OP-ED COLUMNIST: Hillary, Congenital Hawk [Safire in NY Times]

NY Times ^ | December 8, 2003 | WILLIAM SAFIRE

[Pharmboy]

WASHINGTON — Senator Hillary Clinton, sweeping through the Sunday morning talk shows after her somewhat upstaged Thanksgiving visit to the war zones, startled her conservative detractors by emerging as a congenital hawk. (I used that adjective "congenital," in the sense of "habitual," in derogation of her credibility back when the world was young.)

She does not go along with the notion that the Iraqi dictator posed no danger to the U.S.: "I think that Saddam Hussein was certainly a potential threat" who "was seeking weapons of mass destruction, whether or not he actually had them."

When Tim Russert on "Meet the Press" gave her the opening to say she had been misled when she voted for the Senate resolution authorizing war, Senator Clinton countered with a hard line: "There was certainly adequate intelligence without it being gilded and exaggerated by the administration to raise questions about chemical and biological programs and a continuing effort to obtain nuclear power."

On forgotten Afghanistan, like many hawks, she was critical of the failure of European nations "to fulfill the commitment that NATO made to Afghanistan. I don't think we have enough American troops and we certainly don't have the promised NATO troops."

Would she support an increase of U.S. troops in Iraq? Senator Clinton associated herself with the views of Republican Senator John McCain, who disagrees with Bush and the generals who say they have adequate strength there. She cited McCain's conviction that "we need more troops, and we need a different mix of troops." And she directed a puissant message to what some of us consider the told-you-so doves who refuse to deal with today's geopolitical reality: "Whether you agreed or not that we should be in Iraq, failure is not an option."

Her range of expressed opinions urging us to "stay the course" can only be characterized as tough-minded.

Of course, to the relief of Democratic partisans, she is dutifully critical: like some neocons, she zaps the Bush administration for failing to plan adequately for the aftermath of the overthrow of Saddam. She proposes an "Iraq Reconstruction Stability Authority" to build an international bridge to a greater U.N. role. Clinton also wants a close look at where our intelligence went wrong, but takes a long view of the weak gathering and faulty analysis: "This was intelligence going back into my husband's administration, going back to the first President Bush's administration."

Consider the political meaning of all this. Here is a Democrat who has no regrets for voting for the resolution empowering the president to invade Iraq; who insists repeatedly and resolutely that "failure is not an option"; who is ready to send in a substantially greater U.S. force to avert any such policy failure — and yet whose latest poll ratings show her to be the favorite of 43 percent of Democrats, three times the nomination support given front-runner Howard Dean.

What cooks? One reason is that Hillary stands aloof, hard to get, while all the others are slavering for support. Another could be that most Democrats don't yet realize she's a hard-liner at heart. A third is that her personal appeal to liberals (and apoplectic opposition from conservatives) overwhelms all Democrats' policy differences. A fourth — and don't noise this around — could be that she speaks for the silent majority of centrist Democrats who yearn for the Old Third Way without Mr. Clinton.

Now for a moment's mischief. If President Bush wins re-election, Hillary would likely gain the Democratic nomination in 2008, and would run as the favorite against, say, Republican Bill Frist or Jeb Bush. But if Howard Dean wins nomination and election in 2004, he would surely be the Democratic candidate again in 2008, and by the time 2012 rolls around, Hillary would be a wizened, doddering Medicare recipient facing a tide of voter resentment after eight years of Dean's executive-privilege arrogance in power (I exaggerate for effect).

Thus, envision this G.O.P. whispering campaign soon directed to women, liberals and the legions of centrist, semi-hawkish, non-angry Democrats: If you want the Clinton Restoration to the White House in '08, the only way to make it happen is to stay the course with Bush in '04.

A dirty trick? Undoubtedly. I disavow any connection to it.

[Pharmboy]

Put Condi on the ticket as Veep for '04. The only way we are sure of winning again in '08.

Another Bush will not be tolerated and Frist ain't the guy...

[RJCogburn]

Already posted.........

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1035958/posts

[Pharmboy]

I did two searches--including by posting time and was surprised that I did not find it. Thanks.

[G.Mason]

"Now for a moment's mischief. If President Bush wins re-election, Hillary would likely gain the Democratic nomination in 2008, and would run as the favorite against, say, Republican Bill Frist or Jeb Bush. But if Howard Dean wins nomination and election in 2004, he would surely be the Democratic candidate again in 2008, and by the time 2012 rolls around, Hillary would be a wizened, doddering Medicare recipient facing a tide of voter resentment after eight years of Dean's executive-privilege arrogance in power (I exaggerate for effect).

[section9]

That's my thought, as well. You know Hillary is going to run as a centrist, if only to gain the Presidency. There is no way Jeb could defeat her, and Bill Frist has absolutely no mojo. Running Bill Frist is like running Trent Lott.

Condi is the only one who can defeat Hillary. There are people on this board who don't want to believe that, because they are stuck in Single Issue Land and they would prefer to lose rather than compromise, but that's the way the demographics line up. You run Frist or Bush against Hilly and you'll lose women. Republican women, as well. ANY male conservative Republican will lose to Hillary if she runs from the center. There are enough clueless independents who would voter for her. Remember, people, Hillary Hatred is confined, primarily, to the Republican Party.

You beat a woman with another woman, and a smarter one, at that.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[LarryM]

Hitlery is setting up to run to Bush's right in 2004--and has plenty of ammunition with Bush's weakness. The fact that Powell met with the Geneva traitors will also be used against Bush.

I don't buy the Rice in 2008 line. She has never even been elected dog catcher anywhere and she bears a ton of blame (along with Powell) for the current foreign policy weakness.

Jeb Bush is an experienced politician (and far more articulate than his brother) who has withstood everything the left could dish out. He would be perfect against Hitlery.

[DCPatriot]

Damn...what makes you think that Jeb Bush is the only guy who the GOP would consider in 2008?

On principle alone, I wouldn't vote for him. And, I adore Dubya.

It's too early to state who a candidate will be. If Hillary Clinton runs for President, the television ads alone portraying her as 1st lady in the corrupt Clinton Regime will sink her.

Two words. Billing records.

[maica]

Anything that happened in the 90s will be so Over by 2008, it will persuade very few voters.

Hillary is a hawk solely in her ruthless quest for power, and she will say anything to sound the 'correct' note. She will never allow a misstatement to go uncorrected. Yesterday's appearances were an excellent preview of how she will prepare and deliver whatever statement works for the moment, without having to face any consequences for inconsistency from the lame press.

[presidio9]

Put Condi on the ticket as Veep for '04.

Dick Cheney is doing a superb job as Vice President.

[Pharmboy]

True enough, but he will not run for president in '08. We cannot let the x42s back in the WH in '08: that is the most important thing. Period.

[sr4402]

One reason is that Hillary stands aloof, hard to get, while all the others are slavering for support. Another could be that most Democrats don't yet realize she's a hard-liner at heart

Hillary is a hard line Marxist at heart, whatever it take to bring socialism to America, she will do. If that takes looking like a hawk (even though she kissed Arafat's wife and sucks up to terrorists) she will do it.

This is just another example of the press carrying water for the Clintons. No hardball questions to her and she gets to position herself anywhere she wants. No questions like "If you come back to the White House, what will you do to see that Bill does not get another Intern?" or "In the Early 90s you proposed the government take over the medical industry and increase of premiums by $1200 for the average family, and NO CHOICE OF DOCTOR would you propose that again?". Also "Howard Dean and Al Gore supported civil unions, would you support the abolition of marriage as we know it in the Supreme Court?" Those would be Hardball questions, Not like the softballs she gets now.

[G.Mason]

" Hillary is a hard line Marxist at heart ....... "

The best way to confront your fears is to go at them head on.

Hillary & company need to have their collective "scalps" hung on the White House front door, for all to see.

It would bring cheer to all American's, and a grim reminder to America's enemies, both foreign and domestic.