Your next nationalist demagogue: Hillary Clinton?

I’m not quite sure how this Hillary Clinton interview came crashing in out of left field for Thanksgiving, but her comments about the future of Europe are causing a stir. I first noticed a couple of lefties I follow on Twitter complaining about it, followed quickly by members of Congress from her own party.

Deeply misguided and unfortunate?” What could Hillary Clinton possibly have said that was so terrible? As it turns out, she decided to state the obvious about Europe’s migrant crisis and the liberals are up in arms over it. (The Hill)

“I think Europe needs to get a handle on migration because that is what lit the flame,” Clinton told The Guardian in an interview published Thursday, referring to the rise of anti-immigrant politicians across Europe.

“I admire the very generous and compassionate approaches that were taken particularly by leaders like [German Chancellor] Angela Merkel,” she said, “but I think it is fair to say Europe has done its part, and must send a very clear message — ‘we are not going to be able to continue provide refuge and support’ — because if we don’t deal with the migration issue it will continue to roil the body politic.”

Without going into all the details yet again, it’s fair to say that Hillary Clinton wasn’t stating anything other than the truth. The open border policies championed by Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron have been widely rejected across much of Europe and led to the internal divisiveness which has been tearing the continent apart. Clinton offers no solutions to the issue beyond saying they need to “get a handle on it,” but that’s not much of a surprise because much of the European Union remains unsure what to do about it themselves.

But what would prompt Clinton to offer such a remark when it would obviously produce a backlash among her followers? Three possibilities come to mind.

1. She’s running. This requires giving Clinton credit for a bit of three-dimensional chess, but she’s no amateur at politics. Does she see her party surging so far to the left that they’ll just be unelectable in 2020? If so, and she stakes out some common sense positions that won’t scare off moderate voters, she could be triangulating her way back to the middle much like her husband did in the 90s. Of course, that could come back to haunt her in the primary, but it’s going to be a crowded field and she’d need to find a way to stand out, along with getting people to forgive and forget 2016.

2. She’s not running. Clinton has already decided she’s been to her last rodeo and simply no longer gives a rat’s behind. If she doesn’t need to worry about raising any more money or attracting votes, she has nothing to lose by telling the truth. And she still enjoys the attention she gets from the press, so why not do some interviews and drop a few truth bombs?

3. She’s losing it. She may still at least be considering running again and is kicking herself for that comment. But they might have caught her at a bad point in the day and she just lost her mental bookmark and committed the consummate gaffe in American politics. She stated an obvious truth which is politically poisonous inside her own party. Trust me, the woman is more than a decade older than I am and I already get some “senior moments” from time to time. It happens.

Which of these is most likely? I’ll leave it up to you to decide. But it was, if nothing else, refreshing to hear a Democrat speaking the truth about the European migrant crisis.