August 22, 2007
The Art of the Straddle (A.B. Stoddard)
The evolution of the Clinton straddle on national security and the war in Iraq continues, and her on-the-one-foot-on-the-other-foot strategy was on full display at Monday’s Veterans of Foreign Wars convention in Kansas City, Mo. Sen. Hillary Clinton actually credited the surge with improving security in Anbar province, before going on to dismiss a military solution for the war and to call for withdrawal. She faced a silent hall during her remarks on withdrawal, but any jeer-free reception with a crowd like this is considered a victory. Clinton has had few positive things to say about anything happening in Iraq in many months, since she transitioned from war supporter to presidential candidate. But if she was going to cough one up, it was going to be for the VFW convention and not, say, the YearlyKos convention of two weeks ago.
Transitions and transformations are necessary in politics, and few politicians are as capable at finessing them as Clinton. She has spent several weeks putting Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) in the Rookie Corner on foreign policy because he ruled out using nuclear weapons in Pakistan where there are large concentrations of civilians. She reminded him and any other candidate who hasn’t been to presidential school that you don’t always tell the world what your plans are, particularly involving nuclear weapons. But apparently Clinton herself ruled out the use of nukes last year in an interview with Bloomberg Television when asked about the Bush administration’s dealings with Iran.
“I have said publicly no option should be off the table, but I would certainly take nuclear weapons off the table,” Clinton said in April of 2006. “This administration has been very willing to talk about using nuclear weapons in a way that we haven’t seen since the dawn of the nuclear age. I think that’s a terrible mistake.”
For those wanting to try this at home, be aware that the art of the straddle apparently also involves some stagecraft. According to the New York Times account, applause was initiated by “three young people in the middle of the room who were not wearing the trademark blue VFW cap or convention name badges.” I think that ranks up there in the Clintonian Campaign Trick Handbook, and if she gets elected she should use similar plants in the House of Representatives during State of the Union addresses.
Permalink TrackBack
Email This Post
Share this post
What's This 9 Comments
»
The Hill welcomes comment from anyone and will almost always post it whether it is favorable or critical, as long as it is substantive and advances debate.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
The evil snake speaks out of both sides of her mouth. She created to contradictory sound-bites within seconds of each other. Beware of the ruthless snake, her thirst for power will not be denied easily!
Comment by Igor R. — August 22, 2007 @ 2:51 pm
Why don't we just nuke Iran AB, then we can all drive around in horse and buggies when the oil spigot dries up.
Hillary has to look tough without looking stupid. The Pubs just look tough and stupid. You could see that on that wacko debate where they were trying to outdo each other in their crazed attitudes. We will be in a war with Russia if these people don't get a hold on themselves.
And just read Igor for crying out loud. He probably wanted us to nuke Iran yesterday.
Comment by Gary Anderson — August 22, 2007 @ 7:38 pm
Hillary is all about looking one way or another and not being something that she really is. She is a deceptive monster, not a proper Presidential candidate. And how would her supporters explain her qualification to be the best Presidential candidate a nation of 300 million can produce? Personally I can't think of anything other than her husband made her last name pretty famous.
And no Gary, I'm not for nuking Iran because it's too close to many points of interest, but I'm all for turning large portions of it into a smoldering pile of ash using conventional multi-Kton bombs. Every single day they kill Americans with their Explosively Formed Penetrators smuggled into Iraq. It's right out there, in the US military press releases, sort of casual, for eveyone to contemplate. For that and for their history of killing Americans elsewhere, and for their maniacal pursuite of nuclear technology they have to pay in the most horrific way possible so that other fanatics learn a good lesson. Evidently Saddam's hanging didn't bother either them or Assad, it was just too civilized for the tough crowd in the middle east.
Comment by Igor R. — August 23, 2007 @ 1:49 am
Get your buggy whip out Igor. Make sure your kids have diapers, and save your plastic.
Comment by Gary Anderson — August 23, 2007 @ 12:04 pm
"Why don’t we just nuke Iran AB, then we can all drive around in horse and buggies when the oil spigot dries up."
Huh? The USA doesn't receive any oil from Iran.
Although, the nukes might not be a bad idea…. [j/k]
Comment by Henry — August 23, 2007 @ 12:58 pm
Henry, the US WANTS to receive oil from Iran, or at least allow it to trade in dollars. Read the PNAC plan. Nothing has changed there. The plan is for total control of the wealth of the middle east.
Henry Kissenger said that all that oil is too important to be under the control of the Arabs. The neocon sore losers in Vietnam have descendents who believe exactly the same thing about the middle east.
Comment by Gary Anderson — August 23, 2007 @ 6:29 pm
I looked around; I couldn't find anything about the PNAC "plan". The least you could do is provide a link to this "plan".
Considering we get 77% of our oil from outside the ME, I'm not really sure how nuking Iran is going to force us back to the horse and buggy days. Perhaps you could explain it to me.
Comment by Henry — August 23, 2007 @ 9:30 pm
Henry, it's pointless to ask Gary for the sources of his information, he divines them using his powerful intuition.
Comment by Igor R. — August 24, 2007 @ 2:03 pm
I know Igor; I must be stronger.
I just drop in to see what's up with Alexandra.
I just can't resist getting after the "Truthers", but, you're right, it's fruitless to engage the mentally ill.
Comment by Henry — August 24, 2007 @ 7:34 pm