It is becoming difficult to believe that Hillary Clinton is actually going to run for president in 2016. Her disastrous tenure as Secretary of State is coming home to roost in Iraq, Egypt, Syria, Russia, Poland, and any other country that dealt with the United States from 2009 through 2012. Her book isn’t selling all that well and her book tour has produced some insights into the bizarre thought processes of the woman who is trying to be the first to have slept her way into the Oval Office.

First there was the “dead broke” comment. In an interview with fellow senior citizen, Diane Sawyer, Clinton whined about her family’s financial travails:

“We came out of the White House not only dead broke, but in debt,” Clinton told Sawyer. “We had no money when we got there and we struggled to, you know, piece together the resources for mortgages, for houses, for Chelsea’s education. You know, it was not easy.”

Unfortunately, even the compliant leftwing media was having none of it. It was widely reported that shortly after leaving the White House, Bill Clinton scored a $15 million book advance. In fact, even Clinton cronies were left in a state of disbelief:

Even Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel seemed a bit skeptical of Hillary Clinton’s comments about her and her husband’s post-White House financial situation.

During an interview in Chicago this morning for her book “Hard Choices,” Emanuel asked Clinton directly about her recent remarks to ABC News.

“Dead broke,” Emanuel said. “Really?”

Now she has come up with an even more outrageous statement. In an interview she gave to the Guardian there was this exchange:

And money? What about money? Bill and Hillary have reportedly made more than $100m since they left the White House in 2001. Yet that didn’t stop Hillary complaining to Diane Sawyer on ABC News that the couple had emerged from highest office “dead broke”, a comment that ranks for its tone deafness alongsideJohn McCain’s admission in the 2008 presidential election that he couldn’t remember how many houses he owned.

America’s glaring income inequality is certain to be a central bone of contention in the 2016 presidential election. But with her huge personal wealth, how could Clinton possibly hope to be credible on this issue when people see her as part of the problem, not its solution?

“But they don’t see me as part of the problem,” she protests, “because we pay ordinary income tax, unlike a lot of people who are truly well off, not to name names; and we’ve done it through dint of hard work,” she says, letting off another burst of laughter. If past form is any guide, she must be finding my question painful.

A $100 million fortune doesn’t make you “truly well off?” Really? What is the line you have to cross? Hard work

The fact that these stories are being generally reported indicate that there is no enthusiasm in the Democrat party base for a Clinton candidacy. If she does run, these stories will build a narrative that makes Mitt Romney look like the common man.