People honing in on “propaganda” as the driving force behind Clinton’s loss in swing states, which she’s currently droning on about endlessly as she crisscrosses the country on a bizarre, failing mission of redemption, seem to think she was a sure thing with no negatives. What they’re forgetting, among a ton of things:
1. She was never popular, in swing states or anywhere else.
2. She called them deplorable.
3. She never campaigned there later in the election, she spent an inordinate amount of time in CA, NY and MA, states where she was guaranteed wins and campaign funds.
4. Comey spoke. He may have blundered but who had the private server against federal guidelines, commingled personal and private correspondence, and bleached documents into oblivion? Hillary. And who compromised Loretta Lynch and the DOJ? Her unspeakable husband.
5. She took huge speaking fees, a bad look.
6. Her reason for running, never established beyond it was her turn.
7. What she had to offer? Not being Trump.
8. She lost on her own merit. She was not the perfect candidate before any propaganda was released.
9. What also seems to escape her minions is how offensive they are when they blame propaganda for her loss, implying people who voted against her (or sat the election out) had no legitimate, informed opinion of their own or were easily manipulated by Russia.
I am insulted by the murky, unproven Russia allegations. I take exception to things in her background the people insulting me aren’t even aware of or don’t care about: her support of Welfare Reform, her awful healthcare bill in the 90s, her vote on Iraq, her promoting regime change in Libya, how she carpetbagged to my state, her desperately scrounging for money for personal, political and Foundation(al) reasons, and much, much more.
She was not an appealing, sound candidate and the Russians need not have worried, if they ever did. I don’t buy it. She was self-defeating and didn’t need their assistance.