Now there’s a blog title I never expected to post.
Gail Collins, aside from being about as far into the Democrat camp as anyone can be, is a fan of Hillary Clinton’s. There is not one Republican on the horizon she would vote for over Ms. Clinton…probably not one that has even been born yet.
That is why this excerpt, from her column in today’s New York Times, is so telling:
Even Democrats who are comfortable with the lack of newness in the Clinton candidacy have been dismayed about the email matter. The way she handled her communications was the exact opposite of transparency in public service. Particularly the part where she let some unidentified lawyers decide which messages belonged to the government and which ones were private conversations that ought to be expunged from history.
Then Clinton waited too long to respond to the ensuing political crisis. Finally, she held a chaotic press conference at the United Nations next to a big tapestry version of Picasso’s “Guernica,” which has to be the worst possible imagery you want to be associated with when you’re trying to tell the nation that everything’s hunky-dory.
Is this just a bad start or a preview of the next 20 months?
If Hillary had been supported by a campaign staff this week, she definitely would have been doing her press conference alongside a better picture. But nobody’s going to make her into a different candidate in time for the presidential race. It’s like telling your older sister that you’d appreciate it if she’d develop a new personality before the family reunion.
That is pretty amazing stuff from an inveterate Hillary supporter.
In just a few words, Ms. Collins has informed us that:
-Even people who would support Hillary Clinton are dismayed about the email matter
-She handled it all wrong – even if you believe her (unprovable, ridiculous-sounding) story about weaning out the government and non-government emails;
-She blew the press conference;
-The fear is that this is not some anecdotal problem, but the essence of Hillary herself (which, to say the least, has validity);
-She is, and will remain, a lousy candidate.
To which, I reply correct, correct, correct, and correct.
The first two paragraphs of a Page 1 story, also in today’s Times, shows the problem even more succinctly:
They shrug off questions about Hillary Rodham Clinton’s email habits. They roll with the attacks on her family’s foundation, the big checks from foreign governments, the torpid response of her not-yet-campaign.
They have little choice: As Mrs. Clinton prepares to begin her second presidential campaign amid a froth of criticism and outrage, Democrats are not just Ready for Hillary – as supporters named one pro-Clinton “super PAC” – they are desperate for her.
We’ve talked about this many times, haven’t we? Though Democrats have spent years smirking and snarking over the Republicans’ lack of any clear-cut Presidential candidate for 2016, their harsh reality is that, in the absence of Hillary Clinton, they are in even worse shape than Republicans are. And they know it.
If I were a Democrat, I would be hoping and praying that Ms. Collins is wrong; that Hillary Clinton suddenly becomes a good campaigner with a credible story, instead of a terrible campaigner with BS story after BS story, and the joint resurrection of James Carville and Lanny Davis to play let’s-pretend on her behalf and convince media that it should all go away.
Don’t bet on that happening. Not even with odds.
