Hillary Clinton Doesn’t Understand Why Even Democrats Are Fed Up With Her, So She Again Resorts To Claims Of Sexism

Hillary Clinton never takes responsibility for her actions and will inevitably resort to blaming others, whether it is to blame Russia, James Comey, or sexism. Clinton initially received a lot of negative response from those who disagree with her on both the left and the right. More recently, such as after she demonstrated once again why she lost earlier in March, establishment Democrats, also started advising her to stop saying things which are damaging to the party’s chances for success. Clinton responded by again using the sexism card. The Hill reports:

“I was really struck by how people said that to me — you know, mostly people in the press, for whatever reason — mostly, ‘Go away, go away,’” Clinton said Thursday during an event at Rutgers University.

“And I had one of the young people who works for me go back and do a bit of research. They never said that to any man who was not elected. I was kind of struck by that,” Clinton said.

Clinton’s remarks came in response to a question from Eagleton Institute of Politics director Ruth Mandel about the former Democratic nominee’s reaction to those who say she should “get off the public stage and shut up.”

“I’m really glad that, you know, Al Gore didn’t stop talking about climate change,” Clinton said to applause.

“And I’m really glad John Kerry went to the Senate and became an excellent secretary of State,” the former first lady continued. “And I’m really glad John McCain kept speaking out and standing up and saying what he had to say. And for heavens sakes, Mitt Romney is running for the Senate,” Clinton said.

The 70-year-old ex-secretary of State has taken heat in recent weeks, even among some Democrats, for comments she made about Americans who voted for President Trump in the 2016 race.

Of course this has nothing to do with gender. Al Gore, who had the most cause to complain about the election, avoided the public spotlight after he lost. Mitt Romney also limited political speech until he started to criticize Donald Trump. John Kerry and John McCain returned to the Senate where they did their jobs.

None of the other losing presidential candidates questioned the legitimacy of the elections they lost. When there was concern that Donald Trump would not accept the results of the election, Hillary Clinton called this a “direct threat to our democracy.” Then after she turned out to be the one to lose, Clinton denied the legitimacy of the election. Not long afterwards she tried to rewrite history in a book which attacked the left and blamed multiple others for the loss which she is responsible for. She has been calling for censorship of those who criticize her by calling legitimate criticism “fake news.”

As was revealed in Shattered, Clinton decided to blame others such as Russia for the loss within twenty-four hours of losing. Her claims regarding Russia, which go far beyond the actual evidence, are harmful in many ways. It gives establishment Democrats an excuse to resist reform. It plays into the hands of neocons who desire regime change in Russia, with their claims about Russia being no more truthful than their claims about WMD in Iraq. It is used to justify restrictions on freedom of speech, and has led to McCarthyism from establishment Democrats who claim that criticism stems from support for Putin.

Of course Hillary Clinton has the right to continue to speak publicly, but those of us who disagree with her also have the right to respond–regardless of how much her supporters attempt to suppress criticism of her. It is also understandable that professional politicians in her party, which saw serious losses in the presidential race and down ticket because of Clinton in 2016, do not want Clinton to bring about further losses for their party in 2018.


  1. 1
    Carl Saunders says:

    I wish the "media" would talk about the fact that N. Korea is no threat to anyone. Never was and never will be.  If they made a move on S.Korea or Guam or Japan or the U.S. that would be that last move they ever made and they know it. Remember M.A.D.?  Mutual Assured Destruction. No one talks about that anymore but as far as N.Korea is concerned it's still in play. They aren't going to do anything to anyone. Sure they talk tough but they always have. All of our presidents have known this and of course kept and eye on them but realized that they are really no threat. Trump an apprentice to politics agitates Kim with tweets like a school kid.."My button is bigger than your button"  They have a half of country on the border with China. Iowa is bigger that N.Korea by 10 thousand square miles.  N.Korea is China's problem not ours, Mexico would be our problem if they were testing nukes and threatening people but they're not. Kim want's to be recognized as a world leader when he's just a punk dictator. By Trump agreeing to meet with him is a win for Kim not us so why give it to him?  Trumps school kid ego. Bottom line. N. Korea is no threat to anyone and we should start saying that on the news programs and just disregard any concern about them. 

  2. 2
    Ron Chusid says:

    We also must keep in mind that North Korea’s unwillingness to give up their nuclear weapons is a rational response to US actions in countries such as Iraq and Libya. Kim has specifically cited how the US (in actions orchestrated by Hillary Clinton) intervened to overthrow Qaddafi in Libya after he gave up his nuclear weapons.

    I think that most people who consider the meeting as some sort of accomplishment for Trump are unaware of how North Korea has wanted such a meeting with the US for years, with other presidents declining. If Trump actually accomplishes something, then he deserves credit, but it is no accomplishment to just have the meeting. However, in Trump’s case, there might be some benefit in the sense that he might be less likely to escalate a Twitter battle into actual war against someone he has met personally. Trump has always been a sucker for being wined and dined.

  3. 3
    KP says:

    As well as Qaddafi's "unhappy ending". Phew!

  4. 4
    Ron Chusid says:

    Plus the way in which Clinton laughed about his death:


  5. 5
    Carl Saunders says:

    The propaganda that we hear is that N.Korea is a threat and thats excactly what it is. Propaganda. We could bomb them into the stone age but it would only set them back a couple of weeks. 

  6. 6
    Mike Hatcher says:


    I agree with a good portion of what you said, but disagree with your overall conclusion that N. Korea is no threat. True, we could bomb them into the stone age, but we could do that to any place in the world, does that mean there are zero threats in the world?  Ron makes a good point about N. Korea having rational reasons for having nukes. But who is guaranteeing that Kim is rational? And even if, for the sake of argument, let us assume he is rational, where is the promise that he will remain rational the rest of his life? That country has no checks and balances, if he develops delusional paranoia, who is to say what could become of that? Also, little military provocations here and there, in my opinion could potentially escalate. It took only one assassination at the start of WWI to kick off things that had already been brewing. In more recent times, it only took an airplane crash to jump set off the Rwandan genocide. N. Korea could never invade the U.S. but that doesn't mean they could not cause immense disruption in the world and horrific loss of life should events go awry.  

  7. 7
    Ron Chusid says:

    I think Carl would have to clarify what he means by threat.

    If by threat we are talking about the ability to do a great deal of damage, especially to South Korea and Japan (and maybe the west coast of the US), then North Korea is a threat.

    If by threat he means being able to do considerable harm to the US beyond possibly isolated cities, then North Korea is no threat. Of course even the ability to destroy a single city is something which we would not want to ever see.

    I would prefer that North Korea not have nukes at all, but I doubt that is an option anymore. Now we have to be satisfied with more achievable goals, such as keeping North Korea from actually using them, and keeping them from spreading nukes even further.

  8. 8
    Carl Saunders says:

    When I say that they are no threat I mean that they're not Muslims they're Koreans and aren't into suicide bombing or giving their lives for their cause. Like I explained in my first post. They know that if they make a move on S.Korea or Guam or Japan that would be the last move they ever made. Thats a reality which means theyre not going to do anything to anyone . They talk tough and always have but think about it?  Is it worth the ultimate price of total destruction of their half a country to nuke Guam?  Of course not. We hear the propaganga saying "they have a missle that can reach the US" Thats meaningless. Ok lets say they send a missle over and nuke a city in the US. That would guarantee the end of their existance and they know that so that guarentees that they would never do that and we would be able to intercept that missile anyway.  Republicans have to play the fear card to be relevant. A lot of Muslim countrues have nukes and have had them for quite awhile. M.A.D. is still in play. A pre-emptive strike from N. Korea or any of those other countries would be insane and is pretty well guarenteed not to happen because of M.A.D.  In my mind those Nuclear powered Muslim countries and N. Korea aren't the problematic threat, we are. When Obama left office we had enough nuclear power to destroy the world 10 time over but Trump wants to increace it 10 times more? Why?  That's what we should be concerned about not a half of country on China's border 7 thousand miles away that knows that they would be totally destroyed if they attacked anyone. 

  9. 9
    Mike Hatcher says:

    Ok Carl, thanks for the clarification. Yes, mutually assured destruction is something that I am sure keep many entities from contemplating very long on using nuclear weapons. What is hard to speculate on is if a dictator, who has a proven track record of letting his own people suffer and die rather than change his ways of governance to a less self-aggrandizing style, if that dictator were to one day conclude that his power and/or his life was in imminent peril, how sure are you that he wouldn't try to go down with a bang? The bang being on one U.S. city and/or something closer. He would not have to have the support of his entire military, just a few die hard loyalists to launch that one missile. Are you that sure he would not sacrifice his whole country for one horrific act of defiance?

  10. 10
    Carl Saunders says:

    I don't work for the psychic network and can't tell you what would happen if his life was in imminent peril but the people that would have the where with all to put him in imminent peril would have to consider that possibility and re-access  its goals and intent. My point is why badger or agitate the guy? He is starting to be willing to talk with S.Korea. He dosen't want to take over the world he just wants to be the leader of a whole country not a half of a country but thats not going to happen and I think he knows it.  There are some things that we can do nothing about and just have to come to grips with and at this moment in time N.Korea is one of those things. Ask youself the question that if Trumps power was in imminent threat would he sacrifice his country for one act of horrific defiance ?  Trump is the master of deflection and as he gets in deeper troulble with the Russia investigation he could use what I call the mother of all deflections and thats a premptive strike on N.Korea which would make him the "war president" and who ever critisized him would be accused of not supporting the troops.. Sound familiar ?

    One more thought on the Iraq invasion..  Would any leader of any country invade another country that they KNEW possessed weapons of mass destruction ?  Of course not . Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld actually said that they knew where the weapons were and the basic reason that they invaded Iraq was because they had WMDs but I submit to you that the true and real reason that they invaded was because they KNEW that they DIDN"T have WMDs which reveals the lie that killed close to 100 thousand innocent Iraqi civillians for no reason. I know it's spilt milk but still..  

  11. 11
    Mike Hatcher says:


    I appreciate what I consider your well thought out responses. I continue to agree with a lot of what you say and I think we may have worn out this path to a certain degree. I wanted you to know I read and considered your last comment. Just a couple of parting thoughts and if you respond I will read it but not likely respond. Yes, I agree Trump, or any U.S. president could do a lot of damage for reasons of their own ego or other twisted nefarious reasons, but I believe there are enough counter balances in our system to stop a deranged U.S. president from launching a nuclear ICBM, I believe a few other places like N. Korea, lack those counter balances. Would a leader risk invading another country that had WMDs? My answer would be yes, they might. First I would point out there is a broader definition of WMD, not just the nuclear ICBM as I referenced earlier, but some chemical and biological weapons,are also considered WMDs, of which our military has counter measures for. Even with a nuclear missile threat, our military might consider themselves having literally a fighting chance against some nations nuclear missiles, calculations would include the range, accuracy, and number of nuclear weapons. But if we calculated that there was, as you referenced earlier, mutually assured destruction, that would, and does serve as a deterrent.

Leave a comment