Monica Crowley

Happy Halloween, Hillary

I always thought that New York's Junior Senator was beyond having a bad performance.  Sure, she was hyper-scripted, super-controlled, and focus-grouped to within an inch of her life.

But I never thought she'd stumble, lose focus, and trip the way she did during last night's Democratic debate.

It was like watching the Great Oz get exposed as the small little person he was.

Hillary Clinton blew it.  She relied on her usual non-answers, but this time her opponents weren't having it.  Senator Barack Obama challenged her to actually define her current (and past) positions on Iraq.  Former Senator John Edwards accused her multiple times of "double speak."

At one point, she was asked about New York Governor Eliot Spitzer's insane proposal to give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants.  She gave a long, twisted defense of the policy.

Then Senator Chris Dodd came out with guns blazing against it (Dodd '08!!  Just kidding!).  This got Clinton being for it before she was against it:  "I did not say it should be done."

Say what, girlfriend?!  That's EXACTLY what you said. 

"You know, Tim," she said to Russert.  "This is where everyone plays gotcha."

No, Senator.  This is where your own pampered arrogance has finally caught up with you.  You NEVER answer questions---never mind tough ones----so you are surprised when you can't duck them.  Especially on camera.  And you have ALWAYS gotten away with dodging and bobbing and weaving and hemming and hawing, because everyone---from your opponents to the press---has allowed you to get away with it.  Defer to Queen Bee.  And they all did.

Until last night.

Remember that old deodorant commercial that said, "Never let them see you sweat?"  Last night, Hillary Clinton showed a lot of sweat.  She cut herself, and now there's blood in the water for the sharp-toothed and opportunistic piranhas.  Her opponents will be far more aggressive now that they've seen her falter.  That vulnerability will be opened further by adventurous members of the press.

Because she stumbled so badly, she's begun to whine that this was no way to treat a lady.  The DrudgeReport is reporting that the Clinton Ladies' Intervention Team is complaining that Russert was "unfair," "belligerent," and "broke debate rules."

This crybaby routine worked when she ran for the Senate.  No more.  Not in the Big Leagues, Senator.  If you can't handle the guy from "Meet the Press," can we really expect you to handle the guy in Tehran building nukes?

Don't try to pull this "I'm just a delicate flower" act again.  Either you're a fragile woman who needs special courtesies, or you're tough-as-nails and ready to be commander in chief.  Can't be both. 

       Your old mask has fallen off, Senator.  Which new one will it be?

Don't Cry For Me

About 60 years ago, the pampas of Argentina were ruled by a hyper-ambitious, political ladder-climbing First Lady, who ran the country, even though her charismatic husband ostensibly was president.

His name?  Juan Peron.  Hers?  Well, she was immortalized in pop culture by Andrew Lloyd Webber as Evita.

Today, Argentina has elected a new president, Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner.  Obviously a woman.  Who is a lawyer.  Who met her husband while in college.  Who is also an Argentine Senator.  Who is succeeding her husband as president.

Here come the congratulatory statements from New York's Junior Senator!  "I just want to congratulate President-elect Fernandez on her history-making victory," she will say, or some such thing, in order to hit everyone over the head with the inevitable and cliched comparisons.

But hold your horses.  Here's what Fernandez said just three months ago about our own female candidate:

"Hillary was able to position herself nationally because her husband was president.  She didn't have a political life beforehand, and that isn't my case."

So before Mrs. Clinton trips over herself to use President-elect Fernandez as an example of what can happen if voters are just "enlightened" enough, she should keep in mind that Fernandez herself rejects the comparison.  "I'm a real feminist," she suggested.  "I was in elected politics on my own.  I'm not a derivative of my husband.  I'm no Hillary Clinton."

And Hillary Clinton is no Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner.  But she may be an Eva Peron.

Spitzer Spits Again

In the fantasy world in which New York Governor Eliot Spitzer lives, the state is his own personal playground, where he is free to ride roughshod over his opponents, the people, and common sense.

A few weeks ago, Spitzer announced that beginning early next year, New York would be granting driver's licenses to illegal immigants. Amazingly in that quintessentially Blue state, all heck broke loose. Seventy-two percent of all New Yorkers--including 50 percent of his own party---oppose the plan. County clerks--charged with implementing it--mutinied, many of them saying they would turn illegals coming in for licenses over to law enforcement. Senators Clinton and Schumer remain quiet on the issue, not wanting to back the insanity but not wanting to completely throw a fellow Democrat under the bus. Newspapers, television, and radio are brimming with calls for Spitzer's recall.

The state is in open revolt.

Spitzer's response?  Now he says he needs about a year to get a new plan in place. What now?

A three-license system. The first tier would be licenses for illegals that would make it valid for them to drive but not to board planes or enter public property.  (Gee, thanks!)

The second would be for U.S citizens and legal immigrants and would correspond to the REAL ID security requirements.

The third would be an enhanced driver's license available only to U.S. citizens and allow for passport-less passage to Canada.

Check out Spitzer:  "We are on our way to offering New Yorkers the option of three secure licenses to drive in this state, and this country, and throughout the Western Hemisphere."

It takes a village.

In other words, it's New York state's responsibility to make sure the entire Western Hemisphere has a driver's license.

And when he refers to "New Yorkers," he is including those in New York State ILLEGALLY. Excuse me, but they are hardly New Yorkers.

In addition to the political, cultural, economic, and national security implications, this is eminently disrespectful to REAL New Yorkers and those who have come to the state legally. Spitzer is trying to square a circle by creating a three-tier licensing system.

How about just ONE license?  You know, for New Yorkers.

Mitt Romney, Wildfire Politics, Phony Soldier

This weekend I'll be joined by Mitt Romney.  The former Massachusetts governor will call in from the campaign trail.  Today Romney predicted support for Rudy Giuliani will fade, opening the door for a more conservative challenger. 

"Those of us who represent that base will find that we can get that support and ultimately face up one-to-one with Mayor Giuliani," Romney said. "At that point he'll have a more challenging time because I do not believe the Republican Party is going to keep Hillary Clinton out of the White House by acting like Hillary Clinton."  CLICK HERE to read more.

Also this weekend, the left driving the crazy train: the politics of the California wildfires and another phony soldier denigrates the troops and the left is silent.  My guest will be Vin Weber, former Minnesota Congressman and Managing Partner of Clark and Weinstock, on the presidential race and why Obama is picking on Hillary for defending lobbying.

Also, an update on NY Governor Eliot Spitzer's plan to give driver's licenses to illegals.

Country On Fire

First, our hearts and prayers go out to everybody in Southern California affected by the devastating wildfires.  It is heartbreaking to watch our fellow Americans lose their homes and most of their personal possessions. To help, please visit the American Red Cross CLICK HERE

Second, the fires prove that liberals will use any excuse to try to score political points.  Even in the midst of this wrenching disaster, they have been chirping that somehow, it must be Bush's fault.  The fires are spreading because our troops are tied up in Iraq!  They got started in the first place because of global warming and Bush's failure to deal with that!  His trip to the area was a mere photo op!  He doesn't really care!  War criminal!

Of course, all of these things are overheated falsehoods.  The military deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan have had, according to the military, no effect on the units responding to the fires.  The investigation of the fires' origin is now leading toward arson, a deliberate and criminal torching of the forests.  The president went to California not to bigfoot Governor Schwarzenegger but to offer whatever federal help he could.  You can imagine what they'd be saying if he didn't go at all.

Third, having put so many of their eggs in the Bush-failed-on Katrina basket, the fact that this disaster is being handled so well drives his liberal critics bananas.  They are searching desperately for something with which to tar him, despite all agencies coordinating and working well with one another, food and water and medical attention being distributed well, and evacuation shelters like the one at Qualcomm Stadium in San Diego being run efficiently and safely.

The only issue so far:  six illegal immigrants were arrested at the stadium today for trying to steal food and water meant for evacuees.  So if liberal critics of the president are looking for something going wrong in this crisis, how about illegal immigration? 

If the wildfire disaster is handled well, as it is, it erases a big part of the failures of Katrina. The liberals can't afford to lose Katrina as the most-recent memory of Bush administration ineptitude.  To have it replaced with California wildfire competence is a big political loss for them.  Ergo, their crazy statements.

These are times when the nation (those in it legally) should be pulling together.  For anybody to claim Bush is "letting California burn" is comical if it weren't so symptomatic of the thinking of the other side.  They have tried to burn down everything this president has tried to do.  Now they're politicizing wildfires.  Of all of the outrageous things they have pulled over the past 6 years, trying to squeeze partisan advantage out of other Amercans' personal suffering is perhaps the most unforgivable. 

Spitzer spits on us

Over the past few weeks on the program, we've been discussing New York Governor Eliot Spitzer's proposal to grant illegal immigrants driver's licenses.  No longer will people have to produce a valid Social Security card or other proof they are in the country legally, nor will they even have to make the effort to get fake IDs.  Starting in just a few months, Spitzer wants to give them all legal, state-issued forms of identification.

On the front page of the Metro Section of today's New York Times, this headline:  "Senate Votes to Stop Spitzer Plan to Give Illegal Immigrants Driver's Licenses."  It's a wonder they could bring themselves to call them "illegal" instead of "undocumented."

The State Senate, responding to the overwhelming public outcry, passed legislation yesterday that would overturn the policy.  Sixty-five percent of New Yorkers oppose it, including 47% of Spitzer's own party.  Thank goodness for representative (for once), checks and balances government.

Spitzer's response?  "I know you are, but what am I?!"

       In classic petulant fashion, Spitzer vowed to press on, adding, "some of the rhetoric that has been imposed and brought into this issue has been not only overheated but I would say counterproductive."

You know what's "counterproductive?"  Eliot Spitzer's governorship.

Buried deep in the Metro Section today is another article.  This one tells of one of Spitzer's former top aides, deeply embroiled in one of the governor's dirty tricks scandals, who will NOT be testifying as promised in that investigation.  Why?  According to the Times, because Spitzer forbade it.

Corruption, abuse of power, crusading, out of control power madness.  Funny how the Democrats love to accuse Republicans of those things but we hear only crickets in the desert when the Democrats actually carry them out.       

The Lesson of Bill

Last night's Republican debate featured a long segment of the candidates have a ball beating up New York's Junior Senator.  They treated Hillary Clinton as if she is already the Democratic nominee, not the presumptive nominee, not even the frontrunner.  The actual nominee.

At first blush, this looks like the Republicans fell for her bait.  By spending all of that time talking about her, they played into the perception of inevitability she's worked so hard to create.  They flattered her with all of the attention. They helped to make her coronation even more likely.

But look deeper.  Yes, she looks dominant.  Yes, she's got a lot of money.  Yes, she's way out in front in the polls.  But being that far ahead is no guarantee of winning when people actually cast votes.  Just ask Howard Dean, or the ghosts of Paul Tsongas, Edmund Muskie, or Hubert Humphrey.

Time and again, frontrunners have fallen.  Especially Democratic frontrunners.  John F. Kennedy was an underdog in 1960.  So was James "My Name is Earl" Carter in 1976.

As was her own husband in 1992.  He didn't even compete in Iowa and came in second in New Hampshire.  Two pretty major defeats, and yet he was able to brilliantly reposition himself as the "Comeback Kid."

Voters have a way of resenting being taken for granted, of having their votes counted before they are cast, of being used.  Hillary is savoring her frontrunner status, as well she should.  But she should not count on it actually meaning much when voting begins.  In fact, she should take a page out of Bill's playbook and hope that she actually gets humiliated in the early voting so she can also be a "Comeback Kid."

Building her up, reinforcing her frontrunner status, buying into the coronation looks like it's helping her.  But on second thought (and with an eye to history)....perhaps all of the time the Republicans spent talking about her last night wasn't so stupid after all.

A Really Inconvenient Truth

Last Friday night, Bill Maher was heckled during his live HBO show. The offending audience member stood up, unfurled a smuggled-in banner, and began shouting loudly. Maher, unaccustomed to being eclipsed, stormed the stands and helped security throw the guy out. What was the heckler heckling about?  Why, he was shouting part of the extreme left-wing agenda: that September 11 was a U.S. government conspiracy.

CLICK HERE to watch video.  Warning: strong language!

Maher was livid that his show had been interrupted. But he should not have been surprised.

After the incident, he said that a lot of anti-war and anti-Bush protesters hang out outside his studio, waiting to engage him on conspiracy theories and the president's war criminality.

Why?  Because Maher has spent the last 4 years criticizing the president, the war, and other post 9-11 policies. He has given aid and comfort to the protesters by supporting their arguments--and their right to heckle the president. He has embraced them, winked at them, given them tactical air support every week on his show.

Why then would he be surprised that any of them would show up at his show and yell it all, loud and proud?

The same thing happened with Speaker Nancy Pelosi last week. We reported on the program how she expressed her total disgust with the anti-war protesters who had set up camp outside her San Francisco home. The "homeless," as she called them, should be "arrested for loitering" but aren't because they wear "T-shirts with "Impeach Bush"" so they are "protected by the First Amendment."

Now that Iraq is improving, the anti-war protesters have outlived their usefulness to folks like Maher and Pelosi. Once convenient tools with which to bash the president, they are now inconvenient, smelly, loud beasts that need to be escorted away.

Neither Maher nor Pelosi should feign shock that these people are still around, agitating their lives. They created them. They cultivated and encouraged their craziness.

For four years, it was all okay because they directed their insanity toward the president. Now that the craziness is directed toward them, they want them silenced.

Funny how they are now doing exactly what they accused Bush of doing:  Watch what you say.

Crazy Train

On your dime today, Democratic Congressman Pete Stark claimed the president was a sadist:  "You don't have money to fund the war or children. But you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president's amusement." 

In other words, the president gets his jollies by ordering our servicemen and women into harm's way to kill for the heck of it. 

And the Democrats wonder why they haven't been entrusted to run a "hot" war since Harry Truman.

Not only have they proven themselves weak and incompetent on national security, but they have also shown that they are increasingly desperate.  This kind of laughable lashing out is symptomatic of the Democrats' losing their grip on power, control, and reality.

Iraq is slowly and steadily improving, the president just sustained his veto of their attempt to expand the SCHIP entitlement, and they lost their ridiculous stab at attacking Turkey for a genocide that happened 100 years ago. 

They are flailing.  And with Congressman Stark's comment, the Democrats just demonstrated how so many of them are now aboard the Crazy Train.

A Boiling Cauldron

A new Reuters/Zogby poll puts President Bush's job approval at an anemic 24%.  Hey, Reid and Pelosi!  Quit laughing.  You guys in the Congress are down to a paltry 11% approval.  That's 11 points away from zero.

This is bad news all around.  First, for the president.  Dramatically falling death rates in Iraq, improving conditions, and greater stability there have yet to show up in his approval numbers.  This means that voters may have ossified their feelings about him.  In other words, even if Iraq becomes a Garden of Eden of Jeffersonian democracy, the president may not see much improvement in his numbers. Ever.

Second, it's bad news for the Democrats.  They haven't been able to get any part of their main agenda through, most importantly (for them) on Iraq.  And the voters who installed them in control last November to force a withdrawal from Iraq are pulling their hair out.  Now that things are improving significantly there, those voters are steamed because the Democrats didn't pull out BEFORE things started to turn around. In other words, what's good for the country is bad for them.  Also in other words, the Democrats blew their chance to capitalize on America's failure in Iraq---before it began to turn into a success. 

Warped, isn't it?  Those are the Dems!

Out of this poll (and others like it that show the same thing) comes a word of warning to both sides----

Republicans:  Voters think Bush is yesterday's newspaper.  They won't be much moved on their opinion of him no matter how things improve in Iraq and how good things are here at home.  Republicans must run as a fresh page.

Democrats:  Voters think you are incompetent sell-outs.  Despite the left-wing media hype, you will NOT be a shoo-in next year (that means you, Hillary).

The electorate is unsettled, frustrated, angry, polarized.  Neither side can take anything for granted.  It's a witches brew for both parties.  For them, it's Act IV, Scene 1 of Macbeth:  "A dark cave.  In the middle, a cauldron boiling.  Thunder."  And then, the refrain:  "Double, double toil and trouble; fire burn and cauldron bubble."