Commentary: Is Hillary Clinton warming up in the bullpen?

Clinton's resume is essentially the same as when she lost her bids for the presidency in 2008 and 2016.

Hillary Clinton speaks with supporters in Manchester, New Hampshire, during her 2016 campaign for president. (Gage Skidmore/Flickr)

I took almost a week to digest the much-ballyhooed Wall Street Journal editorial by Doug Schoen and Andrew Stein, advising Americans to prepare for Hillary 3.0.

The two Democrats argue that, “Several circumstances … have created a leadership vacuum in the party, which Mrs. Clinton viably could fill. She is already in an advantageous position to become the 2024 Democratic nominee.”

Yes, President Joe Biden’s advanced age and unpopularity, along with Vice President Kamala Harris being an ineffectual train wreck — and with no Democrat saviors on the horizon — opens the door for someone. But what appeal does the former secretary of state and two-time presidential loser have?

The authors believe Clinton’s vast political experience allows her to run as some sort of “change” candidate. But Clinton’s resume is essentially the same as when she lost her bids for the presidency in 2008 and 2016.

And a lot has changed in America the past five years: COVID-19, supply chain issues, soaring crime, the southern border chaos, a catastrophic Afghanistan withdrawal, and more. But what’s changed with Mrs. Clinton? Other than being older and more removed from society, zilch.

We were told the country desired a competent hand; that’s supposedly why 81 million voted for Biden. Some 360 days later that’s not working out.

Last month, Clinton presumably offered a signal that she could run when she pushed back against the leftist radicals controlling her party in an NBC interview.

“I think that it is a time for some careful thinking about what wins elections, and not just in deep-blue districts where a Democrat and a liberal Democrat, or so-called progressive Democrat, is going to win,” the former senator explained. “At the end of the day, it means nothing if we don’t have a Congress that will get things done, and we don’t have a White House that we can count on to be sane and sober and stable and productive.”

The authors predict the Biden administration will continue to weaken, should the White House pursue demagoguery and partisan nonsense.

Schoen and Stein anticipate Democrats will lose control of Congress​ by this time next year, allowing Clinton to start positioning herself after the midterms “as an ​experienced candidate capable of leading Democrats on a new and more successful path.​”​

The best point they make is that Clinton is “crafting a moderate agenda on both domestic and foreign policy​.” But would hard left primary voters like that?

A progressive activist in Wisconsin scoffed at the idea, telling Alpha News, “Didn’t we do this twice already? Her background is too Washington, and with her many decades in politics, she cannot run as the change agent. And if Republicans take back control of Congress, Hillary wouldn’t suddenly transform herself into a 46-year-old Barack Obama.”

He then advised me that Michelle Obama is a better option. I argued that while the former first lady probably is more capable than Harris, you’ll never “draft” Michelle away from her billionaire lifestyle.

As to Clinton, Powerline’s Steven Hayward appropriately summarized last week, writing, “Never underestimate the narcissism, vanity, malignancy, and sense of entitlement of Hillary Clinton and her entourage. The example of Nixon, coming back from the dead eight years after two humiliating losses, no doubt looms large in her mind.”

Except rather than Nixon, I am thinking William Jennings Bryan.