"With the notable exception of her husband's libidinous carelessness, the most egregious errors, strategic and tactical, of the Bill Clinton presidency, particularly in its infancy, were traceable to Hillary--not just her botched handling of their health care agenda, or the ethical cloud hovering like a pall over their administration, but so many of the stumbles and falls responsible for sweeping in the Congress led by Newt Gingrich in 1994 and ending the ambitious phase of their presidency, as well as what had seemed almost a permanent Democratic congressional majority, in place with irregular interruptions since FDR. The inept staffing of the White House, the disastrous serial search for an attorney general, the Travel Office fiasco, the Whitewater land deal, the so-called scandal over her commodities trading, the alienation of key senators and congressmen--all this can be traced in large measure to Hillary."
--Carl Bernstein, A Woman in Charge, 2007

I definitely agree. Bill Clinton is without a doubt in my mind the greatest politician to ever be President (that is, the president that was greatest at politicking). However, I don't think Hillary can be counted on to make similar mistakes in the future. She is intelligent and calculating, and has doubtless learned from the goofs of the first Clinton Administration.

It's been interesting to see her walk the fine line with the Dem's Looney base as a primary candidate and it will be even more interesting to see how and if she can morph into a moderate for the general election. Or whether she's a fully owned subsidiary of MoveOn.org.

Even better and more entertaining will be to see if she can keep her cool and remain composed when she's hit with all of her past dirty baggage.

She, like her low life husband, is a vile individual.

I personally find something much more serious in Hillary than in Bill. Bill seems to be more motivated politically by the desire for honor and attention, whereas Hillary really seems driven by a humorless conviction that she should rule. Compromise and forgiveness is much more present in the first type of person than the second.

She is thus more dangerous.

I would agree with that observation. She is much more power hungry than her philandering good time charlie husband.

I don't believe, given the arrogant nature of her errors (e.g.,at all times, I know best), that she is capable of learning better. She made those errors too late in life to learn the lesson of humility. She will be a terrible president even by the standards of those who share her political convictions.

Women in the workplace, when they have to compete with men of equal position, have proven to be either 1 of 2 types:

Ballbuster or little lamb.

There's rarely a middle. I don't know why, but women try to become more agressive to compete with their equally agressive male counterparts. But in the process, they usually become a-hole ballbusters, for some reason.

Or, they become the lamb, and just bow out of the whole thing. These women, of course, rarely advance because no one is scared of them.

Oh, and of course. I'm sure you can guess which one Hillary is. I meant to mention that the majority of the time, the ballbuster also leaves all manner of destruction and burnt bridges in their wake. The greater the position of power, the greater the destruction.

In 2004, Hitlery told her audience at a fundraiser in San Francisco: "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

What more do you need to know.

For a person who has the reputation of being brilliant and who obviously believes that, she has made more than her share of mistakes. But she has prospered politically from the “co-president” recognition, connections, having a strong network and, let’s not forget, treachery.

That quote demonstrates just how smart she thinks she is and that she believes that she should be in a position to tell people what they should do.

Can you say dictator?!

“If [Adolf] Hitler were in the United States and wanted a platform from which to speak...[and was] willing to engage in a debate and a discussion to be challenged by Columbia students and faculty, we would certainly invite him.” —Columbia University’s Dean John Coatsworth

More feared than Hitler, the Columbia disinvitee Dan Flynn must be one powerful speaker.

Bit off topic but...

In 1933, Columbia invited Nazi Germany’s ambassador to the United States Hans Luther, a senior official of Adolph Hitler’s regime, to speak on campus and also hosted a reception for him. In 1936 they sent a delegate to attend a university celebration of the University of Heidelberg, despite the fact that Heidelberg had adopted a Nazi curriculum, purged its staff of Jews and hosted book burnings.

So, you see, you have to be about radical oppression and murder to get invited to speak at Columbia.

One of my big complaints during the Clinton years was that people thought he was merely naughty when in fact he was a lot more sinister than that.

I'm now wondering if I might have been wrong. If he didn't have a wife driving him to preserve their joint political career, he might have been nothing more than the affable rogue most people thought he was.

Dick Morris has shed a lot of light on this. He's written extensively about Hillary's "secret police" and has pointed out that Bill wanted to settle the Paula Jones lawsuit early on but Hillary vetoed that idea.