I found this Reason article very damning of Hillary's views on foreign policy. The comparison of her and Cheney's view on executive authority should give pause to any anti-war Democratic enthusiastically supporting Hillary.
Supporting Hillary is like supporting a brand name. The fact that she has had a history of embracing the same overbearing foreign policy as the Bush-Cheney administration should throw her out of contention. However, she's running on her name...proof once again that a Presidential election is no more than a popularity contest.
Here's my faorite line in the article:
"A Hillary Clinton presidency promises to unite Madeleine Albright's zeal for using bombs in pursuit of liberal ideals with Dick Cheney's vision of the president as emperor. Won't that be fun?"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Brand name. That's exactly right. Primary/base voters vote with their gut, not their head. Thus, the Democrats will almost always nominate someone who is a militant liberal (like Hillary) or a wimpy liberal (Dukakis, Kerry).
I think the only reason the Democrats nominated a Southern moderate in 1992 was because they thought Bush 41 was unbeatable. So the voters thought they were nominating a sacrificial lamb. Had the Democrats thought they could win, they would have nominated one of the previously mentioned types. That is why in 2008 the Democrats will probably lose. They are overconfidant. I think Rudy is going to be the next president of the US, and that he'll be a one-termer. My predictions on the website earlier were meant for humor and designed to lose--since I can no longer consume alcohol without getting a headache and/or allergic reaction.
I think GOP primary voters are more pragmatic than Democratic voters. Rudy will win the nomination despite the fact that social conservatives aren't thrilled with him because they see him as their most electable candidate.
let's hope that douche (Rudy) isn't elected...4 more years of W would be better.
Post a Comment