Maureen Dowd, "Taxing Times for Obama": The Coming Catfight With Hillary

She may be outraged by Obama, but she hates Hillary.

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Taxing Times for Obama" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/19/opinion/sunday/dowd-irs-investigation-means-more-taxing-times-for-obama.html?_r=0), Maureen Dowd begins by writing about Obama's scandal-ridden second term:

"The onetime messiah seems like a sad sack, trying to bounce back from a blistering array of sins that are not even his fault.

. . . .

It turns out that Treasury officials knew during the 2012 campaign that an investigation into the targeting was going on. But, enhancing his image as a stranger in a strange land, the president said he learned about it from news reports on May 10. Then he waited three days to descend from the mountain and express outrage.

Democrats are not worried that the rumpuses will hurt Obama’s personal appeal or reputation for integrity."

Sorry, Maureen, but it is his fault. We are talking about his incompetent appointees in the IRS, Justice Department, State Department and West Wing. Loyalty for Obama took precedence over experience, and we're seeing the results. I don't care where you work: Ultimately you must take responsibility for the performance of those under you, and the White House is no exception. As stated by Peggy Noonan in The Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323582904578487460479247792.html):

"The president, as usual, acts as if all of this is totally unconnected to him. He's shocked, it's unacceptable, he'll get to the bottom of it. He read about it in the papers, just like you.

But he is not unconnected, he is not a bystander. This is his administration. Those are his executive agencies. He runs the IRS and the Justice Department.

A president sets a mood, a tone. He establishes an atmosphere. If he is arrogant, arrogance spreads. If he is too partisan, too disrespecting of political adversaries, that spreads too. Presidents always undo themselves and then blame it on the third guy in the last row in the sleepy agency across town."

The president is not America's "chief campaigner," but rather America's "chief executive." Obama never had any executive experience and was never cut out for the job. Perhaps in that sense, it really isn't "his fault," but the fault of those who elected him.

Will this "hurt Obama’s personal appeal or reputation for integrity"? Again, it's not a matter of personal appeal or reputation for integrity. It's a matter of fundamental incompetence.

But none of this has anything to do with the real message of Dowd's op-ed. When people tell you two things, it's always the second thing that is more important to them, and in keeping with this axiom, Dowd continues:

"Obama would never pull what Hillary pulled with her longtime aide Huma Abedin. Abedin was allowed, after the birth of her and Anthony Weiner’s son, to work part time as a top adviser in the State Department for $135,000 while also working as a consultant for private clients, some of whom had to be interested in her influence in the government — and she did not disclose it on her financial report.

As Politico reported, the arrangement was similar to the way many of Hillary’s aides were paid while she was a senator: 'They were compensated partly through work on her government staff, and partly through her political action committee.' And others would later land lucrative gigs at Clinton-friendly organizations.

Hillary has a blind spot on ethics, not minding if things look terrible if they’re technically legit. And she has a tight grip on money, so she didn’t choose to simply shift Huma to her personal payroll.

But Americans have already priced in the imperfections of the Clintons.

Who knows? If Washington keeps imploding, Hillary may run in 2016 on restoring honor to the White House."

Hillary ("What difference does it make") Clinton running in 2016 on restoring honor to the White House or even running? I don't think so. Notwithstanding the claims made by Times columnist Frank Bruni in a recent op-ed entitled  "America the Clueless" (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/05/frank-bruni-america-clueless-not-as.html), Americans are not as stupid as Dowd and Bruni make them out to be.