Categories

Archive for the ‘Hillary’ Category

The national media, like the Washington Post, thinks that Carly Fiorina is having a moment. What will they think if Ms. Fiorina’s moment lasts? Imagine their disgust if they had to start reporting that she’s a policy wonk and a great communicator.

Clinton is Fiorina’s foil and chief raison d’etre in the crowded Republican primary field. The only woman among the Republican candidates, she tells crowds that her business background makes her the more accomplished choice to become the first woman president.

And she is having a moment this week, trying to capitalize on Clinton’s frequent reluctance to take questions at her campaign events and on general press grumpiness. Clinton is avoiding questions about Iraq, her family foundation and her record at the State Department, Fiorina said Wednesday. “The Republican Party needs a nominee who will ask these questions on a general debate stage” and answer them from reporters, Fiorina said outside the hotel.

This isn’t a prediction but I wouldn’t be surprised if Ms. Fiorina wound up being the fourth (and last) top tier candidate. She’s a great communicator. She’s a policy wonk that’s especially well-versed in explaining the negatives about regulations. The other thing she has going for her is that she can rip on Hillary without coming across as mean. The fact that she’s shadowing Hillary and grabbing lots of free press tells me that she’s a savvy media person, too, which is important.

One thing that’s clear is that Ms. Fiorina isn’t a sliver candidate like Rand Paul, Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum or Chris Christie. Earlier this week, Rand Paul made another foolish accusation against his presidential opponents when he accused Republicans of creating ISIS. Statements like that immediately identify him as a fringe candidate. The GOP won’t nominate someone who is to the left of Hillary on national defense.

Rick Santorum doesn’t bring anything special to the field. On the positive side, he’s pro-life. On the negative side, he’s lost like his last half dozen elections, usually by wide margins. Simply put, people won’t take a Johnny One-Note candidate who hasn’t won an election since 2000. He won the Iowa Caucuses in 2012, defeating Mitt Romney by a handful of votes. To tell you how pathetic that is, Mike Huckabee defeated Mitt Romney by almost 11,000 votes and by 9 points. In 2012, Rick Santorum defeated Romney by 34 votes.

When your signature victory is by 34 votes over a candidate who didn’t work the state that hard, it’s a telling sign.

Carly Fiorina is a talented politician with lots of smart. That isn’t just my opinion. It’s shared by Jazz Shaw over at Hot Air, too:

I’m waiting to see some fresh numbers either nationally or in the early primary states which is less than a couple of weeks old. I don’t know how much Fiorina has moved the needle yet – assuming there’s been motion – but she’s picking up a ton of earned media everywhere she goes. And yet again, the way she’s doing it isn’t by starting a private, internecine grudge match such as the one between Rand Paul and Lindsey Graham. She’s taking the battle to Hillary Clinton’s doorstep… literally in this case.

I couldn’t put it better myself, Jazz.

Anyone watching this video has to wonder whether Tucker Carlson has paid attention the last 12 years:

Here’s the transcript that calls his analytic skills into question:

CARLSON: The question I would ask, and I’m not endorsing Rand Paul, but I do think you need a moment of national reckoning where we ask a simple question: what is the lesson from the last thirteen years of Iraq? Have we learned anything? How would we proceed differently based on what we just saw? And the other candidates, most of them I would say, are committed to this ‘We’ve learned nothing. The world’s exactly as it was on September 12, 2001. That is not…I don’t think that’s a recipe for success. I …
BRET BAIER: But do you think that this is a pathway to the GOP nomination?
CARLSON: I don’t. I absolutely don’t. Laura is absolutely right. He’s getting hammered. You’re pro-terrorist. Again, I’m not defending Rand Paul. I’m not an advocate for his campaign. But I think the question hangs in the air what have we learned?
LAURA INGRAHAM: There’s a big debate out there that has to be had. Will it be had? Will it be had when there’s just one person making the case and an entire field saying ‘Oh no. It has to be this way. It’s an interesting debate. We should have it.
CHARLES LANE: I listened to that soundbite of Rand Paul and was just reminded of why he’s not…of why he’s getting criticism. The things he says are sloppy and superficial. To literally blame the rise of ISIS on the hawks in the Republican Party is just ridiculous. Let’s face it. There are so many other factors that’ve gone into it and furthermore, it isn’t about how do we unring all the bells that were run in the past that may have led us to this point. The problem now is how do we deal with this menace?

If Carlson wants to re-litigate whether we should’ve invaded Iraq, he’s free to do so. It’s just that that’s a waste of time for policymakers. If historians want to debate it, fine. That’s their responsibility.

If Carlson wants to make sure that we don’t make the same mistakes again, the big picture answer is exceptionally straightforward. Don’t elect a person who thinks that fighting terrorists is an afterthought. Don’t elect a person who isn’t committed to winning.

One straightforward lesson worth learning is that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton told us in 2007 and 2008 that they weren’t qualified to be commander-in-chief. President Obama has been a terrible commander-in-chief. If she got elected, Hillary would be just as terrible as commander-in-chief as President Obama is because they’re both committed, as they’ve said repeatedly throughout the years, to “ending wars responsibly.”

The biggest lesson Republicans need to learn is to a) trust their generals more and b) loosen up the rules of engagement, aka ROE, so that U.S. military forces can efficiently kill the terrorists as quickly as possible. The other shift that’s imperative is that they must make clear that the Sunnis and Kurds will be protected and that Iran’s generals won’t be permitted as military advisors to Iraq.

The biggest reason why the Sunnis didn’t fight in Ramadi is because they were stuck in a lose-lose situation. If they defeat ISIS, Iranian Shiites would wage war against the Sunnis. If the Sunnis waged war against the Shiites, then Iran and President Obama would persecute them.

During the Anbar Awakening, U.S. soldiers fought alongside the Sunnis. They established a trust with the Sunni soldiers. The result was the Sunnis running AQI, ISIS’ predecessor, into Syria. We don’t need to send 150,000 troops into Iraq to obliterate ISIS. Military experts say that 20,000-25,000 troops, combined with an aggressive bombing campaign, should devastate ISIS and restore Iraqi trust in the United States. This time, though, it’s imperative that we negotiate a status of forces agreement to keep a stabilizing force in Iraq. That stabilizing force would keep the troops and the Iraqi government in line, prevent the Iranians from spreading their influence in the region and prevent the return of ISIS.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

In 2006, then-Candidate Amy Klobuchar talked daily about “responsibly ending” the war in Iraq. At the time, I was disgusted with the thought of “ending wars” because it didn’t speak to winning wars. Starting in 2007 and continuing through 2008, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama talked about “ending wars responsibly”. Obama picked up on the nation’s mood first, which propelled him to an election victory.

There’s nothing honorable about “ending wars responsibly” because there’s nothing honorable about losing wars. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton lost 2 wars and are on their way to losing a third war (against ISIS) because they quit fighting. When the world’s only true superpower quits fighting against terrorists, it sends the signal that fighting terrorism isn’t a priority.

That’s why the Gulf Arabs humiliated President Obama at his summit. Their leaders didn’t show up because they think he’s sold them out. They’re right in thinking that.

Recently, Hillary’s former associates were asked what her foreign policy accomplishments were. After a minutes-long awkward pause, they settled on Myanmar being her biggest accomplishment. They’re doing Hillary a disservice. Let’s stipulate here that accomplishments aren’t necessarily positives. In this context, they’re noteworthy moments during Hillary’s stewardship of the State Department.

First, she gave the Russians a reset switch, which told them they could do virtually anything, including annexing Crimea. Next, she helped end the war in Iraq, which helped the Iraqi people transfer from being ruled by an oppressive dictator to being governed by an incompetent prime minister to being ruled by a new group of oppressors. Third, she led the fight to ‘liberate’ Libya from Kaddafi’s rule. That ‘accomplishment’ led to terrorists taking over Libya. That led to her fourth ‘accomplishment’. Thanks to Hillary’s shoddy planning for the aftermath of the fight against Kaddafi, terrorists took control of Libya. Those terrorists then assassinated U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and 3 other American patriots.

That’s what happens when American leaders aren’t committed to winning wars and obliterating terrorists. I don’t want politicians who will responsibly end wars. I’d want someone like Bill Whittle in control. When ISIS beheaded the American journalists, President Obama was forced into pretending like he gave a damn. Bill Whittle had a different perspective:

Hillary might not be the appeaser that Obama is but she’s still an appeaser.

If we need to increase bombing raids per day to eliminate ISIS, let’s get it done. If that bombing campaign needs forward-located troops to pinpoint where the terrorists are, send them in. But, for God’s sake, let’s not do these things with the timidity and foolishness that have hallmarked the Obama-Clinton foreign policy.

The Democratic playbook on Marco Rubio is thin. Their best argument against Sen. Rubio is that he isn’t Hispanic enough:

So far, Democrats who have combed over Mr. Rubio’s voting record in the Senate have seized on his opposition to legislation raising the minimum wage and to expanding college loan refinancing, trying to cast him as no different from other Republicans. The subtext: He may be Hispanic, but he is not on the side of Hispanics when it comes to the issues they care about.

That’s incredibly defensive. If the Democrats’ biggest criticism of Sen. Rubio is that he opposed raising the minimum wage, that will last about a week, if that, before Sen. Rubio starts talking about restoring the American Dream again. Let’s remember that Democrats are frightened by Sen. Rubio’s personal story:

WASHINGTON — They use words like “historic” and “charismatic,” phrases like “great potential” and “million-dollar smile.” They notice audience members moved to tears by an American-dream-come-true success story. When they look at the cold, hard political math, they get uneasy.

An incipient sense of anxiety is tugging at some Democrats — a feeling tersely captured in four words from a blog post written recently by a seasoned party strategist in Florida: “Marco Rubio scares me.”

Sen. Rubio isn’t flawless. His participation in the Gang of 8 immigration reform bill is a definite sticking point with Republicans. That might hurt Sen. Rubio’s chances for winning the nomination. Still, that’s nothing compared with the cloud of scandals that Hillary will have to defend in the general election.

Defending a policy misstep isn’t difficult compared with convincing people that the series of disastrous decisions you’re associated with (the Reset Button with Russia, pulling the troops out of Iraq, which led directly to ISIS claiming functional control of Anbar Province and not stepping up security in Benghazi, which led to the U.S. Ambassador to Libya getting assassinated) aren’t proof that you’re the worst Secretary of State in the last 75 years.

John Hinderaker has an other observation that Democrats should be worried about:

The one who should really scare them is Hillary Clinton, as her ineptitude as a candidate becomes more palpable with every passing day.

If Hillary hadn’t been First Lady, she wouldn’t get taken seriously as a presidential candidate. When she was First Lady, she was a disaster, starting with her bombing with HillaryCare, then including her “vast right wing conspiracy” statement. After that statement, she disappeared from the stage for over a month.

When she started her book tour, she committed one gaffe after another, which led to cancelling the majority of the tour. Initially, it was thought that the book tour would serve as Hillary’s first step in her presidential coronation. Instead, it was cancelled because she botched things badly.

It’s established fact that Hillary isn’t good in settings where real people ask her important questions. That was determined last year during her God-awful book tour collapsed in infamy. That collapse guaranteed that Hillary wouldn’t wage a real campaign if she didn’t have to. That’s why we shouldn’t be surprise by this article:

CEDAR FALLS, Iowa — Here’s how Hillary Clinton campaigned for president this week: She took a private 15-minute tour of a bike shop that had closed for her visit. She spoke to four small business owners chosen by her staff in front of an audience of 20, also chosen by her staff. She answered a few questions from the media following weeks of silence. And after a little more than an hour, Clinton was off, whisked away by aides and Secret Service agents, into a minivan and on to the next event.

Members of the public who wanted to go inside the building to support her, oppose her or merely ask a question of her were left outside on an unseasonably cool Iowa day. Most didn’t bother showing up.

Rest assured of this: Hillary will lose Iowa if she doesn’t campaign amongst real people that are allowed to ask real questions. What’s most important is that she’ll deserve that thumping if she continues campaigning inside the bunker. Anyone who isn’t interested in representing all of America shouldn’t be the next president.

“I am troubled that so far in this caucus cycle she hasn’t had any public town halls,” said Chris Schwartz, a liberal activist from Waterloo, as he stood outside the bike store hoping to talk to Clinton about trade. “If she had a public town hall then we wouldn’t be out here. We would much rather be in there engaging with her.”

Let’s be blunt. This cycle, Hillary’s highest priority has been to minimize her chances of making a gaffe. That’s been an obvious decision on Hillary’s part. The problem with doing that is that she isn’t giving undecided voters a chance to get to like her.

That’s plain foolish.

Hillary can’t win this election with just a base vote, especially when a significant part of the Democrats’ base, young people, are disinterested at best. When Obama brought young people out in droves in 2008, they thought he was hip, he was cool, he had a cult following. Remember this?

Young people came out in droves in 2008 because Barack Obama captured their imagination. Hillary isn’t getting their attention in 2016. The Obama coalition isn’t dead but it’s dying a slow, painful death right in front of our eyes.

If Republicans nominate either Scott Walker or Marco Rubio, they’ll defeat Hillary with votes to spare. Walker and Rubio are fantastic in that they attract young people and they’re people with fresh ideas. Hillary’s freshness ran out circa the time of her talking about the “vast right wing conspiracy.” That’s back when I was young.

A stunning document captured during the raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound didn’t speak highly of Hillary Clinton. Here’s what the world’s greatest terrorist thought of Hillary and US foreign policy:

UBL: The Secretary of State declared that they are worried about the armed Muslims controlling the Muslim region. The West’s position towards the Libyan revolution is a weak one. The western countries are weak and their international role is regressing.

You can practically hear UBL’s rejoicing in the Obama administration’s use of “smart power’. It’s obvious that he wasn’t afraid of Hillary’s foreign policy, either.

Pacifist birds of a feather flock together.

Actually, these pacifist birds run a foundation together. Follow this link to watch ABC’s interview of Osama bin Laden in 1998. At approximately the 3:50 mark, UBL calls the US military a “paper tiger.”

Our people realize that, more than before, the American soldier is a paper tiger.

Because the military takes its orders from its commander-in-chief, they leave hotspots like Mogadishu if that’s what the commander-in-chief orders them to do. That’s what they were told to do by then-Defense Secretary Les Aspin. UBL thought that the US military were paper tigers because Bill Clinton lacked the will to fight. Does anyone seriously think that the US military couldn’t have wiped out al-Qa’ida if they’d been given permission to wipe them out?

Bill Clinton once ordered troops into Bosnia. He explained that he was just trying to “level the battlefield.” Bill Clinton didn’t care about winning a war. That’s why he went half-heartedly into a military confrontation.

Based on UBL’s documents, he thought Hillary was as soft as her husband. He nailed it when he said that “the western countries are weak and their international role is regressing.” Certainly, President Obama has abandoned the Middle East, the Arabian Peninsula, eastern Europe and north Africa. Let’s remember that bin Laden was assassinated in 2011, years before ISIS was called the JV team. ISIS and al-Qa’ida knew that they could operate without consequences with Hillary as Secretary of State and President Obama as commander-in-chief.

With ISIS expanding and Iran destabilizing the Middle East, why shouldn’t they hope for a Hillary administration? If she becomes president, they’ll have the time to plan their next terrorist attack on the United States. They’ll know that they can operate freely and openly.

Bill Clinton was seen by UBL as a paper tiger. Hillary was seen by UBL as a shrinking violet. If we want the terrorists to run rampant until they strike us again, all we have to do is elect Hillary.

I remember this video where Hillary officially announced that she was running for president:

It feels like Hillary has only 10 answered questions since then. Then again, for Hillary, that’s just a month ago. But I digress. Here’s what Hillary personally said in that video:

HILLARY: I’m getting ready to do something, too. I’m running for president. Americans have fought their way back from tough economic times but the deck is still stacked in favor of those at the top. Everyday Americans need a champion and I want to be that champion so you can do more than just get by. You can get ahead and stay ahead because when families are strong, America is strong.

Hillary won’t be everyday Americans’ champion. The only time the Clintons think about everyday Americans, it’s when they momentarily pretend to care about “people who work hard and play by the rules.” Let’s first set the foundation, starting with Hillary’s “Politics of Meaning Speech” in April, 1993. Here’s snippets from that speech:

America suffered from a “sleeping sickness of the soul,” a “sense that somehow economic growth and prosperity, political democracy and freedom are not enough — that we lack at some core level meaning in our individual lives and meaning collectively, that sense that our lives are part of some greater effort, that we are connected to one another, that community means that we have a place where we belong no matter who we are.”

She spoke of “cities that are filled with hopeless girls with babies and angry boys with guns” as only the most visible signs of a nation crippled by “alienation and despair and hopelessness,” a nation that was in the throes of a “crisis of meaning.”

“What do our governmental institutions mean? What do our lives in today’s world mean?” she asked. “What does it mean in today’s world to pursue not only vocations, to be part of institutions, but to be human?”

Hillary didn’t answer those questions. Instead, she turned to a lifestyle where she made money while peddling influence. That’s the Rodham way. It’s the Clinton way.

Hillary hasn’t driven a car in 25 years. She and Bill own a mansion in a gated Georgetown community that’s worth almost $3,000,000. They also own a mansion in Chappaqua, NY, that’s worth almost $2,000,000. In the past 16 months, the Clintons have made $30,000,000 giving speeches while travelling the world.

There was a time when the Clintons didn’t own property and weren’t rich. Unfortunately for Hillary’s storyline, that was in the 1980s. The Clintons of the 21st Century are a) ridiculously wealthy, which I don’t have a problem with, and b) auction off their positions of power for personal income or for contributions to their slush fund foundation. The woman who’s insisting that she wants to be the champion of “everyday Americans” is the same woman who once said “I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas.”

We’re supposed to believe that the elitist that said those is now a commoner. We’re supposed to believe that the woman that’s making $200,000 per speech is suddenly the foremost expert on “everyday Americans.”

That’s as believable as 2 Patriot locker room employees deflated footballs without Tom Brady’s permission. It’s utterly laughable to think that a woman as disdainful of commoners as Hillary is suddenly their champion.

Technorati: , , , ,

If Hillary wasn’t worried about the Clinton Foundation’s donations-for-influence scandal, she’s worried now. This time, though, it’s personal:

Almost a decade ago, as Hillary Clinton ran for re-election to the Senate on her way to seeking the presidency for the first time, the New York Times reported on her unusually close relationship with Corning, Inc., an upstate glass titan. Clinton advanced the company’s interests, racking up a big assist by getting China to ease a trade barrier. And the firm’s mostly Republican executives opened up their wallets for her campaign.

During Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State, Corning lobbied the department on a variety of trade issues, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The company has donated between $100,000 and $250,000 to her family’s foundation. And, last July, when it was clear that Clinton would again seek the presidency in 2016, Corning coughed up a $225,500 honorarium for Clinton to speak.

In the laundry-whirl of stories about Clinton buck-raking, it might be easy for that last part to get lost in the wash. But it’s the part that matters most. The $225,500 speaking fee didn’t go to help disease-stricken kids in an impoverished village on some long-forgotten patch of the planet. Nor did it go to a campaign account. It went to Hillary Clinton. Personally.

First, the fact that Hillary supports the Trans-Pacific Partnership won’t sit well with Elizabeth Warren’s wing of the party. In the interest of being proactive, please forgive me for being a sexist pig for calling Sen. Warren by her first name. But I digress.

Lanny Davis, James Carville or, perhaps, George Stephanopoulos will undoubtedly pop out of the Clinton’s mansion and defend Hillary to the death, insisting all the while that she didn’t commit a crime and that there’s no quid pro quo involved.

R-i-g-h-t.

Charismatic speakers like Hillary frequently command 6-figure-per-speech honoraria. There’s no doubt that Hillary’s a spell-binding, charismatic speaker who’s worth every penny of that $225,500 stipend. The fact that Hillary’s running for president and the company wants to influence Hillary on trade deals is totally immaterial. Everyone knows that the Clintons are the most altruistic people in the world. People questioning Hillary’s honoraria must be sexist, too.

The latest episode in the Clinton money saga is different than the others because it involves the clear, direct personal enrichment of Hillary Clinton, presidential candidate, by people who have a lot of money at stake in the outcome of government decisions.

Hillary’s always been known as having chutzpah but this time takes the cake. There’s nothing she can say that would get Hillary out of this mess.

From there, things get messier for Hillary:

Corning’s in good company in padding the Clinton family bank account after lobbying the State Department and donating to the foundation. Qualcomm and salesforce.com did that, too. Irwin Jacobs, a founder of Qualcomm, and Marc Benioff, a founder of salesforce.com, also cut $25,000 checks to the now-defunct Ready for Hillary SuperPAC. Hillary Clinton spoke to their companies on the same day, October 14, 2014. She collected more than half a million dollars from them that day, adding to the $225,500 salesforce.com had paid her to speak eight months earlier.

And Microsoft, the American Institute of Architects, AT&T, SAP America, Oracle and Telefonica all paid Bill Clinton six-figure sums to speak as Hillary Clinton laid the groundwork for her presidential campaign.

Vox’s reporter on this nailed Hillary with this commentary:

By this point, most Clinton allies wish they had a button so they didn’t have to go to the trouble of rolling their eyes at each new Clinton money story. The knee-jerk eye-roll response to the latest disclosure will be that there’s nothing new to see here. But there’s something very important to see that is different than the past stories. This time, it’s about Hillary Clinton having her pockets lined by the very people who seek to influence her. Not in some metaphorical sense. She’s literally being paid by them.

I could turn this post into a much longer post with all the material I have here. Instead, think of this as laying the foundation for Part II.

The sad truth is that, with the Clintons, their excesses are the norm.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

The Dayton administration has chosen an odd way of governing. Last night, they negotiated with Sen. Bakk and Speaker Daudt until 7:35. Then they took a late supper break, agreeing to resume negotiations at 9:00 pm. At 7:58 pm, Gov. Dayton’s staff called off the 9:00-midnight negotiating session.

Today, rather than resolve a multitude of substantive issues that the Dayton administration has with House Republicans and Senate Democrats, Gov. Dayton and Lt. Gov. Smith will spend the day campaigning for Hillary Clinton. They aren’t campaigning with Hillary. They’re campaigning for Hillary. There’s no chance that Hillary won’t win all of Minnesota’s delegates to the Democratic National Convention. There’s plenty of time to campaign. There’s less than a week left in Minnesota’s legislative session.

Predictably, Gov. Dayton chose to spend today doing the low priority item of campaigning for Hillary rather than doing his job. It’s additional proof that Gov. Dayton is an expert at making terrible decisions. High school honor students have better time management skills than Gov. Dayton. They’re likely to have a greater sense of accountability than Gov. Dayton, too.

At the start of this session, the Twin Cities print media constantly asked whether Republicans could govern. That chorus ended when Speaker Daudt had to separate Sen. Bakk and Gov. Dayton. At this point, Sen. Bakk likes Speaker Daudt more than he likes Gov. Dayton. At this point, Gov. Dayton trusts Speaker Daudt more than he trusts Sen. Bakk. It’s the DFL that’s dysfunctional. The DFL is the political party who hasn’t shown the ability to govern.

There’s nothing in the DFL’s actions that suggests that they’re interested in avoiding a state government shutdown. The DFL’s actions still resemble those of a spoiled brat who isn’t getting his way. I’d argue that that’s because they’re being ‘led’ by a spoiled rich kid who isn’t getting his way.

Contrastingly, Speaker Daudt has been the statesman throughout this session. He’s been the solutions initiator, too. He’s been the adult in the room. Let’s hope that there’s a handful of DFL legislators who still want to do the right thing so we can bring this session to a successful conclusion.

If there aren’t, Gov. Dayton and the DFL will be to blame for the impending government shutdown.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

If you watch this video and can’t understand why Lanny Davis is now on Hillary’s frenemies list, you might be a liberal:

Here’s part of Mr. Davis said on C-SPAN’s Washington Journal Monday morning:

LANNY DAVIS: When I was raised in the 1950s — I’m sure I’m showing my age — there was a gentleman named Sen. Joseph McCarthy who held up a piece of paper and said “I have here in my hand 400 people working at the State Department who may be Communists. Headlines across the United States. The words may be are no different than Mr. Schweizer, who I give credit for never saying I have a single fact suggesting a speaking fee or a donation is connected to Secretary Clinton’s policy decisions.

Here’s Schweizer’s response:

PETER SCHWEIZER: You know, I think it’s crazy. On the one hand, they’re saying the book is a dud, there’s nothing in the book but their actions say otherwise. … It shows me that they’re very scared and concerned about the contents of this book.

Schweizer’s onto something. It’s difficult to fit the thought that the book is total nonsense but that Schweizer is as disgustingly as Joseph McCarthy even while admitting that Schweizer is essentially an honest guy.

I wrote this post to highlight the old geezers and intellectual lightweights who are defending Hillary. Old-timers like James Carville, Lanny Davis and John Podesta aren’t going to connect with young people. They’re machine operatives who’ve glided past their sell-by dates.

While Davis was dragging up McCarthy’s ghost, Schweizer was highlighting Hillary’s skeletons with a deftness not seen from the ‘Under-the-Hill-Gang’.

Hillary’s campaign feels more like the last hurrah of Bill’s campaign than it feels like it’s Hillary’s fresh launch to the White House. If elections are about the future, then Hillary’s ‘Under-the-Hill-Gang’ operation will bury Hillary in 17 months.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,