One wonders if Hillary Clinton and her minions are aware that their job in presenting her as a viable presidential candidate will be far more difficult than it was for Barack Obama’s handlers. Even though he had the disadvantage of being profoundly inexperienced, at least he was an unknown commodity. Hillary Clinton is not.
Over the last week, the former first lady and secretary of state has been hawking her latest book, “Hard Choices,” which the New York Times called “a statesmanlike document intended to attest to Mrs. Clinton’s wide-ranging experience on national security and on foreign policy.”
Well, consider the source. I suppose the surgeon who’s performed 10,000 surgeries and lost every patient could be said to have “wide-ranging experience.”
Clinton’s book is very obviously meant to “soften up the ground” for her presidential run. Per her discussions with the press, it is evident that her intent is damage control pertaining to her role in the Benghazi scandal and to distance herself from the more damaging Obama policies that necessarily remain foremost in the minds of Americans.
Hillary’s detractors rightly point out her inexperience, but one thing at which she is well-practiced is political fluency. Some of her statements have been positively laughable, such as the claim that she and Bill were “dead broke” when they left the White House in 2001, and that Benghazi was a good reason for her to run for president, as opposed to not. The answers do come quickly, however; there is none of the hemming and hawing we get from Obama on the rare occasions he’s been caught off-teleprompter.
Still, selling Hillary to an electorate that, if somewhat superficial in many aspects, is at least aware that she’s fairly close to Obama in policy and ideology won’t be easy. I mean, if you’re a liberal or independent who’s fed up with Obama, why would you want to elect someone formerly in his Cabinet?
Read more here