Hillary Clinton, Great Seller of Bridges, Decides to Burn a Few

Poor Hillary Clinton. She has surrounded herself with slavering sycophants for so long that she actually believes in her own mythology. While the vast majority of the electorate (half of which admirably did not vote) was sharp enough to see through her fraudulent, multi-billion dollar advertising campaign, Hillary was gullible enough to have been taken in by it. There is a strain of genuine pathos at work here; the woman is hopelessly deluded. She is totally convinced, for example, that she was the most qualified presidential candidate in the history of the world. Which means that her loss to Donald Trump—the least qualified presidential candidate in the history of the world—can only be understood in the context of a global anti-Hillary conspiracy.

Almost everyone was in on the plot, as Hillary made plain during her most recent public appearance at the “Code Conference” in California. It was her nuttiest performance yet—no mean feat. Amid her bellyaching about all the usual suspects (Vladimir Putin—and the dirty Russkies more generally—WikiLeaks, James Comey, Bernie Sanders, the “basket of deplorables,” the right-wing media, misogyny, the Electoral College … the list goes on), the Butcher of Libya added a few more names to the laundry list of people and entities that cost her her election, some of which you may find surprising.

They include: “thousands of Russian agents,” who authored all of those hugely influential fake news stories; Facebook, which neglected to censor said hugely influential fake news stories; The New York Times, which published articles about her “nothing burger” (?) email scandal; Citizens United, which allowed corporations to pour hundreds of millions of dollars into Hillary’s campaign … wait, why is she kvetching about this one?; millions of “Twitter bots,” which are allegedly “driving up Trump’s Twitter followers” (Trump has her by about 13 million); Netflix, which allegedly features “screeds against” Obama and Hillary masquerading as documentaries; “guys over in Macedonia,” who allegedly ran a sophisticated network of fake news “content farms”; the “bankrupt” Democratic National Committee, which allegedly gave Hillary “data [that] was mediocre-to-poor, nonexistent, wrong”; and last but certainly not least, all the people—no joke—who thought Hillary was going to win the election.

Good grief. As you can see, this person is mad as a hatter. She’s gone straight off the rails, if she was ever on them to begin with. “Unfit to be president” is an understatement. As Vlad the Hacker once said in response to Hillary’s puerile remark that he “doesn’t have a soul,” “At a minimum, a head of state should have a head.” So headless is Hillary that she can now earnestly claim to have been “a victim of a very broad assumption that I was going to win.” Elaborating on this avant-garde theory, Hillary said, “Yeah, just, you know, everybody.” Here she finally levels with us: she feels victimized by everybody. Did you think you weren’t part of the worldwide conspiracy to sabotage Hillary Clinton? Sorry. You’ve now been disabused of that illusion. You’re complicit, just like the rest of us.

To be fair, Hillary did take a Clintonian stab at personal accountability. “I take responsibility for every decision I made,” she said to a collective gasp, “but that’s not why I lost.” So close and yet so far.

Vexing though it may be, Hillary’s noisy descent into delusional paranoia is not without its upside. Indeed, it appears that a number of folks are coming to the long overdue realization that she was only ever in it for herself, and furthermore that she has no qualms about throwing her former allies under the bus and burning bridges when she deems it necessary. In other words, it’s finally dawning on them that their girl’s a textbook sociopath.

As I mentioned above, Hillary is now dissing the Democratic Party for allegedly giving her shoddy election data. “Let me just do a comparison for you,” she said with peak smugness during the mercilessly long Code Conference confab. “I set up my campaign and we have our own data operation. I get the nomination. So I’m now the nominee of the Democratic Party. I inherit nothing from the Democratic Party.”

“What do you mean, nothing?” one of the unctuous interviewers inquired.

“I mean it was bankrupt, it was on the verge of insolvency,” Hillary carped. “Its data was mediocre-to-poor, nonexistent, wrong. I had to inject money into it.”

(Aside: do you not find it exceedingly easy to imagine the forgoing spoken in Donald Trump’s voice?)

As it happens, certain DNC desk jockeys took exception to Hillary’s public contention that they suck at their jobs. Speaking to The Daily Beast, John Hagner of Clarity Campaign Labs quibbled in metaphorical terms: “The DNC is farming and what the campaign does is cooking. It’s hard to blame the farmer if the soufflé folds.” Not if you’re Hillary Clinton; she’ll blame the farmer for a lack of rainfall. Hagner went on to state that the gubernatorial candidates using his company’s data won their elections, which gives the lie to Hillary’s claim that the data was “poor, nonexistent, wrong.”

Putting a finer point on things was former DNC Director of Data Science Andrew Therriault, who described Hillary’s argument as “fucking bullshit” and said he was not prepared to “let my people be thrown under the bus without a fight.” Therriault’s fiery objections came in a series of tweets that have since been taken down (not much fight in him after all), though not before they were screenshotted for posterity.

“Irony of [Hillary] bashing DNC data: our models never had [Michigan, Wisconsin or Pennsylvania] looking even close to safe. Her team thought they knew better.” The plot thickens.

One Tom Bonier, described by The Washington Post as a “top Democratic data type,” lent his support to the notion that Hillary is spewing rubbish, tweeting: ”[For what it’s worth], the data Clinton ‘inherited’ was the most robust data operation the DNC has ever seen, including during the Obama re-elect.”

Hillary Clinton is a shameless liar? Get out of town!

It’s interesting to note that Hillary’s professional apologists in the corporate media aren’t exactly leaping to their queen’s defense this time around. Some have even called her on her lies and conceded that her scapegoating shtick is getting tiresome. Is ole Hil finally being put out to pasture? Perhaps. But it’s probably not a coincidence that the media’s desertion came after Hillary slung some of her mud at powerful “liberal” institutions: Facebook, The New York Times, the DNC. Lying about, say, the Israeli government’s heinous and ongoing crimes against the Palestinians is one thing; that can be forgiven, or even encouraged. But lying about the quality of the Democratic Party’s data? Well now. That’s beyond the pale, outrageous, cannot be tolerated. Such are the moral commitments of the American “left.” What would we do without them?

At any rate, Hillary’s latest antics have illuminated the deep hatred that exists between herself and Donald Trump: each holds a mirror up to the other, and neither likes what they see.