As you can see from the statement she made today Senator Clinton has parted company with President Bush on Iraq.
There is some risk in this, given the record of her fund raising activities in New York and other places, but the truth is that a failure to walk away from the president’s fantasy world would have killed her chances to gain the democratic Perty nomination in ’08 and certainly would have made her the kind of "leper" in the national election that McCain and others will be as a result of their support of the catastrophe being inflicted on the US and Iraq by the neocons and President Bush.
The new Congress may have the guts to want to do something about the Bushworld policy announced last night, but the constitutional truth is that it has few tools with which to dictate policy. President Bush hopes to expand the Army and Marines to "cover" the shortfalls being created by his escalation in Iraq. That will probably succeed. There is a vast reservoir of young people from small towns in the United States who can be recruited and those who think that willingness to serve is about money need to get out into the country more.
Nevertheless, the situation will continue to degenerate and I forecast that by the Summer of ’08 our situation will be so bad that any Democrat could be elected. I suggest that by that time a Clinton/Webb ticket will start to look good to many. pl
Maybe Webb but I doubt it.
Why anyone believes H. Clinton can or will gain the democratic nomination is beyond me.
That said, if I were making book, Webb would definitely be my top choice as the VP on that ticket.
is this significant?,
US forces raid Iranian consulate in Iraq: Iran
and from google news,
if i may ‘suggest’ what would be a good ticket instead — WEBB/and webb’s pick for vp, not hillary. both hillary and obama are unelectable on a national scale. and the news media’s feeding frenzy of hillary and obama are nothing but a ruse to submarine a 08 dem prez election in favor of their mainstream media ‘pick’ dubya part deux a.k.a. sen. mccain. corrupt business and a corrupted mainstream media are crafting their propaganda scheme.
No Democratic candidate who voted “yes” on the Iraq war resolution in 2002 will survive the primary process. This includes Clinton, Edwards, Biden, etc. Even if they recant and say they’re sorry, why should we ever trust their judgment again? When the rubber met the road, the above named people did the politically expedient thing (at the time) instead of standing up to the C-in-C. Some Democrats did say no (e.g., Sen. Bob Graham).
While Webb might make an attractive VP candidate (depending on how he performs over the next two years) Hillary and her finger-in-the-wind colleagues aren’t going to make the cut.
I guess I’m not the only one thinking Webb for V.P.
How about Richardson/Webb, we have enough Senators running we need Governors.
hillary, no. nancy?
i was thinking, clark/richardson. note richardson’s experience w the n koreans, who may look like a much more immediate threat by then.
“those who think that willingness to serve is about money need to get out into the country more.”
Well said. Most of might have looked at the money, but we signed up for other reasons first. Too many of our life-time politicians not only have not served, they don’t get out in the country; neither do the press.
And how about a killing two dodos with one stone: A McCain/Lieberman ticket? In that way we can vote against both wings of the war party at once. It would be nice to send those two Patton-wanna-be’s into retirement.
Well said. Myself,I’m a Clark/Webb guy. And I like Hagel…
Now my idea of a nightmare from hell ticket is McCain/Lieberman.
“Because two wrongs don’t make a right.”
I also will not vote for any Democratic nomination seeker who voted to invade Iraq when my state has its caucuses. Since Kucinich has said he is seeking the nomination again, that is who I will vote for, because
he is the most trustably cut-and-run candidate I can imagine. And cut-and-run is the only good thing we can do for Iraq at this point, at least removing ourselves as an irritant and
destabilizer. In our absence, the Iraqi peoples and factions might find their footing again.
If Hillary gets nominated, the only way I could imagine voting for her
is if the Republicans nominate ex-Senator Allen. Or McLieberCaine.
I would hardly call it a catastrophe for the US.
It’s a catastrophe for each family that loses a loved one and it sure as hell is a catastrophe for Iraq.
For the US it’s a drain on resources better spent elsewhere (health, eduation, social welfare, new orleans levees). It’s a drain on your reputation and international standing. But it’s hardly a catastrophe.
I’d posit that if most americans were honest, if it wasn’t for the telly they wouldn’t even be aware there was a war on.
For all you Libertarian-leaning Republicans out there — Good News!!!
Ron Paul (R Texas) filed incorporation papers yesterday for a 2008 presidential exploratory committee. Ya-hoo!
I’m registered Green Party but I’ll be voting for Ron Paul in 2008 if he’s on the federal election ballot. I would have voted for him before if I’d had the chance, but I don’t live in Texas.
Unless the Dems come out and announce the abandonment, i.e., cessation of funding and arming, of Eretz Israel, surely its going to be all for naught even if Iraq does in fact eventually turn out as pretty as Oz. After her trained seal, er, power hungry presidential aspirant constrained by the Lobby and electoral funding, performance during the attack on Lebanon and silence during the ensuing slaughters in Gaza and the West Bank what can be done? Breaking with Bush is a no brainer. The GOP is finally doing so, but there’s no mention of the gigantic stinking turd in the pool that is the Occupation and reduction of Palestinian civil society. Hardly conditons precedent for progress, let alone peace in the ME, but for more of the same – perpetual war.
With control of the Senate in the balance, if I were a Democratic Senator I wouldn’t go into a war zone without being handcuffed to a Republican Senator, (or Joe Lieberman;-) for the whole trip. But, here she goes with massive publicity preceeding her trip.
I’m having problems withmy current email account. I might not be able to fix it until the week begins,my temp is
Hillary fares poorly on leftie polls but that doesn’t neccessarily mean very much overall. She has a serious machine in place and if anyone thinks she is not a bona fide contender and perceived of as the presumptive candidate at this, I believe is mistaken.
Feingold was opposed to Iraq but he stated wasn’t seeking POTUS but he hasn’t ruled out VP. Ted Kennedy is not running,of course – but he was adamantly opposed. Obama is on record as opposed.He certainly has been generating momentum. Gore? We’ll see.
Like I mentioned upstream – I like Wes Clark,I believe he’ll announce by the end of this month. I sure hope there is room for Chuck Hagel in a Dem cabinet.
excerpted from the WaPo
It was not always thus. At the September 2002 hearing, GOP lawmakers joined in Perle’s dismissal of Clark’s argument that “time is on our side” in Iraq and that force should be used only as a “last resort.”
Perle said Clark was “wildly optimistic” and called it “one of the dumber cliches, frankly, to say that force must always be a last resort.” While Clark fiddled, “Saddam Hussein is busy perfecting those weapons of mass destruction that he already has.”
In retrospect, Clark’s forecasts proved more accurate than Perle’s, and even Republicans on the committee made little effort yesterday to defend Perle or to undermine Clark. The exception was Chairman Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), who pressed Clark to acknowledge that the Iraq invasion should get some credit for signs of democracy in the region.
“We’ve got to do a lot less crowing about the sunrise,” Clark rejoined.
When Hunter’s GOP colleagues didn’t join his line of questioning, he took another turn grilling Clark. The chairman likened President Bush’s Middle East policies to those of President Ronald Reagan in Eastern Europe.
“Reagan never invaded Eastern Europe,” Clark retorted.
In another try, Hunter said Clark was “overstating” the risk in challenging other countries in the Middle East. Clark smiled and showed his trump card — reminding Hunter of their exchange at the 2002 hearing. “I kept saying time was on our side,” Clark said. “I could never quite satisfy you.”
As for who proved correct, the general said, “I’ll let the record speak for itself.”
Of course,I would love to see Col.Lang as Special Envoy to the ME…
Hey, make up all the fantasy senarios you want. Edwards/Clark/Obama/Webb/Whatever. In ’08 you’ll get Hillary and you’ll damn will like it. She’s got all the big money sewn up tight and most of the party leadership backing her. And the party knows it’s base doesn’t have the spine to buck them. So all you pwoggies get ready to vote for Hillary in ’08. You have no choice.
I am not sure that HC will have much of a chance – I do not think any one who hs voted for the War in Iraq is electable.