No, she wasn't. She had very little of either electoral or executive experience for a Presidential candidate, but lots of experience as a less-accountable figure around politics and policy.
Whether as maintainer of the status quo or otherwise she was only modestly qualified.
I’m not sure rejection of her should be chalked up to “hate”, so much as sensible evaluation.
Citation needed.
> She had the DNC stack the previous primary for her.
Citation needed. She got millions more votes than her opponent.
This is exactly the sort of conspiracy-minded nonsense that Sanders and Trump thrive on.
Her opponent has taken that to new levels and if we are to discuss this topic it requires openness to the flaws of all involved, including our preferred candidates. To not do so is to engage in partisan bickering which is not appropriate here.
Citation needed about pay to play. Also, foundations pay their directors. Why is that surprising?
> the media were funneling debate questions to her
One person funneled one question to her. The Sanders campaign also said that same person helped their campaign, with one aide saying, "If Bernie Sanders had been the nominee of the party and the Russians hacked my emails instead of John [Podesta]’s, we'd be reading all these notes between Donna and I and they'd say Donna was cozying up to the Bernie campaign."
https://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/3038...
> Separately, when she knew her records were about to be subpoenaed she destroyed data (the 30k emails) claiming they were personal - she didn't make a claim that they were privileged or irrelevant to the matter, much less let a judge determine this - she preemptively destroyed the information
Again, citation needed that she did this on purpose. The person who actually did it says otherwise.
> This is called spoliation of evidence and is a crime
It would be a crime if it happened as you said, but the investigation came to the opposite conclusion.
> at this point it's pretty disingenuous to be talking about Hillary as somebody who doesn't thrive on peddling conspiracy theories.
I never said Clinton doesn't, but now that you mention it, she clearly doesn't anywhere near as much as Sanders and Trump supporters.
After he lost the primaries to Clinton (a process I personally think was gamed by the DNC), he publicly supported her and encouraged his supporters to do the same.
We're discussing politics on HN and I don't want to incur dang's admonishment again. We are in very uncertain times these days so I think it's important to discuss key issues in a cogent and concise manner.
The key difference between Sanders and other politicians like McCain, Obama, etc. is that Sanders doesn't push against the fringe elements of his supporters, which encouraged them to grow into a large portion of his supporters.
Look at Sanders's early education policy for example. It's just a single line. Getting early education and childcare right will benefit far more people and in a far more egalitarian way than getting postsecondary education right, but if you even suggest it, some "emotional" Sanders supporters will say you must be part of a banking conspiracy.
Platforms are not policies, they're goals. There's nothing wrong with having ambitious goals and then adjusting to reality whilst trying to implement them.
The Sanders camp clearly attracts a lot of emotional people as well, but at least they're emotional for a perceived good rather than perceived grievances -- to put a charitable spin on it :-)
You can hate Hillary, but she was probably the smartest, most experienced, and best qualified for the job as a maintainer of the status quo. I think we need to go beyond the status quo, but politics is (or was) the art of compromise.
Unfortunately politics is at its core a popularity contest and people vote with their emotions rather than their brains, which is why we have the current administration.