The New York Times, having thrown just about everything they had at Hillary Clinton in order to derail her presidential candidacy, now reaches the “acceptance” stage of Democrat grief:
Should she win the presidency, Hillary Clinton would quickly try to find common ground with Republicans on an immigration overhaul and infrastructure spending, risking the wrath of liberals who would like nothing more than to twist the knife in a wounded opposition party.
In her first 100 days, she would also tap women to make up half of her cabinet in hopes of bringing a new tone and collaborative sensibility to Washington, while also looking past Wall Street to places like Silicon Valley for talent — perhaps wooing Sheryl Sandberg from Facebook, and maybe asking Tim Cook from Apple to become the first openly gay cabinet secretary.
Women, check; gays, check. You have to love the bit about how a cabinet half-full of women would bring a “new tone” to Washington (hasn’t Huma seen Mean Girls?) and “collaborative sensibility”; try to image Gen. Eileen Eisenhower spearheading an all-female Army during the Normandy invasion. Would they wear pink?
The Times continues in its attempt to ingratiate itself with the distaff side of a family they’ve loathed since 1992:
Mrs. Clinton would even schmooze differently than the past few presidents have. Not one to do business over golf or basketball, she would bring back the intimate style of former Presidents Ronald Reagan and Lyndon B. Johnson, negotiating over adult beverages. Picture a steady stream of senators, congressmen and other leaders raising a glass and talking policy in the Oval Office with her and her likely chief of staff, John D. Podesta, as her husband pops in with a quick thought or a disarming compliment.
Well, I guess one Times Square/Upper West Side newspaper is another real American’s nightmare, but hey — she can dream, can’t she? About all that’s missing in this description is an ode to “vibrant diversity” and vivid multiculturalism.
Her calculation is that she will be dealing with a Republican Party that is deeply fractured and demoralized after the defeat of Mr. Trump, whose leaders will be searching for ways to show they can govern and to court Hispanics if Mr. Trump loses badly with them. Mrs. Clinton also thinks a huge Democratic turnout this fall would put the Senate back in her party’s hands, while Speaker Paul D. Ryan and the Republicans would have a reduced majority in the House.
What Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Clinton do not know — but regularly explore in conversations, according to friends — is whether Republican leaders, even if their power is diminished, would be in a mood to cooperate.
If they do, not a one of them will survive their next election. Assuming there is a next election.