- The Washington Times - Friday, February 22, 2008


There has always been something delusional about the Clintons’ project to make Hillary this country’s next commander in chief. Start with the balderdash, so frequently exuded through the media, that she is, along with her husband, a “rock star.”

Well, they left the White House like rock stars. They trashed the place.

Yet Hillary, a physically unprepossessing lady on the far side of middle age, is not a rock star. Agreed, when she and her bodyguards enter a room she turns a lot of heads, but so does a roadside accident or the clumsy waitress who just spilled a plate of warm fettuccine Alfredo on a customer. Why have members of the press insisted on claiming Hillary is a rock star, and more preposterous still, that she is possesssd of “charisma,” notwithstanding that she is a pedestrian campaigner with a tin ear for politics?

For that matter, why have members of the press insisted on claiming the former Boy President is a political genius? The Democratic Party went into decline almost everywhere throughout the Republic while he was bemanuring the White House. Truth be known, when Boy Clinton began campaigning for his wife, her prospects darkened.

The stubborn minority of journalists who have remained undeluded by the Clinton legends and aware of the Clinton record recognized the impending danger. All through the spring and summer, I was asked on talk radio and television whether I thought Bill would be active in Hillary’s campaign and, if so, whether he would be an asset. Usually I expressed doubt on both counts. As I point out in my book on his retirement and his attendant designs to return to the White House, “The Clinton Crack-Up,” Hillary’s staff has always been uneasy about the presence of her big loveable lug on the campaign trail. Anyone who might bother to contemplate his record as a campaigner would recognize he is poison when he campaigns for others. In 2004 of the 14 fated Democrats he campaigned for, 12 lost.

Delusional too are Hillary’s boasts that her “experience” is superior to that of Sen. Barack Obama. Actually, the less said about Hillary’s experience the better for her. Now, after this week’s primary defeats she is introducing her “experience” theme again by boasting that as president she will be “ready from Day One.” She capitalizes “Day One.” Is she telling us that upon entering the White House she will again fire the apolitical employees in the travel office? Or is she promising a “Filegate” hullabaloo with her opponents’ FBI files turning up in White House offices? Will there be billing records appearing and disappearing? Will she preside, as she did in the early 1990s, over a “War Room” to handle Whitewater? Whitewater is old news, Hillary. Get over it.

For Hillary to stress her political experience is about as reckless as it was for the last Democratic presidential candidate to stress his war record, knowing it included easily accessed film of his appearance before Congress denouncing the Vietnam War and blatantly lying about his comrades’ combat behavior. Candidate Jean-Francois Kerry fallaciously charged his comrades with committing atrocities and three decades later expected to be elected president.

Regarding Hillary’s experience, I suspect the electorate is well aware of its luridities. As I noted in “The Clinton Crack-Up,” when her campaign for the presidency drew near, between 40 percent and 50 percent of the electorate were polled saying they would not vote for her.

I noted those statistics to a mainstream journalist a few months back and he thought I was exaggerating. All he had to do was consult the polls.

The explanation for Hillary’s collapse as a front-runner with a 25 percent to 35 percent (choose your poll) lead over Barack Obama is that a small cloud far back in the memories of many Democrats has come forward in their minds with every one of her campaign’s blunders. After the early bullying of Mr. Obama, the arrival of shady Asian money, the planted questions at an Obama rally, implausible complaints over Mr. Obama’s kindergarten essay, the racist rhetoric in South Carolina, and now evidence of voting fraud in the New York primary, those little clouds have become thunder clouds. Hundreds of thousands of Democrats do not want to go back to the 1990s.

Perhaps historians will note what I noted not long ago. Mr. Obama began to cut into Hillary’s lead in late November. That was when he deftly reminded voters of the “1990s” and of the quarrels of “the Baby Boomers.” He wanted to move on, and that meant leaving the Clintons and their episodic apologists in the media forlorn among the vapors of their delusions.

R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. is the founder and editor in chief of the American Spectator, a contributing editor to the New York Sun, and an adjunct scholar at the Hudson Institute. His “The Clinton Crack-Up: The Boy President’s Life After the White House” was published recently by Thomas Nelson.

Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide