In a compelling read, The Post’s Chris Cillizza just declared that Hillary Clinton “had the worst week in Washington.” Fortunately for Clinton, we all know that things in Washington can turn on a dime. Bad news recedes from the headlines, momentum shifts and today’s scandals and gaffes fade into distant memories. But given the long list of unanswered questions about the multitude of Clinton scandals, how will they come to an end?  How can Clinton put a period at the end of the sentence and move on? It’s actually hard to see how that will be possible, simply because there is not one source of trouble. There are questions about her e-mails, Clinton Foundation donations, tax records, foreign influence — and that’s just this month. And given what we know about the Clintons, there is more to come and more shoes that will be dropping. Plus, all the new problems prompt fresh looks at all the old problems. Anyway, every week I have to tell someone that in Washington being innocent is only an advantage.  Likewise, being guilty is only a disadvantage.  Neither is determinative. But it’s safe to say Clinton is operating at a distinct disadvantage.

So what are Team Clinton’s options on how to manage the campaign politics? Some problems are solved and others are managed. The scandals currently in the public view won’t be solved, so the Clinton brain trust will have to find a way to manage them. Doesn’t the constant drip, drip, drip of damaging revelations deflate her supporters? Maybe the Clinton managers’ hope is that voters will just become numb to all of the questionable dealings that swirl around her universe. But I don’t see how Clinton’s supporters can be both numb and enthusiastic at the same time. Enthusiasm drives turnout. Numbness has got to suppress it.

The way I see it, Clinton has three realistic strategies to manage the reality of her circumstances.

First, she can employ a “whack-a-mole” strategy.  The Clinton forces could have a team that tackles every new ugly mole as it pops up, whacking it down with talking points, surrogates and whatever other tactics they have at their disposal so it doesn’t distract the rest of the campaign.

Next, she can deploy a strategy of permanent stonewalling. But this is untenable. As the campaign moves forward, she will have to have regular encounters with the media. Clinton will need to get to a place where she can take on all questions, not be intimidated, not tell whoppers that will dig the scandal hole deeper and actually impress people with her command of her story and the facts.

Clinton’s third option is a scorched earth policy. A recent Quinnipiac poll shows that Clinton is viewed as untrustworthy by 54 percent of the population, which makes her strategy simple. She will just need to make sure her opponent — whoever it is — is viewed as untrustworthy by 60 percent of the electorate.  So the Clinton campaign has to start now by attacking the Republican brand. They will need to load the kitchen sink and get ready to launch it at their Republican opponent as soon as that person emerges.  This means the 2016 campaign will get down in the gutter faster than in most previous campaigns.

None of this bodes well for the next president. The 2016 campaign needs to establish a credible case for governing, if not a mandate. Having a campaign that goes negative in the spring of 2015 will make that almost impossible. Call me a cynic, but I don’t think Clinton has much of a choice in the matter.

Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were both elected when voters were upbeat and enthusiastic. Bill Clinton was the man from Hope who didn’t want you to stop thinking about tomorrow. Barack Obama was full of hope and change. What is it Hillary Clinton will realistically expect voters to affirmatively hope for in 2016?