The American Spectator

p> HILLARY’S TAP DANCE br> Re: Andrew Cline’s Party Like It’s 1992 : /p>

What utter nonsense! No economic progress? Whence the promise of America? Pardon me, but on what planet does the putative “she who must be president” live? Not unlike her supposedly (on both counts) popular husband, she parrots whatever the polls and the Democrat media flunkies say. We are experiencing the best economy in my lifetime, bar none, in the midst of a war and sky high oil prices. Wages/earnings are growing nicely, there is no inflation about which to speak, for all practical purposes we are at full employment, and the stock market — all those 401(k)s— is at or near record levels.

p>But, alas, the “deficit” is a problem, despite its significant reduction in real terms owing to Dubya’s tax cuts (the only good thing that he has accomplished), if one listens to all the Cassandras or to those who would be queen. Recall, please that the deficit reduction of the nineties was accomplished almost solely on wrecking defense. One could also make a very good case that 9/11 was the culmination of a series of events that were not addressed by the putative first husband owing to….fill in the blanks. Recall also that, unlike Nixon (who had the sense to resign rather than drag the country through a likely impeachment process, not to mention his decision not to challenge the election of 1960 — whatever one thinks of Nixon), he who never received 50 percent of the vote did not have the sense to resign (probably because Al Gore would have ascended to the throne among, other reasons). So, return to the nineties — as Camille Paglia would say — puhlease! Spare us our version of Josephine. br> — P.A. Melita br> Charlottesville, Virginia /p>

I can feel for HRC, I really can. The primary season is that she was supposed to be a shoo-in — a brisk run-up to the general election. But, nearly 2 years until November 2008, she finds herself being flanked by a supposed has-been (Edwards), and a political neophyte (Obama). Her left flank, while not breaking, shows some cracks. All that work the past 6 years is going down the drain as she must now show her liberal bona-fides. She must contend with this threat and spend gobs of money much earlier than she wished.

Since 1980, liberalism has had to hide, reinvent itself, spin itself, morph itself, and evolve. That is, liberals had to lie about who they are. The Hillary of 1968 became the cookie baking soccer mom of 1992. When the real Hillary showed herself in 1993, ol’ Bill took a beating. Since 2000, Senator Hillary donned the cloak of middle-of -the- road respectability, but her party continued to slide farther Left. HRC now has a 6-year voting record in which she voted more times than not with Bush 43 and McCain. On the one hand, she must defend her record of tax cuts, the Iraqi invasion, and the Patriot Act, and on the other, she must attack the same record. She must defend the economy, and demean it. Good luck.

p>I cannot believe her handlers cannot come up with something better than revisiting 1990s. Most Americans have put all that behind them. If anything, the voters will remember Monica as much as they remembered their fat stock portfolios. Many will also remember vivid photos of Osama firing an AK-47 in the wastelands of Afghanistan. For every Microsoft, there was an Enron; for every Cisco there was a Global Crossings. It’s better not to go there. So now we must watch HRC do a tap dance around her voting record. She must convince not only Iowa Democrats she is one of them, but also California’s