A few months ago Hillary Clinton amused and amazed the political world when she provided a very lengthy list of reasons why she lost the 2016 presidential election.
As reported by the Clinton-friendly Washington Post,
Hillary Clinton said Tuesday that she takes “absolute personal responsibility” for her 2016 loss. But she doesn’t, really.
Clinton suggested in an interview at a Women for Women International event in New York that her forthcoming book would include plenty about how misogyny contributed to her loss, adding it to the blame she has assigned to FBI Director James B. Comey and Russian hacking. And by the end of the interview, she also blamed the debate questions she was asked.
Although she is planning a book to catalog all of this as a follow-up to “Hard Decisions” – perhaps titled “Big Excuses?” – even some of her most loyal supporters are now rolling their eyes at her list, especially in regard to the Russians.
As the Daily Caller reports
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said that Democrats can only blame themselves, not Russia, for former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s loss to President Donald Trump in November.
“When you lose to somebody who has 40 percent popularity, you don’t blame other things – Comey, Russia – you blame yourself,” Schumer told The Washington Post Saturday.
He adds “So what did we do wrong? People didn’t know what we stood for, just that we were against Trump. And still believe that.”
Schumer’s admission comes as the Democrats launch a new campaign to appeal to the voters they’ve lost as the party struggles to argue to discontented voters that they have an agenda besides simply opposing Trump.
This campaign, which will be titled “A Better Deal: Better Jobs, Better Wages, Better Future”, looks to be a yawner (who can think of any campaign that doesn’t promise better jobs, better wages, and a better future?) thus far. And this appearance may ultimately prove to be the case.
Nancy Pelosi, after all, has already alerted us that “is not a course correction, but it’s a presentation correction.”
In other words, same tired old policies wrapped in a shiny new box.
It’s heartening to see the Democrats at least publicly claim to be looking inward at why they’ve become a minority party. However, if there is no “course correction,” will a “presentation correction” be enough?
One is reminded of the story about the CEO who complains to his board of directors about their company’s new line of dog food.
The CEO says “We’ve put the food in these fancy new cans. We are spending a fortune on marketing. We’ve got the endorsement of every celebrity and their dogs in Hollywood. Why is no one buying our dog food?”
One of the directors responds, “because the dogs won’t eat it.”
[Note: This article was written by dk]