Peter Lemiska
The Clinton campaign - - Deja vu all over again
By Peter Lemiska
Many have suggested recently that Republicans are eagerly anticipating Senator Clinton's nomination by the Democrats, not because they support her policies, but because they see her as the most vulnerable opponent in the general election.
When asked if a Clinton nomination would improve his party's chances in the 2008 election, one GOP official exclaimed "Absolutely!...We've never elected a president of the United States who started off with 45 percent unfavorable ratings!"
But Republicans have been here before and should have learned from the lessons of the past.
It was about 15 years ago that another Clinton was seen as an especially vulnerable presidential candidate. As details emerged about his womanizing, his drug use, and draft evasion, Republicans came to believe he would be unelectable.
But he proved himself to be a determined and resourceful politician, willing to do whatever was necessary to win the election. He focused on various minority groups, women, the poor, and gay voters. If they had a problem, he told them what they wanted to hear. And then he managed to convince enough of the others that the economy was in shambles and that he could fix it.
As we watch Hillary Clinton pander to those same groups, participating in Spanish language debates, and feigning the dialect of a poor black southerner at Afro-American events, we get that unsettling sensation that something we are experiencing for the first time is vaguely familiar — the feeling that we know what's about to happen.
And though shameless pandering may be an essential element to the fine art of politics, Hillary doesn't know where to stop. Eight months ago, she thought she might score some points with mainstream Americans by praising General Petreaus for his leadership and expertise on Iraq, but last week, in a transparent effort to appease Moveon.org and the far left, she essentially called the general a liar during his report on the war status.
Incidentally, Senator Clinton's slap at Petreaus was offensive to most Americans, who have the utmost respect for the military. More than that, it reminded us of another era and Bill Clinton's contentious relationship with the military that he loved to loathe.
And reminding us of the 1990s is the last thing Hillary wants to do. For at that moment on the senate floor while she was paying homage to the far left, many who watched the proceedings were reflecting on the back-to-back scandals that enveloped the Clintons during her prior career as first lady, when an independent counsel concluded Hillary herself provided false testimony in the Travelgate probe. Recalling all of that only intensified the outrage viewers felt as she sanctimoniously impugned the integrity of a career military officer.
But if that doesn't bring back that old feeling for everyone, one recent event certainly must. Perhaps it is just an uncanny coincidence that whenever a Clinton is running for office, there's a sudden appearance of wealthy Asian benefactors, shady characters with unknown or questionable sources of income.
After Norman Hsu's arrest, we learned that he was a wanted felon and that he appeared to have orchestrated a straw donor scheme, contributing more than $850,000 to Hillary Clinton's campaign. Who among us didn't feel that chill run up our spine as we recalled Charlie Trie, John Juang, and Chinagate? Most of us had long forgotten about Johnny Chung, one of Bill Clinton's big donors, who eventually provided testimony, corroborated by financial records, that the Chinese government paid him $300,000 to help Bill win the election.
Admittedly, in this recent case, there is no evidence thus far that Hillary Clinton knew about Hsu's felonious background, even considering that photo of the two of them joined at the hip. Nor is there any evidence to date that Hsu was representing any foreign government.
But even if he was acting independently, could this greedy con-man convicted of ruthlessly bilking millions of dollars from his victims, have had something nefarious on his mind? Could he perhaps have actually been trying to buy influence from American politicians? Nah...after all, criminals can be civic-minded too, and like any good citizen, he was probably just trying to help the party that would be most beneficial to his future. Besides, after the sordid facts were exposed, most of his benefactors relinquished the dirty contributions — at least those funds that could be tied directly tied to Hsu.
Yes, Senator Clinton does carry a lot of baggage, and it will certainly all come out during the campaign. But does that, along with her 45 percent disapproval rating assure a Republican win in 2008?
Republicans should remember that Hillary still has a lot of supporters who are blind to her campaign ethics and her controversial past, just as they were to Bill's. Will they elect her next year?
Well, it's happened before.
To borrow a quote from Yogi Berra, one of the most notable members of Hillary's very favorite baseball team, it just might be "déjà vu all over again."
© Peter Lemiska
Many have suggested recently that Republicans are eagerly anticipating Senator Clinton's nomination by the Democrats, not because they support her policies, but because they see her as the most vulnerable opponent in the general election.
When asked if a Clinton nomination would improve his party's chances in the 2008 election, one GOP official exclaimed "Absolutely!...We've never elected a president of the United States who started off with 45 percent unfavorable ratings!"
But Republicans have been here before and should have learned from the lessons of the past.
It was about 15 years ago that another Clinton was seen as an especially vulnerable presidential candidate. As details emerged about his womanizing, his drug use, and draft evasion, Republicans came to believe he would be unelectable.
But he proved himself to be a determined and resourceful politician, willing to do whatever was necessary to win the election. He focused on various minority groups, women, the poor, and gay voters. If they had a problem, he told them what they wanted to hear. And then he managed to convince enough of the others that the economy was in shambles and that he could fix it.
As we watch Hillary Clinton pander to those same groups, participating in Spanish language debates, and feigning the dialect of a poor black southerner at Afro-American events, we get that unsettling sensation that something we are experiencing for the first time is vaguely familiar — the feeling that we know what's about to happen.
And though shameless pandering may be an essential element to the fine art of politics, Hillary doesn't know where to stop. Eight months ago, she thought she might score some points with mainstream Americans by praising General Petreaus for his leadership and expertise on Iraq, but last week, in a transparent effort to appease Moveon.org and the far left, she essentially called the general a liar during his report on the war status.
Incidentally, Senator Clinton's slap at Petreaus was offensive to most Americans, who have the utmost respect for the military. More than that, it reminded us of another era and Bill Clinton's contentious relationship with the military that he loved to loathe.
And reminding us of the 1990s is the last thing Hillary wants to do. For at that moment on the senate floor while she was paying homage to the far left, many who watched the proceedings were reflecting on the back-to-back scandals that enveloped the Clintons during her prior career as first lady, when an independent counsel concluded Hillary herself provided false testimony in the Travelgate probe. Recalling all of that only intensified the outrage viewers felt as she sanctimoniously impugned the integrity of a career military officer.
But if that doesn't bring back that old feeling for everyone, one recent event certainly must. Perhaps it is just an uncanny coincidence that whenever a Clinton is running for office, there's a sudden appearance of wealthy Asian benefactors, shady characters with unknown or questionable sources of income.
After Norman Hsu's arrest, we learned that he was a wanted felon and that he appeared to have orchestrated a straw donor scheme, contributing more than $850,000 to Hillary Clinton's campaign. Who among us didn't feel that chill run up our spine as we recalled Charlie Trie, John Juang, and Chinagate? Most of us had long forgotten about Johnny Chung, one of Bill Clinton's big donors, who eventually provided testimony, corroborated by financial records, that the Chinese government paid him $300,000 to help Bill win the election.
Admittedly, in this recent case, there is no evidence thus far that Hillary Clinton knew about Hsu's felonious background, even considering that photo of the two of them joined at the hip. Nor is there any evidence to date that Hsu was representing any foreign government.
But even if he was acting independently, could this greedy con-man convicted of ruthlessly bilking millions of dollars from his victims, have had something nefarious on his mind? Could he perhaps have actually been trying to buy influence from American politicians? Nah...after all, criminals can be civic-minded too, and like any good citizen, he was probably just trying to help the party that would be most beneficial to his future. Besides, after the sordid facts were exposed, most of his benefactors relinquished the dirty contributions — at least those funds that could be tied directly tied to Hsu.
Yes, Senator Clinton does carry a lot of baggage, and it will certainly all come out during the campaign. But does that, along with her 45 percent disapproval rating assure a Republican win in 2008?
Republicans should remember that Hillary still has a lot of supporters who are blind to her campaign ethics and her controversial past, just as they were to Bill's. Will they elect her next year?
Well, it's happened before.
To borrow a quote from Yogi Berra, one of the most notable members of Hillary's very favorite baseball team, it just might be "déjà vu all over again."
© Peter Lemiska
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
