"If the election had been on Oct. 27, I would be your president," said Hillary Clinton on Tuesday, citing research from statistician Nate Silver. With that statement, any future attempts Clinton makes to pin her loss on sexism should not be taken seriously.
In her interview with Christiane Amanpour on Tuesday, Clinton only acknowledged that misogyny "played a role" in November's outcome, promising to tackle the issue in her forthcoming book. But if she believes we would have elected our first female president if not for James Comey's interference, the implication is that American voters are progressive enough to do so.
If, as Clinton believes, she would be president if the election were held on Oct. 27, the logical conclusion is that she also believes the country is ready to elect a woman president.
Sure, some voters may have stayed home or supported Trump in November due to misogynistic motivations. But based on her own premise, those voters would have been too few to steal the win before Comey sent his letter.
I fully expect Clinton to continue waxing feminist about misogyny's contribution to her defeat. In fact, she's already confirmed that it's a focus of the book she's working on right now. But next time Clinton complains about the role sexism played in her loss to President Trump, just remember that she believes sexism wouldn't have been an insurmountable obstacle if the election were held on Oct. 27.
The Telegraph described a time Vogue posed a question on the issue to Clinton in 2016 as such: "Asked directly whether the recent failure of a woman to become the mayor of New York meant that the U.S. was not ready for a female president, she sighed in answer. 'You know … I really don't know.'"
Given Clinton's explanation for her own loss, it looks like she finally found that answer.
Emily Jashinsky is a commentary writer for the Washington Examiner.