More Wrong-headed Blather From Peggy Noonan

Peggy Noonan's stream-of-consciousness editorials in the Wall Street Journal's weekend editions are growing increasingly more bizarre.

This past weekend, Noonan couldn't fill an entire column with any one topic- the lunar landing anniversary, Supreme Court nominee hearings, or even comedian Al Franken's stolen election.

But what really caught my attention was her focusing on Hillary Clinton's lameduck status as Secretary of State.

Sure, Noonan is correct. But others, including me, warned of Wonderboy's tactic of isolating and neutering Clinton by his 'offer' of the cabinet position. Noonan points out how many little czars have been created to pre-empt and limit Clinton's scope in key geographic areas, such as Afghanistan, Pakistan and the Mideast.

I'll agree that Hillary looked totally stupid in a picture on the Journal's Monday morning front page, wearing a bright, floral lei while the accompanying headline declared that she was being dissed by India's Environmental Minister on climate-control issues.

But Noonan seems way off base, at least to me, when she finished her column with this contention,

"They will look like kids playing with history. Hillary isn't a kid. She's experienced and has been roughed up by history. Watch. She'll roll right back."

No, she won't. She's nowhere near as relevantly 'experienced' as Noonan believes. And by joining Wonderboy's cabinet, she removed herself from an ability to observe and opine on current Democratic administration domestic activities. She will now be lacking in credibility on these issues, and moreso, if/when she departs the cabinet prematurely.

If you don't like Sarah Palin's early resignation, what will you consider Hillary's? Different?

Further, Hillary lost because, among other things, she was outrun in the campaign. She gave it her best shot, and lost. She lost a huge early lead, chose the wrong moments to turn on the faux tears, and became emotional in a very bad way, too late.

Ironically, for all the hue and cry that Republicans don't have adequate leaders to field a slate for the next presidential season, I think it's the Democrats who are in trouble.

Wonderboy will either be a crippled, one-term failure, or have his heels nipped at by various second-rate contenders. But I think it's unlikely Hillary will be one of them.

She lost once. She joined the hated opposition's team. And she took a portfolio that effectively removed her from having any sort of domestic issues voice. I doubt she could rev up a funding and grassroots machine now.

I don't happen to have made a thorough study of the phenomenon, but I think second acts like Hillary's would have to be in presidential campaigns are rare. Especially with her relative lack of governmental experience, having only been a Senator, and from a broadly recognized carpetbagging state.

To my knowledge, even Nixon and Reagan had to skip an election, and were more experienced. No Democrat has lost, then won, in half a century.

I think Noonan is simply off her rocker on this one.