Amy Holmes | Bio
AC360° Contributor

Wow. I did not expect the overwhelming response to my blog post about Rihanna and Chris Brown. It seems that I am far from alone in being disturbed by this story, and terribly concerned for the young lady at its center.

After reading through all of your posts, all 304 as of this writing!, I come to conclusion that Rihanna does have a moral obligation to her young fans. So many of you wrote so movingly about your own experiences, what you would do if someone busted up your baby girl, what you've been hearing in classrooms and school hallways, and why it is so important that we, as a society, declare that domestic violence must never be tolerated.

Stephanie wrote: "I have a 14 year old boy who I am trying to teach right from wrong and I have clearly told him that it is not okay to abuse women. He said that everyone in his school is talking about this incident which means that Chris and Rihanna may have been successful in getting their very bad message across."

T shared her personal story: "I can understand how she is feeling, I stayed in an abusive relationship for 14 long years. My husband didnʼt start the abuse until after we were married. I finally relized [sic] that no matter what I did, how much I loved him, he was never going to change. What made me wake up was the last time he went after me, my daughter saw the whole thing and the look and fear in her eyes was the biggest wake up call I could have gotten. I was thinking is this the way I want to live the rest of my life? Is this the way I want my daughter to think she is supposed to be treated? Is this the way I want my sone to think he is supposed to act. The anser [sic] to all three questions was NO!!"

What tipped the scales for me was the youth factor. This celebrity couple markets their music and their lifestyle to kids - many of whom do look up to them and take their cultural cues from these teen icons. Chris Brown is still, as of this writing, being promoted on Nickelodeon to compete in the Kids Choice Awards. And he has even gone to his Facebook page to encourage young fans to cast their votes for him!

Were these adult entertainers with an adult audience, the issues of public moral responsibility would be different. Plenty of celebrities fall down, have well publicized lapses of judgment, and live complicated and unenviable lives. As adults, we have the privilege and responsibility to own our own conduct and our own mistakes. We often let ourselves down, but we can't blame public figures for our lapses.

But with kids, it's different. They're just forming their impressions of what's acceptable and admirable behavior - what gets you ahead, what is right, and what is terribly wrong.

And that is why I believe that Rihanna and Chris Brown, whether they like it or not, have a responsibility to all of those young people who are watching them and identifying with them so closely.

It is also important to note that the behavior was not self inflicted. It's not a story about one person's foibles and self destruction. It's a story about battery and assault. One person maliciously harming another. And we, as a society, have to band together and declare unequivocally that vicious predation on another human being is wrong, no matter who's involved.

So, thank you AC360 readers. You helped me to think through a difficult issue. I hope we had a productive dialogue, all 305 of us!

And I hope that Rihanna makes the right decision about her safety and well being - not for us, but for herself. I fear that her life could depend on it.

Amy Holmes | Bio
AC360° Contributor

Even if Rihanna may not bear responsibility to her young fans for her private choices, surely Nickelodeon owes them more. Chris Brown remains in the running for the Nickelodeon's Kids Choice Awards Vote 2009. For realz:

http://www.nick.com/kids-choice-awards/vote.jhtml?categoryVote=10

Amy Holmes | Bio
AC360° Contributor

The story of the talented, young singer getting beaten up by her boyfriend may not seem to have a political angle, but bear with me. It's not just tabloid fodder. It creates a real public dilemma.

I'll confess that I've been riveted by this story. One couldn't help be shocked by the news. A beautiful girl, on top of the world, getting beaten up by her equally charmed boyfriend. We know, intellectually, that material success, public adoration, and physical beauty don't have magic, innoculative powers. And yet, this story shattered the fairy tale dream that maybe they can.

On a news level, I also felt sympathy for this young woman's PR predicament. A personal catastrophe has become a public spectacle. She will now have to wear the badge of "Battered Woman" and all that implies: forever being asked about that night; being unwillingly thrust into the role of spokesperson for victims of domestic violence - all because her boyfriend is a vicious thug.

But today, we learn that Rihanna's lawyer told Chris Brown in court that she wants to wrap this up as quickly as he does.

Let's review the incident. Chris Brown allegedly slammed Rihanna's head against the car window, punched and bit her. Her blood is splattered all over the interior of the car. And she's taking him back. She may be in denial about the depth of anger in this young man. "He's not really like this. He loves me. He promises he'll change." Who knows.

It's understandable. Who wants to think that the person they love is a twisted abuser?

But here's where I get hung up. While it may be unfair that she has to bear the burden of being a role model for young girls in her personal conduct - jeesh - I can't help but think that she's setting a terrible example, and is setting back the decades long campaign against domestic violence. I hope moms around the country are telling their daughters that the talented young singer is making a very dangerous choice. Listen to her music if you wish, follow her example not at all.

Then again, is it really our business? She didn't choose for this to happen to her. And the personal isn't political. She's a performer, not a crusader.

Should Rihanna feel the burden of millions of young girls (and boys!) potentially taking relationship cues from this whole ugly mess? Will they? Or is the example of people much closer, moms and dads, what really counts - not these two teen idols. I'm genuinely ambivalent.

AC360 moms and dads: your thoughts?

Amy Holmes | Bio
AC360° Contributor

So, now we know. President Obama's mentions of Rush Limbaugh are no accident. Democratic strategists have discovered that Rush has low approval ratings with the general public. So they have devised a strategy to paint Republicans with the Rush brush in order to marginalize conservatism and the Republican Party. In the nineties, they demonized Newt. Now, they're after Rush. And the media is happily going along, as it so often does.

Back in December, while the Republican Party had not one, but two, highly qualified and widely respected African-Americans running for its chairmanship, the media chose instead to focus on the juvenile antics of Chip Saltsman and his Christmas CD. Show after show featured outraged democratic strategists attacking the Republican Party because of one man's lapse of judgment. And conservative after conservative was called on to defend or attack the hapless politician. When Republicans then elected former lieutenant governor Michael Steele to lead the party, it was treated as a non-event. Michael Steele's election as the first African-American RNC chairman received a fraction of the airtime that was devoted to the CD circus, and none of the reverence that has greeted Pres. Barack Obama at every turn of his political career. The media slid right by without a reflective pause, let alone gushing profiles and heroic magazine covers.

And, once again, the media is back to the old storyline as typified by a cynical op-ed in the Washington Post by Pres. Obama’s former campaign manager David Plouffe titled, "The Minority Leader Limbaugh (link below)." In it, Plouffe calls Eric Cantor, the popularly elected and highly talented Virginia congressman, a Limbaugh ventriloquist. Why? Well, a lot of statistics are thrown around in the piece, but the real reason is because the young, handsome, Jewish American politician is a threat. He undermines the Democratic caricature of conservatives as "angry, middle aged, white males" with "angry, middle aged ideas." Indeed, young voters might look up and see a new and diverse generation of Republican leaders who, to use a popular liberal phrase, "look like us." Can't have that! So, Cantor has to be marginalized and Limbaugh touted as the true leader of the Republican party.

Imagine, for a moment, if George W. Bush and his chief of staff had made coordinated and concerted attacks on Michael Moore, and suggested that the colorful left wing fulminator - not Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid - was the "true intellectual force" behind the Democratic party. Imagine the howls of protest. And, undoubtedly, the media would have focused on the propriety of a Commander-in-Chief and his advisers wasting time and political breath on an entertainer. And yet we have President Obama and his hammer, Rahm Emanuel, doing just that in a time of war and economic crisis, and the story is about... Republicans!

Was there a scuffle between Michael Steele and Rush Limbaugh? Sure. Does it make for great TV? Yes. There's a reason Rush has 20 million or so listeners. But does it really deserve hours of air time? And can it really be true that the only entertaining intramural disputes are on the right?

Democrats have found their foil. And Rush is happy to play along. But should the media be quite so pliant and willing to play along, too? I'm still waiting for those gushing profiles and magazine covers on the "The New Republican Party!" I don't recommend anyone hold their breath.

Amy Holmes l Bio
AC360° Contributor

Viewers can be forgiven for mistaking today's bill signing with a campaign rally. Introduced by the Colorado governor in front of a screaming and adoring crowd (who goes to a bill signing anyway?), President Obama did his best to spin and sell the $787 billion spending stimulus package that was passed along almost entirely partisan lines.

Which brings me to a political observation that has gone overlooked. Typically, a bill signing takes place in the East Room, or in the Rose Garden if the weather is nice. The president is flanked by the bill's co-sponsors who get to share in the glory and bask in the reporters' flash bulbs and television cameras.

Not this time. There was no Congressional procession to the White House. No press conference on the driveway. Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, and Steny Hoyer did not get to stand beeming with pride in the president's reflected glory as he signed into law billions upon billions of dollars of democratic spending. Nope. President Obama stood at a lecturn a thousand miles away from Pennsylvania Avenue, and sopped up the applause and credit alone.

The president may have been trying to de-politicize a most partisan bill, and infuse it with his goodwill and high approvals. But the absence of his Congressional allies at the signing of the biggest spending bill in American, make that world, history was notable. He may have said today that the bailout was for all Americans. But the optics of the event said something different: that the credit was his alone.

Amy Holmes
AC360° Contributor, CNN Political Analyst

Yesterday, on the Sunday talk shows, Democrats unveiled their new stimulus talking point. The Democratically-led House may have added unnecessary, interest group spending, but "The Senate" (unfurl the flags and blare the trumpets here) is where legislation goes to be improved upon by the gray-haired wise men and women of the greatest deliberative body.

Uh, what?

In my three years working for then Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, I recalled pitched battles where Senators of both parties attempted to lard up bills with unrelated and, often times, unnecessary spending. Remember the Bridge to Nowhere? That boondoggle came to you via Alaska's Senator Ted Stevens.

My former boss even urged the President to threaten a veto on the emergency Katrina relief bill back in 2006 because Senators were going hogwild. In fact, the Republican-led House bill totaled less than the President's request, while the Senate version exceeded it by $14.4 billion. Some extraneous items managed to get cut like $15 million for seafood promotion and $1million for a study of Hawaiian dams and reservoirs. But Senators did not show superior restraint to their House counterparts. My former boss, it should be said, did, and voted against the lard-ridden legislation.

I called my former colleague, Marty Gold, the unofficial dean of the Senate who teaches incoming Senators the legislative ropes, and who has literally written the text book on Senate procedure. I asked him what he thought about the new Democratic talking point on the upcoming Senate debate. He was elegant, but blunt.

"It's not that the Senators are inherently more politically mature. They're cut from the same the cloth, but are operating in chambers where different rules apply. Once you get into these pork barrel emergency bills, then the normal deliberative process goes out the window. It's their natural instinct to do that."

So who puts the brakes on?

"If the idea is that the Senate is a break on the House, it requires a filibuster sustaining minority. You need a Senate minority that has sufficient power, or a White House veto. In this case, the President is not likely to apply the brakes. If he gets a bipartisan bill, it will be because bipartisanship was forced by the rules of the chamber. Senate Democrats are dealing because they have to deal. If they didn't, you'd see the same interest groups. Look, many of the same Senators came from the House."

And as for President Obama's overtures to Republicans? The Super Bowl watch party, and paying the Republican caucus a visit. Marty points out that it's smart politics. "A bipartisan vote helps to neutralize Republicans. And if they resist his overtures, it makes them look small. He can say he tried and got the back of the hand. He has every incentive to reach out."

And one last thing, Marty pointed out that if you give the Democratic majority what they really want - a filibuster-proof majority - today's talk of sober bipartisanship will be a quaint and distant memory. Without the political restraint of a potential filibuster, the restraints on the majority evaporate.

So, Norm, if you're reading this blog out there in Minnesota, Senate Republicans are counting on you to keep up the fight.

And Judd, get that Senate seat deal signed, sealed and delivered before you make the Commerce post yours.

Amy Holmes: 10:40p ET – Palin: A+. The plus is for wildly exceeding expectations. She more than held her own. She was polished, direct, folksy, and on message. She stressed her personal experience both as a mom and as a governor, from the kitchen table to the executive branch, her record as a reformer and bipartisan deal maker. She even got Biden to agree with her. Read more...

Roland Martin: Expectations are high for Palin AND Biden. Many of you read my commentary this week on CNN.com and I haven’t changed my opinion.

I’m tired of Washington journalists continuing to say that the expectations are low, and the bar even lower, for Gov. Sarah Palin.

And the same goes for Sen. Joe Biden. Read more...

Amy Holmes: 9:40p ET – Were those Katie Couric interviews a devious head fake? I've heard Biden say at least twice now that he agrees with Palin. First on the issue of windfall profits, and then on the issue of gay marriage. Regarding the first, he actually said he and Obama would like to do what the Governor did in Alaska. Economic conservatives won't like it. But for debate purposes: advantage Palin.

Candy Crowley: 9:35p ET - Palin veers off course — the question is about helping consumers with crushing debt, and she's responding with energy policy. Politicians frequently change the subject, but this was a pretty obvious 180.

Read more

Amy Holmes | Bio
CNN Political Analyst

The current Democratic spin is that House Republicans are stalling the bailout plan. Just one problem. House rules let the majority party, and that would be the Democrats, rule the roost. If Nancy Pelosi wanted to roll over the minority’s objections and pass this bill, she could.
Me thinks Pelosi is playing this out for as long as she can.

Yesterday, Congresswoman Melissa Bean, D-Illinois and self described “Obama Mama,” told me that the bailout is deeply opposed by the folks back home. Constituents are outraged that Congress is giving away $700 billion taxpayer dollars to greedy and incompetent Wall Street fat cats (okay, she didn’t actually use the term “fat cats”.) She told me in no uncertain terms that she believes that the banking system is genuinely on the brink, and legislators have no choice but to pass the bill and face an angry public and explain their vote. And it ain’t gonna be pretty.

One can reasonably presume that Pelosi knows all of this. She wants it both ways. And for at least the next six hours, she’ll get it. Duck the blame on a massively unpopular bill by running for cover under the objections of the Republican minority. Claim frustration that her party’s noble and principled efforts to do the necessary and difficult thing are being thwarted by small-minded Republicans. Don’t let Democrats get the blame for an unpopular bill, or suffer voter backlash for irresponsible inaction. Get Republicans on the hook, one way or another, squirming right alongside Democrats..

Editor’s Note: Amy Holmes is an independent conservative who has not endorsed any candidate for president.

Amy Holmes | Bio
CNN Political Analyst

Republicans have been getting heat for knocking Obama's community organizing. It turns out that back in the day Obama knocked it, too. In a lengthy investigative piece in the New Republic, John Judis reveals that, "[w]hen Obama came to South Chicago, he believed in community organizing; within two-and-a-half years... he was clearly growing disillusioned."

For the whole story - what Barack Obama won't tell you about his community organizing past and why Obama actually agrees with Republicans - click here.

Amy Holmes | Bio
CNN Political Analyst

On Friday, the Obama campaign put out the spin that they were deploying Hillary to take shots at Palin. Upon reading it, I wrote that it was rather awkward to tout the woman they passed over as the answer to the woman the other guy chose as his VP.

I also wrote that a female democratic strategist told me, "Don't think that Hillary hasn't noticed."

I don't know if that same strategist brought my blog to Hillary's attention, or if the irony of the situation was just too glaring.

But in less than 24 hours, Hillary has made it known that she intends to go after McCain, not Palin. Check it out.

Editor’s Note: Amy Holmes is an independent conservative who has not endorsed any candidate for president.

Amy Holmes | Bio
CNN Political Analyst

McCain has a strong woman? Well, the Obama campaign wants voters to know they've got one, too, and they're going to deploy her to crush the moose hunting hockey mom from Alaska. In a strange twist of logic, the Obama campaign is touting the woman they passed over as the woman they need to beat the woman the other guy picked.

The New York Times reports that "Mrs. Clinton's campaign event in Florida, her first for Mr. Obama since the Democratic convention, will serve as a counterpoint to the searing attacks and fresh burst of energy that Ms. Palin injected into the race with her convention speech on Wednesday, Obama aides said."

So, let's get this straight. They didn't choose her and her 18 million voters to put on the ticket. They gave the VP spot to Joe Biden. But now that Sarah Palin has arrived on the political scene, they're promoting Hillary as the female answer to the Republican VP nominee. Awkward, to say the least.

And as one female democratic strategist tells me, don't think that Hillary hasn't noticed.

Amy Holmes | Bio
CNN Political Analyst

Much has been made of whether or not a staunch pro-life candidate can attract the pro-choice vote. And how could Joe Lieberman throw in his liberal lot with, gasp, social conservatives? Wonder no more. In 2004, Bush won 25% of voters who believe abortion should always be legal and 38% of those who believe it should mostly be legal. While Bush didn't draw a majority of pro-choicers to the Republican ticket, he certainly earned a healthy chunk. Bush also won 23% of the gay and lesbian vote (roughly the same percentage he received in 2000.)

Kerry, the pro-choice candidate, won 22% of those who believe abortion should always be illegal and 26% of those who believe that it should be mostly illegal. (see poll)

In other words, Bush actually did better at attracting voters who do not share his views on abortion than did Kerry. It could be that Kerry simply didn't articulate his position well. In one of the debates, he stumbled through his answer to a young woman as to how he reconciles his pro-choice position with his Catholic faith. For some inexplicable he didn't repeat the formulation that had been so successful for Clinton: that he believed abortion should be safe, legal and rare. But that was Kerry for you.

Every four years, the media and liberal Democrats promote the misconception that choice vs. life neatly divides voters into two camps, Democrats vs. Republicans. But as Joe Lieberman told voters tonight, do not be fooled. The truth is that past election statistics say differently, because voters themselves say differently in the privacy of their polling booths.

Bristol Palin, daughter of Republican vice presidential candidate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, poses as a member of the Juneau-Douglas High School junior varsity basketball team in February 2007.

Amy Holmes | Bio
CNN Political Analyst

Editor’s Note: Amy Holmes is an Independent conservative who has not endorsed any candidate for president.

Here's what we know. Bristol Palin is pregnant. And that's all we know. We don't know if she was unaware of how babies are made, or how to acquire contraception. As the eldest of five children, it's hard to imagine that she was not acquainted with the basic facts of life. And none of it is our business.

If we want to turn someone's personal life into a teachable moment, may I suggest John Edwards? "Warning: Extra-marital sex may result in messy paternity rumors and derail national political ambitions."

Do they teach that in sex ed?

Amy Holmes
AC360° Contributor and CNN Political Analyst

As CNN viewers may know, I'm pro-choice. My former boss, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a committed pro-lifer, had no problem hiring me despite that (shocking!) news. Indeed, I became a conservative working for a women's organization that took no position on the issue. We welcomed women from all sides. Our ethos was that women are not defined by our ovaries. We care about taxes, national security, free markets and classic notions of equal rights. Abortion should not be a gender test.

I say all of this because I have been frustrated by the insistence in the media that John McCain's choice for vice president, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin is defined by her pro-life position, as if that is the beginning and end of Governor Palin and of conservative women - and that her pro-life position is extreme. When one looks at the polling data on this issue, it's clear that it is not.

We've seen a concerted effort by the media to marginalize her as a far right-winger, out of touch with moderate and pro-choice women. This is unfair to her, and to all of us who respect her admirable decision to carry to term a child diagnosed in utero with Down's Syndrome. It's been noted that 90% of parents who receive the news that their child will be born with this disability choose to terminate. Governor Palin put her principles into practice. And as a pro-choicer, I can say with sincerity that I admire her act of character and love.

A few summers ago I was at a friend's beach house, and the topic of pro-choicers who work for pro-lifers came up (that's Washington for you). I made the argument that Republican elected officials are far more tolerant of differing views on this topic than Democrats. Count the number of pro-lifers on the staffs of senators Boxer, Clinton, Schumer, Durbin or any of the Democratic leadership. I'm certain the number is negligible, if not zero. Apply the same test to Republican leadership. I guarantee you, the number is much higher, pro-life Pennsylvania Democrat Bob Casey included.

The media would like to label conservatives as intolerant on the abortion issue and, as a result, intolerant of women. But the truth is the conservative tent is much broader than that caricature. And it's much broader than what the other side allows.

Amy Holmes
CNN Political Analyst

So, can we now put to rest the always false notion that Jeremiah Wright represented and embodied the African American community?

It was not true when Barack Obama declared that he could no more disown Wright than he could the black community.

It was not true when Obama supporters rushed to "contextualize" Wright's absurd conspiracy theories and damnations of America.

It was proven not true when NBC and the Wall Street Journal asked African American poll respondents in late March their view of Wright and he received only a 15% approval rating.

And last night, Barack Obama won the African American vote with 91% in North Carolina and 90% in Indiana after denouncing Wright in a widely televised, reported, and repeated press conference. Those voters chose sides, and they chose Barack Obama.

Reverend Wright may have done many good works for his congregants and the south side of Chicago. And he may speak for and to a good number of people who agree with his political views.

But last night a far greater number cast their vote for the man who said, "Enough."

Amy Holmes
CNN Political Analyst

Editor's note: The following is written in response to an essay posted earlier on this blog by Lanny Davis, a Hillary Clinton supporter and fundraiser, addressing charges that the Clinton's played "the race card" against Barack Obama. Click here to read that blog.

Lanny,

Welcome to the conservative side of the street, where the media and Democratic operatives routinely accuse Republicans and conservatives of playing the race card to demonize and discredit them.

In your own post on your party's internecine racial warfare, you gratuitously refer to the "Republican hate machine."  Never mind that Republicans were happily absent from the various Clinton controversies you cite.  In an effort to find an enemy to blame for the current state of racial politics in the Democratic party, instead of looking inwards and examining the roots, so to speak, of liberal racial grievance politics, you blame the media - being very careful not to blame Obama.  That would certainly be a mess.

I'll let Democrats sort out who played the race card first: the media, the Obama campaign, or the Clintons.  But I have no doubt that if Obama becomes the Democratic nominee, all three will unite to return to politics as usual, questioning the racial bona fides of anyone who fails to support the candidacy of the first black presidential nominee.  The politics of hope go only so far.

Amy Holmes
CNN Political Analyst

Editor's note: This first appeared in the National Review, on March 18, 2008.
________

I just figured out how Obama gets out of this. It's devious. But it may be only way.

He leaves this thing alone for the time being and suffers through the next few primaries. He hangs onto his pledged delegate lead, makes the argument that pledged delegates are all that matter. So far, polling shows Democratic voters agree.

He prevails and wins the nomination. Then, he deploys The Pastor Plan. It goes like this. Pastor Wright arranges to give a speech. In it, the pastor makes such outlandish and slanderous claims, not unlike we've already heard, that Obama has no choice but to say, "Enough! Jeremiah has gone too far. I cannot abide his divisive, harmful, and inappropriate language. He does not speak for me or my family which is why we must, with heavy hearts, sever our relationship. He will always be a friend and welcome at my door. But I cannot continue to take his counsel, religious or otherwise." It helps here if the pastor has used some swear words and invented new conspiracies.

Obama sends Pastor Wright a heartfelt letter, more in sorrow than in anger, which he posts on his website. He holds a press conference to inform the public that he has spoken with the pastor privately and explained his position. Obama vows to carry on the church's work of charity and compassion. He stages some events showing him involved in a multicultural community service project, visits a West Virginia coal mine, stuff like that. And he exhorts his fellow Americans to join him in the journey toward racial reconciliation.

Timing is key. Sometime right after the inevitable 527 Pastor Wright ads start running. In fact, they can be the pretext of the pastor's speech. The 527 ads provoke the Reverend's fury. Obama reacts. Bam! It's over. Pastor problem solved.

Think the Clintons wouldn't do it?

It's been said that the Clintons are lucky in their enemies. In Geraldine Ferraro, half of one of the most disastrous candidacies in presidential history, Barack Obama has hit a goldmine.

Not only is Ferraro defending her comments by demeaning her own political career, she's fighting to become known as one of the most partisan racial theorists in politics.

Lucky, indeed. Ferraro's graceless remarks present Obama with an opportunity to reach the very people who might be listening and nodding their heads.

The answer is simple and on message. Barack is lucky, and he should say so.

He's lucky to be an American, a citizen of the greatest nation in human history. He's lucky and blessed to have a smart and beautiful wife who loves him and sustains him, two strong and healthy daughters he has the privilege and responsibility of raising.

He's lucky to be on the campaign trail meeting his fellow citizens everyday and asking them to spread his message, "Yes we can."  And with luck, hard work, and the support of the American people, he hopes to bring that message to the White House.

Hillary - over to you.

-Amy Holmes, 360° Contributor 

The Clinton campaign wasn't supposed to be here in the fight of Hillary's political life. She was supposed to be crowned on Super Tuesday to the ecstatic and triumphant cheers of her Democratic legions. She was supposed to march into the general election six months early to deliver the mortal blow to a limping, fractured and unarmed Republican party. She was supposed to be inevitable.

So go the excuses now being offered to explain Hillary's current desperation, disorganization, and disintegration less than a month after her missed date with destiny. It wasn't supposed to be this way. Shame on you Barack Obama! Shame on you!

There's only one small problem with this story. Presidencies, like campaigns, are full of unanticipated events, plans gone awry, and unforeseen consequences. Just ask George Bush. He might mention 9-11, Iraq , and the November 2006 congressional elections.

True leaders show steady judgment, laser focus, and a reassuring command in the middle of political storms. They're supposed to be in control, at the very the least, of themselves.

Hillary claims she's ready to lead on Day One. But what about Day Two if Day One doesn't go well? She'll need to turn to her kitchen cabinet, not everything and the kitchen sink.  Because facing the unknown is the only truly inevitable event any politician can bank on.

-Amy Holmes, 360° Contributor