Update: Don’t miss the video of Club 44 in Boston.
Don’t miss Hillary on Keith Olbermann tonight. Don’t miss all the TEAM HILLARY events TONIGHT. And don’t miss the new poll with Hillary at 50%.
Hillary Clinton is ready to be president. Hillary Clinton and her vision for America are being embraced by the American people.
This does not mean that PINO, Naderite and Big Blog hater attacks will stop. It does mean that the RIPublicans know their days of wrecking the country are numbered because of Hillary’s popularity and they will step up their attacks on Hillary.
In an interview with the Boston Globe Editorial Board Hillary demonstrated her deep knowledge of American constitutional principles and her well focused ideas on where to lead the country. Hillary intends to reverse the damage done to America and our constitutional system.
Hillary Clinton said today that if she is elected president, she intends to roll back President Bush’s expansion of executive authority, including his use of presidential signing statements to put his own interpretation on bills passed by Congress or to claim authority to disobey them entirely.
“I think you have to restore the checks and balances and the separation of powers, which means reining in the presidency,” Clinton told the Boston Globe’s editorial board.
Hillary will be a strong president but she understands the need to restore the constitutional system of checks and balances and respect for the legislature.
While Bush has issued hundreds of signing statements, declarations that accompany his signature on bills approved by Congress, Clinton said she would use signing statements only to clarify bills that might be confusing or contradictory. She also said she did not subscribe to a theory called the “unitary executive” that puts the president’s power above that of Congress and the judiciary.
“It has been a concerted effort by the vice president, with the full acquiescence of the president, to create a more powerful executive at the expense of both branches of government and of the American people,” she said.
Hillary also has a good sense of how she will work with other nations.
In the wide-ranging question-and-answer session, the New York senator also said her policy on Russia would focus on influencing that nation’s role in the world rather than trying to halt its internal move away from democracy. She would seek Russia’s help negotiating with Iran over its suspected nuclear weapons program, she said, and try to prevent Russia from “being a problem in the Middle East” or bullying its neighbors.
“I’m interested in what Russia does outside its borders first,” she said. “I don’t think I can as the president of the United States wave my hand and tell the Russian people they should have a different government.”
Clinton was strongly critical of what she called Bush’s “incoherent” policy on Russia, saying the president was “naive” to rely so strongly on his personal relationship with Russian leader Vladimir Putin.
When questioned about whether she could win Hillary replied “I am winning,” “That’s a good place to start.” Hillary also said she expected to win every state Senator Kerry won in 2004, plus Florida, Ohio, Arkansas, and probably Louisiana, New Mexico, and Nevada.
Like some latter day Zorro fencing PINOs, Naderites and Big Blogs with one hand, while sipping a good glass of Madiera, Hillary is winning the battles for the nomination. Hillary’s fight for the Democratic nomination is being watched with awe and respect by RIPublicans. After Tuesday’s RIPublican debate there was a discussion on MSNBC – The moderator was David Shuster, former Republican House Majority Leader Dick Armey and “Newsweek‘s” senior White House correspondent, Richard Wolffe were the guests.
SHUSTER: And Dick Armey, Republicans must love the position that you‘re in now of watching the Democrats try to gauge how tough to be with Hillary, knowing that, perhaps, if they soften her up, that makes her even softer for a general election if she‘s the nominee.
ARMEY: Well, it‘s pretty hard to tell. John Edwards has not gotten some of the endorsements he had expected to get. You look at John Edwards, I look at him and I always see there‘s no “there” there. I think that ad backfires on him.
He says are you going to chose Hillary, where there‘s something there, something good and something bad. But there‘s a “there” there. Or me?
SHUSTER: But isn‘t that the elephant in the room?
I mean everybody…
ARMEY: No. I think John Edwards, frankly, needs to understand his race is over.
ARMEY: Did he have a serious proposal all the time he—I don‘t remember the man as a senator. I can tell you one thing—you cannot ignore the fact that Hillary Clinton is in the race and she‘s got something she wants to do in the White House. She‘s got a policy objective. You can like it or not, but there‘s a real substantive reason for her wanting to be in the White House.
SHUSTER: Do you, then, disagree with John Edwards and believe that Hillary Clinton is a lot more formidable a national candidate in a general election than John Edwards is trying to make Democrats think?
ARMEY: Absolutely. John Edwards needs to understand there are two things about Hillary Clinton that he must know. One, she‘s smarter than he is. And, two, she‘s tougher than he is. And if he hasn‘t figured that out, it‘s going to a painful end instead of just an end.
WOLFFE: And the Hillary folks are right to point out, by the way, that look at the national polls, look at the nominal match-ups between Hillary and all the Republicans across the country. She does as well, if not better, than the other Democratic candidates. So the argument doesn‘t really stack up so much. He‘s projecting at some point in the future—you just can‘t predict like how a general election will play out like that.
SHUSTER: Richard, you mentioned Barack Obama is taking a more sort of nuanced, subtle approach, as far as getting in his digs at Hillary. At a certain point, does he need to sort of ratchet up things if he‘s going to have a chance at essentially defeating Hillary Clinton in Iowa?
Or does he decide, you know what, perhaps she‘s the inevitable frontrunner, I‘m not going to cause that sort of damage?
WOLFFE: I don‘t think that‘s what he‘s doing at all. He thinks he has a—he‘s really got a good ground game in Iowa, that it‘s a three way race and an upset in Iowa will change this whole race completely. And I think that‘s probably true.
Having said that, he does need to improve his game on TV. I think his attitude toward TV is that it‘s somewhere—whether it‘s a TV interview or a TV debate—it‘s somehow more trivial, more glib than his speeches, which are sort of literary exercises. That‘s fine in one sense. It‘s very intellectual and noble. But TV is the medium here. He has to play by the rules of the game. And that means using some of these lines that are in his beautifully crafted speeches and using them on the debates. He doesn‘t use the zingers that he crafts himself.
I just haven‘t ever gotten a good answer out of the Obama campaign on that one.
SHUSTER: Dick Armey, what do you think about Barack Obama?
ARMEY: Well, I…
SHUSTER: I mean he‘s got to be an intriguing candidate to you on several levels.
ARMEY: The one thing that I‘ll give him over Edwards, Edwards just cracks me up. I mean Obama at least understands that you ought to try to pretend—project that you have some policy objectives in mind. And he‘s made sort of itty bitty suggestions. He does talk like a sociologist running for president of the faculty senate, and he‘ll never get over that. And that, in the final analysis, will be his undoing, because he just can‘t compete with a realistic able, serious-minded, policy-oriented candidate like Hillary Clinton.
I mean there is so much substance to Hillary—mind you, from my point of view, all misguided substance. But there is so much substance to Hillary Clinton that these two guys, they just basically look like a couple of sophomores hoping they can make the A Team next year.
Dick Armey gets it. Do other RIPublicans get it?
In last night’s debate, both Rudolph W. Giuliani and Mitt Romney mentioned Hillary Clinton a dozen times, and not in a flattering way.
All of this dredging up of the Clinton name has been presumed to reflect a desire by Republicans that she be the Democratic nominee. She is so polarizing, their thinking has been, that she would be easy to swat down in a general election. And already, a third of the country’s voters say they will never vote for her.
That’s been the conventional wisdom. But how realistic is that today? Could there be a new emerging reality, one that offers Republicans a more cautionary note?
The Real Reality Based Community:
Republicans, like the rest of the country, have watched Mrs. Clinton steamroll over her Democratic opponents. Agree with her or not, like her or not, you have to admit that her campaign machine has been one efficient operation (the Clintons themselves offered the analogy with the Sopranos). Polls show that Mrs. Clinton’s “electability” quotient has been rising, certainly among Democrats. Newt Gingrich acknowledged she was a “formidable” candidate.
“What’s going on is what is called an agonizing reappraisal,” said Ross Baker, a professor of political science at Rutgers.
New results from Quinnipiac and averages of recent polls computed by realclearpolitics.com, show Mrs. Clinton beating all the leading Republican candidates: Mr. Giuliani, Fred Thompson, Mr. Romney and John McCain.
And in her Senate re-election bid in New York last year, Mrs. Clinton scared away serious challengers and won 67 percent of the statewide vote, including Republican counties that had voted for George W. Bush.
As Mrs. Clinton herself continues to point out, as she did in today’s Washington Post, that she believes she has become battle-hardened by the attacks against her and knows how to take on what she calls the right-wing hate machine. [snip]
For one thing, they are hoping to elevate themselves to equal status as front-runner. Neither Mr. Giuliani nor Mr. Romney dominates the Republican field the way she dominates the Democrats.
“What they’re saying is, ‘Only I am tough enough to go head-to-head against Hillary Clinton,’” said Mr. Baker of Rutgers.
But this is a double-edged sword. “It’s a supreme tribute to her,” he said. “In the process of trying to elevate themselves, it makes her seem much more formidable.”
He said that for now, casting her as the giant to be taken down still serves a purpose among Republicans who are likely to vote in the primaries.
“At this point, you’ll still get a heavy dose of scare messages about her because the audience that’s consuming the Republican debates is largely the base and they can be mobilized by these kinds of appeals,” he said.
But if Mrs. Clinton starts winning primaries and becomes the all-but-certain Democratic nominee, he said, it would be unrealistic to paint her as someone who is unelectable and can easily be toppled.
“Look for a message adjustment,” he said. “The Republicans know they can’t win an election with just the Hillary-haters.”
RIPublicans seem to get it. When will PINOs, Naderites, and Big Blogs stop their impotent hate attacks?