From the left: Hillary’s Hate Is Bernie’s Boon

“Hillary Clinton is no fan of Bernie Sanders,” as her claim that “nobody likes him” confirms, snarks CNN’s Chris Cillizza. Yet that’s “good news” for the Vermont socialist. After all, the central premise of his campaign is that “the powerful have been sitting comfortably for way too long, and it’s time to shake things up” — and that’s “the core of why people support him.” For those supporters, Clinton, with her “friendliness with Wall Street” and “well-heeled donors,” epitomizes the “elite establishment,” and her attack will only confirm that the Dem establishment not only “doesn’t like” Sanders — but fears him. Sanders should send her a “thank you note.”

Eye on 2020: Dems Already Making Excuses

“The excuses have started early for the Democrats,” notes The Federalist’s David Marcus: “Nine months out from election day,” they “are laying the groundwork to call a Trump second term illegitimate, just as have they done for the entirety of the first term.” At the impeachment trial, Rep. Adam Schiff argued that senators can’t let voters decide President Trump’s fate because “we cannot be assured that the vote will be fairly won.” Yet back in 2016, “when there was no chance Hillary Clinton could lose,” the question was “whether angry Trump voters,” or Trump himself, would accept the election’s outcome. Trump won, of course, and Dems are now fretting “about the sanctity of our election results.” What gives? Democrats are “deranged.”

From the right: Pete’s Puffed-Up Military Service

At National Review, veteran Kyle Smith points out that many people join the military out of patriotism or because it’s “the best available job.” Pete Buttigieg, however, apparently joined “because he thought it would add a great line to his résumé when he ran for president.” Buttigieg, who spent a “brief sojourn in the Navy,” got a “direct commission,” skipping out on “pre-commission training” and time in a service academy. In his memoir, Buttigieg cites John Kerry — who, Smith notes, “turned on his brothers in arms when the political winds turned that way” — as a role model. Most absurd: Buttigieg also “bragged” about the number of “routine” motor-vehicle trips he made, a “phony statistic” the military doesn’t even keep records of. That’s “apple-polishing, résumé-buffing, box-checking, attention-seeking vaporware,” Smith concludes. “Just like his whole career.”

Media watch: Schiff-ting the Blame

Mark Hemingway at RealClearPolitics wonders how many times Rep. Adam Schiff has to “mislead the public” before “the press stops cutting him” slack? This week, Politico “felt the need to contextualize its own scoop” on Schiff’s mischaracterization of impeachment evidence with the “Republicans pounce” trope — suggesting that the problem isn’t Schiff’s “blunder” or possible attempt “to mislead” but that GOPers might use it to slam Dems. For three years, Schiff has “racked up a record of distortions and untruths that in a less partisan era would have utterly undermined his credibility.” Yet that hasn’t “dented” the media’s “deference” to him. The double standard, where Republicans “pounce” and “Democrats never screw up,” was on display before Trump. But the president “does seem like a special case.”

Historian: Times’ 1619 Whoopsies

The New York Times’ 1619 Project is riddled with “serious inaccuracies,” charges eminent Princeton historian Sean Wilentz. Given the project’s goal — to reframe American history through the lens of slavery and racial subjugation — readers should expect “nothing less” than a “scrupulous regard” for accuracy. Yet the project falsely asserts, for ­example, that protecting slavery was one of the major motivations for the American Revolution. That’s “as inaccurate” as the idea that “the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery.” It also wrongly claims Abraham Lincoln’s support for emancipation was contingent on sending African-Americans to African colonies. In fact, Lincoln called colonization “hideous & barbarous humbug.” Nor does the Times’ response to historians’ criticisms cut it, relying on inapt factual tidbits, “foreshortened” quotations and moving goalposts. Bottom line: “No effort to educate the public” to “advance social justice can afford to dispense with a respect for ­basic facts.”

— Compiled by The Post Editorial Board