Newly-released papers show the she-Clinton's views on gay rights have not been so much the product of evolution as calculation.
It's nothing new, at least to opponents, cynics, and those who pay attention: Waldo took a 4,000-word crack at it seven years ago last week. Longtime Washington Blade editor Chris Crain- who moved to Brazil to make a life he couldn't bring his partner to America to share- was similarly skeptical:
"And if the rich content of her presidential campaign was any indication, Hillary Clinton would have been even worse for us as president than her husband. Unlike him, she didn't have the touch when it came to using the charming lie on gay rights. She speaks in half-tones, half-measures and platitudes with little heart in it, and made it fairly clear by the way her campaign did gay outreach that it was all about hack-o-rama appointments and personal ambition within the gay political community. Basically -- get on board, or be cut out. Very Karl Rove, and very lethal for those who sign up for it. I can attest to that personally, as can nearly every Republican of every stripe in politics right now."
Then there was her disastrous Fresh Air interview a year ago, which led WaPo's The Fix to try and parse her views:
The worst part of considering not just the next 18 months, but four or eight years of this perhaps to come, is to realize that all the alternatives are existentially worse.