I mostly agree, but I think: > At best you could say it might has another name on it. ...does disservice to the influence she had (on Bill & the world) and s

I mostly agree, but I think: > At best you could say it might has another name on it. ...does disservice to the influence she had (on Bill & the world) and shortchanges her contribution. Your point still stands, i.e. that the claims of harm of the policy are post-hoc reasoning and therefore irrelevant its expected utility. But that does not actually conflict with this one particular instance possibly being a lucky coincidence.