Thanks to Renee Parsons for her work with nuclear power, but this piece is perplexing enough that I am afraid that I am missing the sarcasm.
One effect of the DNC email leak--there is to date no excusable reason to call it a "hack"--has been to reveal gross conspiracy and fraud by the DNC to abort the democratic process and nominate Hillary Clinton.
Therefore, "American antagonism towards Russian President Vladimir Putin" cannot possibly be "the net effect." To say so demeans the fine work and possibly the substantial risk and courage of whoever leaked these.
It is also a severe insult to Democrats to imagine that not one person within the entire organization would have leaked these. I have known very sincere and sincerely populist and leftist Democrats over the years. Some are still with the party.
Beyond that, is there really much "American antagonism towards Russian President Vladimir Putin"? I don't read about it anywhere but in Democratic Party sorts of sources. That includes some broad publications, like the NYT and WaPo, who participated in the DNC fraud. With whom do these organs still have credibility, after their serial lies.
If you will pardon the expression, I think it's trumped up.
I am not angry at Putin. I don't think he's much for democracy, but American rulers are not more so, and they are much more warlike. I am relieved at his parries against American aggression, which might yet save us from more serious confliclt. And I am furious at the DNC for stealing the nomination for Clinton. I am appalled that elected officials within the party have said nothing against this. Tick tock tick tock---no, apparently my senators and governor are not interested. Not too very long ago, I was a lifelong Democrat, the son of lifelong Democrats and the grandson of lifelong Democrats on one side. I may never vote for a Democratic candidate again.
The Putin thing is only spin, presumably to distract from guilt. The large commercial so-called "news" outlets are among the guilty, and therefore doubly unreliable sources.
If Russia did indeed hack the DNC emails instead of this being, say, an invention by the DNC and media sources thereby caught in serious crimes, Russia did not thereby interfere with democratic process, but interfered with the DNC's interference with democratic process, though this is likely largely by coincidence.
When Clapper says that cyber warfare is like what went on during the Cold War, did he mean during the McCarthy era, when the government so ferociously turned on dissenters?
Might he have meant that, like the Cold War, it is an excuse for all manner of imperialist abuses?
Why should I take Clapper seriously when his position is that I must be lied to?
Is the old saw "All's fair in love and war" not a way of saying that very little is fair in love and war? Do people really want to give up being treated fairly?
Don't give up, folks. Just leave the abuser: it is not this bad all over.