Queen Hillary

It seems that Andrew Sullivan is no fan of Hillary. Jumping off of a David Brooks column on the impact of the NetRoots Sullivan lets loose quite a rant. He starts with doubting Hillary’s true plan for Iraq:

If Clinton is that comfortable with a permanent occupation of Iraq at this point in the election cycle, how comfortable do you think she’s going to be next year? You think a politician so obsessed with gaining and wielding power is happy to relinquish any in the Middle East?

But he is just getting warmed up:

The conservative Washington Establishment is swooning for Hillary for a reason. The reason is an accommodation with what they see as the next source of power (surprise!); and the desire to see George W. Bush’s invasion and occupation of Iraq legitimated and extended by a Democratic president (genuine surprise). Hillary is Bush’s ticket to posterity. On Iraq, she will be his legacy. They are not that dissimilar after all: both come from royal families, who have divvied up the White House for the past couple of decades. They may oppose one another; but they respect each other as equals in the neo-monarchy that is the current presidency. And so elite conservatives are falling over themselves to embrace a new Queen Hillary, with an empire reaching across Mesopotamia, a recently deposed court just waiting to return to the salons of DC, a consort happy to be co-president for another four years, and a back-channel to the other royal family. She’ll even have more powers than Clinton I, because Cheney has given her back various royal prerogatives: arrests without charges, torture, wire-tapping, and spy-ware on your Expedia account. Only the coronation awaits.

Not surprisingly, I think AS is a little over the top here (Sullivan over the top? Shocking, I know.) but the point is well taken if with a grain of salt.

Hillary wants to win the favor of the liberal base and yet keep the reputation of a “Grown Up” to the Washington establishment. She wants to bash Bush whenever she can, but also keep her strategic options open. Conservative should not be fooled by her attempts to act the centrist or moderate or grown up or whatever. She will do and say what she thinks will help her win and accrue power. Principles are not involved here.

Liberals should likewise wake up to the bargain they are potentially making in nominating Hillary. She may be a liberal in her heart but she will drop those policies and ideas the moment they become unpopular or a barrier to her getting what she wants. That is the basic problem with Hillary, can you really trust her? I know you want someone tough after Kerry, but are you willing to trade your ideals for a ruthless campaigner that doesn’t really respect you?

Those who are really looking for change in 2008 would be foolish to vote for someone as entrenched and yet as slippery as Hillary Clinton.

McCain on Hillary, Petraeus, and MoveOn

It seems Rudy isn’t the only one who wants to criticize Hillary Clinton about her unique turn of phrase the other day:

Giuliani takes shot at Hillary over MoveOn Ad

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani didn’t care for Hillary’s failure to repudiate MoveOn or her snide comments about General Petraeus. So he decided to take out his own ad in the New York Times. The ad asks the question:
“Who should America listen to… A decorated soldier’s commitment to defending America, or Hillary Clinton’s commitment to defending MoveOn?”

Here is the ad:

Hillary refuses to criticize Move On

Like her husband, Hillary has mastered the artful dodge- the ability to not answer a question and turn it around to the issue she wants to discuss. Given the opportunity to disavow Move On’s shameful attack on General Petraeus she instead avoids the question and attacks the president while bragging about her ability to effect change:

Rose: Did you think the Moveon.org advertisement about Gen. Petraeus was either appropriate or necessary?

Clinton: You know, I think that we should focus on what the problem is here. The problem is a president who has a policy that flies in the face of reality. I don’t fault people who are serving their country and fulfilling the mission that they have been given. Both the general and ambassador were there implementing the president’s policy, and I think we should remain focused on this president, and frankly, I’m getting enough Republican support to force the president to change course.

Nice straddle, Hillary. She neither defends nor criticizes Move On and then acts like she is driving the debate on Iraq. Since the the Democrats in Congress seem to be giving up on insisting on a specific time line for withdrawal it doesn’t seem like Hillary is forcing the president to change course.

This is Hillary’s strategy: pander to the left whenever you can, attack President Bush, and still manage to appear responsible and statesmanlike. Sadly, o far she seems to be getting away with it.

Kos on Hillary

UPDATE: Hillary issues a statement that makes Kos feel better.

Kos himself has a post over at Daily Kos on Hillary and Obama. It reveals the level of mistrust involved between Senator Clinton and the leftist base:

So where are the two “front runner” candidates on Iraq? Have they conquered their fear and actually said something of substance regarding the pre-emptive capitulation bill?

[. . .]

But what about Hillary, who could earn some brownie points for finally leading on a key issue shared by not just the Democratic Party primary electorate, but by ALL Americans?

Well, nothing on her blog about Iraq. We have video about what a wonderful time some Hillary supporter had with her after winning some “spend some time with Hillary” contest. But did they have dinner together like Obama and the winner of his campaign’s contest? We get a ton of posts about how Hillary’s two decades in Washington mean she’s the person to bring change to that misbegotten town, all the while pretending to ignore the irony.

On her press section, it’s mostly a bunch of people endorsing Hillary. Oh, and a statement about the latest toy recall. Because that’s apparently more important than anything having to do with Iraq.

So it’s Friday, and the two front-runners are still refusing to lead.

Hillary and Obama appease anti-war left

Hillary is a centrist Democrat, right? She is supposed to be the candidate with the most foreign policy experience and something of a hawk. That may be, who can tell what Hillary really believes, but she knows that the liberal base is virulently anti-war so she will tell them what they want to hear. And apparently vote that way too:

Courting the anti-war constituency, Democratic presidential rivals Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama (news, bio, voting record) both voted against legislation that pays for the Iraq war but lacks a timeline for troop withdrawal.

“I fully support our troops” but the measure “fails to compel the president to give our troops a new strategy in Iraq,” said Clinton, a New York senator.

Sure, Hillary “fully supports” the troops she just doesn’t want to stop using them as a bargaining chip to use against the President. She knows the bill will pass and she can burnish her anti-war credentials. Nice.