Hillary Clinton is writing a book on her loss to Donald Trump that she says will "spend a lot of time" wrestling with the role misogyny played in the election.

If her recent public statements are any indication, the secretary's treatise is bound to wallow in the tired and indulgent cliches of contemporary feminism, spouting broad sociological observations about our allegedly repressive society with less discipline than a broken sprinkler.

With so many good options from which to choose - corruption, policy positions, trustworthiness — that Clinton has elected to explore alleged misogyny at such length is an indication she's spent more time pondering the pronouncements of well-wishing dog walkers in the woods of Chappaqua than less comfortable truths about her own suitability as a candidate.

To be fair, she also heavily implied in a Thursday interview that the book will point to the role both Wikileaks and James Comey played in her loss as well. No word on whether she plans to dive into her private server, policy flip-flops, or record of corruption.

Presumably, Clinton will conclude on an optimistic note, sweeping the pain into a climax of hope for the young women currently being raised by their respective villages across America. But that will not erase her contribution to the climate feminists sustain every day, deluding women into the belief that they suffer at the hands of a patriarchy bent on preserving its unilateral power. Nor is it likely to provide Democrats with an accurate understanding of their electoral errors.

For the good of the country, I've taken the effort of saving the secretary some time and crafted a detailed chapter outline that would better frame any attempt to understand Trump's win. It is included below for reference:


Chapter One - Michigan

Chapter Two - Wisconsin


Sure, the book will be short, but under-exposure to the Clinton's is not an affliction from which most Americans suffer.

Rather than trafficking in the feminist fearmongering she so often favors, Clinton, a capable analyst, could use her perch above a campaign that stunningly lost the most winnable race in recent history to the unlikeliest winner in all history as an opportunity to explore the Democratic Party's glaring problems, none of which seriously involves misogyny or the actions of James Comey or Wikileaks.

Rather than focusing on Wikileaks, perhaps Clinton's time would be better spent focusing on the objectionable contents of the leaks, which would not have mattered otherwise. Rather than Comey, Clinton could dwell instead on her decision to flout both government transparency laws and government secrecy laws with the private server itself.

Alas, that would deprive Democrats of the opportunity to blame others for their own mistakes.

The question now becomes whether Clinton's inevitable book tour will bother to stop anywhere in the upper Midwest at all.

Emily Jashinsky is a commentary writer for the Washington Examiner.