Hillary's qualifications

Dick Morris, always ready to criticize the Clintons, ponders why Democrats are supporting Clinton.

Hillary's demonstrated ability to overcome adversity and triumph is the quality that most appeals to Democrats. Were she to star in a reality TV show, it would be "Survivor." She has taken the worst the Republican machine can deal and overcome it. She has mastered the Karl Roves of our politics and earned the affection of her party's voters for doing so.

Her battle scars are her accolades. Her ability to come back from Gennifer Flowers, healthcare reform, the loss of Congress, the grand jury subpoenas of Kenneth Starr, the denouement of the truth about Lewinsky, the ensuing impeachment, the carpetbagger issue as she journeyed to New York, the pardon and White House gifts scandals and her early support of the war in Iraq are the real items in her résumé that interest her party's voters. They care less what kind of president she would be and more that she probably can become the president.

When she says she can "hit the ground running," she pretends that she is addressing her vast public policy experience. But it is irrelevant that she was in the White House for eight years. So was the pastry chef. But what is relevant, and inescapable, is that she did lead the president's crusade to overcome the efforts of the "vast right-wing conspiracy" to bring him down, and it is that experience which endears her to the base.

Of course, the Republicans are also looking for the candidate who can win - listen to Giuliani's message of how he's the one candidate who can take on Hillary successfully so it's no shocker that Democrats, after two disappointing presidential elections, are eager for their own candidate who can defeat the Republicans.

Interestingly, Hillary is openly playing to the desires that Morris refers to. On the trail and in Democratic debates she'll cite her experience taking on the Right Wing machinery as one of her prime qualifications. She claims that she's their girl if that's what they want. In an interview with the Washington Post she cites her history of taking on partisan attacks as one of her qualifications. She asserts that because she has been strengthened by partisan attacks and shown she can fight back that somehow this makes her better qualified to be a president who can bring diverse groups together.

Clinton spoke at some length about her rivals' criticism that she carries too much political baggage from the conflicts of her husband's administration to be an effective and unifying president.

"I really think my experience uniquely equips me to be president at this time, both having gone through it, having been on the receiving end of it and -- in campaigns that were hard-fought -- maybe on the giving end of it . . .," she said.

"The overall assessment, given all of the mistakes that I made and all of the lessons that I've learned, is that we've got to put an end to it, but you can't just hope it goes away," she said. "You can't just wake up and say, 'Let's all just hold hands and be together.' You've got to demonstrate that you're not going to be cowed or intimidated or deterred by it, and then you can reach out and bring people who are of good faith together."

So, what's the logical point here? I've been attacked by partisans and I've fought back hard. Thus, I can end it. Wouldn't a more logical inference be that she would continue as she has been all her life? I often have trouble getting my students to understand in their writing that they can't just assert that something is so, but they have to give historical evidence to support their assertions. I'd advise Hillary to do the same.

Her response to a question on Social Security doesn't give hope to Republicans who are looking for a Democrat who would reach out to them.

On Social Security, Clinton declined to say whether she would support reduced benefits or increased taxes to ensure the system's long-term solvency.

"Let me tell you where I stand on Social Security, and maybe that will explain where I stand on all the particulars," she said. "First of all, I reject the conventional wisdom and the Republican talking points that Social Security is in a crisis. I do not agree with that."

She said she would follow President Ronald Reagan's example by appointing a bipartisan commission to study the issue and avoid making her own recommendations until it reports back.

"I'm not advocating any of it as a presidential candidate or as a president," she said. "But I am strongly advocating a bipartisan process, similar to what we had in '83, and when that gets set up, as I hope it will be when I'm president, then I'm going to see what the bipartisan members are going to come up with."

She's going to be bipartisan but her first statement is that she rejects Republican "talking points." And just what we need, another bipartisan commission on Social Security. And previously she's rejected solutions that would decrease benefits or involve any sort of attempt to give people control over their own funds. You know what that leaves out - raising taxes.