Hillary Clinton's misplaced rationalizations of defeat

David French:

At this point, it’s safe to say that Nimrata Randhawa has a far, far better chance to be the first female president of the United States than Hillary Clinton. But here’s the question: When or if Nimrata (she goes by “Nikki”) — a conservative, Indian-American daughter of immigrants who married Michael Haley, became governor of South Carolina, and is now the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations — wins a presidential election, will Hillary’s friends and supporters hail Haley’s ascension to the White House as a tremendous achievement for women? Will the fans of intersectional feminism laud the ultimate success of a woman of color?

Not likely. At this point, we all know the drill. There is one way and one way only for women — especially black or brown women — to take a true step forward, and that’s through progressive politics. Identity politics works like this: Progressives do everything in their power to explicitly and unequivocally stoke race- and gender-related resentments and grievances. Any pushback against identity politics is labeled denialism at best and racism or sexism at worst. Progressive ideas are so self-evidently superior that opposition is best explained as grounded in misogyny or the always-reliable “fear of change.” Opposition, even from women and even from people of color, is proof of the awful and enduring power of sexism and white supremacy.
...

There is much more.

Hillary Clinton blamed her loss of what she described as hatred of women even though she lost 53 percent of the white women vote too.  She seems to discount the fact that she was seen as a serial liar who mishandled classified material in order to avoid accountability and to hide the corrupt bargains she and her husband were making with despots while accumulating great wealth.  Her message was stale liberalism.  She deserved to lose because she was a bad candidate who was out of touch with a lot of voters.