Rich Lowry:

I believed, with a lot of other conservatives, that the Clintons were really good at destroying people. Judging from the last three weeks, they are really bad at destroying people. Maybe all those people they destroyed in the 1990's were just easily destroyed? This is very disorienting...

I think that there are several factors here. First, when they were successfully destroying people, they had political power, either as Arkansas governor, or as co-president. I don't think that being an ex-President and senator give them as much clout or ability to hurt their enemies. Also, most people weren't aware of their record in that regard in the 80s and 90s. Now, it's their most famous feature. Now, when they attempt to smear someone (as they did with Obama), the press calls them on it, instead of simply being stenographers for the smear. Of course, it helps a lot that the people they're trying to destroy are fellow Democrats, so even those in the media who want to help them are conflicted in a way they wouldn't be in the general election.

And, finally, I think that a lot of their former allies and toadies are tired of them, had enough, and starting to turn on them (watch this trend accelerate once people decide that she's not "inevitable" and they don't have to worry about being on the wrong end of the wrath of another president Clinton). Without the help of all these others, they are more powerless as well.

Plus, is Hillary Ed Muskie?