Newt Says Hillary Chances Down to 50-50

The National Review provides comments by Newt Gingrich on Sean Hannity's radio show:

Newt Gingrich called in to Sean Hannity's radio program to discuss Hillary Clinton's debate performance. Highlights:

“Her performance in that debate was so bad, on issues that matter so much, she may not be able to recover from it… This issue of Spitzer trying to give out d l to people at a time when your driver’s licenseallows you to vote – for her to trap herself into saying that creates a big wound…

The fact that she said she’s basically sympathetic with Rangel’s trillion dollar tax increase – that’s going to arouse some deep opposition. The huge Democratic tax increase allowed us to win in 1994… Then, I saw in a ticker on Fox News, when Sen. Edwards said nominating her would be ‘a victory for a corruption machine’… it brings back a lot of memories of the Chinese funding scandals of 1996… It takes her winning the nomination from an 80 percent likelihood to a 50 percent. It’s even money. If she doesn’t turn this around quick, I may have to call back in and take it even lower.”

I'm not so sure the damage is that bad - Yet. I would say she had a 99% chance before and this combined with other recent developments lowered her to 70%. Hillary is on fly paper right now. I don't see how she will be able to release herself from it. She has based her whole campaign on avoiding locking herself into key positions. Until the Philadelphia debate, she has been able to get away with it. Her performance, however, was so bad that the media simply could not cover for it. The genie is out of the bottle now and it will be very difficult for the media to go back to allowing her to get away with such across the board ambiguity. She is sunk in the general election if she continues on this route. However, being forced to take positions that will satisfy the far left enough to get the nomination will slaughter her in the general.

If Hillary does lose the nomination, she will likely lose it to Obama. That move will be a gift to the GOP. Obama has been very clear on his positions, but most are deal-killers. Some have said that unless the GOP can make 2008 about National Security they will lose. An Obama nomination where he has clearly stated he supports giving illegal immigrants drivers licenses can easily make 2008 about immigration. A strong policy that opposes amnesty and drivers licenses is a clear winning position. If Hillary has ceded the nomination to Obama, it may prove that the debate was the first domino that leads to a GOP victory in 2008.

Hillary Cracks at First Tough Question

AFP reports on the aftermath of last night's debate:

For the first time, Hillary Clinton woke after a 2008 presidential debate Wednesday roughed up by rivals finally showing the capacity to draw blood in the Democratic race for the White House.

Clinton's top foes John Edwards and Barack Obama painted her as unelectable, facilitating war with Iran, untrustworthy, and claimed to have caught her in a political flip-flop on immigration during the campaign clash in Philadelphia.

Volley after volley of attacks rained in on Clinton, offering the first hints of potential political vulnerabilities, just 65 days before Iowa holds the 2008 race's first party nominating contests.

Was it "attacks" by Edwards and Obama? Or rather was it simply the first time tough questions were able to squeak through to Hillary. If a media interviewer of Hillary is not already favorable toward her, the interview climate is carefully controlled. We have seen with the GQ story suppression how the Clintons crack down on the media in order to get their way.

We have all seen how the GOP candidates get grilled with tough questions and multiple follow-ups if the answer isn't considered complete. With Hillary it has been powder puff softballs or shameless fawning. Then in the debate, the unthinkable happened. A tough question got through. The question about giving drivers licenses to illegal immigrants is pretty tough to give a middle ground. She tried pretty hard though. She can see how Governor Spitzer thinks it is necessary because Congress won't pass comprehensive immigration reform. Huh? Of course when Chris "Bread Slice" Dodd called her on supporting it, she snaps back that she didn't say she supported it. So does she or doesn't she? She is not saying and she wants the right to not say anything.

When combined with her weak answer on releasing documents from when she was First Lady, it is obvious that Hillary is not used to tough questions. The other candidates smelled blood in the water and tried to capitalize on it. However, they were very weak in their attacks. They left some points on the table. Obama, made a few points picturing Hillary as an ambiguous waffler; but then fell flat on his face by claiming clear support for giving illegals drivers licenses. He slit his political wrist on that one. No way he can win the general election with that one statement hanging out there. He will be beaten mercilessly over the head with it if he wins the nomination.

So while the others lost a full opportunity, the media for whatever reason has decided to grant the public a glimpse of the real Hillary by actually covering this. She is cold, calculating, unwilling to take clear positions, and folds at the first tough questions to ever hit her. The nomination is hers to lose. If there was another Democrat candidate with any promise, Hillary would sink fast after her stumbles in the last month. On the other hand, Democrat voters seem to like corruption and flaws. Remember William Jefferson? I think in this debate, Hillary rose like Smaug the dragon and exposed the flawed patch in her armor. The question is which of the GOP candidates is going to be Bard the Bowman?

George W. Bush is One Illegal Border Crossing Away From Being Branded By Both Sides as the Worst President Ever

We all know that the left has already laughably turned a blind eye to Jimmy Carter and labeled George W. Bush as the worst president ever. While I believe that certain circumstances could take place that would make a convincing argument that Bush made good decisions after all and was a very good president; in my mind just the right (wrong) person illegally crossing the US-Mexican border could not only erase any chance of a decent legacy, it could make the "worst" brand stick to him from both sides. One terrorist individual or group could slip through the swiss cheese and pull off a successful attack that kills thousands. If that happens while the Bush Administration continues its reckless stance on border security; the best legacy he can hope for is to be branded the worst president ever. At worst, Bush could be branded a traitor due to his willful negligence.

Bush has some flaws that can be absolutely maddening to both sides of the aisle. He can be stubborn in his policy and refuse to communicate any message supporting his policy. If you agree with his policy, you tend to overlook his stubborness. In fact you can view it as a strong will to do what is right. If you disagree, then it is foolish stubbornness. Either way you cannot overlook the fact that he refuses to defend himself and his positions.

The immigration bill that was declared dead is again being revived and some think likely to pass. Before Bush began fighting for its return and passage, I was certain we would wake up one morning to hear that it was passed in the dead of night. But Bush is insistent upon standing in the gap and championing this manure pile. He does not explain himself. He does not defend the bill with any details. It is all generic mish-mash that shows complete myopia on the border problem. Bush was prepared to go to war with two countries, spend billions, risk his whole reputation in order to keep this country safe. However, he is equally stubborn in throwing away the hard fought and expensive safety of this country by keeping a porous border.

If Bush or anyone else wants more immigration from Mexico, why does it have to be a support of illegal immigration? Why cannot those who want more immigration from Mexico work to seal the border and then double or even triple the immigration quotas. With a sealed border we could have as many or more people from Mexico immigrating to the US, but they would be verified with background and health checks. If if some disagree on the Mexican immigration quota, we could all have more confidence that those who come have at least been checked out
and that the rule of law has been followed.

We keep hearing of many OTMs (other than Mexican) being caught at the border. It is a certainty that terrorist groups around the world are aware of our Achilles heel when it comes to border control. It is only a matter of time before we pay the price for such irresponsible behavior. After such clear and strong arguments being presented to Bush during this debate, the buck will certainly stop at his feet when we do.