Hillary's Big Blunder

In an article titled "Dems fear Hillary Clinton's certainty of winning is a big blunder," Robert Novak writes that Democrats believe Hillary's certainty of winning is a big blunder:

Old pro Democrats who had been in awe of Sen. Hillary Clinton's perfect campaign believe she made her first serious blunder last Monday by indicating to CBS' Katie Couric that her election as president is inevitable.

When Couric inquired ''how disappointed will you be'' if she does not win, Clinton replied: ''Well, it will be me.'' ''Clearly,'' the CBS anchor persisted, ''you have considered'' the ''possibility of losing''? ''No, I haven't,'' said the senator. ''So you never even consider the possibility?'' ''I don't. I don't.''

I don't agree. I don't see anything blunderous in Hillary's refusal to acknowledge the possibility she will fail in her quest for the presidency.

Watch the video, and tell us what you think.

I do agree with Novak that Bill Clinton's claim he had opposed the Iraq war ''from the beginning'' was stunning. I called Bill's incredulous assertion a political blunder of monumental proportions. Even USA Today liked that phrase.

Comments

[Kathy]

Congrats Dan on the well deserved recognition!

The Queen of Inevitability has begun a great slide. I wonder who is going to have to die so she can get back on top... only half kiddin on that one as I put nothing past her.

I would include the bareboned opportunism of the post hostage press conference to her long list of mistakes of late.

[fouse, gary c]

A couple of weeks ago, Hillary Clinton's camp let it slip out that they had some dirt on Barack Obama, but they were not going to talk about it in the spirit of maintaining "unity". That kind of reminded me of the old "protection" scheme used by mobsters to protect businesses from....THEM. Well, now the pledge has been broken. Hillary's campaign, seeing Obama take the lead in the Iowa polls, has now "broken" the contract. Howard Wolfson, Clinton's campaign whatever, is now charging that Obama is running a slush fund with his so-called Hopefund-using it to reward local Democrats who give him their endorsement. Of course, if you live in Chicago, you probably know that Obama has had a very questionable financial relationship with local racketeer, Tony Rezco. But the mere fact that Clinton would attack anyone for questionable financial dealings is..well, rather stunning in its hypocrisy.

It doesn't take a political junkie to know that ever since the days of the Clinton administration, the Clintons have had a series of scandals relating to their sources of cold hard cash. If one wants to claim that Charlie Trie, John Huang, Johnnie Chung, the Riadys and all the others were only connected to Bill, go ahead. But what about the Hasidic Jews in New York who were pardoned by Bill as their community delivered almost all of the their votes to Hillary in her Senate campaign, a community that had previously always voted overwhelmingly Republican? What about this Norman Hsu character, who was recently locked up? What about all those cooks and dishwashers in New York's Chinatown who have been donating thousands to Hillary's campaign. Go ahead, Hillary. Throw as mud at Obama as you can-and watch it come flying back.

This may turn out to be the biggest goof by Hillary since the song and dance she put on about drivers licenses for illegal aliens. Anyway, it looks like the Republicans may be able to sit back and watch the fun as voters are reminded what a vicious and corrupt character Hillary Clinton is (as if it were necessary).

gary fouse
fousesquawk