Hillary Clinton tries her running shoes

It's stranger than that, but here it is. I get up to defend Hillary Clinton.

She is attacked and this time, the long knives are manipulated by members of her own clan. Suddenly, after two years of guilt and pity in Clinton, leftist experts say she talks too much, she's stuck in the past, she got her chance and she missed it.

Vanity Fair, stating that she "still has not learned the lessons of #MeToo," is furious that Clinton has declared that the folly of her husband with Monica Lewinsky was not an abuse of power because the 22-year-old trainee "was an adult. "

Politico categorically stated that Clinton was a "problem" that would not go away and regretted that Democrats "do not know what to do" about it.

A New York Times columnist, pointing out that Clinton is a blunder and a center of interest for Republicans, accused her of "moral arrogance" and wrote that one must perform an intervention.

Passions are real and colorful pictures. Imagine an intervention during which a strip of pink pussy will force Clinton to get into a van and take her to a secluded cabin in the woods to prevent her from speaking.

Alas, the reasons are suspicious. These three writers, all women, are not so mad at what Clinton says, but rather with timing. The essence of their complaint is that she hangs in the limelight which they say should be trained for Democrats running mid-term. They are angry because they fear that it will compromise the holy war they endorse against President Trump.

Intramural quarrels are often bloody, but this one is also stupid. Trying to silence Clinton is a lost cause and, even if it succeeds, it would not cure what hurts Democrats.

In fact, closing it could push the game even further into the desert.

Clinton is implicitly accused of having posed the problem by assuming that others are the solution. That's a good point – until you try to name a Dem who is better able to play the role of party leader, unify him around a message and defeat Trump in 2020. After all, this is the vacancy.

Let's move on to the parade of potential candidates, starting with the Senate: Bernie Sanders, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar and Kirsten Gillibrand.

Someone stand out? Although there is political talent, none seems to me to be a heavyweight candidate who could lead the party and face Trump.

Sanders runs on the vapors, Booker is a light weight who has been embarrassed by the spartacus shtick and Gillibrand is a flawless hack.

As for Warren, CNN, showing his usual pewter ear, moved him to the top of the Dem field just before imploding with his disastrous DNA test. Her silly repetition of the now refuted claim that she has significant Native American antecedents brings her to an endless ridicule and further diminishes her already narrow appeal.

Joe Biden, Eric Holder, Montana Governor Steve Bullock, Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, and former Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick have also announced their availability.

Same question: does anyone in the group look like a champion on hold? Not for me and, judging by the lack of enthusiasm, neither for the big donors nor for the most critical consultants.

Frick and Frack, the Mayor of Blasio and Governor Cuomo, two from New York are at the stage of reflection and hope.

Mayor Putz has a limited life and it looks like his career has peaked. His image of lazy, corrupt and incompetent means that he is an asset to no one. He may face a real job when he finally leaves the city hall.

As for Cuomo, his mediocre record could earn him a third term in the deep blue of New York, but he will probably not be attracted by the national Dems. He does not trust anyone, including himself, that's why he's hiding from the media for fear that he's saying things like America's "never" been so great. "

He has a habit of avoiding debate and not participating in a grueling presidential campaign against many competitors. The widespread corruption in his position makes him a big goal.

Billionaire Michael Bloomberg is also considering a race, and his compatriot Tom Steyer, whose deep pockets finance the "Need to Impeach" movement, could be a candidate. Oprah flirted with the idea before saying no, but do not be surprised if she flirts again.

The list is long, varied and growing – but not convincing. That's why Clinton, despite his huge flaws and two presidential defeats, can not be ruled out as the party's best hope. God knows she wants him more than anyone else.

That's also why I've been saying for months that she's keeping her options open and she could even try a rematch against Trump.

And that was before Bill Clinton and she announced their six-month tour. The gambit is designed to keep its name in front and center without having to declare itself a candidate. His recent phone calls to White House journalists also tell him his plan.

I was not surprised when one of his former assistants, Philippe Reines, admitted to Politico that Clinton could run. He cited his fan base, saying that she was strong enough to confront Trump and that she could collect money.

That's it, the official word that tries to silence her is doomed. Get ready – she's baaaack!

Harvard's poison ivy

At the very least, the trial of whether Harvard discriminates against American-Asian students reveals the confused way in which the big schools decide who is admitted.

For example, it is not surprising that when the issue involves legacies, children, and donor athletes, academic merit is often not the deciding factor. Harvard's lawyer states that "if he considers race as such, it will always be positive".

That's sophistry. With a finite number of openings, considering race as a reason to admit a student inevitably means excluding another student, probably of a different race.

Even an Ivy Leaguer can understand that.

Behind the bundle

Reader George Merrill asks the $ 80 billion question. He writes, "Florida and New York have populations of similar size, so one would think that the cost of services provided by the state would also be similar. However, this is not the case. The budget of Florida amounts to 88 billion dollars and that of New York to 168 billion.

"I find that the services provided by the government in Florida are excellent. Therefore, I do not understand why New York spends 90% more money to provide the same services.

"Please specify."

My answer: waste, fraud and abuse. Everything else is in detail.

Closed stable door

Nicholas Saridakis wants to answer my question about why President Trump would downgrade to calling Stormy Daniels "Horseface".

He writes, "I do not blame Trump for his shots at his enemies and he does not care anymore about being president."

"Look where we are. Fools who hate Trump can play the game of dignity as they wish. This does not matter anymore.