I bring no coffin, carry no shovel and am less interested in her roller coaster than in the hard ride that she and Bill have taken us on. It never ends.

And it’s different from politics as usual. It’s politics as a peculiar form of psychological torture, because the Clintons have a way — it’s their trademark — of being the best, most exciting vessel for people’s hopes even as they make those people feel icky about their investment in the couple.

Just ask Democrats who were in Congress during Bill’s impeachment. Many fought to save his presidency, and thus gave the requisite interviews and said the right words, all the while roiling with outrage over the selfish, reckless manner in which he’d put his and the party’s agenda at risk.

Just look at all the liberal women who rallied then to his defense, studiously turning a blind eye to his personal behavior because his policy priorities were preferable to those of his attackers. It was an understandable bargain, but it wasn’t a pretty one.

It’s never as simple and humdrum as being for or against the Clintons. And while countless other politicians force supporters to make special allowances, stomach imperfections and come to terms with a tangle of good and bad, few do so on the Clintons’ operatic scale.

A prediction: With the publication on June 16 of two new books that assess Richard Nixon — “One Man Against the World: The Tragedy of Richard Nixon,” by Tim Weiner, and “Being Nixon: A Man Divided,” by Evan Thomas — you’re going to see and hear some comparisons of Nixon and Hillary.

These will touch on paranoia and on relationships (or, rather, the lack of them) with reporters.

“It’s definitely true that Hillary is like Nixon in her sense of aggrievement and her deep suspicion of the press,” Thomas told me, though he hastened to add, “Nixon ultimately was a darker figure.”