Did Bill hurt Hill?

Mona Charen over on NRO thinks so: "It was only a matter of time before Bill Clinton did or said something to undermine and/or sabotage his wife's campaign due to his own overpowering narcissicism. Today he told an audience that he opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning thus undermining his wife's position, namely that she was for it but lost confidence when Bush supposedly screwed up the conduct of the war."

Plus there's evidence that he wasn't against it from the beginning--he supported giving Bush war authority back in 2003.

But don't forget--we're talking Democratic primary voters here. They may not care.
Awhile back, Jim Geraghty of NRO said something that just may turn out to be wise and prescient: "Declaring that Hillary Clinton has done nothing wrong is as instinctive as breathing to many Democrats now. Nominating Obama or Edwards over Hillary now would invalidate all of those defenses over the years. It would mean her critics had a point all these years, and they cannot concede that core belief they've held close to their hearts for a decade and a half. Democrats aren't just supportive of Hillary Clinton's rise to the presidency: they're emotionally and intellectually invested in it."

It will be very interesting to find out if that's true.

The immigration issue grows

Just ask Senator Clinton as she campaigns in Iowa: "Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York was asked at nearly all her Iowa campaign stops over the weekend how she would deal with illegal aliens, and she responded with a call for "comprehensive immigration reform."
It's a question all the presidential candidates face in Iowa and elsewhere. The Republicans incorporate immigration reform into their stump speeches, while the Democrats rarely mention it unless they are asked. But they are almost always asked."

Leave it to Senator Clinton to try to demagogue the issue herself, even while she decries demagoguery: "Mrs. Clinton criticized "demagogues" who call for deportation of the nation's illegals. She said such an idea would be costly and unrealistic, and would amount to "basically knocking on every door" and creating "essentially a police state."

Of course, serious, responsible persons concerned about illegal immigration aren't calling for every single illegal to be "deported."

The Democrats debate (again), but...

...this time it may have been important. Because Senator Clinton for the first time got bad marks. Why? See her answers to a question concerning a plan by New York Governor Spitzer to make driver's licenses available to illegal immigrants. Answer 1: "What Governor Spitzer is trying to do is fill the vacuum left by the failure of this administration to bring about comprehensive immigration reform," she said. "We know in New York we have several million at any one time who are in New York illegally. They are undocumented workers. They are driving on our roads. The possibility of them having an accident that harms themselves or others is just a matter of the odds. It's probability. So what Governor Spitzer is trying to do is to fill the vacuum."

Answer 2: "Then Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., took issue with Spitzer's proposal.
Clinton then interjected -- "Well, I just want to add, I did not say that it should be done, but I certainly recognize why Governor Spitzer is trying to do…"

Answer 3: "Senator Clinton, I just want to make sure of what I heard," said Russert. "Do you, the New York senator, Hillary Clinton, support the New York governor's plan to give illegal immigrants a driver's license?You told the New Hampshire paper that it made a lot of sense. Do you support his plan?" Clinton got defensive. "You know, Tim, this is where everybody plays 'gotcha.' It makes a lot of sense. What is the governor supposed to do? He is dealing with a serious problems. We have failed. And George Bush has failed. Do I think this is the best thing for any governor to do? No. But do I understand the sense of real desperation, trying to get a handle on this? Remember, in New York, we want to know who's in New York. We want people to come out of the shadows. He's making an honest effort to do it. We should have passed immigration reform."

Wow! What duplicity and double-talk.

No wonder Edwards and Obama pounced. This is exactly what they wanted out of this debate. Maybe it was bound to happen. Here's a summary of the media's unanimous hammering of Clinton for her poor performance. The Politico's Roger Simon had perhaps the best summary:
"We now know something that we did not know before: When Hillary Clinton has a bad night, she really has a bad night...And when it was over, both the Barack Obama and John Edwards campaigns signaled that in the weeks ahead they intend to hammer home a simple message: Hillary Clinton does not say what she means or mean what she says."

The Clinton presidential campaign flunks writing

Here apparently is a verbatim quote from an e-mail sent by Hillary Clinton's campaign to reporters in the last 24 hours, criticizing Barack Obama: "Stagnant in the polls and struggling to revive his once-buoyant campaign, Senator Obama has abandoned the politics of hope and embarked on a journey in search of a campaign issue to use against Senator Clinton,” the e-mail said. “Nevermind that he made the very argument he is now criticizing back in November 2006,” it adds. “Nevermind that he he co-sponsored a bill designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a global terrorist group back in April.”

Never mind the rather petulant anti-Obama blast. My question is this: who in the heck in the Clinton campaign has the strange idea that "nevermind" is a word????

Senator Clinton slams them Southern yahoo hicks

She suggests maybe she's not doing so well in states like Iowa and Mississippi because states like that have never elected a woman. Mississippi doesn't surprise her; but Iowa does, she says:
"I think Iowa poses a special burden, or a special obstacle to me because when you look at the numbers, how can Iowa be ranked with Mississippi? That's not what I see. That's not the quality. That's not the communitarianism, that's not the openness I see in Iowa."

So Mississippi's got no "openness", got no "quality"?
Say goodbye to the South, Mrs. Clinton!
Is she really going to have what it takes to hack it on the national stage as a major party candidate for the next year?

Be careful how you use that word

From Ann Althouse: ""When you're attacked continually in American politics, you either give up or get disoriented or you either lose or leave...... or you persevere and show your resilience."Hillary Clinton makes an observation, and she's talking about herself. Of course, the same thing applies to President Bush. "Resilient" — it's a good word, a good substitute for relentless, remorseless, impervious, incurious..."

Now, now, Ms. Althouse, I doubt Senator Clinton intended anyone to make that connection...

A bit of a scandal that still can't be Hsu'd away

More coverage of the trouble the Clinton campaign got into with tainted fund-raiser Norman Hsu. This time from the NY Times. Quote: “People have often said about the Clintons, they don’t care who they hang out with as long as the people can be helpful to them,” said one of Mrs. Clinton’s major fund-raisers. “The larger point in all of this is that the Clintons are the ultimate pragmatists in who they hang out with; if you can be useful to them, they will find a way to make it work.”

Fundamental: sometimes "who you hang out with" says a lot about you.
UPDATE: still not going away. Now word comes out that Hillary's campaign was warned about Hsu--but ignored it.

Senator Clinton's campaign

Still trying to shoo Norman Hsu away. Only NOW are they going to seriously vet (that is, do criminal background checks etc) on their donors?

Senator Clinton on privatization

Conservatives like to claim that Hillary Clinton is actually pretty liberal.
Many in the mainstream media and elsewhere poo-poo the notion regularly.
But occasionally Senator Clinton slips up and perhaps shows us her real self.
For example, the other day there was this:

"WASHINGTON — Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton promised retirees that if elected president she will not cut Social Security benefits, raise the retirement age or privatize the taxpayer-funded system. "This is the most successful domestic program in the history of the United States," Clinton said to applause from seniors gathered in Washington to push their policy agenda. "When I'm president, privatization is off the table because it's not the answer to anything."

Privatization---not the answer to "anything", hmmm?
I don't see anyone urging the re-regulation of the airline industry.

Shooed-away Hsu a no-show

Major Clinton campaign contributor Norman Hsu fails to show up for his court hearing.
Just the news that the Clinton campaign did not want to hear--they want this negative story to go away ASAP. But, now, it won't; at least for a bit longer.

Democrats Campaign 2008 update: battle of ideas

Note, in this NY Times article today on Senator Clinton's campaign, this nugget concerning her major campaign speech of yesterday. Quote: "Mrs. Clinton spoke on the first day of a two-day kickoff for her fall push, which her camp is calling “The Change We Need,” a parry to Mr. Obama’s effort to position himself as the candidate of change. The stage at Mrs. Clinton’s rallies, in Concord and here in Portsmouth, included the words “Change + Experience” — an example of the Clinton camp’s argument that she is the most experienced candidate and would still represent change, as a woman and an ideological opposite of President Bush. “Some people think you should have to choose between change and experience,” Mrs. Clinton said in Concord. “Well, with me, you don’t have to choose. I have spent my entire life fighting for change.”

Problem: this shows that Mrs. Clinton is on the defensive. Senator Obama has already claimed the "change" idea for himself. Hillary up to now has discussed the notion of change some, but had not made it an emphasis of her campaign. But now she is. It smacks of "Look, I'm for change, too." That's playing defense, with the issues framed the way Obama wants them framed. It's not a good sign for the Clinton campaign. Senator Clinton is identified with Washington D.C; she's seen as an insider. Barack Obama's relative youth, the fact that he hasn't been in Washington nearly as long, will make it almost impossible for anyone to trump him in the "change" department. We'll see if he's able to take full advantage of this.

The Clinton campaign and damage control

Senator Clinton's campaign rushes to return the campaign donations Of Norman Chu.
From a tactical point of view, it's smart. The story had run for several days; it reflected negatively on the campaign; so Clinton moved to cut any losses immediately and move on.
We're still left to wonder, though: did the Clinton campaign know the dirt about Hsu long ago, and take his money anyway? We don't know. We may never know. But if we some day find out they did, it won't be a good day for the Clinton campaign. Note also that she isn't returning all of the money; just $23,000 of it. Hmmm....

More questions for Senator Clinton's fundraising people

An update to yesterday's story: remember Norman Hsu? He's the big-bucks donor to the Clinton campaign who may just be funneling money to the Senator through, er, questionable means. Mr. Hsu is hard to track down. Turns out there's a reason for that. Quote: " A Democratic fundraiser who has raised $1 million for presidential candidate Hillary Clinton says he has done nothing wrong and has asked no favors in return, but Norman Hsu didn't mention that he's a wanted man. A California prosecutor says Hsu pleaded no contest to grand theft, was sentenced to three years in prison and then disappeared, The Los Angeles Times reported Wednesday."

The Clinton campaign may not have done anything wrong here--but they need to keep closer tabs on their donors at the very least. And if it is shown that Clinton knew what was going on here from the get-go, it could and should be a big deal.

Some funny business in campaign contributions to Senator Clinton

Details here. Basically we have some middle-class people (at best!), the Paw family, who live in a tiny house and don't make big money, giving the Clinton campaign a whole lot in campaign contributions. But their contributions very closely track those of a rich fellow named Hsu...who used to live in the home in which the Paws now live. Could Hsu (and possibly the Clinton campaign?) be skirting (read: violating) the campaign finance laws by having several members of the Paw family give money to Senator Clinton's campaign, money that Hsu gave them? If so, that's a violation of the law. As an expert in the article said, there are "red lights" all over this one.

Stay tuned. Note the source of these allegations is the Wall Street Journal news page, regarded by most everyone as a reliable source.

Hillary and her papers

So there are over 2 million papers from Hillary Clinton's tenure as first lady that apparently will not be made public until some time AFTER the 2008 election. Some details here. I've read a number of bloggers and others who have of course suggested that this is an outrage, what's Hillary trying to hide, etc etc. On the other hand, Bill Crawford at All Things Conservative makes a good argument too--that there's just not likely to be much there, that if conservatives and Republicans are going to beat Hillary, we have to do so by highlighting and defeating her ideas and pointing out why ours are superior. It's a legitimate point.

I guess I come down somewhere in the middle. I don't think the Right should ignore Hillary's papers. That they won't be made public until after the election, given the Clintons' history, has to make you wonder if they're hiding something. And, remember this---the Clinton campaign is emphasizing her yearss as first lady as a reason to vote for her. They cite her travel to over 80 countries, her work with health care in 1993, as part of her supposedly valuable experience. Well, fine--but if she's going to cite her years as first lady, we need to know exactly what went on in the Clinton White House with regard to her duties as first lady. That means we need to see her papers. We probably won't get to see them. So there's nothing wrong with reminding the electorate that we won't, and why. It shouldn't be a centerpiece of an anti-Hillary campaign. But it shouldn't be forgotten, either.

Hillary: not the right choice

So Bruce Bartlett rides again. He's the libertarian economist/thinker, very much estranged from the Bush administration, who's been arguing that, since (in his opinion) Republicans basically have zero chance to win the presidency in 2008, they should figure out who among the Democrats is least bad when it comes to conservative principles and policies, and more or less reconcile themselves to that candidate. Bartlett thinks Hillary's the one, going by that calculus. The other day in the LA Times, he was at it again, noting that conservatives recently have agreed a few times with Senator Clinton (on the wisdom of failing to take Barack Obama's advice concerning meeting with foreign leaders, for example) and suggesting the Right is finally taking Bartlett's advice. A quote: "I'm starting to see the makings of a rapprochement between Clinton and the "vast right-wing conspiracy."This could have important political implications. There are lots of different ways to fight a battle. At one extreme, one can fight to the death like a trapped rat; at the other, one can offer only token resistance. Not long ago, I thought most conservatives would have employed the trapped-rat option at the prospect of a Hillary Clinton presidency. But at least a few conservative opinion-makers are ratcheting downward their level of resistance. They are coming to terms with the growing likelihood that she will be our next president and concluding that maybe it is something they can live with."

Ugh. Where does one begin? Fundamentally, suffice it to say: this is not principled (note the emphasis) conservatism. Principled conservatives don't take as their most important data point the likelihood of winning the next election. You don't fight for your pinciples only when you're likely to win. You fight for them, period. Furthermore, yes, Hillary has said a few things with which the right can agree. So what? What about her views on taxes, on health care, on government regulation in general, the fact that given the antiwar nature of her base of support it's going to be almost impossible for her to mobilize support for an effective war on radical Islam? A few points of agreement don't negate the dozens of points of disagreement.

Bartlettian thinking held consistently over the years would have strangled one of the most crucial piece of development of American conservatism, the Goldwater campaign of 1964. After all, Goldwater that year was very much an underdog candidate, with little chance of actually winning. That was clear shortly to many observers very early on in the political year. Bruce Bartlett-type cogitations would have counseled Republicans then to ratchet down their opposition to LBJ and reconcile themselves to another Johnson term, and to heck with worrying about who gets the GOP nomination. Thank goodness the Goldwater movement rejected such thinking. We should, too.

Just wondering

So Hillary Clinton was critical of Barack Obama's pledge to meet in his first year as president with the leader of a country like Syria. She said it was "irresponsible" and "naive."

Hmmm. So did she oppose House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's trip to Syria back in April? I don't recall her uttering a word of criticism of it. Interesting.

Obama, Clinton in New Hampshire dead heat

More details here. Senator Clinton last week jumped on Obama last week, as you remember, when he said he would meet personally with the leaders of Syria or Cuba in his first year as president. Clinton said that was "irresponsible" and "naive." As you remember, I suggested that Mrs. Clinton was correct from the point of view of policy; but I wasn't so sure that her attacks would play so well with liberal Democratic primary voters. The tightening race in New Hampshire suggests that maybe, indeed, she went too far. It also means that Democratic activisits are pretty liberal.

Hillary vs Obama

Ann Althouse (and others) think that Hillary Clinton's answer in the most recent Democrats' debate, to the question of whether a president should be meeting in her first year as president with Syria or Cuba, was so superior to that of Barack Obama, and her campaign's pouncing on it in the post-debate spin so effective, that it has clearly established her as the "superior candidate." Well, maybe. I agree Senator Clinton's answer was superior, in terms of principle, common sense, statecraft, etc.

One caveat, though: this doesn't necessarily mean that Senator Clinton now has a big leg up among Democrats for the nomination. Remember, we're talking about Democratic primary voters here. They're far more liberal. And I think that means that such voters love the idea of being willing to talk with anyone, any time. There are a lot of Democrats who clearly believe that negotiations, talking, in and of itself is almost always a good thing. Now had a Republican candidate, in the Republican primary season, made a statement like Obama's at a GOP debate, oh, no question, he'd be finished among Republicans. But the Democrats' nomination won't be decided by Republicans, or members of the mainstream media, or us (hopefully sensible) bloggers. It'll be decided by Democratic primary voters. And they may see this, along with the Clinton Machine's heavy cannon fire in the wake of it, very differently. We'll see.

Tonight: Democrats debate

Don't forget about the big CNN/YouTube Dem debate this evening. I'll be blogging about it tomorrow. One thing to watch tonight is Senator Clinton and her continuing attempt to handle the central condundrum of her campaign: what really is her relationship with Bill? And will she govern like Bill? A few weeks ago william Greider of The Nation put it well:

This is the central tension in Senator Clinton's campaign. It's what makes her sound conflicted. Does she intend to emulate the risk-averse, center-right juggling act by which her husband governed? Or, as she sometimes suggests, will Clinton II be more aggressively progressive, less beholden to business and financial interests, more loyal to the struggles of working people? Senator Clinton tries to have it both ways: running on her husband's record and popularity, yet hinting she will not be like Bill.