Ladies, You Was Robbed!

It was a great speech magnificently delivered. She was at her best. Hillary Clinton's convention speech calling everyone to unify around Barack Obama and win the White House for the Democratic Party reminded everyone in the hall why half of them had supported her to be the first woman to occupy the Oval Office.

Unlike many of the state governors who preceded her on the stage but who seemed lost and threatened there, Hillary was never more at home, never more in command. Hillary Clinton is the most plausible, indeed the only plausible, Democratic candidate for President since...well, we have to go back quite a way...Jimmy Carter in 1976 (who, of course, turned out to be utterly incompetent).

With Obama sliding in the polls and moving out of the rock star Messiah persona of the primaries into that of a professorial, triangulating Chicago pol for the campaign, many of the delegates felt the way Republicans did in 1976 after Ronald Reagan gave his concession speech: "We've nominated the wrong man." The officially and liberally distributed unity placards were a plea, perhaps a nag, but not a convention-wide mutual embrace.

Despite Hillary's smiling, forceful, look-em-in-the eye endorsement of her opponent, the subtext erupted to the surface all over the place: "We was robbed!" In both the video and the speech, she made pointed reference to "the glass ceiling" that still exists for women who seek the highest office, though she reminded her heart-broken supporters that they had made 18 million cracks in that ceiling. In other words, "Sex discrimination is the only reason that Obama is the nominee instead of me, so if you want this woman to be president in 2012, you know what to do ladies!"

Democrats Give Us Comedy and Tragedy

This is fascinating. Someone should make this whole Democratic primary season into a series of Hollywood horror films, with a dead Hillzilla unexpectedly opening her eye at the end of each one. Oh, it is good to be alive at this time.

Denis Keohane at American Thinker reports on ominous stirrings within the Clinton camp and points to very plausible and dramatic scenarios for the Democratic convention at the end of August ("Could Obama Still Lose the Nomination").

Remember that Barack Obama, though the presumptive nominee, does not actually have enough delegates (1766.5 - Michigan and Florida are counting for half; it's something like the 3/5 compromise at the Constitutional Convention) to put him over to top (2118). What "clinched" him the nomination was the committed superdelegates, that anti-democratic feature of the Democratic Party's unique nominating process. (For more on that, see "Democrats, the Party of Aristocracy.")

That fact, combined with SuperObama's inability thus far to take flight in the national polls, opens an opportunity for Hillary Clinton with the superdelegates. Apparently, her team has been fiercely working the phones with the supers asking the Question that David Brooks asked in his column recently but which has been on everyone's mind (no doubt also Barack and Michelle's), "Where's the Landslide?"

As Obama stalls and even falls in the polls (on August 4 and 5, Rasmussen had McCain ahead by a point when "leaners" were counted), people will look to the supers to swing the convention toward the candidate more likely to win the election. That's their job. As more and more creepy crawly stuff comes to light in this man's character, his past and his connections, they will be increasingly motivated to make a move. No doubt Hillary's people are in conversation about precisely these concerns.

But don't expect any movement before the convention itself. Keohane foresees the possibility of a decisive number of supers abstaining on the first ballot, denying Obama a first ballot victory. That would free delegates to vote as they please on the second ballot, and the victory would go to Hillary.

Fascinating, no?

Oh dear, but the drama doesn't end there. Even if Obama then takes the veep nomination, many of his supporters, feeling that they and history and even the human race have been robbed, will (a) raise the roof with rage and then (b) stay home on election day. Furthermore, though Obama has been campaigning for president all summer, Hillary will have only two months to make her case to the electorate. McCain's problem would be minor by comparison, viz. retooling his campaigning for the new opponent. Gosh! What would he say? (These last reflections are mine, not Keohane's.)

My advice to Obama under these circumstances would be this. Withdraw from the whole mess. You're still young. Go back to the U.S. Senate and actually accomplish something. When there's an opening for governor in Illinois, take it! By then you will be unquestionably ready to seek the White House.

If either Hillary grabs the nomination or Obama loses the election, Barack Obama will be remembered as a tragic figure, a man of outstanding ability and uniquely situated to help bury that ugly 220 year conflict over race. But he is too much the "young man in a hurry," too intemperate in his ambition for the highest office. Whether he wins or loses in November, he is trying to pick the fruit before it is ripe. If he wins, the fruit will sour his stomach, and his faltering presidency will sicken and harm the country.

Obama's Dilemma

Barack Obama, "the winner," is nonetheless in an unenviable position.

On the one hand, choosing Hillary as his running mate makes a lot of sense. She has nearly half the delegates. The party is deeply divided not only as a result of the unusual length and intensity of the campaign, but also as a function of the personalities involved. There are just too many Hillary supporters who have vowed that they will stay home rather than vote for Obama. In addition, Hillary's half of the delegates are of a very particular sort. Despite his best efforts, Obama was not able to crack the Hispanic and working class white votes which he consistently lost to Clinton by wide margins. Then there are the hard core feminists for whom gender trumps race. If these groups are as anti-Obama in November as they were in the primaries, his place in history will remain simply the first black nominee of a major political party.

On the other hand, selecting Hillary is almost unthinkable. Say goodbye to your claim to be ushering in a new kind of politics. Hillary is the consummate old-style political operator. She is also not one to offer a discreet word of advice when asked, and otherwise to sit quietly by as she waits for her constitutional role to kick in (heaven forbid). She pursued her own agenda when her husband was president. (Remember the Gennifer Flowers deal? "I want domestic!") Then there's Bill hanging around. Both of these people want too desperately to get back into the White House to be on the ticket with such a neophyte like the junior Senator from Illinois.

What's a guy to do?

Of course, he would be foolish to allow her in the door. His choices are not happy ones, but the only sensible alternative is to thank Sen. Clinton for her offer then press on without her and hope for the best. Hell hath no fury like Hillary scorned.

Maureen Dowd's column on this is very funny and insightful. "He thought a little thing like winning would stop her. Oh, Bambi. Whoever said that after denial comes acceptance hadn’t met the Clintons." For what it's worth, I foresee her scenario #1.

Of course, we know who Obama wants as his running mate. His idea of a dream ticket is a Barack and Michelle pair up. And wouldn't that be touching?

Democrat Details

After her Pennsylvania victory, HRC said, "The tide is turning!" Indeed, it did turn. Through her effective campaigning, she managed to whittle a 20 point lead down to 10. Imagine what she could do with what is left of the economy, especially if Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi add their efforts.

As we head out of PA toward IN and NC, consider this:

If you include FL and MI (perhaps they can't vote at the convention but they can vote in November!), Clinton leads in the popular vote, though she is down in delegates. (Actually, Larry Sabato at the University of Virginia explains how this claim is highly dubious. For example, it includes Michigan where Obama's name was not on the ballot and it excludes caucus states most of which were Obama victories.) This brings back memories of 2000 when Gore won the popular vote for the Democrats but lost in the Electoral College. If this trend continues, it could provide a conscientious loophole for superdelegates to back her if Obama continues to raise electability concerns. Of course, Hillary has her own electability concerns.

Obama outspent her 3:1, and yet could not close the gap. Hmmm.


Obama has won in states that Republicans will win, but Clinton has won the large swing states with lots of Electoral College votes.

Gail Collins in today's NYT ("Hillary's Smackdown") writes:

The clamor for Hillary Clinton to drop out of the presidential race has reached new levels of intensity since the Pennsylvania primary. Of all the things Hillary has done, Obama supporters find her tendency to win large elections in swing states as by far the most irritating. If she beats him in Indiana, they’ll be surrounding her house with torches.

As of April 1, the Obama campaign had $42.5 million in the bank. The Clinton campaign had only $9.3 million but they also had more debt than cash on hand.

They are both such a mess.

But why read me when you can read Karl Rove?

His inspiring rhetoric is a potent tool for energizing college students and previously uninvolved African-American voters. But his appeals are based on two aspirational pledges he is increasingly less credible in making.

Mr. Obama's call for postpartisanship looks unconvincing, when he is unable to point to a single important instance in his Senate career when he demonstrated bipartisanship. And his repeated calls to remember Dr. Martin Luther King's "fierce urgency of now" in tackling big issues falls flat as voters discover that he has not provided leadership on any major legislative battle.

Mr. Obama has not been a leader on big causes in Congress. He has been manifestly unwilling to expend his political capital on urgent issues. He has been only an observer, watching the action from a distance, thinking wry and sardonic and cynical thoughts to himself about his colleagues, mildly amused at their to-ing and fro-ing. He has held his energy and talent in reserve for the more important task of advancing his own political career, which means running for president.

Read the whole thing: "Is Obama Ready for Prime Time?" Karl Rove is speaking to you! Why are you not listening? And go to Robert Novak for better fuller details than I can give here.

We're Still at War. McCain Wins in '08.

I am up to my eyebrows in grading, but I do not want to leave the blog "dead." So I will be selecting some interesting posts from the archives for any who wasn't among the dozen or two readers of Principalities and Powers had when they first appeared. "Wartime Means a Republican President" first appeared on July 19, 2007. I was favoring Fred Thompson at the time, so just substitute the name "John McCain." Of course, McCain was nowhere in sight at the time, completely written off by just about everyone.

Note that in last Wednesday's debate, Hillary Clinton reaffirmed that she would withdraw our troops from Iraq within sixty days of taking office regardless of conditions on the ground and regardless of advice from the military leadership. Barack Obama would give it sixteen months.

Yogi Berra once said, “It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future” (or something like that; I can't find the original source). Political science purports to be a predictive science, but because the variables are innumerable the future is not ascertainable and fortune is ultimately unconquerable. "Black swans" will often confound our political expectations (See The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable by Nassim Nicholas Taleb or the review in The Economist).

Nonetheless (ah, the fool's word), it is such irresistible sport to predict elections.

People are saying that the unpopularity of the war in Iraq guarantees a Democratic victory in 2008. Rasmussen reports that 53% favor troop withdrawal within 120 days. The Democratic candidates favor early withdrawal, the Republicans do not. Next question please. But this is irrelevant.

Since 1964, Americans in times of war, including the Cold War, have elected Republicans in general and convincing commanders-in-chief in particular, to the executive office. In the 1964 election, Barry Goldwater, the Republican, came across as unstable and unfit to have his finger "on the button." In 1968, Lyndon Johnson had us deep into an unpopular war in Vietnam, and Nixon, the Republican, was a more convincing commander-in-chief than Humphrey. 1972, Nixon. No contest. In 1976, it took Watergate, Ford's pardon of Nixon and Ford's inexplicable assertion that "there is no Soviet domination in Eastern Europe" to put the Democrat, Jimmy Carter, into the White House. It helped that Carter was a naval officer. Carter proved to be utterly incompetent. The "debacle in the desert" sealed his single term presidency. Reagan was the unflinching hawk: two terms followed by Bush. In 1988, Michael Dukakis broadcast his unfamiliarity and discomfort with military affairs by riding in a tank with his clownishly helmeted head peeping out of the top, accomplishing just the opposite of what he has hoped. In the 1992 and 1996, we were at peace, so the Democrat, Bill Clinton, was given charge. In 2000, we were still at peace, but George W. Bush won only on account of the electoral college system. Most voting Americans chose Al Gore, the Democrat (or thought they did). By 2004, we were back in a wartime situation and we chose the incumbent Republican candidate.

That brings us to 2008. In a Thompson-Obama race, Thompson wins because Obama has no foreign policy experience or even executive experience at the state level. He barely had time to find the bathrooms in the Senate building before he went off on the campaign trail. In a Giuliani-anyone race, Rudy wins. I wouldn't mess with him. Neither should Osama. In an anyone-Hillary race, anyone else will win. She is too widely perceived as being disingenuous, instinctively disinclined to support the measures necessary to prosecute the terror war (wire taps, firm handed interrogation techniques, etc.) and too willing to sacrifice national security for personal political gain. I don't know where they get these ideas.

Regardless of what people think of the Iraq situation, the terror threat still confronts us and Americans will not elect someone who is less than convincing as a defender of our national security. The one who takes the oath of office in 2009 will be the one whom Americans will have recognized as being a true or at least plausible commander-in-chief. That will be a Republican because the Democrats, with one eye on their far left base and another on the polls, are all playing the pacifist in one form or another. This outcome will be all the more certain if al Qaeda to blows up something or cut off a head at an appropriate moment.

But then there are always Black Swans.

Seriously. Is Hillary Insane?

We've known for years that not only Bill Clinton but also his wife Hillary are compulsive liars. This bothers some of us. Others, those who elect them, don't see a problem. It is not just that they lie, however. What is especially worrisome is that they lie when they don't have to. Their reflexive response in any given situation is to lie. Then the lie is often much bigger than it needs to be.

But Hillary's recent "dodging sniper fire in Tuzla" yarn defies explanation. She completely fabricated a dramatic, life threatening situation involving the first lady of the United States from an event that was well documented by reporters and films crews. What was she thinking? Was she thinking? Was she in this world?

Watch the whole thing here.

Emmett Tyrrell expresses his own amazement in "Running Out of Jokes," and Mark Steyn has a good laugh in "Sir Edmund Hillary Clinton."

At some point, you have wonder if a lifetime of self-focus and power obsession has perhaps finally driven her mad. Is she no longer able to distinguish between what actually happened and what she imagined would have happened in a more suitably glorious political career had it not been for her deadbeat husband and the vast right wing conspiracy? She's a United States Senator and she's running for President. We need to ask this question bluntly and seriously: Is Hillary Clinton insane?

Perhaps, judging by recent polls, the Democratic voters in Pennsylvania have been asking the same question and concluding that a candidate who has followed a wacky minister all his adult life is slightly better than one who is actually wacko herself. Tough choice.

Oh! This just in. I take it all back. This video footage has emerged corroborating everything that Sen. Clinton said. Sniper fire. Flying the plane. Everything. In fact, it turns out, she didn't tell the half of it! We need more humility like that in politics. Thank you, Mrs Clinton.

Eliot Spitzer and His Kind of Democrat

Eliot Spitzer illustrates the special relationship that Democrats have with power.

It is no secret that politics attracts people who seek power. As bank robber Willie Sutton once said, "I rob banks because that's where the money is." Politics is where the power is. But the most obsessively power hungry politicians tend, in my observation, to be Democrats.

Here, in God's providence, we have Hillary Clinton and Eliot Spitzer sharing the stage of history at the same time. Both have been climbing their way to the highest office, destroying whomever it was necessary to destroy along the way, and both are devoted to big government liberalism. It should not surprise anyone that the party that stands for the maximization of government power (albeit within the bounds of constitutional democracy--am I being generous?) is also the party that attracts the most power hungry of political people.
Eliot Spitzer drank deeply of that power and he was intensely aware of his powerful ability to knock people out of his way or cast them under his feet...even people who were very powerful in their own right such as wealthy Wall Street executives and major corporations. His reckless indiscretions and violations of the very laws he aggressively prosecuted others for breaking was an exultation in what he thought (perhaps just felt) was his invincibility.

Bear in mind that this man wanted to be President of the United States. Because of the unhealthy relationship that Democrats have with political power, we need to be especially careful when we consider giving one of them federal executive authority.
In light of the fireworks to which the Democratic Governor of New York has treated us, Hillary Clinton's ferocious bid for the presidency comes naturally to mind. But Barack Obama is no less committed to government control of the economy and of everything that moves. Of course, I have no doubt that he is faithful to his wife. But I am equally certain that he has a reckless disregard for our constitutional understanding of liberty.

Sad Hillary

I have had the strangest feeling recently. I have been feeling sorry for Hillary Clinton. Perhaps there is a natural human compassion even for those suffering most deservedly, and Rousseau had at least that much right.

So to work out these feelings, and in case you missed it (we're all so busy), let me point you to a fine article by Elizabeth Wurtzel a couple weeks ago in the Wall Street Journal, "Hillary Agonistes" (February 15, 2008). She is skeptical of Obama and admiring of Rodham Clinton.

I've been told that I no longer need to do yoga, take up Pilates, or study Kaballah, and I can even stop listening to Bruce Springsteen. Apparently 45 minutes at a Barack Obama rally -- preceded by two hours and 45 minutes of waiting in the snow outside to get in -- will be all it takes to change my life. Forever. An open mind, a free spirit, a loving heart, a renewed appreciation for democracy -- and possibly even thin thighs -- will be mine for keeps, if I just take in the junior senator from Illinois at a high-school gymnasium in Waukesha or a Nascar track in Pocono or an arena in Dallas. In less time than it takes to get through a single session of psychotherapy, Mr. Obama can cure me.

While Barack Obama is enjoying a level of devotion that should be reserved only for one who raises the dead and has the words of eternal life, poor Hillary attracts "a special kind of hate," that comes especially from women.

This special anti-Rodham anger is especially troubling because it's impossible to separate from sex or sexism. Hillary Clinton reminds me that it's possible that all powerful women are, as my friend puts it, "grotesque." They are exaggerated humans, extreme cases, everything to everybody. Hillary is grotesque because she has gotten to where she is, indeed, by playing it every which way -- by being a career woman when that made sense, a wife when that was advantageous; working on her husband's behalf when that seemed the way to the top, then working for herself when the coast was clear; standing by her husband despite infidelities because she loved him, while belittling Tammy Wynette for offering the very advice she was ostensibly taking; pooh-poohing the prospect of having teas and baking cookies instead of having a profession, and then becoming first lady and having teas as a profession for a full eight years. Yes, Hillary Clinton will do anything, bless her heart: That is how you amass power as a woman. We hate her, because she exposes the sordid business of having it all for the grotesque thing that it actually is.

But despite a deep antipathy women feel toward Hillary Clinton, they can't help rallying to her. She is every wounded woman. Every unjustly impeded woman.

We see Hillary, we see Barack, and we see our own version of hell: Here is this amazing woman, top of her class, implausible marriage to impossible man, works as hard as the day is long, masters all the forms and spreadsheets of governing, even manages to raise a pretty darn good kid -- and then along comes this guy, this groovy Obamarama, with his pleasing mien, his high style, his absolute fabulousness, and he wants the top floor, corner office that she earned.

Wurtzel, a law student at Yale with a popular 1994 book, Prozac Nation, is talking to women about their plight in this twisted world of ours that is a mangled intersection of human nature--womanhood in particular--liberal sexual freedom and all the advantages that men are reaping from it, and of course the perennial nature of politics itself.

Wurtzel's warning is well taken that "pundits count her out at their own peril," though her defeat is looking more likely now than it was ten days ago as, despite her fiercest vollies, the bullets and shells keep bouncing off Obama's chest.

But my hard head reminds my soft heart toward her that if Obama loses to McCain (which he will if McCain runs an intelligent and disciplined campaign), she will be back with fury in 2012.

Hillary's Sock Hop Nation--The Coolest Thing Ever!

C'mon kids! Join in with the Hillary gang! Have fun and change the world!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNihVW2nrnA

This is what happens to a campaign when all the top-drawer people have left, or have been...dealt with.

No wonder Obama is cleaning her clock.

Democrats, Why Are You So Funny?

Friends in the Democratic Party,

In Seraphic Secret (Feb. 15, 2008), Robert Avrech anticipates the Democratic National Convention going something like this:

7:00 pm Opening flag burning.
7:15 pm Pledge of Allegiance to the U.N. in Spanish.
7:20 pm Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.
7:25 pm Nonreligious prayer and worship with Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton.
7:45 pm Ceremonial tree hugging.
7:55 pm Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.
...
8:40 pm Our Troops Are War Criminals — John Kerry and John Murtha.
9:00 pm Saddam Memorial Rally — Cindy Sheehan and Susan Sarandon.
11:00 pm Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.
11:05 pm Collection for the Osama Bin Laden kidney transplant fund — Barbra Streisand. ...

It goes on and gets very funny.

So why is this funny? It is only funny because there is a strong element of truth in it.

Next question: why is this still funny? After 35 years of experience with the American public rejecting the radical McGovernite wing of the Democratic party, why do they allow this sort of thing to go on? Jimmy Carter was elected solely on account of the Watergate scandal and its fallout, and Bill Clinton was elected as a New Democrat who promised to steer a moderate course. Yet the comic success of this parody of the Democratic National Convention in 2008 tells us that the Dems are still not ready to govern. They will either suffer yet another defeat or so embarrass themselves in a single term presidency that they will be out for another three terms.

It takes more than Oprah Winfrey, cool videos and a well delivered speech to make it in the national contest.

By the way, a possible scenario for this summer and fall would be a close race between Hillary and Obama, Hillary pulls some tricks and snags the nomination, Obamamaniacs are so enraged over her apparent theft of the nomination that they stay home in greater numbers than the Republicans do, independents go for McCain by very high margins, and the Old Dragon goes down to raging defeat. Of course, now that I have mapped that out, it won't happen.

Regardless of what happens, if Hillary wins the nomination, Obama would be a fool to accept the VP slot. He is still young. Remember, Reagan ran in 1968 and 1976 before finally getting it in 1980. Tying himself to Hillary Clinton will soil him in ways we cannot even imagine, and ruin his chances for a future bid. In the meantime, he should try actually accomplishing something in government, perhaps serving as Governor of Illinois, if that position becomes available.

Clintonian Self-Defeat

It is somewhat sickening to have to spend so much time discussing the Clintons, but, as they have done now for many years, they make it a necessity. Is it possible that either Barack Obama or John McCain will deliver us from this?

Let me turn to George Will and Maureen Dowd for help today in bearing this aweful burden.

In "Howlers, Whoops and Miracles" (Washington Post, Feb. 14, 2008), Will draws attentions to the Clintons' extraordinary capacity for self-inflation and audacious lies.

With metronomic regularity -- the rhythm may arise from some strangely shared metabolic urge, which may explain the mystery of their marriage -- the Clintons say things that remind voters of the aesthetic reason for recoiling from them. Aesthetic considerations even cause many Republicans...to hope, against three decades of evidence, that Democrats can be sufficiently sensible to nominate Barack Obama, even though Hillary Clinton would be more vulnerable to John McCain.

Though, as we all know and all too well, Bill Clinton is "an overflowing caldron of narcissism and solipsism," Hillary continually reiterates, if only by implication, that she is offering us "two for the price of one" if she is elected president. In Virginia this past Sunday, in an apparent attempt to neutralize Obama's rhetorical appeal and minimize the importance of her own notorious deficiency in this, Hillary told an audience that, as Will puts it, "she is constantly being urged to unleash her inner Pericles." Are you ready for this?

People say to me all the time, 'You're so specific. . . . Why don't you just come and, you know, really just give us one of those great rhetorical flourishes and then, you know, get everybody all whooped up?'

When she is not flattering herself in ways that persuade only the most willfully gullible, she is belching forth political poison intended to bare knuckle her way back into the White House, but which may in the end be the petard on which she hoists herself. Maureen Dowd, a delightfully unsympathetic sister, says "her pitch is the color of pitch."

In "Darkness and Light" (NYT, February 6, 2008), Dowd says that Hillary's argument against Obama is that only she is tough enough to stand against the Republican hate machine and overcome in the November election. “Obambi will fold at the first punch from the right.”

Better the devil you know than the diffident debutante you don’t. Better to go with the Clintons, with all their dysfunction and chaos — the same kind that fueled the Republican hate machine — than to risk the chance that Obama would be mauled like a chew toy in the general election. Better to blow off all the inspiration and the young voters, the independents and the Republicans that Obama is attracting than to take a chance on something as ephemeral as hope. Now that’s Cheney-level paranoia.

Obama is himself being toughened in the course of this campaign by the unmatched toughening agent herself. What doesn't kill him will make him stronger. Teh big question for Obama, she says, is, "Can he go from laconic to iconic to bionic? Will he have the muscle to take on the opposition, from Billary (which she later calls 'the Clinton attack machine...not invincible, but breathing fire') to the Republican hate machine to the terrorists overseas?"

American presidential campaigns are long and grueling, and this serves a useful public purpose. As Dowd intimates, Obama will need that battle honed toughness for dealing with the foreign enemies. Perhaps confronting the heavily bounded evil of his Clinton opponants will sensitize him to the far more unrestrained evil of national enemies lurking in Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela whose savage breasts are unmoved by his "hymn that will heal this nation and repair the world" and whose evil he does not seem to take quite qeriously.

V-Day for Bill and Hill

Daniel Hay writes:

All across the world this week, men will be scrambling through outlet malls and jewelry stores trying to find that special something for that special someone. Even Bill Clinton.

Yes, it’s easy to forget that beneath all the scandals, affairs, and political prominence of the Clinton power pairing lies a marriage. You know, a normal marriage, one with a first date, a “Will you marry me?” and a pair of “I dos.” The two probably went on a honeymoon, teared up when they first saw little Chelsea, and perhaps even painted her room together.

The Clintons are a couple rarely described as a part-and-parcel product, but rather byproducts of one another—Hillary candidacy a byproduct of her husband’s legacy, Bill’s reemergence a byproduct of his wife’s campaign. But before there were state dinners in the East Room, there were candlelit dinners in the dining room. Before there were motorcades and standing ovations, there was a family station wagon going to the family reunion. Before they were the First Family, they were just a family.

We don’t normally think of the Clintons in such a Rockwellian manner given their collective Machiavellian persona, but they’re still husband and wife, are they not? And as husband and wife, will they not be celebrating the most romantic holiday of the year together? (Ex-presidents don’t get interns, right?)

While it may be hard to tell from his well-publicized debauchery, hubby Bill is allegedly quite the romantic. Recently, when Hillary went to the dentist for a quick oral surgery, Bill got the Senator a Chanel watch with a bracelet made of white cubes—“He said it reminded him of teeth.” He’s also been known to surprise his queen and potential heiress with gifts from his travels, such as a giant wooden giraffe from Africa.

But even Cyrano de Clinton must be stumped for V-Day gifts this year. After all, reports seem to suggest that the Clintons have spent less time together than ever before. President Clinton is too busy off campaigning for Senator Clinton, and on the rare occasion their paths cross—normally for the former to introduce the latter at a campaign rally—their interactions are limited to a handshake and a kiss on the cheek. Unless she’s dropping hints in her stump speech, Bill’s on his own this year.

The Clintons are far too atypical of a couple for Bill’s gift to be anything pedestrian or commonplace. It needs to be unique and extravagant, perhaps even priceless. You really think the former leader of the free world is going to give the self-appointed leader of the Democratic Party an iPod or a pair of earrings?

Many of these practical and conventional gifts won’t do anyways, since they are largely seen as part of a larger misogynistic, bourgeois stereotype. Home appliances, Sunday dresses, even fancy jewelry would contribute to the image of a weak weepy wife she has been trying (albeit, since New Hampshire, unsuccessfully) to outrun.

One also has to assume his gift needs to have an atonement factor for the You Know What Incident. The Clintons’ return to the spotlight has brought with it all of the ugliness of 1998. The rumors, the lies, the impeachment, the trial—all of the most embarrassing stains (pun intended) on the Clinton legacy brought up on a daily basis by the likes of Chris Matthews, Carl Cameron, and even Barack Obama. How does a guy possibly make up for that? A new mink, maybe?

But the mink won’t work because she can’t jeopardize losing the animal rights groups’ endorsement. (A perfect example of Clintonianism at its finest: even a Valentine’s Day gift has to be filtered through some political implications algorithm.

It was looking for a few months there that Bill had finally found the perfect gift for his not-so-perfect compliment. It was the one thing Hillary wanted this Valentine’s Day, and the one thing Bill was uniquely able to give her. It was in no ways patronizing or maternalistic, could only help her political career, and would be the ultimate mea culpa: the White House.

Everything was set: superdelegates were pledged, funds were raised, a strategy was mapped out, and an infrastructure was in place. This was supposed to be the weekend she locked up the nomination: a series of mid-February primaries to deliver the final body blow to her opponent, already crippled by a devastating Super Tuesday.

The democratic nomination: wrapped up and delivered to his other half by Valentine’s Day. The plan was perfect. Bill was about to give his wife the ultimate gift, cement his legacy, and finally live down Monicagate…until a floppy-eared community activist from the South Side of Chicago had to get in the way.

Now that Senator Clinton’s nomination is not only uncertain but unlikely, Bill is left, like so many men, within days of Valentine’s Day without a gift or a plan.

Governor of New York? Senate Majority Leader? Secretary of State? Maybe the mink wasn’t such a bad idea after all…

-- Daniel Hay studies Politics, Philosophy and Economics at The King's College in New York City and is a guest writer today at Principalities and Powers.

Hillary Says She Won the War in Iraq

This clip from Meet The Press ("Hillary...I am the reason the surge worked") reminds us of those really big, audacious lies that you get when you put Clintons in the White House. Jim Vicevich, a local talk show host in Hartford CT, captures Hillary Clinton telling us that the main reason that the troop surge has succeeded is not the outstanding generalship of David Petraeus, but the response of the Iraqi leadership to her demand that troops be withdrawn by January 2009. The current military success in Iraq is a Democrat victory, ands specifically the fruit of Hillary's wise statesmanship. What is even more amazing is that there are people who will believe this though they are likely already voting Democratic or they are not in the habit of voting at all.

The Old Dragon said:

The point of the surge was to quickly move the Iraqi government and the Iraqi people. That is only now beginning to happen, and I believe in large measure because the Iraqi government ... they watch us, they listen to us, I know very well that they follow everything that I say (she emphasized "I"). And my commitment to begin withdrawing our troops in January of 2009 is a big factor--as it is with Senator Obama, Senator Edwards, those of us on the Democratic side--it is a big factor in pushing the Iraqi government to finally do what they should have been doing all along.

Power Line adds a quote from an American soldier in Iraq sounding off with indignation at Hill's jaw dropping claim.

This is worse than Al Gore's claim that he invented the Internet.

Closing the Deal: Obama Didn't; McCain Must

Karl Rove on "Why Hillary Won" (today's Wall Street Journal--check out their improved OpinionJournal page).

1. She got the beer drinkers; Obama got the more affluent, educated white wine drinkers. There are more beer drinkers.
2. The weepy moment connected with women.
3. The substantive attacks on Obama's record, his lack of a record, and his general lightness.
4. Obama fails to close the sale by adding substance to inspirational rhetoric.

Speaking of closing the deal, Kenneth Blackwell argues in today's New York Sun ("How To Seal the Deal") that this is precisely what McCain has yet to do with the conservative Republican base, and must do if he is to win not just the nomination but also the election in November.

1. He must be the agent of change (earmarks, entitlements, energy, health care).
2. He must reach out to conservatives and show that he will be helpful to their causes.
3. Follow Giuliani's lead by highlighting what good appointments he will make to the judiciary.

These measures will "energize the right without angering the center."

Hillary The Old Dragon Lives

Last night, New Hampshire taught us (and taught Barack Obama) how much Hillary Clinton is like Ben Wade (Russell Crowe) in 3:10 to Yuma--not to be underestimated.

Maureen Dowd attributes a significant part of her success to her tearful reflection in the café. But she's unimpressed and she's not buying it.

What was moving her so deeply was her recognition that the country was failing to grasp how much it needs her. In a weirdly narcissistic way, she was crying for us. But it was grimly typical of her that what finally made her break down was the prospect of losing.

She lets Hollywood comment on the old weapon of womanhood that puts her male opponents at a distinct disadvantage.

As Spencer Tracy said to Katharine Hepburn in “Adam’s Rib,” “Here we go again, the old juice. Guaranteed heart melter. A few female tears, stronger than any acid.”

But she doubts that that ole Hill can "cry her way back to the White House." Unlike in relationships, it may be a weapon you can use only once in a political campaign to be commander-in-chief.

For more on Hillary's strategic use of her womanly prerogatives, go to "Hillary Clinton - A Woman of Convenience."

So what else do we make of this interesting providence?

A Hillary Clinton presidency would certainly be a safer one--though still not a good one--from a foreign policy standpoint. But we would pay high price domestically to be saved from Obama's utter naiveté in dealing with our foreign enemies.

I speak this way because, according to what AEI's Norman Ornstein has observed, the prospect of Republican victory in November are not good. The New York Sun reports,

Lopsided turnout in favor of Democrats at the Iowa caucuses, a huge fund-raising
advantage for the Democratic presidential campaigns, and an atmosphere of
dissatisfaction among the Republican base are prompting warnings that any
Republican presidential nominee could struggle to win in November....In Iowa
last week, about 221,000 people turned out for the Democratic caucuses, despite
the fact that those sessions tend to be more lengthy and involved than the
Republican ones. On the Republican side, about 116,000 Iowans voted. That figure
was up more than 30% from the last contested primary in 2000, but nowhere close
to the Democratic number.

Ornstein goes as far as saying, "if the Democrats can't win this, they had better find a different line of work."

On the other hand, if the Republicans were to nominate John McCain, the GOP's grumpy old man is more likely to beat the Democrats' nasty old woman than he would their hopeful young prince.

Hillary's Cry: O New Hampshire! New Hampshire!

What are we to make of Hillary Clinton's tears? Or was it just a swelling of emotion? Was she just just exhausted, or was she weeping over her beloved nation, in way similar to our Lord's weeping over Jerusalem (with obvious differences, of course)? Or is she crying because she sees the West Wing of the White House slipping forever out of reach?

You can watch the video here with an accompanying Newsweek story.

Senator Clinton appears to be speaking candidly and from the heart, but nothing of which I am aware in her long public life leads us to believe that she ever--especially at this crucial juncture--drops her guard and lapses into an emotional moment of candor. Everything is calculated, including her "soft and vulnerable woman" episodes. See my previous post, "Hillary Clinton - A Woman of Convenience," where I explore this at greater length with the help of Maureen Down, Peggy Noonan, and Judith Warner.

Furthermore, this comes in the context of a much larger campaign to "humanize" Hillary Clinton and "soften" her image. Look at how soft, quiet spoken and personal she is presented in this video, "Make It Happen." I first noticed this "Hillary is a Human Being" public relations effort when I started getting emails offering me the chance to "hang out" with her over lunch and stuff. It's a hoot, really. Go to "I Get Invited to the Clintons'," "Hillary's Luncheon Lottery," and "Alone With Bill? Interesting Prize." Then there was that whole "Hillary's Birthday--write her a note and send her money" appeal, also by emails from Bill.

And we're to take these tears seriously? Call me hard, but this woman has a history.

Beware of Clintons Bearing Gifts

Many of you have seen Hillary Clinton's jaw dropping Christmas video. If you haven't, you must.

It is called "Presents." In it, she is shown labelling various Christmas presents that have been beautifully wrapped in gold paper and big red bows. The camera closes in on labels reading "Universal Health Care," "Alternative Energy," "Bring Troops Home," and "Middle Class Tax Breaks." She draws particular attention to the final gift by seeming to have misplaced it and then finding it. Under the ribbon, she inserts the label, "Universal Pre-K."

On the face of it, three of these policies are Bush administration priorities. The present administration is investing in alternative energy sources, such as ethanol. President Bush is committed to bringing the troops home after their job is complete, namely victory in a stable Afghanistan and Iraq. Hillary Clinton has conceded that she foresees us having troops in the regions for some years to come. She has not been running a "bring 'em home now" campaign. On the other hand, dissembling is her intuitive response in any given situation. As for tax cuts, that has been a hallmark of the Bush presidency. The gift may be code for repealing the Bush tax cut on only higher incomes.

The whoppers, however, are the universal health care and universal day care, which she calls "pre-k." What is striking is that these are offered as "gifts" to the American people. The Clinton website calls them "her wishes for the American people." She presents these matters as though her wishes can be simply translated into fait accompli gifts, as though these generous desires can be delivered to us without any cost or complication. It is (I assume) unintentionally significant that these "gifts" are wrapped with gold and secured with crimson.

Hillary's campaign and her general approach to government came into illuminating juxtaposition for me with an old Popeye cartoon over the Christmas holidays. Compare the spirit of Olive Oyl's campaign song, "If I Were President" from the 1948 cartoon "Olive Oyl for President," with Hillary Clinton's Christmas video.

If I were president, if I were president,
There'd be at least ten months of June,
For folks to spend their honeymoon,
And night winds would all have the sweetest scent.
If I were president.

If I were president, if I were president,
Silk worms in every house would grow
And they would all be on the go
(In case there were a stocking accident).
If I were president.

There'd be lampposts like you've never seen.
And streets would all be spotless clean!

If I were president, if I were president,
I'd have a cure that would work right,
For those who couldn't sleep at night.
The time they spent awake would be well-spent.
If I were president. If I were president.

If I were president, if I were president,
The dogs whose habits all were strange
Would undergo a brand new change.
An all-day cone would cost a cent.
If I were president.

If I were president, if I were president,
Each bus would have a smoother run,
With lots of seats for everyone.
Apartments once again would be for rent.
If I were president.

There would be no wrangling anymore,
For drumsticks that fell short before.

If I were president, if I were president,
I'd pick up feminine morale,
And get a man for every gal.
More holidays would get my strong consent.
If I were president.

The premise of the cartoon is that this is how a woman would govern. She would make everything nice, just as she does in her home. She gives no thought to cost or to the constitutional bounds of federal government activity. In the cartoon, Congress responds to her campaign song with the chant, "She's a jolly good female, She's a jolly good female, She's a jolly good female. We love our president." You can make what you want of that.

I'm sorry that I could not find the cartoon for you on the web. Olive's portrait come to you courtesy of Popeye.com.

Wise Words from Peggy Noonan

"This is my 2008 slogan: Reasonable Person for President. "

With these words, Reagan speech writer Peggy Noonan begins her final assessment of the candidates and of our national leadership needs before the January 3 Iowa caucuses and the rapid movement of political developments from one tightly scheduled primary to another following that ("Be Reasonable: As Iowa sizes up the candidates, so do I," Wall Street Journal, December 28, 2007).

Peggy is a strikingly reasonable person. When you read her, you feel as though you are in conversation with a friend, regardless of your party affiliation. And whether or not you agree with her, you always find her conversation enjoyable, challenging, and profitable. I think that is why I feel inclined to call her "Peggy," rather than Noonan.

From an aerial, bipartisan perspective, she speaks for reasonable voters everywhere: "We just want a reasonable person. We would like a candidate who does not appear to be obviously insane. We'd like knowledge, judgment, a prudent understanding of the world and of the ways and histories of the men and women in it."

Among the Democrats, she respects Joe Biden and Chris Dodd for their many years of experience in the Senate dealing with serious national security concerns.

Mitt Romney gets her nod. "Characterological cheerfulness, personal stability and a good brain would be handy to have around. He hasn't made himself wealthy by seeing the world through a romantic mist."

In Peggy's judgment, McCain is also sane. "Mr. McCain is an experienced, personally heroic, seasoned, blunt-eyed, irascible American character. He makes me proud. He makes everyone proud."

"Mike Huckabee gets enough demerits to fall into my not-reasonable column."

Obama may possibly have the character it takes to lead the nation in times of national peril, but he is too young and inexperienced. Those are two separate considerations. "Men in their 40s love drama too much. Young politicians on fire over this issue or that tend to see politics as a stage on which they can act out their greatness. And we don't need more theatrics, more comedies or tragedies."

Hillary? No. The next American president must be someone who, for reasons of character or of circumstance, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush have not been: someone the nation can trust in times of crisis. Hillary Clinton is obviously not that such a person.

...[T]he next American president will very likely face another big bad thing, a terrible day, or days, and in that time it will be crucial--crucial--that our nation be led by a man or woman who can be, at least for the moment and at least in general, trusted. Mrs. Clinton is the most dramatically polarizing, the most instinctively distrusted, political figure of my lifetime. Yes, I include Nixon. Would she be able to speak the nation through the trauma? I do not think so. And if I am right, that simple fact would do as much damage to America as the terrible thing itself.

Though she had some respectful words for HRC, John Edwards gets an unbroken drubbing. "John Edwards is not reasonable. All the Democrats would raise taxes as president, but Mr. Edwards's populism is the worst of both worlds, both intemperate and insincere." Yes, that sounds right.

Giuliani "is reasonable but not desirable." She doesn't waste time explaining. Perhaps later.

Hillary Clinton - A Woman of Convenience

Official Portrait of Hillary Rodham Clinton, First Lady of the United States

Source: www.WhiteHouseHistory.org

Rumors are flying back and forth across the internet that Hillary Clinton is a woman.

In fact, she is, but she flip flops on the issue. She is, one might say, a woman of convenience. She is a man in a man's world, but also a woman with all the privileges and immunities thereof, just as she chooses to be. Maureen Dowd calls it her "Don't hit me, I'm a girl" strategy.

As I have just begun the overwhelming task of grading 90 undergraduate papers, I will limit this post to giving you the links to helpful articles, both past and current, on this topic, along with a few teaser quotations.

Maureen Dowd, in "Gift of Gall" (NYT, Nov. 4, 2007), gives us a humorous look at Hillary's reserved right to contradict herself and in general to be "slippery and opportunistic" without having to endure the rudeness of any man confronting her on it.

Women need to rally to support Hillary and send her money because there are men, men like Tim Russert, who have the temerity to ask her questions during a debate. If there are six male rivals on stage and two male moderators and heaven knows how many men manning lights and boom mikes, the one woman should have the right to have it two ways. It’s simple math, really, an estrogen equation.

If she wants to run on her record as first lady while keeping the lid on her first lady record, that’s only fair for the fairer sex. And if she wants to have it both ways on illegal immigrants getting driver’s licenses, then she should, especially if those illegal immigrants are men, or if Lou Dobbs is ranting on the issue, because he’s not only a man, he’s a grumpy, cranky, border-crazed man.

She should certainly be allowed to play the gender card two ways, or even triangulate it. As her campaign manager, Patti Solis Doyle, said after the debate, she is “one strong woman,” who has dwarfed male rivals and shown she’s tough enough to deal with terrorism and play on the world stage. But she can break, just like a little girl, when male chauvinists are rude enough to catch her red-handed being slippery and opportunistic.

After Rick Lazio invaded Hillary's space at a 2000 senatorial debate in Buffalo, which was almost Hillary's McKinley ending before she even started, Dowd wrote "Her Brute Strength" (NYT, Sept. 17, 2000). "Like Al Gore, Hillary Clinton may not be the warmest candidate, but both do their homework." Dowd observes that Hillary is aware of the need to "be careful to balance her ambition and cold calculation with periodic bouts of victimhood." The BBC observed one such bout. "Rick Lazio...seized an early opportunity to refer to the Monica Lewinsky affair, and accused Mrs Clinton of guilt by association with her husband. When questioned directly about it, she showed a rare glimpse of vulnerability, saying it had been a very painful time for her, and that she still could not look at it from the perspective of history." It was touching, I'm sure.

Dowd puts it succinctly: "Hillary can move up only when she is pushed down." Tim Russert gave her a boost by bringing up the Monica Lewinsky scandal in that 2000 debate. "Mr. Lazio did her the favor of acting sanctimonious, giving her a chance to act sad and vulnerable." Her rise to power has been fueled in no small part by sympathy generated by her husband's infidelity. Dowd cites David Gergen saying that the Clinton relationship, "operates like a see-saw. If he goes down in the relationship, she goes up, and vice versa."

(Incidentally, I recall a liberal female journalist (I think it was Maureen Dowd), writing just after Bill Clinton left office, writing quite candidly on how inhumanly cold Hillary Clinton is, and thus what a horror it would be for her to be president. Perhaps I read it in TIME. Can anyone help with that?)

Peggy Noonan, in "Things are Tough All Over" (OpinionJournal, Nov. 9, 2007) compares Hillary's conveniently played "Don't hit me, I'm a girl" card to the conduct of genuinely great stateswomen (she includes Angela Merkel):

The point is the big ones, the real ones, the Thatchers and Indira Gandhis and Golda Meirs and Angela Merkels, never play the boo-hoo game. They are what they are, but they don't use what they are. They don't hold up their sex as a feint: Why, he's not criticizing me, he's criticizing all women! Let us rise and fight the sexist cur.

She then points out criticism of this maneuver from the feminist left:

When Hillary Clinton suggested that debate criticism of her came under the heading of men bullying a defenseless lass, an interesting thing happened. First Kate Michelman, the former head of NARAL and an Edwards supporter, hit her hard. "When unchallenged, in a comfortable, controlled situation, Sen. Clinton embraces her elevation into the 'boys club.' " But when "legitimate questions" are asked, "she is quick to raise the white flag and look for a change in the rules."

Finally, she compares Thatcher's toughness with Hillary's:

A word on toughness. Mrs. Clinton is certainly tough, to the point of hard. But toughness should have a purpose. In Mrs. Thatcher's case, its purpose was to push through a program she thought would make life better in her country. Mrs. Clinton's toughness seems to have no purpose beyond the personal accrual of power. What will she do with the power? Still unclear. It happens to be unclear in the case of several candidates, but with Mrs. Clinton there is a unique chasm between the ferocity and the purpose of the ferocity. There is something deeply unattractive in this, and it would be equally so if she were a man.

This is the difference between statesmanship and self aggrandizement, between government properly speaking and elective tyranny.

Lastly, let me draw your attention to what Judith Warner wrote this past spring, "The Really Real Hillary" (NYT, March 14, 2007). She argues that Hillary's problem is precisely her inability to do "the woman thing."

Poor Hillary Clinton. Not only does she have to overcome the electability thing, the likability thing and — with some voters at least — the Bill thing. Now she’s got to live up to the whole woman thing — the promise that, as Ellen Malcolm, president and founder of the fund-raising group Emily’s List, recently proclaimed on behalf of all women nationwide, she will be “a president of the United States who is like us.

Hillary doesn't get the women's vote just by being a woman. She has to come across to women as "real." Claire McCaskill did "real" at an Emily's List luncheon.

“I can’t believe I’m here. ... I can’t believe I’m in the room with these giants in our government,” she told the crowd, recalling the “pinch-me moments” she’d experienced upon arrival in Washington. (She also said she wanted to hug every person in the room.)

Warner admires Hillary Clinton, but sees the different natures she has to combine (or feign to combine) if she is going to get elected president.

Hillary’s a real tear-stopper. She has a voice that is metallic and somewhat atonal. She has the sentence structure and cadences of a political science professor. I do not mean these things as insults; she is trying out, after all, for the job of president of the United States, not fairy godmother. Nor, for that matter, your best friend. Hillary’s friends say she is warm and certainly very real. But she clearly isn’t wired to project “realness” on the national stage. And frankly, for political figures, projection is what matters most. It’s the mimicry of authenticity that carries or sinks them. It either rings true — in the case of women, by setting off lots of “just like me ... or my sister ... or my mother ... or my best friend” bells — or it falls flat.

Two who have this ability, whether by nature or by self-nurture, are Nancy Pelosi and Hillary's chief political adviser, her husband.

Pelosi’s got her reality show down pat. She’s an Everymom, the strict taskmaster who will rip the throat out of anyone, including her own kids, who behaves badly. When she swells with pride — as she did the other day, twisting her shoulders in girlish excitement as she discussed Hillary’s run — you get all warm and happy inside. You can picture her shaking a finger in the face of major potentates, filling them with fears they didn’t know lay dormant in their psyches. Her performance of femininity is so far superior to Clinton’s that it’s painful. That doesn’t mean she’s a better woman or more “real”; it’s just that she’s got the schmaltz factor all sewn up. Schmaltz — what my piano teacher, with some desperation, used to urge me to put into my playing — is something that Bill Clinton just oozes. But Hillary doesn’t.

We can see her addressing this issue.

Just as her husband was the first black president, Hillary Clinton may become not only our first woman president, but also our first transgendered president.

(Well that was a lot more than I had hoped to do. Off to class prep and grading.)

Good News: Bill Behaved Himself

Source: HillaryClinton.com

As a follow-up to my last post on Bill's Debate Party (follow the links to the two before that), I am pleased to report that the whole thing was an innocent affair, strictly above board, and a respectable time appears to have been had by all. You can watch the video here. There is no sign of Bill even getting a telephone number.


There is a lot of talent in the Clinton campaign. I get emails from Thompson and Obama too, but Hillary makes them look like Student Council campaigns. If only skill at getting power were always matched by wisdom in using power.

Of course, it is all designed to make Hillary appear human, and I must say that in unguarded moments even I am almost convinced. And while I was watching the video (as I encourage you to do), I actually felt warmth for President Bill. I don't mean the warmth of humanity that a person should feel for any fellow human being. Everyone should feel that. I mean, I felt (I stress "felt," not thought or wondered) that it might be a great thing to have a good man like this back in the White House, especially when he spoke so seemingly sincerely about the prospect of government being "back in the solutions business" when Hillary is president. But then Reason returned to the throne and, in counsel with Memory, brought me back to reality.