The New York Magazine profile of Hillary Clinton is worth reading. The reason being it is a more intimate look into her mindset, which is one of a person who believes she deserved to be elected President and not that it was something to be earned.

Naturally, the piece loads up with quotes from mean guys saying mean things about the Fair Lady with all of the pushback one would expect. Such as:

Later, Amanpour would tell me how surprised she was by the negative reaction. “The idea that she shouldn’t mention the Comey letter when the entire nation and the most respected statisticians are considering its impact is so strange,” she said. “If she were a man, would she be allowed to mention it? As a woman, I am offended by the double standards applied here. Everyone shrieks that Hillary was a bad candidate, but was Trump a good candidate?”

Unfortunately for Amanpour, not a single statistician can connect the Comey letter directly to Clinton’s loss. Nate Silver says he believes it’s possible but only pointed to trends which take place in almost all elections. The bottom line is nobody can prove causation; they can only show correlation. The Comey letter is a crutch, and that should offend Amanpour more than anything else.

Even the author of the piece, Rebecca Traister, doesn’t seem to comprehend why Donald Trump won. Foisting her loss off on the idea people feel threatened by the notion of women in power, she writes:

But postmortems offering rational explanations for how a pussy-grabbing goblin managed to gain the White House over an experienced woman have mostly glossed over one of the well-worn dynamics in play: A competent woman losing a job to an incompetent man is not an anomalous Election Day surprise; it is Tuesday in America.

The “pussy-grabbing goblin” line is precisely how the Clinton campaign went after Donald Trump. The last two months of the campaign, team Clinton decided the best route to go against Trump was to paint him as a knuckle-dragging troglodyte who did not have the necessary experience or mindset to be President. After the first four months of the Trump Train Wreck, it is hard to argue they’re wrong. But people, particularly in the rust belt, were concerned with issues related more to the economy than they were Donald Trump’s personal behavior.

Clinton saves her sharpest attacks for the “right-wing media” she blames for making minor issues ones of national importance:

Piecing together what happened, with six months of perspective, Clinton says she thinks she “underestimated WikiLeaks and the impact that had, because I thought it was so silly.” Those hacked emails, dripped out over weeks, says Clinton, “were innocuous, boring, inconsequential. And each one was played like it was some breathless flash. And so you got Trump, in the last month of the campaign, talking about WikiLeaks something like 164 times; you’ve got all his minions out there, you’ve got the right-wing media just blowing it up. You’ve got Google searches off the charts.” Clinton has been looking at where some of the Google searches for WikiLeaks were coming from. “They were from a lot of places where people were trying to make up their minds,” she says. “Like, ‘Oh my God, I kinda like her, I don’t like him, but she might go to jail. And then what about all this other stuff?’ It was just such a dump of cognitive dissonance …” Clinton trails off and then smiles and nods to herself. “I have a lot of sympathy for voters in a lot of places I didn’t win,” she says. “Because I can see how hard it was.”

If I had a paper copy of the magazine, I’d be able to feel the condescension dripping from the pages. For somebody who is “woke,” she still has the inability to recognize her sense of self-importance and the disdain she has for the very people she claims to represent. Her comment about sympathy reads more like, “I feel so sorry for you stupid yokels who didn’t vote for me.”

She goes on:

“The cable networks seem to me to be folding into a posture of, ‘Oh, we want to try to get some of those people on the right, so maybe we better be more, quote, evenhanded.’ ” When I mention MSNBC’s hiring of conservatives including George Will, and the New York Times’ new climate-change-skeptic opinion columnist, Bret Stephens, her brow furrows. “Why … would … you … do … that?” she says. “Sixty-six million people voted for me…”

Remember, everybody. It is all about her. As an aside, Traister’s description of Stephens as a “climate-change-skeptic” is completely false and proof she is another who never read Stephens piece. What Hillary fails to understand is people like Will and Stephens are hired by more left-leaning outlets because they are part of the handful of conservatives who haven’t bought into Donald Trump’s con-game.

There is more in the piece about the election and it how it played out and steps she took after the election-night loss, but there is one other part that stands out:

But this was an election that was, in many ways, about anger. And Trump and Sanders capitalized on that. “Yes.” Clinton nods. “And I beat both of them.”

Except, she didn’t beat them both.

Clinton barely beat back a challenge by a socialist Senator from Vermont and needed coordination between her campaign and the DNC as well as the strange superdelegate system the DNC utilizes. For example, Bernie Sanders beat Clinton in the West Virginia primary, 51% to 36%. Sanders walked away with 19 delegates while Hillary got 18 thanks in part to superdelegates.

As for the race with Donald Trump?

Nobody is saying, “Madame President.”