Posted on 02/21/2007 7:08:54 AM PST by theothercheek
Columnist Mike Gallagher thinks Hillary Clinton should have taken the path of least resistance at her recent town hall meeting in New Hampshire by apologizing for her support of the Iraq War:
[A] fawning Democrat ... basically told her Democrats want to support her all the way to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, but they just can't do so until she comes clean about her years-long support of the war. ... another presidential contender, John Edwards, has no problem with apologizing for his vote for the war in Iraq -- so why can't she?
Here was the perfect chance for Hillary Clinton to score easy points. Heck, it was an unopposed lay-up, a slow curve ball right over the heart of the plate. Sure thing, she could have said, I'm happy to apologize. Despite my earlier claims of having done personal research that led me to support the war, I was just flat-out wrong and should never have done so. I apologize!
But naturally, the woman's outsized ego and massive hunger for power didn't allow her to say that. … Clinton simply refuses to give the Democratic base what they want: an apology for flip-flopping on the war.
As anti-war Dems refuse to cut her any slack, Hillary has been unable to finesse her “evolving” position on the Iraq War with the Kerryesque phraseology, “if I knew then what I know now I would not have voted to authorize sending US forces to Iraq.”
So Hillary has apparently decided to ape her husband’s successful Sistah Soulja gambit. The New York Times reports:
Several advisers, friends and donors said in interviews that they had urged her to call her vote a mistake in order to appease antiwar Democrats, who play a critical role in the nominating process. Yet Mrs. Clinton herself, backed by another faction, never wanted to apologize - even if she viewed the war as a mistake - arguing that an apology would be a gimmick. …
Mrs. Clinton rolled out a new response to those demanding contrition: She said she was willing to lose support from voters rather than make an apology she did not believe in. …
Her decision not to apologize is regarded so seriously within her campaign that some advisers believe it will be remembered as a turning point in the race: either ultimately galvanizing voters against her (if she loses the nomination), or highlighting her resolve and her willingness to buck Democratic conventional wisdom (if she wins). …
“She is in a box now on her Iraq vote, but she doesn’t want to be in a different, even worse box - the vacillating, flip-flopping Democratic candidate that went to defeat in 2000 and ‘04,” said one adviser to Mrs. Clinton. “She wants to maintain a firmness, and I think a lot of people around her hope she maintains a firmness. That’s what people will want in 2008.” …
Mrs. Clinton is running, in part, a general-election strategy - taking positions on Iraq that might appeal to independents and some Republicans.
As with every breath she takes and every move she makes, this risky maneuver has been hashed out with her advisors, according to Dick Morris:
Hillary, for all of her vaunted independence, depends on gurus to guide her every move. She falls under their spell and, while thus mesmerized, she believes they can do no ill or make no mistake.
Hillary wouldn't compromise on health care because her guru-du-jour Ira Magaziner told her not to do so. She wouldn't release the Whitewater records because her former mentor, White House Counsel Bernard Nussbaum, advised against it. She wouldn't back off her support for the war partially because the generals to whom she had come to listen and admire while serving on the Armed Services Committee warned that it would lead to a disaster. Combine that with the flawed guidance of her pollsters and you see why Hillary is stuck.
Sometimes the gurus are right (as on Iraq). Sometimes they're wrong. But Hillary can't tell the difference.
But there is one guru Hillary knows enough to ignore: Kerry campaign advisor and perennial loser Bob Shrum, who told The New York Times, “For the life of me I don’t understand why she can’t say, ‘I made a mistake, I was misled, the country was misled, the intelligence was manipulated.’ … I think there’s this tremendous desire in her campaign not to get into a position where you’re identified with traditional Democratic views. But this is now a party that is strongly antiwar, and is desperate for change on big issues like Iraq and health care.”
That Shrum talks about Iraq and health care in the same breath shows he doesn’t get it, and never will.
The stupidity of the 50% of the American voters is as disgusting and frightening as the socialists and their mad lust for power. Clearly, they have but one agenda. And it is not the improvement of America and its future.
You know, it's not much better on the other side of that 50%. The WaPo has a gimlet-eyed look at how Mitt Romney carefully explains his positions on abortion and gay marriage - it's worthy of Bill Clinton, frankly. And another editorial said in the WaPo recently said that the fastest way to determine a politicians hypocricy is how (s)he expresses his/her views on abortion - no other topic is as revealing. And this editorial lambasted Dems and Reps alike on their tortured terminology. No one wants to clearly tell the American people where (s)he stands anymore. We're supposed to vote on - what - personality? Hair? Teeth? How much money they can raise to buy gazillions of commercials on every media platform possible so as to brainwash us into voting for them? I am coming very close to deciding to sit this 2008 election out.
No one wants to clearly tell the American people where (s)he stands anymore.
----
So true. We learned it with the Clintons, then we learned it with Bush. It plays on both sides of the aisle. A major downside for America. They all deceive for power.
From Day One, when Bush first ran for prez, I had a gut feeling he wasn't a true conservative. But Gore was the alternative, so I voted for Bush. The first four years he made all the right noises on all the right issues, because he needed the conservative vote to get re-elected. And Kerry was the alternative, so I voted for Bush. Sure enough, his true colors came out when he no longer needed to court conservatives. Well now, as far as I am concerned, there is nobody so terrible on the Dem side and nobody so terrific on the Rep side to force me to the polls. They all suck and they suck equally as far as I am concerned.
Really??
Forced??
Yeah, forced. My other two votes were not so much FOR Bush as AGAINST his opponents. Like I said, there's no one running from either party I would consider voting for, even holding my nose. And the last time that happened, I went the Perot route and we got Clinton.
They all suck and they suck equally as far as I am concerned.
-----
Yes, but we must take heed of the socialist platform, which entails only socialist POWER AND CONTROL. These people, over the decades, have morphed into an ugly hybrid between socialism and communism, blind with lust for power and control. They carry no other banner other than massive goverment control over America, with them at the helm of the control. America needs a conservative, or as close to one as we can find, that still believes in America, its founding principles and the sanctity of the Constitution, our freedoms and liberties of the individual that must be respected and maintained.
This is where the socialists are different, very different. America's principles and laws are obstacles to a Marxist state. Let's do everything we can to keep a Marxist out of the White House and keep our beloved America and its principles and culture alive.
Actually, I am not the only Freeper who cites it, and I have seen posts from The Stiletto cited on other people's blogs. Plus, The Stiletto also posts on Political Mavens. The Other Cheek lives in Arizona (as some of my comments to other posts - like having a concealed carry permit - clearly show). The Stiletto has mentioned living in New York City in a few of her articles. I don't know how much more details you need, so I hope this satisfies your curiosity.
I am not disagreeing with you. The Dems are openly Marxist. The other side is more covert about it. Think: Isn't is a distribution of wealth by other means to take vast amounts of tax dollars to build schools and hire teachers solely to alleviate overcrowding caused by federal mandates to educate children of illegals - even those NOT born here? And what about Arnold's and Mitt's universal health care policies? The humongous deficit we've racked up cannot solely be explained by the WOT.
The other side is more covert about it.
----
I agree 100%. The gross evidence lies on the covert efforts to get free trade to the point of compromising our soverignty and the horrible travesy upon us with government-supported illegal immigration by the globalist/elitist crowd.
Could not agree more.
Are you, maybe one of those rigid one-issue people? You must have a very limited, inflexible definition of conservative. If so, politics is not your game. Maybe you'd be happiier in a dictatorship.
Gee, let's count the issues I have mentioned in replies to others' comments: abortion, the deficit, illegal immigration, universal healthcare (which means bigger government). That's four. Maybe you'd be happier in a remedial mathematics class. Sorry - but you threw the first punch. Now, are you ready to play nice because I can and will defend myself. And our trading punches is not fair to the others following the message thread.
I will not vote for a flip-flopper - from the git-go, you know they cannot be trusted and are playing you for a fool. So given that caveat, in your estimation, which candidate is the least objectionable?
We Tennesseans split our vote to keep goreghoul out of the WH. We will adjust that when we vote our democrat gov out of office. As to which Prez candidate to vote for in '08, it is too early to have a final choice. Currently I'm a Duncan Hunter fan. I look forward to exchanges in the future which will help to finalize my choice.
OK. I am a Duncan Hunter fan, too. But not a single article I have read gives him even an outside chance so that's when I decided that I'd be throwing my vote away anyway by pulling the lever for any of the other candidates so why bother?
I didn't need any details. I simply wanted to know if The Stiletto was your blog. You never answered my question -- a "yes" or "no" is sufficient.
Your powers of deductive reasoning are not sufficient to determine the answer from the info provided? I am sorry I am not sufficiently conservative for youm - I trend towards libertarianism, as a lot of us out here in AZ do - but you have made it VERY clear over the past few weeks that you don't care for my opinions so I am not inclined to play whatever game it is you think you are playing. If my posts and opinions bother you so much, why do you even bother reading them??? Why don't you just skip to the next post?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.