Posted on 01/10/2008 5:21:59 AM PST by Kaslin
WASHINGTON -- Stepping back from the febrile blare that the political classes have orchestrated around the Iowa caucuses and now the New Hampshire primary, allow me to make an observation that some will say is lacking in humility. Well, to be honest, of all the virtues, humility is the one that I simply cannot stick. I mean, what is the point of it? Now that we have two presidential contests behind us and the Clintons thrashing to maintain a one-digit lead nationally over Sen. Barack Obama -- where only a couple of weeks back, the lead was in the double digits -- it appears that I have been right for months. We are in the midst of a Clinton crack-up.
If I do say so myself, I was right on the money when I titled my latest book on the Clintons' journey, from their disgrace in 2001 to their vicissitudes in Campaign '08, "The Clinton Crack-Up." In New Hampshire, Hillary saw a double-digit lead over Obama steadily wither to a two-point victory over him, and a shabby victory it was. She saw her husband flaying about, whining at media coverage, referring to Obama's impressive rise to national prominence as a "fairy tale" and his presidency as a "rolling of the dice." Her campaign staff began to buckle. The New York Times reported the former Boy President was increasingly a soporific on the stump, and USA Today called him a "relic." Hillary was reduced to tears just before the balloting began.
By election day in New Hampshire, large segments of the liberal political class, both in the media and in the Democratic Party, were betraying an enthusiasm for an end to the Clinton dynasty that surprised even me. Admittedly, I had predicted much of this impatience with the Clintons in my book. There in the last chapter, I mused that a rising generation of young Democrats finally is going to overthrow the 1960s generation's domination of the party, and in New Hampshire -- as was the case in Iowa, also -- the youth vote went for Obama. I also pointed out that, though Bill Clinton has been an effective campaigner for himself, he is usually ineffective in campaigning for others. In 2004, 12 of the 14 candidates whom he campaigned for lost.
Finally there is the matter of the Clintons' unpopularity. The Episodic Apologists of the media rhapsodize on the Clintons' "rock star" popularity, but who wants a rock star in the White House? Truth be known, as a politician, Hillary is manifestly unpopular. Anywhere from 40 percent to 50 percent of the electorate when polled say they never will vote for her. Even when she was first lady, she was unpopular. In fact, in researching her for my book, I found that she was the most unpopular first lady since polling this question began.
Another fact that I turned up in researching for the book is a matter alluded to earlier in this column, to wit, the Clintons began their quest for a second Clinton presidency from a position of national disgrace. Owing to the last-minute pardons, the White House property that the first family was accused of pilfering and the trashing of the White House alleged against Hillary's staff, both Clintons' approval ratings had slipped into the 30th percentile. Major liberal newspapers were demanding congressional investigations, including The New York Times. The liberal New York Observer editorialized "we (New Yorkers) have made a terrible mistake, for Hillary Rodham Clinton is unfit for elective office. Had she any shame, she would resign."
Now that last line caught your eye, did it not? The reason for the dramatic decline in Hillary's front-runner status is that Democratic voters increasingly are alarmed about a large hairy monster that has been roaming through their consciences for years, probably since they first heard of Gennifer Flowers and of Bill Clinton's diplomatic negotiations with his draft board. The monster is the Clintons' record of lawlessness and scandal. Already in this campaign cycle, Democratic voters have reminders of the Clintons' unsavory practices, felons among their contributors, even shadowy Asians bundling checks, as in 1996, and, of course, the politics of personal destruction practiced against their opponents.
My guess is that a sizable number of Democrats have had enough of it. Obama represents a clean break with a troubled and mediocre past. As Hillary leaves New Hampshire, she challenges Obama on the question of experience. The junior senator from Illinois should take up her challenge. Hillary can chide him for his lack of experience, and he can remind us all of Hillary's unique experiences, beginning with the Clintons' "holiday from history," and Travelgate, Filegate, missing billing records, lying under oath, her cattle-futures bonanza, the Riady family, Johnny Chung, John Huang, Charlie Trie -- and suddenly, you see it, too, the large hairy monster that is the Clinton legacy.
My guess is that the main reason for Hillary's decline is that voters are troubled by the monster that is her unique record.
Good reminder of the daunting negatives of the Clinton Crime family.org. Thanks.
Does the name, "Marion Barry" ring a bell? I don't see Democrats' appetite for corrupt and sleazy politicians waning in the least.
Keep your eyes on the prize, people. You may be sure that Herself, the Cold and Joyless, has not wavered even momentarily in keeping HER eye on the ultimate objective.
Herself will do whatever it takes, no charge of malfeasance or negativity will deter Herself in her self-appointed task.
Of course, if these determined efforts do result in real-life criminal activity, it is a little hard to ignore that.
The stops have already been pulled out in New Hampshire, where a concerted effort of enrolling “election-day” registrations in numerous localities around the state resulted in a significant bulge in the margin between Herself and Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., Sheik of the South Side of Chicago. But apparently voter fraud is not illegal in New Hampshire, or at least no instances of enforcement of any infractions have been noted for some time.
I suppose it is still not considered criminal to ham it up by producing phony emotion on cue, and shed crocodile tears.
But that trick is not likely to work twice.
I think the next time Hillary cries, it will be the real thing.
The funny thing about Hillary’s crying is she didn’t say anything at all. Just some pycho babble about holding them back. Holding them back on what?
It just proves; there are a whole heck of a lot of people out there that don’t listen and don’t understand what they are listening to anyway.
I imagine Hillary would say “Mickey Mouse is a Mouse” 10 times and people would vote for her. Can you get any dumber? No wonder we never get a real candidate when we are being offered and vote for candidates of stupid.
That is one headline I didn’t need to see this early. Eeeeew.
As much as it burns me that that stinking bitch got on TV and cried her crockodile tears and that the brain-dead maxi-moron NH voters gave her a sympathy vote... as much as that burns me and makes me wince that the evil and corrupt Clintons saved their worthless asses with one of their stinking lies... I have to admit that it’s better for our side to have a real contest in the RAT primaries rather than it being a cake-walk for MadrassaBoy the RealChangeLeftist.
As much as I hate the Clintons — and my hatred of them knows no bounds — I recognize that MadrassaBoy is just as hateful, maybe even more so, and that we actually need The Beast to stick around awhile longer so that The Coronation of Hillary doesn’t simply morph into the Coronation of B. Hussein.
So Hilary lost her boner?
Drudge has posted an article by Camille Paglia. She has a superb analysis of Hillary.
” Norman Hsiu, Pauline Kanchanalak, Webster Hubell, Ron Brown, Craig Livingstone, Vince Foster, David Watkins, Bruce Lindsey, Henry Cisneros, Jack Paladino, Richard Ben-Veniste, Larry Lawrence, Danny Clinton, Roger Clinton, Roger Altman, Susan MacDougall, Betsey Wright, Strobe Talbott, Bernie Nussbaum,...”
bump
Don’t take your eyes off ‘em while they’re still twitching. They aren’t to be trusted. Ever.
Amen to this! KRead Obama,s history. GG we do not need this dude coming into power.
The Billy-boy would say such things is absolutely ludicrous, as his first campaign was just as "out of the blue" as Obama's, in virtually all the same ways. In fact, Obama is the re-incarnation of WJC---not Hillary.
I enjoyed Tyrrell’s book, but I’m afraid he’s overly optimistic. We may look back to those glorious five days between Iowa and New Hampshire, when the Clinton crime family seemed doomed to defeat, as we suffer through the third and fourth Clinton terms.
Tyrrell is right, and if the Obama campaign found Clinton-led fraud in the NH vote, then that would be the end of Hillary's chances.
I concur in your feelings about the Clintons, and the smarmy phony Obama, who might be more dangerous than the Clintons in the WH. I also agree that a knock-down brawl between their camps will be good for America in the long run.
Get out the popcorn and Coke - it’s going to be fun...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.