The myth of her dishonesty is alive and kicking:
Trump was a much more prolific liar, but his lies were, by comparison, benign: boastful exaggerations, hyperbole about issues, times when he simply didn’t know what he was talking about.
Clinton’s lies were about serious matters – about classified materials on emails, about Benghazi, and the things she had said in speeches on Wall Street that were different from things she said to voters. People didn’t trust her, and she kept giving them reasons not to trust her.
The author is the former Editor of Char-O's editorial page and a novelist, much lauded for both. But his attempt to convince readers Trump's victory does not herald an upsurge in racism, and that it's merely a rejection of his flawed opponent, is both naive and embarrassing. Clinton did not lie about classified e-mails, but Republicans on the House panel "investigating" her surely did. And for this guy to even mention Benghazi proves his information sources were tainted beyond recovery. After thousands of hours of posturing, the Benghazi Committee produced zero (nada, nothing) evidence of wrongdoing on her part. But that doesn't fit the narrative of "there is no racism, it was Clinton's fault" this man set out to prove in his little essay. By far, the biggest loser in this election was (and apparently still is) the truth.