I can’t see there being that much desire among Dems to vote for a supporter of the war either. Unless someone can think of a fourth option, Clinton’s choices are to either (1) claim her pro-war stance as a virtue, (2) somehow minimize the importance of her war stand relative to other issues, or (3) change her mind on the war.
#1 is difficult, but it’s probably her best bet. If you’re running for President, not figuring out until 2007 that the war was a dumb idea doesn’t say much about you; best to blunder through with the hand you’ve dealt yourself. And I think #2 will be a tough row to hoe in 2007. If you’re running for President, you can’t run away from the Iraq issue.
How will it be a virtue with most of the country, especially her party, against the war? I wouldn’t say she just figured it out in 2007. That’s why she repeatedly called for Rumsfeld to resign, for example: she was rebuilding her cred after the damaging pro-war vote. She’s been successful in handling the vote, unlike, say, Lieberman. I don’t mean she can wipe it away, but she’s dealing with it in some ways. She remains behind the war, but Bush will continue screwing up often enough for her to say “this has been mismanaged.”
I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make here, but I’d say it would be a virtue with those pro-war Democrats who are still around, but also in the sense that you respect someone who sticks to their guns more than someone who waffles, even when you disagree with them.
I don’t think that’s likely to be really fruitful, just that it beats the alternatives.
Clinton may have been successful in selling her position in New York, but I still don’t see the “good war, badly bungled” approach succeeding nationally. Ultimately it relies on Dem voters forgiving her for taking this long to realize that Bush is as stubborn, wrongheaded, and resistant to sensible advice as he is, and agreeing that it wasn’t totally stupid to see Rumsfeld, not Bush and Cheney, as the problem. Especially as it becomes apparent that Rumsfeld’s departure makes no difference, the plausibility of that argument will be gutted.
Oh, I agree. Just that the alternatives for her are even worse, IMHO.
All other things being equal, yes, because NY is more liberal than the country as a whole.
But all things are not equal. While Hillary’s been a nonstop conservative bete noir, she’s avoided the sort of critical liberal attention that, say, Joe Lieberman got last summer, despite the low opinion that the netroots especially have of her. But that’s because she’s mostly stayed out of the national limelight, been much more a follower than a leader in the Senate.
That will all change when her campaign goes live.
Not necessarily. If she has to remind the voters of a party that’s largely had it with the war that she was an occasional critic of it…well, what’s the opposite of ‘impress’? That’s the effect it’ll have on the Dem voters.
Hillary can get the spotlight anytime she wants it. People know that, but know less about her criticism of the Administration than they do of John Murtha’s. When she has to go back and excavate her Iraq criticisms from her clipping file to show the voters, I believe that will hurt her much more than it will help her.
By now it may be too late for Hillary to disavow her DOMA vote. Even if sincere, it would look like just so much posturing and opportunism. But it’s too late for it to go away, either. She’ll have to get her name on a few serious accomplishments of a populist nature (which just became a lot more possible, granted) and let the war recede into history before becoming a plausible winner, but 2008 is too soon and it may never happen.
Like it or not, getting out of Iraq is THE issue, and given Bush’s pigheadedness, still will be in a year from now.
Well, “The buck stops here” Harry Truman was a senator as was JFK, LBJ and Nixon. All made bold historic decisions (good and bad) against whatever currents they happened to be swimming in.
I am not convinced that Bush invaded Iraq over oil. I think the energy bill was prompted by big oil interests.
I thought this was a relevant passage from the wiki article:
[quote]
After Biden withdrew from the race, it was learned that he had correctly credited Kinnock on other occasions but failed to do so in an Iowa speech that was recorded and distributed to reporters by aides to Michael Dukakis, the eventual nominee. Dukakis fired the senior aide responsible, but the damage had already been done to Biden[/.quote]
I recognize the vital function of trial lawyers in our judicial system. If you read my first post, I even say that Fred Baron (the sleazy trial lawyer) was initially a good guy, then he became a bad guy. I thought my first post laid out the connection and the sleazyness of the lawyer he chose to be in charge of his fundraising. I can go over it again in more detail if you like. This cite doesn’t detail all of his sleaziness but its a start: http://www.dallasobserver.com/issues/2001-03-29/feature.html
You can’t point your finger at republican sleaziness and corruption when you have your own brand of sleaziness raising money for you.
As for Biden, I’ll call him an Iraq war enabler if it’ll make you feel better. I don’t think he stands a chance against Clinton, Gore, Obama or Edwards but I think he deserves a look see. I have nothing against Edwards (other than his inexperience), I have a pretty big problem with his chief fundraiser.
Hillary has got to impress a lot of people and fast. She might be afraid of peaking too soon but there are a handful of candidates that are about to steal her thunder.
She has not done anything particularly remarkable with her senate term. She supported the war in Iraq, she voted for the