Hillary caught in a rundown between Yogi, Satchel Paige

Hillary caught in a rundown between Yogi, Satchel Paige

By LeRoy Goldman
Special to the Observer

Posted: Thursday, Jan. 01, 2015

Charlotte Observer

One of Washington’s most secret organizations is the Emil Verban Society. Founded in 1975, the Society is composed of a bipartisan group of famous Washington insiders that has included President Ronald Reagan, Vice President Dick Cheney, First Lady Hillary Clinton, columnist George Will, and others who are not so famous, including yours truly.

The Society takes its name from a Chicago Cubs second baseman, Emil Verban, who played for the Cubs from 1948-1950. Emil Verban typified the mediocrity of the Cubs both then and now. During his years with the cellar-dwelling Cubs he hit a single home run. His nickname was The Antelope, not because he was fleet of foot, but because he was slow.

The Society has no dues, no committee structure, no regular meetings, and no particular purpose for being. But from time to time it does hold a luncheon in Washington. At one such luncheon in the mid-nineties our featured speaker was First Lady Hillary Clinton.

You probably know that the book on Clinton is that she shines in small group events, while being stiff and off-putting on the Campaign trail. It’s true. Her impromptu talk to us that day was full of humor, warm, and demonstrated her grasp of baseball lore.

I tell you this so that you’ll know that Clinton will appreciate fully that she is now trapped between the thinking of the great Yankee catcher, Yogi Berra, and the Negro Leagues’ greatest pitcher, Satchel Paige.

Yogi Berra famously said, “It’s like deja vu all over again.” And it applies to Clinton.

In the run-up to the 2008 presidential campaign the stars appeared perfectly aligned for Clinton. Although the field of Democrats seeking the Democratic nomination was crowded, Clinton was the colossus that dominated the Democratic landscape. Her campaign was flush with money, its organizational bench was deep, and there was an air of inevitability about her candidacy.

But her quest for the nomination turned into a train wreck. Neither Clinton, nor her campaign staff adequately appreciated the threat from the left that was posed by the upstart candidacy of freshman Sen. Barack Obama. By the time Team Clinton realized the severity of the threat it was too late. The campaign’s confidence turned out to be misplaced overconfidence, as they ignored the caucus states where Obama built a lead of about 150 delegates that Clinton never overcame.

As Obama’s campaign gained traction, Clinton’s organization imploded amid internal bickering and recrimination. The candidate herself couldn’t compete with Obama in one-on-one debates. And she could never get out from under her vote for the Iraq war.

She lost, and with her loss began the planning for 2016. Today we are on the cusp of what will soon be her announcement that she will run again. This time the field will not be crowded.

Like 2008, most assume that her nomination is inevitable. Perhaps so, but danger again lurks to her left. Danger’s name is freshman Sen. Elizabeth Warren.

It’s deja vu all over again! Warren, unlike Clinton, is an ideologue. Unlike Clinton, she not only has well-defined, specific beliefs, she has no reluctance to articulate them. Unlike Clinton, she is a skilled and relentless debater. Unlike Clinton, she arouses passion among her supporters. Unlike Clinton, she is animated, not wooden, on the campaign trail.

In 2008 Clinton’s Achilles’ heel was her support of the Iraq War. In 2016 it will be her affinity for Wall Street money.

And there’s another dynamic to a Clinton/Warren confrontation that will bear no resemblance to 2008. In 2008 Clinton and Obama never took the gloves off because Clinton dared not enrage African-American voters, and Obama dared not enrage female voters. But no such constraints will apply in a Clinton/Warren smack-down.

Finally, Clinton has thin skin, and Warren knows it. Recall what happened when Secretary of State Clinton testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in January of 2013 and was subjected to fierce questioning from Sen. Ron Johnson, (R-WI), about the attack in Benghazi. She lost it and said, “Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night and decided they’d go kill some Americans. What difference – at this point, what difference does it make?”

And that brings us to Satchel Paige who said, “Don’t look back. Something might be gaining on you.”

Something is, and we’re in for quite a spectacle.

The Shadow Welcomes Comments

Contact Me At:  EmailMe