There is lots of commentary on Hillary today. I have a piece at Townhall today in which I respond to Michael Reagan's call for Democrats to nominate Hillary so that the Republican attack machine can have another go at her.

Reagan recently wrote, "I know you Democrats don't want to do us Republicans any favors, but just this once let us have our way. Give us the opportunity to give the Republican attack machine another shot at Hillary Clinton. Let her coast to victory in the primaries. Then we'll take it from there."...

Michael Reagan wrote "Republicans want to have the honor of exploiting the lady's negatives for all the world to see. She likes to boast that she has faced the worst the so-called Republican attack machine can throw at her and has survived. Let me tell you, she ain't seen nothing yet. We have long memories and a huge arsenal of ammunition to fire at her when the time comes."

He is absolutely right about that. There is plenty of ammunition there and there are many Republicans who would genuinely enjoy it, too. But even if the "attack machine" did a first rate job of revealing every questionable, unethical or illegal thing Hillary Clinton had either said or done, I doubt it would make a difference. Or at least not the difference Republicans would like.

She is about as well known as a person can be and those who know her love her or they hate her. What the Republicans would reap in bad media for going back into Clinton attack mode would far exceed any benefits gained from exposing the details of the various Clinton scandals.

Jack Kemp at The American Thinker recently said the following about a comment he read at Lucianne.com, "You've heard of Blue Dog Democrats? Now we have Clinton-supporting Blue Dress (of Monica Lewinsky fame) Democrats who will vote for Hillary and the return of Bubba to power."

Just remember, were it not for the Clinton-Lewinsky sex scandal, Hillary Clinton would almost certainly not be sitting in the U.S. Senate today. The Clintons seem to flourish in the midst of scandal.

More Hillary -- Jonah Goldberg has an excellent piece at NRO asking Hillary the questions those in the media should be asking her, but won't.

After the Philadelphia debate, your campaign tried to explain away your lackluster performance by implying your male competitors were unfairly "piling on" because you're a woman. Do you really think sexism is an issue here? Which of your Democratic opponents are the most sexist? Will you play this card with foreign leaders if you run into trouble as commander-in-chief?

You keep saying that Social Security has lost 14 years of solvency on President Bush's watch. In 2000, your husband's last year in office, the program's trustees said it would be solvent until 2037. Now they say it will be solvent until 2041. As the most serious female candidate for president we've ever had, aren't you setting a bad example by not being able to do math?
...
You've repeatedly denounced Halliburton's "no-bid contracts." Did you object when the Clinton administration awarded a similar non-competitive contract to Halliburton for reconstruction work in the former Yugoslavia? If not, why not? If so, why didn't your husband listen?

Can you explain -- without accusing anyone of anti-Asian bigotry -- why so many Chinese criminals keep giving you and your husband piles of cash?

Even more Hillary from David Limbaugh and Kathleen Parker.