On April 6, Nicholas Kristof, a columnist at the New York Times, interviewed Hillary Clinton at the 2017 Women in the World Summit, an annual conference aiming to achieve a better living standard for women and girls. In her interview, Clinton demonstrated her inability to understand her loss in the November election, as well as giving several “funny” remarks, and some factually incorrect ‘points’. The full interview can be found here – 
Clinton at the 2017 Women in the World conference.
In her interview, Sec. Clinton failed to recognize any fault of hers, and take any blame for the current disaster that is the White House. In fact, she even lay the blame on sexism, saying, “Certainly misogyny played a role…that just has to be admitted.”
How stupid. The simple fact is that Hillary Clinton was not defeated due to sexism, but due to her own faults as a corrupt, corporate shill. When a corporate shill like Hillary runs against a candidate viewed as an insurgent, anti-establishment candidate willing to help the suffering, such as the coal miners and industrial workers, they often have to deal with honest criticism of corporate influence and corruption. They often get pointed out for working for the corporations and not the people.
This comparison is extremely vivid when looking at free trade. The simple fact is, many hundreds of thousands of jobs (if not millions) have been lost to free trade agreements such as NAFTA, and certainly many more would have been lost to a deal like the TPP.
According to a study by Public Citizen, NAFTA contributed to an enormous trade deficit with Mexico and China, and created enormous job losses of around 1 million jobs by 2004. NAFTA has also decreased the living standards of millions of workers in the US, and Mexico, so that today, the Mexican government estimates 42% live below the poverty line.  
When Clinton shrugged off attacks about TPP and NAFTA, and when Trump brought up her support of both deals, and how she had called TPP the ‘gold standard’ in trade deals, many took it personally.  The same happened when he brought up her saying, “we’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business.” After all, these are their livelihoods, and have been for a long time. Imagine their situations. Think of a tradition, or an occupation everyone in your family, going back generations has done. Now imagine if I told you that I would put you out of business, or that your job was going to Mexico, or China. How would you feel? It’s not that these people disliked Clinton due to her gender, it’s that she failed to appeal to voters that she needed to through policy and promise. This showed in the election, with Clinton losing many former Democratic bastions as well as the Rust Belt.
Top Hillary donors from 1999-2016, from the Center for Responsive Politics, with the red annotations by me.
This also shows on the left. There was a legitimate Bernie or Bust movement, where progressives showed that they would not be fooled by a corporate shill, and would not vote for Wall Street’s little paid advertiser.
This false push of ‘sexism’ is pathetically ironic, given the number of people supporting Clinton just for her gender. Jillian Gutowitz of the Huffington Post wrote an article, if it can be called that, titled “I’m Voting for Hillary Clinton Because She’s a Woman”. Apparently, these idiots don’t see the hypocrisy of crying ‘sexist’ while at the same time being sexist themselves.
While many justify this as ‘oh my daughter needs a role model’, this little quip serves as nothing more than a pathetic excuse for female privilege. Who’s to say that girls can’t have male role models, and vice versa? In addition, Clinton doesn’t seem like a particularly good role model. Winning a rigged primary and then losing to, arguably, the biggest buffoon to ever run for public office isn’t a particularly good model to follow, regardless of whether you’re male, female, a doormat, or an Apache attack helicopter.  Neither is taking millions from the financial industry and Wall Street, and basically acting as their puppet.
In her interview, she also advocated the elimination of the Syrian Air Force, saying “I really believe that we should’ve, and still should take out his airfields and prevent him from being able to use them to bomb innocent people and drop serine gas on them.”
It appears that she’s incapable of processing the presence of Russia in any issue besides alleged “election interference”, and the fact that Russia, with the world’s largest nuclear arsenal, is a staunch ally of the Syrian government. To compare, imagine if Russia had bombed a German airfield. It would essentially mean war to the US. Bombing their airfields is paramount to a declaration of war.
However, the most amazing thing she said was in response to a blame-laying question posed by Mr. Kristof;
Kristof: “We did some autopsies on the election, and I’m looking for lessons learned, and in particular, what extent do you assign blame to Bernie Sanders and the media for reporting on the emails-”
Clinton: “-How much time do we have?”
Clinton then went on to assign blame to Putin’s “Weaponization of information”, and the Comey letter, which came out just before the election, as having “[raised] serious doubts”. Yep. That’s right. Hillary Clinton continues to peddle this Red Scare, along with the Comey letter for having caused her to lose. Here’s a hint, Hillary. If you engage in potentially illegal activities, don’t expect for there to be no ensuing legal investigation.
I have absolutely no idea why she didn’t expect information (WikiLeaks documents) to be used against her. It’s what information is for: to prove a point, and when that point disagrees with you, it’s not misogyny or sexism. In yet another moment of extreme irony, she remarked how this supposed ‘Russian Hacking’ should “send chills down the spine of anyone who cares about democracy.” Remember, that the DNC were the ones who rigged the primary against Bernie Sanders, and that it was this supposed ‘Russian interference’ that revealed
1). The DNC rigging the primary
2). Collusion between the DNC and the media
It’s not even proven that it was Russia. The only ‘proof’ there is consists of unverified statements from several intelligence agencies, which is further marred by the recent WikiLeaks ‘Vault 7’ release, and specifically, the revelation of the CIA’s ability to frame hacks on others. 
Clinton also blamed the media for reporting on her ongoing email scandal. Weird how Clinton would believe that the media reported on her negatively, given their blackout of Bernie Sanders during the primaries and the splurges of pro-Clintonite articles from the corporate media conglomerate. Time Warner, the parent company of CNN, donated about a million dollars to Hillary throughout her political career.
And, how is Sanders to blame for Clinton’s loss? Presumably, he stirred up the progressive base and got them to not vote for Clinton by painting her as an elite who only cared for Wall Street. Ignoring the facts that:
1). As a candidate for the democratic nomination, he had every right to, did, and should have done his absolute best to win by showing that he’s the better candidate.
2). If Clinton wanted their support, maybe she should have been a progressive.
While it’s quite possible that Senator Sanders pointing out Clinton’s flaws contributed to her loss, she shouldn’t expect that she gets an uncontested primary. This deflection of blame onto Bernie Sanders for running an honest, tough campaign is purely undemocratic, and childishly pathetic.
Hillary Clinton gave a historically saddening interview at this event. Aside from promoting her usual warmongering ways of bombing Syria, a cue that Trump apparently took, she appears to be unable to put up much more than excuses for her loss in November.
“He that is good for making excuses is seldom good for anything else.” -Benjamin Franklin
Bill Maher reacts to Clinton’s return “You had your shot and you [messed] it up”
 “Cruzada contra el hambre atenderá a 7.4 millones de pobres”. Milenio. 2013-01-21. Retrieved2013-07-19.