NYT: Hillary Clinton Says Voters Punished Her in 2016 Election for Not Being 'Perfect'

We are forced to give Her Imperial Majesty Hillary I, Dowager-Empress of Chappaqua, credit for one thing: Whenever she opens her mouth, something crazy comes out. The most recent example was during an interview with the New York Times published on Saturday, in which she blamed her 2016 presidential loss on female voters who abandoned her because she was "not perfect."

That's funny because she sure seems to think she is perfect:

...in a blunt reflection about the role sexism played in her 2016 presidential campaign, she said women were the voters who abandoned her in the final days because she was not “perfect.” Overhanging the interview was the understanding that had she won the White House, Roe most likely would have remained a bedrock feature of American life. She assigned blame for the fall of Roe broadly but pointedly, and notably spared herself from the critique.

"Not perfect" has to be the most massive understatement since Julius Caesar woke up on the Ides of March and remarked to his wife, "I think today will be a bit of a bother." It's not a surprising statement by Her Imperial Majesty, however; she has a sense of entitlement that is somewhat larger than the Virgo Supercluster.

Schadenfreude, Thy Name Is Clinton: Hillary-Produced Play 'Suffs' Bombs on Broadway

In a piece published Saturday, the Hill attempted to support the assertion of sexism:

Clinton wasn’t the only one to share that sentiment during the 2016 election cycle, when the former first lady lost to Trump. Several of her allies described a sexist double standard on the campaign trail, saying she dealt with questions and criticisms that male candidates would not face.
“Is there a double standard? One hundred percent times 100 percent,” Tracy Sefl, a Democratic consultant and Clinton surrogate, said at the time. “And God forbid if she coughs.”

Oh, for the love of Pete. Hillary Clinton didn't lose the 2016 election because of sexism. She lost because she was a horrible candidate, a horrible person, and she ran a horrible campaign. While Donald Trump sprinted to the finish, by suppertime on Election Day Her Imperial Majesty was deep into her cups. She took the Rust Belt for granted and was shocked - shocked - to wake up the next morning to find that Donald Trump had won Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin, sealing his victory.

But that's not the best bit from Her Imperial Majesty's New York Times interview:

“This election is existential. I mean, if we don’t make the right decision in this election in our country, we may never have another actual election. I will put that out there because I believe it,” she said. “And if we no longer have another actual election, we will be governed by a small minority of right-wing forces that are well organized and well funded and are getting exactly what they want in terms of turning the clock back on women.”

Once again: Oh, for the love of Pete. There will be more elections. This is pure paranoid panic-mongering. There will be more Congressional elections in 2026, and in 2028 there will be another presidential election - and in 2032, and 2036, and so on. If there is any party, any political fringe movement, that wants to cancel women, it's the party that thinks it's a great idea to let someone other than women compete in women's sports.

Hillary Clinton is paranoid. Like Al Gore before her, losing a presidential election she clearly feels she was entitled to have unhinged her. Her entire 2016 campaign was based on "It's my turn, peasants. That assertion never has shown to be truer today after she spent four years claiming Donald Trump was an illegitimate President, and is still, after almost eight years, blaming her 2016 loss on everyone but herself.