I'm 35 and I remember the Clinton years well. I'm curious what about my comment led you to believe that I would dismiss their well-documented "missteps" as "tin

I'm 35 and I remember the Clinton years well. I'm curious what about my comment led you to believe that I would dismiss their well-documented "missteps" as "tinfoil hat conspiracy stuff." Sure, Bill Clinton was corrupt and a liar. He also happened to be the greatest politician that's ever run for President. There's plenty of corruption beyond what you cited. Private speeches to Goldman Sachs which HRC refused to release. Debbie Wasserman Schultz' straight-up corruption during the democratic primaries and her subverted attempts to force HRC down democrats' throats. The alleged passing of debate questions to HRC's camp in advance. The list goes on and on. And yet, I firmly believe that those things in and of themselves have little to do with why she lost. If you lived through the Bill Clinton years then you might remember that his favorability ratings were so high when he left office (after being impeached!) that it was widely believed he could have easily won a third term if he were allowed to run again. The reality is that most voters don't care about the candidates private lives. Some voters actually held Clinton in higher regard after the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke. Voters are much more drawn to the candidate than the candidate's background or even the issues. HRC has simply never been an effective politician. Sure, she won a senate race in New York on the heels of her husband's presidency, but beyond that she's had a problem connecting with constituents in both elections. This was exactly the reason she couldn't beat Obama in '08.