Indeed. If the reports, courtesy of the leaked documents, are correct, the Democrats favoured one of their candidates over the other. I suppose that it could be argued that at least such action was 'in house' - here was a political party charting their own course, rather than having it imposed upon them by some outside, foreign actor.
And the 'flawed, unpopular candidate' argument simply doesn't hold water. The bottom line is that Mrs Clinton won the nation convincingly, receiving almost as many votes as President Obama in his last re-election. 3 million more people wanted her to be president over Trump. She certainly was popular enough.
Now, it can very reasonably be argued that her campaign made tactical errors in failing to concentrate their efforts to a greater degree in those narrowly lost states. But that's tactics, it's not a measure of her popularity, particularly when she wins the total vote count so convincingly.
And the impact of the Russian interference cannot be dismissed here. Could their selective release of leaked documents have been enough to turn those one-in-a-hundred votes in those 3 or 4 states? Highly likely. Flip those 70,000 or so votes the other way and you'd all be touting Mrs Clinton as being every bit as successful as President Obama was.
