Maureen Dowd, "Can We Get Hillary Without the Foolery?": When Did Hillary and Bill Last Spend a Night in Bed Together?

Yes, Hillary is running for president in 2016, and in case you didn't know, blueprints for a semi-detached "Monica Wing" of the White House are already being prepared by a leading Washington architectural firm.

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Can We Get Hillary Without the Foolery?" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/07/opinion/sunday/dowd-can-we-get-hillary-without-the-foolery.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0), Maureen Dowd writes:

"As long as there are no more health scares — the thick glasses are gone — Hillary’s age won’t stop her. The Clinton scandals and dysfunction are in the rearview mirror at the moment, and the sluggish economy casts a halcyon glow on the Clinton era. Hillary is a symbol and a survivor, running on sainthood. Ronald Reagan, elected at 69, was seen as an 'ancient king' gliding through life, as an aide put it. Hillary, who would be elected at 69, would be seen as an ancient queen striding through life."

Sorry, but personally I've never been big on coronations. I'm also not one for smoke and mirrors.

The Clinton's farce of a marriage? Actually, I couldn't care less. In fact, I can't think of a better argument for same-sex marriage: If Hillary and Bill can be deemed a couple and file a joint return with the IRS, why shouldn't gays be afforded the same privilege?

But more to the point, in 2016 will America be seeking a coronation or competence, sainthood or solvency?

Dowd further observes:

"Hillary was an indefatigable secretary of state — she logged 956,733 diplomatic frequent-flier miles — and a star ambassador, especially on women’s issues. But many experts feel, as John Cassidy wrote in The New Yorker, that, compared with the work of more geopolitical secretaries, her 'signature achievements look like small beer.'"

"Small beer"? In fact, I think her accomplishments as secretary of state can be distilled down to her testy testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing regarding the Benghazi tragedy:

"With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk last night who decided to kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator."

Well, Americans should care why Hillary together with the rest of the Obama administration sought to attribute the deaths to a spontaneous demonstration having no connection to al-Qaeda. Yes, I know: "should care" doesn't mean that they "will care," given that many are too busy following the capers of the Kardashians.

But more to the point, there can be no ignoring Friday's dismal jobs report, which informed us that the "labor force participation rate has not been this low — 63.3 percent — since 1979, a time when women were less likely to be working" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/06/business/economy/us-adds-only-88000-jobs-jobless-rate-falls-to-7-6.html?_r=0). Can today's "sluggish economy" enable Hillary to bask in "a halcyon glow" from the high levels of employment that prevailed during her husband's presidency? That was many moons ago, and as once stated by Robert Louis Stevenson, "I've a grand memory for forgetting."

Dowd concludes:

"Her challenge is to get into the future and stay there, adding fresh people and perspectives and leaving the Clinton mishegoss and cheesiness in the past.

The real question about Hillary is this: When people take a new look at her in the coming years, will they see the past or the future — Mrs. Clinton or Madam President?"

"Mrs. Clinton or Madam President"? No matter what she wears, it will be difficult to disguise Hillary's core reptillian narcissism.

The real question is whether Republicans will nominate another clod, oblivious to changing demographics and societal trends, incapable of providing programs or answers.