick to policies that she put on the website but didn’t make a big deal out of - for example her campaign-time opposition to the TPP was widely expected to reverse in office (lots of her supporters criticized Trump for rejecting it like Hillary’s campaign said she would).
I don’t define ‘said it in one speech’ as a major part of her campaign, no. It wasn’t what was shouted at her rallies or what she spent a lot of time on. And this thread has nothing to do with whether Hillary is a bad woman, it’s about her campaign.
I’m done with analyzing Hillary Clinton’s failures and what she didn’t do to attract Archie Bunker. Hillary’s in our rear view mirror. The bigger question is, how do we save America from thicker than pig shit paranoid white “working class” :rolleyes: voters? Do we pander to them and speak to them “dumbly,” or do we actually try to sell them on programs and policies that are going to be to everyone’s benefit, including theirs?