Fred Hiatt is the editorial page editor of The Washington Post, and this afternoon posted an opinion piece titled The myth that Hillary Clinton is just lucky, debunked. What he challenges is the notion that any other Republican, had s/he been nominated, would have defeated Clinton.
I am not going to go through part by part of the column. It is relatively short, and quite clear.
There is a paragraph in the middle of the column that takes on the notion of other candidates:
At some point, though, you have to look at actual performance. Rubio wilted under interrogation by New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Kasich failed to connect, and not a single candidate in that supposedly awesome lineup managed to do what Clinton did, which is stand up to Trump in debate. They performed miserably in their primary campaigns; why would we assume that Jeb Bush or any of the others would have done better in the general?
That question is one that too often is not considered — and I can say most clearly never by the hosts of Morning Joe, for example.
But it is the next, brief paragraph that really caught my attention:
Clinton, meanwhile, has shown a political adeptness that few give her credit for because, well, because we just know she is an inept politician.
Allow me to leave the column for a moment and express myself on this.