Andrea Tantaros

What The Heck is Hillary Apologizing For?

2009-03-26T06:34:00-04:00

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.

Clinton Senate Replacement Need Not Wear Heels

2008-12-17T07:24:00-04:00

Pressure is mounting in the Empire State for a woman to be appointed to fill Senator Hillary Clinton’s soon-to-be vacant Senate seat. Many Big Apple blogs are abuzz with talk that New York Governor David Paterson’s choice “MUST be a woman.” If this is what, in 2008, Democrats mean by the “politics of change” then their reasoning is seriously flawed.

As a female and taxpaying New York resident I want the best possible candidate to fill Senator Clinton’s shoes, whether they are high heels are not. Since when did we digress to decision making based on race or gender? Affirmative action was abolished a long time ago.

With a Democratic governor making the selection, I’ve got no choice but to hope for an honest, fair broker who will help get us out of the massive financial mess our state is facing and work to relieve the oppressive and onerous Empire State tax burden. It should be about excellence, not someone who looks like me.

This should be what all New Yorkers are advocating for but it isn’t the case. The discussion isn’t about experience, qualifications or what’s best for the future of New York. It’s about which restroom a candidate uses, an argument that does nothing to advance the many causes supported by women.

In fact, selecting a candidate for the U.S. Senate or any job based on sex reverses the past progress of females. Women who came before my generation fought for equality, even gave their lives, so we could be treated the same as men. Giving preferential treatment to a candidate based on gender is not equality. It only sows discord and doubt in their qualifications. Look at what Alaska Governor Sarah Palin endured when reports surfaced that she was only chosen to be John McCain’s running mate because of her gender and not because of her outsider, no nonsense persona. — She could never quite shake that stereotype. (She couldn’t shake it for other, more obvious reasons, but that’s a whole other column).

For the record, I am not hung up on a thick resume chock-full of political gravitas. I liked Palin for her record as a leader in Alaska and her smart approach to governing. She was self-made and never wavered on her positions, a rare attribute these days. I think many of the elected officials currently in office with a long list of accomplishments have failed us greatly and I embrace the idea of fresh faces, but not simply because these faces wear lipstick.

Clinton won her New York Senate seat because she used her husband’s name recognition and his political machine. She also campaigned hard and brilliantly. Since winning the seat she has done very little for the state (where is the upstate “revival” and creation of 200,000 jobs she promised?) but she won fair and square and was not elected because she was a woman.Her successor shouldn’t be appointed for that reason either.

At a time when ethics and impropriety are at the root of many of our woes from Washington, D.C. to Wall Street to Springfield, Illinois, we should be searching for the best possible candidate who will be committed to the job at hand and to morality in governance, not because of their race, sex or location (upstate vs. downstate)—especially in the ethically challenged Empire State.

If there is one thing I do want to have in common with my representatives in government it’s the desire to advance in life fairly, as the best person for the job, not because of gender. There are no “white jobs”, “black jobs”, and “Hispanic jobs” just as there shouldn’t be “black Senate seats” and “female Senate seats.” Quality is paramount, especially when we’re faced with serious issues that are color and gender blind.

Keep Your Friends Close and Your Enemies Under Your Thumb

2008-11-15T11:32:00-04:00

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton? That's what reports are saying. According to officials Obama has narrowed the possibilities for secretary of state, and Senator Hillary Clinton is among those being strongly considered. Some officials even call her the favorite.

Obama offering Clinton the position of secretary of state exemplies the notion of keeping your friends close and your enemies -- not just close -- but under your thumb. The last thing Barack Obama wants is a supercharged Hillary Clinton potentially causing trouble in the Senate. (The last thing Hillary wants is to be under a man's thumb, I thought). If she accepts the job, she's shackled to his Administration, which is smart if he wants to fend off attacks from the Clintons in 2012 -- a win for Obama and Democratic Party unity.

It's all politics, shrewd politics. So is Obama's upcoming meeting with John McCain. The President elect ran on bi-partisanship. Now the onus is on him to deliver. But most importantly, he wants shore up two terms early. And he can do that by mollifying his detractors and appeasing potential opponents.

If Hillary doesn't accept the job she looks like a sore loser, unwilling to cooperate. But Obama is smart enough not to publicly ask her without knowing she'll accept.

I'm not sure why she would want the position. Sure it's prestigious, but if she signs on Obama will own her. She will serve at his pleasure. In the Senate, nobody owns Hillary, especially now. She is poised to assume the role of lioness in the Senate in Ted Kennedy's absence. And secretary of state may seem old hat for the former First Lady. She likely considered herself Madeline Albright's boss when Bill was Commander in Chief.

To the Senator's credit, she is the most hawkish out of the names being floated thus far.

My hunch is the Clintons have already brokered a deal with President elect Obama. The question is, is this it?

The Growing Democratic Dissatisfaction

2008-08-26T12:25:00-04:00

It was probably tough to tell watching from home, but the most deafening applause during Michelle Obama's speech followed her line about Hillary Clinton. I'm sure it was tough for Mrs. Obama to deliver. Hillary had some pretty harsh words for her husband that could be tough to forget.

Though Michelle is the candidate's wife, she wasn't exactly a show stealer. But that was the point. Because she is plagued by the militant black woman perception, she had to be anything but. Her speech was another action item in her effort at a political makeover. (Innocuous, predicable speech at convention - CHECK!)

The hype surrounding Hillary's speech tonight is warranted. However, I don't think there is anything Clinton can say to sway her dissatisfied supporters at this stage in the game. Her kind words will be more about her doing due diligence to quash the rumors she's still sour. If only we could hook her up to a polygraph and watch that needle move. Because believe it: there is no question that the reports of discord among Democrats is very real, despite the spin. And for good reason. They want her to run in 2012. She wholeheartedly concurs.

Talk about timing. Today is Women's Equality Day and the 88th anniversary of women obtaining the right to vote. Her speech will be preceeded by female Democratic Senators touting the accomplishments of their sex. So Hillary doesn't have to praise her own candidacy, she can simply talk about the importance of shattering the glass ceiling. And on such a significant day for women in America, how can anyone feasibly criticize her for that?? [insert sarcastic tone here.]

Clinton will fill a gaping void tonight. Quite a few pundits are calling the first day of the convention a wasted opportunity. As the McCain camp pounds away at Obama, his camp does little to reciprocate, frustrating many Democrats who are urging Obama to learn from John Kerry's mistakes and fight back. Enter Hillary, stage left. She'll take biting swipes at McCain and the Republican establishment. I predict she'll do so well playing the heroine/attack dog that it will inevitably invoke buyer's remorse among Democrats. At a time when they need buy-in the most.

Tonight, all Hillary has to do is look better than Barack. And gauging from his lackluster performances over the last few weeks, that won't be too tough.

Forget Denver, Camp Clinton Still Vacationing in Denial

2008-08-12T19:30:00-04:00

They just can't get over it. Months after Hillary Clinton lost the Democratic nomination for President many in her camp and millions of her supporters are still in denial over their unhappy ending. Perhaps Democrats can't unite because Senator Clinton didn't acknowledge Barack Obama won the nomination the night he cinched victory, or because she has merely suspended her campaign and her supporters are planning protests in Denver. Maybe it's because her husband still hasn't thrown his full support behind Obama (When asked last week if he thought Obama was ready to be President, Clinton responded, "You can argue that nobody is ready to be President." Gee, thanks, Bill!) If Hillary and her hubby aren't 100 percent believably behind Barack, her camp sure as hell won't be. As my Greek father always says, "the fish stinks from the head."

Despite our looming suspicion that she's still not thrilled about her defeat, her former Communications Director, Howard Wolfson, cemented that hypothesis. Wolfson recently speculated on Fox News that had John Edwards' extramarital affair been revealed earlier and actually covered by the mainstream media, Hillary Clinton would be the candidate accepting the nomination in Denver later this month.

As an aside, if I hadn't lost my gymnastics competition when I was seven by one tenth of a point I'd be getting ready to mount the uneven bars in the 2008 Beijing Olympics.

Wolfson continued, "The details about the affair would have forced Edwards out of the race and Clinton would have become the Democratic nominee... Our voters and Edwards' voters were the same people."

Get him some group therapy.

Political strategists are often forced to deal in hypotheticals, and Wolfson is correct in saying that to some degree Edwards siphoned support from Clinton. However, when a former campaign communications director--not pundit, not surrogate--says his candidate would have won the nomination two weeks away from the party's convention and best opportunity to solidify, someone should drug test him for hallucinogens.

Attention Clinton camp: Hillary lost because she was too busy measuring the West Wing for new carpets instead of worrying about the new kid on the block formerly known as Barry. Apparently, reality doesn't just bite. It leaves a scar that resists fading.

Paramount to Wolfson's delusions, where's the unity? The healing? The "cumbaya" moments Democrats promised America postmortem? Their party desperately needs a group hug or some trust falls, and Clinton supporters need a serious come to Jesus. That still hasn't happened. But why?

A) Are the Clintonites sore losers?

B) Hoping to secure a spot as Vice President in the eleventh hour?

C) Hoping for a McCain win so she can run again?

D) All of the above.

I'm going with D. Call it a gut feeling.

Truth be told this is fun stuff for Republicans to watch. The more the Clintonites continue to live in a perpetual state of shoulda, coulda, woulda, the more it hurts their party and Obama's chances in November. Democrats are finally realizing what the GOP has known for years: the Clintons are excellent at division, and even better at arithmetic; 2008 + 4 is 2012, after all.