She knows what she's doing

Catching up a little bit from our weekend, we are just now getting to James Taranto’s Best of the Web Today, from Monday. In it he writes:

One prominent Democrat who has been very quite on the Palin choice is Hillary Clinton, who on Friday, according to CNN, put out a gracious statement:

"We should all be proud of Governor Sarah Palin's historic nomination, and I congratulate her and Senator McCain," Clinton, the first woman to win a presidential primary, said in the statement. "While their policies would take America in the wrong direction, Governor Palin will add an important new voice to the debate."

A lot of time and energy has been spent trying to divine whether the presence of Palin on the Republican ticket could pry Hillary supporters away from the Democrats.

Fair enough. Go for it.

But another interesting thought is that Palin offers Hillary a very plausible excuse to take a less active role in supporting Obama – she can make the point (privately) that she is not comfortable participating in attacking a woman candidate of either party. Girl Power! And yes, Hillary is happy with any excuse to sit this out without looking like she’s intentionally undermining Obama. She would love nothing more than for Obama to lose, clearing the way for her to challenge an incumbent McCain in 2012.

So, sitting out helps undermine Obama’s campaign. But what Hillary really needs is to sabotage it. What could she do to sabotage the Obama campaign? Ahhh, back to Taranto:

The New York Times reports that advisers to Mrs. Clinton will play a "greater role" in the Obama campaign as a result of the Palin pick

[VIMH: Are you suggesting Hillary is sending in her advisers with instructions to sabotage Team Obama?]
Oh, no, that's not it at all. After seeing how deftly her campaign managed to take what was to be her inevitable coronation and turn it into a thumping at the hands of the “former community organizer”, she has sent them in and told them to do everything they can to help Obama win.

To achieve the opposite.

MORE: Well, from Hot Air, we didn't like this NY Times headline "Obama Camp Turns to Clinton to Counter Palin", because it's kinda counter to our theory. But, why not actually read the thing...

Advisers to Mrs. Clinton said that she stood ready to help the Obama-Biden ticket, but they urged the campaign not to overestimate the impact Mrs. Clinton could have, noting that she had other commitments this fall, like campaigning and raising money for Senate candidates.

And rearranging her sock drawer.

Iraq is a quagmire

For Obama.

You’ve probably kept up with the story, so we’ll just quickly recap here:

Obama hasn’t been to Iraq in over two years.

McCain challenges Obama to go to Iraq with him.

Obama declines McCain’s invitation – says a joint visit would just be a political stunt – but he might be able to squeeze in a solo this summer – during which his campaign says they would want to “see what sort of difficulties [the troops are] facing and see how it is that we can begin to carefully remove them”.

So where does that leave us?

With a Hillary content to stay on the sidelines with this storyline, that’s where.

Until now.

Hillary takes a subtle jab at Obama:

In her campaign stops, Clinton customarily pauses to praise McCain for his service to the country before going on to criticize his policy positions and cast them as a continuation of the Bush administration. But as she campaigns in South Dakota in advance of its Tuesday primary, Clinton added an extra recollection to her intro. “I have the highest respect and regard for Sen. McCain, he and I have actually gone to Iraq and Afghanistan together,” she said

What she didn’t say is that Obama is a wimp for being too scared to go with McCain.

She didn’t have to.

Some things can be left unsaid and still be understood.

MORE: And yes, Hillary knows the risks associated with a visit to Iraq. The political/public relations risks, that is.

UPDATE: Thanks Glenndapundit!

Building a following

Here we’ve all been focused on the culty messiahesque Barack Obama phenomenon.

And yet, the bigger story may well be the following that Karl Rove is building.

We previously covered his efforts to bring in the MSM through his work at Newsweek

[Newsweek editor Jon] Meacham said Mr. Rove had been received surprisingly well in the magazine’s newsroom, where he has been a reliable colleague who files his articles on time and works diligently with fact checkers.

"After one editor dealt with him," Mr. Meacham said, "the editor called me and said, 'This just complicated my world view. I may like Karl Rove.'"

But now he is bringing in numerous Clinton backers through his work on Fox:

Presidential historian Sean Wilentz—who’s also a New Republic contributing editor, Bob Dylan enthusiast, and prominent Clinton backer —talked to MarketWatch about campaign coverage.

And like many Clinton supporters these days, he didn't shower praise on CNN or MSNBC.

[Wilentz] said the best coverage by far came from the Fox News Channel. Wilentz observed that Karl Rove, contributor to Fox News and architect of Bush's two successful presidential campaigns, among others, had sounded "very, very knowledgeable."

"What it showed is that the reporting of politics doesn't have to be bad," Wilentz said. "If you respect your audience without a partisan imperative, then you can have some sophisticated reporting."

Wilentz now joins Fox-loving Clintonites like Ed Rendell, Terry McAuliffe, and Lanny Davis.

And finally, he is succeeding in bringing Clinton herself into his following:

PRESTONSBURG, Kentucky (CNN) – Hillary Clinton defended her reasoning for staying in the presidential race Monday afternoon by pointing out that Karl Rove's analysis shows her to be the strongest candidate against John McCain in November.

“There has been a lot of analysis about which of us is stronger to win against Sen. McCain, and I believe I am the stronger candidate,” said Clinton, repeating a line from her stump speech.

Then she veered from her usual argument.

“Just today I found some curious support for that position when one of the TV networks released an analysis done by - of all people - Karl Rove, saying that I was the stronger candidate,” said Clinton. “Somebody go[t] a hold of his analysis and there it is.”

We know of Rove’s ultimate goal. And while we are left speculating how this particular move of turning Team Clinton, including Hillary, into Rove Followers specifically helps advance that goal, we’ll dub it “Operation Hell Hath No Fury” in educated-guess anticipation.

Laying claim

Mickey Kaus:

Mutnemom in Action: RCP's chart shows Hillary closing in Oregon, of all places. ... Backfill: See Faughnan --"Is her mutnemom kicking into overdrive now that even Senator Obama seems to be tossing dirt onto her grave?" ... [Thanks to reader P.F.] 10:32 P.M.

When last we were considering Mr. Kaus, we had sent him an email and he hat-tipped us by initials in a post.

The post in question purported to explain Hillary’s poor showing in the NC and IN primaries. Of course, what that post does not mention was Mickey’s own hand in killing Hillary’s mutnemom by publicizing the late-breaking polls in her favor and by predicting that she would outperform expectations.

Ascribing mutnemom before an election means describing actual, you know, momentum.

Here we go again. The day before OR and KY, and Mickey is promoting the idea that Hillary is making up distance in the polls in OR, calling it “Mutnemom in Action”.

One wild conspiracy theory is that Mickey is waging his own personal “operation chaos” against Hillary, killing mutnemom by helping create actual momentum.

We’ll call it Soahc Noitarepo.

If it exists. Which we aren’t claiming*.

What we do want to claim is the name itself.

Before anyone else does.

---------

*Unless he comes out with a prediction of Hillary getting within 5 in OR, at which point we reserve the right to reconsider.

Other symptoms may include

With the course the Democratic race has taken in the last couple of days leading to today's Pennsylvania primary, we are given a very good test case for guaging the Politics of Fear.

Bad Politics of Fear:

Senator Hillary Clinton has a new ad that describes the presidency as "the toughest job in the world. You need to be ready for anything-especially now, with two wars, oil prices skyrocketing, and an economy in crisis." The ad quotes Harry Truman-"if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen"- and concludes with this question: "Who do you think has what it takes?"

Among the images in the ad is one of Osama bin Laden.

Obama spokesman Bill Burton responds:

"It's ironic that she would borrow the president's tactics in her own campaign and invoke bin Laden to score political points," Burton said.

"We already have a president who plays the politics of fear, and we don't need another."

Got it? Invoking Osama bin Laden to score political points is Bad, Bad, Bad, Politics of Fear.

Now, let's compare and contrast.

Good Politics of Fear:

Obama: The Bush-McCain decision to take our eye off of Afghanistan to launch a misguided war in Iraq diverted resources from the fight against terrorism, allowed Osama bin Laden to escape justice, and has enabled al Qaeda's core leadership to reconstitute a sanctuary in northwest Pakistan.

Really Good Politics of Fear:

Obama: Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda have a safe-haven in northwest Pakistan because the Bush-McCain war in Iraq diverted resources from Afghanistan and allowed al Qaeda to escape into Pakistan."

Really, Really Good Politics of Fear:

Obama: Every time we send units to serve tour after tour of duty in Iraq, we limit our ability to deal with other crises. Every month that we're spending $8 billion in Iraq, we neglect other priorities. Every time we hear a plea for more support in Afghanistan or get another message from Osama bin Laden, we're reminded that this war has distracted us from real threats.

If you're confused, you may have a condition called Nuance Deficit Disorder (NDD). Invoking Osama bin Laden to score political points is Bad Politics of Fear when used by Republicans. Invoking Osama bin Laden to score political points is Good Politics of Fear when used against Republicans generally and President Bush specifically.

To further test for the presence of NDD, let's return to Burton:

Senator Clinton voted with President Bush to authorize the war in Iraq, she made a tragically bad decision that diverted our military from the terrorists who attacked us, and allowed Osama bin Laden to escape and regenerate his terrorist network.

Now, is invoking Osama bin Laden to score political points Good Politics of Fear or Bad Politics of Fear when used by a Democrat against a fellow Democrat?

If your answer is some variant of "WTF?", your NDD is completely normal as your nuance deficiency falls within the preferred range for mentally stable and healthy adults.

However, for those who persist in trying to make sense of the various scenarios presented, please consider: when Politics of Fear was used by Hillary against Obama -- Burton cries foul by using Politics of Fear against Hillary.

Does that sound rational? Logical?

If you answer yes, you have Nuance Hyperactivity Disorder (NHD).

If these symptoms last for more than four hours, consult a physician immediately.

Other symptoms of NHD may include: abdominal pain, sore throat, agitation, an inability to feel pride for one's country, constipation, irrational fears of a coming Christofascist theocracy, decreased sex drive, diarrhea or loose stools, sleepiness, dizziness, hallucinations of black helicopters above your house, fatigue, tingling that runs up your leg, gas, visions of impeachment dancing in your head, decreased appetite, anxiety, increased sweating, dreams from your father, uncontrollable cursing at images of Bush, indigestion, an insatiable desire for change, insomnia, dry mouth, headache, fainting, swooning, nausea, nervousness, rash, pain, tremor, vision problems and vomiting.

The more things change

Originally posted on American Thinker
-------------------------------------

As General Petraeus testifies on Capitol Hill today, Powerline gives us this snippet from Hillary Clinton’s appearance on CBS' Early Show with anchor Harry Smith:

SMITH: David Petraeus is going to come before this committee this morning. He's going to say, in more elaborate words than I will right now, that the surge is working. The number of attacks in Baghdad have more than doubled in the last two months. About a dozen U.S. servicemen have been killed there in just the last several days.

Do you think the surge is working?

CLINTON: Well, Harry, I think you just made a summary argument against the position that it's working.

Speaking of a Harry, we are just a couple weeks shy of the one year anniversary of this Harry’s exchange, from April 22, 2007:

CNN INTERVIEWER: "General Petraeus is going to come to the Hill...and make it clear to you that there is progress going on in Iraq...will you believe him?"

HARRY REID: “No. I won’t believe him because it isn’t happening.”

The more things change, the higher the willing suspension of disbelief is raised.

Hillary the modest

H/T K-Lo for this reminder from Hillary:

While listing her credentials to be president, Clinton also said people vote for different reasons, including how a person looks or their hairstyle.

"And that is another difference, you know how long it takes me to get ready than my two opponents — I mean really just think about it," she joked. "I think I should get points for working as hard as I do plus the time it takes to get ready."

Actually, she is understating her case.

As we’ve said before Hillary gets points for being Ready on day one, ready in six rings

We had decided not to reprise that line with Hillary’s 3 am ad on the economy – but since Hillary is apparently intent on pushing it, who are we to stand in her way.

About that oink buzz

Everybody’s noticing that Hillary loves earmarks. A lot.

The nonpartisan taxpayer watchdog group Citizens Against Government Waste is out with its newest Pig Book, an overwhelming detailing of all 11,610 pork barrel projects inserted in the current fiscal year's appropriations bills by individual members of Congress. ...

According to the Pig Book ("The Book Washington Does Not Want You to Read"), New York Sen. Hillary Clinton is our new grand national oinker among presidential contenders for most pork barrel spending. She inserted a whopping 281 individual spending projects into bills for the benefit of New York interests at the cost of taxpayers everywhere.

That totals $296.2 million.

Brings back some good campaign memories:

Hippies used to say if you remember Woodstock, you weren't really there. Republicans say presidential contender Hillary Rodham Clinton can forget about getting $1 million in taxpayer funds for a Woodstock museum.

Clinton and Charles Schumer, Democratic senators from New York, want to earmark the federal money for a museum that would commemorate the 1969 music festival in their state. ...

When Schumer and Clinton trumpeted the $1 million earmark for the museum back in June, she said in a statement that it would "continue to promote education, the arts, culture and tourism in the region."

To which McCain responded with this (the quote is from a Republican debate, which McCain then turned into a campaign ad):

MCCAIN: A few days ago, Senator Clinton tried to spend one million dollars on the Woodstock concert museum.

"Now my friends, I wasn't there. I'm sure it was a cultural and pharmaceutical event. I was, I was tied up at the time."

Old man McCain totally harshed Hillary’s buzz, man.

Bill: If Hillary is inevitable...

If you’re Bill Clinton – and everyone seems to be calling for your wife to exit the Democratic race, what do you do?

Well, if you expect her to continue all the way to the convention, knowing what it will take to wrest the nomination from Obama, and knowing that Hillary is both callously willing and ruthlessly able to pull it off, you might try something like this:

"We just need to relax and let this happen..."

"The people should just relax and let this process go on..."

"It's good, it's exciting..."

Are we seeing the Democratic race moving from a sad (but enjoyable!) joke to a sick joke?

Or perhaps Clinton is simply caught up in March Madness. He’s really just channelling Bobby Knight.

Richardson converts to Obamianity

Via Hot Air, news that Bill Richardson has thrown his considerable weight, if less significant political endorsement, behind Barack Obama.

Geraghty takes a few swipes at the ol' lug:

The man always looked like an unmade bed, contradicted his own proposals all the time, spat out gaffes like a Pez dispenser, and referred to his previous positions in government like he had obsessive-compulsive disorder... but somehow I miss the guy anyway.

I won't disagree with that assessment one bit; I'm laughing too much to be critical of it in any way.

But please. Geraghty sets up his post with this:

Richardson Endorses Obama... A Little While After It Would Really Help
Bill Richardson endorses Obama.

Would have been more helpful before the New Mexico caucus, which Hillary won by a narrow margin.

Geraghty Questions the Timing!

Now I'm not saying Jim doesn't know the answer. Of course he does. We all do. Richardson simply waited until he knew which way the wind blows. He waited until he felt it safe to back the winner.

And of course, not being one to countenance such disloyalty to the Clinton family, James Carville calls Richardson Judas Iscariot.

But please.

Richardson is simply Speaking Truth to Power!

Hillary is finished!

That is, if you're all into that crazy counting delgates and stuff.

We're not.

A race of biblical proportions

The Democratic race has reached the point where we know it will be a long, drawn out affair. And we are now witnessing its headlong rush into a bitter and nasty battle. Neither Obama nor Clinton can win enough delegates in the remaining primaries to secure the nomination before the convention. The race seems to be heading inexorably into the hands of the super delegates -- a sensitive subject among Democrats who worry about disenfranchisement.

What I am trying to say is that we are experiencing a race of biblical proportions.

Which gives us a biblical inspiration for where we can go for wisdom on how the race will unfold:

(I Kings 3:16-29)
16 Now two candidates came to the king and stood before him. 17 One of them said, "My lord, this woman and I are both running for President. I have an audacious hope while she is running on experience. 18 Following my win in Iowa, this woman won New Hampshire. By the end of January, we were alone.

19 "After Super Tuesday the race seemed close; but after the Potomac Primaries her campaign was left for dead because I had all the momentum. 20 So she got up in the middle of the night and took Texas and Ohio while I your servant was asleep. 21 The next morning, I got up to give a speech on hope—and it was gone! But when I looked closely in the morning light, I saw that it wasn't that hope was gone, it was that she had left it beaten and bloodied beyond all recognition."

22 The other woman said, "No! The campaign is about experience; your hope is dead." But the first candidate insisted, "No! The hope will prevail; it’s judgment that matters." And so they argued before the king.

23 The king said, "This one says, 'My hope is alive and your campaign is dead,' while that one says, 'No! Your hope is dead and my experience is what matters.' "

24 Then the king said, "Bring me a sword." So they brought a sword for the king.

25 He then gave an order: "Cut the nomination in two and give half to one and half to the other."

26 The candidate whose campaign was filled with hope said to the king, "No, my lord, give me the whole nomination! You will not see me share the nomination!" But the woman said, "Both I and you can have it. Cut it in two!"

27 Then the king gave his ruling: "Give the nomination to the woman. Do not split it; she is the selected nominee."

28 When all the Democrats heard the verdict the king had given, they held the king in contempt, because they saw that he had no wisdom from God to administer justice.

29 And the South Platte River flowed full of blood. (a)


----------------
(a)Earliest manuscripts vary on the inclusion of verse 29

Hillary and the doctrine of planning pre-emptive squandering

Via Michael Goldfarb at the Worldwide Standard, we find this NY Sun article, quoting retired general and “co-author of the surge”, Jack Keane:

"I have no doubts whatsoever that if she were president in January '09 she would not act irresponsibly and issue orders to conduct an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, regardless of the consequences, and squander the gains that have been made."

And the Clinton campaign’s response? A nearly Obama-esque, “Yes we can will!”

The senator's campaign differed with that assessment. "Senator Clinton speaks for herself on her plans to end the Iraq war," the campaign's communication director, Howard Wolfson, said Sunday. "She has said she will end the war the right way, swiftly and responsibly, and beginning within 60 days of taking office."

And Clinton has a plan to begin squandering right now…

Indeed, Mrs. Clinton's Web site features her plan to "begin ending this war — not next year, not next month — but today."

...if not for those silly things called elections.

Though General Keane’s wording is a bit rough, with the double-negative “I have no doubts…she would not act…” perhaps there is an opportunity for an Obama-esque slogan the Clinton campaign could use here.

Hillary Clinton: Doubt You Can Believe In

UPDATE: Well, this article is making the rounds.

BAGHDAD — After almost five years of war, many young people in Iraq, exhausted by constant firsthand exposure to the violence of religious extremism, say they have grown disillusioned with religious leaders and skeptical of the faith that they preach.

Aha! Thus is the Hillary (and Democrats) strategy is made clear.

The old Democratic line on Iraq: “By killing terrorists, we’ll only make more terrorists.”

The new Democrat line on Iraq: “By leaving Iraq and letting al Qaeda kill more innocents, we’ll make more people who turn away from militant Islamism.”

Ready on day one, ready in six rings

On Campaign Spot, Jim Geraghty wonders about that “3 a.m.” ad by Hillary:

I can't help but notice that in the ad, no one actually picks up the phone until the end. (In the Hillary Administration, the crisis hotline will ring six times before Hillary answers, I guess.)

Well, what that commercial has given us is a means of determining how much time it takes Hillary to get out of bed, fix her hair, put on makeup, a fabulous pant suit, and jewelry.

Six rings.

That’s actually quite impressive. Score one point for Hillary.

[VIMH: That coming from someone who didn't shave from Thursday until today?]
Good point. But you're not going to bait me into speculation on the amount of gray Hillary's beard would have were she to grow one.

Time for a Hillary Sister Soulja moment?

Hillary could be audacious here. McCain's status as American war hero is not something a rival campaign should mess with. Not to mention George Washington and Jack Kennedy:

Steinem raised McCain’s Vietnam imprisonment as she sought to highlight an alleged gender-based media bias against Clinton.

“Suppose John McCain had been Joan McCain and Joan McCain had got captured, shot down and been a POW for eight years. [The media would ask], ‘What did you do wrong to get captured? What terrible things did you do while you were there as a captive for eight years?’” Steinem said, to laughter from the audience.

McCain was, in fact, a prisoner of war for around five-and-a-half years, during which time he was tortured repeatedly. Referring to his time in captivity, Steinem said with bewilderment, “I mean, hello? This is supposed to be a qualification to be president? I don’t think so.”

Steinem’s broader argument was that the media and the political world are too admiring of militarism in all its guises. “I am so grateful that she [Clinton] hasn’t been trained to kill anybody. And she probably didn’t even play war games as a kid. It’s a great relief from Bush in his jump suit and from Kerry saluting.”

To the Observer, Steinem insisted that “from George Washington to Jack Kennedy and PT-109 we have behaved as if killing people is a qualification for ruling people.”

Hillary could dress up her denunciation with tears for effect.