Wednesday, July 18, 2007
The secret lives of candidates (Part 4)
 From cartoonist Brixton Doyle See more of his work   Senator Clinton voted to authorize war powers against Iraq based on what she said was the best information available. Really? Now she and Sen. Robert Byrd want to revoke that same authority. Informed and honest decisions or hedging all political bets for a path to the presidency? What say you? 6 Comments
 Add a comment | Email this post
This shows just another of the many reasons that Hillary Clinton is not qualified to be President. While I don't believe the Right-wing personal attacks on her are justified, I also do not believe in her ability to run the country -- let alone unite it.
Wouldn't it be nice if we could have two candidates that everyone sort of respected, but we voted based on the proposed policies and philosophy of government?
Bearing in mind that the information being provided by the Bush administration at the time the authorization of war powers took place was incomplete and misleading ("show me the WMD's!"), I give a little slack to the legislators from both sides of the aisle who are now backing away from their support.
Nevertheless, former First Lady, uh Mrs., er, SENATOR Clinton does more hedging than my gardener. It is, in my opinion, rare indeed when Hillary's whole-hearted support and leadership is offered on positions that aren't already wildly popular among the general voting public. Is she any better or worse in this regard than the other opportunists running for President - I dunno. As has been discussed elsewhere, it is tough not to pile on to the "the Iraq war is bad" bandwagon these days - everyone is doing it, partially because it makes sense and partially because it is a popular opinion, and popular opinions get people elected. What I am aching to see in any of these candidates is something beyond campaigning and fund-raising ability. Are there so few insightful leaders left in our country willing to step up and lead? Are Obama and Hillary, Giuliani and McCain the best we can do? Has partisan politics and sound-bite policy-making driven the qualified and viable candidates to ground? Is it possible that in a nation of 300+ million people, our President from 1988 to (conceivably) 2015 will have come from only two families?
I find it interesting that we're all still calling it a 'war'. While I grant you it does look and walk like a duck...there has been no declaration of war, nor is there an enemy. You can't have a "War on Terror" Terrorism is a tactic not an enemy. It's like having a war on walking fast. It makes no sense.
Oh right, this is George W. we're talking about.
Saying she made an error in voting for the invasion
is actually a good reason to vote for Hiliary. I think being able to admit a mistake is a sign of intelligence. Hasn't everyone, at some time, made a poor decision? It's what we do after we realize it that separates onest people from pompous fools like GW Bush! I wonder how different things would be now if Mr. Shrubbery and his branches had been wiling to admit their mis=guided and selfish decisions?
Your stuff is really good. Would you consider doing some work for teamconservative.com? If so let me know.
We've learned a lot about the original situation in Iraq (e.g. that there were no WMDs and that there wasn't a Saddam-Al Queda connection) since that initial vote. Senator Clinton is with a very large chunk of the American People in having changed her mind about the war. The approval rating for the war when it started was around 70% and now its well less than half that. Of course you, your friends and colleagues aren't on record and can pretend to have been the rare person that opposed it all along. But I refuse to criticize the senator for changing her mind based on new evidence, like the rest of us.
|
FEATURED CONTRIBUTORS
ARCHIVE
• 09/10/2006 - 09/17/2006• 09/17/2006 - 09/24/2006 • 09/24/2006 - 10/01/2006 • 10/01/2006 - 10/08/2006 • 10/08/2006 - 10/15/2006 • 10/15/2006 - 10/22/2006 • 10/22/2006 - 10/29/2006 • 10/29/2006 - 11/05/2006 • 11/05/2006 - 11/12/2006 • 11/12/2006 - 11/19/2006 • 11/19/2006 - 11/26/2006 • 11/26/2006 - 12/03/2006 • 12/03/2006 - 12/10/2006 • 12/10/2006 - 12/17/2006 • 12/31/2006 - 01/07/2007 • 01/07/2007 - 01/14/2007 • 01/14/2007 - 01/21/2007 • 01/21/2007 - 01/28/2007 • 01/28/2007 - 02/04/2007 • 02/04/2007 - 02/11/2007 • 02/11/2007 - 02/18/2007 • 02/18/2007 - 02/25/2007 • 02/25/2007 - 03/04/2007 • 03/04/2007 - 03/11/2007 • 03/11/2007 - 03/18/2007 • 03/18/2007 - 03/25/2007 • 03/25/2007 - 04/01/2007 • 04/01/2007 - 04/08/2007 • 04/08/2007 - 04/15/2007 • 04/15/2007 - 04/22/2007 • 04/22/2007 - 04/29/2007 • 05/06/2007 - 05/13/2007 • 05/13/2007 - 05/20/2007 • 05/20/2007 - 05/27/2007 • 05/27/2007 - 06/03/2007 • 06/10/2007 - 06/17/2007 • 06/17/2007 - 06/24/2007 • 07/01/2007 - 07/08/2007 • 07/08/2007 - 07/15/2007 • 07/15/2007 - 07/22/2007 • 07/22/2007 - 07/29/2007 • 07/29/2007 - 08/05/2007 • 08/05/2007 - 08/12/2007 • 08/12/2007 - 08/19/2007 • 08/19/2007 - 08/26/2007 • 08/26/2007 - 09/02/2007 • 09/09/2007 - 09/16/2007 • 09/16/2007 - 09/23/2007 • 09/23/2007 - 09/30/2007 • 09/30/2007 - 10/07/2007 • 10/07/2007 - 10/14/2007 • 10/14/2007 - 10/21/2007 • 10/21/2007 - 10/28/2007 • 10/28/2007 - 11/04/2007 • 11/04/2007 - 11/11/2007 • 11/11/2007 - 11/18/2007 • 11/18/2007 - 11/25/2007 • 11/25/2007 - 12/02/2007 • 12/02/2007 - 12/09/2007 THAT'S NOT ALL, FOLKS
|
||||||||||||||||||
