Hillary the Chickenhawk
Jan. 23rd, 2007 09:13 amYou know, I don't actually care whether it was sincere, or fear of looking too liberal, or all some sort of ill-conceived political maneuver to try to court the right, or what. The fact remains that Hillary Clinton has been a vocal Iraq war supporter all along. And that all by itself is sufficient reason to give her a pass. Not least because it means she doesn't have the intelligence-interpreting abilities and military foresight God gave a philodendron. If I wanted that in a President and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, I could have just voted for Bush.
Link thanks to Avedon.
Link thanks to Avedon.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-23 06:59 pm (UTC)Still, I have a grand ol' time confidently saying to the snarling right: "Hillary will make a great president".
And she probably will. But not this go 'round.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-23 07:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-23 08:28 pm (UTC)Cute, but not an apt analysis. I'll give you the charisma part (though W. managed to get by without any), but Ross Perot worked for the Republicans far more than he helped Clinton. Bill won pluralities across the board, and Perot's voters were more or less split between Dems and Goppies. What that means is that Republicans who wouldn't have come out to vote for Poppy Bush came out to vote for Perot, and other Republicans on the ticket got the benefit. I blame Perot for the "Gingrich Revolution". He kept a bunch of people in the extremist party when they should have migrated to a more centrist set of politicians.
And no, I don't think Hillary is "taking one for the team". Running for president brings her (more) national attention and power in Congress. Perennially. She'll be the John McCain of the Democrats: Queenmaker, powerboker,spokesperson with a national constituency.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-23 08:45 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-23 08:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-23 10:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-23 09:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-23 10:37 pm (UTC)Al Gore has plenty of charisma, he just seems to have put it in a blind trust on the advice of counsel during his Presidential run. That, and the open hostility of the 'liberal' media obscured it a bit.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-23 11:00 pm (UTC)As for Gore, maybe he needs to run his campaign from the SNL stage. I heard him interviewed on "Fresh Air" in the past few months and still found him very stiff sounding. It may just be when he's trying to be taken seriously.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-23 07:14 pm (UTC)Overall, I think a ticket of him and say Wesley Clark would be about what this country needs. Face it, Bush is going to keep us in Iraq right to the bitter end of his administration. He doesn't want to go down in history as being a loser (yeah I know, he already is).
no subject
Date: 2007-01-23 07:56 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-23 08:23 pm (UTC)Yep, that's me, making political converts one LJer at a time.
:-)
no subject
Date: 2007-01-23 08:38 pm (UTC)Having said that, I like Richardson as well. I'm fond of Vilsack as well. I can see a Richardson/Obama ticket as doing well in the election and being a terrific governing tandem.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-23 08:43 pm (UTC)Really? What office was Reagan in when he was elected? Hint: He wasn't Governor any more. Hell, he wasn't governor any more the *first* time he ran for the Presidency.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-23 08:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-23 11:14 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-24 12:48 am (UTC)I've made my point very poorly, so let me try again: One of my rules of thumb may fall: No one can be elected president without a national base. Being currently in office is the best way to be in the public eye, and no one who left their job just to run for president has succeeded. Reagan had been pushed to the national stage in 1964. He ran for president in 1976, and still had his campaign in place. Carter was immediately post-Watergate and being an outsider was a major plus... and his power base was the Trilateral Commission. Nixon had been VP and ran for president in 1960, and picked up the pieces of his organization after Goldwater's trouncing. Ike had a national following from his victories in WWII.
In terms of the 2008 race, I predict non-officeholders like Biden will fold quickly. Immediate ex-governor Vilsack is still kicking, and Edwards never stopped running from 2004, so they have a shot at the national prize, but my current front-runners are the ones who are in office now.
Since the Texas Legislature meets every other year, by 2008 Obama will have as much experience as Senator as W. did as governor of TX, and considerably more if you add in his state legislature time. W's base was his name recognition and appeal to the religious extremists. Hillary's base, at the moment, is her name recognition and her appeal to the centrists. I don't think she's liberal enough to win the presidency, or even the nomination. Edwards is about as centrist as we can take.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-24 01:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-24 02:40 am (UTC)If the plan is for the Democrats to actually win.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-24 02:44 am (UTC)That's why both of them.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-23 08:11 pm (UTC)Credit Card Company HandoutBankruptcy Reform Act. Oh well.no subject
Date: 2007-01-23 11:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-23 09:13 pm (UTC)