Again, Liberal Pundit Starts From Patently Silly Premise

A few days ago I noted the fundamental flaw in the typical analyses advanced by the liberal commentariat - the erroneous premise from which any analysis is bound to be wrong and often looks silly.

Today brings another classic of the genre.  William Galston, the current occupant of the WSJ's token liberal Wednesday column, writes this of Hillary Rodham Clinton, apparently without irony.

The interview revealed a public servant instructed but not chastened by experience, with a clear view of America's role in the world and of the means needed to play that role successfully. If she entered the race and won, she would be better prepared to deal with foreign policy and national defense than any president since...

The fact that any non-lobotomized American, let alone a savvy pundit the likes of which Galston purports to be, could dub HRC a public servant immersed in a learning process for the eventual betterment of the nation should we be so fortunate, is astonishing. 

I stopped reading the column after that opener as all that was to follow was bound to be wildly erroneous and embarrassing.  (OK, I actually did read the whole thing, but I shouldn't have.)