Democrats in the capitol have closed ranks around Hillary Clinton as the email scandal mushrooms into a full blow, blood in the water, press feeding frenzy.

Paul Begala, former aide to President Clinton and one of the major faces of Hillary's campaign, put the question in his usual delicate way:

"Voters do not give a s**t. They do not even give a fart,” said longtime Clinton ally and Democratic strategist Paul Begala, echoing the sentiments of most Clinton allies who believe the all-but-certain nominee is enough of a defined quantity in voters’ eyes that Republican attacks on her email policies cannot sway them — especially not over a year-and-a-half before she faces a competitive vote.

“Find me one persuadable voter who agrees with HRC on the issues but will vote against her because she has a non-archival-compliant email system and I’ll kiss your ass in Macy’s window and say it smells like roses,” he said.

I would really, really, really love to hold Begala to that bet.

Begala's contempt for the voters aside, Democrats out in the hinterlands are a lot more worried. Not so much because they think the email scandal will sink the Clinton campaign, but that the entire affair is representative of their biggest problem; if not Hillary, who?

Politico:

In interviews with more than three dozen Democratic activists, donors, and officials from across the country — including many in the influential presidential nominating states of Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina — some were scathing in their criticism over the revelations, while others admitted to being unnerved.

“I’m very disappointed that yet another person in political power treats the ‘rules’ as if they do not apply to them,” said Matt Tapscott, chairman of Iowa’s Winneshiek County Democrats.

“This story doesn’t alter my opinion of Hillary,” said Martin Peterson, chairman of Iowa’s Crawford County Democrats, “but it does alarm me that she is a lightning rod for any type of criticism of invented scandals by the opposition.”

At the moment, Democrats continue to present a largely united front in their public support for Clinton and in their belief that the email issue isn’t one that will ultimately matter to voters.

But while the overall message of trust in the presumptive frontrunner is clear, the saga is also exposing deep party-wide anxieties about having so much invested in a single candidate, more than 20 months before November 2016.

“It adds more reason to get other people involved in this process, to make sure we have other strong, good candidates running,” said Larry Hogden, chairman of Iowa’s Cedar County Democrats. “Because, who knows? She could implode totally.”

Some locals are “wringing their hands and shaking their heads,” said Linda Nelson, chairwoman of Iowa’s Pottawattamie County Democrats. “It’s just one more straw that can break the camel’s back, in their eyes.”

For many Democrats — even those who insist the email questions are unimportant to voters and little more than an optics problem for Clinton, ginned up by Republicans and fanned by cable news pundits — the moment has exposed a party that has few presidential prospects organized enough to fully test Clinton, or prepared to step into the void in the event that she falters.

I think that Democrats who define this as an "optics problem" are kdding themselves. It isn't the idea that Clinton broke the rules on government emails that has her in deep trouble. It's what might be in thoise emails that could damage her campaign. She may never have dreamed that they would become public. If that's the case, there may be bombshells scattered throughout the email cache waiting to be discovered. And if Clinton is perceived as being less than forthcoming in releasing those emails, speculation on what she's hiding will fuel the scandal further.

An Iowa City blogger summed up the Democrat's dilemma:

“What I’m hearing from other people is that they want an actual primary,” said Iowa City activist and blogger John Deeth. “The main problem with this whole email thing is that at the moment there’s no real option. Jim Webb is not considered a serious option. [Martin] O’Malley has got the problem of being considered another old white guy. The only viable option I see out there is [Joe] Biden, [Bernie] Sanders, and [Elizabeth] Warren.”

A buffoon, a socialist, and an anti-capitalist radical. The Democrats are in the very best of shape if Clinton bows out, yes?