Iraq and Presidential Politics
Russ Feingold is testing the waters by calling for complete troop withdrawal by the end of 2006. This a bold move that is aimed at Hillary Clinton.
While Hillary Clinton is the odds on favorite to the 2008 Democratic Presidential Nominee, she has some vulnerabilities. The Democratic base hates the war, but as a senator from NY there is concentrated pressure on her to tone down the antiwar rhetoric. It will be very difficult for Hillary to call for complete removal of the troops from Iraq.
The war has always been hated by the Democratic base, and now is unpopular overall. Yet the Democrats have held back on calling for bringing home the troops. It is a delicate balancing act, but the Democrat who can take the proper tone and demonstrate the proper timing will do quite well.
Hillary will be forced to drag her feet on Iraq and this represents an opening for a lesser known candidate.
Link
While Hillary Clinton is the odds on favorite to the 2008 Democratic Presidential Nominee, she has some vulnerabilities. The Democratic base hates the war, but as a senator from NY there is concentrated pressure on her to tone down the antiwar rhetoric. It will be very difficult for Hillary to call for complete removal of the troops from Iraq.
The war has always been hated by the Democratic base, and now is unpopular overall. Yet the Democrats have held back on calling for bringing home the troops. It is a delicate balancing act, but the Democrat who can take the proper tone and demonstrate the proper timing will do quite well.
Hillary will be forced to drag her feet on Iraq and this represents an opening for a lesser known candidate.
Link
posted by Brian at 9:47 AM
4 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Hillary's in a tough spot on this one, no doubt about it. Coming out against the war may play up to her Democratic base but will just reinforce her credentials as an ultra-libreal (which is exactly what she is) and alienate many who aren't too fond of her to begin with. Plus she voted for the resolution authorizing the war, a fact which Republicans will be quick to remind her of. Her liberal buddies Joe Biden, John Kerry and Charles Schumer also voted for it, as did a majority of Senate Democrats (oops!):
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237
Hillary's also got very close ties to AIPAC, and the Israel-firsters probably wouldn't be too pleased to see her express disenchantment with this proxy war. Tough break, Hill.
Hillary said:
.. the United States should remain in Iraq until peace can be maintained by the Iraqi people, saying the mission was part of the "long struggle against terrorism" by the U.S. "The threat of terrorism is as close as our daily commute," said Clinton, adding that people around the world admired the "famous resilience" of the British in the wake of last week's terrorist attacks.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Hillary has "clearly" (aren't we all sick of that word "clearly"?..they all sound like litle monkey hear, monkey say repeaters)...fallen for the theory that she must move to the right to get elected in 2008. The sad thing is she could swope in on her superwomen cape with angel wings straight from God and the holy roller red neck patriots still wouldn't vote for her. All she is doing is losing support from her original supporters.
Don't look for anti-war leadership from the Democratic Party--
http://billmon.org/archives/002099.html
DYING FOR ISRAEL
Billmon finds an interesting quote from the Democratic Leadership Council. The DLC reminds its flock not to be too critical of the war. After all, it brags, the war successfully "changed the strategic equation in the Arab-Israeli conflict." Remember when Cindy Sheehan said something like that? Billmon even finds time to nail poor Christopher Hitchens (again). :)
When he goes on to say the following, however, I'm not so sure I agree--
"It's also not clear how much the "PNAC Neo-Con agenda" reflected the official wishes of the Israeli goverment, and how much of it was just a product of the neocons' seemingly limitless gullibility. Was the original objective really to "change the strategic equation" in the region? Or were the neocons just conned by Ahmed Chalabi's sugar-plum promises of a peace treaty, an Iraqi embassy in Jerusalem and a pipeline running from Kirkuk to Haifa? I tend to think it was the latter, which was more stupidity than treason."
Sure it is true that stupidity is possible explanation, but it tends to ignore all the evidence of a long-term Israeli goal to neutralize its regional rivals.
Post a Comment
<< Home