Howard Wolfson speaks for Clinton, Contradicts Self

Of all the confusing things the Clinton campaign did over its 17 months this has to be the most mentally perplexing:

“While Senator Clinton has made clear throughout this process that she will do whatever she can to elect a Democrat to the White House, she is not seeking the vice presidency, and no one speaks for her but her,” Howard Wolfson, one of the campaign’s chief strategists, said in a statement provided to The New York Times.

If you did not catch it then let me restate it for you: Howard Wolfson said, "No one speaks for Hillary but Hillary". As negative statements are sometimes confusing allow me to restate it as a positive:

"No one speaks for Hillary but Hillary" = "Only Hillary speaks for Hillary"

You see the problem. How could Howard Wolfson say "only Hillary speaks for Hillary" and it be meaningful?

Let me begin by saying that it can be the case that "only Hillary speaks for Hillary" and people other than Hillary can say that; they would merely be stating a fact. The problem is that in this particular example Howard Wolfson appears to be speaking for Hillary, which is impossible given what he said.

This leads to the main point with which I am struggling: Is it the case that "no one speaks for Hillary but Hillary"?

Simply googling "clinton spokesman" produces what appears to be an abundance of evidence to the contrary. Throughout the 17 month campaign multiple individuals with the title of "Clinton spokesman" made statements on behalf of Hillary Clinton. But let us assume that "only Hillary speaks for Hillary". What then of these spokesmen and spokeswomen?

Obviously these spokesmen and spokeswomen, if we are to believe that "only Hillary speaks for Hillary" could not have been speaking for Hillary; that would be impossible. So then what were they doing? Is it possible that they could communicate true information about Hillary Clinton without speaking for her? Certainly. But it would be impossible for them to communicate this information on her behalf. They would have to be speaking on their own behalf, for themselves. Could the speak on behalf of the campaign? Yes, assuming that Hillary Clinton and Hillary Clinton's campaign are separate entities. But they absolutely could not speak on behalf of Hillary Clinton.

Of course, it is also possible that "no one speaks for Hillary but Hillary" is a false statement and that Howard Wolfson is a fucking moron who doesn't know what he's saying most of the god damned time.

Personally? I tend to settle on the "Howard Wolfson is a fucking moron" option given that over the past 17 months a metric shit ton of people have spoken for Hillary Clinton, most of whom are fucking tools.

Except for Terry McAuliffe. That guy totally has his shit together.