Attacks on President Donald Trump are commonplace — many depict him as this wildly bizarre, classless person occupying the Oval Office — but have critics fairly considered what a horror show a Hillary Clinton presidency would have been?
Why is this relevant, you ask? Well, because the liberal media are permanently afflicted with Trump derangement syndrome and won't quit feeding Clinton's narcissistic obsession with her defeat. Did the media fixate on Mitt Romney's defeat to Barack Obama and forever question him about it?
Clinton has been muttering about her loss since she recovered from the initial election-night shock, and it has been ugly. In early April — and probably earlier — she attributed her loss, in part, to misogyny. "It is fair to say ... certainly, misogyny played a role," she lamented at the Women in the World Summit in New York. "I mean, that just has to be admitted. ... Some people, women included, had real problems" with "the first woman president."
In early May, Clinton said she takes "personal responsibility" but then quickly contradicted herself by shifting blame to Russian interference in the election and then-FBI Director James Comey's release of a letter concerning the investigation into her emails.
Late in May, Clinton resurfaced at the Code Conference, denying she or her organization made any significant mistakes in the campaign and blaming many others and other factors for her loss. She said the Russian government orchestrated a vast disinformation campaign to discredit her, and she also blamed WikiLeaks' release of campaign chairman John Podesta's emails and speculated that Trump had colluded with Russians to disseminate this information. She lambasted the media for covering her email chicanery as if it were Pearl Harbor, calling it "the biggest nothingburger ever." And for good measure, she further blamed sexism, saying that criticism of her six-figure speeches to various groups was gender-driven.
She introduced a new twist, however, in pointing her finger at her formerly beloved Democratic Party. "I get the nomination. ... I inherit nothing from the Democratic Party," she huffed. The Democratic National Committee "was bankrupt. It was on the verge of insolvency. Its data was mediocre to poor, nonexistent, wrong," she continued. "I had to inject money into it to keep it going." She also threw her fellow Democrats under the bus, saying that they "are not good historically at building institutions," adding, "We've got to get a lot better." Clinton said her campaign was further crippled by the widespread assumption that she was going to win.
Her attack on the DNC won her no friends in the party. Andrew Therriault, former data science director for the DNC, tweeted (and later deleted) profanity at Clinton's convenient narrative: "DNC data folks: today's accusations are f—-ing bull——, and I hope you understand the good you did despite that nonsense." He added, "Private mode be damned, this is too important. I'm not willing to let my people be thrown under the bus without a fight."
Nor did her attacks on the media sit well with certain media mavens. MSNBC host Andrea Mitchell said Clinton's claim that Americans colluded with Russia to "weaponize information" against her is "drawing a conspiracy theory" against the Trump campaign without evidence.
Isn't it interesting that it took an insult from Clinton to get a liberal media person to admit there's no evidence of Trump collusion with Russia?
Clinton's right about one thing: The Democratic Party is to blame. That's because it nominated her to run for president and even colluded with her against Bernie Sanders to ensure it happened.
But the main takeaway from Clinton's pathetically endless election post-mortem is that while Trump critics dwell on his alleged instability and lack of class, Clinton has further proved herself to be worse in reality than Trump is perceived to be.
I'm not talking about policy matters, albeit Clinton would have been an unspeakable disaster in that realm as president, too. I mean on a personal level, where this woman who has held herself out as a public servant all these years is a self-absorbed political animal and shows little grace and even less class. I have no doubt that the stories we've read about how she mistreats people are true.
Cursory inspection of her many scapegoats reveals that even if any of her claims have merit, she is the primary reason for every one of them. She was the virtual head of the DNC she castigates. Her own gross negligence (and criminality, truth be told) led to the FBI investigation, without which Comey wouldn't have made any statement. She bought into and perpetuated the narrative that she was the prohibitive favorite in the campaign. She offered no change from, much less any explanation for, Obama's horrendous record. Her campaign platform was simply, "Never Trump." She arrogantly refused to campaign in Wisconsin, a blue state that ultimately swung to Trump, and she didn't devote nearly enough resources to the other blue states of Michigan and Pennsylvania. She invites attention to gender in constantly whining about it on the one hand while lecturing us for considering it on the other. And can we all just please admit that she forfeited standing to complain about mistreatment of women long ago when she enabled her world-class womanizing husband's serially decadent dalliances? Despite her reputation for brilliance and experience, she couldn't defeat political novice Donald Trump in their debates.
Hillary Clinton was a disastrous candidate and would have been a worse president. How long must we endure these public postelection couch sessions?