Hillary’s new book unleashes fresh attacks from Democrats.

Hillary's new book about the campaign sets the record straight.Many of the Clintons’ most rabid enemies are not Republicans. They are fellow travelers, Democrats, who have long resented Bill and Hillary’s success, their intelligence, the network of supporters they grew from scratch, and — most galling to the left — the Clintons’ talent at turning practical Democratic principles into votes on election day. Hillary’s new book gives the saboteurs a new reason to whack her on the knees.

Yeah, I’ll get to the most recent “election day” in a moment, but what’s on my mind today is the pattern of resentment that began from the moment she entered the White House as First Lady, to her concession speech last November.

Back then I wrote an article for the Quarterly, “Women Who Hate Hillary.” I wrote that she was too smart, too accomplished, too attractive for many other women — especially professional women — to accept, much less admire. Most of what I wrote back then was tongue in cheek, but 20 years later I think it was closer to the truth than I realized at the time. The only difference today is that the resentment is not gender-based. There are certainly enough men among the Hillary-haters crowd to say we have reach gender equality.

Let’s be honest and admit that there are numerous theories about why she lost to Donald Trump. Trump thinks Hillary lost because he was a great candidate. Many think she lost because she was a terrible candidate. Within that spectrum, we can point fingers at the FBI director, the Russians, Bernie and his band of lefties, the media that ran scared at the sight of Trump, an Obama backlash, bad advice from her campaign team, and Democratic party regulars who were intent on doing as little as they could to help the woman they resented for so long.

My take is that all those reasons — excuses, really — have some merit (except the first, sorry Mr. President). My personal animus is directed more towards Sanders than anyone else, but that’s just me and I don’t pretend to be very objective about it.

So now Hillary wants to discuss the campaign from her perspective. The losing candidate, a woman who broke more glass ceilings for women than anyone else in our political history, wants to write about her campaign. Heaven help us!

The smug egotists on the far left don’t want to hear from her anymore. Though she won the popular election by several million votes, they want her to just fade away like an old soldier and not talk about losing an election she could have or should have won. They say her continued appearance in the limelight will ruin any chances they have in 2020.

To them I say, “Too bad!”

Their endless bad-mouthing of Hillary speaks volumes about their real priority. We have a demented, erratic president who is an embarrassment to our democracy and a threat to the civil liberties of all Americans, not to mention a danger to the world. Instead of saying “Hillary was right” and giving her credit for that, they blame her. Of course, that would mean that their own political ideology comes first; Hillary, the country, and ultimately the fate of the Democratic party are all at the end of the line.

The Hillary-haters don’t understand how much they need her. The reason is simple: left to their own twisted view of reality, in 2020 they will give us the Democratic version of Donald Trump: an extremist ideologue who doesn’t know how to bring two sides of an argument into the same room and hammer out a compromise when one is needed. To them compromise is a dirty word, forgetting that our electorate is so diverse demographically and politically, that compromise is the only way to accomplish anything in Washington. Just ask Bill Clinton.

If their chances in 2020 are ruined, it will have nothing to do with Hillary or her new book, although I am certain they would find a reason to blame her if they fail. My fear is that the 2016 campaign will be an excuse to move even farther to the left. Assuming they are really concerned about the next set of elections, I suggest that they focus on the current occupant of the White House and the fascists who support him.

Hillary’s not the enemy. Nor is Bill Clinton. If they want to find the real enemy of their success, they just have to look in the mirror.

Far-left Democrats still out to destroy Hillary.

Following the same “Anyone But Hillary” strategy they used in 2008, far-left Democrats are still trying to get even with Hillary for voting for the Iraq war and not being liberal enough.

If we consider the declared candidates and non-candidates like Elizabeth Warren, when they say Hillary has “too much baggage,” they don’t just mean the various Clinton scandals. They mean her policies, her votes, her personal beliefs, the track record of political inclusion that sometimes requires compromise with the opposition. They literally can’t stomach her and will do anything to stop her.

Eight years have changed Barack Obama’s political game, but many of his supporters from 2008 have not. Remember that “1984” anti-Hillary ad? Presumably, the President would not approve of such an outrageous attack on the former First Lady, but he did back in 2008. The ad was not just about a policy disagreement. It was a personal attack on Hillary the person and everything she believed in.

Here is the ad again in case you need a refresher:

There’s a connection between the “1984 video” and the current far left campaign to smear Hillary. Blue State Digital, the company that employed the person who created the anti-Hillary “1984 video,” was founded by a group of anti-war activists who worked on the Howard Dean 2004 campaign.

As previously noted on the company’s web site:

“The partners of Blue State Digital – Jascha Franklin-Hodge, Clay Johnson, Joe Rospars and Ben Self – started the company immediately after working for Howard Dean’s presidential campaign in 2004. Since then, the company has grown to 22 employees with offices in Boston and Washington, D.C. and works with over 40 clients – including Sen. Ted Kennedy’s (D-Mass.) campaign, Gov. Tom Vilsack’s (D-Iowa) PAC — Heartland PAC, the AFL-CIO, the DNC and the Democratic Governors Association.”

Although the company released a statement distancing itself from the video’s creator, Phillip de Vellis, clearly there was an anti-Hillary Clinton, anti-war fervor within the company that fed into de Vellis’ warped view of then-Senator Clinton as “Big Brother.” Ultimately, the company — and Barack Obama — were responsible for their role as “enablers” of de Vellis and for encouraging and promoting such extreme anti-war positions.

A viewing of the 1984 video would suggest that de Vellis takes himself and his views very seriously. However, in a comic understatement, his reaction after being fired by Blue State Digital was that the incident “changed the trajectory of my career.”

And, in an apparent effort to rebuild the bridges that were quickly burning behind him, he offered his support to Hillary Clinton and vowed to vote for her if she won the nomination.

Perhaps playing seer for this controversy, Blue State Digital co-founder Clay Johnson said in a round-table discussion entitled “Net Politics: the Internet Can Make You President” — “The thing that scares the crap out of me are the camera phone and YouTube. They are going to be the death of a candidate. ”

Or a video producer.

Our advice here at HCQ is to keep an eye on what the far left Democrats (so-called progressives) are doing to keep Hillary out of the White House. In 2008 they helped defeat her in the Democratic primaries. In 2015 they’re still trying to destroy her political career.

Was Hillary’s performance at State just average?

It was just a matter of time before politicians and talking heads with an agenda to push started their “assessments” of Hillary Clinton and her performance as Secretary of State. Hillary’s performance at State is as much about domestic politics as it is foreign policy.

If you want to guess what kind of grade she will get, assume that anyone to the right of her, any Republican, any journalist or writer pushing a right-wing agenda OR pushing for a Democratic candidate other than Hillary, will give her a barely satisfactory grade.

It is also fair to assume that anyone with a left-leaning or pro-Hillary point of view will give her high grades for her ground-breaking work in “X” country or situation.

Here’s how she was graded by the people contacted by Politico. The report comes from The Wire:

  • Aaron David Miller, former State negotiator: “She was a fine secstate but not consequential.” Our estimate: 
  • American Enterprise’s Institute’s Danielle Pletka: “Unwillingness to take risks, unwillingness to lead, willingness to stab a lot of people in the back. And dead people.” Our estimate: 
  • David Gordon, State staffer under Bush: “[G]ood not great … great weakness was avoiding serious diplomacy.” Our estimate: 
  • Howard Berman, formerly of the House Foreign Affairs Committee: “[L]ook at the issues Kerry is working on and it is clear that Clinton, for rather obvious reasons, couldn’t have replicated what he has done because those issues weren’t ripe then.” Our estimate: 
  • Dennis Ross, former National Security Council aide: Clinton was “in a place where she felt the need to prove her loyalty to the president and demonstrate she was a member of the team.” Our estimate: 
  • Steve Sestanovich, former State department staffer under President Clinton: “It’s true that her record as secretary included few accomplishments if you mean by that peace agreements solving some big problem. If you measure her tenure by success in rebuilding America’s power position, it looks a lot better.” Our estimate: 
  • Anne-Marie Slaughter, former State staffer under Hillary Clinton: “I continue to think that people will look back and see that she was the first secretary of state really to grasp the ways global politics and hence foreign policy have changed in the 21st century.” Our estimate: