If you’re a sci-fi or modern science fan like I am you have no doubt read a lot about parallel universes. For those who haven’t, here it is in a nutshell: everything looks the same, but there are variations on how things turn out. Well, it looks like this writer from The Atlantic may offer proof that they actually exist.

We do not see, often enough, the people who love Hillary Clinton, who support her because of her qualifications rather than because of her unqualified opponent, who empathize with her. Yet millions of Americans, women and men, love her intelligence, her industriousness, her grit; they feel loyal to her, they will vote with enthusiasm for her. Human beings change as they grow, but a person’s history speaks to who she is. There are millions who admire the tapestry of Hillary Clinton’s past: the first-ever student commencement speaker at Wellesley speaking boldly about making the impossible possible, the Yale law student interested in the rights of migrant farmworkers, the lawyer working with the Children’s Defense Fund, the first lady trying to make health care accessible for all Americans. There are people who love how cleanly she slices through policy layers, how thoroughly she digests the small print. They remember that she won two terms to the United States Senate, where she was not only well-regarded but was known to get along with Republicans. They have confidence in her. There are people who rage at the media on her behalf, who see the coverage she too often receives as unfair. There are people who in a quiet, human way wish her well. There are people who, when Hillary Clinton becomes the first woman to be president of the United States, will weep from joy.

That sackful of drivel follows this headline and subheadline:

Why Is Hillary Clinton So Widely Loved?

Her fans are drawn to her intelligence, her industriousness, and her grit.

The parallel-universe theory gets even stronger when you find out that the writer, Chimamanda Adichie, is a MacArthur Genius Grant recipient. She’s definitely not stupid, but she’s also not fully participatory in this reality.

I am sure that there are some, and I’m using “some” generously, people in the world who really, really admire Hillary Clinton and aren’t on her payroll. Given enough time, you could probably find several. Given between now and next Tuesday, I wouldn’t bet on hitting double digits. I live in West L.A. and am surrounded by Democrats. Sure, they’re going to vote for her, but I can’t say I bump into a lot of admirers.

Democrats are excited by the prospect of a female president because they get thrilled by diversity for diversity’s sake. They’re not really voting for Hillary, they just want to be able to shout “HISTORIC!” again for a few years after the election. They have the added bonus of quickly swapping out the race card they’ve used for eight years with a sexism card so the “HISTORIC!” president in question can’t really be held accountable for anything. As we’ve seen in the Obama era, his many failures in the early years were blamed on racism, as when Janeane Garofalo said that tea party groups’ opposition to Obamacare was “all about hating a black man in the White House”.

We’ve sort of been vindicated on that account, haven’t we?

Should Hillary be elected, she could sell us to North Korea after her inaugural luncheon and anybody who dared complain would immediately be called a sexist.

So there are some upsides for the Democrats when considering a vote for Hillary. Little, if any of it, however, has to do with the woman herself.

Let us not forget that this is her second crack at being the “inevitable” nominee for the Democrats. During the first go-round, the Democratic electorate abandoned her the second a slightly palatable alternative became credible. They weren’t all gushing about her superior experience and qualifications for the job when she was challenged by a freshman senator who was practically an empty suit. A couple of empty catch phrases turned their heads away from her so quickly it’s a wonder they didn’t all sprain their necks at once.

I doubt four lackluster years as secretary of State were the icing on the cake they were waiting for so they could really love and admire her.

For this recent primary, Democrats so feared the public once again fleeing from this thoroughly unlikable woman that they rigged the entire process to make sure she got through in spite of herself.

The MacArthur Genius fellow simply meanders through a variety of talking points for this entire article in an entirely pedestrian fashion. It’s the kind of stuff you would expect from a kid whose parents had rehearsed her to sound precocious.

Adichie manages to offer up excuses and talking points even the Clinton camp has largely abandoned. She’s sticking with earlier “comfort and convenience” tale for the email scandal, which was around 75 excuses ago, if memory serves me. There’s also a lot of “the media” (hilarious, right?) and “Republicans” blame for the email scandal. Unsurprisingly, the author is a little light on recent FBI details.

If Adichie isn’t here from a parallel dimension, I fear that she may be concussed. Nobody with their wits about them calls Mrs. Clinton “even tempered,” after all.

This is a disturbingly sad love letter written by a woman who should know better about a woman who is now less popular than Donald Trump.

Hillary Clinton may very well become the next president, but it won’t be because she’s widely loved.

It will be because even geniuses get blinded by identity politics.