Hillary Clinton

Of Course She Does: Hillary Clinton Blames FBI, Russians for Loss to Trump

A poor craftsman blames his tools and a poor candidate blames anyone but herself.

|

Gage Skidmore, Flickr

I'd be bitter, too, if I were Hillary Clinton. Sure, she's had one of the grand, public careers of the past 50 years, serving as First Lady, senator from New York, and coming oh-so-close to occupying the Oval Office itself. But she's eaten a stable full of shit over the years, too, standing by her man even as she swore she warn't no Tammy Wynette, and then getting bigfooted by Barack Obama in 2008 and now, unfathomably, by Donald Trump.

Christ, she even won the popular vote over the lie-spouting billionaire who has no relevant experience to become what used to be known as "leader of the Free World." WTF, WTF, WTF!: You can just hear her shouting that at Huma Abedin, at her webmaster, at Robby Mook, at good ol' Bill (whom everybody has always loved more than her even though he'd be next to nothing without her), at the people who stuffed her into that SUV after she fainted from dehydration, exhaustion, pneumonia, or whatever the hell it was.

But most of all, she's shouting it at James Comey, the FBI director, and Vladimir Putin, the future co-regent of these United States. Why exactly did she lose to Donald Fucking Trump? Let's let her explain:

"Swing-state voters made their decisions in the final days breaking against me because of the F.B.I. letter from Director Comey," she said.

The Russians, she said, sought to "undermine our democracy" through cyberattacks on Democratic targets. She said the hacking into the Democratic National Committee and into the emails of her campaign chairman, John D. Podesta, were a result of Mr. Putin's "personal beef" against her, pointing to her accusation that Russia's 2011 parliamentary elections were rigged.

Read more at The New York Times (which has just put a good chunk of its office space on the rental market fwiw), via Taegan Goddard's Political Wire.

Well, sure, and the Boston Red Sox lost the 1986 World Series because of Bill Buckner's inability to touch his toes in Game 6, right? As a matter of fact, blaming Buckner for the Bosox choking is wrong. And so too is Clinton wrong when she blames her loss on Comey and Putin. That's not because they might not have had an effect on the outcome but because they were about the least of her troubles as a candidate. Of course she and every other Democrat were salivating over the notion that their nominee would face Donald Trump, a joke of a candidate with scandal sheet even longer than Mrs. Clinton's! For all the outraged talk of hacks and leaks, nobody on Clinton's side seemed overly concerned about the pussy-grabbing tape and Trump's partial tax returns being published in The New York Times; the real question, rightly, was whether they were real. The same goes for the material that came out about Clinton: The content matters more than the guys delivering it.

Clinton famously started the election season with more gold than Croesus, along with historically high disapproval ratings. Even worse, she was forced to run on her disastrous stint at State, where according to her own account, her big "smart power" win was destroying Libya for the next thousand or so years. And she was saddled with her long career, too, which was light on accomplishments as an actual elected official but long on scandals (many real, some imagined) that led even Democrats to dislike her in relatively high numbers. The indignity of being forced to reintroduce herself on yet another listening tour, woofing down Chipotle in an armored vehicle and humble-bragging that she hadn't driven a car in 20 or more years! Totally not her fault that nobody knew what she stood for this time around. Probably Comey's. And come to think of it, it must have been Comey, or maybe Putin, who pushed her to create a private server that would later become controversial not just among many of her aides but the general voting public.

Fair Use, Wikimedia

My point here is that it's easy to point to a single cause at the end of a long season and blame all your troubles on that one turn of events (as with so many life lessons, that one comes straight out of The Bad News Bears). As FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver (who has forgotten more about the 1986 season than I'll ever know about baseball in general) wrote, "Clinton would almost certainly be President-elect if the election had been held on Oct. 27 (day before Comey letter)…Comey had a large, measurable impact on the race. Harder to say with Russia/Wikileaks because it was drip-drip-drip."

Well, maybe—and let's defer the not-small question about whether Wikileaks' trove of emails came from Russians at all, much less the Russian government. But the better question to ask in any sort of explainer on Clinton's defeat is to ask why was Trump even within striking distance at all. As Clinton herself asked in September, "Why aren't I 50 points ahead?"

The answer is as simple as it is unutterable by either Hillary Clinton or those closest to her: She was always a terrible candidate who never deserved to win. She had lots of lines on her resume but very few real accomplishments. She regularly trashed free speech and technological innovation (no one who slammed Uber and the gig economy is going to win big in the 21st century); she was a hawk's hawk and Wall Street bailer-outer at the very moment that Bernie Sanders seemed kind of hip by dusting off old, worn-out policy ideas from the 1970s. The Dems will say that she ran into the truth-shredding buzzsaw that was Donald Trump, that nobody could have overcome Lyin' Donald with all his fake news and Soviet minions and compliant FBI directors and his stupid kids who somehow managed to be slightly more presentable than her own and for god's sake we had so many and so much better celebrities like Katy Perry and Queen Bey and on and on.

But the truths that Democrats and Clinton will never want to hear are at least two: No season is really ever lost in the 9th inning of the final game. And Clinton didn't succumb to Trump, she enabled him. Only a candidate who was distrusted and disliked by as many voters of all shapes and stripes and ideologies as Clinton was could have made this a close enough race for him to scratch the tightest of victories. Clinton isn't alone in this, of course: Trump also dispatched, what, hundreds of GOP contenders too, even more easily. Which suggests that the GOP, every bit as much as the Democrats, has a lot of thinking to do about why tried-and-true pols no longer can hustle enough people out to win at the polls any more.

NEXT: Obamacare's Subsidies to Cost Taxpayers an Extra $10 Billion in 2017

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. You people don’t understand, it was her turn! Someone had to have cheated!

    1. Sure, she’s had one of the grand, public careers of the past 50 years, serving as First Lady, senator from New York, and coming oh-so-close to occupying the Oval Office itself.

      Hardest hit- Nick Gillespie!

      1. The answer is as simple as it is unutterable by either Hillary Clinton or those closest to her: She was always a terrible candidate who never deserved to win.

        Yes, Nick writes an article trashing Hillary and that’s your takeaway?

    2. BREAKING NEWS!!!

      Now she lost because of a typo!!

      Clinton Staffer Made a Typo and Now Trump Is President

      One of those leaks, comprising John Podesta’s large cache of personal emails, had devastating implications for the Democratic campaign, and happened because of ? a typo.

      Hilarious.

      1. I hate when I forget to type the “il” on the front of “illegitimate” when pointing out a potentially disastrous hacking attempt.

        POOOOOOOTTTTIIIIINNNNN!!!!!!!

        1. And then say “Change your password”. If it was an illegitimate phishing attempt, why would you need to change your password?

          1. There was another guy who got a similar message and said “hey, it was late, and so I just clicked on the ‘change password’ button and entered something – I was so worn out I don’t even remember what now.”

            And this is the story he wants to go with. “I got a random email saying to change my password, so in a fog I went ‘huh’ and changed my password to something I don’t even remember now. Why didn’t the FBI save me?”

            No signs of general incompetence there, no sir-ee.

        2. Democrats also forget the “il” when they falsely call themselves “liberal”.

      2. Never forget, these are the same people who want to regulate every aspect of your life.

      3. If some one asks you about an email, and it’s good, you might well say it’s legitimate. If it isn’t, however, you don’t normally say it’s “illegitimate”. You say it’s a scam, or a hacking attempt, etc.

        Only a gullible tool would believe this story. No surprise the Dems are lapping it up.

      4. What is hilarious is that they are once again arguing that the typo allowed the truth to come out about Clinton, her campaign and the press’ collusion with them. That’s why they lost. People found out the truth and that wasn’t supposed to happen.

        “You only won because people see what a shitheel I am! No fair!”

    3. Someone did cheat: Clinton and CNN. They passed debate questions to her via Donna Brazile. Which seems similar to what happened in the Obama/Romney debate when Candy Crowley, immediately came to Obama’s defense that he called the Bengazi attack a terrorist attack in the Rose Garden, just before he sent Susan Rice on the news show tour to explain it was a the result of a video. And Mike Morell of the CIA helped draft the Benghazi talking points, as he is also the source of CIA claims the Russians’ hacked the DNC/Podesta. Which is just a diversion from the contents of those emails. Podesta/Clinton, by not informing people of getting debate questions, just shows they liked to cheat.

      There should be a investigation of cheating in the election, of CNN and who else was involved.

    4. La dauphine est ?nerv?e.

    5. I currently gain in the span of 6000-8000 bucks on monthly basis with my internet task. Everyone eager to work easy online tasks for some h every day from your house and gain solid income for doing it… Then this work is for you… http://www.ezycash5.com

  2. WTF, WTF, WTF!: You can just hear her shouting that at Huma Abedin, at her webmaster, at Robby Mook, at good ol’ Bill (whom everybody has always loved more than her even though he’d be next to nothing without her), at the people who stuffed her into that SUV after she fainted from dehydration, exhaustion, pneumonia, or whatever the hell it was.

    Is Nick hinting that he read SugarFree’s Hilary/Huma stories?

    1. and then getting bigfooted by Barack Obama in 2008

      At the very least, some of the STEVE SMITH stuff.

    2. Nick *is* SugarFree. He’s also Fist.

      1. Nah, he’s not cool enough to be either.

        But do pray The Jacket never gets its sleeves around SugarFree. I don’t think the world is ready for that. Or will ever be.

        1. Could be like Venom at that point. Even Spiderman couldn’t stop The Jacket + SugarFree. There will be stories, disgusting stories in the Daily Bugle until end times.

    3. Is Nick hinting that he read SugarFree’s Hilary/Huma stories?

      Doesn’t everyone? That chick at WaPo is certainly a fan.

      1. Whaaa? Who? Pls link, I wanna seeeeee!

          1. “Wait, are you, like, literally a demon like Alex Jones said?” Paul Ryan asked, mystified. Hillary shrugged and said, “Yeah. Kind of. I’m 30 percent demon. I’m like business in the front, demon in the back?” She showed them the small pocket in the back of the pants where she hid a compact green demon tail

            God damn it, man, I think you do have a good case for plagiarism here.

            I’ll admit, that was quite a fun read. Like….SugarFree Lite (Splenda?).

            1. 30% demon? Wouldn’t that have qualified her for most affirmative action positions?

              1. You need at least 33.4%.

          2. She’s muscling in on your turf, man.

  3. LOOK INO THE EYES OF MADNESS AND DESPAIR!

    1. When she dies, she could donate her body to Bodyworlds and they can make an exhibit from her “The Loser” where her bare musculature kneels with its arms outstretched in a plaintive “Why?!”

      1. The best part is that nobody would even slow down to look.

      2. I assume she is so riddled with corruption that she can’t be preserved. Which would be a relief since they can’t taxidermy her like Lenin and have her greasy skin–stuffed with straw and rat shit–become a veneration site that progressive women are obligated to visit at least one in their lives.

        1. How about encasing her in amber, so future generations can clone remnants of her DNA for some sort of Leadership Park attraction?

          1. I propose putting her in something like the velociraptor exhibit, but give it a glass ceiling. She’ll never escape then and the visitors will be safe.

            1. but give it a glass ceiling

              Ouch

              1. Show us on the doll where the patriarchy touched you.

              2. Imwithherassic Park!

            2. “glass ceiling”

              Jeez. I heard that snap way over here.

          2. I’d say we shouldn’t do that because “Nature finds a way” but to be honest I’m way more worried about the Julius Caesar and Genghis Khan exhibits.

          3. Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think whether or not they should!

      3. They can display her as a Lith that sacrificed everything for power and wound up with nothing.

  4. Don’t forget the stupid, stupid people. God they’re stupid. They’re unworthy of Clinton’s leadership, really.

  5. getting bigfooted by Barack Obama

    And yet she’s the one who ended up stalking the woods of Chappaqua like something out of a political cryptozooligist’s fancy.

  6. How does one “undermine democracy” by making more information available?

    1. Oh, that one is going to leave a mark.

    2. That stuff wasn’t meant for the peasantry. They don’t need insight into how their betters make decisions for them.

      1. You see, democracy works best with an uninformed electorate.

    3. It says more about Hillary Clinton that she equates undermining her chances at the presidency with undermining our democracy. Why, it’s almost as if she thinks that the only acceptable democratic outcome is the one in which she wins.

    4. Well, you see comrade, strategy not work in America. State news only work for socialist. In America, we try new way. We put KGB asset in suit and tie and put on TV. KGB asset also in every paper. Only say what party tells them to. Is shame, but can’t send Fox News and Breitbart writers to gulag or shoot in head. Sad, but not problem. America land of immigrants. Everybody different. Make racial divide with agitator. Only say what party tells them to. The Fox News is racist. Done. Then America slide into communism, comrade.

    5. Yeah, they seem to be claiming that democracy depends on voters not finding out how corrupt and/or incompetent the candidates and parties are. I don’t know if that’s going to work out well for them.

      Now maybe you could claim that it was unfair that the same didn’t happen to Trump, but he seemed happy enough to have all the dirt on him that people could find come out. The whole “pussy” thing lost him some endorsements, even, but he still won.

  7. “Russia responds to reports it hacked US election: Prove it”
    http://www.businessinsider.com…..mp-2016-12

    1. It kills me how “the media” are treating it like undeniable fact when it’s so obviously bullshit (fake news).

    2. And there are people out there, including I think a former ambassador, saying that they know for a fact that the DNC emails were leaked, not hacked, and that they know who the leaker is.

      1. Bush did it.

      2. Is there even any evidence at all of any “hacking” besides that phishing thing that got into Podesta’s email?

        If that’s really it, that’s some weak sauce.

        I don’t know that it’s completely obviously BS. I don’t claim to understand what the hell goes on in the world of international espionage. But there seems to be approximately zero evidence to support the idea that the Russian government did anything. Yet everyone is talking about it as if there was some super-spy hacking genius shit going on.

        1. The only thing I’ve seen is that a couple (like two) of the emails seem to have originated from Russia and Ukraine, respectively.

          Because

          1) everyone knows that the “source” of a hack is always exactly what it seems to be, and
          2) Ukraine and Russia are known these days for the closeness of their coordination efforts

          Snark aside, there does seem to be some sort of hacking attempt that happened, as happens to people every day. The assumption that it was the Russian government so far seems completely baseless.

    3. These people have gotten so hysterical the Russians are waving their dick in the Dems’ faces and calling them out.

      You have to think there are a lot of people in 3rd-World countries we’ve fucked over through the years that are looking at this and saying, “Serves you fuckers right.”

  8. The Clinton 2016 campaign will be remembered as one of the single most spectacular examples of hubris in American political history.

    That New York Times profile was insane. They turned away canvassers in Michigan and instead wanted to run up the score by allocating resources to Arizona and Georgia in the hopes they could get a blowout.

    Talk about taking your party’s base for granted.

  9. Excellent analysis Nick!

  10. The biggest relief for just about anyone in Washington anymore is that they no longer have to return Hillary Clinton’s calls. I wonder if even Huma is ghosting her.

    1. The biggest relief for me is that I don’t have to listen to Clinton and her flaks lie to me every day for the next four years. The last 24 years have been bad enough.

  11. OT:

    Miami-Dade Police Officer sentenced for shooting into a moving car in road rage incident. He also removed the gun from the car after it was impounded in the police lot. So throw tampering with evidence in there as well.

    Now, shooting into a moving car is typically a 20 year minimum sentence in Florida. Anyone want to guess, without clicking, what his sentence was?

    1. 30 days probation without supervision?

    2. 5 years probation, some fines and mandatory anger management classes?

      1. Close enough. 10 years probation.

        1. The prosecution sought five years in prison for Lang, but the judge decided to show Lang leniency.

          It’s good to be the King. But being King’s Man is pretty OK, too…

  12. I for one am really enjoying just how unhinged the left has become.

    I’m gonna get you Putin, for making Hillary lose!

    “Obama Vows Action Against Russia For Hacking DNC Emails”

    *yawwnnn*

    “U.S. intelligence officials believe that Putin may have directly ordered the hack, according to NBC.”

    According to NBC, not the intelligence officials. Got that?

    “The president would not confirm a recent CIA assessment that Russia directly intervened to help Trump, but he said that the hack had a definite effect on the election results.”

    Heh, imagine that.

    Don’t even read the comments. Here’s a gem of an example.

    Ronald Bruce Robinson
    I’m looking forward to what the master chess player has in store for TRUMPUTIN
    Like ? Reply ? 243 ? 15 hrs

    He’s talking about Obama, LOL!

    1. The media has moved into full Hearst/Pulitzer mode.

      Next will be “Remember the Campaign!” as they screech for a full scale invasion of Crimea.

      1. Remember the Campaign!

        Awesome.
        I’m gonna steal it.

    2. I’m trying to decide if that is sarcasm or not. The left has descended to the point that its actual positions are indistinguishable from satire at times.

      1. Don’t say the S word, you’ll summon Quixote (?)

    3. Fortunately for us, he doesn’t have the balls to do something drastic.

    4. The “master chess player” that apparently wasn’t able to do shit about Russia “hacking the election” until well after the votes had been counted.

    5. “Hacking E-mail” = “Podesta clicked on fake E-mail and gave away his password”

      That “attack” and “hacking” is the kind a 10 year old can do from his basement. It’s a testament to the incompetence of Democratic officials, not evidence of a sophisticated state actor.

  13. So.. how are the donations to her foundation? People were donating because it’s a worth charity, right?

    1. Just read somewhere that some very angry donors are expecting some splainin from the Hilldawg. I can fill in for her:

      “PUTIN! FBI! WHITE PEOPLE!”

    2. They dried up just like the vast wasteland of that evil twat’s meat flaps.

      “Charity” , you’re a funny guy… bribe factory is what it is.

  14. With a remotely balanced media, Hillary loses in a legit landslide. Take her ~5 closest states and flip them to Trump.

    At some point, the media might actually be harming the D’s in the long run by going so easy on them. They don’t have to worry about 1) scandalous behavior, 2) making coherent arguments, or 3) having a radical agenda that’s completely out of line with what normal people think. All of those things are exploited (or exaggerated) for Rs. All of them are papered over for Ds.

    A real media might force Ds to behave properly and promote candidates with more moderate sensibilities who can make logical arguments. [Note that most Rs are only a little bit better on the logical arguments front].

    1. One of the problems the legacy/MSM/whatever media has is that they are no longer gatekeepers. An argument has often been made that, if everything reporters knew about JFK had been made public, Nixon would have won in 1960. But, in those days, you maybe had a couple of dozen reporters who could sit on a lot of stuff either for partisan reasons or because they truly believed in “better angels.”

      Now, there’s way too many people looking for dirt for it to be kept secret. And, if, say Drudge puts it out there and ABC/CBS/NY/NBC etc., sit on then your second para is absolutely correct. But, if the MSM could restore themselves as gatekeepers, they might get away with being partisans.

      1. That could explain the mewling about Fake News (provided it wasn’t coming from themselves). They were banking on Commissar Hillary to shut it all down so they could become the gatekeepers once again.

        1. Yes, that’s basically why the media support Democrats: it’s simple financial self-interest.

          Overturning Citizens United and “campaign finance reform” Clinton-style amounts to giving select media corporations an effective monopoly on political speech.

          In addition, journalists tend to be poor relative for the amount of education they have received, have students loans, are afraid for their jobs, and have little job security, which is why they generally like the promises from Democrats for free health care, retirement benefits, student loan repayments, and higher education.

          Democrats and progressives and principled, they are simply greedy.

    2. They don’t seem too concerned about restoring their credibility either. They just want to double down on Fake News by pushing the evidence-free Russian Hacking story. The True Believers will buy it, but it’ll hurt them in the long run.

      1. They don’t care. The ship can take on more and more water and they still will never relent. Honestly, they don’t have to worry, until the mega corps who own the MSM, like Amazon and GE finally pull the plug.

  15. As far as the FBI/Comey angle of this, I really, really have a hard time feeling any sympathy for Hillary or for the DNC. Setting up the secret email server was her choice to make – no one forced her to do that – and no one forced her to run for President while being investigated. And, of course, no one forced the Democrats to nominate her. What angry liberals should be asking their party is this: “You made someone our nominee despite the fact that she was being investigated by the FBI, and that she was facing prison time, and it never occurred to you that that could become a problem during the election?”

    1. It always looked to me like her “poll numbers” crashed, simultaneously with the Comey announcement, because those were the first days of absentee voting data, in response to which the polls hurriedly adjusted their samples so they wouldn’t look like total idiots on election day. I don’t think it had much to do with Comey, he’s just their excuse, and the media doesn’t want to admit they resampled their polls to avoid looking like idiots.

      1. The polls numbers did crash simultaneously with the Comey announcement, which indicates that it was something that happened several days before Comey’s announcement.

        Let’s see – earlier that week it was announced that health insurance premiums are going to go up another 22% next year while deductibles are also going up, services are being cut, doctors are leaving networks, and insurers are abandoning the exchanges.

        Yup – definitely it was Comey’s announcement.

    2. Apparently the Democrats would rather have all this stuff come out after she was elected so they could have Watergate 2: Email Boogaloo on their hands.

    3. Setting up the secret email server was her choice to make – no one forced her to do that

      And no one forced her to lie about it repeatedly and ensure that it was still a scandal a year+ later.

      1. The server was set up to avoid FOI requests. Not only did it violate security laws, but the intention behind it was skirting the law. Glad it blew up on her.

    4. Being the cynic I am, I thought the second Comey announcement was actually designed to help Hillary viz.:

      he clears her the first time around; there are continued cries of wrong-doing which refuse to go away; Comey announces a second investigation then, just before the election, again declares her not guilty of any wrongdoing.

      1. I think Comey did everything he could to help her.

        The second announcement was his hand being forced by FBI staff who still had a shred of integrity.

    5. I don’t blame the rank and file so much as the Democratic ‘leadership’. Biden wasn’t running. Why was Sanders the only person to challenge Clinton in the primaries?

      1. The fact that you so quickly forgot Jim Webb kind of shows how popular a moderate Dem is with the base.

      2. Chafee, O’Malley and Webb never stood a chance. Even daring to challenge Clinton was risky, as it was “her turn.”

  16. Ah, the hurting from her butt!

    1. I’ll trot this out again. I put work into that shop, damn it, and people are going to see it!

      1. Photoshop Battles on Reddit did this one. Credit there to /u/ebilgenius. It was pre-election results though, so mine is more accurate now.

        Here’s the rest of that thread. Horrific stuff in there, folks. SugarFree could probably find an artistic partner for his stories.

  17. I’ll admit with her concession speech she had me fooled into believing she was a gracious loser. But I guess not. Does she have any redeeming qualities?

      1. None?

    1. Oh my goodness. You are funny! I spit coffee all over my screen

  18. From the responsible people at the NYT

    Donald J. Trump’s election has raised a question that few Americans ever imagined asking: Is our democracy in danger? With the possible exception of the Civil War, American democracy has never collapsed; indeed, no democracy as rich or as established as America’s ever has. Yet past stability is no guarantee of democracy’s future survival.

    We have spent two decades studying the emergence and breakdown of democracy in Europe and Latin America. Our research points to several warning signs.

    The clearest warning sign is the ascent of anti-democratic politicians into mainstream politics. Drawing on a close study of democracy’s demise in 1930s Europe, the eminent political scientist Juan J. Linz designed a “litmus test” to identify anti-democratic politicians. His indicators include a failure to reject violence unambiguously, a readiness to curtail rivals’ civil liberties, and the denial of the legitimacy of elected governments.

    1. His indicators include a failure to reject violence unambiguously, a readiness to curtail rivals’ civil liberties, and the denial of the legitimacy of elected governments.

      Just own-goaled yourself there.

      1. They’re oblivious to it. Absolutely oblivious.

        1. Who knew that you need to brush up on your facts in order to avoid publishing Fake News? Is that even the objective anymore?

    2. A readiness to curtail rivals’ civil liberties, and the denial of the legitimacy of elected governments.

      That does describe Clinton pretty well.

    3. …a failure to reject violence unambiguously, a readiness to curtail rivals’ civil liberties, and the denial of the legitimacy of elected governments.

      That sounds like Clinton, not Trump.

    4. LOL. The Civil War is only a “possible” exception. The NYT still isn’t sure, after all these years.

      1. Hey, they are an unbiased source. They don’t take sides.

    5. His indicators include a failure to reject violence unambiguously, a readiness to curtail rivals’ civil liberties, and the denial of the legitimacy of elected governments.

      Wow, the NYT is being pretty tough on Hillary here.

    6. indeed, no democracy as rich or as established as America’s ever has

      Umm, Athens might disagree with this.

      1. Rome, too.

      2. Well, given that American society is literally the richest in the history of the world, they are technically correct (the best kind of correct)!

        1. I kind of saw it that way, too – the only way the statement is true is if you regard the US as unique in the history of the world. Which renders it a bit of a non-statement, but there you go.

    7. Juan J. Linz designed a “litmus test” to identify anti-democratic politicians. His indicators include a failure to reject violence unambiguously, a readiness to curtail rivals’ civil liberties, and the denial of the legitimacy of elected governments.

      IOW the progressive’s playbook.

      1. Juan J. Linz was a German-born Spanish sociologist who eventually moved to Yale. He is about as credible or relevant as Pravda.

    8. Hey, at least they admitted that it was “possible” things may have been this bad during the Civil War, too!

  19. The Russians, she said, sought to “undermine our democracy”

    Maybe, but I don’t see clear evidence of that. It seems more like the Russians sought to undermine Hillary Clinton She acknowledges as much (kind of) when she says “were a result of Mr. Putin’s “personal beef” against her” but I suspect she gets the reason wrong when she says “pointing to her accusation that Russia’s 2011 parliamentary elections were rigged”.

    I’d be surprised if the Russian leadership were so think-skinned that they would undermine her presidential aspirations because of some political grandstanding back in 2011. It’s more likely that they thought Clinton would be bad for Russia’s interests. And maybe we should be concerned about that, to the extent that what is good for Russia is bad for the US (though that doesn’t have to be the case).

    But let’s be clear: Hillary Clinton != our democracy.

    1. In this case it’s more that what’s good for Russia is bad for Soros, and what’s good for Russia, Iran, and Syria is bad for the Saudi royal family. I don’t know that we Americans, as a people, have much skin in what’s going on in either Syria or Ukraine.

      1. I don’t know that we Americans, as a people, have much skin in what’s going on in either Syria or Ukraine.

        I agree in a narrow sense. In a broader sense the US government has made clear that it prefers that the territorial integrity of the Ukraine and other former Soviet states be respected and that Assad GTFO. Russia has visibly ignored those preferences, and in the larger geopolitical game, that can definitely diminish the influence of the US.

        This is where my libertarian instincts start to run into realpolitik, and I admit to not always being satisfied with the resolution. My first reaction is to say that the US government should try to make it as easy as possible for US citizens to freely exchange ideas, goods, and services with the people of other countries, defend the homeland and citizens abroad, and to otherwise tread lightly on the world stage. But looking back at the Cold War era, I think a strong case can be made that had the US not been an active counter-weight to the USSR, the world today would be far less friendly to capitalism (such as it is), relatively freer trade, and broadly liberal values, and that probably would not be a good thing. So I kind of want the US to be able to throw its weight around if it has to, but maybe just do so less often.

        1. In a broader sense the US government has made clear that it prefers that the territorial integrity of the Ukraine and other former Soviet states be respected and that Assad GTFO.

          This is true, but the US decided to take Ukraine’s side for no immediately visible reason, and the timing of Assad’s refusal to allow an oil pipeline to cross Syria from the Gulf with his becoming an evil dictator in need of removal is hard to ignore. It seems to me that feet were dug in because these decisions were made, not vice-versa.

          But looking back at the Cold War era, I think a strong case can be made that had the US not been an active counter-weight to the USSR, the world today would be far less friendly to capitalism

          I agree, but I think that counter-weight would have been a lot more effective passively applied. I acknowledge that that’s an easy thing to say in retrospect, but I firmly believe that the abject failure of Communism was inevitable, and had the US not tried to force capitalism on countries that didn’t want it I think more countries would have rejected Communism by now.

          1. To me Korea is almost an archetypal example of why this is difficult. I suspect letting South Korea fall to the Communists in the 50s would have been better for Korea-as-a-whole in the long run, as I suspect a unified People’s Republic of Korea would have given up on Communism by now. But I also understand that that’s not a call many people in 1951 were willing to make, the same way it is now very, very hard to just walk away from the people of Aleppo, even though in the long run that’s almost certainly what is best.

            1. I’m curious why you think a unified Korea would have thrown off communism when the North alone hasn’t.

              1. Because once something becomes part of your identity through struggle, holding onto it becomes an existential matter. In the current circumstance, if the government of the North gives up on Communism, it has no raison d’etre anymore, in much the same way that if Pakistan didn’t have Islam as the state religion, there would be no reason to maintain its separation from India.

                For a number of countries like Cuba or North Korea, holding onto Communism is part of their national identity in a perceived struggle against US imperialism. If the US had simply never involved itself in Korea, Korea might have been less inclined to look to China as an ally, and would have been less compelled to embrace Communism except insomuch as China directly compelled them. Which (in my theory, anyway), would probably serve to hasten their rejection of Communism in the long term.

                In short, my experience has universally been that people instinctively resist things that are being forced on them, even if when it’s what’s good for them.

                The last places in the world still clinging to Communism are those places whose adherence to Communism is symbolic of their rejection of US militarism, not of their rejection of free markets per se.

                Thus, IMHO the US engaging in a military campaign to spread democracy and free markets actually led people to resist those things. Same for Communism, adding that Communism has its own eventual destruction built right in.

                1. Interesting. It’s not clear to me how many common North Koreans tolerate communism because they think they are resisting US imperialism. From what I’ve read (from admittedly biased sources), it seems more like the people’s spirits are broken, not that there are many true believers. I’m not sure how expanding that to the whole peninsula would change things. But it’s tough to get a truly unbiased picture of what life is like there.

                  1. But it’s tough to get a truly unbiased picture of what life is like there.

                    This is, of course, the fundamental problem – it’s a bit of a black box that we can only speculate on.

                    My brother’s in-laws are Korean, and his father-in-law’s village was in the demilitarized zone and no longer exists. Several of them have been to North Korea more than once, and their take is that the military is quite happy with the situation, and that the peasantry spend their miserable lives dreaming of how to get into the military. It certainly doesn’t sound to me like there’s a lot of ideology going on. The attitude seems more like “Outside World – hasn’t been good for us. Keep it far away.”

                    I have my doubts that people’s spirits can be broken permanently, but people can be convinced that their shitty situation is the least shitty one they have available to them. This happens when people’s governments lie to them and restrict the flow of information, which is effective but not permanently sustainable. I think it would be less sustainable over the whole of Korea than over just the North.

                    But this comes back to my original point, that it’s all very easy in the abstract and with hindsight to go the Foundation-way and trust that it will work (which I do), but I understand why South Korea, for example, might balk at my proposed experiment.

                    1. But my fundamental axioms are these: 1) free markets can continue in perpetuity while Communism will always destroy itself; 2) people naturally resist that which is imposed upon them by force, even when what is being imposed is freedom. This is why the Foundation succeeds and the Empire fails.

                    2. free markets can continue in perpetuity while Communism will always destroy itself

                      I think that is probably true.

                      people naturally resist that which is imposed upon them by force, even when what is being imposed is freedom

                      I’m not quite as confident of that, though I hope you are right. But I think people have a remarkable ability to tolerate what they are used to, even if something better is possible.

                      I appreciate you sharing some perspective from people who have been to North Korea.

                    3. I think people have a remarkable ability to tolerate what they are used to, even if something better is possible.

                      No doubt. Things have to get pretty damn bad before most people will risk change. North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela being stellar examples.

                      What works in favor of free markets is their tendency to lead to peace and prosperity, such that once things do get that bad in Communist countries, they have an example to turn to. We’re seeing this in Eastern Europe now, and I’ll bet in 100 years Cuba and Venezuela are the most anti-Communist countries on the planet.

      2. In the case of the Ukraine, I would say we should at least have some interest in a democratic ally being invaded by an authoritarian neighbor. Maybe not enough to start WWIII over it, but automatically rolling over for Putin doesn’t seem healthy for the region.

        As for Syria, it would be helpful if there was actually some defined end goal intended by US intervention. As it is, it just seems like the administration is making up as they go along.

        1. I would say we should at least have some interest in a democratic ally being invaded by an authoritarian neighbor

          It’s not something to be automatically ignored, but the situation in Ukraine is not really that simple. To contrast Ukraine and Russia as “one is democratic and the other is authoritarian” is to side-step the fact that both countries have what could be described as a veneer of Democracy.

          Secondly, Ukraine has only been an “ally” of the US since its departure from the Soviet Union a mere 25 years ago. Russia’s not laying claim to all of Ukraine, only those parts of the Crimea that are majority Russian.

          Lastly, using the phrase “rolling over for Putin” in the context of US involvement takes as a given that the region belongs to the US to control and defend. Why would it?

          For Syria, I think the goal really was “get rid of Assad.” They just didn’t think it through, didn’t have a strategy for making that happen, and apparently didn’t think Russia was going to have anything to say about it. What’s especially dismaying is that they don’t seem to have re-thought anything at all in the last 4 years.

          1. They just didn’t think it through, didn’t have a strategy for making that happen, and apparently didn’t think Russia was going to have anything to say about it

            Like I said below, these “battles” were lost once the adversaries felt like they could defy US wishes/demands and tolerate the consequences. I should add, though, that this is probably inevitable. The US doesn’t even have the ability to omnipotent. There are limits to what our government can do to influence world affairs and sometimes the only option is to accept outcomes that you don’t like. That’s why acting tough and talking about “red lines” is so stupid unless 1) you know you can stop someone from stepping out of line or 2) you are prepared to smack them back if they do. Otherwise you just make yourself look less respectable.

            1. There are limits to what our government can do to influence world affairs and sometimes the only option is to accept outcomes that you don’t like

              Exactly this. It’s a very hard line to find, though. Those who want power always push for more, by nature. IMHO it was Titus pushing into Mesopotamia that overextended the Roman Empire and tilted it toward collapse. But what was Titus to do, look weak?

        2. In the case of the Ukraine, I would say we should at least have some interest in a democratic ally being invaded by an authoritarian neighbor

          That’s the realpolitik of it. I think some libertarians would say that we shouldn’t be an ally of the Ukraine any more than we are of any country. Our government should focus on making it as easy as possible for individual Americans to interact with individual Ukrainians, but mostly by removing barriers on our side and negotiating with Ukraine for them to do the same. Larger geopolitical alliances and maneuvering are something to be avoided. And that appeals to me, to a large a degree.

          But of course that’s not what we have, it’s not realistic to expect it to change any time soon, and it’s not immediately obvious that we’d really like the end result. So given the reality, I agree that it’s not great that Russia felt like it could do what it wanted. The key is, though, that since going to war was never an option, we lost as soon as Russia felt confident enough to flex its muscle. It actually doing so was just the wake up call.

          1. The key is, though, that since going to war was never an option, we lost as soon as Russia felt confident enough to flex its muscle.

            ^ This.

            You don’t pull out your knife if you’re not ready to get into a knife fight.

        3. In the case of the Ukraine, I would say we should at least have some interest in a democratic ally being invaded by an authoritarian neighbor.

          The US has never cared much about whether our allies were democratic or not; why start now?

    2. I don’t see clear evidence of that

      I don’t see any evidence of it whatsoever.

      I do know that there are people on the record that it was leaked, not hacked, and they know the leaker (needless to say, they didn’t give a name, for obvious reasons).

  20. the lie-spouting billionaire who has no relevant experience

    “Relevant experience?” WTF? Can you get any more statist, Nick?

    1. Satire written from her perspective. Duh.

  21. “I would be President if only no one had told the truth about me!”

  22. So much to untangle.

    First, it wasn’t just swing states, the blue wall crumbled. Most likely due to the fact that she didn’t set foot in WI for the general election and according to recent reports, didn’t listen to operatives on the ground in MI.

    Second, what evidence is there that a significant amount of voters in close states even read the Podesta emails let alone made a final decision off them?

    Third, what explains the recent Dem trouncings at the state levels and in Congress?

    1. All those are Putin’s fault too.

      It was always Bush’s fault. Now it’s Putin’s fault. Even Democrats are starting to see the projection.

  23. ” at good ol’ Bill (whom everybody has always loved more than her even though he’d be next to nothing without her)”

    Is this true? Idk enough behind the scenes of the Clintons, but Bill, like him or not, is one of the most charismatic leaders ever, not sure he needed Hillary.

    1. I think that’s supposed to be Hillary’s POV, not objective truth. I remember reports of Bill being concerned about her campaign in the waning days. I agree he’s certainly a more capable politician than the tone-deaf Hillary.

    2. And my understanding is that Bill questioned her campaign strategy but was ignored — maybe he should be the one yelling “WTF” at her.

      1. What he gets for trying to mansplain how to win the presidency.

    3. It’s the other way around. Bill never needed Hillary and she’d have no career without him. But she helped Bill out early with her connections and keeping him on something of a leash. But if Bill in some alternate reality had never met her and didn’t amount to anything, people who think Hillary would have risen anywhere in politics without his name are deluding themselves.

      1. She would have managed to get into a state legislature. And doubtless have been caught accepting bribes in a sting operation that would be remarkable for how vulgar and grasping her behavior was.

      2. If Bill and Hillary had never met, he likely would have been satisfied being an Arkansas governor, possibly even Senator, and perfectly happy chasing Mid-South tail, but I suspect he never would have run for President. I firmly believe she was his Lady MacBeth, constantly pushing him because she wanted access to those levers of power a hell of a lot more than he ever appeared to.

  24. and technological innovation (no one who slammed Uber and the gig economy is going to win big in the 21st century);

    I guess if we define “win big” as “the Presidency”, then I’ll agree with that.

    1. Gig Economy: i.e. day labor and piecework.

  25. “And Clinton didn’t succumb to Trump, she enabled him. Only a candidate who was distrusted and disliked by as many voters of all shapes and stripes and ideologies as Clinton was could have made this a close enough race for him to scratch the tightest of victories.”

    This is why I’m starting to believe that Trump is a lot smarter than he acts. He knew that running against a popular blank slate (Obama) in 2008 would never work. However, saw an opening in 2016, knowing that Hillary would probably get the nomination and that he could turn her unpopularity against her.

    1. I’ve been wrong about many things in life, and I have no trouble admitting how wrong I was about this election. Wrong. Wrong wrong wrong.

      I never believed that Hillary would lose, let alone Trump would win. But this whole thing highlighted just how awful Hillary was– awful in ways I never imagined. But the idea that Hillary lost because of an email scandal that didn’t get much play in the news beyond a few wonky articles where most people didn’t even understand the circumstances? Nah.

    2. Trump ran in 2012 and got nowhere fast. 2016 was just full of nothings and nobodies running. Everyone sucked much more than usual. Trump was somehow able to take advantage of that.

      1. Trump thought about running in 2012, but decided not to. In hindsight that might’ve been a missed opportunity IMO, as Obama was no longer a blank slate at the time and the economy was stagnating for four years.

      2. Trump didn’t actually run in 2012, he just talked about it. Like he did in 1988. It’s clear he can read the zeitgeist well enough to know when to strike, since the very first time he ran for any elective office he won the presidency. And the Republican field in 2016 was actually much stronger than in 2012, but the twist was the strong anti-establishment sentiment that no one else was able to tame to the extent that Trump did.

    3. Trump may be a lot of bad things: vulgar, obnoxious, dishonest, a crony capitalist, an economic protectionist, and a fan of Jeff Sessions’ civil liberties views. But the past 18 months have shown me that underestimating his intelligence is not a wise strategy.

      1. One indicator that I know about truly smart people in my life is that they know how to communicate their message and platform using the simplest words possible. We at least know that Trump has that down to a science.

      2. underestimating his intelligence is not a wise strategy.

        Yeah, when somebody makes you look like a fool over and over again, claiming they are the idiot in the room may be . . . misguided.

    4. Trump had no way of knowing Obama would be the nominee in 2008. Hillary was supposed to be it then, too.

      1. True. However, even as early as winter 2007 there was a lot of talk about Obama. 2016 also had the added advantage for Trump of coming off of 8 years of Democrat rule. In 2008, anyone remotely Republican or Conservative would have been a hard sell.

        1. I really think that 2012 was a missed opportunity for Trump. The very reason that Romney lost was because he was so bland, predictable, and uninspiring as a candidate, which led to many in the party’s base to not turn out that year. Love him or hate him, Trump is none of those three things. You either hurl at the sight of him or you look up to him as God-Emperor. He IMO would’ve had a shot at beating Obama for that very reason.

          1. Romney got a million more votes than McCain.

            1. Romney and McCain are both bland RINOs, and I find the latter to be more hawkish and even less appealing. Trump would’ve done far better than either in ’08 or ’12: he is a “bad” candidate in traditional terms but not in post-modern, new-paradigm terms. People that claimed back then that Obama was the social media president would not have been able to comprehend a Trump campaign, and would’ve been even less capable of fighting against it.

          2. I sometimes think Trump was a result of Romney’s trouncing, i.e., the feeling is Romney was too nice and got slammed for every little slip. Republicand wanted somebody bullish, and Trump embraced everything bad they said about him.

            1. ^This.

              Mitt was too “milktoast”. Accomplished Centrist Repub was portrayed by the media as “Hitler Jr” (47%, Binders full of women, Bain gave a woman cancer, Seamus on the roof of the car, he helped to shave some dude’s head 47 yrs ago in prep school, etc.) And, Mitt never fought back.

              Trump: “Wait ’til they get a load of me!”

      2. True, but he knew he needed a year in which a sizeable portion of the working class could be tempted away from the Dems, and Hillary or not 2008 was never going to be that year.

  26. This article was an extra large dish of chocolate ice cream with sprinkles. So orgasmically delicious

    1. But no cherry on top — where’s the alt-text?

      1. Imagine a “glass ceiling” slamming this face… forever.

  27. If the Podesta and other Democrat e-mails in WikiLeaks were not scandalous, there would have been no scandal even if everything they say about nefarious Russian cyberwarfare were true. Personally, I found nothing all that surprising in the e-mails. Why is it surprising that DNC leadership was in the tank for Hillary and thought Sanders was a nutty old man and that stoking anti-Semitism in flyover country might be a good tactic? Or that a Donna Brazille would use her connections at CNN to feed Hillary debate questions in advance? Or that media hacks would privately confess to being hacks when they asked senior Democrat operatives to review their “journalism” before publication?

    Have the Democrats ever considered that they could avoid an unfavorable announcement from the FBI director regarding a FBI investigation if they could manage to nominate a candidate who isn’t the object of an active FBI investigation? And have prospective Democrat candidates considered that they could avoid such unwelcome investigations if they simply obey the law?

    It is truly ironical that the same media that is breathlessly hyping a campaign against “fake news” is so busy generating fake news.

    1. The only lesson they are taking from all of this is don’t leave a paper or email trail.

    2. Why is it surprising that DNC leadership was in the tank for Hillary and thought Sanders was a nutty old man and that stoking anti-Semitism in flyover country might be a good tactic?

      I thought this one was particularly instructive in a “sign-of-a-guilty-conscience” kind of way.

      Because, as you say, it really should be no surprise at all that the DNC would actively work against the primary campaign of someone who is not a Democrat and pointedly described his campaign as an insurgency against the Democratic Party establishment.

      What this showed us is that their instinct is to lie, dissemble, and cover up even when they haven’t actually done anything wrong. Because how often does that happen that they would develop any method of just letting the truth come out?

  28. The Buckner play was responsible for that Red Sox loss because because of psycology, it confirmed to the players on the field that they were cursed and couldn’t win. And so went on to lose.

    Clinton’s excuses for losing on the other hand are all post hoc rationalizations. Up until midnight on election night she was still sure that she would win.

  29. Holy Crap! Gillespie should be writing for Salon.

    I’m not a Trump fan, but these over the top, broad brush Trump attacks are a bit much, no? The truth is bad enough without the exaggerations.

    1. Learn to recognize sarcasm.

      1. Thanks. I will re-read with that in mind and see if it makes more sense.

  30. good ol’ Bill (whom everybody has always loved more than her even though he’d be next to nothing without her)

    Some would say, with her, he’s next to nothing. See what I did there? Like, physically, standing next to her, is like being next to nothing!

    Too conceptual, not funny, and over laborious. Shit, it’s Friday. 5:00?…. Damn, hours to go….

    1. There’s nothing like a good joke. And that was nothing like a good joke.

  31. One of the founders of the company just ambushed me.

    She wanted to know how to set up the TV in the break room so that she could watch Obama’s press conference.

    1) Not my fucking job description.
    2) Only one person watches the fucking TV and it’s another of the founders. No, I don’t know how he gets the hidden cable box to turn on. Yes, he’s on vacation.

    And she got pissy when I said I was out of ideas after hitting “All On” on the cable-company supplied remote didn’t work and suggested she stream the conference from CNN’s website.

    1. Is watching on her computer just not enough?

      1. She’s taking some fucking course on Women changing the world from the JFK school of government. And apparently, part of my job is finding where she accidentally saved her term papers when she can’t find them.

        You could not find a more stereotypical example of a Boston Brahmin.

        In some ways I feel sorry for her. She’s very elderly, and I’m sure it’s good for her to keep herself occupied. Hell, I plan on doing stuff like that when I retire. But damn that woman really knows how to rub me the wrong way! Like Obama giving a press conference being a fucking emergency!!!!!

        1. Elderly privilege.

        2. He claims he told Putin to “quit it” back in September, but that the “leaks” to wiki had already occurred and there was nothing that could be done about it. They also saw “no further tampering” after that. I still do not hear any proof of this allegation. Apparently claims the Russian’s “hacked” into the DNC database, but that the information was then “leaked” by wiki.

          Personally I don’t see a problem with this as it made us a better informed electorate. Is that no what Democracy is all about?

        3. Find the paper and make random changes to it before turning it over.

    2. Get her to replace batteries in remote. If it works, she might feel sheepish enough to leave you alone for the rest of the day. If not, you gave her something to do, which she clearly lacks.

  32. I can’t decide who’s most dangerous – Trump, Clinton, Comey, Putin, Assad or ISIS.

      1. Readers of Reason are too smart to use puerile terms as 0bozo. Grow up man.

    1. That’s a trick right?
      What about Paul Ryan?

      I hear he hates old people.

    2. ISIS is more dangerous if you are living in territory they control. Assad is more dangerous if you are a rebel in Syria (though Putin probably is close behind). Clinton isn’t dangerous anymore. Putin is more dangerous if you live in Russia or one of the former Soviet states. Trump is more dangerous if you live in America. For some generic person in no place in particular, Trump and Putin are probably on par.

  33. Reuters:

    Obama says he told Putin to ‘cut it out’ on hacking and warned of consequences, didn’t see further tampering after that

    http://live.reuters.com/Event/Election_2016

    Is this guy for real?

  34. Clinton “served” as First Lady.

    Well there you go. Being married to someone qualifies you for their job. Next time I need a lawyer, or a surgeon, or an engineer, I’ll be sure to hire the wife of a lawyer/surgeon/engineer. Just common sense.

  35. I always felt that Hillary was outraged by the very necessity of having to campaign for the job at all. She really thinks that it belongs to her. A lot of her followers think that, too. When I speak to the ones I know personally about how they experienced election day, the unanimous reply is “I thought we had this in the bag”. They all just blanked out of their minds the notion that they could lose.

    And they were really, really looking forward to lording it over those stupid troglodytes. I very much doubt that they would have been very gracious winners.

    1. It’s attitudes like the one that you described that made me realize (after the election) just how much more healthy a Trump election & presidency is for American democracy than Hillary’s would’ve been. It shows that nobody can simply be president because it’s their turn; you have to actually be appealing to people in order to be elected. As horrified as some here may think of my belief, I think that Trump was far more of an appealing candidate than any other GOP nominee besides Rand Paul this year (low standards, but still), and his unorthodox campaign style was far more effective to the right voters than Hillary’s was.

    2. Leftists aren’t very gracious winners or losers.

      Someone here once pointed out regarding guns, that if the progressives could get their wish and make all the guns disappear, they wouldn’t sigh with relief that we are all now safe. They’d tell the stupid rednecks, nyah, nyah we took your toys.

    3. This may be a bit tangential, but for about the last six months my wife has gotten into watching a show called The Good Wife on Netflix that originally aired from 2009-May of this year. It’s basically a soap opera-ish series set against Chicago lawyers and Illinois Democratic politics. It’s entertaining enough, and I watch it with her, because she enjoys that, and besides, Julianna Margulies is easy on the eyes.

      What I’ve found rather nauseating is the constant reverential invocation of Hillary Clinton’s name in the series (complete with guest slots for such Democratic fixtures as Donna Brazile and Vernon Jordan) and the arrogant assumption that HRC’s upcoming presidency was inevitable. What unbelievable Hollywood hubris!

      Since the election, however, my nausea has been replaced by giddy schadenfreude at the expense of these fuckers, and I’ve enjoyed the show a lot more. It is absolutely hilarious in retrospect. Of course, it irritates my wife when I interrupt our viewing with hearty laughs of derision, but I just can’t help it.

  36. Fun question time – was it Russia who killed Clinton’s chances, or the actual content of the emails that were leaked?

    Not even Putin can hack voting machines that don’t have internet access. So at worst, he influenced the election by exposing Clinton’s corruption and the DNC’s attempts to protect her.

    The democrats WANTED Clinton to face Trump. I mean this was mentioned literally in their freaking emails! Their entire election strategy was centered around encouraging Donald Trump to win the GOP primary! Russia is super guilty of leaking a bunch of stuff that public already guessed. Clinton was not some widely respected, mother Teresa figure who was undone by a earth shattering revelations about her.

    1. The democrats WANTED Clinton to face Trump.

      This, in my mind, was the Democrats’ and the media’s single biggest downfall, because they thought that they could play the British tabloid strategy of “build up and tear down” with him. It’s comical just how badly they failed at doing so, and they continually played into his hands by giving him free media coverage and publicity.

      1. Trump never lost sight of the fact that media is the enemy. They will never like him or give him a break, so trying to make nice would never work. Fighting them head on “could” fail, but making nice is sure to fail.

  37. it occurs to me that Shrillary was strongly identified with her party’s establishment, while Trump wasn’t with his.

    1. People are tired of the status quo. Trump really was the only viable candidate who could credibly say, I’m an outsider. (well ok, Fiorina and Carson are outsiders but never got traction). Hillary is the poster child for insider corruption and politicians enriching themselves.

  38. Don’t despair Hills, there’s always 2020.

    1. I’ve heard that said seriously by her supporters. They need to let it go.

      1. Honestly, it might be a good thing – her health problems will be even worse and there will probably be even more skeletons tumbling out of her closet, so she would be a definite loser. The cherry on top would be if the Republicans ran a libertarian-leaning candidate.

  39. Not My Fault!

    If the Russians are so clever just think of the havoc they’ve wreaked on the Pentagon, CIA and NSA.

  40. “Clinton would almost certainly be President-elect if the election had been held on Oct. 27 (day before Comey letter) . . .”

    She’d sure lose if the election were held NOW!

  41. She has a legit case. It was very close and Comey broke precedent by saying some BS about “new emails” that weren’t really new and didn’t have anything of value in them. Also the Russians, as both the FBI and CIA have states, were almost certainly behinds democrat only hacks released to wiki leaks. She lost by I tiny fraction and the author of this story writes a wall of text and ignores these two facts that led to her plummet of 5% in the polls and more in some states.

    1. I’m not sure you pass the Turing test but what the hell.
      The author specifically mentions, via Silver, the two things you state he doesn’t mention in the article so what the fuck are you talking about?
      I can tell by the wall of text jab that you prefer brevity so in that spirit I bid you a hearty fuck off.

    2. The only thing you’ve devastated is your credibility.

  42. The Dems could have backed legalization. That would stop the Go-Pee from branding foreigners with the “moral turpitude” tarbrush and deporting them back to dictatorships eager to execute them for victimless “crimes.” But the important thing in their platform was to help Red China throttle our ability to generate electricity and wean off of Mohammedan oil.
    If Hillary cares about voters, she can nobly ask the electors to cast their votes for Gary Johnson. Roger MacBride xast one such vote for Hospers & Nathan in 1972, and the Supreme Court within a month decided Roe v. Wade in favor of women having individual rights.
    Those would be Jeffersonian electors–cutting taxes and Making America Free Again!

  43. Goddamn! I’ve never read such an entertaining example of sarcastic veracity! You win the internet today, Gillespie!

    The salty tears of the left are delicious, indeed.

  44. Hillary really does need to look in the mirror in order to ascertain the real reason she lost. Reason magazine needs a closer look at her as well: Bill “would be next to nothing without her”? The reverse is true–Hillary would be next to nothing without Bill, who had much more political talent. She almost never did press conferences because she didn’t want to answer questions about her private server, her foundation, Benghazi etc. Her whole campaign focused on attacking Trump’s character, and she never gave the American public a compelling reason to vote for her–nor did her campaign offer a compelling message (I’m with her?) Unlike Bill, she never came across as someone who genuinely cared about the ordinary American; in fact, she came across as fake and elitist, an introvert who never really felt at home in front of people the way Bill and The Donald do.

    1. She lost because ecological national socialism is a religious con game, not climate science. This election was the equivalent of “The Great Disappointment” Millerites experienced when their predictions of the mythical Jesus descending in the Rapture of Armageddon and End Times failed to materialize. Data manipulable by their brainwashees shows the present got hotter and the past got colder. Millerite calculations are like that… but reality isn’t.

      1. Agile Cyborg will rape you like STEVE SMITH for trying to rip off his poasting style.

  45. It’s interesting how the Democrats managed to frame “Democrats use free E-mail systems, refuse to use even the security that those systems offer, are so stupid that they fall for phishing attempts, and keep entire mailboxes full of embarrassing, crony capitalist, corrupt, and inflammatory materials” into “the mighty Russian secret service and its evil overlord used their spy superpowers to subvert our democracy by misleading American voters with their propaganda”.

    The only thing that this whole episode shows us again is that Podesta and Clinton should not be let anywhere near secret government information because they are obviously too stupid and incompetent to protect it.

    As I was saying before: we should thank the Russians for releasing this information.

  46. And who do the open borders morons like Gillespie at unReason blame?

  47. The constant psycho-splaining is very triggering. We are witnessing a sociopath realize that she is becoming completely irrelevant, and has only a future of tabloid filler to look forward to. That, and nurturing her talentless daughter’s career as a scion beyond Trump/Trudeau level.

  48. ‘Christ, she even won the popular vote over the lie-spouting billionaire who has no relevant experience to become what used to be known as “leader of the Free World.”

    False.

    If you add up the percentage of eligible voters that did not vote, Trump voters. Johnson voters, Jill stein voters, people who wrote in Bernie Sanders, and people who voted for Vermin Supreme. Hillary got a very small percentage of the vote. The popular vote she did not win.

  49. HRC is a typical Leftist spoiled child. Nothing to see here …. move along.

  50. It seems that every time things don’t go her way, she says the system is rigged.

  51. Elizabeth. true that Janice`s comment is unimaginable… last saturday I got a top of the range Mazda MX-5 since I been bringin in $9155 this last 5 weeks and-just over, 10k this past month. it’s certainly the most-financialy rewarding I’ve ever had. I began this 10-months ago and almost straight away got at least $69, per-hr. browse this site

    =======================> http://www.homejobs7.com

  52. Elizabeth. true that Janice`s comment is unimaginable… last saturday I got a top of the range Mazda MX-5 since I been bringin in $9155 this last 5 weeks and-just over, 10k this past month. it’s certainly the most-financialy rewarding I’ve ever had. I began this 10-months ago and almost straight away got at least $69, per-hr. browse this site

    =======================> http://www.homejobs7.com

  53. Why swear, Nick? You put off people such as Christians and conservatives as well as this libertarian – such unnecessary crudity detracts from your message…

    Swearing suggests that you’re such a poor writer that you need to swear to emphasize something. But are you? This is definitely not true.

    As President Obama said to Putin: Just cut it out…

  54. If you have some free time on your hands, why not make some extra cash every week? Follow this link for more information……………………
    http://www.buzzjob6.com

  55. The same goes for the material that came out about Clinton: The content matters more than the guys delivering it.

    Then why, every time she was asked about one of the leaked emails, did she avoid answering by saying the emails were hacked by the Russians and not answering the actual question?

  56. The same goes for the material that came out about Clinton: The content matters more than the guys delivering it.

    Then why, every time she was asked about one of the leaked emails, did she avoid answering by saying the emails were hacked by the Russians and not answering the actual question?

  57. May have been posted already but just in case:

    HERE IS A PARTIAL LIST OF LIBERAL EXCUSES FOR THEIR PUNISHING DEFEAT:

    ?Putin?
    The alt-righ
    t?Voter suppression
    ?James Comey?
    The Koch brothers
    ?Racism?
    Sexism
    ?FOX News?
    WIKI LEAKS?
    Xenophobia
    ?Homophobia
    ?Rush Limbaugh

    ?Everything but THEIR BANKRUPT IDEOLOGY AND THEIR CROOKED CANDIDATE.
    Personal accountability: Liberals never heard of it…

  58. bad Moment For Hillary Clinton but she is a nice politician……..
    http://sabonclick.com

  59. Look at those mentally deranged eyes. They belong in a padded room.

  60. Look at those mentally deranged eyes. They belong in a padded room.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.