Democrats As Snake-Oil Salesmen

Great quote from John Podhoretz on the D’s debate last night:

It struck me as a snake-oil salesman’s convention. Every minute there was another promise to fix another problem that any sensible person at any point on the political spectrum knows perfectly well can’t simply be fixed by dollars alone — universal health care, education, the size of the prison population, AIDS, early childhood development, and on and on. I suppose there are many people in this country who genuinely believe the reason things aren’t better is that government doesn’t do enough or spend enough and that all you need to do is cut the defense budget to make everything equal. And I suppose saying you’re for massive government action in all these areas is incredibly seductive for those people to hear. But it’s not serious. In fact, it’s insulting to their audiences for the candidates to pretend it is serious. It would be like Republican candidates going before pro-life audiences and saying, “When I am president there will be no abortions in this country!” The fact that this was a forum largely dedicated to issues of concern to African-Americans should be a sobering reminder of just how patronizing liberals can be toward black people.

Helen Thomas Doesn’t Trust Hillary

OK, I know it’s Helen Thomas, not exactly a person I would be disposed to quote favorably, but even a broken clock can be right twice a day, right? Anyway, here is what one of the most notoriously liberal journalists has to say about the former first lady:

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., has great political skills, but her war-and-peace compass leaves something to be desired.

Clinton has blown hot and cold on Middle East issues, including Iraq and the Palestinian-Israeli dispute. She is at best pragmatic. Principles? Well, that’s another story.

Hillary lacking principles? You don’t say. Blowing hot and cold on important issues? No! Its called nuance!

Thomas notes how fast Hillary can change her mind:

It doesn’t take her long to switch her stance on the war – even in 24 hours. On Tuesday, June 19, Clinton told a union audience that she favored keeping some troops in Iraq “to protect our interests” there after a major pullout. But the following day, she told an activist anti-war gathering that she wants U.S. troops withdrawn from Iraq.

On that day, she dazzled the “Take Back America” conference by declaring: “We’re going to end the war in Iraq and finally bring our troops home.”

A woman has a right to change her mind. But we’re talking about war and peace. After dealing with the conflict, now in its fifth year, Clinton ought to know where she stands.

Yep. Clinton has been dancing around the issue and you don’t have to be a “journalist” like Thomas to notice. Not surprising given her far left sympathies, Thomas recommends “two California Democrats – Rep. Barbara Lee and Speaker Nancy Pelosi” as role models for Hillary.

But Thomas redeems herself by asking the right question to end her column:

The question still lingers: What does Clinton stand for?

Now that’s a good question. Even from Helen Thomas.

Obama to out raise Hillary

If there was one thing I was confident Hillary Clinton could do it was raise money. But it appears Barack Obama ain’t no slouch either:

Eager to cast their fundraising totals for the second quarter in a positive light, officials with Sen. Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign said they expect to raise less than Sen. Barack Obama — probably about $27 million, roughly what they drew in the first three months of the year.

[. . .]

Advisers in the two camps had been quietly predicting for weeks that Obama would outperform Clinton, and on Thursday, the Obama campaign unveiled a tidbit about their fortunes. They said they are in reach of having 250,000 donors for the year by the time the second fundraising quarter ends this Saturday.

David Plouffe, the Obama campaign manager, wrote in a memo that the campaign had already added about 140,000 new contributors in the last three months. “While the professional pundits are busy handicapping a big-money horse race, we have a more important goal: getting more people involved and owning a piece of this campaign,” Plouffe wrote.

Typical campaign speak by the Obama camp. Obviously each is going emphasize whatever makes their candidate look good, but lots of money and from lots of donors is rarely bad. Now if Obama could just turn some of that money and enthusiasm into improved poll numbers things might really get interesting.

Quinnipiac Poll Numbers in Swing States

A new set of polls brings good and bad news for Hillary:

Former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani is losing ground in the 2008 general election and Republican primaries in three critical states – Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania, according to Quinnipiac University’s Swing State Poll, three simultaneous surveys of voters in states that have been pivotal in presidential elections since 1964.

Head to head match-ups show:

* Ohio – Clinton ties Giuliani 43 – 43 percent, compared to May 16 when Giuliani led
47 – 43 percent;
* Florida – Giuliani beats Clinton 48 – 42 percent, compared to a 47 – 42 percent Giuliani
lead June 7;
* Pennsylvania – Giuliani and Clinton are tied 45 – 45 percent, compared to a 47 – 43
percent Giuliani lead May 31.

As has been frequently noted, however, Hillary’s negatives are high enough to put a cap on her numbers. It seems likely that these numbers reflect Giuliani’s drooping more than any Hillary gain. Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute, notes that this may not mean much in the primary but it will have an impact in the general election:

“Sen. Clinton’s numbers are as reliable as a Swiss watch. Her support and lead remain rock solid among the Democrats in these key states.”

“If Sen. Obama is catching Clinton in the primary contest, there is no evidence of it in Florida and Ohio. But in November, the large number of non-Democrats who view her negatively keeps a cap on her showing against Republicans,” Brown added.

A look into Hillaryland

Patrick O’Hannigan over at the American Spectator wonders about the recent fawning profile in the Washington Post on the “Gatekeepers of Hillaryland.” He comes to the conclusion that it isn’t a good sign:

Which brings us back to the question of why these staffers ever made it to page A01 in the first place. With some newspapers and some campaigns, this profile is the kind of thing that would fill the news hole on a slow day. But Hillary Clinton’s campaign is invariably described as a well-oiled and impressively disciplined machine, which means several people in it had to sign off on talking to the Washington Post before anyone would return a reporter’s phone call. Hillary and her crew wanted this story out there, and I suspect it’s because they wanted to scare Democratic rivals with the size and experience of their organization.

Another thing the story does, however, is prove that Bay Buchanan was right. In her recent book, The Extreme Makeover of Hillary (Rodham) Clinton, Ms. Buchanan describes the junior senator from New York as a bright and ruthlessly ambitious student handicapped by a lifelong lack of political vision, for which she compensates by seeking advice from as many trusted people as she can find. Buchanan backs that assertion by pointing to Hillary’s commencement address to the Wellesley College graduating class of 1969, and to the doomed health care reform campaign she spearheaded in 1993 and 1994. Both efforts foundered in part because Hillary indulged in her mania for consultation, missing (again) the distinction between management and leadership.

[. . .]

If the size of a celebrity’s entourage is inversely proportional to his or her sense of self-worth, then you can be sure that Hillary Clinton has no business even aspiring to a position where she controls missile launch codes and can nominate the next Justice of the Supreme Court.

Hillary’s Achilles Heel

Nice post over at Real Clear Politics on the danger Hillary’s high unfavorables present to her campaign:

In general election matchups versus the top tier Republicans, Clinton now regularly underperforms Obama. The question then becomes whether a Democratic electorate that is desperate for a Presidential win after two excruciatingly close election losses will begin to care more about Clinton’s underperformance in the general election polls.

[. . .]

This all comes back to Hillary Clinton’s extremely high unfavorables. If these head-to-head matchups with the leading GOP candidates continue to show Senator Obama or other Democratic candidates running significantly better in the general election, it could have a significant impact on Democratic primary voters who are in no mood for another bitter disappointment next November.

Read the whole post to get the LA Times Poll details.

Hillary Bios Shed Light on the Real Hillary

It is hard to open up a paper or a magazine without reading a review of the latest Hillary Clinton biographies. Most reviewers seem to agree that the books lack much shock value but still manage to paint Hillary in a rather unflattering light.

Byron York’s review at National Review Online is a good example. York explains his take on the books:

Though bereft of headline-making disclosures, each book contains page after page of new details, some of them so far ignored in the press, that reveal Hillary Rodham Clinton to be even more secretive, even more politically tin-eared, and even more combative than previously known.

He goes on to describe revelations in the book that show Hillary to be intimately involved in the “down-and-dirty” work of squashing the bimbo eruptions that her husband was so prone to generating. Both during the campaign and in the White House Hillary played a central role in covering up details, demonizing opponents, and preventing potential allegations from surfacing. WIthout Hillary’s hard ball activities one has to wonder whether husband Bill would have ever become President.

It also appears her personality rubbed people the wrong way – shocking I know. York describes how during the health care initiative fiasco Hillary made enemies of even loyal democrats looking to help the President:

Bernstein describes a meeting in April 1993 at which Hillary briefed top party leaders on the health-care task force’s progress. When then-senator Bill Bradley suggested that some changes might be required, she told him to forget it; if any lawmakers even tried, she said, the White House would “demonize” them. Bradley later unloaded on Bernstein. “That was it for me in terms of Hillary Clinton,” he said. “You don’t tell members of the Senate you are going to demonize them. It was obviously so basic to who she is. The arrogance. The assumption that people with questions are enemies. The disdain. The hypocrisy.” [emphasis mine]

Arrogance? Disdain? Hypocrisy? Hillary? Could this be the same women who smiles from out television sets today?

York concludes with a dead on description of the former first lady:

The Hillary Clinton of A Woman in Charge and Her Way is a woman who would do almost anything to gain power but didn’t know what to do with it once she got it, beyond battling her enemies and alienating her friends.

One can only hope the country gains an understanding of Hillary Clinton before it’s too late.

Hillary Searches for Her Inner Jock

If you are looking for a little comic relief this morning and didn’t catch this New York Times article this weekend (noted previously here), I encourage you to read Hillary Clinton Searches for Her Inner Jock. It is good for a number of laughs.

It seems Hillary’s hobbies are a little boring:

Her favorite fitness activity, according to her MySpace page, is speed walking. Her hobbies include crossword puzzles, Scrabble and gardening. Organizing her closets is stress relief. Sleeping in until 7 a.m. is her idea of being naughty.

It also includes this startling revelation: Hillary may come off as a little cold or distant at times! Yes, it seems it is not easy to get to the human side of the former first lady:

Elizabeth Kolbert, a writer for the New Yorker magazine who has spent years covering Mrs. Clinton, suggested in the latest issue that the candidate is hamstrung showing her personal side. “When the topic was personal, it was like talking to someone through several layers of Plexiglas,” Ms. Kolbert wrote. “Of course, I was trying to get at the ‘real’ Hillary. (In the interest of full disclosure, I never even came close.)”

Perhaps, this is just what happens when you try to be all things to all people for so long? Maybe Hillary has been acting like a robotic politician for so long that the “real” person is buried too deep? The interesting question is: can such a cold calculating candidate get elected?

Hillary appoints impeached judge to campaign chair

Ahh, the famous Clinton family ethics issue has raised its head again. It seems Hillary has appointed Alcee Hastings as national campaign co-chair. So what you may ask and who the heck is Alcee Hastings?

Over at Red State California Yankee fills in the details about this ethically challenged individual:

In 1988, the Democratic-controlled U.S. House of Representatives considered the case, and impeached Hastings for bribery and perjury by a vote of 413-3. Hastings was then convicted in 1989 by the United States Senate, becoming only the sixth federal judge in the history of the United States to be removed from office by the Senate.

Alleged Hastings co-conspirator, William Borders, went to jail again for refusing to testify in the impeachment proceedings, but was later given a full pardon by Bill Clinton on his last day in office.

I thought it was only the Republicans who had a “Culture of Corruption”? This must be part of that Vast Right Wing Conspiracy . . .

Hillary’s Empty Abortion Rhetoric

To follow up on the link noted below, the article in the Washington Times is so typical of Hillary’s campaign. Hillary will say anything to create the impression that there is common ground; that whatever group she is speaking too has something in common with her agenda. If she is speaking to anti-war leftists she offers hard line attacks on President Bush and calls for a withdrawal of troops from Iraq. If she is speaking to foreign policy wonks or moderates she offers a more nuanced approach. She never really changes her opinion but rather changes her tone and her rhetoric to suit the audience.

The same is true on abortion . All of her talk about abortion being “safe, legal, and rare” is hot air. She pretends to offer common ground:

The pro-life and the pro-choice communities have not really been willing to find much common ground. … That is a great failing on all of our parts. … There are many opportunities to assist young people to make responsible decisions.

But this means very little when it comes to actual policy because Hillary is as pro-choice as you can get. There is no common ground. On areas where the pro-life side has attempted to make incremental progress (parental notification, partial birth abortion, sonograms, etc) Hillary has opposed them every step of the way.

Hillary then goes on to blame the media and community leaders:

Mrs. Clinton said both groups can do more outreach through churches and schools to strive for the “zero” goal.

We have so many young people who are tremendously influenced by the media culture and by the celebrity culture, and who have a very difficult time trying to sort out the right decisions to make,” Mrs. Clinton said. “The adult society has failed those people. … We have left too many children to sort of fend for themselves morally.

That’s funny, I am pretty sure the very people who support Hillary (Emily’s list, NARAL, Planned Parenthood, etc.) are the very people arguing that far from being immoral, or a choice fraught with anguish, that abortion is a constitutional right; something to be proud of and fight for not be embarrassed about. They are not interested in teaching teens about sexual responsibility or the consequences of abortion. They want federally subsidized abortion and free condoms.

So don’t be fooled be Clinton’s talk about common ground. She is not interested in anything that would actually reduce abortions in this country. What she is interested in is trying to appear like a sensible, moderate, religious person while at the same time not losing any of her support from radical feminists and abortion zealots.