What happens when you write a book critical of the Clintons

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly
The Clintons

The Clintons

The Politico has published a piece written by Weekly Standard’s Daniel  Harper detailing some of the (predictable) attacks the Clinton machine waged against him in response to his writing of a book critical to both Hillary and Bill Clinton:

When I started to write Clinton, Inc: The Audacious Rebuilding of a Political Machine, I knew the reaction to expect. I was well aware that the former (and perhaps future) first family and its massive retinue of loyalty enforcers, professional defamers and assorted gadflies would rue my intent to examine the real Clintons—especially in my search for the real Chelsea Clinton, who until now has been a media-protected nonperson despite her aggressive public activities on her family’s behalf and despite raking in hundreds of thousands of dollars from her role as former first daughter.

[…]

But even if I hadn’t known it, many, many people in Washington, on the left and right, popped up to warn me of what to expect from the Clinton PR team. Other authors—legitimate ones with serious pedigrees—who’d written about the Clintons said they were threatened and verbally attacked. Of course, nearly everyone in Washington has seen the much-vaunted Clinton PR machine in action. It’s very predictable. Here’s how it works:

1) Media intimidation tactics: Following their usual method of operation, the first thing Team Clinton would do is attempt a media blackout. A producer with CNN said I’d never be able to get any airtime on her show because the Clintons punish networks that give space to their perceived enemies. So far, even claims in my book that were well sourced with on-the-record quotes—such as Bill Clinton offering counsel to John McCain in how to defeat Barack Obama in 2008—have been all but ignored by the mainstream media.

2) Defame and attack: There would be repeated efforts to turn me into a kook or right-wing hit man. Though they haven’t yet gone so far to label me a “crazed stalker” like they did with Monica Lewinsky, the reliable Clinton aide Nick Merrill has repeatedly deployed a classic Clinton spin line on my work—before it was even on sale, mind you, and presumably he hadn’t yet read it. “It’s sad to see Daniel Halper join the discredited and disgraced ranks” of other authors supposedly out to get them at all costs, he emailed the Huffington Post. Sadly, I received no credit from the Clintons or from Merrill for the praise of both Bill (that he’s a “political genius) and Hillary (that she’s “intensely likable”) in various parts of the book. Merrill also claimed I was just out “to make a buck.” Which I take it means that Bill and Hillary Clinton donated all the proceeds of their millions in book deals to charity?

Heh.

Since it’s inevitable (in my view) that La Clinton is going to run again, I’d encourage you to buy Halper’s book for a refresher course … in case you need it … on who the Clintons are, what to expect in the coming months, etc.  Also, Michael Crowley wrote an illuminating piece on the Clintons at the left-leaning New Republic back in 2007 that  sheds some serious light on the devious Clinton war room in action.  There’s a reason they typically get favorable coverage, folks, and it’s not always because the media leans left.

Obamacare: The pesky issue that won’t go away for #NCsen’s @SenatorHagan

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly
Hagan repeal Obamacare

Tea Party member Judy Carter pickets Sen. Kay Hagan’s local office in Greensboro against Obamacare Photo by Examiner.com’s Matt Maggio.

The Politico has a pretty good write-up this morning on what they call the “disconnect” between North Carolina voters and Obamacare – and how that is not good news for the re-election campaign of vulnerable Democrat Senator Kay Hagan:

The Tar Heel State signed up more than 357,000 people — one-third of those eligible for the new health insurance exchange. Yet President Barack Obama’s health law remains a major liability for Sen. Kay Hagan, who faces one of the toughest reelection races for any Senate Democrat this year, a true toss-up fight against North Carolina House Speaker Thom Tillis. He misses no chance to tie her to Obama and the Affordable Care Act, forcing her to calibrate both how to defend a law she voted for and how to distance herself from it.

The North Carolina dynamic reflects a national problem for the Obama administration in this midterm election: Despite the solid numbers — 8 million enrolled in Affordable Care Act plans, and 6.7 million signed up for Medicaid — they just can’t move the dial on political support for Obamacare.

The state had the third-highest rate of enrollment among states that decided not to set up their own exchange — only Florida and Maine came out ahead of it.

[…]

Many people who enrolled in North Carolina and elsewhere in the country report mixed feelings about their new Obamacare health plans or the costs. The individual mandate, and the threat of a penalty, drove many sign-ups. A polling report by PerryUndem, an opinion research firm that specializes in health care, found that 40 percent of people in one focus group say they might not have signed up without the mandate. But neither an unpopular mandate nor worries about the expense are a political advantage.

[…]

Hagan was not available for an interview during a reporter’s recent visit here. Her campaign spokeswoman downplayed the controversy over Obamacare, and stressed its more popular benefits.

Of course she wasn’t.  The Senator has become almost infamous for sidestepping questions about a law she once bragged about having helped craft.

To make matters worse forif you like your plan you can keep it Hagan and other red state Democrats who shoved the so-called Affordable Care Act down the throats of the American people is that coming soon – very soon – are health insurance rate hikes, set to be announced for North Carolina sometime next month, which is sure to fuel the fire over Obamacare all over again at a critical time for her campaign.  

I should note that one major issue not mentioned in the Politico piece is how close to 500,000 North Carolinians lost their health insurance plans thanks to Obamacare, far more than the number that signed up for it.  That’s a number her GOP opponent/NC House Speaker Thom Tillis will hammer home from now til November – as he should, and if you’re a resident of North Carolina who is sick of Senator Hagan’s repeated attempts at avoiding responsibility for her vote on this disastrous bill, you should remind people of it, too.

Senate Dems, including @KayHagan, set to try & “reverse” #HobbyLobby ruling

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

Hobby Lobby

Because religious freedom sucks and stuff – and so do the “five white guys” on the Supreme Court. Via The Hill:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) set up the first procedural vote on a bill that would reverse the recent Supreme Court ruling that allows some employers to deny birth control coverage for women.

“After five justices decided last week that an employer’s personal views can interfere with women’s access to essential health services, we in Congress need to act quickly to right this wrong,” Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) said while introducing the bill last week.

The Supreme Court recently ruled that companies, such as Hobby Lobby, don’t have to provide their employees birth control coverage as mandated under ObamaCare. The 5-4 decision stated that the mandate violated the religious liberties of employers who don’t believe in the use of contraceptives.

Democrats have pounced on the issue ahead of the November elections in order to draw contrast between the two parties on the issue.

“The U.S. Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision opened the door to unprecedented corporate intrusion into our private lives,” said Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.), a lead co-sponsor of the bill. “My common-sense proposal will keep women’s private health decisions out of corporate board rooms, because your boss shouldn’t be able to dictate what is best for you and your family.”

Senate Democrats will need at least five Republicans to join them in voting to end debate on the motion to proceed to S. 2578, but it seems unlikely they will get that support. That vote is expected Wednesday.

In other words, they know they aren’t going to get anywhere on the bill. It’s just election-year posturing designed to let perpetual (and in some cases “professional”) “feminist” victims on the left who dogmatically support the demagogues in the Democrat party know that when it comes to choosing between respect for the First Amendment versus abortion on demand, they’ll choose baby-killing every single time.

And yes, as the headline to this post suggests, North Carolinians, Senator Hagan (D) supports this bill:


Shameful. And out of touch with North Carolina voters. But not surprising.

Teachers unions turning their backs on the Obama administration

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly
Teachers strike

Image via LaborUnionReport.com

The cracks in the Obama Coalition continue. Via The Hill (hat tip):

Teachers unions have turned on Secretary of Education Arne Duncan and the Obama administration, creating a major divide in the Democratic Party coalition.

The largest teachers union in the country, the National Education Association (NEA), called for Duncan to resign at its convention on July 4, arguing his policies on testing have failed the nation’s schools.

Tensions between Duncan and the unions had been building for some time.

The administration’s Race to the Top program, which has provided $4.35 billion to states, incentivized changes that unions strongly oppose. One of the most controversial policies backed by Duncan is using students’ improvement on standardized tests to help evaluate teachers and make pay and tenure decisions.

“Our members are frustrated and angry,” said NEA president Dennis Van Roekel. “Number one is the toxic testing. There is too much.”

An added spark came on June 10, when a California judge ruled the state’s teacher tenure laws are unconstitutional because they keep ineffective teachers in the classroom and deprive poor and minority students of their right to an equal education.

Teachers unions, which are strong defenders of tenure, expressed outrage when Duncan said the plaintiffs in the case were just some of millions of students disadvantaged by tenure laws. He called the decision “a mandate to fix these problems.”

With the teachers unions at loggerheads with the administration, Democrats are suddenly at risk of losing one of their most reliable allies and fundraising sources.

It would appear that when it comes to crucial issues of “tenure” and “teacher performance”, Duncan is surprisingly more right than left. On the flip side, he supports the implementation of the controversial Common Core “teaching standards”, which the right strongly opposes and even a growing number of left wing educators have issues with.  If Duncan starts to become too much more of a liability for our celebrity President, look for him to “resign to spend more time with family” in the very near future …

Senator Mark Begich (D-AK) apparently has trouble with the Constitution

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

**Posted by Phineas

dunce_cap

So, I’m enjoying a quiet morning and reading an article on the reactions of the various candidates for the US Senate from Alaska to the Hobby Lobby decision, when I come across this howler from the incumbent, Mark Begich:

“I believe people, not corporations, have a right to practice their constitutional right to freedom of religion, but not at the expense of others,” said Begich.

Sigh.

It’s tough to decide whether Senator Begich, whose seat is not secure, is just ignorant of what the Supreme Court decided, the Constitution, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or if he’s a desperate hack just reciting DNC talking points. Of course, both could be true. But the key to that quote above is the senator’s odd belief that, upon forming a corporation, individuals somehow give up their natural rights.

Senator Begich, meet the First Amendment. First Amendment, meet Senator Begich:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The right to peaceably assemble has been held to include the right to freely associate. See, for example, NAACP v. Alabama (1958), which held, in effect, that individuals do not give up their rights when they form an association (1). And a corporation is an association of individuals with rights and inherits those rights:

Corporations have rights because natural persons have rights. It is sometimes said that corporations are “creations of the state,” but that’s not really true. Corporations are created by people — they are merely recognized by the state. 

To deny the rights of a “legal person,” such as a corporation, is no different than denying those rights to the individuals who own that corporation. Perhaps the newspaper editors of Senator Begich’s home state would like to ask him if their papers, in his view, lack the rights of free speech and freedom of the press, also recognized by the First Amendment, simply because they’re incorporated businesses. The answer should be interesting.

PS: Democrats sure have a problem with that whole freedom and democracy thing, don’t they? Why, yes. Yes they do.

Footnote:
(1) In short, the state of Alabama demanded the NAACP surrender its membership lists. The NAACP argued –correctly, given the times– that this loss of their members’ privacy would have a chilling affect on their members rights of free speech and free association.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

Shock: Democrats ramping up election-year race-baiting tactics

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly
Racism sign

Yep.

Not exactly a surprise, but The Hill reports this morning that Democrats are ramping up their despicable race-baiting tactics to try and emotionally manipulate one of their most crucial voting blocs during an election year because they badly need the votes:

[…] Democrats reject charges that the rhetoric is a concerted political calculation on their part as they try to retain their Senate majority and make gains in the House.

“You turn out voters by demonstrating your past performance and what you’re promising to do for a constituent in the future,” said Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-N.C), a member of the Congressional Black Caucus. “I don’t call that race-baiting. I call that a political platform.”

 Sen. Tim Scott (S.C.), the only African-American Republican in Congress and a leader in his party’s outreach to minority voters, slammed the perceived approach. 

“What alienates people is getting all of us stirred by the notion that we should be afraid of somebody else. [Democrats’] comments are designed to evoke fear from my perspective,” said Scott. “It’s unfortunate, and it should be shameful, frankly.”

[…]

Much like Democrats have highlighted their efforts to reform student loan rates to appeal to students, or their efforts to protect access to contraception to woo female voters, couching policy debates in racial terms allows the party to speak directly to another important portion of its base: minorities.

[…]

Georgia-based Democratic strategist Tharon Johnson, who worked on the 2012 Obama campaign, said Democrats — especially those in the South — needed to talk about the issues that matter to minorities and be open about the country’s inequality.

“We can never be afraid to talk about the issue of race while we still have racism in this country every single day, as far as economics, inclusion and with our justice system,” said Johnson. “Landrieu, Nunn and others have to be bold and direct when it comes to issues like public education and the justice system and economic equality that deals with race when they’re having conversations with voters. They have to be willing to talk about it.”

[…]

Democratic National Committee spokesman Mo Elleithee said the party often discusses these issues in racial terms because it’s important for Democrats to point out Republican hypocrisy.

“The problem is, the message does matter, and the agenda matters, and they have fallen even further behind with an agenda, and actions that I think continue to poke these communities that they claim they want to reach out to in the eye,” he said.

“And so, yeah, we’re gonna call them out on that.”

Don’t you love the contortions Democrats put themselves through in order to justify one of the ugliest cards they have in their deck to play?  The fact of the matter is they never stop using the race card in order to sway voters to their side, and it’s also common knowledge that they play the race card in an attempt to stifle debate from the opposition – because disagreement on this issue is so unhealthy for America, or whatever. But in election years, especially critical ones like this one where President Obama is in full-scale legacy mode, they ramp up the racial politics in the extreme because they know it’s very difficult to win unless they can convince people, especially so-called “minorities” like women and black people, that they are ‘victims’ who need ‘protection’ and ‘saving’ by Uncle Sam.

I hope I’m alive when a majority of minorities finally start rejecting this offensive claptrap in significant numbers. Once they do, the left’s blatant and deliberate demagoguery on hot button issues like race and “women’s rights” will only be viewed by most people as a desperate sideshow, while their domination of those voting blocs will finally be over to the point where, at the very least, they become competitive.  Hey, a girl can dream, right?

GOP stakes claim on Ohio as Cleveland is selected for #RNC2016

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

Ballot box

Via Fox News:

The GOP revealed a portion of its 2016 battle plan Tuesday, selecting Cleveland — the new home of “Johnny Football” Manziel and possible future home of LeBron James — as the site of its national convention. 

RNC Chairman Reince Priebus announced the decision Tuesday on Fox News, in an early play for voters in the battleground state, which President Obama won in 2008 and 2012 but which is also the home to Speaker John Boehner. 

“We couldn’t be more excited,” Priebus told Fox News. “It’s a city that’s on the rise.” 

The contest came down to Dallas and Cleveland. 

The Republicans’ site selection committee met Tuesday to review the two remaining cities’ bids. The full 168-member RNC is expected to ratify the choice next month. 

The plans are for the GOP convention to begin on either June 28 or July 18 of 2016. 

Ohio lawmakers were ecstatic after hearing the news. 

“This is great news for Cleveland and our entire state,” Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, said in a statement. “It’s a unique opportunity to showcase the new Cleveland as one of America’s great cities, and to bring dollars and jobs to Ohio.” 

Ohio, along with Florida, has long been a prized battleground, but Obama has claimed it in the last two presidential races. Priebus acknowledged the state’s political importance in announcing Cleveland as the 2016 selection. 

That’s an understatement if there ever was one:

No Republican has won a presidential election without winning Ohio since Abraham Lincoln in 1860. President John F. Kennedy (D) was the last candidate to win the White House without Ohio.

Ohio is a tough nut to crack – and it goes without saying that it’s not a given that holding the national convention in a particular state guarantees you will win it come November.  Just ask Barack Obama, whose party held their convention here in Charlotte, NC in 2012 but still lost the state.  Still, it’s worth a shot – provided the campaign for the eventual GOP nominee for President devotes every dime and amount of time it can to winning it.

As they say, stay tuned.

Surprise! Dems plan “#WarOnWomen” offensive in response to #HobbyLobby ruling

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

Feminism

Sure didn’t see this one coming – /sarc.  Via The Hill:

Democrats want to lure Republicans into a fight over birth control with legislation to reverse the Supreme Court’s decision that ObamaCare may not require certain businesses to include contraception in their employee health coverage.

At least three bills are being crafted in the House and Senate to amend the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which the high court used as the basis for its ruling that the contraception mandate violated federal law.

Democrats are expected to introduce the measures prior to Congress’s August recess as part of an effort to recalibrate the party’s election-year messaging. Their hope is to turn out female voters by casting the court’s decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby as a strike against reproductive rights.

“Last week’s decision reignited a conversation across the country reminding women once again that their access to healthcare has become a political issue, when it should be a basic right,” said Marcy Stech, national press secretary for EMILY’s List.

“It will drive women to the polls this November to vote for the women candidates who are on the right side of women’s access to basic healthcare.”

“This will be a huge motivator for women in the fall and a liability for Republican candidates up and down the map,” Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) spokesman Justin Barasky added.

Republican campaign officials say they’re not worried and challenged the idea that the court ruling can help individual Democrats who supported the healthcare law and are considered vulnerable next year.

[…]

At least three pieces of legislation being prepared by Democrats would help maintain access to free birth control for women affected by the court’s ruling, though staffers provided few details on Monday.

It’s a sad commentary on the state of the modern Democrat party when each election year they are reduced to trying to emotionally manipulate key voting blocs to try and motivate them to get to the ballot box and pull the lever for the party once again – and with misrepresentations and outright falsehoods to boot.   In fact, I can’t think of the last election cycle where they didn’t try to pull off some combination of the racism / sexism /classism / homophobia cards in order to “win over” voters.  

Hopefully this year, unlike previous years when one or more of the cards has successfully been played, the GOP will respond appropriately without falling into the predictable stereotype trap. I’m not  holding my breath – but will remain cautiously optimistic nevertheless.

Pres. Obama “quietly” backing Sen. Warren over Hillary for 2016?

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly
Hillary and Obama

Has the backstabbing between the two already started?

An intriguing report from the NY Post’s Edward Klein (via):

President Obama has quietly promised Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren complete support if she runs for president — a stinging rebuke to his nemesis Hillary Clinton, sources tell me.

Publicly, Obama has remained noncommittal on the 2016 race, but privately he worries that Clinton would undo and undermine many of his policies. There’s also a personal animosity, especially with Bill Clinton, that dates from their tough race six years ago.

A former Harvard law professor and administration aide, Warren would energize the left wing of the Democrat Party just as Obama did against Clinton in 2008.

Thanks to her outspoken stand against big banks and the top 1 percent, Warren is the darling of progressives. She won her Senate seat thanks to millions of dollars in donations from outside Massachusetts, including from rich environmentalists and Hollywood celebrities.

Obama has authorized his chief political adviser, Valerie Jarrett, to conduct a full-court press to convince Warren to throw her hat into the ring.

In the past several weeks, Jarrett has held a series of secret meetings with Warren. During these meetings, Jarrett has explained to Warren that Obama is worried that if Hillary succeeds him in the White House, she will undo many of his policies.

Back in April, Legal Insurrection’s Bill Jacobson wrote of his belief that Senator Warren would “crush” Clinton in the Democrat primaries because she’s even more left wing than Hillary:

Forget the current polling as between Hillary and Elizabeth Warren. It pits Hillary against someone who “isn’t running.”

For all my criticisms of Warren, and they are extensive, I am convinced that if she ran, she would crush Hillary, just as Obama did.

Warren, as did Obama, has a unique ability to demagogue the core Democratic narrative of victimhood in ways that would make Hillary blush. She is more cunning than Hillary, more popular with the base, would bring an excitement the contrived Ready-for-Hillary movement could only dream of.   Democrats may be “ready” for Hillary, but they don’t really want her.

He referenced a Byron York piece written around the same time that listed several reasons why Warren should run whether or not La Clinton decides to do the same:

1. Life is unpredictable. Clinton will be 69 years old on inauguration day 2017, nearly the oldest president ever. She has had a few health scares. By all accounts, she left her previous four-year stint in government service exhausted. She might not run, and the Democrat in second place in the polls, Vice President Joe Biden — 74 on inauguration day — is too old to be president. Beyond them, Democrats have nobody — except Elizabeth Warren.

2. Parties need competition. The primary process isn’t just to allow voters to pick a nominee. It’s for the candidates to become better candidates. The rigors of campaigning, the day-to-day jostle with competitors and the stress of high-profile debates all make candidates better. Conversely, a cakewalk through the primaries could leave a nominee in poor fighting shape for a general election. Warren would make Clinton a better candidate, and vice-versa.

3. The Left wants a hero. Clinton has never really excited the most liberal wing of the Democratic Party. They see her as an overcautious centrist like her husband, and on top of that, many have never forgiven her for voting to authorize the war in Iraq. Warren, on the other hand, has thrilled the Left with her attacks on inequality, plutocrats and big financial institutions.

4. Hillary ran a dumb campaign in 2008 and might do so again. For a group of seasoned veterans, the 2008 Clinton campaign showed a stunning ignorance of how to win delegates in a Democratic contest. Rival Barack Obama exploited that weakness brilliantly. For example, Obama collected more net delegates by winning the Idaho caucuses, with 21,000 participants, than Clinton did by winning the New Jersey primary, with more than 1 million voters. Clinton just didn’t pay attention to the smaller stuff, particularly the caucuses, and her cluelessness helped Obama win. It might help another rival in 2016.

5. One more time: Life is unpredictable. This is Warren’s only chance to run. She will be 67 on Inauguration Day 2017. (Has any party ever fielded a group as old as Clinton, Biden and Warren?) A run in 2020 or later is out of the question. Hillary, now struggling to define her legacy as Secretary of State, is running on pure entitlement. The only thing about her candidacy that truly excites the Democratic base is that she would be the first woman president. Of course, that applies to Elizabeth Warren, too. And Warren would present a far fresher face to voters than Clinton, who has been in the national spotlight since 1992.

Heck, I dunno what the future holds for either of them – in spite of the fact that I’ve predicted outright that Hillary will make one last try of it in 2016.  As noted above, Senator Warren is an unashamed Massachusetts liberal while Hillary likes to pretend she’s a middle of the road type.  Not only that, there is no love lost between the Clintons and the Obamas – in spite of public appearances to the contrary – especially when it comes to Bill and the President, so it certainly wouldn’t be outside of the realm of possibility that Obama has already placed his legacy cards in Senator Warren’s basket, believing she would be a viable female contender for President against Hillary.  No matter what happens, though, one thing I’ll be doing over the next few months as decisions are made and announced is stocking up on the popcorn, because things are shaping up to be quite interesting in terms of potential 2016 contenders, at least on the Democrat side …. ;)

What about *your* gaffes, Hillary?

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

**Posted by Phineas

Hillary Clinton official Secretary of State portrait crop

Yes, my friends, it’s time once again for one of our favorite games, “If it had been a Republican…”

Remember, how, back in the 2012 campaign, the press and the Democrat support groups (redundant, I know) hounded Republican nominee Mitt Romney over supposed misstatements and gaffes while on a foreign tour? I can recall one incident in particular, when Romney was in Poland and his campaign wanted to deal US foreign policy issues, a reporter chased after him shouting “What about your gaffes??” The purpose, of course, was to plant the idea with the public that Mitt’s minor faux pas showed he wasn’t qualified to be president.

In which case, I eagerly await Hillary being pestered about her foot-in-mouth moments:

The former Secretary of State, who’s been heavily promoting her new book “Hard Choices” in a likely precursor to running for president in 2016, appeared to state the Conservative and Tory Parties in Britain were rival political parties during a BBC interview.

“Tory” is in fact another name for the Conservative Party in Britain.

Asked by the host what she thought of the “Special Relationship” between the U.S. and Great Britain, Clinton declared it was “very special between our countries.”

“There’s not just a common language, but a common set of values that we can fall back on,” she said. “It doesn’t matter in our country whether it’s a Republican or a Democrat or frankly, in your country, whether it’s a Conservative or a Tory. There is a level of trust and understanding. That doesn’t mean we always agree because, of course, we don’t.”

As the article points out, Hillary was our Secretary of State, who had to deal with our close allies in the UK on a nearly daily basis, and yet she didn’t know “Tory” and “Conservative” were synonyms? It reminds me of the recent Obama ambassadorial appointee who didn’t know his soon-to-be host country, Norway, has a king and not a president.

For supposedly being so much smarter than everyone else and for all their claiming to know what’s best for us, progressives sure are ignorant of the wider world, no?

Of course, it could easily have been a simple slip of the tongue on Hillary’s part, saying “Conservative and Tory” when she meant “Conservative and Labor,” the kind of mental backfire we’re all subject to from time to time.

But not all of us are (probably) running for president, an office that has almost sole control over US foreign affairs, including relations with one of our closest allies.

And so I expect the MSM to grill Hillary mercilessly over this gaffe, hounding her incessantly with questions about her competence and knowledge

Just as soon as she becomes a Republican.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)