Richard Greene

Why do Dems fawn over Hillary Clinton, anyway?

While national conversation swirls over the field of possible sterling Republican presidential candidates, over on the Democratic side Hillary Clinton remains the clear front-runner.

The latest Quinnipiac University poll released this month finds her leading potential GOP rivals in key swing states, confirming again the confidence among liberals that the return of the Clintons to the White House seems inevitable.

But, why?

Is it because she is a woman? That she served in the Senate? That she is a former secretary of state? That the party “owes” her the office for standing by her man following his “inappropriate” behavior?

What is it about any of those things that makes her in any way qualified to be president?

The likely legacy she will have from her role of running the State Department is her failure to act when terrorists murdered our Libyan ambassador and three other Americans in the Benghazi disaster.

Holding those offices certainly provides the opportunity to establish a record of leadership, but what, exactly, has she done in those capacities that would cause anyone to recognize her as a leader?

A number of person-on-the-street interviews have asked that question of people passing by, and the responses are chilling. People say that they don’t know of any significant achievements, but they just like her.

Or, it’s time for a woman president. I’m OK with that, but is Hillary the best we can do if the objective is to make gender history?

No, the actual reason for the inevitability of Hillary is that she is all the Democrats have to offer. There has been absolutely no effort by party leaders to provide any kind of alternative.

It’s Hillary’s turn, end of discussion.

If an unknown, unqualified and undistinguished junior senator from Illinois with a singular record as “community organizer” can appear and defeat her, what does that tell us about her suitability for the job?

Such was the case leading up to the 2008 elections, but that history isn’t scheduled to be repeated this time.

Or is it? From the way far left, Massachusetts U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren is being heavily touted as a better alternative for the cause of big government.

Vanity Fair just days ago reported the left’s bullhorn,, recently staged a big Run Warren Run event attended by some very high-profile Hollywood artists. Their enthusiasm for Warren seems to know no bounds.

MoveOn’s cultural director Laura Dawn summed up the reason for their excitement: “Can you imagine that woman with mega-ton balls squaring off in any presidential debate?”

Warren says she is not a candidate. But just about every presidential hopeful has said that — before they accept the call to enter the race.

The Vanity Fair story concluded with an evaluation by Rutgers political science professor Ross Baker of Warren’s chances against Hillary for the nomination.

“There is a constituency on the Democratic left that has never forgiven the Clintons for welfare reform,” and their role in pulling the party to the center, Baker said. “They are the party’s ideological base and can get fired up quickly. Were Warren to change her mind, it would be political catnip for the left.”

I’m pulling for Sen. Warren.

Given the clear voice by voters in last November’s midterm elections, turning Congress over to conservatives who have vowed to change the course of runaway government growth, anyone among those Republican candidates still trailing Hillary would be our next president.

So I’m on board. Run Warren Run! Please.

Richard Greene is a former Arlington mayor and served as an appointee of President George W. Bush as regional administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency.