Noemie Emery of the Washington Examiner questions one particular characterization of Hillary Clinton’s political career.

Last Friday, Hillary Clinton received an award (or a consolation prize, if you will) from the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study at Harvard University. It was a sort of “you-lost-but-you-were-right-all-along-and-we-love-you” citation. As the Boston Globe put it, “after losing a presidential campaign that, while historic, was widely viewed as uninspired, Clinton basked in a fairly fawning reception from fans.”

What’s wrong with this honor? Only the unhappy fact that although the award was given for her having been a “transformer,” it is hard to think of anything that Hillary Clinton has ever transformed. She was a “different kind of First Lady,” but she did not change the office, as her successors have shown no interest whatever in running the country. She didn’t transform the Department of State, and wasn’t even the first woman to head it — Madeleine Albright was the first woman, Colin Powell had been the first black man, and Condoleezza Rice was the first black woman. There was no glass ceiling at State and little in the way transforming to be done.

Since identity is accomplishment in the eyes of most liberals, this is bad news for her, and her standing in history. But I’ll go further: Whatever transforming she has done has always been negative, and consisted of changing a positive prospect for herself or her party into a disaster for either or both.