Hillary Clinton’s new book “What Happened” hit shelves Tuesday, and much of the media cheerleading that serenaded her presidential campaign returned, on cue.
Taxpayer-funded far-left outlet NPR cleared up for us the purpose of the book. It was written “out of exasperation,” NPR wrote.
“If Trump’s combative inauguration speech was ‘a howl from the white nationalist gut,’ as Clinton puts it, her book is a howl from the gut of Hermione Granger – the embattled cry of the hyper-competent woman who desperately wishes the world were a meritocracy.
“Clinton seems to have seized the opportunity to unleash that cry, uninterrupted and at length. It’s a book of exasperation, but for her, it just might be a book of liberation.”
The Los Angeles Times helpfully provided “7 talking points about Hillary Clinton’s new book, ‘What Happened,’ but did not explain why it should provide talking points about a book.
The Chicago Tribune led with, “New York crowd cheers Hillary Clinton at book signing; Trump spokeswoman has different reaction.”
“In the book, Clinton is unsparing in her assessment of the president,” the Trib wrote. “She says she considered saying to Trump, ‘Back up, you creep. Get away from me,’ when he loomed over her shoulder during a presidential debate. But Clinton, who has a reputation for deflecting blame for her failures, also said she takes ‘responsibility for all’ her campaign’s mistakes.”
Whatever she claims to take responsibility for, the theme that came through in most of the mainstream media reports – asserted by Hillary but not seriously critiqued – is the notion she lost because she is a woman.
She told CBS’ Jane Pauley as recently as this week sexism and misogyny brought her down.
“I started the campaign knowing that I would have to work extra hard to make women and men feel comfortable with the idea of a woman president,” she said. “It sure doesn’t fit into the stereotypes we all carry around in our head and a lot of the sexism and misogyny was in service of these attitudes – like, you know, we really don’t want a woman commander-in-chief.”
The Chicago Tribune had Clinton’s back.
“Clinton is by far at her most passionate in a chapter on women in politics, expressing outrage that even ‘good-hearted men who should know better dismiss the notion that sexism and outright misogyny’ still exist,” the Trib wrote.
“More than Russia spreading fake news, Comey’s letter, controversy over her email servers, paid speeches and even failed strategy – this (sexism) is what kept Clinton from winning,” according to a May article on the network’s news site.
“It was easy to see. Never in my lifetime has there been more misogyny on display than during the 2016 election. It was disgusting. The biggest offender, Donald Trump. The flat-out derisive language and more subtle ‘messaging’ were so prevalent that we began to accept it.”
What we began to accept was that the first woman to run for president as a major party candidate was losing votes because of her gender. Nate Silver said that being female does not seem to matter in terms of vote-getting or fundraising in American elections. Shortly after he published that data, he said, “We don’t know how much sexism is hurting Clinton’s campaign.”
And the results themselves were pesky things. Clinton carried the women’s vote but not by nearly as much as expected. Trump actually won among white women – by far, the largest group, and the group that should have, by Democrats’ calculations, been most aligned with her – with 53 percent of the vote.
“White women have a history of betraying their sisters,” wrote Quartz writer Marcie Blanco. “The pattern of white women choosing white men over women of color underscores some of the more insidious machinations of patriarchy and the racism ingrained in the feminist movement.”
But if you think in terms of identity politics – as she and her followers always do – then these are the excuses you use.