Tuesday, July 26, 2005

How to be a Democrat (according to Hillary)

This AP article makes for infuriating reading, as once more Hillary Clinton tries to dictate her "centrist" policies on the entire party. It's wrong on so many levels one hardly knows where to begin.

COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) - New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, a potential 2008 presidential candidate, on Monday pressed Democrats to adopt a tough stand on national security and urged the party to show a united front to counter ``the hard-right ideology in Washington.''

Speaking to the Democratic Leadership Council, the centrist group that helped her husband, Bill Clinton, secure the White House, the senator delivered a broad speech that touched on foreign policy, health care, education and fissures within her own party.

``It's high time for a ceasefire,'' Clinton said.

A ceasefire, eh? My, Hillary has a short memory. Let me remind her of a very recent ceasefire within the Democratic party with two short words: John Kerry.

Last year, every wing of the party came together with one clear objective in mind - throw George W. Bush to the curb. Supporting a pro-war candidate was unsavory to me, but I threw my lot in with Kerry. Never, never again will I put aside my moral beliefs to support a pro-war candidate such as Hillary Clinton.

``Let's start by uniting against the hard-right ideology in Washington,'' Clinton said. ``All too often we have allowed ourselves to be split between left, right and center.''

Hillary is clearly demanding the same unified party that Kerry had, and it's won't happen in 2008. If, during the next presidential cycle the occupation is still dragging on - and every indication is that it will be - the party nominates a hawk such as Clinton she will completely and utterly shear off the left wing of the party, which she will need to have if she has any prayer of winning. She can pander to the gutless and de-nutted DLC, but she has absolutely no legs with the progressives in the party.

Kerry was a much stronger candidate in 2004 than Hillary would be in 2008, and he didn't win on a pro-war platform. It's time to give the voters a real choice in 2008 between war and peace, and Hillary is more of the same shit.

The only leading Democrat who has come out strongly in opposition to this war is Gore, and it's doubtful he'll run in 2008. Perhaps it's time for Edwards to reconsider his position on Iraq and become his own man. I believe that Americans will be so weary of this bloodshed (as the majority now are) in 2008 that a pro-occupation policy will be poison for any Democrat, but a rapid turnaround on the issue will appear insincere and pandering. If Edwards came out now against the occupation, he'd be a lock in 2008. He'd then get the "unity" Clinton preaches for, and not destroy the party (as she will).


Blogger Flippy said...

Oh, how I miss Paul Wellstone.

9:19 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home