"...mildly pinko screed.." Actually it's not really a good idea to refuse to read anything. I read the WSJ virtually every day--including the more-Bushite-than-thou Neanderthal editorials. But I always learn something from it--and them--even if, as is virtually always the case, I completely disagree. And sometimes I even do agree--as when they push for a path to citizenship for all illegal immigrants--and warn their fellow Republicans that their punitive attitude is consigning them to long-term minority status.




Interesting. Clinton wants to push "experience" as her strong suit. Experience in foreign policy--since you can bet that's what McCain will be pushing. Now where was this experience she is touting? In the White House? As First Lady? She said something about being responsible for opening the Macedonian border. A First Lady doing that. Wonder what the State Department says about this story.

Also, in her impressive floundering around to justify her vote to authorize Bush to use force, she made several attempts to come off as a prudent statesman. Obama caught one of them--exactly why did she not think Bush would use force, since, as I recall, "Authorization to Use Force" was part of the title of the resolution?

Then she took another tack which also turns out to be a red herring. She cited the Levin Amendment as subordinating US judgment to the UN Security Council. "I don't think that was a good precedent. Therefore I voted against it".

Only problem is: she's totally wrong. The proposal required that Congress "not adjourn" before it "promptly considers proposals related to Iraq if the United Nations fails to adopt such a resolution."

So either she's ignorant or lying. I wonder which it is.

It's amazing how much that reminds you of the last 7 years.

Another helping? No thanks.

And she never did make the simple statement that would have changed the whole situation--that she was wrong to authorize Bush to use force.


It's fairly evident that she was, as usual, trying desperately to exactly calibrate the middle of the electorate--not pro-war nor pacifist--and, also as usual, refusing to take a stand until absolutely boxed into it, for fear that might alienate somebody. Just as it was pulling teeth to get her to finally admit she was against drivers licenses for illegal immigrants.



But if she thinks this sort of fudging will save her in a matchup against McCain on national security, she's somewhat deluded, to say the least.

It should be painfully obvious to anybody that if national security is the number one issue, a real national hero who has stood consistently against what the Right calls "Islamo-Fascism" will have no problem dealing with her.

So she winds up being McCain lite. And McCain gets all the national security votes.

Then there's the other side.   Obviously if you want to win, you frame the debate in a way that favors your strengths. The idea of "change" and an end to constant partisan battling struck a deep chord in the US. And it's by far the Democrats' best issue. And who embodies this? No contest--Obama.

So she winds up being Obama lite.

So why should the US settle for anything but the real thing? And it's not Hillary.