By Jennifer Rubin [WashingtonPost] We know by now that Clinton has been among the least principled pols (quite a standard) on the national stage. We also know voters overwhelmingly find her unlikable and untrustworthy. The two are not unrelated, but sticking with her views despite public sentiment does not occur to Clinton and her team. It has always been about seizing power, holding power, getting back in power and staying in power. Clinton has no convictions because they get in the way, just as she harbors no concern for the laws that bind ordinary people. If power requires dropping old views and adopting new ones or evading potential inquiry into correspondence, so be it.
And if it is not about power, it is about money. Why else set up the cesspool of conflicts of interest, take money from hedge funds and despotic regimes, fail to abide by her disclosure agreement with the administration and accept speaking engagements with the bogeymen of the left up to the moment she announced? It's silly to ask, "Why would Clinton do these things?" It's the money, of course.
That Clinton is excessively greedy, lacks principles and thinks any means justify her quest for power are not new revelations to most voters. It is, however, quite telling that liberal elites ‐ for all their supposed high-mindedness (Save the planet! End inequality!) ‐ stick by a soulless creature like Clinton. The gang that revels in outrage (Republicans are playing politics! Republicans say mean things! Republicans think the president is a Muslim!) find the well of outrage dry when it comes to her. The tacit agreement ‐ Clinton has no principles, and Democrats evidence no concern ‐ accounts for Clinton's continued popularity and support within the Democratic Party. And, if she is the nominee, liberal pundits will find her indiscretions "old news," "partisan witch hunts" or "regrettable" ‐ and then go right on cheering for her. They, too, are in on the bargain: Clinton sticks to the dogma of the left (defend the welfare state, protect abortion on demand, tolerate no religious objections to liberal state edicts and adopt the most extreme measures possible to curb global warming), and they never consider her conduct disqualifying or her lack of ethics so troubling as to consider supporting even a qualified, reasonable Republican.