Mrs. Clinton’s Defining Moment

Fred was not the only person with a defining moment yesterday in New Hampshire. 

[wp_youtube]07u6uffKvpA[/wp_youtube]

Hat Tip:  Real Clear Politics.

Jake Tapper. ABC News:

Frankly, I don’t even really understand what she was saying. What I was getting was how angry she is. Not about an issue, so much, as about the fact that Obama is beating her.

The clip, I predict, will be played again and again and again.

Pundits will say that her tone made male voters recoil. And led some female voters to sneer.

Clinton people are spinning this as her projecting strength. I do not think that will be the widely-head view.

Mrs. Clinton has bigger problem than not being able spin her hissy fit.     Mrs. Clinton is claiming credit for the creation of the State-Children Health  Insurance Program.    Steve Gilbert, Sweetness & Light,  documents that Mrs. Clinton’s temper tantrum was a lie.

It doesn’t matter how many times she lies about it, Hillary had nothing to do with the creation of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.

Absolutely nothing.

 Steve makes a rather blunt point:

Indeed, there is nothing Mrs. Clinton can point to when it comes to “making change” over the past 35 years, because she never has.

Unless you want to count her inept handling of bimbo eruptions.

Discusssion:  Don Surber;

Hat Tip:  Memeorandum.

As we enter the eighth year of the Bush-Cheney administration, I have belatedly and painfully concluded that the only honorable course for me is to urge the impeachment of the president and the vice president.

That’s George McGovern, in a WaPo op-ed, today.

Here’s a man who proved just how irrelevant he was to the American mainstream by losing in a landslide election of proportions that have yet to be topped, still out there trying to become relevant, by attacking those who actually are relevant.

The nation told George McGovern on no uncertain terms back in 1972 that nobody but the fringes of American life cared at all what he had to say. His political fortunes (Thank God) have not improved with time. He is not seen as a great statesman, now or then…. at least by the majority. Indeed, he is a truly pitiable figure… and I do pity him… still struggling for that last shred of political relevance in a world that decided he was totally irrelevant 37 years gone…

All this is not to suggest that he won’t get some admiration from the BDS crowd.  But that connection doesn’t buoy McGovern, his fortunes and his relevance, as much as it labels and damns the BDS crowd as totally irrelevant, like McGovern himself. I suppose in that regard, what he’s doing could be considered a public service, of damnation of that BDS crowd by association with him, though I expect he wouldn’t agree with the assessment.  Not that anyone would care.

McGovern is clearly concerned with his legacy. Someone ought to advise him he’d be better off shutting up, now, lest his more recent comments overcome what little public perception of sanity he’s managed to build up in the last 37 years.

I wonder, if he’d listen.

BBCT: Jules Crittenden, Memeorandum

Addendum: (Bit) Ron Coleman at RWN:

Does being the worst-ever-loser in a Presidential election give you a free spot in the Post for life?

Heh… no., Ron. That only works if you’re a Democrat.

Matt Yglesias, who I usually have serious disagreements with, points out that Hillary Clinton may well be on the wrong scent, here:

Hillary Clinton’s campaign seems determined to convince Barack Obama’s detractors in the blogosphere that he is so a liberal after all:

Hillary’s aides point to Obama’s extremely progressive record as a community organizer, state senator and candidate for Congress, his alliances with “left-wing” intellectuals in Chicago’s Hyde Park community, and his liberal voting record on criminal defendants’ rights as subjects for examination.

Progressive record? Heaven forbid! I thought he didn’t have experience.

Well, She’s still scatter shooting, trying to find a soft spot in Obama’s armor.  She’s clearly not found one yet, and she’s starting to get desperate. But here again we look at the attempts of members of one party to play in the other party’s sandbox. I mentioned this in my response to George Will, and Joyner’s mention of him, earlier this morning;

You see, the trouble of all this is that Huckabee and Romney are trying to stake out the same populist territory that Obama is trying to claim. McCain, meanwhile, with the exception of the war on Terror is trying to swing left of the whole lot of them. Unfortunately this goes to something that I have spoken to in the past. Namely, when Republicans try to play the populist, and in the doing, swing left into that which has traditionally been Democrat territory, why would people bother voting for Republicans at all?

What I’m suggesting here, is that the reverse is true, as well; Hillary Clinton is trying to play the conservative to the New Hampshire Democrats, who are anything but conservative. The results are going to be a pure disaster for Clinton. I can’t believe she’s quite so tone deaf as to pull this one, now.  I know where she’s getting this nonsense from; She’s trying to triangulate, per the decade old advice of Dick Morris. Trouble is, that advice only works in the general election, and she’s not there yet… and with stunts like this I think I can guarantee she never will be.

Addendum: BBCT; Memeorandum, for the ‘Featured Post” status.

James Joyner, earlier today:

George Will closes a subpar (by his standards, at least) column on the silly populism of Mike Huckabee and John Edwards with this praise for Barack Obama:

Barack Obama, who might be mercifully closing the Clinton parenthesis in presidential history, is refreshingly cerebral amid this recrudescence of the paranoid style in American politics. He is the un-Edwards and un-Huckabee — an adult aiming to reform the real world rather than an adolescent fantasizing mock-heroic “fights” against fictitious villains in a left-wing cartoon version of this country.

Will seems to be joining the growing chorus of Republicans, even conservative ones, who claim they would vote for Obama over Huckabee. Michael Totten is the latest blogger I’ve seen make that assertion. Stephen Green seems to be leaning that way (and may have stated so outright, although his archives are FUBAR as the moment). I’ve seen a handful of others in recent days, although their names escape me.

One wonders how many will actually follow through on this, in the unlikely event that Obama-Huckabee turns out to be the general election matchup? I suspect most partisans will ultimately find a way to rationalize holding their nose and voting for whomever gets the nomination.

Right now, Obama is drawing praise from the likes of George Will, Peggy Noonan, and Stephen Hayes. But Glenn Greenwald and John Cole figure that the Republican flirtation with Obama will dissipate and turn into rage quickly if he’s the nominee. While overstated, they’ve got a point: Both parties have a way of painting the opponent as devils and stoking the flames of fear.

Well, We’ve already discussed Greenwald and his paranoia.  What we have NOT mentioned here as yet, is the Populism of Romney, and Huckabee and of McCain, as well. You see, the trouble of all this is that Huckabee and Romney are trying to stake out the same populist territory that Obama is trying to claim. McCain, meanwhile, with the exception of the war on Terror is trying to swing left of the whole lot of them. Unfortunately this goes to something that I have spoken to in the past. Namely, when Republicans try to play the populist, and in the doing, swing left into that which has traditionally been Democrat territory, why would people bother voting for Republicans at all?

And as for Will, he’s been on the edge of losing his conservative creds for some time now. Can we point to this column to suggest he’s lost them outright, now?

Although [Mike] Huckabee and [John] Edwards profess to loathe and vow to change Washington’s culture, each would aggravate its toxicity. Each overflows with and wallows in the pugnacity of the self-righteous who discern contemptible motives behind all disagreements with them, and who therefore think opponents are enemies and differences are unsplittable.

George Will, from TownHall, via Hot Air.

Ran through it on delay, just now, and that’s my take.

Armbinder at The Atlantic agrees:

On points, Fred Thompson won the debate.

Every answer was thoughtful and well-crafted; his tone matched the tone of the question; he wisely refrained from interjecting in the back and forth squabbling. He very deftly reminded viewers that he served on key Senate national security panels and is bringing his experience to bear. Even his insults were subtly and gently constructed In some ways, Thompson did McCain’s bidding. You skeptical readers can tell me that if Thompson had finished a solid fourth in Iowa, I might not be writing about Thompson at all, that said, he’s still a candidate, and his performance tonight tells me his mind is not elsewhere.

Correct. Home run, Fred.

Further, Romney…

 ..was backed into a corner on mandates in health care by Fred Thompson.

Again, correct.

Huckbee got a few licks in on Romney, too. In that contest it was hard to know who to cheer for.  McCain apparently got caught up in the back and forth, meanwhile,  and came off looking like a blithering idiot. Vindictive, nasty, and just not presidential… I can’t help wondering if he’s damaged himself tonight. (I grant, mind, that Huck and Romney didn’t show all that well, either, in that regard.

Addendum:  (David L)

Yes, Fred wins:

[wp_youtube]sk1sXpaUo00[/wp_youtube]

Fred defined ammensty, not merely to Rudy bot for the election.

Courtesy of Byran, Hot Air.

?

Lord knows we love her.   Michelle Malkin live-blogs the debates.

Round One:  Republican.

Round Two:  Democrat

Memo to Ron Paul:  Get off the stage.

Memo to Ronbots:  Shove it

Good night for Red Bull.

Addendum:

‘Rat food fight, Breck Girl v. Mrs. Clinton.

How bad can it be, when the court takes two children from their mother, and I am applaud the move?    That was my reaction to this article in the morning fish wrapper:

LOS ANGELES (AP) – Britney Spears was derailed yet again in her struggle to get her life back on track, losing custody of her two sons to ex-husband Kevin Federline. A court commissioner Friday gave sole physical and legal custody of the former couple’s two little boys to Federline and suspended the troubled pop star’s visitation rights. Spears was hauled away from her home to a hospital by paramedics a day before, after police had to intervene when she refused to return the children to Federline after a court-monitored visit

Mentioned my reaction to a waitress, and she agreed.  Pity the poor children.

I note with some amusement the flack Jonah is getting form the Left… such as Matt Stoller and Glenn Greenwald…for example, over this:

Imagine the Democrats do rally around Obama. Imagine the media invests as heavily in him as I think we all know they will if he’s the nominee — and then imagine he loses. I seriously think certain segments of American political life will become completely unhinged. I can imagine the fear of this social unraveling actually aiding Obama enormously in 2008. Forget Hillary’s inevitability. Obama has a rendezvous with destiny, or so we will be told. And if he’s denied it, teeth shall be gnashed, clothes rent and prices paid.

For the record, Jonah is correct. Says Greenwald:

I wonder: in Jonah Goldberg’s “imagination,” which (ahem) “certain segments” of the American population exactly will “become completely unhinged” if Obama loses and thereby spawn “social unraveling”?

While Greenwald seemingly is trying to pass Jonah’s comment off as just so much racism….(They are after all conservitives Greenwald is talking about) …the truth of the matter is that Jonah is pointing directly at Greenwald, Stoller and the rest of the frothing leftists who nearly went over the fence, following the 2000 election. Think back…The entire left end of the spectrum suddenly became deranged, seeing conspiracy under every action anyone outside their little cadre took. It took them eight years to get back to near sanity, and some, like Greenwald never DID recover. (Indeed, it’s one reason Ron Paul is so popular, today)

Greenwald in his piece does nothing to counter Goldberg’s point.  Indeed, he confirms it. Greenwald and Stoller are arguably the two least honest Bloggers on the face of the planet, so when they comp-lain about the ‘lies’ of others, a red flag oughta go up in your sights.  Example, Greenwald:

Just look at the bottomless personal animus they managed to generate over an anemic, mundane, inoffensive figure like John Kerry.

Inoffensive? To WHOM? I’m offended by everything he stands for.  He’s inoffensive the same way Jane Fonda is inoffensive and for the same reasons.

Greenwald and his ilk will never admit this is about ideals and that most people do not agree with his. So he hides behind the charge of racism.

Figures. Anything to avoid the real issue.

Now… if you want to know who labeled this about race, you won’t have to look very far. And you call Jonah racist? Right. Got it.

Also: Memeorandum, Hot Air, protein wisdom, QandO,

The Joe Gandelman, Moderate Voice has gone snarky:

It is often been said that former President Bill Clinton is Senator Hillary Clinton’s closest, best and most astute political advisor. If that’s the case and a recent statement he reportedly made is any indication, she should consider firing him and getting a new one.

Joe’s commentary is well immoderate, cutting and acerbic    In short, I like it. 

I pose a quetion.  How politically astute is B.J. Clinton?   No Clinton has ever won a majority in any national election.   Al Gore has.  Clinton has not.  Yet nobody deems Gore politically astute.

Hat Tip:  Memeorandum.

We’ve already spoken to the Republican side of things, last night. So now on to the Democrats.

As we noted, the other night, Chris Dodd and Joe Biden dropped out of the race, not even bothering to wait for the pew days until New Hampshire. Pitiful.

I’m thinking that Mike Gravel should have dropped out as well, but I expect he won’t until after New Hampshire. If he hangs on beyond that, I think it clear he’d be bucking for a VP slot.

Once you get beyond that level, there is only three people in play on the Democrat side.

John Edwards came in Second in Iowa, and is now claiming to have set his sights on Obama.  Thing is, he’s not polling nearly as well in New Hampshire as he did in Iowa, and thereby not nearly as likely to do well there. On the other hand, how he does in this horse race depends on how Hillary Clinton does….and that depends utterly on the discussion between her and Obama.

Obama is the one to beat in New Hampshire.  Hillary Clinton is planning, according to reports on going negative on Obama. (Shrug) That’s what the Clinton machine has always done.  And that worked when they were the big players on the stage.  Now, there seems a question mark.

I don’t see as a negative campaign, which seemingly is all Hillary Clinton knows how to do, is going to help her much in New Hampshire.

I also don’t see, after the third place performance she turned in in Iowa, that Hillary Clinton can grab the nomination without improving. She managed to lie her way out of Iowa’s poor performance…. remember, for months it was in Mrs Inevitable, and then when she came in third place, she claimed on national TV that she never really planned to be in the lead in Iowa…. yeah, right…. but she’s not going to be able to pull that kind of expectation setting trick in New Hampshire.

Mind, that’s not so much a locational thing, as a repetition thing. If she gets beat in New Hampshire, she’s burned toast…. Particularly if she gets beat by Obama again. I think a loss in New Hampshire will finally expose the answer to the question of whether or not the Clintons are still in control of the Democratic Party.  Amusingly, if they are not, this would be the result of the Nutroots and their actions. I say, amusingly, because frankly, what the Democrats end up with after Clinton, is even more questionable. As an indication of how she’s going to perform in New Hampshire, you may be interested to know that I’m seeing reports of the New Hampshire Democratic Party’s 100 club dinner, where Obama was wildly cheered by the crowd, and Hillary Clinton basically got booed off the stage. I’m not sure how much to read into this event, but it doesn’t seem to bode well for the Clintonistas.

I get asked fairly frequently of late, what are you guys gonna do if one of the (current) frontrunners wins the Republican nomination? Aren’t you painting yourselves into a corner just a little by targeting the front runners? (Example, calling Huckabee a flaming liberal, and an idiot?, your frequent attacks on John McCain, and so on)

The answer, candidly, is no.

Look; we’ve never been afraid to go after the current president when we thought he was wrong, as an example on immigration. Back in the GT BBS days, I even wrote a column or two sideswiping President Reagan on various points… (Alas, most of the stuff I wrote back then is lost to time and the myriad of platform translations)

Similarly, I think the current president is far too willing to compromise with Democrats in a go along to get along type of attitude. We have frequently chastised him for that, and rightfully so. After all, what would you think of us if we didn’t, or simply because he was the president and a Republican? You might even call us “Democrats”. Isn’t that how the left acted about Bill Clinton? Supporting him right or wrong?

There are aspects of each of the Republican front runners that we like. There are aspects of each of the front runners that we dislike. You’ll hear about both as they come up in the current events stream. That’s the other thing we’re being driven by, invariably… current events. The one Candidate David and I like best to date is Fred Thompson. But if we get our wish, and he gets nominated AND elected, rest assured, we’ll be complaining about some of the things he does while in office.

Meantime, the Democrats, and Ron Paul, provide us with a target rich environment being loaded to the gills with things that we don’t like. You’ve been hearing about those all along, also, and you’ll continue to.

The bottom line is we’ll support somebody we think they’re right. We will attack the hell out of them when we think they’re wrong. It’s what we’ve always done here. We may even disagree among ourselves on those points. Been known to happen frequently. Then again, that’s OK, too…we’d be less than honest with you if we didn’t.

Addendum: (David L)

Bottom line is that each of us will support the candidate whom we as an individual believes will be best for the country Right now that candidate is named Fred Thompson.  Should Fred not get the nomination we will have to choose between the lesser of two evils.

Speaking only for myself, I want to judge a candidate by his core beliefs and not by the banner under which he flying It is hard to imagine any candidate being less attractive then Mrs. Clinton. However, Mike Huckabee will get absolutely no credit for posing as if he were a republican.  If the choice comes down to two liberals, I think the more honest one would make the better candidate.  Hard to give Huckabee any credit for honesty while he posing as a republican.

Addendum II:(Bit)

Agreement, with the stipulation that we would be hard pressed, indeed, to find an honest liberal.

OK, we’ll start out here with the fact that I like the Palm Pilot. I have had several; a III, an M-100, a 500 a 505 and most recently, an E2.

I love this E2. I keep several Ebooks in it. I have my Email on it.  Maps. Games. A gig or two of MP3’s. (Yes, Virginia, it plays them just fine, though not with the Real Player… Real is a company I won’t deal with.) I have spreadsheets for my truck, databases for my work, I often write posts on it, particularly when I’m out with the camper, somewhere, or out of town on one of my frequent family jaunts. (And yes, it’ll really render charts as you see in the pic)

After about 6 months of use, with the E2, I dropped the thing, and cracked the screen. I put the thing up. Christmas was coming, and I had more important things to spend money on, than Parts.

My Donna, not fully understanding the situation…. specifically, that the screens are the weak point, picked up another E2 on EBay for small dollars. Trouble was, it had a broken screen, too.  So we went back to Ebay and got a screen for $60 or so. It came last night, and I put it into the first E2. Smooth repair, works fine. Took me about 45 minutes. Woulda taken 15 minutes if the cats we not quite so interested. I’ve actually done such repairs on other people’s Palm units often enough before that I can do them in my sleep. I often do.

But I still have the second E2 … broken screen and all, hanging around and calling my name.  Maybe I’ll buy another screen and turn the second E2 around on Ebay.
Or, just keep it as a spare, I dunno.

Josh Marshall, Talking Points Memo, is confused by what Mike Huckabee means by his term ‘vertical” politics.   Josh does a real good job documenting Huckabee’s use this baffling term.   In the end, Josh concludes

The more I look at this I don’t think there’s any question this is a clever dog whistle call out to Christian fundamentalists and evangelicals that his politics are God’s politics.

It  is not quite so complicated.  Huckabee is a liberal running as if he were a conservative.    In order to mask his liberal record, Huckabee tries to confuse meanings.    Just think of Huckabee as good old fashioned tax and spend liberal who just happens to be pro-life.   Hence he has to campaign as a republican.

More, Memeorandum.

Matthew Yglesias, Atlantic,  seems as confused by Mrs. Clinton’s recent campaign maneuver as I am.    Mrs. Clinton has accused  Barack Obama of being too liberal.   Thomas Edsall, Puffington Post:

Hillary’s aides point to Obama’s extremely progressive record as a community organizer, state senator and candidate for Congress, his alliances with “left-wing” intellectuals in Chicago’s Hyde Park community, and his liberal voting record on criminal defendants’ rights as subjects for examination.  

Along the same lines, ABC reportedthat Clinton aides gave the network various examples, of Obama’s controversial stands. The aides cited Obama’s past assertion that he would support ending mandatory minimum sentences for federal crimes, pointing to a 2004 statement at an NAACP-sponsored debate: “Mandatory minimums take too much discretion away from judges 

To which, Yglesias notes:

Hillary Clinton’s campaign seems determined to convince Barack Obama’s detractors in the blogosphere that he is so a liberal after all

Mrs. Clinton’s campaign message is less like mudslinging and more like a hissy fit.   Take this as a sign  that Mrs. Clinton no longer sees herself as inevitable.  the Smartest Woman in the World has at least one small glimmer of common sense,      Rather than positioning herself for the general election, she is trying to win the nomination at all costs.

However is her now desperate attempt to win the nomination,  Mrs. Clinton leveled a charge that can only help Barack Obama win the nomination and only hurt the democrat nonineee, who ever, in the general.

Say what you will about Mrs. Clinton, she just isn’t all that smart.

More, Memeorandum.