Winger cluelessness of the meaning of Hillary's Iraq stance to Democrats

James Pinkerton may be onto something when he writes:


http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-oppin154513212nov15,0,172414.column?coll=ny-viewpoints-headlines


But formidable as she might be, Clinton has a huge problem: In the course of seeking to position herself as a red-state-winning centrist, she finds herself on the same side of the Iraq war debate as Bush. After all, she voted for the war resolution in 2002, and she has reliably voted for war funding ever since.


I agree with Pinkerton that this is a problem for Hillary, but it's not only because the war is unpopular with Democrats. As Pinkerton himself says in the very next sentence of his piece, "Yet, during the last three years, support for the war has crumbled." In fact, during the last three months, support for Bush and everything he stands for has crumbled, and not just among Democrats. CNN recently found nearly 20% of Republicans--Republicans!--disapproving of the way Bush is doing his job.

But Pinkerton reads the tea leaves differently:

This crumbling, however, is politically tolerable for Bush, since he's not running for anything anymore. If the polls show that Americans oppose his handling of the war by a 2 to 1 margin - well, too bad. He's president for another three years, like it or not.

But Democrats oppose Bush's handling of the war by a 9 to 1 margin. And in Iowa and New Hampshire, activists who dominate the 2008 caucuses and primary voting will run even further to the dovish left. So Clinton will have to confront them, and their Cindy Sheehan-ish views, if and when she goes looking for their votes.

Well, Pinkie, then why did these same moonbat activists in Iowa and New Hampshire pick IWR supporter John Kerry over the anti-war candidates Kucinich and Dean in 2004, when they were just as lopsidedly opposed to the war and couldn't stop themselves (thankfully) from raking Kerry over the coals for his IWR vote every chance they could?

Winger cluelessness reaches a higher peak in a GOPblogger appraisal of Pinkterton's column:

http://www.gopbloggers.org/mt/archives/002543.html

As Pinkerton goes on to note, Hillary's best 2008 chance is if Iraq is wound up as a victory by then...but even if that is so (and I think it will be), Hillary's problems aren't over. The leftwingers who make up the base and who will dominate the 2008 nominating process on the Democratic side are simply not going to be side-tracked just because the boys have come home crowned with victory. Oh, no; none of that. They will still be demanding a candidate who will attack the GOP as the Party which lied us into war...and if Iraq is a functioning democracy providing peace-keepers in post-revolutionary Syria, then the left will still be calling it a debacle - and if there is so much as one US soldier still stationed in Iraq, they will demand their 2008 nominee call for his withdrawl from the "quagmire" of Iraq.



If, if, if, if, if... :eyes:

The real reason Hillary may be in trouble with her Iraq position is because she is now in the seriously uncomfortable position of being painted into a corner by her own hand. And I don't see how she's going to get herself out it.

She can't go back to being anti-Iraq invasion without making it crystal clear that she's an opportunistic centrist.

Which I've been saying all along....

Cindy wasn't impressed, and neither was I.

general

And if Hillary has solutions and personality and backbone she wins the general.

Getting the nomination will indeed be a bit of a blood bath as the variations in "eat our children" desire among Democratic Party members will have "3rd party" ver "should have voted no on IWR" versus out immediately and totally right now, versus out gradually and mostly "over 2 years, versus out very gradually and thanks for the new bases (Joe Lieberman's crowd of a dozen loud media approved voices).

And the "we are not going away, never surrender" battle plan must be practiced on ourselves before what is "left" (a cute pun, eh?) of the party takes on the GOP.

But if she doesn't, she's going to be dogged by the same sorts of questions--times ten--that dogged Kerry. She's going to have to ask herself if she can really get by without making some rapprochement with the anti-war left of the party. Do you think she can get by without us? We'll see. I wouldn't want to mess with the vindicated masses on the left flank of the party.

Heck I might even put a Repuglican Bumper sticker on my car.

Vote against the war, then you are soft on security.

Take the word of a lying President, and get blamed for the war.


Vote against funding the war, you are called a traitor who doesn't support the troops.

Vote for funding the war, and you are called a war supporter.



Of all the Republican talking points, the idea of a "flip-flopper" is probably the one that infuriates me the most.