"No"

Many of my Democratic friends tell me that when she is elected, Hillary Clinton will change.

"Sure, she's skated on the edge of ethical behavior," her supporters say, "but she'll be a good president because she's a 'realist.' Of course, she occasionally [ocassionally!?] bends the truth, but as president she won't do that."

Uhhh. NO!

The Hill reports on private reaction to James Comey's re-introduction of the email scandal:

They [Clinton supporters] said they were “dumbfounded” by the revelation that the new FBI review may have been spurred by a separate investigation into Anthony Weiner sending lewd texts to a minor. Weiner is separated from wife Huma Abedin, one of Clinton’s closest aides.

And they worried that Clinton’s unconventional email arrangement had finally caught up to her and might imperil her presidential bid less than two weeks before Election Day.

“I'm livid, actually,” one Clinton surrogate told The Hill. “This has turned into malpractice. It's an unforced error at this point. I have no idea what Comey is up to but the idea this email issue is popping back up again is outrageous. It never should have occurred in the first place. Someone somewhere should have told her no. And they didn't and now we're all paying the price.”

Glen Reynolds comments:

Someone, somewhere, should have told her no. Well, yes. But who? That was the problem with Secretary of State Clinton, and it will be a bigger problem with a President Clinton. Because, by all appearances, nobody tells Clinton no, and Clinton has no compunction about breaking the rules when it suits her purposes.

Thus the Clinton Foundation became a global money-laundering and influence-peddling organization without precedent in American history. Donors to the foundation were encouraged to steer money to what one employee called “Bill Clinton, Inc.,” and later to Clinton. State Department personnel did favors for people who donated money to the Foundation. And to make sure that nobody found out what was going on, Clinton ran her own homebrew server operation designed to ensure that Freedom of Information Act requests turned up nothing — and even President Obama, rather than saying no, went along, sending her emails at her non-government address under a fake name.

One of the problems with Democrat governance seems to be that no Democrat seems to have the courage to say "no" their leaders. For example, with very few exceptions, the Dems didn't say "no" to Barack Obama on the Iran deal, even though you have to believe that more Dems than just Chuck Schumer and Robert Menendez (you recall, the Senator that Obama's DoJ indicted at about the same time he expressed reservations on the deal) thought the deal was ... well.. insane?

Every book written about the Clintons over the past 30 years, every private comment gleaned from the political cognescenti in Washington and elsewhere, every personal anecdote gathered over the years indicates that Hillary reacts badly (and sometimes violently) when anyone—even close allies—questions her decisions, her motives, or her actions. She will not change.

So, no one tells her "no," and as a consequence, she's makes very bad decisions. Just what the country needs at this point in our history.