Actually, the piece should have been named "Why Hillary Needed to Lose."
The points Time made actually showed how terrible a president she would be:
No one hustled harder than Clinton, whose childhood Sunday-school lessons about the virtues of hard work and good deeds she had translated into a life in public service. She obsessed over details and demanded plans for everything, all the while being unfailingly kind to her allies and aides.Technocrat is a peevish substitute for bureaucrat. She learned nothing from the Hillarycare debacle in which she wanted to technocrat the medical industry down to how many general practitioners and how many surgeons each state had.
As for work ethic and public service, she spent roughly three decades as a first lady in Arkansas and Washington. This great big feminist icon was just another Wellesley graduate who married well and led a pampered life thereafter.
The campaign Clinton and her team built was a dramatic departure from the inspirational tours de force that twice elevated Obama to the White House. Without a mantle of change or a movement of hope, Clinton and her crew patiently worked to construct an unstoppable machine.Yes, and that machine crashed and burned against an underfunded rookie candidate running his campaign out of the Trump company softball team in the Manhattan softball league.
It would be like taking the American military and losing to the Taliban.
Oops. That seemed to have happened in Afghanistan under Obama.
Her Democratic rival Bernie Sanders promised a revolution of his own and rallied young voters who resisted Clinton, with her policy prescriptions and merit-based candidacy.Liberals keep using that word merit. I don't think they know its meaning. Nothing she did as a senator of secretary of State merited her promotion to president. It was merely her husband's political connections that made her.
Trump meanwhile got up by dawn every day and worked since he was 16 to build a $10 billion, worldwide empire employing 22,000 people.
I think by merit, they mean inherit.
She fought to keep paid Wall Street speeches on Bill Clinton’s schedule. In landlocked Iowa, she detailed plans for tackling Laotian land mines and in Libertarian-leaning New Hampshire effused about government-backed loans for Big Business. Aides grimaced and groaned–and then put online the video of the ill-timed land-mine chat as evidence of a heavyweight worthy of support.Who wrote her speeches?
Then again, look who gave them.
Nothing quite says I-don't-give-a-shit-about-Iowa like a lengthy lecture on Laotian land mines.
From the start, campaign manager Robby Mook knew he had challenges ahead of him. The boyish Columbia University graduate with a degree in the classics had been hired at 35 for the toughest job in politics. He shared Clinton’s unflinching belief that preparation can trump emotion.
Boyish at 35. Hmm. Does that mean he spent Christmas in his PJs sipping hot cocoa while lecturing his parents on Obamacare? That's almost as bad a personnel decision as picking Krazy Kaine as her running mate.
Clinton was neither lazy nor lackadaisical. Once she settled on a plan, she worked harder than anyone to execute it, a discipline acquired during a summer away from Yale Law School when she campaigned out of an empty storefront on West Sixth Street in Austin for George McGovern’s hapless 1972 White House bid. “I had a small cubicle that I rarely occupied because I spent most of my time in the field,” Clinton wrote in her memoir. Like her staff, she reveled in the grind. But that diligent focus produced huge blind spots away from the field; Clinton never visited Wisconsin during the general-election campaign, and on Nov. 8, the state tipped in Trump’s favor with an ease that caught the Democrat flat-footed.
Yet this hard-working miss with moxie spent August and September at no more than three rallies a week, while Trump hit the hustings daily with two, three and sometimes four rallies.
I am of the Lousy Candidate, Lousy President school of thought. America just dodged a bullet.