Cynicism? Perhaps, but seeing the last 40 years of the electorate pulling the same old BS makes one that way, esp. when many alternatives and parties exist, and we pretty much know, w 95% accuracy, what Hillary will do and not.

Nic: ‘Hillary Clinton is not a leader. She’s a political opportunist, as her pandering to social conservatives and “conversion” from war-supporter to war-opponent less than fourteen months before the primaries clearly demonstrates.’

Exactly- she is, as a supporter said- a known quantity, and that quantity is null.

Where I disagree with your reasoning re what the Dems should do about Iraq is that it doesn’t include an acknowledgement that we can’t have a do-over.
We can;t uninvade.

Getting out will need to be a very delicate dance, and if national unity is to be preserved as a goal at the same time, it will need to be doubly delicate dance.

The best endorsement for the future of Democrats would be to pull it off. Insisting on absoloutes from the leadership is to guaratee failure in creating a consensus and reinstalling national unity to any meaningful degree.

Look to the future, not the immediate, is my advice.

The truth is that I prefer either Obama or Edwards to Clinton but will have absolutely no problem voting for her should she get the nomination over any of the Republicans.

When you are the leader of the entire country, not just your party, paying attention to those who disagree with your party (call it pandeting, if you want) can be a good thing. As negative evidence, I cite the experience of the Bush era, when this was not done, and we see now the extreme and over-the-top anger of those left out of the discussion and demonoized.

I agree with this, domajot, and similar to this is undertoad’s comment:

In our heavily divided times, nobody is going to lead 100% of the nation so we might as well settle for 51%.

I don’t want to get off-topic here… but the Bush (Rove) strategy was to divide the country (the protection of marriage, the “either you’re with us or against us” comments on the war) and gain just enough votes to win the Presidency in the 2004 election. But Bush doesn’t even govern for 51% of the country. Bush was elected because he made anough people doubt Kerry’s toughness on the fight on terrorism. Sure I understand it’s politics but the next day (figuratively speaking) the country woke up and realized that Bush did share their values.

What truly boggles my mind is that the Bush administration – and Republicans – have trampled on our constitution rights (expansion of executive power, invasion of privacy, etc.) and the Democrats just let the Republicans get away with it. For some reason the Republicans have been able to portray the Dems as being weak on defense and the Dems just took the bait by supporting policies they do not necessarily agree with. But you know what? That’s sort of like a self-fullfillng prophecy: in order for the Dems to show they have the balls to be tough on terrorist (and they should be tough on terrorist) the Dems cave in and follow the Republicans. The reason that this is a self- fulfilling prophecy is that the Dems don’t stand up for what they believe in and so they ARE weak even when they support the same policies as the Republicans. I just want to be clear here… I’m not saying the Dems should NOT fight terrorists- America needs to be protected and fight its enemies. What I am saying is that there are other approaches, i.e. not invading countries (Iraq) that had nothing do do with the 9/11 terrorists’ attacks that would obviously be more effective than some (if not most) of the Bush admin’s policies…. The next President should do what’s best for the country and not follow what they feel is political necessity.

I believe that we need to withdraw troops from Iraq sooner rather than later – but we also need to leave in a measured manner and not rush to pull out the troops. I do believe that Hillary will continue the war in Iraq and for that I fault her. Hillary probably feels she needs to prove her toughness in national security matters and show she is as tough on terrorism as Bush. One way to do that is by continuing Bush’s ill-conceived war in Iraq…

I think if Hillary (or anyone who wins the WH next year) wants to show toughness then on her/his first day in office s/he should standup and say that the Iraq war is not gaining America anything. The true terrorists- and threats to our country- need to be fought on their ground. Given this reality s/he, as President, will begin withdrawing all troops from Iraq over a six month period. Some of those troops, most of whom have already had multiple tours will be returning home. Other troops will be deployed to Afganistan, Pakistan and other countries with known terrorists cells. We will work with the military in those countries to eradicate known terrorists cells and find and destroy new terrorists cells…. This is just an illustration of what I think could be said and done. And it’s a whole lot better than “stay the course” and hope for the best.

Just like Bush was able to do after 9/11 (and sending troops to Afganistan) a leader needs to make the case for what they feel is necessary and then do it. Unfortunately Bush then failed to make the case for the Iraq war, there was no case to be made and tens of millions of people felt strongly enough to protest during the build-up. Bush invaded Iraq for his own reasons, creating the perfect environment for terrorists training camps, and now we’re bogged down there losing precious lives. Unfortunately when Bush turned his attention to Iraq he didn’t finish the great porgress being made in Afganistan so we now have a mess there that needs attention.

For me Hillary does not meet this litmus test of being a leader, particularly if she feels she has to continue with others’ failed policies because it’s politically necessary. I think the American public was clear in last fall’s elections that they wanted a change in Iraq. Politicians of all stripes who feel it is politically necessary to stay in Iraq are deluded.

I don’t expect to agree with any President on every decision that is made- but it’s important for a President to make decisions based on what they think is truly best for the country, and not based on how much money and power they can confer to their financial backers who got them elected….

Seriously, even in the post where everyone dog-piled on me for being to hard on Shaun, I was calling his arguments stupid, not him himself.

Anyhoo… teh Hillster. See, I comment on this blog, since as the inheritor of a rich Talmudic tradition, I can see different sides of an issue, and while my politics are set, I feel a draw to other ideas.

So here’s why my “dark side” wants to elect Hillary: she’ll be competent in administering the IraNian War, which BushCo will start in the not too distant future.

So we’ll likely see a Rudy vs Hillary election as the Iranian troops pour into Iraq after we bomb them. It’ll be Rudy’s BS vs. Hill’s vagina dentata, with the election decided by how well the Dems push back against the right-wing media that has a hard-on for Repubs.

Fortunately, I believe in Hillary’s hard-on destroying power, so I think she’ll pull it out in the end. And we’ll get 8 years of yet more middle-class evaporation, warmongering, globalization, and corporatism, with the addition of general competence, low levels of theocratic BS, and a modicum of concern for brown people and the environment.

Let’s be clear: there was general agreement in the nation’s elite that we should expand the empire and attack Iraq. There’s more division now regarding Iran, but Bush and Cheney are hardcore intra-elite warriors who will fuck over everyone but their little club of oil-and-gun barons. We are going into Iran.

And even if we don’t, we are staying in Iraq. That is what the highest levels of American foreign policy have decided. Between that pressure from the top, and an apathetic and disconnected base, the war(s) will not end.

I can’t really see blaming Hillary for our being lazy. Candidates are just placeholders, anyway, especially in the TV era. The problem is the people.

Oh, and let me reiterate, the war has had broad backing from the top levels of our system. Honestly, I think that blaming the neocons is just a manifestation of anti-Semitism. Crap, the neocons are not ExxonMobil, who this war has really been best for. Se let’s not call Hill a neocon just because she represented the consensus of the nation’s elites, okay?

I think everyone is a hypocrite.

Some are worse than others. Some more oblivious to their own personal hypocrisy than others. Some more toxic in their obliviousness than others. So while I don’t want to give everyone a pass, I’m not generally moved by charges of hypocrisy.

I imagine that a fine-tooth comb through the voting record of Ron Paul would find plenty of ammunition for charges of hypocrisy. As a matter of fact, I image a fine-tooth comb through your own archives would find enough ammunition.

Surely, you concede the truth of this.

Not that I’m going to do it. You seem reasonably consistent. Paul seems reasonably consistent. And in light of 15 years of being called a hypocrite by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Hillary also seems reasonably consistent. Your mileage may vary. You’re allowed to say it. And I’m allowed to scoff.

Or maybe she just seems consistent compared to Rudy, Mitt, and Fred D…?

Also, I do not get scared just by reading the word “neoconservative”. Calling Hillary a hypocritical neocon just seems desperate.

Shaun–

As for Hillary being a woman, I’m certain you’ve noticed that Obama is black, Richardson is Hispanic, Biden is Catholic, Kusinich is vegatarian, Gravel is elderly and Dodd is…I don’t know, he probably went to Yale or something.

They won’t have any problems swift-boating something up. It’s what they do.

After all, some of them are already calling Edwards a homosexual, aren’t they?

You have a position re libertrianism, and I acknowledge it.
What I’m trying to say, on mnay threads, is that the ideology of a candidate, or a president, in and of itself is not enough to lead a nation where many different ideologies compete for attention.

The art of consensus building has been scuttled in favor of all-or-nothing judgementalism. What anemic efforts at consensus building there are come in the form of sloganeering and ad campaigns instead of truly discussing the consequences, in addition to the promise, of any political ideological formula.

What do people believe that any future President Clinton will do that they do not want to really support.

A future President Clinton would sing an S-CHIP bill contain more than 60 billion dollars. A future PResident Clinton will support open borders and unlimited immigration. She will support an end to NCLB and a return to social engineering in the schools. She will pass out billions in additional student aid to the point that everyone can attend some level of forth tier state university. She will try to nationalize health care in some fashion.

Does anyone believe that she will veto a single bill passed by a Democratic controlled Congress? Does anyone believe that she will support cuts to any government programs other than defense? Does anyone believe that she will not support a new Fairness Doctrine, a second round of campaign finance reform, or new civil rights legislation that will eliminate any opposition to the Democratic Party?

I just do not understand why the left is worried when in the end, they will get everything that they want.

Speaking of libertarians, they are not as uniform in their positions as Nick presents. Among them, there is wide divergence concerning religion, for example. There are also the neo-libertarians with a robust taste for war to assert national interests abroad, and their libertarianism covers only domestic issues.

domajot,

The “neolibertarians” who describe in the above scenario are not libertarians. Libertarianism is not like a Chinese Menu of political thought in which you and pick and choose where you’d like to be a libertarian. Someone who supports limited government at home but expansive government abroad is not a libertarian. Nor is someone who supports individual liberty but not economic liberty or vice versa.

Libertarians do have differences of opinion on issues of abortion and intellectual property rights, in which both sides may argue that they are protecting liberty. This does not extend to positions that require that the government be allocated the power to achieve some ambitious utopian objective (i.e. using military force to Democratize the Middle East).

The Republican candidates seem to be in a race of who can attack Iran first and who can skew Wahshington power more to the right. On domestic issues other than abortion, they have a uniform postiton of what not to do, instead of offering any solutions beyoind a hat tip to the ‘private sector’.

The only one I see is Obama, and his electibility, at the moment, seems doubtful.

It’s not enough to say this person is wrong and that person is wrong. Where is the right person?
Being too choosy about food can leave one with an empty plate.

You don’t like Hillary. I get it. But you don’t seem to have anything beyond that.

George,

I believe that some amount of consistency is in order when it comes to politics. You don’t bash Bush for enacting horrible policies and then give Clinton a pass for having voted for some of those same policies. That’s called hypocrisy.

Also, I’ve noted that liberals/progressives/Democrats have a tendency to lash out against neoconservatives and policies that they consider to be neoconservative. But as Radley Balko points out, Hillary Clinton’s voting record reflects past support for a number of policies that might be considered neoconservative (i.e. resorting to military force to implement the American government’s will throughout the world, and curtailing civil liberties for the sake of security). Liberals/progressives/Democrats ought to take this into account before backing her.

While I also am apalled at some of the votes she has cast, choosing a president is much different than choosing a senator, and demanding an ideologically pure candidate for the presidency is exactly what has ground our national morale and politics into the mud.

When you are the leader of the entire country, not just your party, paying attention to those who disagree with your party (call it pandeting, if you want) can be a good thing. As negative evidence, I cite the experience of the Bush era, when this was not done, and we see now the extreme and over-the-top anger of those left out of the discussion and demonoized.

Unless you believe in tit-for-tat, choosing a president has to be viewed in a special light of its own. Even libertarians should face up to that reality.

Speaking of libertarians, they are not as uniform in their positions as Nick presents. Among them, there is wide divergence concerning religion, for example. There are also the neo-libertarians with a robust taste for war to assert national interests abroad, and their libertarianism covers only domestic issues.

Everyone gives lip service to the need for unity in the coutnry, but whan it comes to politics, we all say: my way or the highway. Confine your blame to Washington only if you don’t want to face up to your own role in the divisiceness.

In many ways, I think Hillary could lead a nation, instead of just her party, but whether she will be allowed to do it is another question. Her political history will haunt the presidency, and Republicans are looking for the longest and sharpest knives to do her in.

Personally, I much prefer Obama. The question of electability across party lines does crop up, and I’m uncertain. It’s unfortuante, that both Hillary and Obama are being faulted by memebers of their own party for not being partisan enough, while being criticized by the opposition for being too partisan.

At any rate, I think there needs to be a separation between pre-presidential advocay and the requirements for a good president for the nation as a whole.

Pathetic loser is as pathetic does.

Ya know?

She also scares the sh*t out of me.

That’s because you are a pathetic loser.