“Tough, classy, fair-minded, resilient, unbreakable,” are the words one Democratic commentator used to describe Hillary Clinton back in 2016. Clinton had just given her concession speech, which another user declared to be “the very definition of grace.” She finally appeared “human,” said one pundit, while someone else concluded, “Her swan songs are always her sweetest.”
Four years later, Democrats have turned on Clinton. The former Democratic presidential candidate is now considered a divisive figure and a roadblock to real progress. Some liberals have called her egotistical, and Rep. Rashida Tlaib, who has endorsed Bernie Sanders, openly booed Clinton when her name was mentioned at a Sanders rally this weekend.
The rift between Clinton and the liberals who once backed her presidential campaign became most clearly visible when she insulted Sanders last month, calling him unlikable and questioning whether Democratic voters should back him if he wins the party’s nomination.
“It’s bullshit,” said liberal activist Jonathan Tasini. “I’m confident, if Bernie is the nominee, that any sane Democrat will understand the singular objective of beating Trump. The same holds true if he’s not the nominee.”
There’s been bad blood between the Sanders camp and Clinton since the 2016 election, when the Democratic National Committee deliberately helped Clinton at Sanders’s expense. But the liberals aren’t the only ones fed up with Clinton. Establishment types, too, are tired of listening to advice from the candidate who lost “the most winnable campaign in history,” as one Democratic strategist put it.
“You feel like looking Hillary square in the eye and asking, ‘What the hell are you doing?’” said another Democrat who worked on Clinton’s presidential campaign.
In a way, Clinton’s fall from grace isn’t surprising. Many in her party blame Clinton for President Trump’s victory. The 2016 election was hers to lose, and somehow, Clinton blew it against a profane and inexperienced reality television star who should not have even made it onto the debate stage.
Clinton and her campaigners certainly deserve such blame, having lost swing districts that former President Barack Obama swept in 2008 and 2012 by neglecting and insulting the middle class and blue-collar workers who lived there. Clinton overestimated her own appeal and underestimated the populist sentiment that had been simmering under the surface for years. She was the first woman with a real shot at the White House, yet her campaign largely failed to inspire. It even failed to convince voters of its importance.
Clinton isn’t the only one to blame. Democrats and Republicans alike failed to see Trump’s appeal for what it was: a plea for change and a rejection of the status quo. Still, it’s much easier to point the finger at Clinton’s inadequacies than to admit that maybe Trump had a point. So Tlaib will continue to boo when Clinton’s name is mentioned, Tulsi Gabbard will demand that Clinton admit to defamation, and Sanders supporters will continue to fault her for stoking Democratic divisions.
In just about every one of these incidents, Clinton deserves criticism. She should have bowed out after her 2016 loss, but instead, she continues to insert herself into the Democratic conversation. She’s full of herself, and she knows it. But Clinton isn’t the only one responsible for 2016’s failure. And in regard to this year’s discord, perhaps Tlaib should consider how her party’s impeachment efforts have negatively contributed to the polarization in swing states.
Clinton is now a Democratic outcast, and perhaps that’s the title she deserves. But only a few years ago, she was the Democratic Party’s face. In some ways, she still is.
