Nothing Went Wrong
In retrospect, finding flaws with the Clinton campaign seems the natural thing to do. How else could a man who was just a state senator four years ago have defeated one of the most competent, intelligent, well-connected, well-respected members of the Senate? The New York Times ran a series of op-ed pieces Sunday asking, "What Went Wrong?" Some said money. Some said sexism. Some said she took the low road in her campaign tactics. Some said her Iraq vote. Some said she was too establishment. But among the 13 political coroners who wrote post-mortems for the Clinton campaign, the one who put his finger on the hemorrhage that cost her the election was the one who knew where to look -- Bob Kerry -- because he had run against Hillary Clinton's charismatic husband in the 1992 primaries.
Nothing went wrong. Hillary Clinton was emotionally outgunned, just as Bill Clinton outgunned his rivals in 1992.
The pundits and pollsters had it backwards. People didn't vote for Obama because they preferred his message of change to Hillary's message of experience. They preferred his message of change because in their gut they preferred Obama. When all the other candidates scrambled to be the agents of change after Iowa, it didn't matter where they put their spare change because they weren't Obama.
As the first woman to have a serious shot at the presidency in our nation's history, who would have reversed virtually every decision George W. Bush made over the last eight years, Hillary Clinton could legitimately argue, as she tried to do after Iowa, that she offered the best of both worlds: change and experience. What she, her pollsters, and the chattering class mistakenly believed, however, was that Obama had somehow found the right one-word magical amulet, and that they just had to own a piece of the amulet. But that view neglects the fact that virtually every challenger in the last century -- including Bill Clinton ("change vs. more of the same") -- had used the mantra of change, and some won with it while others hadn't. John Edwards frequently spoke of "change -- big change," but he didn't win the nomination in 2008.
What is perhaps most remarkable in all the post-mortems to the Clinton campaign is how little we have heard what is both the most obvious to the naked eye and the best supported by data: It's the emotion, stupid. The reason Hillary Clinton opened a large early lead against her Democratic rivals and seemed invincible was not that she is phenomenally competent and intelligent, which she is. Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, and Bill Richardson are also phenomenally competent and intelligent. What launched her campaign were the emotional associations people had formed between eight years of the Clintons in the White House and eight years of peace and prosperity. I never heard her campaign complain loudly when journalists used the term "the Clintons," despite the firm conviction of many talking heads that Bill Clinton was a tremendous liability to his wife's campaign. They understood that she needed not just her rock-solid understanding of "the issues" but the power of association.
In fact, what led her to come roaring back -- too little, too late, it turned out --i n the last three months of the primaries was a failing economy that reminded blue collar and rural voters just how much their lives had improved during the Clinton years (reinforcing the emotional associations that had originally made her candidacy seem inevitable) and her relentless attacks on Obama. Those attacks drove her already high negatives up (a risk she had no choice but to take) but also drove his positives down and his negatives up (i.e., changing voters' gut-level feelings about him), and raising many Democrats' worries (fueled by the Jeremiah Wright story and his comments in "liberal San Francisco") about his capacity to lead, his capacity to win, and his capacity to defend himself against the attacks conservative groups will no doubt throw at him in what will likely be the dirtiest general election campaign in modern American history.
The survey data from the last forty years of presidential elections are crystal clear: "The issues" are a distant fourth as predictors of voting behavior. The best predictors are people's feelings toward the parties and their principles (which are obviously of less relevance in primary than general elections because the competitors draw on the same wellsprings of partisan sentiment). The next best predictors, and the ones of most relevance in the primaries, are the feelings the candidates elicit from voters. Next in line are voters' feelings toward the candidates' personal attributes. Among those personal attributes, the lowest on the list of predictors of voting is competence.
At base, Americans want to know three things about candidates: Do they share my values, do they care about people like me, and do I feel in my gut I can trust them to pursue those values and interests faithfully?
Hillary Clinton ran on issues and competence, focusing, like every Democrat who has failed to win the presidency in the last 40 years, on the factors least predictive of electoral success. She spent too little time creating a compelling, consistent personal narrative that could weave together her own life history with the state of a nation yearning for a different kind of leadership, and too little time attending to the negative stories told and retold about her during nearly two decades of savage Republican branding. She could have told the story of how she grew up in a traditional American -- and Republican -- home in Illinois; lived through the changes of the 1960s and learned the lessons we all learned as a nation, that we cannot be true to our national ideals while showing intolerance or prejudice toward anyone, whether women, African-Americans, or the conservative hate group de jure; but that she never forgot the traditional American values she learned at home that have been appropriated by Republicans but do not belong to them, such as hard work, personal responsibility, patriotism, and a commitment to our nation's security. A master narrative that wove together those elements would have provided a compelling alternative to the story of Hillary as triangulating, poll-driven opportunist that led many to distrust her.
Anyone who doubts that the same emotional dynamics that have, empirically, been central to the success or failure of presidential candidates over the last 40 years were central to Obama's defeat of the seemingly invincible Senator from New York should simply go back to the tapes of the Democratic primary debates and the Gallup polls from last summer through mid fall, when Obama was running a much more traditional, issues-oriented Democratic campaign -- as Hillary continued to rise in the polls, eventually breaking 50% among likely Democratic voters in October of 2007. But that all changed with his electrifying, game-changing performance at the Jefferson-Jackson Dinner in Iowa. There, he stopped campaigning like Adlai Stevenson and started campaigning like Barack Obama, and the rest was history. After that point, there was nothing Hillary Clinton could do but to go negative, which took him down a notch but reinforced her already high negatives.
It's not that issues don't matter -- her Iraq vote, her Iran vote (which came around the same time as Obama's transformation in Iowa, and played into the narrative that she had learned nothing from her Iraq vote) -- or that her campaign didn't make mistakes, most notably its failure ever to settle on a compelling, genuine, consistent narrative about who she is and what she stands for (a strong commander in chief and a stateswoman with gravitas, then a woman who wasn't afraid to shed a tear in New Hampshire, and finally Rosie the Riveter when a tough populism seemed to be the order of the day).
But people don't vote by considering every issue singly and then consciously weighing the constellation of policies each candidate supports to see which candidate maximizes their self-interest. They summarize their attitudes toward a candidate via a gut-level feeling (e.g., "I find him incredibly inspiring," or "I just don't trust her"). That feeling (or, more accurately, that complex set of feelings) aggregates not only their judgments about the extent to which the candidate will likely look out for people like them and honor their values but also their sense of whether the candidate is genuine; whether the candidates seems defensive or unwilling to admit mistakes (as Hillary did in her responses on Iraq, which did more to associate her with George W. Bush, and hence to sabotage her change message, than anything else she ever said or did); or whether the candidate, attacks on the candidate, events of the day, or media coverage stir largely unconscious but sometimes conscious ambivalence or negative feelings toward the candidate's race, gender, or other factors most voters consciously eschew as influences on their votes.
So what when wrong? Hillary Clinton had the misfortune of running against a candidate too much like her husband in his extraordinary capacity to inspire.
As Bob Kerrey, tongue-in-cheek, summarized her biggest mistake in his op-ed in the New York Times, "She and President Clinton should have moved back to her home state after they left the White House. By doing so, she would have been elected the junior senator from Illinois in 2004, thereby reducing the chances that Mr. Obama would have been in a position to run against her."
Drew Westen, Ph.D., is professor of psychology and psychiatry at Emory University and founder of Westen Strategies, LLC. He is the author of The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation, recently released in paperback with a postscript on the 2008 primaries.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I guess when you like to see your words in print, it is not convenient to point out that Senator Clinton began to win races after she fired her campaign manager.
What's with the Demo party *experts*? (Too bad Al Gore didn't fire his Florida lawyer.) Is it just bad luck? But then ow could pundits pontificate on that?
Mr Westen: what does " the conservative hate group de jure" mean?
Do you mean to say " the conservative hate group du jour"?
It's not a great idea to drop French-sounding phrases into your writing if you can't speak French. Mostly because it undermines any sense of authenticity you might have achieved until that point.
Speaking of emotional gut reactions.
Everyone should read the Childe Cycle by Gordon R. Dickson. In the book The Chantry Guilde, there is a scene where the lead character imagines that he is his own great grandfather remembering when he wrote one of his books, and, in particular, a section which had been cut out. The grandfather pointed out that people who encounter a section in writing with ONE point that they disagree with will create their own emotional rationale for ignoring the whole piece.
Sorry SharkeyGeezer, "de jure" is actually latin not french and is used interchangeably with de facto. It is usually used in a legal context, where it translates verbatim to mean "by law". When it is used in this context it usually replacing the phrase "in principle" while de facto is used to replace "in practice".
You are right, du jour is French for "of the day" or something popular, fashionable or prominent. I can see how you would have thought that Mr. Westen used the incorrect word in an attempt to give the impression that he spoke French.
One of the most resonating lessons I have learned in my 31 years of life is this: I never assume anything, especially the often fatal assumption that something is "wrong" if it appears to be in contradiction with what I think I know to be "right". I highly recommend taking this perspective. , Turning every new word, image, viewpoint etc, into a learning opportunity has expanded my horizons tremendously.
Finally, in the spirit of the comment you left for Mr. Westen:
It's not a great idea to use a condescending tone when attempting to correct someone unless you are absolutely confident that you are in fact, correct. Mostly because it undermines any sense of credibility that you may have been trying to establish.
You say de jure, I say du jour, let's call the whole thing off!
You're absolutely right. I should read menus more carefully. But I got a wonderful email suggesting that what I clear was referring to was the current Supreme Court.
"People didn't vote for Obama because they preferred his message of change to Hillary's message of experience. They preferred his message of change because in their gut they preferred Obama."
"So what when wrong? Hillary Clinton had the misfortune of running against a candidate too much like her husband in his extraordinary capacity to inspire."
Absolutely
I second that.
It's also good to point out is that emotions towards Hillary were already fixed when she started. Everyone knew who she was and had a formed opinion. She came in with support of about 50% of the party and she left with 50%. Obama came in with 30%, and left with 50%. As the other contenders dropped out, he picked up their votes.
The other thing is that she and her handlers got a lot of false confidence from early polls that pretty much reflected her status as the best known of the candidates. As soon as Obama became better known for who he is, he started to pick up support.
It is interesting to me that the people who claim that Hillary was deprived of the nomination because of sexism don't admit that she had that early (albeit it, thin) support that probably arose out of her celebrity. She was the same sex at the end of the campaign as she was at the beginning. ( to repeat her statement about Obama not being a muslim----":as far as we know") It isn't as though people suddenly realized, "HEY, she is a womanl....
If Clinton planned to reverse Bush's policy disasters, one certainly didn't get a sense of it from her 2002 AUMF vote, or her 2007 vote for the Kyl Lieberman amendment.
Awhile back, a friend of mine and I were discussing the primaries, and he brought this to my attention: All of the presidential candidates had their pet issues. Obama wanted "change." Edwards focused on economic inequality. Kucinich was the peace candidate, Richardson's strength was foreign policy, Biden stressed respect for the Constitution and so on.
But Clinton's only message and issue was that she wanted to be president. She mitigated this naked declaration of power-lust with the window-dressing of "and I'm a woman," but since she didn't exhibit any qualities that might differentiate her from a man (other than crying and complaining about sexism) I believe many saw no reason to indulge her ambition.
This is why I'm surprised to see pundits describing Hillary's hardcore supporters as a movement. They don't seem like a movement because they don't have a cause, other than electing Hillary Clinton.
Rather, they seem like a demographic who are "finding their voice" the way their candidate couldn't. It makes sense that white women over fifty would want to see a white woman over fifty in power (apparently anyone meeting the age, race and gender qualifications will do). But how are the rest of us supposed to benefit from this "movement?"
"But Clinton's only message and issue was that she wanted to be president.
Umm, health care wasn't her pet issue? That's been her pet issue for 15 years.
HRC would have been much better served if she had some time away from being a public servant to be a real person for a while if thats possible. It seemed that she had no firm footing. Healthcare as an issue was pure populist rhetoric that the Clintons 'people' put together to get xyz demographic onboard, like the gas tax deal not part of an idealogical tenet or policy system.
From all accounts, the Clintons governing theory, political triangluation required them to poll test each issue. HRC probably meant well, but she used hot button issues like healthcare in a calculus to get votes, she didn't get votes because she had the issues.
For example, in the innercity its gun control, in rural Pennsylvania its gun rights. One day you have to fight not negotiate, then the next its the value of ensuring that everyone has a seat at the table to make univ hc possible to explain her relationship with lobbyist. She fluxated from being an ultra hawk (oblirate iran) to ultra liberal (womens rights) to freetrader to union chieftain, it just depended on which group HRC was in front of.
She just didn't have a central message/philosophy that prevailed throughout this campaign other than "I will do whatever it takes to become president". I can't say that this is all she felt, but the end result was just that.
And her biggest failure. Hillarycare was not even given a committee hearing by either chamber of a Democratic controlled Congress. When yiu have pets that ugly you keep them in the back yard and out of sight.
Thumbs up cherrycola! Your last paragraph to a large extent sums up why Hillary won what she won and lost what she lost. Well, said. I hope you don't mind, I've copied your entire post and emailed it to my two "grieving" sisters who are only now beginning to walk away from the train wreck.
I take exception to what you said about women over fifty. I know only one person my age who supported Hillary (and still does). She thinks, bless her, that Hillary's race-baiting and fact-challenged campaign was only what she HAD to do to in order to "beat the men." She sincerely believes that once Hillary was elected, some core of characteristic decency would be allowed to emerge, and that we would all be the better for it. And she is mad as hell that we didn't give Hillary the chance for it to emerge...t
Oh please, Drew! "phenomenally competent and intelligent"??
The ONLY qualifications for a "phenomenally competent and intelligent" Democratic leader - especially a senator with a six year term - is being able to articulate the outrage of Democratic voters for the abuses of power, stolen elections, busted budgets, kangaroo courts for female privates accused of "abuse" (while, mind you, the VP and president assert the 'right' to torture prisoners, to death, at their sole whim and discretion, with no accountability to anyone, ever), "midnight visit" politicization of the Justice Department, and other appalling outrages of these past 8 years.
In those respects, there is not a single "phenomenally competent" Democrat in the entire House or Senate....
Courage. That's the word you are looking for. There are plenty of "phenomenally competent and intelligent" cowards. But it takes courage to use those talents to effectively rage against the machine that is devouring our republic.
I will agree that Hillary's initial success was almost entirely about nostalgia and emotional attachments to the Bill Clinton and the Clinton years of peace and prosperity and balanced budget. But she is not and never could be Bill. Additionally, she is not Barack Obama and the more we knew him the more we liked him. He simply convinced more people he could lead us in the direction we need to go.
If this were the case, why did Hillary win out more than Obama in the last 3 months of the primaries? It seems as time went on, and the more we knew him, the more we liked her. His post primary bounce against a virtual walking corpse is shockingly low.
Or it might have to do with the fact that, as the race went on, and she started to break the party apart, he realized that:
a) he was the one who was going to win the nomination
b) with the party torn apart by her sniping and him responding he wouldn't win in November
c) that his real opponent was McBush, and so he focused on him!!
Well part of the reason for that is Hillary failed to immediately concede defeat after Obama gained the necessary delegates to claim the nomination. She left it hanging until Saturday and there have not been any polls published since then.
He didn't resort to lies.
He didn't call any states "small."
He didn't call any contests "undemocra
He didn't try to change the rules.
He didn't try to make up new rules.
He didn't resort to the politics of "personal destructio
He didn't run out of money.
He didn't leave his bills unpaid.
He didn't tolerate chaos in his campaign.
He didn't use self pity.
Lol what he did was.......
I think this is an excellent essay -- a kind and generous assessment of what didn't go wrong.
In my view, people who pursue public offices MUST be willing to serve--and not simply to lead. Service doesn't just mean hours logged; it means literally being a servant, willing to take a hit, admit mistakes, and be humble, all the while still seeing the value in one's service. To feel any other way, one is not serving--one may be self-serving by cultivating one's political future.
People in this country tend to have a visceral reaction to dynastic claims, perhaps wives or children of politicians haven't served enough and their spouses or parents' service simply isn't enough to justify their entitlement to public offices.
So nothing went wrong with this past primary. Hillary simply hasn't earned her dues yet, despite her effort to rub off some shine from her husband.
Great post.
"As the first woman to have a serious shot at the presidency in our nation's history, who would have reversed virtually every decision George W. Bush made over the last eight years, "
Every decision George W. Bush ever made, save for escalating tensions between Cuba, North Korea, and IRan, and for many of us, that's too Republican for our blood.
"[Sen. Clinton] is phenomenally competent and intelligen
What is the origin of this myth?
Sen. Clinton's recent, failed campaign is Exhibit A in destroying the idea that she is especially politically competent. Her failed attempt to reform health care in the '90's is Exhibit B.
In what way has she ever demonstrated that--in comparison to her peers of both genders in Congress or in American politics, generally--she is notably more intelligent than anyone else? Barney Frank is exceptionally intelligent. Keith Olbermann is. Like him or not, William F. Buckley, Jr., was. Surely, Barbara Jordan and Eleanor Roosevelt were.
In a famous, if particularly sexist, remark, England's Samuel Johnson (1709-84) said, "Sir, a woman's preaching is like a dog's walking on his hind legs. It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all." Sadly, Hillary Clinton's run against the Glass Ceiling suffers from the same criticism.
Being good on the issues and tenacious, as she surely is, is not synonymous with being "phenomenally competent and intelligent", as nice as it would be if that were true.
THANK YOU!
Intelligent, but unprincipled.
I would have been a big supporter if I had seen her exert courageous leadership at any time during her 7 years in the Senate. From Kyl-Lieberman to Terri Schiavo, she seemed always to be following a Mark Penn poll and choosing the position that would get the most votes in 2008.
Hillary could have been a moderate Republican--no, actually some of them were more vocal than she was in their opposition to George Bush's policies and, in particular, the Iraq War.
Even after she supposedly opposed the war (when the majority of the public felt that way, too), she never seemed to feel remorse for her vote(s), or regret and responsibility for her role in lives lost. If I'd seen that kind of feeling about HER role in it, I would have been able to forgive the error in judgement in supporting Bush.
But...no. Her positions always seemed comfortably positioned to appeal to whatever Mark Penn told her was the majority view. Progressives looking for a candidate needed to look elsewhere--and fortunately we had Edwards, we had Obama.
I don't know why so little attention has been paid to the Clintons' DLC and its efforts to marginalize progressives, especially the anti-war movement. Matt Taibi had an article a while back in Rolling Stone and that was the end of it.
After the censure of Moveon.com, I called my congressman's office and asked where he had been during the Swiftboat smear (where he had been conspicuous for his silence). His aide told me that a decision had been made in a series of meetings that progressives must be marginalized in order to get the votes of independents in November. Nevermind that the polls showed that Independents seem to want the same thing as the progressives. He actually told me, "Who else are you going to vote for?" Now he knows.
She IS phenomenally competent and intelligent. Everything points to that. However, the most intelligent person that I know can barely tie his shoes in the morning, because it's not something that he likes to think about. She is an odd combination of BOTH of those two usually mutually exclusive talents. That does NOT mean, however, that she's going to be the best politician that the world has ever seen. It may make her better qualified to be a brain surgeon, or a rocket scientist, or even just a good senator!
Competent? OK. But phenomenonally so? You say, "Everything points to that." I just offered two huge examples that (a) are part of "everything" and (b) point to the opposite. Maybe MANY things point to her being phenomenonally competent--but, surely not everything.
Intelligent? OK. But phenomenonally so? I know two things for certain about myself: (1) I happen to have more university degrees than she does, and (2) that doesn't make me "phenomenonally intelligent". It certainly doesn't qualify me for high office. (You don't HAVE to agree quite so energetically with that, but that's OK, too.) That's why I listed, among others, Mr. Frank and Mrs. Roosevelt. To me, they exemplify exceptional intelligence.
The question wasn't whether Mrs. Clinton is smart or not (she is), it was why anyone would accept the idea that she's so much smarter than anyone else as to be unique. (And by "unique" I mean "one-of-a-kind" and not, as that word is increasingly misused to mean, "special".
Hillary the reality just doesn't justify Hillary the icon: that's all I'm saying.
I'll give you intelligen
Obama won because he has charisma and Hillary doesn't. Plain and simple. Sure his campaign was better run, sure hers was poorly won. Sure there was sexism, but there was also racism in equal measure, and these bigotries weren't enough to do either of them in. Sure people were sick of the Clintons, etc. etc.
But Obama has that elusive "it" that people are drawn to. Hillary doesn't.
Plus he has a whole bunch of other skills and talents that are needed for the presidency.
Exactly like George Bush had "it" back in 1999. Good luck with the charisma part. It's worked soooo well these last fifty years.
George Bush had the "it" only among the Republican base. As far as I'm concerned, and I'm sure that I speak on behalf of many, many others, Bush's flaws were transparent from the beginning, and many of us knew who he was long before the rest of America finally woke up to a failed war based on lies, a failing economy, and a failing democracy!
The "it" that Senator Obama has is in the very substance of his character, something that George Bush can only dream about!
Bush's "it" was not charisma. He had daddy's money, a group of unprincipled hacks, and the majority of Supreme Court justices.
He didn't have "it" where any one I knew was concerned. Bush in '00 and '04 was a dynasty pick and everyone who voted for him was comfortable with his last name.
Too many times political family members are given undue credit for that last name.
People like Robert Kennedy and even Ted, proved they were worth the cachet of their last names. Bush-43 has not.
Even before Obama changed his mind about running, I figured Bill would be the one to show in sharp relief Hillary's deficiencies at the podium. I'll admit she improved her public speaking skills somewhat during the campaign but not to anywhere near the level of Bill or Barack.
In my callow youth, I was the front man for a rock band and threw my heart and soul into becoming an engaging and entertaining presence on stage. I had to admit after several years, I never fully obtained the natural ease and command that many of my rivals seemed born with. I eventually gave up the dream and counted myself satisfied that I now can easily address a crowd and speak extemporaneously without barfing. I hope Hillary similarly can count her many blessings and gracefully cede the limelight to her betters.
I disagree.
I think people had an innate vicersal reaction to the relentless sniper attacks on Barack Obama's character. It made him empathetic, because in this society of keeping up not with the Jones, but the Brangelina's, and Donald Trumps, we all feel a bit inadequate, and unfairly judged.
And Barack wasn't even the focal point of the attacks, his pastor, and Tony Rezko,and Ayres were. It is a dangerous precedent to set, ( which Hillary did ) the guilt by association attacks. We're not our brothers keeper. So she overplayed that hand.
And wagging the maternal finger of shame, not just at Barack, but the Iowa caucusers who spoiled her coronotion ball, further earned our disdain for her. It tapped that teen rebelliousness in all of us. Who is Hillary Clinton to tell this party who it can and cannot see.
She came off as too superior, and full of shit when it came to memories of Bosnian sniper attacks. It showed her hypocrisy, chiding him for lack of experience when hers was just as suspect.
Ultimately it seemed like Hillary was skewering an innocent man, just to attain power. Dangling his visage like a black rubber spider to scare the electorate into shying away from him. You don't need to be a pundit or a genius to see that.
You've hit upon the secret to Obama's electoral successes. He attracts supporters who rally to his defense when the inevitable unfair attacks are leveled at him.
True, because many of us have been unfairly attacked in our own lives. and ridiculed for believing things could be better.
He's earned that fro many of us by responding more accountably and respectfully to his own mistakes -- becoming more trustworthy as opposed to Hill, becoming less trustworthy.
She killed my trust for her altogether by the dumbest of all her lies: the Bosnia sniper lies. To tell that story after video surfaces all over the net that is uncut and shows you're lying? She showed herself so out of touch with modern communication; politicians can't just "say anything" and keep repeating like they used 'cause a growing, significant number of us are going to find out more lies, faster then the 1990s used to allow.
It's a different time now. Obama's team and approach are built more effectively for it, as their communications and fundraising have proved. Had he been a 100% "white" guy (unfortunate but true), he would have had to deal with fewer weird "is America ready" attacks and beaten her by a far wider margin.
There is something about arrogance vs, humility. Also, we Dems don't like injustices. She was the one with the machinery against this young, polite, steady, candidate. We sure didn't like that.
I don't think she helped her case by putting the lunatic fringe of her supporters in the media spotlight. That racist in the restaurant in W.V., the bile-filled woman from Manhattan who was at the credentials meeting, the newspaper photos of older women's faces contorted with rage. Who but a fanatic would want to identify with these people unless they were already one of these people.
In contrast, there was a sense of decency ,congeniality ,excitement AND SANITY at the Obama rallies. I know that some people think that the big size was a mistake, but I think it helped to make people feel that they are participating with others for something important.
Now, contrary to her promise of unity, hillarycli
When you say "people" you make it sound like the people who voted for Obama were more than a little over half of the voters. That may be how she came of to you, but you are not everyone.
She's a polarizing figure. By definition, that means that people have disparate and strong opinions about her.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
