AP: Hillary's allies will eventually figure out what she will pretend to believe on economy

Every discussion of a potential Hillary Clinton candidacy must start with an understanding of this fact: There is no rationale for a Hillary Clinton presidency that has anything to do with the country needing her leadership or her abilities, which should be obvious because she is not a leader and has no abilities.

---

She wants to run for president for herself. She wants to be president so she can fulfill her megalomaniacal delusions of grandeur, and stop feeling that her philandering husband has something on her. None of this is about what the nation needs or her believing she is uniquely prepared to provide it. She doesn't even know what the nation needs. She just knows what she thinks she needs, which is to be president. So why should anyone be surprised that she's waiting for her "allies" to figure out what her economic positions should be? You'd think that a person running for president of the United States would already know where they would want to take the nation economically, but that assumes there is anything behind the pursuit of the presidency apart from sheer narcissism. Since there is nothing apart from that behind Hillary's pursuit, she'll pretty much pretend to believe whatever works. As soon as her "allies" figure out what to tell her to pretend to believe. And they're working on it:

Inside the Democratic Party, economic policy is often seen as a contest between President Barack Obama’s track record and the anti-Wall Street approach advocated by Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren. As Hillary Rodham Clinton heads for an expected 2016 run for president, her allies are pointing her toward something in-between. A group of Clinton advisers offered a detailed economic agenda last week that aims to help raise wages for millions of workers and close the gap between rich and poor. The policy road map was produced at the Center for American Progress, a Washington-based think tank stocked with veterans of the Bill Clinton and Obama administrations. It appeared to target those who are disenchanted with Obama and skeptical that Clinton effectively would police Wall Street and champion middle-class workers.

What I always find most striking about Hillary news coverage is that the MSMers who write the stories don't think it's the slightest bit remarkable that everything she says and does is self-serving and insincere. What does she think about economics? Depends what her allies think will play. What does she think about foreign policy? Hmm. What will serve her interests best? What does she think about health care? Well, which position will best position her for 2016? Not only is it all about Hillary's political interests, but that's so broadly recognized and understood, it's just an assumed part of the narrative now. Of course her allies are coming up with an economic agenda for her! What do you think? She's going to come up with one herself? This is not to say that candidates can't make use of advisors. Of course they can. Herman's 9-9-9 plan had the fingerprints of economic advisor Rich Lowrie all over it. But before Rich helped to craft 9-9-9, Herman established some basic principles - a simpler tax code with lower rates - and Rich put the details to it. Nothing wrong with that at all. In Hillary's case, she neither knows nor even really cares what she believes about economic policy. She'll just say whatever she thinks will play, and she's looking to her advisors to come up with proposals that position her politically, not that she believes really serve the nation. I would ask again if any Hillary backers out there can provide a substantive rationale for why we need her as president, but I've asked this question before and no one can ever come up with anything. Which I guess just goes to show that if the nation actually elects her, America is even more screwed than I've tended to think, because we really are that stupid.