Forget the fact that it is the Democrats that have made us "minor league" over the last five years, she claims she, another Democrat, is the one to put us back in the majors. Then we have her ludicrous claims to being "broke and in debt." Hillary Clinton misremembers events so they fit into her own personal heroic narrative, not as they actually were. Lots of people do this, particularly politicians, but this is a dangerous habit for a leader to have. If they cannot assess and interpret past events clearly, how much faith can we have in their ability to assess and interpret what's in front of them now? Or in the future? Be that as it may, is she seriously setting the stage for a populist campaign that is "critical of the Wall Street types"? A woman with a net worth of $200 million, who gives speeches to Goldman Sachs for $200,000 each, is perhaps the single least plausible populist of all time. She may attempt to pose as this reform-minded outsider who will shake up "The System," when she is perhaps the personification of "The System." You can count on one hand the number of people who have had more influence over public policy than her since January 1993. But she's going to try it, because she is apparently incapable of perceiving herself as she is. Because massive wealth is seen as suspicious or inherently corrupting in today's political culture, particularly in Democratic circles, she has to pretend she's middle class, that her personal-finance worries are just like those of Americans making mid five-figures or less. She's obviously afraid of being "Romneied" -- who fell victim to the populist claims in 2012 of being "unbelievably wealthy." His net worth is $250 million. Bill and Hill's? Combined, about the same. Hm. Well, to quote her own famous line: "At this point, what difference does it make?"