In a wide-ranging interview with CNN’s Christiane Amanpour last week, Hillary Clinton signaled her intent to form a Super PAC as part of “the Resistance” mobilizing against President Trump.

That Super PAC, officially known as “Onward Together”, is a terrible idea that no one wants, so of course, it’s the perfect next act in Hillary Clinton’s never-ending tragicomedy of errors.

For one thing, the notion that pouring millions of big-donor dollars into politics is what the country needs is proof-positive that Hillary and her clique still haven’t learned a thing from their resounding defeat.

The long-held progressive critique of Super PACs–that they’re vehicles for corruption and the erosion of American democracy by a loose affiliation of millionaires and billionaires–has become a super-majoritarian opinion held by voters across the partisan and ideological divide.

But if there’s a team of well-connected crackpot realists skilled at misreading the mood of the electorate better than Clintonian Democrats, most Americans have yet to encounter them.

Yet still, they persist. So, what does Onward Together even really hope to offer?

Maybe they’ll convince Wisconsin congressional candidates to hire a consultant whose sage advice will be to spend money on advertising in Chicago. (Clinton famously didn’t set foot in Wisconsin during the general election, but spent late money in a state she was always going to win in order to boost her popular vote total. She lost Wisconsin to Trump by less than 23,000 votes.)

That same consultant might offer candidates in Michigan the idea that to win re-election, they should disappear from the spotlight. (According to Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes in Shattered, Clinton’s response to Bernie Sanders besting her in the Michigan primary was to give up on campaigning in the Rust Belt during the general election. She lost Michigan to Trump by less than 11,000 votes.)

All snark aside, the only thing Clinton is offering with Onward Together is more of the same. Expect the familiar cast of overzealous Hillary dead-enders, myopic-but-loyal hangers-on, gross political negligence and the mealy-mouthed language of neoliberalism that begs for derision from both the left and the right.

Tezlyn Figaro, Sanders’ former National Justice Director, summed up the opinion of everyone who isn’t Peter Daou during a recent appearance on Fox News. While debating a former Clinton staffer, she said:

“[Onward Together] is nothing but a money-grab to get donors to donate to a PAC that’s ineffective…They have simply re-gifted an old gift that no one wanted at Christmas and decided to put a new bow on it, thinking people would forget what’s actually in the package.”

Fair or not, Onward Together probably won’t be seen as anything more than another in a long line of Clinton family slush funds. The Clintons are a dynastic clan with real and perceived sleaze all over everything they touch–and nothing’s going to change that.

Any ideas, organizations or politicians associated with the Clinton brand are probably doomed to failure–if not with Democratic Party stalwarts then certainly with the general public. Conservatives, for their part, will probably lick their lips at the continued presence and prominence of Clinton, Inc. on the political scene.

Though promising to act as a “quiet catalyst” for Clinton’s preferred politicians and policies, no one in any possible world could possibly believe the Clintons will be able to skate by undetected. An Onward Together expenditure in a close race or for a ballot measure hinging on turnout would be something akin to a kiss of death. Hillary Clinton is political poison.

The Democratic Party, obsessed with optics to a fault, should disavow Clinton’s latest foray into a political culture that’s twice in a row told her she’s just not wanted.

Whatever staying power the anti-Trump resistance is able to muster, it’s obvious most of the energy is coming from young people and grassroots organizations–not the elite Democratic donor class or Lena Dunhams of the world to which Hillary Clinton owes her entire relevance.

If Hillary Clinton really cares about effectively resisting Trump’s agenda, the best thing she could do would be to just shut up and go back to Chappaqua. But she doesn’t, so she won’t. As always, with Hillary Clinton, it’s all about Her.

Follow Colin Kalmbacher on Twitter.

This is an opinion piece. The views expressed in this article are those of just the author.