The awful truth about Hillary is beginning to dawn on Dems

We live in an age of narratives, not news. The narrative in the mainstream media is that Hillary Clinton is “inevitable” as the Democratic nominee, with supporting polling data from the New York Times (that oversamples Democrats and under-samples Republicans) manufactured to support the narrative. But the real news,  what people need to know, is that Hillary looks like a disaster-in-the-making, with very poor campaign skills and an indefensible record overseeing foreign policy disasters that have exploded in the face of Obama.

But some in the mainstream media are beginning to shed their reluctance to say that the empress has no clothes. Check out this editorial from the Miami Herald (hat tip: Jerry Schmitt)

The aura of inevitability in which Hillary Clinton basked for so long has smacked up against the reality of the rough-and-tumble of a presidential campaign. And both she and the Democratic Party are worse off. (snip)

…it’s no longer too early for Mrs. Clinton to make the case that she’s hungry for this job, that she’s the better choice for the position. So far, though, she hasn’t really moved the needle of her poll numbers since declaring her candidacy. And despite the intimate, unrecorded chats Mrs. Clinton has held with small groups of voters, her 27-day silence let others fill the void and tell the public who she is, and mostly in negative terms. (snip)

…Mrs. Clinton comes with baggage, the contents of which should be examined, explained. The dubious sources of donations to the Clinton Foundation, for instance, are fair game.

The problem is:

…the Democratic bench isn’t very deep, and that stands to cause enduring damage to the rich mix of ideas and ideology that has propelled American politics for centuries now.

If tomorrow Mrs. Clinton decided, “You know, maybe I don’t want to be president after all,” who would step into the void? So far, Sen. Elizabeth Warren has a large, cultish following that could translate into a credible, popular campaign. Joe Biden? Experienced and personable, but like Mrs. Clinton, and even Jeb Bush on the Republican side, there’s a freshness lacking, though it’s not a deal-killer.

U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders is in there pitching, and former Maryland Gov. Mike O’Malley is exploring. But where the country is only benefiting from the scrappy fighters on the Republican side, from the credible to the far-out, Mrs. Clinton and her party lack that “oomph.” They must keep in mind that inevitability is hardly a winning strategy.

Hugh Hewitt, who has no problems at all with the truth, is even blunter, writing at the Washington Examiner:

I cannot be the only pundit who believes former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's reckless disregard for American national security is disqualifying. This was made manifest in one particular episode of almost unimaginable fecklessness: her selfish, and at best marginally legal, choice to maintain a non-secure server in her home from which she sent non-secure emails to and fro around the world.

Former Deputy Director of the CIA Michael Morell cannot be the only intelligence professional who believes all of that Internet traffic to and from Chez Clinton was compromised, monitored by foe and friend alike.

It can't be just the members of the House Select Committee on Benghazi who are stunned at what the smallest slice of the smallest part of the not completely erased Hillary email trove has already uncovered.

To repeat: Clinton ought to be disqualified from being commander in chief. How could anyone so reckless be trusted to care for and protect the lives and families of America's men and women in uniform?

I am hoping that Hillary toughs it out and damages the Democrat brand. We could really use a reformist presidency backed by a GOP Congress.

We live in an age of narratives, not news. The narrative in the mainstream media is that Hillary Clinton is “inevitable” as the Democratic nominee, with supporting polling data from the New York Times (that oversamples Democrats and under-samples Republicans) manufactured to support the narrative. But the real news,  what people need to know, is that Hillary looks like a disaster-in-the-making, with very poor campaign skills and an indefensible record overseeing foreign policy disasters that have exploded in the face of Obama.

But some in the mainstream media are beginning to shed their reluctance to say that the empress has no clothes. Check out this editorial from the Miami Herald (hat tip: Jerry Schmitt)

The aura of inevitability in which Hillary Clinton basked for so long has smacked up against the reality of the rough-and-tumble of a presidential campaign. And both she and the Democratic Party are worse off. (snip)

…it’s no longer too early for Mrs. Clinton to make the case that she’s hungry for this job, that she’s the better choice for the position. So far, though, she hasn’t really moved the needle of her poll numbers since declaring her candidacy. And despite the intimate, unrecorded chats Mrs. Clinton has held with small groups of voters, her 27-day silence let others fill the void and tell the public who she is, and mostly in negative terms. (snip)

…Mrs. Clinton comes with baggage, the contents of which should be examined, explained. The dubious sources of donations to the Clinton Foundation, for instance, are fair game.

The problem is:

…the Democratic bench isn’t very deep, and that stands to cause enduring damage to the rich mix of ideas and ideology that has propelled American politics for centuries now.

If tomorrow Mrs. Clinton decided, “You know, maybe I don’t want to be president after all,” who would step into the void? So far, Sen. Elizabeth Warren has a large, cultish following that could translate into a credible, popular campaign. Joe Biden? Experienced and personable, but like Mrs. Clinton, and even Jeb Bush on the Republican side, there’s a freshness lacking, though it’s not a deal-killer.

U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders is in there pitching, and former Maryland Gov. Mike O’Malley is exploring. But where the country is only benefiting from the scrappy fighters on the Republican side, from the credible to the far-out, Mrs. Clinton and her party lack that “oomph.” They must keep in mind that inevitability is hardly a winning strategy.

Hugh Hewitt, who has no problems at all with the truth, is even blunter, writing at the Washington Examiner:

I cannot be the only pundit who believes former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's reckless disregard for American national security is disqualifying. This was made manifest in one particular episode of almost unimaginable fecklessness: her selfish, and at best marginally legal, choice to maintain a non-secure server in her home from which she sent non-secure emails to and fro around the world.

Former Deputy Director of the CIA Michael Morell cannot be the only intelligence professional who believes all of that Internet traffic to and from Chez Clinton was compromised, monitored by foe and friend alike.

It can't be just the members of the House Select Committee on Benghazi who are stunned at what the smallest slice of the smallest part of the not completely erased Hillary email trove has already uncovered.

To repeat: Clinton ought to be disqualified from being commander in chief. How could anyone so reckless be trusted to care for and protect the lives and families of America's men and women in uniform?

I am hoping that Hillary toughs it out and damages the Democrat brand. We could really use a reformist presidency backed by a GOP Congress.