From the first Morning Jolt of the week:

Why Is Hillary Clinton So Devoid of Allies at the Moment?
There’s something weird about the way that the Washington, D.C., media conventional wisdom is changing so quickly about Hillary Clinton. Yes, it’s worth remembering how certain corners of the non-conservative media turned on her with a vengeance in mid-2008 as the primary battle with Obama intensified:
. . . columnists decrying her “frigidity” and “inability to keep Bill on the porch”; the Washington Post’s Robin Givhan writing about her cleavage; Randi Rhodes calling her “a f***ing whore”; Maureen Dowd claiming that she “has turned into Sybil”; MSNBC reporter David Schuster asking whether Chelsea was being “pimped out”; Katie Couric asking Hillary to confirm that her “nickname in school was Miss Frigidaire”; cartoonist Pat Oliphant depicting her crying while facing hostile foreign leaders (and Osama bin Laden expressing, “she’s so sensitive, I had no idea!”); Chris Matthews declaring that “the reason she’s a U.S. senator, the reason she’s a candidate for president, the reason she may be a front-runner is her husband messed around”; comments from an unnamed Democratic-party official that her effort once she fell behind in delegates was “the Tonya Harding option”; magician Penn Jillette declaring on MSNBC that Obama’s success in February was due to Black History Month and Hillary’s subsequent success could be attributed to “White Bitch Month”; an audience member at a debate asking her if she prefers diamonds or pearls; and John Aravosis of AmericaBlog posting pictures of Monica Lewinsky with her mouth wide open every time Hillary irked him.
But we can understand that vindictiveness and nastiness as merely a reflection of the fact that for the purposes of the 2008 Democratic presidential primary, Hillary was the de facto conservative villain, standing in the way of The Precious.
When we see this . . .
DAVID AXELROD, FORMER OBAMA WHITE HOUSE SENIOR ADVISER: Why did she use a — a separate e-mail? How did she secure that e-mail? By not answering these questions, they allow — they’re allowing this story to fester in ways that are unhelpful.
We can chalk that up to 2008 bad blood. For all of his partisan inclinations, clearly there’s some part of David Axelrod that wouldn’t mind seeing Hillary and her 2016 campaign fall flat on their faces. The subtext of Axelrod’s remark is that “she and her team don’t do their jobs as well as I did with the Obama team.”
The current White House staff appears equally eager to point out they wouldn’t have tried such a stunt, and aren’t willing to jump on any grenades over this:
“If they screwed up on the emails, if we find out they skipped over her emails . . . then that will be a problem for them, it’ll be a scandal. But it’s not one that we’ll own,” a senior administration official said.
But if you consider Mark Halperin’s commentary as one of the most reliable weather vanes of Washington thinking*, marvel at this:
MARK HALPERIN, BLOOMBERG NEWS: I said a few weeks ago on this show that I thought she was easily the most likely president of the United States. I now think not only is she because of this as a symptom and a cause, I now think she’s not only easily the most likely, I don’t think she’s any more the most likely. . . . What she is doing here in terms of lack of response, lack of a sense of what people think of her and combined with what I thought was an extraordinary weak performance at her Emily’s List speech the other day, her husband can get through these things because he’s a politician of a lifetime. She cannot. If this is the way she’s going to run her operation, if this is the mindset she’s going to have, I don’t think she’s going to be president.
When you add this . . .
“I would like her to come forward and just say what the situation is. She is the leading candidate, be it Republican or Democrat, to be the next President, and I think she needs to step up and come out and say exactly what the situation is,” Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “From this point on, the silence is going to hurt her.”
You begin to wonder if Democrats are just plain getting tired of this. Hillary and David Brock and crew have asked their natural allies, Democrats and the mainstream media, to play their traditional role, rushing to the barricades for the Clintons and denouncing an alleged “vast right-wing conspiracy.”
Here’s Gail Sheehy in the New York Daily News, contending that liberal chattering class is appalled:
But the fallout to the email bombshell should once and for all put the lie to the “right-wing conspiracy” theory. The whole liberal cast of MSNBC, from Mika Brzezinksi on “Morning Joe” to Chris Hayes and Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O’Donnell, have sounded aghast all week that Hillary is again behaving as if she is above the rules that apply to ordinary humans.
Ron Fournier comes out and says what’s lurking beneath the surface of this story: If powerful interests, groups, and countries wanted to buy influence with the Clintons, this is precisely how they would do it:
There was a reason why the Obama White House asked the foundation to stop taking foreign donations while she served as secretary of State. It looks unethical. It may be corrupt. And yet, shortly after she left the State Department to begin presidential planning, the foundation opened up the foreign-money spigot.
It never stopped taking money from favored corporations, and recently it entered into partnerships with “at least six banks that were under investigation, involved in litigation, or had been fined by government agencies and regulators,” according to a CNN investigation.
What did these companies and countries expect in return for their cash? Did the Clintons promise any favors? Those are fair questions—not partisan questions and not media “gotcha” questions.
Note the New York Times today:
Reports of Mrs. Clinton’s use of only a private email account while she was secretary of state, meanwhile, have cast a new light on efforts by outside groups to obtain access to her correspondence with the Clinton Foundation during her tenure at the State Department — about donations or anything else.
That’s in an article about how Hillary Clinton, passionate crusader for women’s rights around the globe, can justify “her family foundation’s acceptance of millions of dollars in donations from Middle Eastern countries known for violence against women and for denying them many basic freedoms.”
The Clintons’ extraordinary sense of self-interest rarely aligns with progressives’ interests, and they may have asked too much this time.

* Halperin tweets that he hasn’t lived in Washington since 1994. So his commentary couldn’t possibly be “one of most reliable weather vanes of Washington thinking”!