The best thing to happen to Hillary is an economic crisis. The calamities have pushed foreign policy headlines off page one and eclipsed her many gaffes since becoming secretary of state — from mispronouncing the names of dignitaries to giving the Russians a bright red reset button as a symbol of starting fresh, not the obvious connotation of a device that will set off nukes that would destroy us.

Today, however, Clinton finds herself thrust above the fold after telling Mexico that it’s America’s fault for the escalating troubles in their country because of our “demand for illegal narcotics and the U.S. arms export market” that were partly to blame.

“Our insatiable demand for illegal drugs fuels the drug trade. Our inability to prevent weapons from being illegally smuggled across the border to arm these criminals causes the death of police officers, soldiers and civilians … I feel very strongly we have a co-responsibility,” Clinton said.

Does Secretary Clinton think that apologizing on foreign soil will alleviate the violence of the powerful Mexican drug cartels? The Obama - Clinton foreign policy team is showing weakness. Clinton’s job is to protect the United States’ interests abroad, not concede our liabilities. Itemizing the wrongs of the nation is not presidential, or even wise.

Imagine if Hillary were your attorney? “Your honor, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, it’s my client’s fault.”

Further, has Hillary opened up huge problem for her boss, Obama (who used cocaine) and her brother in law, Roger Clinton? Will Obama now apologize for helping to fuel the drug cartel? Is he responsible? And if he isn't, who is?

What happened to “Hillary the Hun”? The tough talking, no nonsense Clinton seems to have been left behind with her former self. Now, she’s an appeaser who is more concerned with political correctness than the correct move for the U.S. Her boss, President Obama is the same way: determined to win a global popularity contest at all costs. The administration recently announced that the War on Terror would now be called the “Overseas Contingency Operation” and Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano insisted terrorist attacks are really “man made disasters.”

The only man made disaster I can see is Obama’s cabinet appointments.

The Obama administration is simply trying to give terrorists — from Hezbollah to Al Qaeda to foreign drug lords — the respect that they do not deserve. If they want to fight about spreading democracy abroad, that’s another fight. We are in a war with people who want to kill us, a war between two moralities: one that celebrates murder, one that finds it repugnant.

With all of our fiscal challenges and the reality that developing countries are buying the lion’s share of our debt, now is the worst possible time to go soft. Let’s stand firm and leave the apologizing up to Congress and AIG.

Andrea Tantaros is a conservative political commentator and former Press Secretary to the House Republican Conference. Her commentary can be found on www.andreatantaros.com and www.foxnews.com/opinion.

Last night Obama delivered a live press conference that came after a week of bizarre behavior, ranging from inappropriate jokes on the Tonight Show, and delayed outrage over executive bonuses. America is eagerly waiting for President Obama to make his case, again tonight, there were no answers.

After tonight, one thing is clear: Obama has his bachelors, masters and doctorate in persistent ambiguity.. He dodged questions on how exactly he'll cut the deficit by increasing spending. He ducked the issue of whether his policies will result in massive inflation. And he danced around the fact that his budget will double the national debt in 5 years and triple it in ten years.

The only thing we do know, is that Obama will make it harder for some people to give to charity. It is one thing to oppose the rich, it is another to oppose charitable giving.

Answers weren't the only thing missing last night; so were tough questions from the press. No questions about the AIG bonuses; no questions about Congress’s latest efforts to raise taxes, Leno grilled him harder than the White House press corps.

Most disappointing was the failure of the press to seriously question Obama on Geither's latest plan to thaw credit markets. Will it work? Hard to tell in the absence of tough questions.

Most notable was his verbal word orgy when it came to investments, which we all know is liberal speak for spending. In fact, I use the term investment every time I try to justify a shoe purchase at Bloomingdale's. Note: the last person to overuse the term investment was Bernie Madoff.

His press conference left the public unconvinced. And that Mr. President is no laughing matter.

With his massive wealth transfer proposals, it was hard not to view President Obama as a decent man who was inviting fiscal ruin with the best of intentions. That was until the Washington Times reported that he had secured a $500,000 advance for a book project just days before taking office. The White House argues that the $500,000 payment is not a “book deal,” but a “license” that was negotiated over the course of months for an abridged youth version of a preexisting book. Only the “paperwork” was signed just before taking office.

Whatever the argument, it is incumbent on President Obama to return his book advance immediately. Here’s why.

First, Obama’s deal gives the impression of impropriety. A president, or president- elect, with the highest ethics, should shun large private pecuniary arrangements, so as not to cast doubt on the office, or the intentions of the office holder. In the case of President Obama, the deal makes him look like an old school Chicago politician looking to get rich off of public service.

Second, Obama is cashing in on a loophole. According to the Washington Times, there are no rules preventing such a deal, just as there were no rules against most of the actions leading to the present financial crisis. The trouble with this loophole is that Obama has been criticizing corporations for taking advantage of loopholes, even though he took advantage of a big one himself.

Third, Obama’s $500,000 deal sets a poor precedent. How do we distinguish between a book deal now; a book and movie deal four years from now; a book, movie and consulting deal eight years from now; and simply a consulting deal or other arrangement 12 years from now? Unless returned, Obama’s book advance (or license) could allow future presidents to profit more and more at the expense of the public good.

Fourth, the advance smacks of exploitation. Obama surrogates are stressing that the payment is a license to a children’s publisher for an abridged youth-oriented version of a preexisting book. Somehow this is supposed to make the arrangement innocuous; but this is what makes it so bad. The fact that they hide behind youth makes it all the more exploitive.

Last, it is pure hypocrisy. Obama is continually slamming those who make money, while quietly getting rich himself, and this undermines his credibility.

The White House defense of Obama’s publishing payment is truly unpersuasive. Whether one calls it a “license” or a “book deal,” the fact remains that President Obama negotiated a lucrative private arrangement while both a presidential candidate and president-elect. This arrangement casts doubt on the president’s ethics and judgment. It also begs the question of how he intends to spend his time in the White House. Will he be negotiating profitable license deals and approving abridged versions of his books? Or will he be governing our nation? Instead of negotiating this license, Obama’s time would have been better spent staffing the Treasury Department and figuring a way out of the credit mess.

There will be plenty of time for President Obama to augment his income after he leaves office. As it stands now, he should return the book advance to his publisher and apologize to the nation for using his office to enrich himself at a time of economic distress.

Looks like a life devoid of romance has taken a toll on Meghan McCain. Last week she was complaining she couldn't get a date. This week, in a new blog post for the Daily Beast, McCain calls President Obama “the hippest politician around” and blasts conservative author Ann Coulter for helping to “perpetuate negative stereotypes” about Republican women. “I straight up don’t understand this woman or her popularity,” says McCain. “I find her offensive, radical, insulting, and confusing all at the same time.”

Remind me again what Meghan McCain has done besides be born to her finger in the wind, fair weather Republican father? Insulting and confusing are words typically used to describe John McCain’s most recent pander to the right for the Presidency, not Coulter's conservative composition.

Sure Coulter is controversial, outspoken and sometimes abrasive. She gets people thinking and talking. And often times she’s on point. It’s what she does best.  If she were a man -- and a liberal -- she’d be revered. In fact, she’d be Rahm Emanuel, minus the fish FedEx incident and ballerina stint. (Ann’s too tall to be a dancer, anyway, and likely towers over the slight frame of the White House Chief of Staff. I personally would rather see her delivering punches than pirouettes any day.)

“Maybe her popularity stems from the fact that watching her is sometimes like watching a train wreck,” McCain says.

When most Republicans think about her father voting against the Bush tax cuts, pushing amnesty for illegal immigrants, enacting McCain Feingold, getting behind cap and trade, visions of train wrecks dance in our heads. In fact, the last two years of her father’s Presidential campaign was one massive train wreck that enabled our country to elect the “hippest politician around.”

Hip. Right. Just ask the markets how hip he is.

She concedes that Coulter seems to be followed by a “cult that cannot be denied,” and was a popular headliner at the recent Conservative Political Action Conference, but adds that “when your competition is a teenager who has a dream about the Republican Party and Stephen Baldwin, it’s not really saying that much.”

Don’t get me started on her father’s competition for the Republican nomination. Those living in glass Straight Talk Express buses...

Though McCain argues she is only trying to help get more young people involved in the Republican Party and pundits like Coulter stifle their participation, it makes me wonder why she isn't going after the GOP establishment instead of entertainers? Coulter, like Rush Limbaugh, is not the head of the Republican Party or responsible for mobilizing the youth vote. Contentious or not, Limbaugh and Coulter have been consistent in their views which is more than I can say for the Republican Party.  The only thing the GOP has been consistent about in recent memory is consistently forgetting our principles and how to communicate them to the country. That is a turn off to any age group, young or old.

If Meghan McCain were serious about inspiring an influx of gen X and Yers, why not rage against the out of touch elected officials in Washington who've ran the GOP into the ground and still struggle with a cogent message? They've dropped the ball when it comes to communication with youth, Hispanics and women to name a few.  This makes me think McCain's rant is not only misguided and poorly thought out, but also highly personal.  Frankly as a young Republican myself, a party and politician standing on principle -- not pop culture -- is more attractive than any vapid cult of personality candidate who gets shout outs at the MTV awards. Until we figure out what we stand for, some new ideas, and a fresh way of articulating those themes we won't be attracting any new voters, Coulter or not.

Chances are Ann likely loves the attention as she’s trying to sell her new book, and Meghan apparently is trying to win favor with Daily Beast founder Tina Brown and her in-crowd. That’s the problem with the McCain family: they are more concerned with being popular than they are about being right. Pun intended.

President Obama’s first budget is nothing short of astounding:  Record debt, record deficits, and momentous taxes, all in an effort to usher in a new era of responsibility.

The Obama budget in fact heralds a new era of doublespeak.  It is a work of unprecedented deception that conceals Obama’s deep resentment towards sound budgeting, economic recovery and those values that distinguish America from the rest of the world.

Read the Obama budget and you will see that duplicity pervades its four corners:

Obama bemoans the housing crisis, but proposes a budget that the National Association Realtors (NAR) says will undermine “the basic foundation of homeownership…hamper the economic recovery, raise foreclosures and hurt banks’ abilities to lend.”

He cries about the declining middle class, but offers a solution dependent on social welfare programs and one that NAR also declares will reduce middle class home values.

He lashes out at the previous administration for increased spending, but recommends increasing spending further.

He complains about rising health care costs, but presents a plan that replaces higher health care bills with higher taxes.

He says there is “nothing wrong with making money,” unless you actually succeed in earning some; then he will redistribute it.

The deceit is most pronounced when President Obama discusses future budget deficits.
Obama labels Bush deficit spending a “manifestation of irresponsibility,” even though his budget depends on deficit spending greater than anything witnessed under Bush.

He repeatedly argues that he inherited deficits but neglects to mention that he served in the Senate and voted for record deficit spending, and to increase the national debt ceiling to $11 trillion. While President Obama can indeed point some fingers at history, he is only pointing fingers at himself.

More appalling are Obama’s supposed demands for deficit reduction. Obama's promise to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term will still leave a budget deficit larger than any deficit created during the Bush years.

This is not to say that spending was out of control under Bush. It was, however the solution is not Obama’s request for a fourfold increase in the deficit.

Truly, it is carefully concealed fury, not responsibility, that rages beneath Obama’s budget:  Fury towards individual responsibility; fury towards business enterprise; and fury foremost towards a world that rewards the diligent and punishes the foolhardy.

America seldom places faith in the furious, so Obama duplicitously dresses his resentments in a costume of hope and optimism.  In the end, we are left with bigger debts, pronounced deficits, and little to hope for except another government bailout.

It has become jaw-droppingly clear that Barack Obama seeks to radically shift the alignment of this country, fusing its people with its government in a dramatic leftward lunge the likes of which America never has seen.

Obama deceitfully billed himself a pragmatist on the campaign trail. He was marketed as a "moderate." Post-election, pundits predicted he'd govern from the center. They couldn't have been more mistaken. Barack Obama is an extremist progressive.

President Obama seeks to molest our fiscal values. He aggrandizes reliance on fruitless government programs.

On its face, this appears to confirm that Obama is a tax-and-spend liberal with heavy socialist marbling. But it's much more complex than that. Though Obama has proclaimed that "this has never been about me -- it's about you" on the stump, these very actions are all about him and his increasingly apparent obsession with exaltation and a delusional quest for historic grandeur.

The cult of personality created by the Leftist trifecta of academia, media and the entertainment industry has overtaken Obama's own self-image. And he believes the hype. Most politicians possess a swollen sense of self-worship. But Obama believes he is the superhero of fanatical Democrat extremism, the green lantern of progressive precept, the Will Smith of left-wing indoctrination.

Obama certainly will be successful in his mission for unparalleled historic recognition. But don't expect any Obama dollar bill in the future. For his notoriety will be a legendary imprint for all the wrong reasons.