Modo asks Hillary a question that she will not be able to answer in a gadzillion years.
If you know the dingbat vice president is agitating for a conflict with Iran, if you know that Condi is chasing after Cheney with a butterfly net on Iran and Syria, if you know you can’t believe anything this administration says, why vote to give them more backing on their dysfunctional Middle East policy?
Hillary might not be able to answer, but Dowd has an explantation at the ready.
By throwing in with Joe Lieberman and the conservative hawks on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard issue, she once more overcompensated in a cynical way. She’d like to paint Obama as the weak reed who wants to cozy up to dictators, while she’s the one who will play tough. It was odd, given her success in the debates conveying the sense that she is the manliest candidate among the Democrats, that she felt the need to man-up on Iran.
Perhaps Hillary really is casting cynical votes. That’s one possibility. The other is that she actually believes in what she is voting for, like invading Iraq and creating a predicate for attacking Iran. Which of those two possibilities makes you more comfortable voting for Ms. Clinton?
Is this the kind behavior that makes you want to go out and defend the Rose law firm billing records, the Marc Rich pardon, and all the other baggage from the misty past? Do Ms. Clinton’s decisions inspire confidence?
Her team is trying to wink at progressives…as if she doesn’t really mean it…she’ll govern on the left. Why should we believe her? When will she drop this charade and stand on her own two feet and show leadership? After she is President?
Enough with this. There are other, better candidates in this race.
This might be a good time to remind the viewing audience of the remarkable coincidences between major events in the Lewinsky scandal and volleys of Tomahawk cruise missiles in Asia and Africa.
Bill Clinton was a hawkish president, and one who was not averse to using military action to political ends. Al Gore was renowned as one of the more hawkish members of Congress during his time in its halls. Senator Hillary Clinton has been consistently hawkish.
Senator Clinton is the candidate of the portion of the Democratic Party establishment that is joined at the hip with the military-industrial complex. As president, she would probably not be anywhere near as reckless as Bush, but she will ensure that the war machine is well fed.
Exactly.
She has chosen to take a stand on something – big money from corps and whatever lobby is willing to pay her is a GOOD thing in politics.
I weep for our future.
(I’ve often said I would vote for a monkey in a tutu before I would vote for any Republican presidential candidate. That’s still true, but whoa-boy will it suck. AS IF my vote in a presidential election actually matters in the state of Nebraska.)
The bright side: If the Republicans succeed in destroying their party and are quickly followed by the Democrats, maybe they’ll both be marginalized enough to give a foothold to an actual progressive party.
The tragedy of hill is that the overiding issue that is continuously overlooked is what my dad pounded into me every time national politics popped up at the dinner table.(every night!)
Never look just at the candidate- look at who he is bringing in with him!
So, given the fact that there will be at least 2 opennings on the SCOTUS- we must elect a dem! And, if hill appears to be the candidate, then get out the clothespins and vote for her! There is no choice.
We have to retain at least minimun control of congress and we must get the WH!
Undoubtedly, though Clinton’s ambivalence on a number of civil liberty issues makes her less appealing than would otherwise be the case where Supreme Court nominations are concerned.
Personally, I’m hoping she can be stopped in the primaries and I won’t have to hold my nose when the national elections roll around.
I’m terribly afraid she won’t be stopped in the primaries. It’s almost as if she’s been annointed and is just waiting for the crown. It hurts. I want to like her, but her damn record keeps poking me in the eye.
My own problem is that none of the current Dem front-runners inspires me to believe in them – and I consider myself fairly passionate about politics. The simple fact that a Dem is not a Republican is not enough for me to open my checkbook or pick up the phone. (But that will change once we have a D nominee. I swear it will. If I still have a job. And can put food on my family.)
Anyone put up by the Dems is preferable to any of the teh stoopid offered by the GOP. But Jeebus Krispy Kreme, I didn’t in my wildest dreams believe that DUHbya would be re-elected, either.
She needs to act tough to get elected. There are many, many people who are wary of electing a female to the office of the President. It’s a fact she has to deal with now.
She will not be a pacifist president once in office. However, the Clintons are not stupid and she will not be ideologically driven to expand the wars we are already in.
Check out her foreign policy advisers, then review Rudy’s choice: Norman Podhoretz (PNAC)
this is classic MoDo feminizing our male candidates and accusing Hillary of trying to be a man.
I am really sorry you quoted this one.
and as much as I liked him as a politician his governance stance was always 3 shades to the right of where I was comfortable. Add to that his triangulating put him in good stead with a lot of the voters but killed the party.
Good to see someone on the netroots willing to stand up to Hillary. Well said.
You seem different from the MSB.