海角大神

The Hillary Clinton wealth flap is still going strong. But this week it鈥檚 changed from discussion about whether Clinton鈥檚 claims of relative poverty are maladroit 鈥� many pundits agree she could have handled the issue better 鈥� to whether they reflect a larger problem.

Here鈥檚 the issue: is Hillary Clinton, possible 2016 Democratic Party presidential nominee, just not a good campaigner?

Otherwise why would she claim to have been 鈥渄ead broke鈥� after leaving the White House, with the prospect of rich speakers鈥� fees looming before both her and her ex-president husband? And, by subsequently saying 鈥渨e pay ordinary income tax, unlike a lot of people who are truly well off,鈥� why would she compound the matter?

She said this while on tour for a book she received a reported $14 million to write, remember. That鈥檚 caused many conservatives, and some liberals, to start questioning her political skills.

鈥淗er recent tone-deaf answers on questions about wealth speak to the fact that she鈥檚 a lot more politically clumsy than people assume,鈥� at the right-leaning Washington Examiner.

After all, Bill Clinton may have been a great campaigner back in the day, but that doesn鈥檛 mean his wife is too. To a certain extent his ease on the stump will be a benchmark she will inevitably fail to reach.

Hillary herself, in an that will be broadcast in full on Wednesday night, calls her references to wealth 鈥渦nartful.鈥�

But Clinton鈥檚 defenders point out that she would not have reached the point she has in life without considerable political skills. She blocked out other potential candidates and easily won a Senate seat from New York, for one thing. She built a big lead in the 2008 nomination race, crushing all but one other candidate, only to fall just short of the Democratic Party鈥檚 nod. Now she鈥檚 built a huge lead for what most consider her inevitable 2016 White House attempt.

鈥淚鈥檇 say that she鈥檚 been an extremely successful politician so far. Even if she can鈥檛 manage to put together a decent answer to the occasional seemingly easy question from the press,鈥� writes at Bloomberg View.

And it鈥檚 possible she鈥檚 just working out her campaign kinks at the moment. The book tour, in fact, might be designed to do just that. As Ezra Klein points out at Vox, her gaffes are well-timed. They鈥檙e like bad at-bats in spring training, something to be experienced and learned from before the real contests begin.

鈥淐linton鈥檚 string of highly public, vaguely embarrassing interviews speak to one of her real advantages: she can spend the next two years relearning how to run a national campaign. Her competitors can鈥檛,鈥�

And here鈥檚 our bottom line: there are numbers that will matter a lot to any Clinton campaign, but they won鈥檛 be the ones on her tax disclosure forms. They will be the GDP figures, each quarter, over the next two years. Wednesday鈥檚 shocking news that the first quarter 2014 GDP shows that the US just can鈥檛 move into second gear to recover from the Great Recession.

That will drag down President Obama鈥檚 approval rating and make Americans much less likely to give Democrats continued control of the White House. Back in 1992 it was Clinton political consultant James Carville who coined 鈥淚t鈥檚 the economy, stupid鈥� as a campaign mantra. That鈥檚 as true today as it was then.