Hillary, MIA

Hillary Clinton has been strangely silent for the last several days. Given the State Department’s possible role in failing to prevent the Christmas Day terror incident, that might be understandable. 

My prediction for 2010: Hillary will resign her position as Secretary of State, and rebuild her own promotional machine, a la Sarah Palin, to restore her political fortune. It must really chafe her to watch Palin waltz about the country, free as a bird, appearing before large, adoring crowds, while she is stuck on a diplomatic mission to Lower Slobovia. She will position herself as the anti-Obama, the progressive who has all the right credentials, but also the experience and competence to do the job right.

Hillary’s Downfall

Heard from Hillary lately? Nope, me neither.

Jennifer Rubin turns the spotlight on yet another example of Hillary’s poor decision-making: Her decision to accept the Secretary of State position.

Had she stayed in the Senate, she might have inherited the mantle of liberal leadership from Ted Kennedy. Clinton might have been the one to pull a rabbit out of the hat to save health-care reform. But once again her ambition got the best of her and her self-image of super-smart, super-capable policy wonk led her to a poor career choice. Now, politics is filled with second and third acts, and maybe her political career will recover. But I’m not sure her reputation ever will.

I’m sure we haven’t seen the last of Hillary. But from now on she will be relegated largely to the late night joke circuit.

So This is How We Will Regain Respect?

Obama promised that America would once again be respected across the globe after he became President. And to reinforce that theme, he appointed the most qualified person he could find to be his Secretary of State — Hillary Clinton.

She is off to a smashing start in her efforts to rebuild our credibility:

• The peregruzka incident with Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov
• The gaffes in her debut at the European Parliament

With performances like this, America will be respected alright — just like Rodney Dangerfield.

What Was Obama Thinking?

Obama insiders are worried that their grand poohbah has screwed up big-time by appointing Hillary as his Secretary of State. Columnist David Ignatius shares their fear:

The idea of subcontracting foreign policy to Clinton, a big, hungry, needy ego surrounded by a team that’s hungrier and needier still, strikes me as a mistake of potentially enormous proportions.

I agree. Everything the Clintons do is calculated to benefit themselves, not others. Appointing a former rival to a top cabinet post sounds very Lincolnesque, but I’m confident this won’t turn out the way Lincoln’s magnanimity paid off. Obama will eventually rue the day he came up with this idea.

Hindrance to Clinton Cabinet Post

That would be . . . Clinton.

Hillary Clinton is being considered for appointment as Obama’s Secretary of State, but Bill Clinton’s global escapades could derail that scenario.

His complicated global business interests could present future conflicts of interest that result in unneeded headaches for the incoming commander-in-chief. . . . .

A particular issue could be the donor list of Bill Clinton’s global foundation, which might show connections to international figures who push policies that might conflict with those of the new Obama administration.

After Bill’s numerous errant campaign performances during his wife’s presidential run, this latest development could be the last straw for Hillary. Now that she has proven she can run with the boys on her own, I wouldn’t be surprised if she decides he is a liability that she can live without. You know, I’m just sayin’ . . . . .

The View from Across the Pond

Here’s how the Palin speech was received by a UK correspondant:

Sarah Palin’s sensational performance at the Republican Party Convention may turn out to be the tipping point of this rollercoaster American election. . . . This speech has turned the election upside down. It was simply stunning.

Even better was this prediction:

But most fascinating of all, consider this: If Obama loses, Hillary Clinton will run in 2012. Opposing her is sure to be Sarah Palin.

That would guarantee America its first woman president.

And my fistful of dollars, having seen both in action here, would be on Palin.

The Downfall of Hillary Clinton

Joshua Green, writing in The Atlantic, reveals what brought down the Hillary campaign. Taking advantage of access to a lot of internal campaign emails and memos, Green paints a picture of a campaign in chaos, beginning at the top.

In fact, she never behaved like a chief executive, and her own staff proved to be her Achilles’ heel. What is clear from the internal documents is that Clinton’s loss derived not from any specific decision she made but rather from the preponderance of the many she did not make. Her hesitancy and habit of avoiding hard choices exacted a price that eventually sank her chances at the presidency.

It’s a fascinating insight into what was really going on inside Hillary’s inner circle of advisors — and the lack of her own decisive leadership that allowed the campaign to spin out of control.

If this is any indication of the kind of President Hillary would be, we can thank Obama for knocking her out of the race.

Hillary Approves of Fox News?

Remember during the Democratic nominee debates when all the candidates boycotted Fox News because it was a conservative hack machine? Now Hillary has apparently seen the light, and has given her imprimatur to the cable network as being “fair and balanced” after all. Her top strategist, Howard Wolfson, has just joined Fox as a political analyst, alongside Karl Rove.

Aides to Mrs. Clinton came to view Fox News as distinctly fair to her in a news media climate that they believed favored Senator Barack Obama.

At the rate this is going, maybe Hillary can mount her next run for the White House as a Republican.

Bill: “WAAAAAA!!!”

Bill Clinton is becoming apoplectic about the manipulation of the Democratic primary race by the party hacks and their willing accomplices in the media. In a campaign stop in South Dakota yesterday, he alleged that his wife is the victim of a “cover-up” designed to lock her out of the race.

The Clintons just can’t accept the fact that they’re yesterday’s news. They’ve been thrown overboard to make way for a newer, younger, fresher face for the Democratic Party. Bill’s right, of course — Hillary would likely make a stronger candidate in the general election. But this is not about electability. It’s about ideology. And those who are in the driver’s seat of the Democratic Party and the media are aggressively promoting a platform far to the left of the mainstream.

We’ll see how far to the left they really are in November.

Hillary’s Out of Her League

Meir. Thatcher. Gandhi. Clinton.  Quick . . . Pick the name that does not belong on this list.

Peggy Noonan reviews the careers of the first three women on this list (all powerful–and successful–heads of state in their respective countries: Israel, Britain, India), and concludes that Hillary does not deserve to be in the same league with them.

Like Clinton, all three of these women played politics in a man’s world. But rather than whine about sexism and misogyny, these women took on the men at their own game, and won.

As for this week’s Clinton complaints, I imagine Mrs. Thatcher would bop her on the head with her purse. Mrs. Gandhi would say “That is no way to play it.” Mrs. Meir? “They said I was the only woman in the cabinet and the only one with — well, you know. I loved it.”

Media Bias: Oh, Really?

Bill Clinton has learned a valuable lesson in this presidential primary campaign: The news media is biased. Introducing his wife at a rally in Lexington, Kentucky, he laid a pretty serious charge at the media’s feet:

By their own admission, this has been the most slanted press coverage in American history.

I’ll give him a pass on the “most in history’ part, but the fact that he admits even the possibility that the media can be flagrantly biased in their coverage, and that such bias can directly impact the outcome of an election, is itself newsworthy. How does it feel, Bill, to be on the receiving end for a change? Get used to it — Republicans have been feeling that way for decades.

So, Bill, what do you think we should do about this problem? Do we enact legislation that puts the media under the scrutiny of government bureaucrats? Yeah, let the government call the shots — that will remove all bias for sure, huh? Or maybe we should call for a Congressional investigation into media bias. You know, have several hundred of our elected leaders — almost half of whom are themselves running for President at any given time — conduct fair and impartial hearings on the matter. That would be a zoo.

It’s called “a free press,” Bill. Guaranteed by the Constitution. By its very nature, the press is supposed to be biased. Short of libel or slander, organs of information can say pretty much any outrageous thing they want, and there’s not a thing you can do about it. Somewhere in the cacophony of voices that results, the people will hear what they need to make an informed choice. It’s ugly, inefficient, and frustrating, but what’s the alternative? Tyranny? No thanks. I’ll take my freedom and try to scream just a little louder to be heard.

Hillary Quit? Never!

Camille Paglia explains why Democratic hopes that Hillary will gracefully bow out and spare the party a divisive battle are misplaced. This is Hillary’s last chance to grab the big prize.

I’m puzzled by the optimism of so many commentators and Democratic functionaries who are prophesying Hillary’s graceful withdrawal by mid-June. Is there anything in the Clintons’ tawdry history to support such a thesis? Why wouldn’t they play smiley-face rope-a-dope now and smash-mouth alley-and-ambush fisticuffs right to the bitter end — meaning the convention in August? It’s now or never for Ms. Hill. Even if Obama loses this fall, there’s no guarantee whatever that she would win the Democratic nomination in 2012. That hoss will have been around the rodeo way too many times. The infusion of fresh new blood into the party — especially women governors — has already started. Who will want to resurrect all those 1990s mummies?

It’s Impeachment Time Again

No, not Bush — the Clintons. Michael Crowley argues that what we are witnessing in the fierce determination of Hillary to push on in the face of overwhelming criticism is the same mindset that got them through the impeachment crisis in 1998.

The Clintons find themselves victimized and under siege. The presidency is being stolen from them. The press is out to get them. They deride elites and champion the masses. They live in a constant state of emergency. But they will endure any humiliation, ride out any crisis, fight on even when fighting seems hopeless.

That might sound like a fair summary of how Bill and Hillary Clinton have viewed the past five months. But it also happens to describe what, until now, was the greatest ordeal of the Clintons’ almost comically turbulent political careers: impeachment. That baroque saga hardened the Clintonian worldview about politics and helps to explain their approach to this brutal campaign season. The Clintons have been here before, you see. They’re being impeached all over again.

And ironically, just like the impeachment episode, a small handful of superdelegates holds their fate in their hands.

UPDATE: Wall Street Journal: “It took 10 years, but you might say Democrats have finally voted to impeach.”

Only the Democrats Could Pull This Off

Victor Davis Hanson notes the many ironies in what the Democratic nomination campaign has managed to accomplish thus far:

What strange paradoxes: the more the Democrats tried to show their egalitarian fides, they more they crafted an undemocratic nominating process; the more Obama talked of transcending race, the more he appealed to racial solidarity; the more Bill Clinton stumped and shook hands, the more he threw away his legacy; and the more Hillary and Barack slurred McCain as a right-wing nut, the more they repaired his relations with the his conservative base. And all this is only half-way through…

Hillary, the Neoconservative?

Noemie Emery examines the recent changes in Hillary’s policy statements, campaign stump speeches, and overall persona that has some conservatives taking a second look at her. Of course, the fact that the mainstream media has turned against her is reason enough to befriend her (you know, the enemy of my enemy, etc.).

The Hillary of May 2008 is radically different from the Hillary of two months ago, much less the one of last year, or of eight years back. And this one (at least till the nomination is settled) has some traits the right wing can love.

Whatever the truth about Hillary’s neoconservative bonafides, my antipathy toward a Hillary presidency can be summed up in one four-letter word:

Bill.

Fox News Legitimized

It wasn’t too long ago that the Democratic presidential candidates avoided Fox News like the plague. They boycotted debates on Fox, and generally shunned appearances on the network. The reason? Fox News is perceived to be tainted by conservative bias, unlike the rest of the media, which is so objective and balanced (hey, I don’t make this stuff up).

Now that Obama and Hillary are pulling out all the stops in their quest for the nomination, they have to deal with reality — Fox News is the most popular news network by far. If the candidates really want to reach the common people, they have to go on Fox News. So within the last week, both Hillary and Obama have given lengthy interviews with the network’s anchors. And the ratings went through the roof.

Of course, the lunatic fringe of the Democratic base is going ballistic, accusing the candidates of selling out to the evil conservatives. But the new legitimacy of Fox News among the candidates reveals a disturbing truth for the Democratic Party:

The Democratic leaders’ new openness to Fox reflects the liberal left’s diminishing power, at least at this point in the political cycle. Once feared by the Democratic candidates, these activists are now viewed at least in part as an impediment to winning the broad swatch of support needed to clinch the nomination.

For all their bluster, the radical left of the Democratic Party does not represent mainstream America. The candidates know, even if their leftist base does not, that they must distance themselves from the left, and go to where the average voters are, if they hope to have a chance in November.

A Brokered Convention for Dems?

With Hillary’s win today in Pennsylvania, Jeff Greenfield examines the possibility of a brokered convention in Denver in August. The biggest problem, of course, is that there are no brokers to be found. Trying to bring order to all the disparate influences tugging at the super delegates is, in Greenfield’s words, like “herding cats.”

And besides, “even if you could somehow find the brokers, where would they gather? With all the ordinances and clean-air talk today, there’s not a single smoke-filled room to be found.”

Hillary Prediction

Peggy Noonan offers an intriguing prediction about Hillary:

At some future point Mrs. Clinton will leave, and at a more distant one she will try to come back. But more than one cycle will have to pass before she does. She’ll need more than four years to shake off the impression she made in 2008. And this is how you’ll know she’s making another bid for the presidency. She will wear skirts. Gone will be the pantsuits that made her look like a small blond man with breasts. It’s the new me, I wear skirts! Her first impulse is to think cosmetically. A long and weary life in politics has left her thinking this is the way to think.

So file this away for a few years and look for the sign: When Hillary starts wearing skirts, she’ll be gearing up for another run at the White House.

Is This How She’ll Run the Country?

Hillary’s campaign has developed a reputation for not paying its bills. The word is getting around in the events-organizing business: Get your money up front. Sadly, many of those getting stiffed are small businesses who don’t wield enough power to force the issue.  According to one victim of Clinton’s creative financing strategy,

Sen. Clinton talks about helping working families, people in unions and small businesses. But when it comes down to actually doing something that shows that she can back up her words with action, she fails.

Anybody want to venture a guess how she will finance all her extravagant new government programs once she’s elected?

For the record, the Clinton campaign says that everyone will get paid — eventually.

CoD: Hillary in Bosnia

I’m a big fan of the Call of Duty series of video games, so this one really caught my attention. “I’m going in! Cover me, Chelsea!”

The Fickle Winds of Media Adulation

It must be galling to Hillary Clinton to wake up every morning and read yet another editorial mocking her weaknesses and gaffes. For over fifteen years, she and Bill have been the darlings of the leftist media. They could do pretty much anything they wanted, and the press would dutifully run cover for them. They could do no wrong.

But in the midst of this bruising primary campaign, it now appears that Hillary can do nothing right. The critics, from both left and right, are merciless in exposing every mistake she makes.

What gives here? Why is the press — once such passionate defenders of Bill and Hillary — now tossing her under the bus?

I suspect the answer has less to do with the performance of Hillary, and more to do with the character of the media.

The Clintons got a free ride from the press for all those years, not because the press necessarily loved them, but because they were useful to the media’s larger agenda of reshaping American political discourse. The Clintons were the iconic Democratic heroes who stood up to “the vast right wing conspiracy” and prevailed. The media had no problem looking the other way when Bill or Hillary said or did something outrageous, because they served as a buffer to keep the evil Republicans at bay.

But that was yesterday. Today, there is a fresh new face on the scene, a black face at that. Barak Obama has clearly caught the media’s attention as the next great Republican slayer. The Clintons may have served a useful purpose years ago, but now they are yesterday’s news, and their usefulness has evaporated. There’s a new kid on the block now, young, energetic, bold, eloquent. Not to mention, even more consistently liberal than Bill during his reign at the top. So the party has moved on to another address, and Hillary is left behind looking haggard and used up.

Obama is the new darling of the media. He will get the same kind of fawning coverage and cheerleading from the press that the Clintons used to get. And they will ride him as long and as hard as they can, until the next fresh young face appears. Then Obama will be tossed aside for his replacement. He will learn, as Hillary is now learning, that the media has its own agenda, and politicians are merely tools to be used and discarded as necessary to achieve their more noble end.

Hillary to Dems: It’s Me or Nobody

Maureen Dowd presents evidence that Hillary is playing her cards so that either she gets the nomination outright, or Obama will be so damaged he can’t possibly win the general election — which will set her up for one last run in 2012. (Dowd’s original NYT article is behind a registration log-in here.)

Some top Democrats are increasingly worried that the Clintons’ divide-and-conquer strategy is nihilistic: Hillary or no democrat.

(Or, as one Democrat described it to ABC’s Jake Tapper: Hillary is going for “the Tonya Harding option” — if she can’t get the gold, kneecap her rival.)

Shocked? Shouldn’t be. After all, this is a Clinton we’re dealing with here. When it comes to getting what the Clintons want, nothing is off-limits.

Hillary’s War Experience

The biggest risk with relating your old war stories is overlooking the presence of others who were there — and remember the stories differently.

If Hillary is going to make up this stuff, surely she can come up with something better. Like that time she single-handedly charged a machine gun nest, flinging grenades and spraying the enemy with her automatic weapon, sending the enemy fleeing in panic, and saving her entire platoon.

Yeah, I know, who would believe it? Probably more than you would expect.

Hillary-Obama Street Fight: The Movie

Okay, the interactive version.

Pay close attention to the two faces that occasionally pop out of the left and right of the screen. And take a moment to try the “Taunt” move.

The Cats of Kilkenny

Michael Hirsh in Newsweek provides a St. Patty’s day angle to the Obama/Clinton cat fight, by recalling this nursery rhyme.

There once were two cats of Kilkenny
Each thought there was one cat too many
So they fought and they fit, and they scratched and they bit
Till excepting their nails and the tips of their tails
Instead of two cats there weren’t any.

And the winner was: The junkyard dog, who hung around to pick up the scraps.

The general election is McCain’s to lose.

Obama for the No. 3 Spot?

Gotta love this line from a recent piece by Clive Crook in The Atlantic:

The Clinton campaign’s offer of the VP slot to Obama is clever politics. . . . The idea gels nicely with the Clinton’s argument that Obama is inexperienced: here is his chance for some on-the-job training as number three in the Clinton White House.

Exactly. And that’s why Obama will never accept such an arrangement.

Race and Gender Politics Destroying the Dems

For years, the Democratic Party has made a career out of championing race and gender issues in an effort to be “all-inclusive.” As a result, the Party has gotten into bed with the NAACP and NOW , and is quick to hurl charges of “racist!” and “sexist!” every time a member of one of the aggrieved classes gets their feelings hurt.

So there is something deliciously ironic in seeing the Party now tearing itself apart over race and gender. They have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams in promoting members of their two base constituencies to the point that they now have a woman and a black running for the highest office in the land. But in a hot political campaign they know no other hand to play except the same old fear-mongering based on the usual identity labels. So they are turning on each other.

Kathleen Parker summarizes the problem well:

What’s clearly wrong is the convenient labeling — and silencing — of people as racist or sexist for expressing opinions that run counter to acceptable speech codes as determined by the minders of outrage.

Thus distracted, we ignore the real monster, whose name is Identity Politics.

It has two faces — and always bites the hand that feeds it.

UPDATE: Charles Krauthammer sees the silver lining:

This primary campaign represents the full flowering of identity politics. It’s not a pretty picture. . . .

The optimist will say that when this is over, we will look back on the Clinton-Obama contest, and its looming ugly endgame, as the low point of identity politics, and the beginning of a turning away. The pessimist will just vote Republican.

Better Late Than Never

Conservatives are pleased to be joined — finally — by a lot of liberals who have finally had enough of the Clintons. We’ll resist the temptation to say, “I told you so.”

What conservatives saw in the Clintons wasn’t based on any remarkable and hard-to-discern insights. After all, the Clintons’ character problems were not being hidden from public view; they were, in fact, out there for all to see, often flashing in bright neon lights. Yet people like Chait were, for political and ideological reasons, blinded to the ruthlessness and corruption of the Clinton Machine. Now that the Clintons are using their tactics on an inspiring liberal figure like Barack Obama, the scales are suddenly falling from their eyes. We are now seeing the zeal of the recent converts in action.

However, I harbor no illusions that they will not be equally blinded by the next liberal darling, be it Obama or whoever.

Sincerely, Hillary

Clive Cook pegs Hillary’s campaign struggles on her smarmy attempts to be appear sincere.

Mrs Clinton tries hard to fake sincerity – so hard it is painful to watch. Sometimes, in fact, I suspect that she really is sincere and only looks as though she is faking. Barack Obama, on the other hand, may actually be sincere – and if he is not, he fakes it so well it makes no difference. Elections are won and lost for many reasons, but if I had to point to just one in the present case, this would be it.

Stretch this behavior out over the course of the campaign, and voters can’t figure out which Hillary they’re supposed to vote for.

She has veered from one false personality to another, often during the course of a single debate or interview. One moment she would be acting tough, the next warm; now aloof, now approachable; now a fun person, fond of a joke (that was the worst), now stern and serious. In every moment of repose came that scary rictus smile, to emphasize the lack of authenticity and remind one irresistibly of Jack Nicholson in The Shining.

For some of us, this revelation is merely stating the obvious. Hillary has always played the crowds like a fiddle. It’s just taken some folks a little longer to wise up to her game.

If Hillary Loses, Thank Bill

This tidbit from Patrick Healy ought to make for some interesting dinner table discussion in the Clinton household after the campaign is over:

Engaging in hindsight, several advisers have now concluded that they were not smart to use former President Bill Clinton as much as they did, that “his presence, aura and legacy caused national fatigue with the Clintons,” in the words of one senior adviser who spoke on condition of anonymity to assess the campaign candidly.

Finally! This country has had enough of the Clintons, and even the New York Times is reporting it.

I just wonder now if Hillary has also had enough of Bill Clinton, now that it is apparent he torpedoed her candidacy.