May 8, 2015

I've got a different theory about "How the Clintons Get Away With It."

Here's Peggy Noonan in the Wall Street Journal:
I wonder if any aspirant for the presidency except Hillary Clinton could survive [a book like "Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich"]. I suspect she can because the Clintons are unique in the annals of American politics: They are protected from charges of corruption by their reputation for corruption. It’s not news anymore. They’re like . . . Bonnie and Clyde go on a spree, hold up a bunch of banks, it causes a sensation, there’s a trial, and they’re acquitted. They walk out of the courthouse, get in a car, rob a bank, get hauled in, complain they’re being picked on—“Why are you always following us?”—and again, not guilty. They rob the next bank and no one cares. “That’s just Bonnie and Clyde doing what Bonnie and Clyde do. No one else cares, why should I?”
My theory is that Hillary Clinton is only getting away with it now. The evidence against her should utterly destroy her, but not yet. The stars are aligned in her favor now, but the alignment will end some time in 2016.

Who is motivated to use this evidence now? Basically, no one.

Democrats still believe she will be their candidate, and they don't want to attack her. It might be useful to test her and allow her to topple early enough to open the field to other candidates. But who? That's a risky strategy, and it takes nerve. The better approach seems to be to allow all the new things to get old and to hope people will forget or at least get bored enough to swallow the argument that the subject has already been fully discussed and only toxic weird people still talk about it.

Why should Republicans attack? They have great material, but if they use it now, they might end up with someone else whom they'd have to find ways to demolish. Save it. Hold it in reserve. Wait until the Democrats lock her in as the candidate, and then let loose with all the attacks you've had so long to meticulously prepare.

I say she's not getting away with it. Not in the end. 

127 comments:

AReasonableMan said...

Althouse said ...
They have great material, but if they use it now, they might end up with someone else whom they'd have to find ways to demolish. Save it. Hold it in reserve. Wait until the Democrats lock her in as the candidate, and then let loose with all the attacks you've had so long to meticulously prepare.


If this is their strategy, which I doubt, it is an unusually stupid strategy since news grows old.

Larry J said...

The Clintons could be using an old play from their playbook: get the scandal out early and then in 2016, they just say "That's old news" and move on. The Press will be happy to oblige and when Republicans try to raise the issue, they'll be labeled as sexist.

Michael said...

ARM

The news is only old to those who follow the news. Old news is new news for the low information voter. Save it in a drawer.

Agree with Althouse.

Tank said...

Michael beat me to it. ARM, you make the mistake of thinking that most people follow the news like you do.

Remember this: Most people are idiots, and 50% are, by definition, below average. Despite our differences, you won't see any of those people posting here.

DanTheMan said...

Hillary could confess in writing to accepting bribes and she'd still get at least 40% of the vote.
That says more about us than about her. We are getting the government we deserve... good and hard.


Theranter said...

I was chatting with a Chicago higher-up cop last year, subject of 2016 came up. I'll never forget his tone when he said "Hillary will be the next president." Like it's all a done deal, thanks to the Chicago way. Scary.

Michael McClain said...

We will, forever, be burdened by this pack of grifters. Chelsea is the latest to occupy a phony-baloney position at a corrupt money-laundering "foundation".

etbass said...

I agree with the professor but also have a gut fear that a country that could elect Obama twice is pre-destined to elect another who is worse in many ways.

Phil 3:14 said...

What's the alternative for the Democratic Party?

Hagar said...

Qui vivra, verra,
but I think she will be the candidate.
The Democras are proud of the Clintons.

Bob Ellison said...

I agree with the Professor. You can't underestimate how little voters know about their candidates.

But then, I thought Mitt Romney had a lock on 2012. So don't read my thoughts.

The strongest sign that Hillary's candidacy will blow up is that the Washington Post and the New York Times are gushing about her ethics troubles. Leftists are trying to get her off the rails. Who's their preferred replacement?

Hagar said...

The Clintons are sticking it to "the Man."
Yay!! We will show those bastards!

Senator Blutarsky said...

Peggy Noonan asks "whether the Clinton Foundation has functioned, at least in part, as a kind of high-class philanthropic slush fund."

This accusation is ridiculous on its face; nothing the Clintons do is high class.

traditionalguy said...

In 1999 the easy answer to Clinton wrong doing was, "It's just sex," and everybody takes sex that is offered to them.

Now It's just foreign governments money, and everybody takes government's money that is offered to them.

So what was wrong with Bill and Hill again? The answer is they have no time left to be President and Commander-in-chief since all their time and energy is spent chasing sexual conquests and financial conquests to prove something to themselves.

Big Mike said...

Anyone who thinks Hillary Clinton will be the next president has to figure a strategy the get past one salient fact: somewhere between 55% and 60% of the American electorate deeply despise her. I don't mean "dislike," I mean actively despise. The Republicans could run Beelzebub and voters would still be kicking down doors to vote against Hillary Clinton.

Trouble is, the Republican establishment is just dumb enough to actually run Beelzebub.

Rumpletweezer said...

Bill Clinton became President because no one of stature in the Democrat party wanted to run against George Bush.

This year no one of stature (does the Democrat party actually have anyone with stature...but I digress) wants to challenge Hillary. That being the case, I wouldn't count Martin O'Malley out.

machine said...

ya hated getting stomped by Obama TWICE...apparently ya gonna hate 2016 even more.

wasn't sure this was possible...

JRoberts said...

At what point will we learn that Clintonian corruption is protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)?

MadisonMan said...

I hope you're right. If Hillary is one choice, and the Republicans serve up a turd in the punch bowl to vote for, what's a sensible person to do?

exhelodrvr1 said...

Electing Hillary will force the Democrats to take responsibility for the corruption.

Sebastian said...

"Who is motivated to use this evidence now? Basically, no one."

Right. No Dem is motivated to demand an honest Dem candidate. None. Nuff said.

Next question: who is motivated to discount this evidence later? Maybe one or two lawprof blogs will explain down the line.

Matthew Sablan said...

There's no reason to hold fire here, I think. Force the Democrats to respond and go on the offensive, politically, for once.

clint said...

She's committed crimes that are so important they are explicitly listed in a Constitution that only lists two crimes. And she didn't just take a little money, she took hundreds of millions of dollars.

She's not in jail. She's not under arrest. She's not under investigation. And there's no real public outrage.

And you're counting on the voters to care about this and punish her? Why?



Matthew Sablan said...

"Electing Hillary will force the Democrats to take responsibility for the corruption."

-- No, no it won't. Electing a Democrat will lead to stonewalling and manipulating civilian oversight agencies to turn blind eyes to rampant corruption/incompetence, as we've seen.

The only way to clean up the last party's corruption is to elect a new party.

traditionalguy said...

The Progressives are waiting for Warren to declare that she will run.

And Warren will be a good candidate because she is pro middle class and she actually respects the old time USA's form of governance using that old device we called Congress passing laws that are followed because we compromised on them.

MayBee said...

Look at NYC and Chicago. Full of corruption. Everyone knows it. Everyone makes jokes about it. But everyone more or less accepts it, because that's how things are.

Same with the Clinton. Democrats aren't generally law and order rules followers, like Republicans are. It's baked in the cake.

Tank said...

Matthew Sablan said...

"Electing Hillary will force the Democrats to take responsibility for the corruption."

-- No, no it won't. Electing a Democrat will lead to stonewalling and manipulating civilian oversight agencies to turn blind eyes to rampant corruption/incompetence, as we've seen.

The only way to clean up the last party's corruption is to elect a new party.


Matthew, this was a reference to something Althouse said relating to the last election. It meant what you said, except a "new party" won't clean up either.

NotquiteunBuckley said...

All these "let it burn" pukes, and at moments I am one hence I know of what I speak, should want Hillary to win hence immenitizing the eschaton.

There are pros and cons to a Hillary victory.

Eric the Fruit Bat said...

Watched a boxing match last night. Pretty evenly matched guys.

But in the third round, Mr. Red Trunks seemed to be petering out. Losing his wheels. Still, he scored some decent points to the head coming out of the clinch while Mr. White Trunks couldn't do any better than go to the body.

Then Mr. Red Trunks lurched in from the break and threw a big double combo that seemed like an act of desperation. Dropped Mr. White trunks, who's back up on his feet, immediately.

Then Mr. White Trunks proceeds to unceremoniously beat the living shit out of Mr. Red Trunks and they stop the fight.

The lesson to be learned?

Don't piss off Mr. White Trunks.

Lauderdale Vet said...

I think the only party with the power to topple Clinton are the Obamas.

I think they will, too.

I just don't know who they will anoint. Michelle? Who is in their pocket?

I expect the Republicans to mishandle that opportunity.

Big Mike said...

@Rumpletweezer, yes, right now O'Malley is the ABH ("Anybody but Hillary") candidate, the way Obama was in 2008.

@exhelodrvr1, the Democrats are already taking responsibility for corruption, mostly by generating more and more of it each day.

Once written, twice... said...

The Clinton Foundation has raised money to alleviate much suffering in the world. Especially the Third World. And the Republicans want to take issue with that and call it a crime? Good luck with that!

Brando said...

I don't know--ARM has a point. Try using this stuff next year, and it'll be answered with "that's not news". The media won't be covering it unless more info comes out.

Big Mike--I don't know if the number of people who despise the Clintons enough to vote GOP wil ever hit 55%. I'd say over 40%, and another 20% find them sleazy but are open to voting for them if they agree with their politics or think they're competent. The GOP has to make the sale next year, and get to at least half that 20%.

TosaGuy said...

"I think the only party with the power to topple Clinton are the Obamas."

The question that Obama has to figure the answer to is:

"How will Mrs. Clinton as president impact my ability to make money and have post-presidential influence?"

TosaGuy said...

"The Clinton Foundation has raised money to alleviate much suffering in the world."

No one believes that talking point.

PuertoRicoSpaceport.com said...

Phil asked what is the alternative for the Democrat PArty?

3 letters:JFK

In February he left the door slightly open to running and you know he feels that he deserves the job. Just like he deserves John Heinz' money.

Here is something from The Hill in March explaining why:

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/236022-a-plan-for-kerry-2016

Absent another stroke or some such, Hilary is not going to drop out. She gets weaker every day and the Dems need someone waiting in the wings who can defeat her in the primaries and make a race out of November.

Kerry might be the one. He's had some practice, after all. He's been a horrible SoS but still better than Hil.

John Henry

johnnymcguirk said...

The Clinton Foundation is a slush fund which donates 15% of its revenue to charity.

machine said...

"I guess the rule here is that money is free speech, unless that money speaks with a funny accent," Stewart said.

PuertoRicoSpaceport.com said...

Trad guy said

"The Progressives are waiting for Warren to declare that she will run."

But on March 28, on national network TV, Warren said not just once but 3 times that she will not run. When pressed, she said she will not run even if Hilary! drops out.

She made Sherman sound positively indecisive.

How can she go back on that now?

Oh. Silly question. She's a demmie.

John Henry

madAsHell said...

she actually respects the old time USA's form of governance using that old device we called Congress passing laws that are followed because we compromised on them.

You have no evidence of that. You are delusional.

tim maguire said...

If the Democrats rally around Hillary, then I have to conclude they don't want to win. She is the Jeb Bush of the left, possessing a podium greater than her popularity because of her name, her connections, and her money. There is no real support, not now, and not next year.

The Democrats would have to be crazy not to push her aside while they still can.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

I'm worried people here are underestimating the degree to which the Media can bury or overlook "news" (specifically news that hurts Ds). How'd that VA scandal work out, everything fixed there? Anyone remember the flood of young illegal immigrants last year (and that is expected again this year)? How many DREAM/DACA beneficiaries have turned out to have criminal records and/or have committed crimes while here? Who has been punished for wrongful acts (with distinct partisan effects) within the IRS? How are things in Libya now, or Egypt?
Oh, right, all of that is old news--in fact, most of those don't even merit small follow up items in the daily Media feed.

Tank said...

Hey Doodlum, stop bumming me out man, it's the weekend. Why worry. Let's party. This country had a good run. It's over.

Gahrie said...

I say she's not getting away with it. Not in the end.

I predict that you'll end up voting for her.

Richard Dolan said...

It's not so much a matter of 'news grows old,' as it is 'who is this woman'? If the answer is 'an untrustworthy sleeze,' it's quite likely to make a major difference.

James Pawlak said...

Why? They are experts in applying Vladimir Lenin's lesson: "Tell a lie often enough and it becomes the truth".

Matthew Sablan said...

"I guess the rule here is that money is free speech, unless that money speaks with a funny accent," Stewart said.

-- ... I hope Stewart isn't trying to associate giving government money to the Secretary of State to influence policy decisions under the cover of darkness with giving money to a candidate while being held to strict disclosure requirements.

Cause if he is, well, he's dumb.

Matthew Sablan said...

Let's not forget the whole LYING about taking the money.

There's so much wrong with trying to pretend that the money given to Clinton is anything like a donation to a PAC or candidate -- namely, at the time, Clinton WAS NOT a political candidate.

Brent said...

I am predicting it publically - the foundation's corruption is going to result in criminal indictments by the end of 2016. Maybe even against Hillary or Bill. Either way, it will be the end of their political careers.

Laslo Spatula said...

As long as Hillary believes in unfettered abortion rights and the Republican candidate believes in anything less then Hillary will win.

To believe in anything less loses you a large part of the female vote (anti-woman, etc etc), and you have already lost the young and the liberal.

Nothing else will matter. War, the economy, corruption: meaningless.

Abortion is the weathervane.

I am Laslo.



Scott said...

Hillary Clinton is a woman, technically. Therefore she has the estrogen vote, and that alone will carry her. You could unearth a video of her with a meat cleaver, chopping up live kittens and puppy dogs, and it still won't matter. You'll be labeled anti-woman for criticizing her. And women who have never voted before will queue up to support her. The election of Hillary Clinton will be a blowout.

Tank said...

Gahrie said...

I say she's not getting away with it. Not in the end.

I predict that you'll end up voting for her.


I'd say it's 50/50 since Althouse will not say now that she's ruled out a vote for the big V.

If the Rep's nominate a real conservative, Althouse will vote BIG V.

Hagar said...

For the Clintons to get charged with anything, the complaint would have to pass the DoJ, and that is not going to happen.

Loretta Lynch might be the greatest thing since sliced bread, but she is still stuck with Eric Holder's DoJ, and that in the waning days of the Obama administration.

MagicalPat said...

Since it is very difficult for a Prty to hold the White House for more than 2 terms, perhaps the Democrats are sticking with her so they can finally be done with her.

Why waste ant decent possible candidates trying to hold the White House when the odds are against it?

They've got nothing to lose. She could win, and they hold the White House.

Bu if Hillary runs and loses, maybe they are finally done with the Clintons and can run a fresh face in 2020.

dreams said...

We've had our first black president now its Hillary's turn to be our first woman president. Its inevitable.

Fabi said...

Didn't a governor from Virginia just go to prison over a five-figure sum determined to be bribes? Here's what the Clintons did correctly: scale. It's impossible for regular people to grasp that this could be illegal because it was done in a somewhat transparent manner and in such outrageous dollar values. Brilliant in a disgusting way.

Democrat voters simply don't care. They won't vote Republican and the ends justify the means. And, as seen above, the foundation did good things for suffering people around the world!! lol

Michael K said...

"Bill Clinton became President because no one of stature in the Democrat party wanted to run against George Bush."

I agree. Mario Cuomo died knowing he missed his chance but, of course, no one could rely on Perot.

I think we are in a pre-revolutionary phase. The Tories just won in an election they were never counted as competitive but our elections seem to be more scripted by the powers of the left.

Corruption is unprecedented levels. The Clinton Foundation is only part of it.

Ten posts for inspectors general—including at the CIA and Export-Import Bank—stand vacant. One can’t help but wonder why.

I'm not predicting; just observing. The Clive Bundy standoff was just a small preview. It might begin in Texas.

Brent said...

"For the Clintons to get charged with anything, the complaint would have to pass the DoJ, and that is not going to happen."

Just remember this thread and my prediction when I am proven right. It may be the method the left uses to get Hillary out of the race when they realize she can't win. Either way, I have little doubt it is going to happen.

PuertoRicoSpaceport.com said...

Hagar said:


"Loretta Lynch might be
the greatest thing since sliced bread, but she is still stuck with Eric Holder's DoJ, and that in the waning days of the Obama administration."

Now there is one of the great mysteries of life. I bow to nobody in my admiration of Loretta Lynn but how did an 80 year old country singer get nominated to AG?

I don't think she even has a law degree, does she?

John Henry

Coupe said...

I say she's not getting away with it. Not in the end.

There's always an Oswald out there. Keep your head down is my advice.

I don't envy professional politicians.

AprilApple said...

More behind the pay wall:

Mr. Schweizer writes of “the flow of tens of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation . . . from foreign governments, corporations, and financiers.” It is illegal for foreign nationals to give to U.S. political campaigns, but foreign money, given as donations to the Clinton Foundation or speaking fees, comes in huge amounts: “No one has even come close in recent years to enriching themselves on the scale of the Clintons while they or a spouse continued to serve in public office.” The speaking fees Bill commands are “enormous and unprecedented,” as high as $750,000 a speech. On occasion they have been paid by nations or entities that had “matters of importance sitting on Hillary’s desk” when she was at State.

From 2001 through 2012 Bill collected $105.5 million for speeches and raised hundreds of millions for the foundation. When she was nominated, Hillary said she saw no conflict. President Obama pressed for a memorandum of understanding in which the Clintons would agree to submit speeches to State’s ethics office, disclose the names of major donors to the foundation, and seek administration approval before accepting direct contributions to the foundation from foreign governments. The Clintons accepted the agreement and violated it “almost immediately.” Revealingly, they amassed wealth primarily by operating “at the fringes of the developed world.” Their “most lucrative transactions” did not involve countries like Germany and Britain, where modern ethical rules and procedures are in force, but emerging nations, where regulations are lax.

How did it work? “Bill flew around the world making speeches and burnishing his reputation as a global humanitarian and wise man. Very often on these trips he was accompanied by ‘close friends’ or associates who happened to have business interests pending in these countries.” Introductions were made, conversations had. “Meanwhile, bureaucratic or legislative obstacles were mysteriously cleared or approvals granted within the purview of his wife, the powerful senator or secretary of state.”

Scott said...

"There's always an Oswald out there."

So, you think the CIA is going to be vetoing a Hillary candidacy? I doubt it.

AprilApple said...

Mysterious how poverty is never solved in these 3rd world nations - helped by the amazing charitable Clinton generosity.

KLDAVIS said...

Althouse's belief is predicated on too much faith in the American voter, the Republican party, and the Media...not necessarily in that order.

You could have written this same post in 2007 about how people are just waiting for Obama to be locked in as the candidate before they let loose with all the meticulously prepared attacks on his completely unvetted background...how'd that go?

holdfast said...

Of course the MSM is generally in the tank for the Dems - but many of them actually dislike Hillary personally. She's mean to them, she doesn't stroke their egos. And everyone likes to be stroked.

Contrast with Obama - they were in love with him - they wanted to bear his children (and that was just the "men" like Chrissie Matthews).

AprilApple said...

hmmm what's this?

dreams said...

The only person who can stop Hillary is Elizabeth Warren, Obama was the spoiler for Hillary in 2008 maybe Warren will be her spoiler in 2016.

Franklin said...

A racist electorate that voted for Obama twice because of the color of his skin is absolutely, unequivocally stupid enough to vote for Hillary.

As has been said a million times about the Low Information Democrat Voters - the republic may survive Obama, but it likely will not survive the cretins that voted for him.

Wilbur said...

Loretta's gonna send Hillary to Fist City.

The Cracker Emcee said...

"It's not so much a matter of 'news grows old,' as it is 'who is this woman'? If the answer is 'an untrustworthy sleeze,' it's quite likely to make a major difference"

It'll make no difference at all. HRC's blatant criminality has no bearing on her ability to get elected. As long as the Democrats can raise enough votes in exchange for hand-outs, they will occupy the White House. The nature of their candidate is utterly irrelevant.

BDNYC said...

Not to be too cynical, but I believe Republicans want Hillary nominated for two distinct reasons: (1) the Althouse reason, i.e., she's already polarizing and the corruption allegations will weaken her in the general; and (2) if she is elected, she seems more inclined than any other Democratic candidate to work with Republicans to pass right-of-center legislation.

Sammy Finkelman said...

The issues raised by Clinton Cash will not be Bill and Hillary Clinton's comeuppance. It only indicates a probability. It may maintain people in readiness to hear more, but that's all.

Somrthing that has a possibility of being their comeuppance is the murder of the Branch Davidians in Waco, on April 19, 1993 (if only somebody opens that up again and looks at it.)

The cover-up of the cause of the fire, and the planning of the events of that day, (just consider the instructions Janet Reno signed!) is paper-thin and it leads to many other things.

Rick said...

Republicans want Hillary nominated for two distinct reasons:...(2) if she is elected, she seems more inclined than any other Democratic candidate to work with Republicans to pass right-of-center legislation.

Effectively zero Republicans believe this.

RAS743 said...

"I say she's not getting away with it. Not in the end."

I say wait and see.

An electorate capable of giving Barack Obama two terms in office, and the MSM that hang the wallpaper in the national kitchen of our political discussions, are perfectly capable of giving this person the presidency because she has a vagina, the "qualification" the Republican candidate would lack.

Sammy Finkelman said...

Big Mike 5/8/15, 8:12 AM

Anyone who thinks Hillary Clinton will be the next president has to figure a strategy the get past one salient fact: somewhere between 55% and 60% of the American electorate deeply despise her. I don't mean "dislike," I mean actively despise. The Republicans could run Beelzebub and voters would still be kicking down doors to vote against Hillary Clinton.

A lot of people didn't like Nixon, but Nixon won re-election in 1972, because the Democrats nominated McGovern.

That is Hillary's strategy.

Make it a two-candidate race, and get her opponent to be 2016's Goldwater or McGovern.

Anonymous said...

Your point about the Republicans presupposes that the existing stock of Clinton scandals is all they'll have to work with; there will be no new ones between now and the election. But I say Hillary ain't no-ways tired of being bribed.

Sammy Finkelman said...

In 1984, Bill Clinton's opponent in the Democratic primary was none other than Orval Faubus, of 1957 Little Rock fame.

Now that was probably not a coincidence.

An important backer (the Stephens family) of Clinton's was behind Faubus's campaign.

The Clinton strategy has always been to be considered better than your opponent.

Sammy Finkelman said...

Trouble is, the Republican establishment is just dumb enough to actually run Beelzebub.

Correct.

Beelzebub is anybody who is for deporting any of the people temporarily - and I stress temporarily - amnestied by President Obama.

And that's almost the entire Republican field, and whiever is not can be made to sound like that, or a hypocrite, unless he Senator Jeff Sessions endorses Hillary Clinton maybe, at least by his silence.

Hillary's trying to have it both way on that issue, by the way.

Sammy Finkelman said...

James Pawlak said...

Why? They are experts in applying Vladimir Lenin's lesson: "Tell a lie often enough and it becomes the truth".

That's not what Lenin said - that's what Josef Goebbels said, and he said not about himself, but about Christianity. (I mean he wouldn't confess in that way. And it as also before he became Minister of Propaganda)

Jon S. said...

Ann, sadly you are wrong. By the time Republicans focus on her they will have a nominee. There is one thing the media hates more than lying, deceitful, corrupt, greedy politicians: any Republican with a pulse. The media will cover for her because no matter how awful she is, the prospect of, say, President Walker is more than they can take. So the politically motivated investigations against Walker will be top story while the Clinton scandals will be "old news" from the "right-wing media."

Sammy Finkelman said...

Specifically, IIRC, about the Resurrection.

Kansas City said...

Ann's point is logical, but American politics is filled with guys succeeding whom you would not expect to have succeed or who had problems that should have been insurmontable, e.g., Bill Clinton, Richard Nixon. So logically she should be counted out, but she might somehow survive. Once she secures the nomination (which I think still think is no more than 50%) and, if she does, then she probably has at lest another 50% chance to be elected president.

Sammy Finkelman said...

A good enough scandal could take Bill and Hillary Clinton down.

Clinton Cash isn't good enough.

Clyde said...

All I can say is, when the G-Men shoot up the car, make sure it's her and make sure she's finished.

Brando said...

This scandal likely won't be enough to stop the Clintons, but if not overplayed (and boy does the GOP know how to overplay a hand) it can be used now to plant the theme in newer (and older, forgetful) voters' minds that these are not honest people that can be trusted. It won't sink them, true, but it can work in conjunction with other scandals that may emerge that challenge her competence (what did she do as SoS that wasn't a mess?) and her politics (should anyone trust her new disavowal of the Clintons' previous centrism, or is she just saying whatever will help her win only to sell the Left out later?). The mess of her trying to run on the Clinton record while rejecting it to win populists will be difficult even for a talented politician, which she is not.

Keep chipping away at each component of her support (moderates, populists, women and minorities) but mainly the GOP need to present an attractive alternative to unite the Right and Center. Otherwise, like 1972 Nixon, she'll roll right over the Stupid Party.

Michael K said...

"if she is elected, she seems more inclined than any other Democratic candidate to work with Republicans to pass right-of-center legislation."

Bill was devoid of any principles, along with morality. Hillary is much more of an ideologue. I don't see her working with Republicans.

Secondly most Republicans in Congress are amoral enough to work with her regardless of her intent. Just look at how Republicans lied and cheated to keep health care subsidies including Rand Paul.

To many observers, it was curious that any Republican would move to put the brakes on an investigation into Obamacare fraud, and particularly curious that they would pull back in an instance where the federal government was actually defrauding itself, one that so clearly illustrates Obamacare’s flaws by exposing the bureaucratic jujitsu and outright dishonesty required of federal employees themselves to navigate the law.

Kansas City said...

I am surprised that no significant democrat yet sees this as an opportunity to challenge her. I also think Sanders and Webb would have a chance of causing her a lot of trouble, if not deny her the nomination. They are both pretty good on their feet and, in a debate, probably would beat her. I could see an early setback to open the door for one of them to be a more serious challenge or for a bigger name to jump in.

The problem is that there is not really a credible bigger name currently positions to jump in or even waiting to jump in. I think Warren is much overrated and Biden is a joke - and that pretty much exhausts the bigger names. What is John Edwards doing these days?

The one "big name" whom I believe truly is waiting for the chance is John Kerry. He is a cold blooded man of the highest ambition, and worst judgment, and he no doubt is looking for a chance to jump in.

exhelodrvr1 said...

Sammy,
"A good enough scandal could take Bill and Hillary Clinton down.

Clinton Cash isn't good enough"

Probably need a dead, black transgender, lesbian union member involved.

Kansas City said...

What is hilarious to me is that the Clinton supporters have latched on to the "no smoking gun" defense and media lapdogs have dutifully picked it up - especially in the context of Hillary just destroying 30,000 emails. Only in today's America with liberal elites and media control could that meme resonate for more than a second.

Michael K said...

"Kerry might be the one. He's had some practice, after all. He's been a horrible SoS but still better than Hil."

I've been saying for months that Kerry still has hopes.

MikeR said...

"I've been saying for months that Kerry still has hopes." I find it hard to believe that Democrats would ever trust someone who lost to George W. Bush.

tim in vermont said...

How many emails would fit on 18 1/2 minutes of tape, I wonder?

Sammy Finkelman said...

@Kansas City

Is there any such thing as a "significant Democrat?"

Not too many.

retired said...

GOP strategy: "Never attack an enemy who is the process of destroying herself." "Keep your powder dry."
Wait and see if she survives the primary and then use ads with video of her lying and weaseling.
Use Fiorina as the attacker, as her gender insulates her from sexism charges.
Walker/Rubio '16

Paddy O said...

When was the last time a sitting 2 term Vice President wasn't even being mentioned at all for the nomination?

That's interesting.

Paddy O said...

"no significant democrat"

Maybe because the tide is so against Democrats these days no one who is thinking about the long term is willing to take the jump now. Hillary has nothing to lose and others are willing for her to take the heat of the campaign and fury of an electorate.

Also, who are the significant candidates these days? The party has been taken over by corrupt power brokers like the Clintons, Reid, Pelosi. Obama was succesful because he portrayed himself as a significant break from that status quo, but of course he turned out to exemplify it. Where are the real reformers and fresh voices among the Democrats?

exhelodrvr1 said...

You mean besides Dick Cheney?

Paddy O said...

Right... Dick Cheney. Ha! So, when was the last time? Last time.

Sebastian said...

There's time for a Dem governor to step up. Cuomo seems the most obvious alternative. Perhaps Hickenlooper. Bredesen if he were younger.

Skeptical Voter said...

Bonnie & Clyde? In this case I'm reminded of the movie or TV show "Ugly Bettie".

Hillary is the Ugly Bonnie. But she's a Clinton and the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy--who had this grafter identified from the start--is in bad odor in progressive precincts, so we might still see President Hillary.

mikee said...

Noonan misses an important point with her example: the Clintons operate as Bonnie & Clyde who rob the bank, are charged, arrested, tried, convicted and then sentenced to no prison time, go out and rob another one immediately, and again go through the cycle to conviction but aren't sentenced to any punishment.

Nixon's rpm could power the nation if he ever thinks of the Clintons while in his grave.

averagejoe said...

"Who is motivated to use this evidence now? Basically, no one."
How about the people tasked with actually enforcing the laws of the country? Because it is right and just.

Anonymous said...

I haven't read through all the comments, maybe someone covered this already.

The issue as I see it is the Republicans. When McCain ran, he decided to run an amiable campaign. When Romney ran, he attacked, but when he got push back from the media, he retreated, which made him look weak.

The only way this will be an issue for Hillary in 2016 is if we Republicans choose a Republican candidate who fights, rather than retreats.

And I don't have high hopes for that.

Michael McClain said...

The Clinton Foundation is a corrupt money-laundering scheme that relieves the suffering of the Clintons and their baggage-handlers, toadies, and brown-nosers.

Sammy Finkelman said...

@eric It's not enough to attack - you have be correct in your attacks, which is very hard to do, because few people are really that educated.

And also you just especially NEVER apologize for ANYTHING YOU SAID ABOUT A CLINTOIN, no matter if even the apology is for a poor choice of words. They will trumter the word "apology" and make iot sound like you said you were wrong.

So two rukes:

1. Don't BE wrong.

2. Don't SOUND like you said somrthing wrong.

3. Don't be too cautious.

Sammy Finkelman said...

trumpet the word "apology"

NotquiteunBuckley said...

Althouse is attempting perfection, failing, yet still admirably working on.

Aware much more than the numbers 110 could possible convey, Althouse is on to such something's I for one feel privledged to simply be here for whatever simple reasons Iris Dement whom has superseded some other Idiena Bement or ant whatnot.

NotquiteunBuckley said...

Attempting perfection.

NotquiteunBuckley said...

Attempting seems adequate until the thought of Jeses subsumes. Then, still, is Jesus. as he has always and always ever will be there. Per ME but others too his specificity unhearalded.

Lydia said...

Maybe not all hope is lost -- Bush, Rubio, Paul Edge Out Clinton in New Hampshire: Poll

Sammy Finkelman said...

Michael K: Just look at how Republicans lied and cheated to keep health care subsidies including Rand Paul.

I don't think any reasonable person wants Congressional staff not to have the subsidies, but now the leadership of Congress is out and out violating the law by filing a false application. This s not questionable, it is probably out and out fraud. Not the kind of fraud that could fool anyone, but fraud.

Everyone is compromised. People could be blackmailed by the Clintons.

The Clintons probably love this kind of situation.

Sammy Finkelman said...

This is worse than the IRS ruling that gave rise to the Halbig case.

You wonder who persuaded the Congressional leadership to resolve the situation this way, and who understood what this would entail.

Obama or Sebelius must have assured whoever that whatever application they filed would be approved.

Now it could be that, legally, what's on the application doesn't mean anything - that was maybe just for the computer.

Francisco D said...

Tank,

Average intelligence is defined as cognitive performance between the 25th and 75th percentile, relative to age group.

A lot of people with average intelligence are both stupid and ignorant.

- from an otherwise compassionate psychologist

wildswan said...

"The Clinton Foundation has raised money to alleviate much suffering in the world."

Yes, they raised the money for that purpose but how did they spend the money?

David Begley said...

1. HRC has to win in order to stay out of jail. If any Republican is elected, he will have to investigate and indict. She has a strong motive to win.

2. If elected, she can do anything she wants and will be completely immune from any consequence. She just got away with a multi-million dollar bribery scheme! What would stop her then?

And she couldn't be the second Clinton impeached.

3. Agree with Clint above. Completely stunned that people are not screaming about this.

4. I think the Iowa Dems will only give her a very slim win and Sanders wins in NH.

wildswan said...

Looking at the British election and relating it to "How the Clinton's get away with it". They say the pollsters got the British election wrong because numerous Tory voters lied because the left was so vicious to anyone perceived as Tory. Maybe the Clintons and the Democrats feel OK about what they are doing because substantial numbers of voters are lying to pollsters. It would be a good strategy.

Rick Caird said...

That is my take too, Ann. The Republicans are holding their fire until she is the nominee and then the negative advertising will be unmerciful.

Kansas City said...

To the extent Republicans actually are that calculating, it would make sense to hold their powder. Any democrat probably would have at least a 50% chance of winning and, if a flawed Hillary has less than a 50% chance, it is better to hold off.

Jeff said...

Am I the only one who remembers the 2002 New Jersey Senate race? The Democratic candidate Torricelli was getting hit hard by a corruption scandal, so he dropped out at the last minute in favor of Frank Lautenberg, a former Senator. The Republicans were really upset as they were sure they had Torricelli beat, but there was no time left to come up with a good campaign against the well-known Lautenberg.

Something similar happened to LBJ in 1968. Eugene McCarthy made him look vulnerable, and immediately Bobby Kennedy jumped in and probably would have won the nomination if he hadn't been murdered. Whether or not he could have beat Nixon is another question.


If Hillary turns out to be Torricelli, or Martin O'Malley plays McCarthy, who will be Lautenberg or Kennedy? My guess is Mark Warner, former Governor and now Senator from Virginia. If the Republicans are all geared up to run against Clinton, they could have a very hard time pivoting to attack Warner, who doesn't have her ideological or corruption baggage. He matches up pretty well against any of the Republicans.

I'd much rather see one of Walker, Rubio, Bush or Paul elected, but I don't know if any of them could beat Warner in a short campaign.

David Begley said...

HRC's Lautenberg or Kennedy would be Val Jarrett. She's already been President for six years.

Kansas City said...

If Hillary gets the nomination, the only way to get it from her will be to pry it out of her cold stiff hands.

AprilApple said...

Arm - it's always go team go with you. No matter how corrupt.

David said...

"The evidence against her should utterly destroy her . . . "

This has been true since those missing Whitewater files turned up in the Clintons' private quarters in the White House, if not before. But it has not destroyed her. There are many reasons for this, and Noonan's are pretty good ones. But a big reason is that large percentages of the public do not know the facts. For most people you could expect the news media to make ignorance of the facts difficult to sustain. But not for the Clintons.

David Begley said...

My question for Hillary, Why should America elect a crook?

Bob Ellison said...

Paddy O said, "When was the last time a sitting 2 term Vice President wasn't even being mentioned at all for the nomination?"

Truman? That was considered an upset.

I think we're in strange times, though. Times like around 1969 like I read about. People are pretty crazy, and politics are especially centripetal lately.

We're in for a cruel summer in 2015.

Bob Ellison said...

No, Truman was a sitting President. So I'm wrong.

Gotta go back. Taranto at WSJ probably knows the answer.

John Clifford said...

Here's the thing... even though the majority of Democrats know she will do whatever she thinks she can get away with, ethics and laws be damned, they'll vote for her anyway.

I grew up in Louisiana, where Edwin Edwards repeatedly won reelection. Not because the folks didn't know of his dishonesty and illegality, but because they thought they would somehow benefit from it. Same with the folks who supported Clinton against all evidence concerning perjury, and it will also be true for Hillary. She's a crook, but she's their crook.