When political news is dominated by a fatheaded deadbeat whom your party embraced until he publicly and unsurprisingly showed himself as a fatheaded bigot, then you as a conservative commentator, if that be your cross to bear, must scramble to find something else to write about. Thematic embraces must be exchanged for trivial distractions. This, the Washington Examiner's Byron York has done brilliantly, if not a bit too conspicuously, in "Why Elizabeth Warren should run for president."
No one this week, and I mean no one, with the possible exception of a rowboat full of FireDogLakers, is at all interested in the unconsuming question--Will Liz charge the Hill?--but Byron is on it. He lists five count 'em five reasons why Sen. Warren should do just that.
First, "Clinton will be 69 years old on inauguration day 2017"--way too old, observes York. Fifth, Warren will be only 67 on inauguration day, which has something to do with Clinton's struggle "to define her legacy as Secretary of State." (Hey don't ask me, he wrote it, I didn't).
Second ... or is it third? ... Warren's competition would only sharpen Clinton's political skills, which (fourth) Hillary demonstrated she lacked in her "dumb campaign in 2008." And finally, Clinton is distrusted by right-thinking Democrats who disfavor calculating "overcautiousness" interrupted only by neocon raptures that render thousands pointlessly dead.
Say, maybe York's piece isn't a trivial distraction after all.