As we are all well aware, Hillary lost the election, badly, and she’s been trying to find people to blame ever since.
She’s blamed Putin and Russian hacking, saying they manipulated the election by starting a “misinformation” campaign. She even blamed Bernie Sanders, even though she had used the DNC to cheat him out of the nomination.
But the newest target of her victimhood has been none other than the DNC.
Hillary attacked the DNC on Wednesday, claiming that she “inherited nothing” from the party after winning its presidential nomination in 2016.
“So I’m now the nominee of the Democratic Party. I inherit nothing from the Democratic Party,” she said during a Q&A session at a conference in Rancho Palos Verdes, California this week.
“I mean, it was bankrupt. It was on the verge of insolvency. Its data was mediocre to poor, nonexistent, wrong,” she claimed. “I had to inject money into it.”
She compared her situation with then nominee Donald Trump, a self funded, and well funded candidate.According to her, he had a serious data operation that allowed him to run an ultra successful campaign. Since he was able to utilize that data properly, he was able to leverage it against Hillary by creating internet content that she claimed she couldn’t possibly keep up with.
“So Trump becomes the nominee and he is basically handed this tried and true, effective foundation,” Clinton complained.
From The Hill:
Clinton also suggested that Russian efforts to meddle in the 2016 election in favor of Trump were “guided by Americans” and other political operatives and strategists.
“The Russians in my opinion, and based on the intel and counterintel people I’ve talked to, could not have known how best to weaponize that information unless they had been guided,” she said. “Guided by Americans and guided by people who had polling and data information.”
The U.S. intelligence community concluded in a report made public in January that the Kremlin had sought to influence the election in Trump’s favor by running a massive hacking and influence campaign.
She thinks she deserved the presidency, according to The Observer:
Clinton didn’t offer regrets or assume responsibility for her failure to campaign in-person in Wisconsin, lack of focus on swing states in the Midwest like Michigan, or inability to build a formidable grassroots campaign in states like Florida. Nor did she dispel scapegoating Sanders, a tactic that Democrats use to desperately try to convey the image of party unity. Citing the media as a scapegoat for the loss is another fallacious claim Clinton did not to ignore. To the contrary, nearly every major newspaper in the country openly endorsed her in the primaries and general election. The mainstream media touted her long list of endorsements—from super delegates to establishment Republicans and billionaires—as qualifications for her candidacy, parroted her campaign’s press releases, and repeated the smear campaigns spewed out by her highly funded Super PACs.
Clinton lent credence to the commonly cited excuses her partisan supporters and loyalists have given. As Clinton and her followers see it, “her turn” was stolen from her. The Democratic establishment’s post-election strategy has revolved around absolving Clinton from her flaws, poor campaign, corruption, missteps, and inability to resonate with voters.
She’ll just never learn, will she?