Hillary and the neutered opposition
It's no longer good politics to attack Hillary
Hillary and the neutered opposition
Dick Polman, Inquirer National Political Columnist
The most striking aspect of Hillary Clinton's confirmation hearing yesterday was the neutered timidity of the Republican opposition. My, how the wheel has turned.
There once was a time when the mere presence of a Clinton would trigger serious GOP bloodlust; indeed, on this very week 10 years ago, the Senate Republican majority was invoking "the rule of law" in its impeachment trial, seeking to boot Bill from office for lying under oath about sex with an intern. And conservatives spent much of that year raising money for a "Stop Hillary" movement, in the hopes of barring her path to the U.S. Senate.
Clearly, however, the defeats of '06 and '08 have defanged the GOP. There's no better proof of the shifting political zeitgeist than Hillary's smooth ascent to the State Department helm.
Yesterday, there was barely a ripple about Hillary in the conservative blogosphere. And the Republican senators on the Foreign Relations Committee, entrusted with the job of closely quizzing the prospective Secretary of State, seemed barely awake.
Dick Lugar, the ranking Republican, did mention at one point that it might be nice if the William J. Clinton Foundation practiced greater transparency, perhaps by disclosing huge foundation donations on a regular basis - as opposed to disclosing those donations just once a year, as Bill intends to do. Lugar suggested that, with greater transparency, Hillary would avoid "potential perception problems" - namely, any lingering suspicion that she might use her office to help reward Bill's foreign donors.
And a bit later, Republican Sen. David Vitter put up some charts and suggested that Bill might want to consider disclosing donations on a quarterly basis, in order to avoid "a lot of real and perceived conflict issues." (It's a testament to how far the GOP has fallen that the task of confronting Hillary was handed to a "family values" senator who only recently was saddled with real and perceived conflict issues, stemming from his patronization of hookers in Washington and New Orleans.)
Anyway, Hillary's response was that Bill and the Obama transition team had already worked out an agreement for annual disclosures, that this agreement "was probably as close as we can get," and that no such conflicts would be in the "atmosphere" at State. Basically, she swatted away the gentle GOP inquiries as if they were mere winged insects.
...To which the Republican response was, essentially, "You won't do what we ask? OK, never mind." Or, as Lugar officially put it, "You're qualifications are remarkable." Or, as GOP Sen. Johnny Isakson officially put it in a subsequent TV interview, "She's a very confident, very qualified individual."
Whatever happened to the old pugnacity? Ideally, the Senate Republicans, and the stop-Hillary commentators, could have hit her yesterday on the issue of inexperience, by pointing out certain facts: "During those two (Bill Clinton) terms in the White House, Mrs. Clinton did not hold a security clearance. She did not attend National Security Council meetings. She was not given a copy of the president's daily intelligence briefing. She did not assert herself on the crises in Somalia, Haiti, and Rwanda. She made no aggressive independent effort to shape policy or gather information about the threat of terrorism."
That's all verbatim from a New York Times story, dated Dec. 26, 2007.
Or the Republicans could have hit her with tough rhetorical questions, such as this: "What exactly is this foreign policy expertise? Was she negotiating treaties? Was she handling crises? The answer is no."
That's all verbatim from Barack Obama, speaking to reporters last March.
Nor did any Republican show up to brandish a copy of yesterday's Associated Press story, which reported that Hillary as a senator has intervened at least six times in government issues directly affecting companies and others that later contributed to Bill's foundation kitty. If the AP story was even mentioned, I didn't hear it.
But this is what happens when a party is declawed. Politically speaking, a frontal assault on Hillary would hardly be productive at this time. The majority of voters, by their actions in the last two elections, have signaled their weariness with Republican policy and tactics; a frontal assault on Hillary, before she has even taken the job, would risk being perceived - particularly in other nations - as disrespectful, as an attempt to undercut America's new commitment to "smart power" diplomacy. She is now moving to a nonpartisan role, and that further limits the opportunity for partisan attack.
Domestically, meanwhile, Hillary is drawing a 65 percent favorability rating in the latest Gallup poll - by far her best showing since becoming a public official eight years ago. By contrast, the congressional Republicans are polling roughly 40 points lower. Hence yesterday's display of GOP timidity. At least for the foreseeable future, it doesn't take Bob Dylan to know which way the wind blows.
-------
Speaking of belly-up behavior, the Senate Democrats will officially cave to Blago tomorrow, when they swear in Roland Burris as the new senator from Illinois. Score one for Rod Blagojevich. It's a special politician who can outplay the U.S. Senate while being impeached in his own state by a vote of 114 to 1.
And it's a rare pol who can allegedly engage in criminal corruption while flaunting a love of British poetry. Twice in recent weeks, in the midst of his crisis, Blago has entertained us in that manner, reciting poems by Rudyard Kipling and Alfred Tennyson.
The next time he is so moved, I would suggest instead that he quote George Washington Plunkitt, the Democratic pol from Tammany Hall who flourished at the turn of the last century. Plunkitt is more relevent to his current predicament. Here's a Plunkitt excerpt from 1905, presented here in free verse:
There's an honest graft,
And I'm an example of how it works.
I might sum up the whole thing by sayin'
"I seen my opportunities,
And I took 'em."
And Plunkitt would have advised Blago to dump the British bards. Here he is again, in 1905: "Talk the language the people talk. Don't try to show how the situation is by quotin' Shakespeare. Shakespeare was all right in his way, but he didn't know anything about Fifteenth District politics...I know it's an awful temptation, the hankerin' to show off your learnin'. I've felt it myself, but I always resist it. I know the awful consequences."
JimR- I haven't listend to Limbaugh in several weeks. Lately its been WIP 610 or Brian and the Judge on sirius sattelie radio- Sorry if this bothers you liberals but it is quite evident that since you've been in charge of congress things declined economically. Upon the inevitability of Obama's election the economy has been in a tailspin. To any objective observer the evidence that Obama's policies will be a severe detriment to the economy is very clear. If Obama was going to be good for the economy you would start to see that evidence in the job market, the stock market and other economic indicators. All economic indicators are pointing to the fact that Obama will be horrible for this economy.
- s-mike Rush was on this bandwagon in November. I'm not even a regular listener to him. I catch a little radio if I'm out at lunch. You are parroting his line which doesn't stand up to examination. When the market went down, it was Obama's fault. When it went up, he had nothing to do with it. In your 6:11 post: "I'd prefer you challenge me on the content. name-calling isn't going to cut it." I didn't call you any names, I challenged you on content.— JimR
- Dick, the depths of you stupidity knows no bounds. When one party has a significant advantage in votes, there's precious little you can do... which is why the GOP is holding fire for a better target to hit. Hillary, if nothing else, is an agile politician. Politics goes in cycles... the ability to do nothing and complain about everything has helped the democrats over the last 8 years... the 'shoe is on the other foot now'... the GOP will have the same ability and will return the favor. Puff your chest out now while you can... time has a funny way of balancing things out.— JGD84
- Jim R- honestly itis my thought and my thought alone. I just think that if Obama was going to be good for this economy it would be reflected at least in some stabliization of the economy. It has been over two months since Obama's election so the market has had time to evaluate what an Obama presidency will like for this economy. A lot of liberals on this board get hung up on what Limbaugh says and wether or not someone is parroting something Rush said on the radio. I don't know why it matters. What Rush says is what many conservatives think. He just happens to very articluate and a good radio broadcaster ( I say this regardless of what you think of Rush's opinions- the guy is a great broadcaster)
- JimR- I would be prepared for lots of criticism. When things go wrong It is the presidents fault wether it is fair or not and often times someone else will get the credit when things go right. Bush gets all the blame but no credit for the sucess of the surge. Obama had all the answers when running for President. Things had better change in the economy real quick or yes Mr. President Select Obama will bet blamed.
- The Obama transition is going very badly at this point. I don't see how any objective viewpoint could come to any different conclustion. Two of Obama's appointments have serious issues. Geittner for not paying taxes and Richardson for pay to play. Then you have Rahm Emanuel negotiating the senate seas with Blagojevich. Hillary's husband the ex impeached president Clinton is getting millions of dollars in contributions from heads of state that Mrs. Clinton will have to deal with as Secreatary of State. The propensity for impropriety is enormous. On top of that the economy has had a full two months to digest what an Obama presidency will mean and all indications are that an Obama presidency will be horrible. This aint good folks! And besides all this we have numerous democrats embroiled in scandel like Charlie Rangle. Just the whole Al Capone culture that Democrats have come to epitomize is a source of serious concern as we head into President Selects innauguration.
- Mike, You are getting your information from shills for the GOP. One cannot endlessly complain about a president who has not even been inagurated without INTELLIGENTLY writing about Bush's failures ! Did it make sense to do the Bush taxcuts when that in effect meant we were borrowing (increasing national debt) to pay the rich a tax rebate ???— ModerateMarge
- I think Republican voters like myself are beaten down to the fact that the electorate does not care that Obama and Hillary have little to no experience. It is a lost cause to try to expose it b/c 51%+ don't care. She married Bill and he became President so she got to become a senator b/c Bill made her famous (for various reasons). Now, with little time in between she is now Sec of State. What would pointing out her lack of foreign policy experience matter?— loosecannon
- S-Mike: There are two driving forces to Wall Street, fear and greed. Neither is tied to reason. The global economy usually takes more than 60 days to figure out what the big picture is. You're assertion that Mr. Spread-the-Wealth the Socialist who will roll back Bush's tax cuts and demand transparency and accountability for fat cats and limit CEO excesses ought to have given Wall Streeters the warm and fuzzy feeling by now or he's a failure is laughable to me (read: silly). Do you know what's good for the economy? Good paying jobs to lots of people to keep the skids greased. Do you know what's good for Wall Street? Massive layoffs that inflate the bottom line of the P&L thereby driving up the stock price. Don't confuse what's good for speculators as being good for working Joe's (the plumber or otherwise). But you're partially correct. If you've got a 401(k), IRA, pension, etc., then when Wall Street sneezes, the average guy catches the flu. As for the need for happy talk, how about you start with optimism of hoping B. HUSSEIN does well, rather than pessimism of Chicken Little at every turn? We are all in this together, regardless of L or R ideology.— Phrossty
- "neutered" - that was the word you needed to use here?? definition: To castrate or spay. Pretty disgusting writing, Mr. Polman.— pal
- Former presidents are usually a good source for advice to incoming administrations. Does anyone think Obama will ask George W Bush for advice? Frankly I doubt it. Bush is leaving Obama with a mess in Iraq and with the economy. Bush will go back to his ranch and fade into the woodwork. Jimmy Carter did his best work as a diplomat. Does anyone think Bush would be a good diplomat? You have to be intelligent and honest to be a good diplomat and I don't think Bush qualifies in either case. I hope nobody listens to him again. He's been an abject failure. Glad it's almost over so we can get this country back on track.— James TL
- I love the partisan tennis match here. Seriously, what is the "opposition"? I suggest that Democrats look into their own pansy souls to answer this question. Supposedly troops will be pulled out of Iraq in 16 months. Whoopee! We probably would get the same Iraq policy from McCain as we are going to get under Obama. All this inauguration hoopla makes me nauseous. Granted, a black president represents a cultural shift. But all these HOPE t-shirts are ridiculous. Maybe if we abandoned hope and actually put some changes into effect we'd all be better off. People are cutting school, taking the day off from work to pay attention to this unnecessary day of pageantry. Really I don't give a crap about any of it; it's designed for morons and "dreamers" who are looking for a good tv show. Obama doesn't deserve to be cut any slack, or be given the benefit of doubt. I'll believe in changes when I see/feel them. In the meantime, I'll continue to regard Obama as a slightly less toxic phony than Bush.— p-diddy
Cited by the Columbia Journalism Review as one of the nation's top political reporters, and lauded by the ABC News political website as "one of the finest political journalists of his generation," Dick Polman is a national political columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer. He is on the full-time faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, as "writer in residence." Dick has been a frequent guest on C-Span, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the BBC. He covered the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential campaigns.
ARCHIVES
All commentaries posted before April 18, 2008, can be accessed at www.dickpolman.blogspot.com.
- American Spectator
- David Limbaugh
- Free Republic
- Glenn Reynolds
- Hugh Hewitt
- Human Events
- John Hawkins
- Matt Lewis
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Opinion Journal
- Power Line
- Red State
- The Brody File
- The Daily Caller
- Town Hall
- Weekly Standard
- Center for American Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- Daily Kos
- David Corn
- Huffington Post
- Media Matters
- Mojoblog (Mother Jones)
- Open Left
- Political Animal
- Salon's War Room
- Talking Points Memo
- Tapped
- The Democratic Strategist
- The Grey Matter
- Unclaimed Territory
- Andrew Sullivan
- Attytood
- Chi Tribune's The Swamp
- CJR's Campaign Desk
- CNN's Political Ticker
- CQ Politics
- FactCheck.org
- Gail Collins
- Howard Kurtz
- Mickey Kaus
- NBC's First Read
- Obit
- Political Wire
- Politico
- Politics Daily
- Pollster.com
- Real Clear Politics
- The Atlantic Wire
- The Fix
- The Moderate Voice
- The Plank
- USA Today On Politics
- Wonkette
