Dirk Diggler

HILL'S WEAK SPOT - SHE'S SENATOR STUBBORN

By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN

February 17, 2007 -- Sorry seems to be the hardest word for Hillary Clinton.

The New York senator is not used to being challenged on either her policy
positions or her votes - especially when it comes to Iraq. For the last six
years, she's operated in a protective bubble - insulated from the press and
the voters.

Those days are over.

Since she entered the presidential race two weeks ago, she's learned quickly
that voters in Iowa and New Hampshire - and most likely in the rest of the
country - want truthful answers and won't accept scripted spin.

During the last week, wherever Hillary Clinton campaigned, she faced one
dogged question that wouldn't go away: "Are y ou sorry for your 2002 vote in
favor of invading Iraq?"

But try as they might, neither reporters nor voters can pry the "S" word out
of Hillary. She refuses to apologize for voting to authorize the use of our
military.

Instead, she repeats that she "takes responsibility" for her vote and that
had she "known then what I know now," she would have voted against the
resolution. She reiterates that she doesn't believe in "do-overs" and even
tries to persuade her listeners that she never meant to vote for
"pre-emptive war" and that she was actually voting to strengthen the weapons
inspectors.

Iraq is not her mistake; it's President's Bush's mistake. End of story.

But the questions persist. So, why has she chosen to take on an unnecessary
fight about whether to apologize for a vote she cast five ye ars ago? Her
fellow candidate John Edwards and 2004's Democratic nominee, Sen. John
Kerry, both have used the "S" word and apologized for their votes. Likely
her advisers have warned that the perception that she flip-flops on the
issues is a key negative and have urged her not to change her position. She
doesn't want to look like Kerry in 2004.

But her refusal to apologize is typical of two other characteristics that so
frequently land her in trouble: her stubbornness and belief that she is
always right.

We've seen this before.

Urged to compromise on health-care reform in 1994, she refused. Counseled by
most of her staff to release the Whitewater documents when The Washington
Post first requested them, she said no and triggered the designation of a
special prosecutor. When Whitewater co-conspirator Jim MacDougal suggested
that he buy her out of the investment to avoid political embarrassment, she
refused, saying that she planned to use the proceeds for Chelsea's college
tuition. When Bill Clinton had the opportunity to settle the Paula Jones
lawsuit, Hillary vetoed that possibility, paving the way for her husband's
impeachment.

When Hillary takes these positions, she believes that she is right - and no
one can convince her otherwise.

When Hillary is right, this stubbornness is commendable. But when she is
wrong, it is frustrating to her supporters and infuriating to her advisers.

But there's another reason for her stubbornness. Hillary, for all of her
vaunted independence, depends on gurus to guide her every move. She falls
under their spell and, while thus mesmerized, she believes they can do no
ill or make no mistake.

Hillary wouldn't compromise on health care because her guru-du-jour Ira
Magaziner told he r not to do so. She wouldn't release the Whitewater
records because her former mentor, White House Counsel Bernard Nussbaum,
advised against it. She wouldn't back off her support for the war partially
because the generals to whom she had come to listen and admire while serving
on the Armed Services Committee warned that it would lead to a disaster.
Combine that with the flawed guidance of her pollsters and you see why
Hillary is stuck.

Sometimes the gurus are right (as on Iraq). Sometimes they're wrong. But
Hillary can't tell the difference.

That's a key reason why she shouldn't be president.







Amen.



DD