Scandal and the Clinton’s?

Ya don’t say. Yes, it appears Hillary has once again associated herself with someone accused of criminality. Clinton’s Chief Strategist Is Accused of Illegal Eavesdropping:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s chief strategist is being accused of illegal eavesdropping in a lawsuit that alleges he and his polling firm monitored the personal e-mails of a former associate who started a rival company.

Mitchell E. Markel, a former vice president at Penn, Schoen & Berland, claims in the lawsuit that the firm began monitoring all messages sent from his personal BlackBerry device nearly a month after he had resigned and become president of his new business. The suit claims that Mark Penn, who is Clinton’s chief strategist and pollster, knew about and approved of the monitoring, which the suit says violates federal wiretapping laws.

Jim Geraghty over at the Campaign Spot (formerly the Hillary Spot) has some advice for Hillary:

Hint to Hillary: Try To Avoid “Illegal Eavesdropping” and “Campaign Strategist” in the Same Headline

Jim also notes the auspicious timing of the news:

Too bad we’re calling attention to it on July 5. And any time Sen. Clinton starts going on about the Bush administration and the NSA wiretapping program. What, she prefers privatization of wiretapping?

Hillary weak in Iowa?

Interesting article in the New York Times on Hillary’s campaign in Iowa:

Mrs. Clinton’s chief strategist, Mark Penn, who by profession is a pollster and tends to be very boosterish on all things Clinton, said that of all the early states, this is the one where Mrs. Clinton is clearly trailing. He blames it on her not having been able to spend as much time in Iowa as her rivals .

“She is leading now in just about every other state, so this is a natural place for us to step up our attention and focus,” Mr. Penn said in an e-mail exchange on Sunday. “She is building a base there, but she is not the frontrunner in Iowa and traditionally these voters make their final decision late.”

Indeed, Mrs. Clinton does seem vulnerable in Iowa, and it’s not hard to picture a number of unwelcome scenarios for a campaign that these days is once again trying to present her candidacy as a juggernaut. Mrs. Clinton could probably escape losing to John Edwards, the North Carolina Democrat, and coming in second next January. Coming in third, which is not at all out of the question analysts say, would be hard to explain by the supposed front-running – particularly if it is Senator Barack Obama of Illinois who comes in first.

Because of this the poor people of Iowa will see an awful lot of the Hill and Bill show in the coming months.

Podhoretz: HILL WILL STILL WIN

John Podhoretz, in his New York Post column, aruges that Hillary is still likely to be the Democratic nominee:

And here we have the problem for Obama: While many people are thrilled by the prospect of a revolutionary presidential candidate, it’s not most people – not even most liberals.

In the end, except in rare circumstances, presidential candidates are the ones who seem like the safest choices. Voters are instinctively “conservative” even when they’re liberal. This is truer in the general election than it is in primaries, but time and again voters have followed this pattern in primaries as well.

Hillary Clinton’s greatest problem as a candidate was precisely that she was a potentially revolutionary figure – the first female president, as well as a liberal icon who would shift things to the left.

Now she’s the establishment candidate of the Democratic Party – a “semi-incumbent,” in Plouffe’s words. With Obama as the first serious black candidate, her standing as the first serious female candidate seems far less revolutionary. And with him running to her left, she is well-positioned as the more moderate choice.

Obama and his partisans will need to tread carefully here. If they try to caricature Hillary as Bush in a dress, they’re going to suffer for it. It’s a ridiculous conceit, so divorced from reality that it will give her easy ammunition both to demonstrate her liberal credentials and to seem the victim of over-aggressive negative campaigning.

No matter how much money Obama raises or how much enthusiasm he generates, Hillary is still going to have to stumble for him to catch up to her. That’s the advantage of being a front-runner. Many candidates stumble. But some don’t. And so far, Hillary doesn’t seem like a stumbler.

Montanans don’t want Hillary Clinton

Here is shocker: Montanans are not big fans of Hillary. With the exception of all the Hollywood types moving in, Montana has always struck me as a state with reasonable people. Polls have now back me up:

Montana voters would most likely vote for Republican John McCain for president next year, and they are least likely to support Democrat Hillary Clinton, a new Gazette State Poll shows.

The poll, taken June 25-27, didn’t break voters into political parties. Instead, it asked all 625 people surveyed if they would or would not consider voting for each of 13 different announced or likely presidential candidates if those candidates are the nominees of their respective political party. The poll has a margin of error of plus-or-minus four percentage points.

[. . .]

“Montana voters have an open mind on supporting Democrats for president, but they aren’t going to have an open mind when it comes to Hillary Clinton,” Coker said. “For Hillary Clinton to win Montana, she needs a Ross Perot.”

This would be good news for McCain and bad news for Hillary except that Montana simply doesn’t loom that large in either the primary or general election. But they are still wise to distrust Hillary.

Ted Strickland as VP?

Joe Hallett uses a hypothetical dialog to explore the idea of Hillary picking Ohio Governor Ted Strickland as the Vice Presidential candidate should she win the nomination. Here is a snippet:

T: I want you to know, Hillary, that I will do everything I can here in Ohio — campaign day and night — to help you win the presidency. Whatever you need, just ask.

H: I appreciate that, Ted. There is something …

T: Just ask.

H: Will you be my running mate?

T: What!

H: I need you, Ted. I’ve done the electoral math. It all comes down to Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio. Florida has another Republican governor and is going to be tough for me. Pennsylvania is doable. But I don’t think I can win the presidency without Ohio, and I can’t win Ohio without you, Ted. Thompson is the kind of guy who will appeal to independents in Ohio. Your favorability ratings are still in the mid-60s. Ohioans would be proud to have you in the White House with me.

T: But Hillary, there are so many others. Despite your knowledge of foreign affairs, some voters will question whether a woman is tough enough to stand up to terrorists. You need someone with strong national- security credentials. Someone, maybe, like my New Mexico counterpart, Gov. Bill Richardson.

H: New Mexico doesn’t make or break me, Ted. Ohio does.

T: What about Barack Obama? Everybody loves him.

H: Barack doesn’t get me anything I can’t already get. I’ll win Illinois, and African-American voters have always loved Bill, and they’ll stay with me. You can get me Ohio, Ted, and I need Ohio.