News flash: Bernie was supposed to cause Hillary “lasting damage”

No automatic alt text available.

We’ve talked about this way too much, but alas, talk about it we must – because, once again, this daft, doddering fool is slithering back onto the political landscape. And she’s messing up the feng shui.

Hillary Clinton. She’s not gone. Contrary to popular hope, she elected not to spend her elderly days sipping chardonnay and tramping through the Chappaqua woods (where she, miraculously, randomly ran into fans who she would generously take selfies with). She kept talking. And wrote that book, “What Happened,” which debuts on, what, Tuesday? We’ve already heard enough, haven’t we? She blames the same old villains, the Russians and Comey and, yes, even Obama and Biden and Bernie, for her humiliating loss. I think about that a lot, her endless rehashing of her worst moments.  I remember moments in my life that make me cringe to this day, and not only would I not write a book about them, I don’t even want to think about them, and hope I someday have total amnesia for that time snippet. But we’re not so fortunate with Clinton. Apparently, even negative attention is better than no attention. I keep thinking, shit, at least Palin eventually left the stage. But for Dems (and in full disclosure, I Demexited prior to the 2016 election, registered independent, and voted for President Trump), there’s no moving on until Democrats, en masse, force Clinton to blow town. For good. But there’s even talk, these days, about her nursing a dream of a 2020 run. So the whole moving on thing – not happening quite yet.

Caitlin Johnstone, writing for Medium.com, wrote,   

You can’t have it both ways, Democrats. You can’t keep bitching and bitching and bitching and bitching that Hillary should have won the election day after day after day after day, and then cry with Bambi-eyed dismay, ‘Why are you still picking on Hillary?? She lost! Move on!’ It doesn’t work that way, Democrats. Everyone else will move on when you move on.

We’ll be waiting a while, because there’s some faction out there who believes that a site devoted to Clinton partisans (Verrit.com) with some very weird verification code thing that nobody seems to understand is a good idea. There are some who think that she still has something to offer politically. There are some who think she has political value. Hell, I still hear people blather about the “popular vote.” But anyone who thought she had value before her “What Happened” disaster should be re-thinking that now. After all, she didn’t exactly take blame for her epic fail, and in fact seemed to think that Bernie Sanders and his supporters should have moved aside for her coronation:

Some of his supporters, the so-called Bernie Bros, took to harassing my supporters online. It got ugly and more than a little sexist . . . When I finally challenged Bernie during a debate to name a single time I changed a position or a vote because of a financial contribution, he couldn’t come up with anything . . . Nonetheless, his attacks caused lasting damage, making it harder to unify progressives in the general election and paving the way for Trump’s ‘Crooked Hillary’ campaign . . . 
Hold up. Bernie was running against her in the primary. She was taking shots at him at every turn. He was supposed to cause her damage. He was, in fact, supposed to beat her. That was the job his supporters had tasked him with. It was only “sexist” because he insulted her and she’s a female. It was ugly, in part, because she and her crew, led by horrid little troll David Brock (water does, let’s remember, seek its own level) and funded by PAC money, hired legions of online trolls to go forth and slay dragons on her behalf. 
 
It was a primary. It wasn’t supposed to be pretty. I must have missed something, somewhere, because he was supposed to beat her. When she and her loyalists continue, long after her election loss, to hysterically toss the accusation out there that Bernie and his supporters cost her the election, well, I think, it may be true – in fact, I hope it is. It was my mission, at least, to make sure she was sent packing back to Chappaqua. A lot of Bernie supporters voted Stein, some did write-ins, and some, like me, took the bull by the horns and voted for her opponent. We didn’t want her in office. We didn’t want her in politics. We still don’t. And if we succeeded in our mission to ensure that, so what? It’s what you call a democracy. But it’s a funny thing, there: Clinton had no problem with Bernie campaigning for her after the primary, courting him and his supporters, despite what we now know was deep-seated anger, hostility and resentment against him. 
 
Many of us will keep talking about Clinton as long as she keeps trashing Bernie and others we hold dear (like President Obama, and Vice President Biden). A whole slew of people (including Obama, Biden and Bernie) should have given her the heave-ho and not campaigned for her, in my opinion, but they did, and this is the thanks they get. A thorough thrashing in a post-loss book that somehow manages to STILL avoid taking blame.
 
Are we done here yet? Can we ignore her book tour and not buy her book? Can we let Bernie lead the way, or Joe Biden, forgetting Clinton even exists? The first step in this is for us to admit that, yes, we Bernie supporters did do her lasting damage and yes, we needed to and wanted to do her lasting damage. I, for one, am certainly not disappointed at the outcome. I, for one, think she and the Dem establishment and the DNC and all her water-carriers got what they deserved. I, for one, would vote for Trump 100 times over rather than cast one single vote for Clinton, or any of her apologists and stooges or “influential establishment Democrats.” As Douglas MacKinnon of the Chicago Tribune wrote, “They elevate the definition of ‘craven’ to an entirely new level.”
 
MacKinnon pointed out that Clinton likely sees an opening in 2020.  Gawd help us. But he may be right. She no doubt figures it was a fluke of Russia or Comey that yanked the presidency from her grasp in 2016. She no doubt figures that, after four years of President Trump, this country will be ready for anything different, even her. Sure, the 2020 Dem field is weak, at best. (Kamala Harris? Cory Booker? Puh-leeze.) But the one thing Clinton has always overlooked – in her postmortem, in her rehashing the ins and outs of 2016 – is that we really hate her. This country detests her more than they dislike Trump, according to a recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll. Only some starry-eyed Verrit subscribers and delusional miscreants on social media still think highly of her. 
 
We can’t rule out Clinton’s ego and arrogance and utter miscalculation, again, of the political climate. As MacKinnon noted,
 
I think she does want to avenge her embarrassing loss to Donald Trump. And I’m convinced she will still have the fire in her belly to go through the grueling process one more time to become president.
 
Good luck with that. Many of us will be waiting to once again fatally damage her candidacy should that “fire” propel her to even greater heights of stupidity to run again.