The day after her birthday, Hillary is still in the news. Hillary’s prominence is why Michelle is still yanking sleeves and Barack is still sneaking smokes.
Barack Obama’s Thugs (hereinafter, B.O.T.s) are increasingly aware that neither we, nor Hillary, are going away. As we know, Hillary is the real thing, not an inexperienced pretender, and real things last a real long time:
It’s tempting for some Beltway players to presume Clinton’s greatest prospects are behind her. Tempting, but hardly assured.
Clinton’s coalition is the sleeping giant of American politics. No other national politician, save Obama, has proven able to raise as much money. Much of her base was, like Obama, also loyal for deeper reasons than politics. This is doubly true for the Democratic women who were, and still are, personally invested in Clinton’s almost-historic presidency. It’s no coincidence that Clinton is on the cover of Parade magazine this week.
Clinton remains the second most prominent Democrat in the country. Her approval rating is higher than her boss, according to Gallup.
Clinton’s coalition is the true Democratic Coalition. It is the FDR coalition. It’s the coalition that builds the party and grows. Obama’s coalition, like Halloween, only materializes once and it is a Situation Comedy Coalition not fit for governing.
There are perils which Hillary supporters must always keep in mind as we exercise and drill in Winter quarters:
If she still wants it, her chance is likely 2016. Obama has good odds in 2012, as incumbents do. But Obama’s presidency could sink into unusually bad times. If so, don’t bet on a rerun of Jimmy Carter versus Edward Kennedy.
Kennedy never served under Carter. If she left early, with no excuse but her own ambitions, charges of betrayal would dog Clinton. Clinton’s investment in Democratic détente would be squandered. “Being on the presidents’ team gives you the chance to end the speculation that you are not on the presidents team,” as one Clinton White House veteran said.
Clinton has a term obstacle in this scenario as well. Secretaries of state generally serve four years. To leave early would inflame Obama’s base all over again. [snip]
Her past stature is precisely why Clinton attempts to lower her profile in new posts, at least at first. “I want to be a workhorse here, not a showhorse,” she reportedly told her Democratic colleagues after winning her 2000 Senate bid. The New Republic later complained, “Clinton has submerged herself in policy minutiae that would make a C-SPAN junkie snore.”
Nearly a decade later, Washington is again wondering about Clinton’s relative silence in the big show. The Kerry incident did not help. Yet overall, the low profile is a political blessing.
Hillary remains the future and still can be the 44th person to be inaugurated as president. Far from diminished, Hillary still has more remarkable petals left to blossom:
Clinton is different. She never ran a general election campaign. Therefore she does not have to live down mistakes. In fact, Clinton’s profile appears stronger for her bid. She proved her endurance and capacity to win votes. Importantly, she still is seen as presidential.
A Fox News poll in September found that 27 percent of Americans believe if “Clinton had won the election” she would “be doing a better” job as president. Another 25 percent said she would be doing as well as Obama.
More than half of the country, and even half of Democrats, views Clinton as the president’s equal or better. And Clinton likely agrees.
Our job, the job of all Hillary supporters and websites, is too smash the myth, the fake Big Media narrative, that Obama is doing about as well as could be expected from anyone. This myth is the most pernicious yet to emerge from the Obama protection racket which is Big Media and the Obama campaign machine. We, must make the case that Hillary would be doing much better than Obama no matter how bad the circumstances.
* * * * *
Yesterday, while we celebrated Hillary’s Birthday, Dimocrats and associated dimwits on the Big Blogs celebrated what they think is a big win for them on health care and the public option. We didn’t bother to put down the lace hand-fan when we heard the less than interesting news.
What caused the cheers and thrills from Dimocrats and dimwits – Harry (Reid of Nevada) had decided to announce the public option was “in”. We laughed at the little morsel thrown their way and what the dimwits allow to be called a “public option”. So, what happened (other than Hillary’s Birthday) yesterday?
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid dismissed White House worries — and bucked his own reputation as a cautious lawmaker — by announcing Monday he’ll push ahead with a public health insurance option, even though he’s short of the 60 votes needed to pass it. [snip]
The early signs are not encouraging for Reid.
The Dickens you say. Why would Harry do such a thing without the votes? Isn’t it foolish, down the road, to promise what you can’t deliver?
“If we can’t produce 60, you’ve got two choices: Pull the bill, or amend it. And amending it means that you’ll also need 60,” said a Senate Democratic aide. “The question is if the handful of moderates stay resolute and oppose cloture on the bill, then we’ll have to convince liberals to vote to weaken the public option. And that may be a very tough hill to climb because some of them may say they’d just as soon go to reconciliation than to compromise at that point.”
Why would Harry go to Copenhagen without the votes? Is Obama-style stupidity and boobery, like the swine flu, catching?
Harry has his reasons. They’re not pretty, but Harry has his reasons:
What Harry Reid did Monday afternoon gave new meaning to the phrase “public option.
The Senate majority leader, after haggling behind closed doors with members of his Democratic caucus, realized that he couldn’t cobble together the 60 votes he needed to pass health-care legislation with a government-run health plan. So Reid chose another option: He shut down the private talks, booked the Senate TV studio and went public with his own proposal. [snip]
For Reid, it was an admission of the formidable power of liberal interest groups. [snip]
Reid, facing a difficult reelection contest next year at home in Nevada, will need such groups to bring Democrats to the polls if he is to survive. But there were a few problems with the leader’s solo move. He shifted the public pressure from himself to half a dozen moderates in his caucus. And he defied the Obama White House, which had hoped to keep a bipartisan patina on health-care reform by maintaining the support of Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine).
Then there was the small matter of lacking the votes to pass the public option. “Do you feel 100 percent sure right now that you have the 60 votes?” CNN’s Dana Bash inquired. Reid looked down at the lectern. He looked up at the ceiling. He chuckled. He put his palms together as if in prayer. Then he spoke. “My caucus believes strongly there should be health-care reform” was the non sequitur he offered. [snip]
Of course, everybody knew that Reid didn’t have the votes. That’s why he was standing there alone, a Gang of One.
Why did Harry do it?
As Democratic aides described it, the moment had less to do with health-care policy than with Nevada politics — and one vulnerable senator’s justifiable fear of liberal anger. Now, if the public option unexpectedly survives in the Senate, Reid keeps his hero status on the left. If it fails, he at least gets credit for trying. By the Nobel committee’s revised standards, his aspirations might even earn him the prizes in medicine and economics.
Harry does not have the votes, but like Obama he realizes Dimocrats are dimwits and the old razzle-dazzle has its uses. Harry does not have the votes and the votes he needs are still not convinced, but lying and over-promising works for Obama, so why not Harry? Stocks fell as insurers led the decline, Olympia Snowe has not melted, but Harry is giving it all the razzle-dazzle.
Harry and Obama love the old razzle-dazzle. But all that glitters, is not gold.
Hillary is gold.