Why are we eating our own?

When any discussion of the Russian election meddling comes up, regardless of who is conducting said discussion, it is always with the disclaimer that whatever meddling occurred there was little to no effect on the outcome of the election.

Isn't that odd? With all the resourses the Russians put behind the effort, supposedly dozens of hackers and GRU agents. Millions of Dollars spent. The release of thousands of hacked documents and e-mails detrimental to the Clinton campaign. All for naught? They blew all that effort on 2016 and now they are, we are told, gearing up to do the same thing in 2020?

Set that aside, I understand Trump and his Republicans wanting to deny any appearance of success by the Russians. It would imply that Trump didn't actually win the election, slim as that win was. Heck, I would make the case that over and above the gerrymandering and outright cheating to get various candidates elected, that Putin's tinkering likely resulted in a few Republicans beating their Democrat opponents who would have lost otherwise.

But what's really bizarre is that most Democrats feel the need to minimise the effects of Russian interference. I don't get that at all. I can't count the number of times I have heard various politicians and pundits from the left posit that there was no interference, or if there were, it had no effect!

MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, who has extensively covered Trump's dealings with Russian oligarchs for years. Coverage always carefuly reseached and sourced by the way, unlike many other talking heads that generally can't be bothered to verify whether whatever breathless 'Breaking News' they happen to be pushing to get eyeballs. Maddow is also one of the few who will bother to correct themselves or apologise when they do get something wrong. (You're welcome Rachel, make sure the check is in the mail.) I get that she and Hillary are buds, and I have criticized Maddow's blind eye to the Clinton's and the DNC's chicanery in cutting Bernie off at the knees and the outright vote manipulation to get Hillary nominated. But why this knee-jerk opposition to anything she reports on?

Maddow has been excoriated from the beginning for her supposed obsession with Trump's Russia connections. Maddow has even been mocked on late night comedy since news that the Mueller report concluded there was no Russian "collusion" with the Trump campaign. It has since evolved that the report said no such thing, but moving on. Even journalist Glenn Greenwald, a progressive journalist who used to be a regular on Maddow's show, is now one of her harshest critics.

Recently, Kyle Kulinski, a reliably progressive host of a You Tube show and radio broacast harpooned Maddow for her apparent desire to go to war with Venezuela after a segment wherin she was mocking Trump's simple-minded description of his 90 minute phone call with Putin after the release of Mueller's report. I watched the video in question and in no way was she advocating any such thing. In fact, it seemed that Kulinsky had viewed something only existing in his own fevered dreams!

I personally have experienced backlash when I've brought up the subject on social media for example. I don't get it.

It seems like progressives will criticise those who voted for the likes of Jill Stein rather than Hillary (never mind that Gary Johnson got twice as many voters from the right than Stein may have stolen from Clinton) before even acknowleging that the Russians may have tried to influence the election.

Is it possible that they wish us to think that Hillary was so flawed that she would have lost without Russia's help?  The argument that the whole thing was a "Nothingburger", a distraction from more important things like healthcare, or the climate kind of worked during the campaign, but now?

What has happened?

It's very bizarre.