Hillary Still Can’t Figure Out The Election

Hillary Clinton finally came out of hiding and made an appearance at Women for Women that was held in New York.  She continued to repeat the same old excuses on why she lost the election.

  • She said she was on the way to winning until FBI Director Jim Comey interjected himself into the race in late October.  According to the former Secretary of State this caused people that were inclined to vote for her to pause and reconsider.
  • She then pointed to the Wikileaks release of emails that were from John Podesta’s account.
  • She also blamed the Russian issue for part of her inability to win.
  • Finally she agree with moderator Christine Amanpour that she was a victim of mysogny and that many people would not vote for here because she was a woman.

I have looked at all of these excuses and we have all heard most of them before.  It is another exercise in putting the blame on everyone else but her and her campaign.  She tried to ameliorate her blame game by “taking absolute personal responsibility” for losing the election but did not elaborate on what responsibility that entailed.

I don’t think that Jim Comey had the influence on the election that Ms. Clinton and many Democrats like to think.  He is their favorite scapegoat (Nancy Pelosi can give you a definition of a scapegoat) and allows them to avoid owning up the shortcoming of the campaign.  Comey was always in a difficult position.  If he ignored the issues that brought the FBI into the issue he would be accused by Republicans of giving Ms. Clinton preferential treatment because of her position.  If he pressed the issue, which he ultimately did, the Democrats would do what they are doing now and blame him for the loss.  Remember, this is the same FBI Director that the Democrats praised and Republicans excoriated when he gave his famous speech in which he named all the reasons for indicting Ms. Clinton but then failed to do so.

The real issue in all of this is that Ms. Clinton decided to create and house a private e-mail server at her home.  This server handled all of her e-mails while she was the Secretary of State.  She claimed it was for personal e-mails only but evidence showed that department e-mails went through the server as well.  She defended it as a way to communicate with her husband.  That was news to Bill Clinton.  On March 15, 2015 it was reported by the former President’s spokesman, Matt McKenna, that Mr. Clinton had only written two e-mails in his life and both were while he was President.  When you contrast that with what Ms. Clinton said “The server contains personal communications from my husband and me” and you have to wonder what she was thinking.

Ms. Clinton and her campaign tired to deflect criticism on the server by claiming that previous Secretaries of State had private e-mail addresses.  The difference is they were held on a public server like Google or Yahoo.  The e-mails they had on those servers were strictly personal and the business ones were on the department server at the State Department.

When subpoenaed by the Congress and a Grand Jury  Clinton and the campaign simply ignored them and relied on friends in the Justice Department to ensure that nobody enforced the subpoenas and for the Obama Justice Department to put out misleading information that Ms. Clinton was not the subject of a criminal investigation.  The New York Times published a very informative article on this subject this week.  In the end the Clinton’s  decided the beset course of action was to have the server “bleached” so that no data could be recovered by any investigative body.  When pressed on that she sarcastically said before the House Government Affairs Committee “did someone clean it with a rag?”.  If there was nothing on the server why not turn it over to the FBI and let them determine if their was any evidence of criminal activity?

Once again the e-mails of John Podesta were used as another excuse.  Lets get the facts straight.  Nobody hacked his e-mails, the intruders (lets assume they are Russians) pfished by sending him an e-mail requesting he click a link and change his password.  He had campaign aide Sara Latham send that e-mail to the IT aide, Charles Delavan, asking if it was “legitimate”.  Apparently Mr. Delavan misspelled “illegitimate” and spell check corrected it to “legitimate” and recommended that Mr. Podesta change his password.  He sent a valid Google link.  But in all this back and forth the e-mail was sent to another campaign aide, Milia Fisher, who had access to Mr. Podesta’s account, directing her to change the password.  Someone, either Fisher, Latham or Podesta, clicked the Bitly link embedded in the pfishers e-mail and complied with the prompt to change the password.  Voila, the bad guys had access to his account and the rest is history.

Now I should point out that all of us get these pfishing attempts on a daily basis.  These Russians, known to the FBI as “The Dudes” and been attacking both political parties for quite some time and well before Donald Trump was given a snowball’s chance of winning the Republican nomination let alone the Presidency.

So in summary, it was a typo that let the bad guys in and they were doing it well before Trump as on anyone’s radar as a potential winner.

This allows us to segue to the Russian connection.  I am fully confident that the Russians were trying to influence the elections in the United States.  They do it in other nations as well.  I also know that we, the United States, do the exact same think around the world.  Sometimes we do it clandestinely and sometimes we are pretty open about it.  Obama sent government money to Israel in an attempt to defeat Netanyahu.  He was unsuccessful but tried.  We sided with a candidate in Russian elections and secretly funneled money and resources to try and defeat Putin.

I am equally confident in my mind that this did not swing the election.  If the Democrats had thought this would change the results they would have spoken out much earlier when they knew what Russian computer hackers were doing.  President Obama admitted to sending a message to President Putin by telling him “cut it out” and sending the Russians a message that “we could do stuff to you’ and “Some of it we will do in a way they will know, but not everybody will.”

I am not going to dignify the last excuse, that she may have lost because she is a woman.  This had been Christine Amapour’s thought process on way to many subjects.  Women make up a majority of the population and voters so if this was the issue she should have won.

What Ms. Clinton still has not acknowledged is that her campaign had a flawed message.  She simply did not attract people to vote for her.  She, along with Trump, had high negatives with the American public.  They did not trust her and believed she had lied on many issues.  The Democrats had focused their campaign on the white liberal elites and the minority vote.  They were convinced this was the Obama winning strategy and they could duplicate it.  But there was a big difference.  Obama gave voters a reason to vote for him.  He offered them “Change and Hope.”  After eight years of Obama the voting public and grown tired of his policies and all she could offer was more of the same.  Additionally – nobody likes to bring up the racial aspect of politics – the black vote came out in record numbers to support a black nominee and expecting them to respond in the same numbers to a white woman was simply folly.

We have all looked at electoral maps and simply put the Democrat problem is they are clustered on the coasts and in urban districts.  That leaves them with a razor thin margin in swing states like Ohio, North Carolina and Florida.  They did not get enough of the minority vote out in these three key states and suffered losses in minority districts in Pennsylvania and Michigan.  Clinton also lost Wisconsin and Iowa.

The other major problem for Clinton was how both she and her campaign viewed people in many of these states.  She called them “deplorable” and that turned off many of the voters.  When polled this comment came up over and over.  Another fact that came up in the polls was that nobody knew what she stood for other than opposing Trump.  I have always maintained that you have to give people a reason to vote for you and you simply cannot just be against your opponent.  Trump, for all of his many flaws, honed his message in the final three weeks of the campaign and hammered away at bringing jobs back to middle America and stopping the outflow of manufacturing that was so damaging to the Midwest states.

Hillary Clinton never understood these issue and in my mind still does not.  The far left in this country does not get this either and they want to push the country further left and increase government .  That is not a prescription for winning elections.  People want government but not an intrusive government .  They want government that serves them and not the government.  That means smaller government and not bigger.

I hope that the next time Ms. Clinton is asked about why she lost an election that she thought she was going to win in a cakewalk she can face the truth.  She should simply admit that she did not connect with the American people and ignored the people in the suburbs and small towns while catering to the urban people and Wall Street.




Leave a Reply