Trump's 'Liberation Day' Tariffs: Fair trade or global trade war?

希拉里·克林顿：共和党的算盘正中习近平和普京下怀 Hillary Clinton: Republicans Are Playing Into the Hands of Putin and Xi 希拉里·克林顿 观点2023年4月25日 ILLUSTRATION BY SAM WHITNEY/THE NEW YORK TIMES Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy is making a ransom demand. His hostages are the economy and America’s credibility. Mr. McCarthy has threatened that House Republicans will refuse to raise the federal government’s debt ceiling, potentially triggering a global financial crisis, unless President Biden agrees to deep cuts to education, health care, food assistance for poor children and other services. 众议院议长凯文·麦卡锡提出了赎金要求。他的人质是经济和美国的信誉。麦卡锡威胁说，除非拜登总统同意大幅削减教育、医疗保健、贫困儿童食物援助和其他服务的开支，众议院共和党人将拒绝提高联邦政府的债务上限，这可能引发全球金融危机。 Mr. McCarthy repeatedly invoked the threat of Chinese competition as justification. The speaker is right that this debate has significant national security implications — just not the way he says. 麦卡锡一再援引中国竞争的威胁作为理由。议长是对的，这场辩论对国家安全有重大影响——只是不像他所说的那样。 With Russia’s brutal invasion of Ukraine in its second year, tensions with China continuing to rise and global threats looming, from future pandemics to climate change, the world is looking to the United States for strong, steady leadership. Congressional brinkmanship on the debt ceiling sends the opposite message to our allies and our adversaries: that America is divided, distracted and can’t be counted on. 随着俄罗斯对乌克兰的野蛮入侵进入第二年，与中国的紧张关系继续加剧，从未来的大流行到气候变化等各种全球威胁迫在眉睫，世界正期待美国发挥强大、稳定的领导作用。国会在债务上限问题上的边缘政策向我们的盟友和对手发出了相反的信息：美国是分裂的、不专注的、无法指望的。 Let’s start by dispelling a myth. The debt ceiling debate is not about authorizing new spending. It’s about Congress paying debts it has already incurred. Refusing to pay would be like skipping out on your mortgage, except with global consequences. Because of the central role of the United States — and the dollar — in the international economy, defaulting on our debts could spark a worldwide financial meltdown. 让我们先来破除一个迷思。关于债务上限的讨论不是关于批准新的支出。而是关于国会偿还已有的债务。拒绝还债就像放弃你的抵押贷款，只是前者会产生全球性的后果。由于美国和美元在国际经济中的核心地位，我们的债务违约可能引发全球金融危机。 Republicans in Congress have consistently voted to raise the debt ceiling with little drama when a fellow Republican is in the White House — including three times under President Donald Trump. But during Democratic administrations, they have weaponized the debt ceiling to extort concessions, despite the danger of default. 当共和党人入主白宫时，国会中的共和党人一直投票赞成提高债务上限，几乎没有什么波折——包括唐纳德·特朗普总统执政期间的三次。但在民主党执政期间，他们不顾违约的危险，把债务上限当作勒索的武器，来换取让步。 I was secretary of state during the debt ceiling crisis of 2011, so I saw firsthand how this partisan posturing damaged our nation’s credibility around the world. 我在2011年债务上限危机期间担任国务卿，因此亲眼目睹了这种从党派出发的装腔作势如何损害了我们国家在全球的信誉。 I vividly remember walking into a Hong Kong ballroom that July for a conference organized by the local American Chamber of Commerce. Congressional Republicans were refusing to raise the debt ceiling, and the prospect of a default was getting closer by the day. I was swarmed by nervous businessmen from across Asia. They peppered me with questions about the fight back home over the debt ceiling and what it would mean for the international economy. The regional and global stability that America had guaranteed for decades was the foundation on which they had built companies and fortunes. But could they still trust the United States? Were we really going to spark another worldwide financial crisis? And the question that no one wanted to ask out loud: If America faltered, would China swoop in to fill the vacuum? 我清楚地记得，那年7月，我走进香港的一间宴会厅，参加当地美国商会组织的会议。当时国会共和党人拒绝提高债务上限，违约的前景日渐逼近。我被来自亚洲各地紧张不安的商人团团围住。他们不停地想问我国内的债务上限争斗，以及这对国际经济意味着什么。美国几十年来保证的地区和全球稳定是他们创建企业和财富的基础。但他们还能信任美国吗？我们真的会引发另一场全球金融危机吗？还有一个没人愿意大声问出来的问题：如果美国摇摇欲坠，中国会不会抓住机会，填补这个真空？ I tried to reassure those businessmen the same way I did when I spoke with anxious foreign diplomats throughout that summer, confidently promising that Congress would eventually reach a deal. I repeated a quip sometimes apocryphally attributed to Winston Churchill: You can always count on Americans to do the right thing, after they’ve tried everything else. Privately, I crossed my fingers and hoped it was true. 我试图安抚那些商人，就像那个夏天我和焦虑的各国外交官交谈时一样，自信地承诺国会最终会达成协议。我重复了一句有时被认为出自温斯顿·丘吉尔之口的俏皮话：对美国人可以放心，他们一定会在尝试了其他所有方法之后，最终去做正确的事。私下里，我在祈愿这件事就会这样收场。 Later that day, I headed to a villa in mainland China for a meeting with my counterpart, State Councilor Dai Bingguo. Over the years, I had heard monologues from Mr. Dai about America’s many supposed misdeeds, his criticisms at times bitingly sardonic but usually delivered with a smile. So I was not surprised when he, too, turned the conversation to the debt ceiling, barely containing his glee at our self-inflicted wound. I was not in the mood for lectures. “We could spend the next six hours talking about China’s domestic challenges,” I told Mr. Dai. 当天晚些时候，我前往中国大陆的一座宅院，与我的对等官员、国务委员戴秉国会晤。多年来，我听戴先生对许多所谓美国的不当行为发表过冗长讲话，他的批评有时尖刻讽刺，但他说这些时通常带着微笑。因此，当他同样把话题转向债务上限时，我并不意外，看到我们搬起石头砸自己的脚，他显得喜形于色。我没有心情听别人说教。“我们可以用接下来的六个小时讨论中国国内的挑战，”我对戴先生说。 Fortunately, Congress and President Barack Obama finally reached an agreement to raise the debt ceiling before careening into the fiscal abyss. But the S&P still fell 17 percent, consumer and business confidence nose-dived, and the government’s credit rating was downgraded for the first time ever. After another crisis in 2013, the lesson was clear: Negotiating with hostage-takers will only embolden them to do it again. 幸运的是，国会和奥巴马总统最终在陷入财政深渊之前，就提高债务上限达成了协议。但标准普尔指数仍然下跌了17%，消费者和企业信心暴跌，政府的信用评级有史以来第一次被下调。在2013年的另一场危机之后，教训很明显：与劫持人质者谈判，只会让他们觉得更有底气，下次还会这么干。 Fast-forward a decade, and Republicans are playing the same game. Except now, the risks are even higher. 快进到十年后，共和党人还在玩同样的游戏。但现在，风险更高了。 Today the competition between democracies and autocracies has grown more intense. And by undermining America’s credibility and the pre-eminence of the dollar, the fight over the debt ceiling plays right into the hands of Xi Jinping of China and Vladimir Putin of Russia. 如今，民主和专制之间的竞争变得更加激烈。关于债务上限的争斗可能破坏美国的信誉和美元的卓越地位，因而对于中国的习近平和俄罗斯的普京来说，可谓正中下怀。 SPENCER PLATT/GETTY IMAGES America’s leadership around the world depends on our economic strength at home. Defaulting on our debts could cost the United States seven million jobs and throw our economy into a deep recession. Instead of the “arsenal of democracy” capable of outcompeting our rivals, dominating the industries of the future such as microchips and clean energy and modernizing our military, America would be hobbled. 美国在世界上的领导地位取决于我们国内的经济实力。拖欠债务可能会使美国失去700万个工作岗位，并使我们的经济陷入严重衰退。美国将不再是能够超越对手、主导未来产业（如微芯片和清洁能源）和实现军事现代化的“民主武库”，而是变得步履蹒跚。 Even setting aside this economic carnage, brinkmanship over the debt ceiling reinforces autocrats’ narrative that American democracy is in terminal decline and can’t be trusted. 即使抛开这种经济惨败不谈，围绕债务上限的边缘政策也是在证明专制者的说法，即美国民主正处于末路，不可信任。 Trust matters in international affairs. We frequently ask other nations to put their faith in the United States. Our military will be there to protect allies, our financial system is secure, and when we warn about compromised Chinese telecom equipment or an impending Russian invasion, we’re telling the truth. Threatening to break America’s promise to pay our debts calls all that into question. 在国际事务中，信任至关重要。我们经常要求其他国家信任美国。我们的军队将在那里保护盟友，我们的金融体系是安全的，当我们警告中国电信设备有问题或者俄罗斯即将入侵时，我们说的是实话。威胁要打破美国对偿付债务的承诺，就会使所有这些受到质疑。 When I was secretary of state, a big part of my job was rebuilding confidence in the United States after the George W. Bush administration. It wasn’t easy. Senior Chinese officials rarely missed an opportunity to argue that the United States was to blame for the 2008 global financial crisis, and they enjoyed highlighting our troubles in Iraq and Afghanistan. The more dysfunctional or untrustworthy America looked, the easier it was for Chinese propagandists to bad-mouth democracy and brag about their own authoritarian system. 当我担任国务卿时，我工作的很大一部分是在乔治·W·布什政府之后重建对美国的信心。这并不容易。中国高级官员几乎不放过任何机会，声称美国应该为2008年全球金融危机负责，他们喜欢强调我们在伊拉克和阿富汗的麻烦。美国越是看起来功能失调或不值得信任，中国的宣传者就越容易诋毁民主，吹嘘自己的威权制度。 Today America’s credibility will help determine whether nervous Europeans continue to stand with us and support Ukraine or seek an accommodation with an emboldened Russia. It could determine whether more Asian nations welcome American military bases and troops to deter Chinese aggression, as the Philippines recently did, or buckle to Beijing’s bullying. 如今，美国的信誉将有助于决定紧张不安的欧洲人是继续与美国站在一起支持乌克兰，还是寻求与一个愈发胆大妄为的俄罗斯和解。它可以决定，亚洲国家是会更多地欢迎美国的军事基地和军队来遏制中国的进犯（就像最近的菲律宾那样），还是屈服于北京的霸凌。 There’s more. Playing games with the debt ceiling imperils the dollar’s pre-eminent position in the global economy and the power that gives the United States. 此外还有更多。在债务上限问题上耍花招会危及美元在全球经济中的卓越地位和美国的权力。 All over the world, people, companies and governments conduct international transactions in dollars, invest in U.S. Treasury bonds and rely on U.S. banks because they trust that America pays its debts, upholds the rule of law and guarantees stability. The centrality of the dollar gives the United States far-reaching influence. It allows us to impose crippling sanctions, like those I negotiated against Iran during the Obama administration and those the Biden administration has used to respond to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. This is why Fareed Zakaria recently declared in a Washington Post op-ed that “the dollar is America’s superpower.” 在世界各地，个人、公司和政府用美元进行国际交易，投资美国国债，依赖美国的银行，因为他们相信美国能够偿还债务，维护法治，保证稳定。美元的中心地位赋予了美国深远的影响力。它使我们能够实施严厉的制裁，就像我在奥巴马政府期间对伊朗谈判的制裁，以及拜登政府用来回应俄罗斯入侵乌克兰的制裁。正因如此，法里德·扎卡里亚最近在《华盛顿邮报》的一篇专栏文章中宣称“美元是美国的超能力”。 It’s no surprise that Mr. Xi and Mr. Putin are eager to disrupt the dollar’s dominance and defang American sanctions. At their recent summit in Moscow, Mr. Putin suggested Russia may start selling oil around the world using Chinese yuan rather than dollars, which it is already doing for shipments to China. The two countries are also trying to build cross-border financial systems to allow them to bypass U.S. banks and are holding fewer reserves in dollars. 习近平和普京渴望破坏美元的主导地位，并使美国的制裁失效，这不足为奇。两人最近在莫斯科举行了峰会，普京在会上表示，俄罗斯可能会开始用人民币而不是美元在世界各地销售石油。俄罗斯对中国的石油出口已经在使用人民币结算。两国还在努力建立跨境金融体系，使其能够绕过美国银行，并减持美元储备。 If Congress keeps flirting with default, calls for dethroning the dollar as the world’s reserve currency will grow much louder — and not just in Beijing and Moscow. Countries all over the world will start hedging their bets. 如果美国国会依然不认真对待违约一事，推翻美元作为世界储备货币地位的呼声将会越来越高——而且不仅仅是在北京和莫斯科。世界各国将开始对冲其赌注。 It’s a sad irony that Mr. McCarthy and many of the same congressional Republicans seemingly intent on sabotaging America’s global leadership by refusing to pay our debts are also positioning themselves as tougher-than-thou China hawks. They talk a good game about standing up to Beijing, yet they are handing a major win to the Chinese Communist Party. 讽刺的是，麦卡锡和许多似乎意图通过拒绝偿还我们的债务来破坏美国全球领导地位的共和党人，同时也将自己定位为“比你更强硬”的对华鹰派。他们夸夸其谈地说要对抗北京，却把一场重大胜利拱手交给中国共产党。 Republicans should stop holding America’s credit hostage, shoulder their responsibilities as leaders and raise the debt ceiling. 共和党人应该停止对美国信用的挟持，肩负起他们作为领导人的责任，提高债务上限。 希拉里·克林顿 (Hillary Clinton)曾于2009年至2013年担任美国国务卿。 翻译：纽约时报中文网 书评 《发生了什么》：希拉里的坦诚、抗争与黑色幽默 Hillary Clinton Opens Up About ‘What Happened,’ With Candor, Defiance and Dark Humor JENNIFER SENIOR 2017年9月13日 2016年10月，希拉里·克林顿在迈阿密的竞选集会上。 2016年10月，希拉里·克林顿在迈阿密的竞选集会上。 DOUG MILLS/THE NEW YORK TIMES Hillary Clinton has written a book. Have you heard? 你听说了吗？希拉里·克林顿(Hillary Clinton)写了一本书。 Choice quotes have been seeping out for weeks, and I’ll admit that I reacted to one of them — “Now I’m letting down my guard” — as if the smoke alarm had started shrieking in my living room. Why believe her? In her previous books, she measured her words with teaspoons and then sprayed them with disinfectant. 一些片段几个星期前就开始流传了，我承认其中一段让我产生了很大反应，就像烟雾报警器在我的客厅里鸣叫一样——“现在我放下了戒备”。为什么要相信她？她以前的书都是字斟句酌，然后再在上面喷一遍消毒剂。 Then again, we’ve been told over and over that Clinton is very different in private. And she is now a private citizen. 不过话又说回来，据说私下里的克林顿是个很不一样的人。如今她是个普通公民。 This distinction seems to have made all the difference. 这种区别似乎让一切都有所不同了。 “What Happened” is not one book, but many. It is a candid and blackly funny account of her mood in the direct aftermath of losing to Donald Trump. It is a post-mortem, in which she is both coroner and corpse. It is a feminist manifesto. It is a score-settling jubilee. It is a rant against James Comey, Bernie Sanders, the media, James Comey, Vladimir Putin and James Comey. It is a primer on Russian spying. It is a thumping of Trump. (“I sometimes wonder: If you add together his time spent on golf, Twitter and cable news,” she writes, “what’s left?”) 《发生了什么》(What Happened)不是一本书，而是很多本。它是一份描述，讲了她败给唐纳德·特朗普之后那段时间里的心情，充满坦诚与黑色幽默。它是一份验尸报告，她本人既是验尸官，也是尸体。它是一份女权主义宣言。它是一场秋后算账的狂欢。它是对詹姆斯·科米(James Comey)、伯尼·桑德斯(Bernie Sanders)、媒体、詹姆斯·科米、弗拉基米尔·普京(Vladimir Putin)以及詹姆斯·科米的咆哮。它是关于俄罗斯间谍活动的启蒙读本。它是对特朗普的重拳出击。（“我有时在想，如果把他打高尔夫球、刷Twitter和看有线台新闻所花的时间加起来，”她写道，“那还剩下什么？”） It is worth reading. Winning the popular vote by nearly 3 million may not have been enough to shatter the country’s highest, hardest glass ceiling. But it seems to have put 2,864,974 extra cracks in Clinton’s reserve. 这本书值得一读。以超过近300万票赢得普选可能不足以打破这个国家最高、最硬的玻璃天花板。但似乎增加了额外的2864974道裂痕供克林顿备用。 In the run-up to the publication of this book, Democrats have been privately expressing their dread, fearing it will be a distraction and reopen old wounds. 在这本书出版前夕，民主党人一直在私下表示恐惧，他们担心这本书会分散人们的注意力，重新撕开旧伤疤。 I wonder if, after reading it, they will feel otherwise. Are there moments when “What Happened” is wearying, canned and disingenuous, spinning events like a top? Yes. Does it offer any new hypotheses about what doomed Clinton’s campaign? No. It merely synthesizes old ones; Clinton’s diagnostics are the least interesting part of the book. Is there a full chapter devoted to her email, clearly intended to make her own closing arguments in this case? Yes. She can’t shake her inner litigator. 我不知道他们读完之后会不会觉得正好相反。《发生了什么》里面有没有什么令人厌烦、不坦诚的老套段落，像摆弄陀螺一样对事实进行有倾向性的操纵？有。关于克林顿宿命般的败选，它是否提出了什么新的假设？没有。它只是把那些旧的说法综合了一下；克林顿本人对此的判断是全书中最不重要的部分。有没有一整章专门讲述邮件门，意图为这件事做出她最后的总结陈词？有。她无法改变内心深处诉讼律师的本性。 JAMES NIEVES/THE NEW YORK TIMES But this book is not just a perseverative recap of 2016. It is the story of what it was like to run for president of the United States as the female nominee of a major party, a first in U.S. history. The apotheosis of Leaning In. Doesn’t this experience rate an account from Clinton herself? Especially when, after sticking her neck out, the only place some people could envision it was in a stockade? 但这本书不仅仅是对2016年的一份不屈不挠的总结。它还讲述了美国历史上第一位主要政党的女性提名人如何竞选总统的故事。这是“向前一步”(Leaning In)的巅峰。克林顿觉得这段经历值得一提吗？特别是她冒着风险向前之后，有些人觉得她唯一应该去的地方就是监狱？ The best, most poignant parts of “What Happened” reveal the Hillary Clinton that her inner circle has assured us was lurking beneath the surface all along: A woman who’s arch but sensitive. She writes that she’s astonished whenever someone else is astonished to discover she’s human. “For the record,” she writes, “it hurts to be torn apart.” It stung when schoolmates in junior high teased her about “the lack of ankles on my sturdy legs.” It stung when they teased her about her glasses, too. She doesn’t even bother describing her reaction to the ticker of contumely that’s whirred above her head for most of her adult life, though she does write about how “incredibly uncomfortable” it was to be stalked on stage by Trump during the second presidential debate. 《发生了什么》中最精彩的是那些酸楚的段落，它们展现了她的亲信们想让我们相信的那个希拉里·克林顿，一个高傲而又敏感的女人，一直潜伏在表面之下。她写道，每当有人把她也是有血有肉的人当成惊人发现时，她就会觉得很惊讶。“我得声明，”她写道，“被撕碎是很疼的”。初中同学开玩笑，说她“双腿粗壮，没长脚踝”，她感到很伤心。他们嘲笑她的眼镜也令她难过。她甚至没有费力去描写她对那些无礼言行的反应，成年后的大部分时间里，这样的侮辱一直围绕在她身边。尽管她写道，第二次总统辩论时，特朗普在她身后盯着她看的感觉“令人非常不舒服”。 Far more controversial and complicated, surely, is the rest of “What Happened,” starting with Clinton’s arguments about the role of misogyny and sexism in the election. It’s hard to buy the idea that she suffered disproportionately from charges of untrustworthiness or inauthenticity simply because she was a woman. Her husband was considered so eely that the tabloids christened him “Slick Willy,” and plenty of male presidential candidates (Mitt Romney, John Kerry) were regarded as catastrophically insincere. 当然，更有争议、更复杂的，肯定是《发生了什么》中的其他部分，从克林顿讨论女性歧视和性别歧视在选举中发挥的作用这一部分开始。仅仅因为她是女人，就遭到了过多指责，说她不值得信赖、不真诚，这样的观点是让人难以信服的。她的丈夫就被认为过于圆滑，小报都管他叫“滑头威利”(Slick Willy)，还有很多男性总统候选人（米特·罗姆尼[Mitt Romney]、约翰·凯利[John Kerry]）都被视为极不真诚。 More persuasive is Clinton’s contention that presidential politics, especially compared to parliamentary politics, favors arena-filling showmanship rather than the quieter, detail-oriented realism she prefers. (How many times has Clinton been praised for being “a workhorse, not a show horse”?) And 2016 was nothing if not the year of the blusterer. One of the things that drove Clinton bonkers about Bernie Sanders was that he always managed to outdo her proposals with something larger and less feasible. “That left me to play the unenviable role,” she writes, “of spoilsport schoolmarm.” 更有说服力的是克林顿的一个观点，她认为总统政治，特别是与议会政治相比，更青睐舞台表演技艺，而不是她倾向的那种更安静、更细节化的现实主义。（克林顿多少次被誉为“一匹干活的马，不是用来表演马术的”？）而2016年堪称夸夸其谈者的一年。克林顿特别受不了伯尼·桑德斯的一点是：他总是想方设法提出比她的提议更宏大、但却更不可行的提议。她说：“这让我成了一个令人厌烦的角色，就像败兴、拘谨的女教师一样。” As her book’s title implies, Clinton has her own version of what happened in 2016, and she eventually forces readers to reckon with it. She seems at once the best and worst possible person to carry out this assessment. But here, at any rate, is her bottom line: 正如书名所暗示的，克林顿对于2016年发生的事情有着自己的版本。最终，她迫使读者直面这一点。要进行这项评估，她似乎是最佳人选，也是最差人选。不过，无论如何，她的基本观点是： Comey’s letter of Oct. 28, 2016, which notified Congress that he was reopening his investigation into Clinton’s use of a private email server to conduct State Department business, effectively ended her candidacy. (She leans heavily on various analyses done by data maestro Nate Silver to make her case.) Combine that letter with the full-saturation media coverage Comey’s investigation had been getting all along, and then add to it Russian interference — fake news stories on social media, email hacks — and you have the perfect storm. 2016年10月28日，科米致信通知国会，他正对克林顿使用私人电子邮件服务器处理国务院事务一事重新展开调查，这封信实质上终结了她的竞选。（为证明自己的观点，她大量引用了数据大师纳特·希尔弗[Nate Silver]所做的各种分析）。这封信，加上媒体对科米调查连篇累牍的报道，再加上俄罗斯的干预——社交媒体上的假新闻、黑客窃取电子邮件的行动——终于造就了这场完美风暴。 Clinton also blames sexism, citing a 2014 Pew Research Center poll that showed just how few voters hoped to see a female president in their lifetime. She blames racism, too, which she considers inseparable from economic anxiety, because her courting of immigrants and voters of color might have given the impression that she put their economic interests before those of disenfranchised whites. She believes that voter suppression in swing states, made possible by a ruling by the Supreme Court in 2013, also made a difference. So did the ever-present animus toward her, which remains, she writes, something she doesn’t fully understand. 克林顿还把败选归咎于性别歧视，她引用2014年皮尤研究中心(Pew Research Center)的一项调查，其中指出，几乎没有多少选民寄望于在有生之年见证一位女总统上任。她还指责种族主义，认为它同经济焦虑息息相关。由于她努力争取移民和有色人种选民，这可能会让人觉得，她把这些人的经济利益置于被剥夺权利的白人之上。她认为，摇摆州那些因最高法院2013年的裁决而遭到压制的选民也可能对结果造成影响。此外还有一直以来针对她的那些敌意，她写道，她对此仍然并不完全理解。 It’s hard to say whether readers will buy these explanations. It’s possible that a more inspired candidate would have won the Electoral College, simple as that. Or that the Clinton brand was tarnished among black voters. Or that her campaign, despite its extensive networks and deep pockets, failed to detect that something on the ground was wrong. Or that she should have appeared in more rural areas. Or that she couldn’t find a better way to speak to the fears of the white working class — which she does admit, though she doesn’t think it cost her the election. 读者是否会接受这些解释还很难说。一个比她更有创意的候选人可能会赢得选举人投票，可能就这么简单。或者克林顿品牌的名声在黑人选民中已经遭到了玷污。或者她的竞选尽管拥有广泛的网络和雄厚的资金，却没有发现在基层出现了某种问题。或者她应该更多地出现在乡村地区。又或者她没有找到一个更好的方式来应对白人工人阶级的恐惧——她承认这一点，尽管她不认为是这个原因令她在选举中失败。 We’ll be arguing about these questions for decades, surely. But one thing we know for certain: History conspired against Clinton. No non-incumbent Democrat has succeeded a two-term Democratic president since 1836, and 2016 was a year when voters were pining for change. Bigly. 这些问题肯定足以让我们讨论几十年。但我们确实知道这样一件事：历史在和克林顿作对。自从1836年以来，连任两届的民主党总统之后的民主党候选人均未能成功当选，而2016年是选民渴求改变的一年。很大的改变。 In spite of that — in spite of everything — Clinton still won the popular vote by almost 3 million. But it didn’t matter. What happened is, it wasn’t enough. 尽管如此——尽管有这一切——克林顿仍然在普选中比对手多赢得了近300万张选票。但这不重要。不管发生了什么，这还不够。 — —— Publication Notes: 出版信息： ‘What Happened’ 《发生了什么》 By Hillary Rodham Clinton 作者：希拉里·罗德姆·克林顿 494 pages. Simon & Schuster. $30. 494页。西蒙与舒斯特出版社(Simon & Schuster)。30美元。 翻译：晋其角 点击查看本文英文版。 相关报道 希拉里的竞选航船是如何沉没的 2017年4月18日 希拉里的竞选航船是如何沉没的 预测希拉里获胜的媒体忙着反思 2016年11月11日 预测希拉里获胜的媒体忙着反思 视频：希拉里败选演说 2016年11月10日 视频：希拉里败选演说 当希拉里和特朗普还是朋友（一） 2016年11月3日 当希拉里和特朗普还是朋友（一） 相关报道 更多国家会转向亲中俄吗？ 2023年4月14日 更多国家会转向亲中俄吗？ 做开放民主的国家不等于要任人摆弄 2023年3月21日 做开放民主的国家不等于要任人摆弄 《发生了什么》：希拉里的败选故事 2017年9月13日 《发生了什么》：希拉里的败选故事 当希拉里和特朗普还是朋友（一） 2016年11月3日 当希拉里和特朗普还是朋友（一） 当希拉里和特朗普还是朋友（二） 2016年11月4日 当希拉里和特朗普还是朋友（二） 当希拉里和特朗普还是朋友（完） 2016年11月7日 当希拉里和特朗普还是朋友（完）