The online subscription learning service Masterclass is offering a new video in which Hillary Clinton “face(s) one of my most public defeats head-on” by reading the speech she’d planned to make if she’d won the 2016 election (which, I happily remind you, she did not.)
I’m not certain what this is supposed to be a Masterclass in. If Masterclass hired Hillary Clinton to teach people how to be a good loser, then their subscribers deserve a refund. They claim she’s teaching “resilience,” but that has to be a sick joke. The New York Post’s Miranda Divine suggested that it must be a Masterclass in “self-pity and delusion.”
Watching Hillary get choked up as she reads a victory speech for a race she lost five years ago is frankly sad. It reminds me of Dickens’ Miss Havisham from “Great Expectations,” still wearing the decaying wedding dress she put on years before, only to be left at the altar.
You know, Hillary, if you actually have something to say, you could be saying it from some other position. News flash: I also didn’t get elected President in 2016, yet I somehow manage to get up each day and continue communicating to the public through this newsletter, my podcast, my TV show and other venues. You lose, you deal with it, and life goes on. If you have such a sense of entitlement about deserving the Presidency that losing it cripples your life, then you’re the type of person who should never be President.
If Masterclass wants to have Hillary Clinton teach something useful that she actually knows, they should let her do a course on influence peddling.
According to a study by the nonpartisan Project On Government Oversight (POGO), her family charitable organization The Clinton Foundation took in nearly $250 million in donations in 2009, after she became Secretary of State. Donations remained high up through her run for President. Then donations dropped precipitously to less than $29 million in 2020. Did Hillary’s loss so demoralize donors that they lost their charitable impulses?
A counsel for POGO said, “Many people thought people were supporting the former President, but it really looks like they were cozying up to who they thought was going to be the future President — a situation that can’t be repeated.”
While I agree it can’t be repeated, I have to take exception to one part of that. Did anyone ever seriously believe all those big donors thought they were just supporting the former President?