Disappointing. Exactly why I'm considering just shutting this whole blog down. If this is good analysis, I'm a monkey's uncle. Some quotes and my observations:
"The activists, groups, think tanks and nonprofit 'charities' that made hay over the petty controversies that dogged her had already succeeded in driving up her negative trust and honesty numbers well before the 2016 campaign."
That being so, why would you put her up as a candidate? We'd been through Kerry and Swiftboating before. Given the magnitude of the potential loss, the risk wasn't worth it. The campaign, as it continued through the primaries, pointed out clearly that she could not extricate herself from the tar pits of the Right effectively, even though the Republican field was as weak as it had ever been. She couldn't even counter a radical 'socialist' who loved to bellow. Try to rationalize it all you want - the more the news media posts articles like this, the more obvious the weaknesses are.
"Clinton actually received the third highest vote total in US election history ..."
We have a much larger population now, and population continues to grow. The next Democrat elected to the Presidency will be able to claim the same thing, in all likelihood. She can't have meant to write that.
None of it was 'right', none of it was 'fair.' But politics in America never have been. Look back at the news media opposing Jefferson - the cartoons especially.