I suppose, when you are telling someone to fuck off, you should probably elaborate just a little.
A "flawed candidate" is a candidate that loses, especially when they should have stomped all over their opponent in 6 pound shit-kickers. In Clinton's case, she failed to change gears. In the primary, her best strategy is the one that she in fact used: She let the machine handle Sanders. This is well and good...A candidate who can't grab the levers of power has no business running for president. If you have control of the machine in the primary, this is PRECISELY what you do.
But then she won the primary, and she ignored her candidate in the general election. She campaigned badly because she didn't campaign. She responded to questions about issues with slogans, she designated certain states as "firewall" states (Wisconsin, etc) that turned out to NOT be safe states, and she relied on the machine to deal with someone who was not responsive to the machine (That would be Trump).
You cannot beat a populist with slogans and platitutes. "Stronger together" is not a fucking policy statement. Her damage control was just fine, but that's not enough. In short, she didn't win because she didn't run.
THAT BEING SAID, I am a little fucking sick and tired of being accused semi-annually of being a sexist, a libertarian, a racist, and/or a Nazi as the very first fucking option.
So yeah, fuck right off.
Thanks for explaining your take on why Hillary was not a "good candidate", its much appreciated. I found it interesting because I've not come across many people who actually take the trouble to offer an analysis of any sort as to why she was a "flawed candidate". I would however point out that, in all likelihood, if not for James Comey, an electoral system designed to pander to the "Slave States", and a whole bunch of Russian interferers of various stripes, the candidate who won the majority of the votes would be President and we would not actually be having this conversation.
I watched the candidate debates live and I don't recall Hillary's answers being slogans, certainly not "Better together", which you must admit beats the fucking fuck out of "MAGA" or "Lock her up" or "Drain the swamp". I am not sure how a mainstream political party is actually supposed to deal with the racist, sexist shitshow that was the Trump campaign but it has surely brought some of the nasty underbelly of US political views into the light of day and I don't think that many on the reasonable side of the dabate are particularly happy about that.
I stopped watching and reading British news after the Brexit, the pain was just too raw. Instead I took out subscriptions to The WaPo and NYT and learned to love cable news. Since I have been following US media I have noticed this weird tendency that was the thing I commented on. It seems to be almost impossible for US commentators to mention Hillary without some mention of what a "uniquely hated candidate" she was. Doesn't matter which side you look at they don't seem to be able to get past the "FLAWED" bit. America needs an excuse for electing Trump - even a lot on the right do, Corker, Flake etc Tell you what, lets blame it on Hillary. What do you think the combined weight of twenty-some years of negative press and structural misogyny has on your opinion of Hillary, whatever you actual politics. And hyperbole, the fucking hyperbole! Murderer [multiple], crook [a bit close to the wind but never totally proven], baby eater . . . BABY EATER!!!, serial pedophile, fixer for her "can't keep it in his pants husband" jesus fucking christ america GET A GRIP. And if you are not saying all that shit about her then you need to think about whether "FLAWED CANDIDATE" "MOST UNPOPULAR CANDIDATE" don't just help to support the fictions that the RWNJ's have been selling about her for longer than the lifetimes of a lot of voters in the 2016 election.
Here's a quick thought experiment:- if Hillary had won do you think would you feel the same pressing need to tell anyone who will listen just what a "flawed candidate" she was? Do you think maybe the enormity of what has happened to the US since the Trumpocalypse creates some kind of emotional need for some people to blame Hillary for not being able to save them from themselves [and nope I'm not including the 35-40% of Trumps true believers]
@Stella, you said
"Just because she has a twat doesn't mean she's a good person." You're absolutely right but it is also true that just because she has a cunt doesn't mean she is a cunt. And it does mean that people are likely to judge her by different standards
@ Dok You said "She's not a bad person, she's just arrogant and can't hide it." You see her as arrogant and I see her as competent and self confident. Be honest, if she had balls instead of tits would you really think she was "arrogant". Put your hand on your heart and after mature consideration give me an honest answer, or not.
And for what its worth I was NOT actually trying to accuse you of being "a sexist" any more than LMNO was.