By 2016, Hillary had been exposed to the electorate for 24 years (First Lady, Senator, Sec’y of State) and was extremely unlikable.
Clinton was exposed several times as being corrupt (cattle futures deals, FBI files in the Lincoln Bedroom, Clinton Foundation).
Harris has largely been hidden away from the electorate the past 3-1/2 years because she’s a babbling idiot.
Harris doesn’t have the history of deep corruption that Clinton did.
Harris is also unlikable, but I think less unlikable than Clinton was.
Clinton was lily white and Harris is a slightly darker shade (kinda black, Jamaican, Indian — whatever they want her to be).
So, on balance, I think the comparison to Clinton fails on several counts.
Or alternative, the Deep State learned some lessons from the Hillary experience.
Their back stories are different, but both, according to anyone except Justice KJB, are universally considered ‘women.’ And that, used as a sole criteria, wasn’t enough for Hillary. Harris has received less talk of being corrupt, but hasn’t received nearly as much manufactured hype as Hillary, doesn’t benefit for positive vibes rubbed off from a popular spouse nor from impressions she must be somewhat moderate as a democrat from a southern state. If people know anything about her roots it’s ‘California’ where Democrats are fruits and nuts. Whereas a Republican who survived NYC roots suggests some moderate tendencies.