Shameless Pandering

In which Hillary triangulates her way into a ditch

There are those who claim that Hillary Clinton is congenitally and pathologically unable to take a position, any position, on anything, other than that of insistent supplicant on the fundraising circuit.

These people are entirely wrong. Hillary is capable of taking at least one position: she wants the U.S. military presence in Iraq to continue into the first term as President this vain, substance-free woman has deluded herself into believing she can win.

E Pluribus Media:

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton foresees a "remaining military as well as political mission" in Iraq, and says that if elected president, she would keep a reduced military force there to fight Al Qaeda, deter Iranian aggression, protect the Kurds and possibly support the Iraqi military.

Or maybe these people are entirely correct. Asked whether she agreed with the recent comments by General Pace, who happens to be Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that homosexuality is immoral, she said:

"Well, I'm going to leave that to others to conclude."

Good thing that she's not running for President and people don't care what her opinion is, right? Oh wait, she is; never mind.

Every day that dawns brings a new reason to doubt Hillary Clinton. This is not leadership; it's leadering, something that looks like leadership, but is not. Too bad for Hillary that more and more Americans are noticing the difference.

» Michael Bouldin's blog | add new comment | email this blog

Here's a shocker. Or maybe not.

The Times' Pat Healy has an interesting piece today on Hillary Clinton, Miss Inevitable.

One of the most important decisions that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton made about her bid for the presidency came late last year when she ended a debate in her camp over whether she should repudiate her 2002 vote authorizing military action in Iraq.

Several advisers, friends and donors said in interviews that they had urged her to call her vote a mistake in order to appease antiwar Democrats, who play a critical role in the nominating process. Yet Mrs. Clinton herself, backed by another faction, never wanted to apologize â€” even if she viewed the war as a mistake â€” arguing that an apology would be a gimmick.[...]

â€œIf the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that vote or has said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from,â€ Mrs. Clinton told an audience in Dover, N.H., in a veiled reference to two rivals for the nomination, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois and former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina.

Why is this horseshit? Read on.

Submitted by Michael Bouldin on 17 February 2007 - 4:09pm.
Iraq war | Shameless Pandering | Hillary Clinton | Patrick Healy | The New York Times

Visit our sponsors

culturekitchens

The Publisher
Liza Sabater

Daily servings of political dissent
culturekitchen

Grassroots News and
Activism for New Yorkers
Daily Gotham

Feminist Bloggers
Network
BlogSheroes

A new kind of vouyerism
Voogling

Art + Code + Philosophy
Potatoland.blog

Got any dirt, tips, leads or money for us? Then drop us a line or two at editors [at] culturekitchen [dot] com or use our general contact form to reach everybody in the editorial team ASAP.

Words to live by

Wars are the clock ticking off the time of Israeli history: World War I; the "riots" of 1929 and 1936; World War II; the War of Independence, 1948; the Sinai Campaign, 1956; the Six Day War, 1967; the War of Attrition, 1969-1971; the Yom Kippur War, 1973; the Labanon War, 1982; the Gulf War, 1991. Not all these conflicts were equally significant in their cultural impact, and surely not in the same way, but together they create a ghastly rhythm in which every calm period is seen in Israel as a pause before future violence.

[Editor's Note: I would say this explains a great deal about Israel...and I would add that a similar statement could be made about Palestine]

— Ariel Hirschfeld, in his chapter in Cultures of the Jews, edited by David Biale