Hillary's Pro-War Posture: Another Party Trick
on Thu 24 Aug 2006 08:54 PM EDT
These letters appeared in today's The New York Post, in response to a column by Ryan Sager:
Ryan Sager wonders why the anti-war left doesn't take on Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton the way they did Sen. Joe Lieberman for taking a similar pro-war stance ("NY's Lamont Wannabe," Post Opinion, Aug. 21).
Could it be they know that, whereas Lieberman was genuine in his convictions, Clinton is just playing politics as usual with her pro-war posture?
A large portion of her party has never wanted to hold Clinton accountable for anything, so why should anyone be surprised that she hasn't been targeted like Lieberman?
Her husband won two presidential elections, and that is why both Clintons are so revered by Democrats.
It will only be when Democrats come to believe that she can't win that they will back away from her.
Until then, her arrogance, questionable ethics, memory lapses and constant triangulating will not get in her way.
Clinton is committed to one thing: her own advancement.
Everyone needs to save Sager's article. Then, if Sen. Clinton wins the White Houe in 2008, see where this country is by 2010.
I predict health care will be socialized, taxes will be increased, appeasement will be the method of choice with the terrorists, troops will immediately be withdrawn from Iraq, and Bill Clinton will replace Kofi Annan at the United Nations, whose power will increase ten-fold.
Anyone who believes that this woman is a moderate Democrat is a fool.
Sager's column asked, "WILL NETROOTS TAKE ON HILLARY?"
And Senator Clinton's Democratic primary opponent, Jonathan Tassini, shared with Sager his own theories on why the progressive netroots community might have "a lack of bacbone" when it comes to taking her on as aggressively as they confronted U.S. Senator Joseph Lieberman in Connecticut's Democratic primary.
"Many progressives fear confronting my opponent's machine - which does take names and does keep lists," Tasini told me over lunch in the West Village last week. "People are hedging their bets - Washington is a place that hinges on access." Otherwise, Tasini said, "Why take on Joe Lieberman and not Hillary Clinton?"
The New York Post columnist also noted that many in the progressive netroots movement have made clear their disdain for Sen. Clinton.:
In an op-ed in The Washington Post this May, Markos Moulitsas (proprietor of the famed DailyKos Web site), called Clinton "a leader who fails to lead" and "part of the Clinton machine that decimated the national Democratic Party."
Michael Moore was even more brutal in an open letter on his Web site the day after Lamont's victory in the Connecticut Democratic primary. "To Hillary, our first best hope for a woman to become president, I cannot for the life of me figure out why you continue to support Bush and his war," Moore wrote. "Last night's voter revolt took place just a few miles from your home in Chappaqua. Did you hear the noise? Can you read the writing on the wall?"
Ryan Sager of The New York Post further observed:
"In Tasini, progressives have a perfectly viable vehicle to make that noise right on Sen. Clinton's Chappaqua doorstep."
But for a clarification on where Senator Clinton really stands on national security, please take a close look at John Spencer's new television commercials.