HILLARY’S LATEST EXPLANATION FOR HER DECLINING POPULARITY - REPUBLICAN DIRTY TRICKS: WHY? BECAUSE THEY’RE AFRAID OF HER- NONE THAT I KNOW OF: WE’RE PULLING FOR HER
HILLARY’S LATEST EXPLANATION FOR HER DECLINING POPULARITY - REPUBLICAN DIRTY TRICKS: WHY?BECAUSE THEY’RE AFRAID OF HER- NONE THAT I KNOW OF: WE’RE PULLING FOR HER
By
Ken Eliasberg
Hillary has been taking a bit of a heat lately, due to her pathetically inept handling of the question dealing with driver’s licenses for illegal aliens (and for good reason—the question was really a softball question for anyone with even a routine ability to handle spontaneity—but bear, in mind, Hillary, in her own words, doesn’t do spontaneity). And her inability in this regard is becoming more and more apparent—she is wooden to the point of being robotic (almost making Al Gore look like a charmer), scripted, cold, and imperious. Likeability has never been her strong suit; indeed, she doen’t have a strong suit in so far as voter appeal is concerned—she went from villain to victim as a result of the Monica Lewinsky affair (query: how do you become a victim on your husband’s 500th peccadillo?). To explain (excuse?) her difficulties, she falls back on that tired cliché of the vast right-wing conspiracy that is out to do her in. Her latest ad, which aired in Massachusets while I was back there a couple of weeks ago visiting one of my sons, included the following statement:
“Here they go again. The same old Republican attack machine is back. Why? Maybe it’s because they know that there’s one candidate with the strength and experience to get us out of Iraq, one candidate who will end tax giveaways for the big corporations, one candidate committed to cutting the huge Republican deficit.”
Now who might that be? Hillary Clinton, of course! Now these statements are not merely untrue, they’re humorous. Hillary has never been a conciliatory force in any context—just ask some of the people that worked with her on healthcare in 1993. But the statement is not humorous for the credit she claims for things that she could not accomplish because she has never really accomplished much of anything. They are humorous because they seek to blame her current predicament on that old standby—the right-wing bogey man. And the right wing is after her because they are afraid of her.
First things first. She’s taking heat now not from the right wing, but from some in her own party and from some in the Mainstream Media. And these are areas from which she is not used to getting criticism - criticism which she obviously is having trouble handling. Oh don’t misunderstand—the right-wing (of which I am currently a member, and for which I have the Clintons to thank; recall that I had the incredibly bad judgment to vote for Bill in 1992) is waiting in the wings and will certainly make good use of all of her blunders in the primaries (as well as all of her past blunders, no matter how hard her team of cutthroats tries to spin such history as old news—isn’t all history old news?—and just how does its being old news dimiinish, let alone eliminate, its relevance??). But that will become a problem for her when and if she becomes the nominee (which I strongly believe (and hope) she will be) and the primaries are over.
Right now, her problems are with her own party—convincing them that she can win in November of 2008 by not committing too many screw ups in the primaries. And, as I noted in a previous column, this will be difficult for her. Why? Because Hillary cannot handle too much exposure. Not only is it the case that the more you see her, the less you like her, but, more to the point, she may actually get some difficult questions that require some spontaneity in the response. And, to keep calling out her husband to protect her puts the lie to her claim of independence. It also does something more than that—it exposes her complete lack of judgment (something that I will get into frequently down the road). She’s scripted, but life isn’t. If a question or a matter falls outside the lines of her script, she’s at a loss—a loss that I believe will prove to be fatally embarrassing. In other words, Hillary, like the vampire she is, cannot withstand the light of day.
As far as the absurdity of the alleged qualifications that she claims to possess, each one being more laughable than the next, the one that stands out is her claim to be possessed of experience. And what might that experience be with—saving her skin by saving her husband’s presidency. In other words, as Dick Morris has often pointed out, her experience is at surviving.
Now for the really absurd suggestion that the Republicans are afraid of her—give me a break! Almost every Republican I know wants Hillary on the ticket so badly they can taste it. Why? Because the Republicans are going through a period of ennui, and no one—and I do mean no one—energizes Republicans in quite the same way that Hillary does. I know that I want her. Why? For 2 reasons: (1) I want to see just how far America has fallen, i.e. are we so decadent that we would put a pair of despicable scoundrels like the Clintons back in charge, and (2) I smell victory; this election reminds me just a bit of the 1972 race between Nixon and McGovern. McGovern’s cry of “come home America” is similar to the “cut and run” approach recently championed by the Dems. I say recently, because as the election approaches, and as it becomes clearer and clearer that Bush’s “surge” is working, Dems cries for surrender have been somewhat more restrained. They appear to understand that while the country may not be aware of the many nuances of foreign policy, the electorate is aware that we are at war, and like the war or not, most Americans do not endorse a policy which favors losing the war. Consequently, the Dems have pulled back, recognizing that to endorse losing a war that we appear to be winning can only strengthen the popular conception of the Dems being weak on national security (which they are, no matter what they say they are).
But the most amusing and distressing, as well as dishonest, charge Hillary makes(and that made inferentially by her husband and protector—now that’s really a laugh) is that to be critical of her is tantamount to “swiftboating” her. Most of you will recall the term “swiftboat” as reference to Vietnam vet John O’Neilll’s charges against John Kerry, set forth in his book “Unfit for Command,” to the effect that Kerry was a liar regarding many of his assertions re the violence of his comrades against the people of Vietnam as well as the veracity of some of his statements concerning his service in that war. As used by Kerry and his legions at the time, it was intended to suggest that O’Neill was not being truthful. Now I’ve met O’Neill, and my impression of him was favorable in every respect. I cannot say the same for my impression of Kerry. However, regardless of how one views these gentlemen, the term “swiftboat” was used by the Dems to argue that O’Neill and his supporters were lying about Kerry. How is that applicable—even remotely—to asking a simple question of Hillary—particularly when the question is being posed by a lefty and much of the criticism is coming from the left? The answer is simple—it is not!!