The media is still processing their grief so it is hard to take them seriously but I do like this lead from Jackie (Formerly) Calmes:
What Is Lost by Burying the Trans-Pacific Partnership?
WASHINGTON — Congressional leaders confirmed this week what seemed inevitable with the triumph of Donald J. Trump: The far-reaching trade agreement with 11 other Pacific Rim nations that President Obama hoped to leave as a major legacy, but which Mr. Trump called “a terrible deal,” is dead.
Wait, what's Trump got to do with it? Although she had worked on negotiating the deal and backed it at one time, Ms. Clinton had swung against it this election season. Surely it would have been just as dead had she been elected?
I know, right? That was then, and who knows with Hillary and her Chamber of Commerce Democratic supporters.
FWIW, the Times alluded to her malleability on this issue (and others) in their Sept 24 endorsement:
She helped promote the Trans-Pacific Partnership, an important trade counterweight to China and a key component of the Obama administration’s pivot to Asia. Her election-year reversal on that pact has confused some of her supporters, but her underlying commitment to bolstering trade along with workers’ rights is not in doubt.
QUESTIONS NO ONE IS ASKING: From Scott Shackford of Reason:
Will the Democrats Learn Anything at All from Defeat?
Other than whiteys are haters, which they already knew? No. But I love this:
What makes Clinton the "establishment" is not that she shared the same positions as "beltway insiders," but that she shared the same lack of them. They weren't positions so much as positioning. She didn't stand for anything at all.
But a deeper dive suggests that actually, in the end, she does stand for something, and that's government intervention in every single problem that exists, anywhere. It may not seem like policy played a role in this election, but I suspect in the end that's like saying that water plays no role in fish behavior. It was always in the background.