The 2016 presidential election was a remarkable moment in American political journalism, the culmination of an extraordinary decade.
The Clintons, whose fortunes had been cemented by the power of their campaign and their close relationship with the president, became the new political gods, the new presidents, the ultimate political dynasty.
That the Clintons could win so convincingly on the first ballot and remain competitive on Election Day was unprecedented, even if the election results, as they were, weren’t.
“The Clinton dynasty is a real thing,” said Mark Blumenthal, a political writer who served as a national security adviser to President Bill Clinton.
“It’s something to think about.
There’s a real dynamic going on here.
You’ve got this kind of dynastic politics, where the Clintons have managed to be this dominant force, and that’s because they’ve had their own party to run and their own White House, which is very important.
They can make a big difference in a party’s fortunes.”
For all the attention given to the presidential race, however, there were far more pressing issues on the ground, and the Clintons weren’t the only people who had to deal with them.
There were a lot of people who wanted to be the president of the United States.
The US had entered a second wave of the post-Cold War economic boom, a boom that began in the early 2000s.
There was a boom in construction and manufacturing jobs, and as that started to fade, a wave of immigrants and people fleeing conflict and repression came to the US, many from the Middle East and Africa.
Clinton was in charge, and he was running for re-election.
His opponents, of course, were the Republicans.
But Clinton also faced pressure from a number of influential Republicans.
For example, the Republican National Committee was heavily invested in the Trump campaign, and was working closely with Trump on fundraising, outreach, and even polling.
And a number were worried about the damage that a Clinton presidency would do to the country, especially if her foreign policy would be seen as overly interventionist.
In this post-election climate, Clinton is expected to become the first woman president, the first Democrat to win a general election since Eleanor Roosevelt in 1928, and her husband is also expected to win re-nomination.
So it was hardly surprising that the Clinton campaign decided to turn to a new platform to boost its legitimacy.
It was called the 2020 Democratic Platform, and it was designed to offer a new perspective to voters and politicians.
“The 2020 Democratic platform represents a new way to talk about the country and its future,” said Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta.
“We’re bringing our perspective to the table, which includes people’s concerns, challenges, and hopes and dreams, not just our own.
We want to create an inclusive vision of the future.”
That’s not to say the 2020 platform isn’t very progressive, said Michael Bork, a professor of political science at American University.
“[It’s] definitely a more comprehensive vision than some of the things that were presented at the convention,” Bork said.
It was not the first time that the 2020 campaign had tried to create a platform to connect with voters.
Bork and others said that the first presidential platform of the modern era was published by John F. Kennedy’s administration in 1960.
Then-President Richard Nixon’s administration published its own platform in 1972.
But the 2020 version of the 2020 Platform, which the Clinton team had released to supporters, focused on issues such as the economy, jobs, climate change, and social justice, as well as other issues that would have been a focus for Clinton’s campaign.
Among those issues were the Keystone XL pipeline, which Clinton had called for in the campaign, as he was the only Republican to endorse the project in his campaign.
In a statement to reporters after the platform was released, Podesta said the goal was to create “a platform that reflects our priorities, which are the common good, social justice and prosperity for all.”
Bark said that it’s a laudable goal, but it’s not the kind of platform that Clinton should have been making when she was the presumptive Democratic nominee.
“It was the first campaign that I think that they were going to make the case to the American people, to the nation, that this was the future,” he said.
Bork said that this campaign could have easily focused on these other issues, such as gun control and foreign policy, that had been a focal point of the campaign.
“They would have said, ‘Look, we’re going to focus on the economy and foreign policies,’ ” he said, referring to the 2016 Democratic convention.
This was a platform that had to be able to appeal to the voters, not the media, not other people, and not just the party,