Monday, February 19, 2007

Update: The Wayback Machine
I hadn't seen this before my post, but Christopher Hitchens touches on the same theme in Slate about Sen. Clinton's war positioning:

"At stake, then, is not just the credibility of an ambitious New York senator who wants to be the next President Clinton. At stake, rather, is the integrity of the last President Clinton and of those in his administration who concluded that coexistence with Saddam Hussein was neither desirable nor possible. If the subject was less important, it might be amusing to watch Hillary Clinton trying to "triangulate" her way out of this and find a way of impugning the Bush policy that did not also impugn her husband's own consistent strategy. But the thing cannot be done and can't really even be attempted without raising the suspicion that a major candidate for the office of the presidency is, on the main issue of the day, not just highly unprincipled but also completely unserious."

Hillary is running against her own husband's history if she keeps up with this. As I wrote back in 2004, Sen. Clinton is better than this, and I understand that it is tough to ignore the MoveOn morons, but she jeapordizes her chances if she continues on with this line.


At 3:23 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

US President Tim Kalemkarian, US Senate Tim Kalemkarian, US House Tim Kalemkarian, best major candidate.


Post a Comment

<< Home