Then quite what the purpose of this article was is not clear.
Nonetheless an argument that Mr Enav has his recommendations the wrong way around can still be made.
To paraphrase a certain Mr Rumsfeld from ten years ago, Hillary Clinton is a known unknown. Perhaps Hillary Clinton's statements on Taiwan indicate potential support in the event of a diplomatic or military crisis, but one must also consider the possibility that she simply "misspoke" as she has done more than once in the past. There is also the possibility that her "support" for Taiwan might end up lost in emails recorded on a server stashed in some bloke's toilet cupboard. So rather than take Der Rodham's proclamations at face value, it would be wiser to assume that her apparent support for Taiwan depends not on anything like principle, but merely on whether Taiwan happens to be a useful tool for her or not at the time. The wonder is not that Trump is taken seriously - he isn't - but that Der Rodham still commands support in the media twenty two years on.
By all means let the next U.S. president be a woman, but let's have a person who actually tries to communicate by reference to the facts rather than one who slips away by trying to manipulate the non-facts.