What elevates this theoretical exercise above a parlor game is the deep grief felt by tens of millions of Democrats, especially women. They believe not just that Donald Trump is a disaster, but that the United States will miss out on a great, inspiring leader in Hillary Clinton. For these bereft citizens, Hillary’s departure from the national political scene ranks alongside those of Adlai Stevenson and Al Gore — losing candidates who were clearly superior to the winners, whose loss left America much worse off.
I agree with the Clintonites’ horror-struck reaction to Trump. But are they right about the rest? Have we really lost much with Hillary? Let’s look at what we know, or can assume with reasonable certainty, would have happened under the first few years of Madam President.--TR
This guy always makes sense to me.
The liberal mindset is a tough thing to crack. If HC had even remotely addressed the actual problems facing the U.S. she might have turned things in her favor.
It falls on her that her own obsessive personal self-aggrandizement and quest for power and riches overran good sense and a persuasive worldview.
No one was more indisposed to confront those realities than HC, however. Hell, even Trump talked about the issues with more authority, albeit from the wrong angle and with confused and sickening logic.
Bernie made more sense, but he was shouted down by the DNC.
I'm not sad for HC, she ran an awful campaign. I am sad for a country that can't take the words of MLK to heart.