Hillary was definitely too “Imperial” in her approach, like some buttoned up queen that was above wading into the fray or outside the lines.
As for inspiring speeches… do you think it was even possible for her to give them? She is not that kind of person. At her best she was engaging those blm protesters honestly about what they ought to do politically aside from just complaining. But she never let herself speak freely and honestly about what she really thought. I know she viewed Bernier approach and policies as too strong and perhaps overboard for the country. She should not have run from that, explain why openly. Is that political suicide? Maybe, but at least for once there would be a more open and honest debate.
Who have the GOP ever selected as a “his time candidate”? Bob Dole in 1996 and maybe McCain in 2008 and to be frank they expected to lose both those elections. They expected to win this time until the Donald showed up.
Each of the last three winning Democrat Candidates were outsiders, Carter, Mr Clinton, Obama. The losers, Mrs Clinton, Kerry, Gore were all, “my turn” guys.
Putting aside the presidency, the Democrats didn’t win the Senate and are doing terrible in the state level. Most state legislatures and governorships are Republican now. So whatever criticisms of Clinton there are, they do not explain why state politics has moved so far to the right.
Actually he’s right about the year of the last use of the ‘declaration of war’ phrasing. The date you listed was the declaration of war with Japan, but it was December 11th, 1941 that the US declared war on Germany and Italy, and June 4, 1942 that the US declared war on Romania, Hungary, and Bulgaria, which are the last declarations to use the phrasing ‘declaration of war’. Later wars like Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq don’t use the words ‘declaration of war’, although they are all obviously wars.
So you’re arguing that, in Fall 2002, Hillary Clinton had more political power than Donald Trump did? I’m not aware that anyone was arguing the counter to that, so feel free to declare your victory over that strawman.
The opinion Trump actually expressed in the real world in fall 2002 was mildly in favor of an invasion of Iraq. His inability at the time to implement his poor judgment on the matter does not demonstrate any difference in the quality of said thought process with respect to the quality of Clinton’s.
I’m explaining why I think that Senator Hillary Clinton’s vote authorizing President Bush to use force “as he determines to be necessary and appropriate,” constitutes actual, definitive support for the war as the yes vote was required for the war to happen, while Trump’s offhand “yeah, I guess so” in an interview does not qualify as meaningful support. It’s hard to provide much more support to the war than authorizing it to happen, while on the other hand one offhand unrehearsed statement in an interview is not significant support. Had Trump used his wealth or fame to express support of the war across multiple venues, or launched commercials, or made donations, or otherwise take a real, meaningful action, I would be glad to say that he supported the war, but I can’t really take one ‘yea, I guess so’ as meaningful support, especially when it’s being compared to the vote that actually authorized the use of force.
The idea that Hillary’s decision to authorize the Iraq war and Trump’s offhand comment in an interview are remotely similar in their level of support for the war is simply nuts.
Without the bill passing, Bush couldn’t actually invade Iraq. That’s a pretty huge difference, since it’s what authorized the use of military force. Hillary and the others who voted yes most certainly did make a difference, and the idea that if 52 or more Senators vote for a bill then none of them are responsible for it’s passage is, again, simply nuts.
Gaining seats in both chambers and winning the popular vote by more than two million votes is ‘whipped’? If she’d won the Electoral College too, would you have called it a ‘close loss’?
Hillary’s vote was a ‘yes’, like the other 76 votes. If there had been only 49 ‘yes’ votes, it wouldn’t have passed. Her vote, and the other 76, did in fact make a difference, because they voted to authorize the war. She, and a number of other Democrats (like Kerry, another pro-Iraq democrat who tried to switch history) supported the Iraq war in the most meaningful and significant way they could. The idea that as long as at least 52 senators vote for something none of them actually count as supporting what they voted for is simply insane.
Close also counts in the definition of words, and ‘blowout’, ‘landslide’, and ‘whipped’ aren’t even close to applying here. So, OP rejected based on false premising, then.
I kind of suspect that there’s no one deciding factor as to why Clinton lost- it’s sort of a situation where all of the above reasons were probably a small part, and in aggregate were enough to let Trump win.