tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9560953.post5765012476515943936..comments2023-12-31T19:34:14.853-05:00Comments on Dymaxion World: In praise of Hillaryjohnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09690430991814528863noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9560953.post-13319674786727668102008-02-22T10:21:00.000-05:002008-02-22T10:21:00.000-05:00Meanwhile, if she'd reversed course in 2004 or 5, ...<I>Meanwhile, if she'd reversed course in 2004 or 5, and then won re-election as a war critic in NY state, that could have undercut Obama severely. But I think you're right -- there's no reason to believe she would have done that: she supported (supports?) the war, and can't really run as a critic...</I><BR/><BR/>I know it may be naive, but I actually take Clinton at her word. I think she believes in liberal interventionism, in American Exceptionalism, and that the office of the President should have a strong level of independence from Congress in the area of foreign policy. When you read her speeches, her responses from questions about her war stance, and look at her voting record, they all point to someone with these beliefs.<BR/><BR/>And its not like those are particularly radical beliefs in America either - not among our elites nor among our general populace. I wish those were more radical beliefs, but they're pretty darn mainstream. When she says she was tricked by the Bush administration I have no doubt that that's true - they tricked her into thinking that there was a threat to our allies in the region and that they would be able to responsibly deal with the situation if granted the authority to do so. (The fact that Clinton was unable to tell that the Bush Administration was singularly incompetent and therefore unable to do the latter is another example of her "poor judgment" in character, comparable to trusting Mark Penn but much, much more stupid and with far worse consequences).<BR/><BR/>This is why I actually think that the whole "calculating bitch" meme about Clinton is so off the mark. If she were really such a brilliant and calculating politician, she could have easily seen which way the wind was blowing in '04 and switched her stance then. History had shown that Bush was incompetent and that he wasn't going to get any better. Being a vocal critic of the administration's war politicking wasn't going to hurt her in New York either. But she stuck with it, and I think it's because she actually believes in it, if not the folks who are prosecuting it.<BR/><BR/>--NonyNonyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9560953.post-86198569870345968242008-02-21T15:30:00.000-05:002008-02-21T15:30:00.000-05:00I'm gonna weasel out and say, "it depends". If sh...I'm gonna weasel out and say, "it depends". If she'd reversed course in 2007, I don't think it would have helped her much -- Obama would be able to say she was being opportunistic.<BR/><BR/>Meanwhile, if she'd reversed course in 2004 or 5, and then won re-election as a war critic in NY state, that could have undercut Obama severely. But I think you're right -- there's no reason to believe she would have done that: she supported (supports?) the war, and can't really run as a critic...johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09690430991814528863noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9560953.post-82331694535348664732008-02-21T14:34:00.000-05:002008-02-21T14:34:00.000-05:00Her biggest weakness, bizarrely, is her campaignI ...<I>Her biggest weakness, bizarrely, is her campaign</I><BR/><BR/>I disagree. I think her campaign has been a display of some of her biggest weaknesses, but it's not entirely why she's losing right now.<BR/><BR/>I think her biggest weakness is her inability to see that GWB has fundamentally altered US foreign policy in a way that means "we can't go back again". She's viewing US foreign policy through the lens of her experience with the White House and she still thinks the old rules are in play. Hence her continued support for her own vote on the AUMF in Iraq (yes, she says she was lied to by the administration - but the underlying principle that the US is allowed in pre-emptively invade another country if we think it <I>might</I> be a threat to someone, somewhere that the US has an interest in has not been repudiated). As well as her continuing to do stupid things - like her vote and subsequent justification for Kyl-Lieberman.<BR/><BR/>If she had reversed course on the war and become a full-throated critic Obama wouldn't have had a foothold. The thing about Obama that caused many people to give him a second look - the thing I would argue gave him enough cache to be able to mount a run in the first place - is that he was right about Iraq from the start. If that difference hadn't existed between them Obama would have been a non-starter. There wouldn't have been enough difference between he and Clinton for anyone to bother - fancy speechifying or no.<BR/><BR/>--NonyNonyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com