I've been of the belief (since about the time of the Wisconsin primary) that Hillary Clinton would be unable to be elected president. I've been of the belief since about the time of the Texohio primaries that her political career is over. And I've been of the belief that her obsession with achieving her (I'm sure self-styled) destiny of becoming president has kept her from cannily exploiting the situation in the Democratic nomination contest to her advantage. She can't win, but she could have dropped out at a certain time and under certain circumstances to guarantee her more power and influence than she currently has. That she has neglected to do this has reinforced my belief that she is unsuited to the ever-changing reality of the world in which we live. That she's been unwilling to face facts and drop her bid--and doing a lot of smearing of the almost-certain Dem nominee along the way--has caused her disapproval numbers to skyrocket among the public and among Democrats, and especially among the activist class of the Democratic Party. She's creating a lot of new grudges that will prevent her from advancing her political career after the election--the (earned) hatred of all of these new elements toward her will ensure that she never becomes Majority Leader, for example. The Clintons seem to have a hard time seeing the big picture in general. Here, the portrait is in stark relief. For my part I think her campaign has acted unconscionably often during this process, and I particularly find the patented Clinton-playing-the-victim-card and the attendant nursing of ages-old gender grievances to win votes to be rather loathsome, especially in comparison to Barack Obama's opposite, refresing, and direct approach to race relations.
I suppose this is all by way of saying that I don't really have much sympathy for the Clintons now that the big thing seems to be to talk about Clinton's exaggeration proclivities. Steve's prose in the article seems conflicted, as I'm sure he is as well, but I think this is simply earned. She wanted to basically sell herself as a restoration of Clinton I, and that's what the "experience" argument was all about. She didn't have much experience, so she had to play up what she had. I was really angry with the media for buying the Bush line about Gore's exaggerations, largely because they were untrue and I believe in fairness. The media didn't like Gore, for whatever reason, so they allowed themselves to be co-opted by the Bush team to smear Al Gore. This isn't what happened here. These "exaggerations" were calculated distortions of past events for the purpose of selling Clinton's experience. It will probably bring down her campaign. I'm not all that thrilled, honestly, but I'm not all that sad either. I don't think she's been treated unfairly, on the balance. Despite some sexism, the media bent over backward to make her seem a viable contender after Super Tuesday. She's done this to herself.
