Every top politician's goal is ambition at least in part, I think we're all clear on that. And I'm not saying she's an idealist like, say, Jimmy Carter (which didn't exactly make him a better president, anyway). But, unlike apparently a lot of people and certainly nearly all Republicans, I do think she genuinely wants to make a difference for people - and even in her 'first woman president ever' goal that you mention, it's not only about her but also about all American women.

I'd say they were that good, just not necessarily because of Clinton - Democrats making the usual mistake of failing to properly distinguish between which good and bad things can be fairly attributed to a president, and which are broader trends outside their power. The Republicans do the same with Reagan, of course.

It's true her career was made possible by her husband - she has accomplishments all her own, but those would never have sufficed to take her to the White House. Not because she's not competent for it - I think she is - but because she's really not that good a campaigner, and lacks the ability to make herself popular.

I certainly agree with that.

And that.

Yep. I find it interesting that you're now suggesting you were happy about the Obama years, though? But in all seriousness, I've never understood this view that Congress deadlocking is a good thing. It has already been deadlocking for decades to greater or lesser degrees, resulting in woefully delayed infrastructure investments, an utter inability to seriously tackle the budget and entitlements, and the list goes on.