“Donald Trump continues to undermine Clinton presidency 10 months after election loss.”
That would be the general feel and tone coming from outlets like Politico, CNN, the Washington Post and New York Times, not to mention the left-leaning news outlets that make no attempt to hide bias, had November 8th turned out differently. Donald Trump, instead of hosting meetings at the United Nations General Assembly, would be making the daily and nightly talk show rounds promoting his book “What the Hell Happened.”
We would be inundated by breathless think pieces about how Donald Trump refuses to accept the results of the election, a “direct threat to Democracy,” as Hillary Clinton called it in a tweet back on October 24th. Mrs. Clinton had stated earlier this week that, dependent upon the results of Robert Mueller’s investigation, she may contest the official results of the election. Contest them to whom, Mrs. Clinton? “The View” audience?
Hillary Clinton has been contesting the results of her historical election loss ever since she finished her concession speech. She still claims she won via popular vote, which is like saying you won the Super Bowl because you had more yards than the other team but fewer points. She’s blamed everything from Russia to Chardonnay for the fact she somehow thought Nebraska was a more winnable state for her than Wisconsin.
Mrs. Clinton had stated earlier this week that, dependent upon the results of Robert Mueller’s investigation, she may contest the official results of the election. Contest them to whom, Mrs. Clinton? “The View” audience?
She coasts from one indulgent softball interview to another, trapped in her Munchausen reality where she actually is president and is really popular.
She is in fact neither of those things. She is not president no matter how many of her Hollywood friends console her to the fact, and she is the first losing presidential candidate in history to have their approval ratings actually get worse.
No one is saying she should shut up (except for maybe Democrat consultants). No one is saying she shouldn’t go on another whirlwind burrito bowl tour. She’s certainly entitled to her opinion and her book and all the free press and zero responsibility that comes with it. But just for a fun exercise, imagine the content coming from journalists and pundits had election night turned out differently:
“As President Clinton took in meetings at the UN this week, a historical first for the first female president, losing Republican candidate Donald Trump continued to excoriate her to national television audiences while promoting his book. On the same day Mrs. Clinton historically addressed the UN Assembly, a historical first, Donald Trump was once again playing showman on TV, this time to Stephen Colbert, who rolled his eyes through the 12-minute segment.
This might be fun to late night talk show audiences, but Donald Trump’s insinuations at election theft, as well as mansplaining to the first female president what she should have said at the UN, rocks the very foundations of our democratic republic to the core. Never before in our nation’s history has a losing candidate gone on an extended media blitz campaign to sabotage the agenda of their (female) opponent in front of the world. This has become a pattern for the former GOP nominee as he continues to undermine Mrs. Clinton’s history-making historical election victory almost ten months ago.”
And this is the problem these news outlets face as they try desperately to gain their credibility back from an election that was just as much about them as it was the Democrat party (redundant?). Mrs. Clinton and her enablers are behaving much the same way they accused Donald Trump might behave in the face of losing the election. What’s missing is the tone and nothing more.
This was all summed up nicely in Mrs. Clinton’s appearance on Stephen Colbert’s show, which felt more like an atonement for allowing Sean Spicer on the Emmy stage than it did a real interview. When the subject of North Korea came up, Clinton didn’t waste a second to respond with what she would have said.
“What I hoped the president would have said was something along the lines of, you know, we view this as dangerous to our allies, to the region, and even to our country. We call on all nations to work with us to try to end the threat posed by Kim Jung Un, and not call him Rocket Man, the old Elton John song, but to say, clearly, we will not tolerate any attacks on our friends or ourselves.”
The problem with Mrs. Clinton is we know exactly what she would have said at the United Nations as president, while ignoring the fact that she was Secretary of State during a period that saw North Korea’s audacity grow almost unchallenged on a world stage. This is the problem not only she faces, but an entire cabal of former Obama cabinet members content to vent on Twitter, while simultaneously acting like they just fell out of the sky and landed in a world with unparalleled diplomatic challenges.
Nothing Hillary Clinton writes and no amount of friendly late night interviews will change that, but in the alternate universe like the one I described above, we know how Trump (or any other GOP candidate behaving in this manner) would have been treated by the media-at-large if they were to embark on such a media endeavor under the guise of a pity party. By all appearances, Mrs. Clinton is still campaigning.