Krauthammer: It takes real talent to antagonize Canada as an American Secretary of State

posted at 9:21 am on February 19, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

Count Charles Krauthammer out of the Hillary-inevitability caucus. While the Washington Post columnist and Fox analyst concedes that Hillary Clinton is the frontrunner, he argues that the 2016 primary won’t be a coronation, despite the media’s assumption that she’ll waltz to the nomination. If any Democrat who wants to challenge her asks just one question, that status may change quickly, Krauthammer told Hugh Hewitt last night — just one: What did you accomplish in four years as Secretary of State?

Besides antagonizing the phlegmatic Canadians, literally our closest ally, that is (via Truth Revolt):

HH: That’s very true. Let me finish up there on Hillary. With these fiascos underway in Kiev, a massacre, and in Venezuela, the arrest of opposition leader, Leopoldo Lopez today, Hillary’s foreign policy trifecta is complete. She’s lost South America, she’s lost the Middle East, and she’s lot Eastern Europe. How does anyone recover from that and run for the presidency?

CK: By losing the Pacific Rim.

HH: (laughing)

CK: Then you get a straight flush. You get a royal flush. Look, you know, when people talk about Hillary being a superb secretary of State, I just ask one question. Name me one thing, just one, not three, give me one thing she achieved in her four years as secretary of State. I have yet to hear an answer.

HH: You’re right.

CK: She traveled a lot. So did Marco Polo. And you want him to be president?

HH: No, I’ve asked repeatedly your friend, E.J. Dionne, many other people, Jonathan Alter, abba dabba dabba dabba dabba is what we get out of them, because they don’t know, they don’t see it coming, Maggie Haberman of Politico. But nevertheless, one of them, well, Dana Milbank said she accomplished becoming the frontrunner for the nomination. And you know what? That was astute on his part. Cynical, but astute. And is he correct that that will endure?

CK: I think she is the frontrunner. I don’t think the convention will be a coronation. It’s going to be a worship service. But that’s not exactly why we have a secretary of State. I do think it’s really awful that you can have a four year term, achieve nothing, [audio stops here] and as you say, go backwards with Russia, backwards on Iran, backwards on Syria, backwards on Venezuela, backwards in relation with just about all of our allies, including, I would add, Keystone, which sits on the President’s head, and antagonizing Canada, for God’s sake. Canada, of all people, that’s quite an achievement when you can antagonize Canada. That’s not easy to do. And to get them upset, which is never happened in about 100 years, I mean, this is foreign policy of failure. And the only reason people haven’t focused on it is because there’s been so much failure at home that it’s overshadowed what’s happening abroad.

As I’ve repeatedly argued, 2008 was supposed to be a coronation, too — and a first-term Senate backbencher outfought Hillary and the Clinton machine to the nomination. Hillary has the same problem she had back then, too; a lack of a reason to be running, other than just her ambition. What’s the message? The first woman president? That didn’t work in 2008. It can’t be competence, not after Benghazi and the reset button. She’s leading the pack at the moment because the pack consists of Joe Biden. Who couldn’t lead that pack?

Will her fellow Democrats have the nerve to challenge her on her record at State, though? If she really is seen as inevitable, the ankle-biters who jump into the race may not want to damage her for the general election, but that won’t do their party any favors, either. Republicans will come with both barrels loaded for that track record, with the two bookends of incompetence and the collapse of American standing at all points in between. If nothing else, the Democratic primaries have to address that just to toughen her response to it, but it’s not going to be pretty for Democrats in 2016. All they will have with Hillary at the top of the ticket is frequent-flyer miles and a sorry record to defend, against what will likely be a solid Republican governor with a real track record of executive success and an outside-the-Beltway narrative.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Canada doesn’t have enough muslims (yet) to interest Pharaoh.

ConstantineXI on February 19, 2014 at 9:22 AM

I just ask one question. Name me one thing, just one, not three, give me one thing she achieved in her four years as secretary of State. I have yet to hear an answer.

Hillary is a liberals dream. 100% self projection.

jake-the-goose on February 19, 2014 at 9:24 AM

The lefties don’t care. Female, carries the Clinton name, isn’t conservative; that’s more than enough for the dolts who voted for a dude based on the color of his skin.

Bishop on February 19, 2014 at 9:30 AM

Hillary is a liberals dream. 100% self projection.

jake-the-goose on February 19, 2014 at 9:24 AM

.
Hillary ‘Progressivism’ is a liberals dream. 100% self projection.

listens2glenn on February 19, 2014 at 9:31 AM

What did you accomplish in four years as Secretary of State?

Deliberately degraded security in a known dangerous area enough to get an American ambassador murdered. Oh, and continued to enable a sexual predatory.

Not merely incompetent, but malevolent as well. Eight years of malevolent incompetence is enough.

rbj on February 19, 2014 at 9:32 AM

The lefties don’t care. Female, carries the Clinton name, isn’t conservative; that’s more than enough for the dolts who voted for a dude based on the color of his skin.

Bishop on February 19, 2014 at 9:30 AM

And she has womyn parts. Allegedly. Supposedly. Well, she does actually, the proof is in the ugly daughter who looks just like her.

ConstantineXI on February 19, 2014 at 9:33 AM

Republicans will come with both barrels loaded for that track record, with the two bookends of incompetence and the collapse of American standing at all points in between.

…so what?…you think the MSM will report any of it?

KOOLAID2 on February 19, 2014 at 9:34 AM

The Democrats keep running boobs, yet somehow they still win. Kerry & Algore nearly won. They seem to always run incompetent boobs and the GOP’s answer is nearly the same.

Conservative4Ever on February 19, 2014 at 9:36 AM

I’m by no means s supporter of hers but remember she only did what the White House told her to do. No matter who is sec of state everyone seems to think they make decisions on their own. She has a lot of bad baggage. Focus on that.

crankyoldlady on February 19, 2014 at 9:38 AM

If you think that the bar was lowered so much for Obama then wait for Hillary Clinton… The worst secretary of state in the history of the Republic and she is running for President because of the millions of points she accumulated in frequent flyer miles… That is the worst lowering of the qualification bar for any type of job let alone the President of the most powerful country in history… But the low IQ liberals tell you with a straight face that it is an incredible achievement and qualification…

mnjg on February 19, 2014 at 9:38 AM

What has been her one great achievement? A new phrase for the Dem lexicon: “At this point, what difference does it make!?”

vnvet on February 19, 2014 at 9:39 AM

I wish people would stop speculating on who is running in 2016. If we don’t stop the marxists now it’s extremely unlikely there will be an election. The marxists will have Obungle made president for life. Get after you legislators.

crankyoldlady on February 19, 2014 at 9:40 AM

Hillary will be perfect for the Democratic Party because they will be able to do the same thing they have done with Obama…with one small change.

Criticism of Obama
Democrat: Racist!

Criticism of Hillary
Democrat: Sexist!

Micah68 on February 19, 2014 at 9:40 AM

Republicans will come with both barrels loaded for that track record, with the two bookends of incompetence and the collapse of American standing at all points in between.

That’s cute – naive, but cute. I have as much faith of the GOP going after HRC with both barrels loaded as I do of them putting down their arms and agreeing to work with Tea Party types. They’re already signaling that HRC’s past is off-limits, and before too long we’re going to hear how HRC can’t be held responsible for Behghazi because, at this point, what difference does it make?

If we nominate Cruz, Lee, or Paul, maybe – otherwise, there will be no barrels unloading.

King B on February 19, 2014 at 9:41 AM

Hillary has the same problem she had back then, too; a lack of a reason to be running, other than just her ambition. What’s the message? The first woman president? That didn’t work in 2008.

You ignore the difference here at your own peril. Hillary’s failure in 2008 was because enough Democrats decided they could beat Republicans into submission better with the race card than with the gender card, and using a candidate with no paper trail to stir up voters. Hillary will still have that in 2016, but barring the emergence of a Latino, Asian or LGBT contender against her — or another woman seemingly to her left, like Liz Warren — the Democrats are not going to deny her the nomination, because they’re not going to deny themselves the gender card.

jon1979 on February 19, 2014 at 9:43 AM

Hillary will be perfect for the Democratic Party because they will be able to do the same thing they have done with Obama…with one small change.

Criticism of Obama
Democrat: Racist!

Criticism of Hillary
Democrat: Sexist!

Micah68 on February 19, 2014 at 9:40 AM

There is one important difference though:

Cool young black dude is more appealing than Old White Hag.

ConstantineXI on February 19, 2014 at 9:43 AM

I wish people would stop speculating on who is running in 2016. If we don’t stop the marxists now it’s extremely unlikely there will be an election. The marxists will have Obungle made president for life. Get after you legislators.

crankyoldlady on February 19, 2014 at 9:40 AM

Yes it is too early to talk about 2016 and yes we need to stop the communists but no having an elections in 2016 and that Obama will hold to power after is a super crazy conspiracy theory…

mnjg on February 19, 2014 at 9:44 AM

The dems will circle the wagons and continue with the gop are racists sexists

cmsinaz on February 19, 2014 at 9:45 AM

+1 KA 2

cmsinaz on February 19, 2014 at 9:46 AM

Yes it is too early to talk about 2016 and yes we need to stop the communists but no having an elections in 2016 and that Obama will hold to power after is a super crazy conspiracy theory…

mnjg on February 19, 2014 at 9:44 AM

As crazy as having a President that is Ruling By Decree, ignoring Congress’s existence entirely, and repudiating his Oath Of Office in public, on national TV (an open act of Treason in front of millions of witnesses)?

Only a fool would assume Obama will leave office without being forced out at this point.

ConstantineXI on February 19, 2014 at 9:47 AM

Many people are overestimated and win, Obama being the most glaring and recent example. But those who are have strong political skills.

Hillary is just not that good a candidate and her vaunted “machine” is just not that efficient. It was easy to roll into deep-blue New York to snatch an open Senate seat when coming out of the White House and could intimidate potential challengers into hiding. But she couldn’t beat Barack Freaking Obama? The guy never did anything, not even attend Senate votes and committee meetings, and still beat her.

Hillary is a totally imagined candidate. It’s all just fluff and always has been.

Adjoran on February 19, 2014 at 9:55 AM

Hillary is just not that good a candidate and her vaunted “machine” is just not that efficient. It was easy to roll into deep-blue New York to snatch an open Senate seat when coming out of the White House and could intimidate potential challengers into hiding. But she couldn’t beat Barack Freaking Obama? The guy never did anything, not even attend Senate votes and committee meetings, and still beat her.

Hillary is a totally imagined candidate. It’s all just fluff and always has been.

Adjoran on February 19, 2014 at 9:55 AM

She got beat by the only candidate with a resume that was thinner than hers.

Actually she got beat because Soros picked the “cool young black dude” over the “Old White Hag”. There is no guarantee he won’t do the same this time.

ConstantineXI on February 19, 2014 at 10:00 AM

She’s leading the pack at the moment because the pack consists of Joe Biden. Who couldn’t lead that pack?

good quality morning snark brings wide grin, nice one

DanMan on February 19, 2014 at 10:00 AM

What is she going to run on?

Anybody?

Del Dolemonte on February 19, 2014 at 10:11 AM

What is she going to run on?

Anybody?

Del Dolemonte on February 19, 2014 at 10:11 AM

Clearly not the 3AM phone call this time…

ConstantineXI on February 19, 2014 at 10:15 AM

What is she going to run on?

Anybody?

Del Dolemonte on February 19, 2014 at 10:11 AM

I’ve got a feeling you’re going to have sundials dotting these threads as plentiful as tulips dotting the land in springtime, and still never get an answer.

Flora Duh on February 19, 2014 at 10:20 AM

 She’s leading the pack at the moment because the pack consists of Joe Biden. Who couldn’t lead that pack?

Joe Biden.

Wisdom_of_Homer on February 19, 2014 at 10:21 AM

Canada doesn’t have enough muslims (yet) to interest Pharaoh.

ConstantineXI on February 19, 2014 at 9:22 AM

Want ta bet?

-this from someone living near the Detroit/Windsor boarder

mechkiller_k on February 19, 2014 at 10:26 AM

Charles Krauthammer my favorite talking head.

SC.Charlie on February 19, 2014 at 10:26 AM

As crazy as having a President that is Ruling By Decree, ignoring Congress’s existence entirely, and repudiating his Oath Of Office in public, on national TV (an open act of Treason in front of millions of witnesses)?

Only a fool would assume Obama will leave office without being forced out at this point.

ConstantineXI on February 19, 2014 at 9:47 AM

As I said on another thread I’m not sure about the election this year. There is something you can be sure of. They will cheat and if they lose anyway they won’t accept the results. Voting is not an option at this point.

crankyoldlady on February 19, 2014 at 10:27 AM

Republicans will come with both barrels loaded for that track record, with the two bookends of incompetence and the collapse of American standing at all points in between.

Do you see? Does anyone see? This is not a question about competetence or accomplishment or even a question for Hillary, this is an attack on women… a WAR on Women!!!

Heck, what helped her get elected to the Senate? Whatshisname walking over and handing her a pledge to sign during one of the debates – how dare he invade her personal space!

I fully expect that if Hillary is nominated and a Republican Establishment Squish is nominated then it’ll be a replay of 2012 with people tip-toeing around the issues and the focus being about nothing but praising her for how she’ll be as the first woman president. Folks like McCain will shout down anyone who questions her Service as Secretary of State.

Ukiah on February 19, 2014 at 10:31 AM

Stolen from a Newsbuster comment:,

“Democrats have the “Run Hillary Run” bumper stickers on the backs of their cars. Republicans have the “Run Hillary Run” stickers on the fronts of their cars!”

hawkdriver on February 19, 2014 at 10:31 AM

The lefties don’t care. Female, carries the Clinton name, isn’t conservative; that’s more than enough for the dolts who voted for a dude based on the color of his skin.

Bishop on February 19, 2014 at 9:30 AM

There are more non-liberals who voted for President Obama twice who would have no problems pulling the lever for the right Republican. Remember, President Obama won by supressing the Republican base. Yes, you can bring up the IRS and from reading articles here I would agree the Tea Party/Conservative vote was surpressed.

Clinton will have the use the same tactics. I do think this election will also be about optics and Clinton will lose that battle if you guys run the right person. Remember the old story about “please don’t throw me in the briar patch”? Liberals do not want you guys to run a true conservative at the top of the ticket.

Heck, you could run a true blue liberal and he will be labeled as a Tea Party (inert word). What would be different if you guys did run a true conservative? A true conservative can with stand the negative press by explaining conservative priniples. A RINO cannot put up a strong defense (for many reasons) thus, they end up losing part of the conservative base.

Liberals, RINOS, Rove, and such fear running against a true conservative. Of course this in only my opinion.

HonestLib on February 19, 2014 at 10:32 AM

It’s a horrible thing to contemplate, but…

What if Michelle decides to run? Heck, she has as much experience as her husband did.

If she did announce an intention to run, the first sound you would hear would be the wail of despair coming from Hillary. Clinton would know that she would be toast.

Michelle, first black woman president!

Agghhhh!

NavyMustang on February 19, 2014 at 10:33 AM

As I said on another thread I’m not sure about the election this year. There is something you can be sure of. They will cheat and if they lose anyway they won’t accept the results. Voting is not an option at this point.

crankyoldlady on February 19, 2014 at 10:27 AM

I think this years elections will happen, but they are irrelevant for two reasons:

1: Obama has already declared Congress null and void, and the GOPe will do nothing about it, even if they win the Senate.

2: Our real problem, which is DC itself and it’s tyrannical power will never be checked by people elected by us to go there. It’s Article V States convention or Revolution.

ConstantineXI on February 19, 2014 at 10:40 AM

clinton tossed it in 08 on purpose. she got every policy she wanted implemented without her name attached to it.

dmacleo on February 19, 2014 at 10:42 AM

What is she going to run on?

Anybody?

Del Dolemonte on February 19, 2014 at 10:11 AM

Other than a litany of pet hates, and a lust for power and payback, even bigger than The One’s, all she really has is name recognition.

Her entire life has operated on the “I Am GOD(dess)! You Will OBEY!” principle. As I have said before, watch Angela Lansbury as Mrs. Iselin in the original Manchurian Candidate (1962) to understand the Hildebeast.

Someone like Mrs. Iselin does not become a freaked-out leftist out of misguided idealism. It comes out of power lust and a desire to hurt people.

Hillary has the standard progressive view of what Utopia ought to look like. And thinks everyone else on her side is a wimp for not using the proverbial “any means necessary” to achieve it.

Plus, she flat out hates “people”. Period. With a venom that makes the average member of the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement look feeble by comparison.

Hillary isn’t in politics for anyone else’s good. Just her own, and her dream of going down in history. She thinks she’ll be another Catherine the Great or Elizabeth the First.

I suspect she’ll actually land somewhere between Darius the Great and Jenghiz Khan.

clear ether

eon

eon on February 19, 2014 at 10:43 AM

Democrat voter logic in 2016 will be:

I voted for Obama and look how bad he was. If I vote for Hillary she can’t be any worse.

AND…if I vote for a Republican all the Food Stamps, Obamaphones and other giveaways from the government will be cut…and Republicans will make ObamaCare worse…because they are racists.

albill on February 19, 2014 at 10:45 AM

It’s a horrible thing to contemplate, but…

What if Michelle decides to run? Heck, she has as much experience as her husband did.

If she did announce an intention to run, the first sound you would hear would be the wail of despair coming from Hillary. Clinton would know that she would be toast.

Michelle, first black woman president!

Agghhhh!

NavyMustang on February 19, 2014 at 10:33 AM

Ask George Soros.

Actually, Moochelle would make as an unappealing a candidate as Hillary for most of the same reasons. She’s bossy, condescending, and quick to anger. Like Hillary as First Lady, Mooch gets more popular the less she is seen and heard from. That is the opposite of what you need in a candidate.

I think the more likely alternatives will be Lieawatha Warren or Corey Booker.

ConstantineXI on February 19, 2014 at 10:46 AM

Michelle, first black woman president!

Agghhhh!

NavyMustang on February 19, 2014 at 10:33 AM

Don’t worry, you’re more likely to be elected the next President than her. Both her and Shrillary share the same problem. They simply are unlikable. The media can gloss them over and hype them up when they’re the first lady or Senator, but on the campaign trail the public sees way too much of them and their bitterness and shrillness comes out. And neither has shown any sort of ability to connect with people the way Bill did and the media made it seem like obozo was.

Flange on February 19, 2014 at 10:47 AM

ConstantineXI on February 19, 2014 at 10:46 AM

Nice answer. I think Liawatha will discover she’s in the same boat. Once she has to talk to real Americans instead of the progressive scum she’s use to she’ll flounder just like Shrillary.

Flange on February 19, 2014 at 10:49 AM

Quick, reset button, no wait, look squirrel, says hillary.

jake49 on February 19, 2014 at 10:56 AM

Nice answer. I think Liawatha will discover she’s in the same boat. Once she has to talk to real Americans instead of the progressive scum she’s use to she’ll flounder just like Shrillary.

Flange on February 19, 2014 at 10:49 AM

That is a problem everyone who is all style and no substance has. Lieawatha got away with it “Because Massachusetts”. Hilldebeast was elected Senator “Because New York”. It takes a LOT more than that to get 270 electoral votes.

ConstantineXI on February 19, 2014 at 10:56 AM

How does anyone recover from that and run for the presidency?

With a GOP frightened of being called sexist as her opposition, she can’t lose.

PattyJ on February 19, 2014 at 11:00 AM

Name me one thing, just one, not three, give me one thing she achieved in her four years as secretary of State. I have yet to hear an answer.

Sorry CK, but here is the answer of the one thing she has done, and effectively, I hate to give her credit, but it’s the truth.

She cut the number of ambassadors and their staff, by one…saving us taxpayers money.

right2bright on February 19, 2014 at 11:06 AM

With a GOP frightened of being called sexist as her opposition, she can’t lose.

PattyJ on February 19, 2014 at 11:00 AM

Her best shot at winning would be for Billy Jeff to have another affair.

ConstantineXI on February 19, 2014 at 11:07 AM

That is a problem everyone who is all style and no substance has.
ConstantineXI on February 19, 2014 at 10:56 AM

To win on style alone, you need to be a blank slate so people can project what they want, like obozo. But the aforementioned women are more like fun house mirrors than blank slates. And what they reflect back is very unflattering.

Flange on February 19, 2014 at 11:07 AM

These Dems are putting Killery out there as a red herring. They have found the magic bullet. Run only minorities because they are teflon because if you dare criticize them you are a racist. Also the other minorities will vote for you ironically enough because they are the real racists. Look for Cory Booker to be the nominee because he’s a twofer, black and gay.

neyney on February 19, 2014 at 11:10 AM

A leftist cow on Faux “Hillary made the rest of the world respect us again, after GWB put us in the toilet..”. Martha, yes, that goofball…clock right once a day, “name one country which respects us more” “Uh, ohhhh, ahhhhh…she traveled a lot”.

Schadenfreude on February 19, 2014 at 11:12 AM

I triple dare anyone to name one foreign policy success of Madame Clinton.

I triple dare anyone to name one people who are free, or freer, under obama/Hillary. I dare you to come up with one valid answer!!!

Schadenfreude on February 19, 2014 at 11:14 AM

As I’ve repeatedly argued, 2008 was supposed to be a coronation, too — and a first-term Senate backbencher outfought Hillary and the Clinton machine to the nomination. Hillary has the same problem she had back then, too; a lack of a reason to be running, other than just her ambition. What’s the message? The first woman president? That didn’t work in 2008.

Because they had a more compelling stupid ‘first’ to vote for, that’s all.

Hillary wins the Dem nomination in 2016 unless the Dems can come up with an openly gay ethnic candidate, preferably female – and it won’t matter whether *that* person is a solid choice or not, either.

Whoever the most ‘first this or that’ among them will be the nominee – it’s all the Dems have at this point.

And as abjectly stupid as most of my fellow citizens are, and as much as the media has proudly and openly been in the tank for the DNC in every regard, I’ll not count whoever that is out of the race until the end.

Midas on February 19, 2014 at 11:16 AM

I triple dare anyone to name one foreign policy success of Madame Clinton.

I triple dare anyone to name one people who are free, or freer, under obama/Hillary. I dare you to come up with one valid answer!!!

Schadenfreude on February 19, 2014 at 11:14 AM

There are none.

And… so what? Think the media/Dems/libs/left/f*ckwit voters give a shit about that?

Midas on February 19, 2014 at 11:17 AM

Ed, your anaysis in the last paragraph is wishful thinking, I’m afraid. The campaign will be just like that congressional hearing she attended where all the Donks showered her with praise on what a wonderful SoS she was, and there was no challenge from any of the non-FNC media to any of those claims. Her performance at State will be a non-issue, and the GOP will be painted as sexists for even mentioning it.

HornHiAceDeuce on February 19, 2014 at 11:20 AM

I triple dare anyone to name one foreign policy success of Madame Clinton.

I triple dare anyone to name one people who are free, or freer, under obama/Hillary. I dare you to come up with one valid answer!!!

Schadenfreude on February 19, 2014 at 11:14 AM

Schad,

Since when do lib/progs vote on substantive things? We can not apply logic to anything on the left……there is no logic!!!

No Time Clock on February 19, 2014 at 11:26 AM

Americans never vote for President on foreign policy issues. Republicans will make a huge mistake if they focus on only Hillary’s failures as SoS. They need to make her own up to any kind of economic policy, since she has gotten away in 20 years in public life without ever stating one. They need to frame her as incompetent on economic policy because the country is fed up with Obama’s economic incompetence.

rockmom on February 19, 2014 at 11:31 AM

These Dems are putting Killery out there as a red herring. They have found the magic bullet. Run only minorities because they are teflon because if you dare criticize them you are a racist. Also the other minorities will vote for you ironically enough because they are the real racists. Look for Cory Booker to be the nominee because he’s a twofer, black and gay.

neyney on February 19, 2014 at 11:10 AM

I think the ticket will be Clinton and Booker.

rockmom on February 19, 2014 at 11:34 AM

Republicans will come with both barrels loaded for that track record, with the two bookends of incompetence and the collapse of American standing at all points in between.

I’d really like to believe this is true.

However, I’m a conservative, evangelical Republican voter with Southern roots who actually paid attention in 2008 & 2012.

Not likely to happen, sir…

cs89 on February 19, 2014 at 11:35 AM

The reasons Ed points out presume the electorate cares about competence and qualifications. No one votes for the candidate anymore.

InDubly on February 19, 2014 at 11:50 AM

de Blasio/Booker…because the obamas hate, hate, hate the Clintons and need a set of front-boys.

Schadenfreude on February 19, 2014 at 11:55 AM

We are going to have a President Hillary Clinton.

The electorate is collectively stupid and ignorant and the left and their media lap dogs know this all too well.

Clinton will be portrayed as the greatest Sec State in the history of ever!!! Its a cakewalk for her. Only Hillary can save us from Bush’s horrific policies…. Gag.

It will be nauseating.

rightConcept on February 19, 2014 at 11:57 AM

“Republicans will come with both barrels loaded for that track record…”

No, they won’t. Mitt Romney and Carl Rove are advocating against attacking Hillary on any aspect of her record just like they refused to attack Obama on his record in 2012. That strategy sure worked out great, didn’t it?

kd6rxl on February 19, 2014 at 12:08 PM

Quote: “Republicans will come with both barrels loaded for that track record…”

I doubt they will. Mitt Romney and Carl Rove are advocating against attacking Hillary on any aspect of her record just like they refused to attack Obama on his record in 2012. That strategy sure worked out great, didn’t it?

kd6rxl on February 19, 2014 at 12:13 PM

Will her fellow Democrats have the nerve to challenge her on her record at State, though? If she really is seen as inevitable, the ankle-biters who jump into the race may not want to damage her for the general election, but that won’t do their party any favors, either.

Earlier this am, FNC had a representative from OFA in a debate interview over HRC’s record – and the OFA rep continued to push the standard line that HRC’s tenure at State was exemplary – she traveled, she restored the global view towards the US, and she worked hard to enact Barack Obama’s successful foreign policy. Not one specific case was offered, and when her debate opponent raised Benghazi, it was dodge, deflect, and move the goalposts back to the standard talking points.

She’s not going to be challenged based on her record at State…because for a Democrat to challenge her on that basis, the same Democrat will be challenging Barack Obama’s feckless, naive, and disastrous foreign policy.

These talking points are designed for the LIV – and like most of the talking points of the progressives, will depend heavily on the complicity of the sycophants in the lapdog media to support those points and eviscerate anyone who seeks to drill down to the truth of that foreign policy.

Athos on February 19, 2014 at 12:18 PM

To win on style alone, you need to be a blank slate so people can project what they want, like obozo. But the aforementioned women are more like fun house mirrors than blank slates. And what they reflect back is very unflattering.

Flange on February 19, 2014 at 11:07 AM

Exactly. Obama’s whole strategy was to NOT HAVE A RECORD. He avoided tough votes that would nail him down as a Marxist from the day he stepped into the Illinois State Senate, mostly voting “Present” or not showing up in the first place.

When he made it to the US Senate he did the same thing, mostly by NOT SHOWING UP. He started running for President soon as the votes were done being counted.

ConstantineXI on February 19, 2014 at 12:19 PM

All they will have with Hillary at the top of the ticket is frequent-flyer miles and a sorry record to defend, against what will likely be a solid Republican governor with a real track record of executive success and an outside-the-Beltway narrative.

If the Republicans are going to criticize Hillary for her many obvious foreign policy failures as Secretary of State, they will probably need a VP nominee in 2016 with solid foreign policy experience.

John Bolton for VP?

Steve Z on February 19, 2014 at 12:21 PM

She’s not going to be challenged based on her record at State…because for a Democrat to challenge her on that basis, the same Democrat will be challenging Barack Obama’s feckless, naive, and disastrous foreign policy.

These talking points are designed for the LIV – and like most of the talking points of the progressives, will depend heavily on the complicity of the sycophants in the lapdog media to support those points and eviscerate anyone who seeks to drill down to the truth of that foreign policy.

Athos on February 19, 2014 at 12:18 PM

Actually I think exactly that is what will happen and why she will NOT win the Democrat nomination.

The secret to winning that nomination is to challenge Obama as feckless… And by extension, Hillary. By ranting that Obama/Hillary WERE NOT LEFTIST ENOUGH!

IE: the broken Obamacare instead of “working” “free” Single Payer, etc.
Obama not ruling by Executive Fiat EARLIER, etc. The Democrat Party of 2014 is so radically Leftist it’s nowhere CLOSE to the mainstream.

ConstantineXI on February 19, 2014 at 12:22 PM

John Bolton for VP?

Steve Z on February 19, 2014 at 12:21 PM

John Bolton is exactly who we need as SoS.

ConstantineXI on February 19, 2014 at 12:23 PM

Obviously the 2016 election cannot just be about Clinton’s utter lack of positive accompishments as Secretary of State, but it can and should be a big part of it!

Dr.B on February 19, 2014 at 12:23 PM

The Democrats keep running boobs, yet somehow they still win. Kerry & Algore nearly won. They seem to always run incompetent boobs and the GOP’s answer is nearly the same.

Conservative4Ever on February 19, 2014 at 9:36 AM

Hillary already has two of them.

Steve Z on February 19, 2014 at 12:26 PM

I don’t know if anybody has noticed this or not, but the original “Reset Button” was not a reset button. It is an emergency stop or E-stop button. It is used on machines to stop movement when something very bad happens. Just an observation!

Random Gadfly on February 19, 2014 at 12:29 PM

The first woman president? That didn’t work in 2008.

Only because schwarze trumped skirt. We’ve had 2 terms of an AAAA (affirmative action African American) so it’s time for a girl.

/s

MJBrutus on February 19, 2014 at 12:32 PM

And she has womyn parts. Allegedly. Supposedly. Well, she does actually, the proof is in the ugly daughter who looks just like her.

ConstantineXI on February 19, 2014 at 9:33 AM

VOTE LIKE YOUR LADY PARTS DEPEND ON IT!!!!!! I can’t wait for more dancing vaginas in 2016.

307wolverine on February 19, 2014 at 12:41 PM

Obviously the 2016 election cannot just be about Clinton’s utter lack of positive accompishments as Secretary of State, but it can and should be a big part of it!

Dr.B on February 19, 2014 at 12:23 PM

It should be about her ideas.

She doesn’t differ from Obama on what she’d do in any meaningful manner. She needs to be forced to state them.

If everything were equal, I’d say her chances of being elected are nil, but unfortunately, if things were “normal” Pharaoh Obama would never have gotten a second term after the UNPRECEDENTED DISASTER of his first.

ConstantineXI on February 19, 2014 at 12:42 PM

No Democrat will mount a substantive challenge to Hillary.

Democrats have become a mob that moves en masse, like a giant virus consuming everything in its path.

They will never endanger the “organism” by asking factual questions, applying basic reasoning or examining qualifications (of which there are none).

Democrats would rather (and have proven) they would prefer to see our populace suffer and our country slowly die than relinquish power.

Look at their voting records. What they say and what they actually do are two completely different things.

Marcus Traianus on February 19, 2014 at 12:43 PM

I think that if another Obama comes along and Hillary is defeated, like she was in 2008, I think she’ll go off the deep end and go insane. Always a bridesmaid but never a bride, that’s Hillary.

Hard to see who would run against her, though. Evan Bayh, perhaps? The only Democrat that would stand a chance, given 8 years of liberal Democratic rule, would be a Democrat that could pass himself off as a conservative. It would make it impossible for him to win in the primaries, but if he could pull it off, he could do it. If the Democrats go all in and go far, far, left, like Elizabeth Warren, then they won’t stand a chance in the general election. Eight years of liberalism is enough for anyone, especially after it gave the country Obamacare. Nope, a conservative Democrat could beat Hillary. But how many of those are left? Not many, if any.

Libertyship46 on February 19, 2014 at 1:17 PM

Republicans will come with both barrels loaded for that track record, with the two bookends of incompetence and the collapse of American standing at all points in between.

…so what?…you think the MSM will report any of it?

KOOLAID2 on February 19, 2014 at 9:34 AM

Gun control.

Barnestormer on February 19, 2014 at 1:45 PM

Once again I am struck by the need for development of a sarcasm font…it would make much communication much more clear to even those with the lowest voltage bulb. At least the spoken work allows clarity in that regard.

Bearing that in mind, Ms. Clinton did actually win one war…the war on women. Think of all the women she vanquished in pursuit of defending her husband’s “honor.” Talk about throwing women under the bus. But it should not be a surprise, as all liberal progressives are serenely able to vanquish women quite without regret or remorse…if they are not ideologically “pure.”

And Ms. Clinton, like Mr. Obama, will be held to be deserving of public office because of their, respectively, woman-hood and black-hood, much as the argue that awards should go to all “competitors” in school and community competitions…everyone should have a chance regardless of ability.

Is this a great country or what!

TKPedersen42 on February 19, 2014 at 1:51 PM

If the dems lose the senate and the Rs keep the House, she may not want to run. Why would she want to be a do nothing president? Oh, wait, she’s been a do nothing all her life. Maybe that’s why BJ does what he does.

Kissmygrits on February 19, 2014 at 3:40 PM

Republicans will come with both barrels loaded for that track record

Ha! Yesterday we learned that we must concentrate on Hillary’s future and not her past. Clinton sex scandals and her role in enabling them are off limits.

Today: the GOP will hammer her past record on Benghazi even though they never did that in the last election. Candy Crowley showed the MSM how to shut down that discussion in the debates.

I never voted for a Democrat after Bill waged his finger and said, “I never had sex with THAT women.” I think a new generation should have the same opportunity to be shown the hypocrisy of the war on women. Sometimes objects appear larger in the rear view mirror.

HellCat on February 19, 2014 at 5:02 PM

“Republicans will come with both barrels loaded for that track record….”

Oh, c’mon! Republicans?

PersonFromPorlock on February 20, 2014 at 10:11 AM

Although she has no credits as Secretary of State, it’s largely due to the perverse nature of the president who defined US foreign policy as bowing-down to threats (China, Iran) and confounding our allies (Europe, Israel).

As for “nation-building”, he has tried to destroy Egypt, Libya (where Hillary provided ghoulish cackling from the wings about the butchering of that country’s leader) and Syria in his continuing submission to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Even so, Clinton’s lasting legacy is her brag about the 3am call ™, that neither she nor her boss cared enough to take from Benghazi.

She is unqualified and unappealing from every angle, which is why it is a good thing she is the front-runner since she will draw a lot of energy from the Democrats. Eventually, they will realize but perhaps too late to install another “progressive” to complete the destruction Obama started.

virgo on February 20, 2014 at 11:15 AM