The commentariat seems to have turned on a dime. After trashing Hillary Clinton nonstop, they’re all talking her up. And you can see why, given the revelations that (a) the whole Benghazi thing, including the email obsession, was a partisan witch hunt and (b) Clinton herself is smart, articulate, and has a good sense of humor.

But the odd thing about these revelations is that they weren’t at all revelatory. We shouldn’t have needed McCarthy blurting out the obvious for the press to acknowledge that the Benghazi investigations have utterly failed to find any wrongdoing; and Clinton has been in public life a long time, so that her strengths were or should have been well known.

The funny part is that in the end she may benefit from the trashing, which has turned what might, indeed should have been a pretty boring narrative of a strong candidate cruising to the nomination into a comeback story. Just to be clear: she wasn’t at all the horrible figure the usual suspects portrayed, but she’s not the dominant figure you’re reading about today. Actually existing Hillary is a qualified, plausible candidate for president, no more — but given the Republican field, that’s quite a lot.

Anyway, it’s quite sad that after all these years political coverage still treats the momentous issue of who will lead the world’s most powerful nation like a high school popularity contest.