The three former Clintonistas have been meeting fairly regularly with the Democratic leadership of both houses, even advising House leader Nancy Pelosi on what some Democratic House leadership staffers say were more than 35 drafts of the speech she is expected to make to the Council on Foreign Relations in New York this Friday.
“Whoever is saying that, it’s just sour grapes,” says a Pelosi staffer in her congressional office. “This is a representative who served on the House Intelligence Committee. She doesn’t need to crib from others for her speeches.”
Still, she and other Democratic leaders do appear to be leaning on the few recent foreign policy hands. Pelosi, especially, has been looking to Albright for backup in her tussle with her Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer, who has been agitating for the party to be more hawkish on Iraq.
But the presence of the Clinton retreads grates with others. “You look at Iraq and North Korea and these are the people who created the problems,” says a hawkish Democratic Senate staffer. “Why the hell are we listening to what they have to say?”
Part of the reason for the presence of the former Clinton cabinet members is concern among the Democratic leadership that too few of their membership carry any serious weight with the American public when it comes to foreign policy issues.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?