Chelsea Clinton Says Americans Were TOO SEXIST to Elect Her Mom

The left continues in denial. Leftists just can’t or won’t come to grips with the fact that Hillary Clinton lost because Americans have grown tired of the Democrats’ anti-American, globalist, socialist internationalism. Americans grew tired of the immigration inundation and the islamization it heralded. But the Clintons and their followers just cannot admit that they put forward a weak candidate with bad policies. And so the finger-pointing and excuses continue.

“Chelsea Clinton Says Americans Were Too Sexist to Elect Her Mom,” by Emily Zanotti, Heat Street, April 18, 2017:

Chelsea Clinton likes cheddar cheese and Twitter and hates that America can’t come to grips with what the Clinton Foundation actually does. Oh, and her mother lost because voters are sexist.

Speaking to Variety magazine (she graces the cover in a white t-shirt, motorcycle jacket and a lot of Photoshop work), Clinton says she’s definitely not interested in running for office, but if she were, she’d have to contend with American voters who stubbornly refuse to acknowledge exactly how much she and her family have contributed to their lives.

The former First Daughter says she was “not surprised” at the blatant sexism she encountered on the campaign trail with her mom, Hillary Clinton, and warned the magazine that the country is “going backwards” on civil liberties (though, it seems, Donald Trump has yet to provide Chelsea with any specific examples).

She is also dismayed, she told Variety, that Americans don’t understand what the Clinton Foundation does—and that the organization got a bad rap during her mother’s campaign.

“The lies were absolutely frustrating because the facts didn’t seem sufficient to put them to rest. I think that was so odd about the whole experience—either the truth was insufficient or people just didn’t care,” Chelsea claims. She says she “wishes” more people would have looked at the “facts,” including the Foundation’s tax filings.

The problem is, Chelsea, they did, and found that donors to the Foundation were often transacting in a type of quid pro quo scheme that earned them face time with important Clinton aides at the State Department. Even the New York Times expressed concern that your mom was using the Foundation as part of a plan to charge countries for favorable Obama Administration foreign policy….