I feel that you are completely fucking wrong on every point of this. It's just a regurgitation of lies that were built to discredit work she has done.
Of course that's what you think. And that's why the Democrats will likely lose again in 4 years. I can't have my own thoughts. I must be an idiot fooled by Trump and a deplorable racist/sexist/homophobe/whatever other accusation you care to make, yes? Trump must have been a mastermind salesman that fooled all the idiots that are overflowing your country, and no way could any Democrat (except for Bernie, Warren, Obama himself, and hell maybe even Lincoln "oops, can I have a do-over" Chafe) have beat him, right?
It can't have anything to do with Hillary's robotic nature, ties to wall street, or arrogant self-entitlement. It can't have anything to do with the media leaping on sound bites and spinning everything Trump said to the point of folks believing he must be right if they feel the need to do that despite his obvious actual shortcomings. It can't have anything to do with the behaviour of the Democratic party, stacking the deck yet again and turning their backs on progressive liberal values for corporate selling out....
Keep thinking that way and the Democrats may never recover. Maybe the Green party or some offshoot of the Libertarians will take their place on the left eventually after a long period of Republican defacto rule.
She _did_ rally around issues: health care, civil rights, many more all on her web site and in her speeches, all you have to do is look.
Hardly. Ask the average American voter what she was for and watch them struggle for an answer. It was obvious what Sander's was for. Hillary was just being pushed as not-Trump.
She did not have an air of entitlement
This is the most delusional thing I have seen you write ever. She was a legacy candidate (wasn't 2 Bushes enough? You needed 2 Clintons?) getting her start by being a President's wife and running and failing not once, but twice for the office, both times pushing how she was entitled. She actually offered Obama the VP slot while trailing him in the polls. She was presented as a candidate of destiny by both the party and the media over a year before the election and before the first Democratic primary debate took place. She had not one, but two DNC heads connected to her campaigns. And she was snuggled up to wealthy and corporate donors, even moreso than Trump. But to be fair, she DID wag her finger at wall street and tell them to "cut it out", while taking in their money. When Sanders called for getting money out of politics, Clinton would say things like "yes, we should get unaccountable money out" to the audible groans of progressive liberals everywhere.
She is not a sold-out politician, she did a very good job as Senator and Secretary of State.
Hahaha Ya... right.
She spoke very effective against corruption.
She to a large extent embodies corruption as it exists on the Democrat side. But sure, she engaged in some doublespeak to try to soothe the plebs, and she lacked the oratory skill of people like Obama and her husband who could actually make that work. Oh but Trump is even more corrupt you say. So? Lesser of two evils rhetoric isn't so great at winning votes. Democrats needed somebody they could enthusiastically support. That didn't happen with Hillary, and it was visible from nearly a year before the election. Hillary was at first the "yeah ok I guess" candidate, then the "Bernie is too extreme, so I guess she'll do" candidate, and then the "Well, she's not Trump" candidate.
You're just repeating smears that have not basis in fact.
Keep burying your head in the sand, and you put Trump in for a second term.
