Hillary Clinton was better at "being a candidate" in 2008. Agree or disagree?

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I supported Hillary then and I do now... but as a Hillary fan I can't help but feel like we haven't gotten to see as much of the Hillary this time around that we got to see last time around. By the end of the 2008 campaign she was warm, almost motherly, relatable, and her stump speech was on fire. It's like she'd seriously been humbled and was revealing a lot more of herself on the trail. The real Hillary.

Maybe I'm just misremembering, but she seems a lot more guarded these days.

What I'm asking, then, is not whether she was a better candidate for the times back in 2008, but if she was actually performing better on the trail.

I know we're in the middle of an intense primary, but I ask that the Berniebots not automatically vote that yes, she was better back then, just because they currently hate her now. Have her campaign skills improved or regressed?

[dax00]

They have regressed. She is now feeling more entitled and is assuming victory, which is never a good thing.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

They have regressed. She is now feeling more entitled and is assuming victory, which is never a good thing.

Everyone who had followed the 2008 should remember the sense of inevitability and even entitlement Hillary's campaign displayed back then. Now, she would be an idiot not to learn from that experience and she's not an idiot. She's better candidate now, no doubts.

[pho]

I don't think there is much difference between Hillary 08 and Hillary 16, it's just that the "historical" and "pragmatic" arguments didn't hold as much weight against Obama as they do against Sanders.

[7,052,770]

I strongly disagree, and apparently America does too.

[Torie]

Agree on balance. And the email thing is not helpful vis a vis the trust factor for her.

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

She was, and more likeable in fact (at least in my opinion), my 2 candidates in 2008 were Ron Paul and Hillary Clinton for very good reasons.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Hillary has never been a good candidate, and sadly she probably never will be.

[Higgs]

She was, and more likeable in fact (at least in my opinion), my 2 candidates in 2008 were Ron Paul and Hillary Clinton for very good reasons.

Polar opposites?

[Xing]

I actually think she's a much stronger candidate this time. Last time, she came off as entitled, and was much more negative. Now, even though she's in a much better position than she was last time, she doesn't wear that same air of inevitability and arrogance.

[ElectionsGuy]

I strongly disagree, and apparently America does too.

Democratic primary voters do, not America. She has worse favorability ratings this time than she did in 2008.

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

I strongly disagree, and apparently America does too.

Democratic primary voters do, not America. She has worse favorability ratings this time than she did in 2008.

That's why I find it funny that one of the two most hated people in America right now will end up being our 45th President.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I actually think she's a much stronger candidate this time. Last time, she came off as entitled, and was much more negative. Now, even though she's in a much better position than she was last time, she doesn't wear that same air of inevitability and arrogance.

How so? From what I've heard she's frustrated that Bernie hasn't backed down and pledged allegiance to her, to the point of going negative even though it makes no political sense for her to.

[Xing]

I actually think she's a much stronger candidate this time. Last time, she came off as entitled, and was much more negative. Now, even though she's in a much better position than she was last time, she doesn't wear that same air of inevitability and arrogance.

How so? From what I've heard she's frustrated that Bernie hasn't backed down and pledged allegiance to her, to the point of going negative even though it makes no political sense for her to.

She's recently become a bit more negative, and we'll see if it lasts, but I vividly remember the 2008 primary. Let me know when she says "shame on you, Bernie Sanders."

[Blair]

She was better at being a traditional democrat in 2008; she was running on the basis that she would make a good commander in chief-this election (for the dems at least) has been focused on the economy whilst 2008 was Foreign Policy.

Worth noting that she was seen as being to the left of Obama in 2008 on certain issues

[Mr. Smith]

Much better, less bitterness, more detailed policies, and she defeated Obama on the Popular despite the huge media shilling for him [which he admits to using], and the worse-than-Gore hate for her.

Now she's struggling to completely wrest Bernie [who hasn't done so well with attack], and she's resorted to "I'm a woman", and there is justifiably more bitterness.

So quite obviously I agree.

[Mr. Reactionary]

She used better dirty tricks in 2008. Imagine the attacks she'd have launched if Sanders had been black.

[Liberalrocks]

She was a better candidate at the end of the 2008 run (not entitled beginning) when she had to fight for her wins and had large wins despite trailing Obama over all. Her profile as a fighter suited her well. I still support her but would like to see more of the '2008 Ohio Hillary' back, if that's even possible?...

[henster]

She never dealt with the FBI/Email thing in 2008 and her favorability numbers were much better. I think her SOS sting may have been a net negative for her considering the email situation, Benghazi, and her involvement in Libya. If she stayed a Senator she wouldn't have much on experience as Sanders but no email scandal or Benghazi.

[Landslide Lyndon]

She was a better candidate at the end of the 2008 run (not entitled beginning) when she had to fight for her wins and had large wins despite trailing Obama over all. Her profile as a fighter suited her well. I still support her but would like to see more of the '2008 Ohio Hillary' back, if that's even possible?...

That profile worked because she were the underdog by then. It doesn't work when you're ahead by as much as she is now.

She never dealt with the FBI/Email thing in 2008 and her favorability numbers were much better. I think her SOS sting may have been a net negative for her considering the email situation, Benghazi, and her involvement in Libya. If she stayed a Senator she wouldn't have much on experience as Sanders but no email scandal or Benghazi.

Oh look, another Berniebot parroting right-wing talking points.
One could see a pattern there.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

If anything she's worse, but the party and media have her back more, and it's much more PC to attack a white man than a black man.

[psychprofessor]

Her campaigning is the same; her team and strategic decisions are so much better than 2008 that it is like night and day. At least once or twice a week in 2008 there were Hillary gaffes - sniper fire comments; Bill's SC meltdown; Shame on You; they re-shuffled their campaign after Super Tuesday...you just got a sense that her team was chaotic. They would bounce from message to message depending on the day of the week. This time she has been focused and determined; spent her money wisely (she was out of money and loaned her campaign last time) and put together a good ground game that probably saved her in Iowa and Nevada.

If you're looking for inspiration she doesn't provide that. She is common sense practical. Some people don't like that but in an age where politicians promise all things to all people, I actually like that she provides thoughtful responses to to questions about what she thinks she can get done.

[Blue3]

She's a better candidate, and more statesman-like.

(I supported Obama in 2008, and Hillary now)

[Santander]

I strongly disliked her then, and I strongly dislike her now.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

She's a better candidate, and more statesman-like.

(I supported Obama in 2008, and Hillary now)

Basically, this. Hillary was a worse candidate in 08, easily. But she's not a natural retail politician, something that she's acknowledged.