There are people who kind of gravitate towards running politics based on new ideas and issues, and that was what the secret was for Clinton.
Democrats fell in love with the idea that winning elections was a matter of talking to voters about the one issue we think impacts them, instead of our plan to move the country forward as a whole.
What I've said in the past is that I want the Labour Party to approach this matter on the basis of unity.
I got elected on a commitment to Canadians that I was going to make growth work for everyone. I was going to focus on the middle class and those working hard to join it. I was going to make sure that the people who felt that the growth in the economy had left them behind would be included. That's similar to the promise that got Trump elected. Now, our approaches to the same problems are somewhat different. But in my conversations with him, we've very much been able to agree that we want to help the citizens of our countries in tangible ways.
I happen to agree with many of President Obama's policies, but in our system, it is often as important how you do something as what you do.
I will deal with the politicians in a political way and with the nonpoliticians in a nonpolitical way.
I am, as many people are, inspired by Jack Layton's legacy and the way that he approached politics.
What is obvious is that Donald Trump is comfortable with an approach to running his presidency based on what worked for him in the private sector.
There is much to dislike about President Obama's approach to the financial crisis. But opposition, it seems, will have to come from somewhere other than conservatism. The party out of power is also a party out of touch.
My view on politics is much more grassroots oriented; it's not old boy network oriented, so I tend to, you know, come at it a little bit stronger, a little bit more street-wise, if you will. That's rubbed some feathers the wrong way.
Prime ministers with full majority have behaved differently from each other. Jawaharlal Nehru was a leader who ruled by consensus while Indira Gandhi was considered more unilateral in her approach.
Nothing so marks Republicans as their genius for organizing, and their take-no-prisoners approach to problems that Democrats leave to chance.
Trump's supporters have taken over the Republican Party - not just because they like him but because they believe his approach to politics has been consistently vindicated.
If you are a minority or an interest group, the Democrats will hold the debate at your house. Whereas Republicans take a slightly different approach: they have a big tent - you're just not allowed in it.
Revolutionary in my ideas, liberal in my objectives and conservative in my methods.
The Obama administration was not in a position where they were seeking legislation. I don't know yet how President Trump intends to approach this. I know he spoke about it during the campaign. I know he cares about it, but it's premature for me to say.
Campaigning and governing are two very different activities, and there is no reason to assume that how Trump conducted the former will dictate how he approaches the latter.
Remember, this is a binary choice. It's going to be the approach that Donald Trump takes or the approach that Hillary Clinton takes, not some other approach. And the Clinton approach is just a completely unacceptable one, it's an unlawful one.
I believe President Obama loves this country and wakes up every morning trying to do what is best for our nation, even if I disagree with his approach.
