Still unable to get their heads around the fact that their utterly untrustworthy, unlikeable candidate lost last November's election, a couple of shell-shocked talking heads attempted to console themselves on Meet the Press Sunday that Hillary Clinton lost not to Donald Trump, but to misogyny.
As reported by Newsbusters, moderator Chuck Todd kicked off "a ridiculous discussion that sounded as though it belonged in a forum of a left-wing website" by raising Hillary's belief that, as Todd put it, “misogyny played a much larger role in this than it’s been analyzed by many of us.”
Helene Cooper from The New York Times agreed: “I think many women probably feel that way. And I don't think I would necessarily dismiss that. I've talked to plenty of Trump voters who say they just didn't like Hillary, including women who said, no, there's just something -- I just didn't like her. I think there's something to be said for that.”
“But I think we can’t pretend that this sort of misogyny doesn’t exist. I think it would be naïve,” she continued.
Cooper doesn't seem to grasp that Hillary wasn't disliked by both men and women because she was a woman, but because she exhibits not an iota of humanity and because she is an inveterate liar and the most corrupt politician in American history.
But David Brooks, the New York Times' token "conservative," leapt to support Cooper's delusion. “Gender politics clearly played a role in this election." If so, it's only because the media, not the voters, insisted on making it an issue.
Brooks went on to sneer that Trump's "hyper-macho stereotype" is "part of why he got elected": "Donald Trump is a cliché of old-fashioned masculinity and a lot of people long for that kind of masculinity which is never coming back, but they long for it." It's not coming back, he claims, and yet Donald Trump was elected president. Wake up, Brooks, it's back.
Danielle Pletka, a voice of reason from the American Enterprise Institute, wasn't buying it. “Okay, first of all, Hillary Clinton doesn't want to take responsibility for anything. She lost the election because she's Hillary Clinton, not because she's a woman,” she declared. Bingo.
The National Review’s Rich Lowry agreed. “[U]ltimately Hillary Clinton is not just not good at politics,” he argued. “She's not a good campaigner and she's probably the one active politician in the country who could have lost to Donald Trump and she did.”
Lowry demolished the misogyny excuse with his response to Todd's question, “You think another woman could have beaten Donald Trump?” Lowry respond, “A likable woman could have, yes.”