Saint Hillary and Reverend Dean? Don't believe it!

Howard Dean, the new chairman of the Democratic National Committee, and Senator Hillary Clinton (D.—NY) jointly hold the dubious distinction of being the only major public figures with less credibility than Mahmoud Abbas.

Abbas, the recently elected successor to the late Yassir Arafat, alternately advocates peace and brotherhood with Israel, along with its total annihilation, depending on the particular audience he happens to be addressing. Likewise, both Dean and Clinton are on record as being not only the sworn enemies of conservatism, but also its truest of champions.

Although they disagree on specific tactics in their respective quests for power, and they undoubtedly hold contrasting views as to who should be running the Democrat Party (and ultimately, the country), they are nevertheless inseparably bonded by a devotion to the philosophies of liberalism. It is a mistake to believe the commonly proffered notion that their relationship is purely adversarial.

Furthermore, each has attempted a major 'makeover' during recent months, and each expects to benefit from the eager assistance of the mainstream media, where their inconsistencies will no doubt continue to be hidden from public scrutiny. Such jaded coverage would only be consistent with past media behavior.

Consider that, during the eight years of Bill Clinton's presidency, ABC heavy Ted Koppel could only muster the moral indignation to deride anyone as 'an accomplished liar,' when his target was Lt. Colonel Oliver North. Dan Rather, that bastion of objectivity, attempted a more imaginative cover for the Clintons, on one occasion asserting that an individual could at once be a prolific liar and still be 'honest.' Go figure.

So now Dean and Clinton are back in posturing mode, attempting to find common ground with the conservative and religious segment of American society, or at least a sufficient share of it to enable them to win elections.

Dean, it should be remembered, demonstrated the extent of his 'faith' during last year's presidential race. Unwilling to become bogged down by such nuanced trivialities as the mass slaughter of the unborn or the time—honored characterization of marriage, he was courageously immovable when facing that morally defining issue of bicycle paths, and the heresy of his church's opposition to them.

Dean also voiced his 'respect' for Jesus Christ, when attempting to court the votes of southern Christians. But this ploy met with no more success than his phony embrace of the Confederate flag. Perhaps his next foray into the South should include the circular outline of a can of chewing tobacco, prominently 'faded' into the back pocket of his blue jeans.

Likewise Hillary's recent embrace of pro—family and pro—life thinking constitutes a fundamental change from those anti—Christian causes that she passionately advocated throughout her tenure as First Lady. And despite her apparent prophetic insight when playing the cattle futures, anyone who believes this to be evidence of true spirituality will no doubt also believe she really is a Jewish Yankees fan.

Seizing major policy—making roles during her husband's presidency, Hillary will now, in all likelihood, take partial credit for such traditionally conservative milestones as balancing of the federal budget during the '90's, along with the landmark implementation of welfare reform.

Yet in both cases, the reality is that the Clinton Administration was dragged, kicking and screaming, into compliance with an agenda set forth by the Republican Congress. Bill Clinton vetoed welfare reform twice, only grudgingly signing it as the '96 presidential campaign season heated up.

Ditto for the budget, which was briefly reigned—in only as a result of Congressional spending restraints, coupled with an enormously expanding economy.

Undoubtedly, in this age of alternative media and with the up and coming army of 'bloggers' nipping at their heals, Hillary Clinton and Howard Dean won't find it quite so easy to escape the contradictions between their recent 'centrist' statements and the brazen liberalism that defined their past political activity.

Look for them to regularly complain of 'being taken out of context' or, in Hillary's case, to revert to that insipid 'I don't recall' excuse used so profusely throughout the innumerable scandals that mired down the Clinton Presidency.

Thus, Hillary's presidential aspirations and Dean's hopes for the resumption of political dominance by Democrats should be fairly easy to thwart. That is unless Republicans run a 'moderate' candidate, in which Republicans will be desperately attempting their own last—minute makeover. And if such is the case, rest assured that the liberal media won't be nearly so supportive or cooperative.

Howard Dean, the new chairman of the Democratic National Committee, and Senator Hillary Clinton (D.—NY) jointly hold the dubious distinction of being the only major public figures with less credibility than Mahmoud Abbas.

Abbas, the recently elected successor to the late Yassir Arafat, alternately advocates peace and brotherhood with Israel, along with its total annihilation, depending on the particular audience he happens to be addressing. Likewise, both Dean and Clinton are on record as being not only the sworn enemies of conservatism, but also its truest of champions.

Although they disagree on specific tactics in their respective quests for power, and they undoubtedly hold contrasting views as to who should be running the Democrat Party (and ultimately, the country), they are nevertheless inseparably bonded by a devotion to the philosophies of liberalism. It is a mistake to believe the commonly proffered notion that their relationship is purely adversarial.

Furthermore, each has attempted a major 'makeover' during recent months, and each expects to benefit from the eager assistance of the mainstream media, where their inconsistencies will no doubt continue to be hidden from public scrutiny. Such jaded coverage would only be consistent with past media behavior.

Consider that, during the eight years of Bill Clinton's presidency, ABC heavy Ted Koppel could only muster the moral indignation to deride anyone as 'an accomplished liar,' when his target was Lt. Colonel Oliver North. Dan Rather, that bastion of objectivity, attempted a more imaginative cover for the Clintons, on one occasion asserting that an individual could at once be a prolific liar and still be 'honest.' Go figure.

So now Dean and Clinton are back in posturing mode, attempting to find common ground with the conservative and religious segment of American society, or at least a sufficient share of it to enable them to win elections.

Dean, it should be remembered, demonstrated the extent of his 'faith' during last year's presidential race. Unwilling to become bogged down by such nuanced trivialities as the mass slaughter of the unborn or the time—honored characterization of marriage, he was courageously immovable when facing that morally defining issue of bicycle paths, and the heresy of his church's opposition to them.

Dean also voiced his 'respect' for Jesus Christ, when attempting to court the votes of southern Christians. But this ploy met with no more success than his phony embrace of the Confederate flag. Perhaps his next foray into the South should include the circular outline of a can of chewing tobacco, prominently 'faded' into the back pocket of his blue jeans.

Likewise Hillary's recent embrace of pro—family and pro—life thinking constitutes a fundamental change from those anti—Christian causes that she passionately advocated throughout her tenure as First Lady. And despite her apparent prophetic insight when playing the cattle futures, anyone who believes this to be evidence of true spirituality will no doubt also believe she really is a Jewish Yankees fan.

Seizing major policy—making roles during her husband's presidency, Hillary will now, in all likelihood, take partial credit for such traditionally conservative milestones as balancing of the federal budget during the '90's, along with the landmark implementation of welfare reform.

Yet in both cases, the reality is that the Clinton Administration was dragged, kicking and screaming, into compliance with an agenda set forth by the Republican Congress. Bill Clinton vetoed welfare reform twice, only grudgingly signing it as the '96 presidential campaign season heated up.

Ditto for the budget, which was briefly reigned—in only as a result of Congressional spending restraints, coupled with an enormously expanding economy.

Undoubtedly, in this age of alternative media and with the up and coming army of 'bloggers' nipping at their heals, Hillary Clinton and Howard Dean won't find it quite so easy to escape the contradictions between their recent 'centrist' statements and the brazen liberalism that defined their past political activity.

Look for them to regularly complain of 'being taken out of context' or, in Hillary's case, to revert to that insipid 'I don't recall' excuse used so profusely throughout the innumerable scandals that mired down the Clinton Presidency.

Thus, Hillary's presidential aspirations and Dean's hopes for the resumption of political dominance by Democrats should be fairly easy to thwart. That is unless Republicans run a 'moderate' candidate, in which Republicans will be desperately attempting their own last—minute makeover. And if such is the case, rest assured that the liberal media won't be nearly so supportive or cooperative.