Hillary’s current favorability rating at 62%

I must say, though I was no fan of Hillary during the primaries, I now think she was an inspired choice for SoS. You go, Hillary!

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/president-obama/hillary-popular-again/

Hillary, Popular Again


The headline on the new Gallup poll is that Hillary Clinton is now more popular than Barack Obama, but that’s not all that surprising, given that Obama runs the place and is subject to relentless scrutiny and criticism.

More interesting, I think, is that Hillary’s current favorability rating of 62% is now among her highest ever, rivaled only by her popularity amid impeachment in the late 1990s.

Hillary’s swings in image and popularity over the years really are truly remarkable, as longtime Hillary-watchers know. After the Hillarycare debacle and the various “scandals” to best the Clintons in the mid 1990s — may of which were fictions kept alive by the mainstream press — her popularity nose dived and she became a figure that stoked intensely partisan passions across the country.

The impeachment of her husband turned her into an object of national sympathy and a symbol of female perseverence in the face of a hostile, male-dominated political culture. But then, when she moved to New York to run for Senate, she had to muster incredible care and skill to diffuse suspicions about her new political intentions, persuading New Yorkers to send a non-native to the upper chamber.

Once in the Senate, she skillfully managed the transition from full-time campaigner to the role of quiet, unassuming work-horse Senator. As a presidential candidate, she successfully persuaded the electorate of her toughness and strength, and even became a blue-collar heroine of sorts — an achievement that was anything but assured, given her pedigree. But the hard edge of her campaign seemed to cast her back in the role of political lightening rod, at least to her detractors among Dems.

Now she’s hugely popular again, having carved out a role as a tough-minded Secretary of State who’s also a low-profile and dutiful team player. All of which is to say that Hillary seems at her best in a less overtly political role as a policy workhorse — yet another argument supporting the notion that she has no intention whatsoever of running for President.

..... she's recovering very nicely as Secretary of State.

Emanuel. (I've been informed that Emanual's position is now with Biden - hopefully that's a sincere shift.)

Looks like Biden and Kerry aren't influencing the debate as some of us expected.

Clinton's PR team is doing a great job of getting her feelgood work in the media while downplaying her meetings pushing the hawk line - like with Gordon Brown who just committed to increase troops in Afghanistan.

and Kerry who wanted to reduce military footprint in Afghanistan and instead concentrate efforts to rebuild communities.

In the end, Obama will disappoint and go with the political/safe choice. I would think Clinton's view is based on what others like Holbrooke are saying.(Obviously, I am not enamored by her abilities as SOS.) It is the easy route to go with maintaining most of what appears to be a hawkish/political view, it is more difficult to make the best, bold and nonpolitical decision and change course. You know Senator Kerry and VP Biden are not playing politics with this serious issue, I can't be so certain about some of the others. Both Biden and Kerry are more knowledgeable in foreign policy matters than Clinton, yet her opinion is given more weight- that doesn't make sense to me. I like President Obama, but he has not shown himself to be a bold leader-at least not yet. I think I can fairly predict how this will all go, with more troops and a watered down attempt to add some additional counterintelligence.

They used to have Biden on TV all the time when he was the hawkish voice of the Dem party. Media would use Biden's support of Bush on Afghanistan and Iraq war and against Kerry's positions during the 2004 campaign.

Now that Biden has come around to agree more with Kerry on both those wars, the press has targeted him as an unserious voice. I AM afraid that Obama's WH decisions will be influenced internally by the press treatment of his advisors.

In March, Obama had been in office two months and was likely very influenced by Gates and the military more than anyone. Clinton siding with Gates made that more likely.

The fact that Obama has hit pause to rethink what the goals, strategy and policy should be is likely because of Biden and Kerry - and his own reaction to McChrystal's request. His wording one of the first times he spoke of this - that he would not be a President who would not be willing to continue a bad policy to save face sounds suspiciously like how Kerry has bluntly framed it in 1971 and again in 2006. Kerry held 4 very intense, but very focused hearings in the last month trying to check all the assumptions underlying the various policies and he is in Afghanistan today. The NYT listed him as one of the people influencing Obama. As to Biden, there is no doubt that the President respects him very much. The fact is it was and will be tough to make a decision perceived to be against the military's advice. If Obama does, he will need to explain his goal and why a different strategy fits it better.

The NYT had an interesting op-ed on the books on Vietnam the administration and the generals are reading. The best part is at the end - an email from a former CIA man who had been in Vietnam in the 1950s and 1960s, who just spent a few weeks in Afghanistan (including his 80th birthday). It does suggest where each side is coming from. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/12/the-vietnam-war-guide-to-afghanistan

You are right- the pause does give us some hope, but I think in the end we will not see much of a different strategy. Now, this is my opinion and I am really hoping I turn out to be just cynical and wrong.

but I think that as there was going to be a completely foreseeable political cost to publicly pausing - especially once the short attention span media argued for an immediate decision, there is some real chance that they will choose to not follow the full McChrystal approach.

The decision will likely be in middle - if only because there are infinite points in between vs the two "end points" defined as Biden's position and McChrystal's. One think that very likely will happen is that no matter what Obama chooses, the way he gains back whatever was lost in pausing is by giving an excellent speech that outlines his goals and why any alternative goals were rejected. Then makes a case for the best strategy, given the conditions and the goals. That will be where Kerry's hearings and whatever other information he gets overseas will be a part of the back up to what is chosen.

siding with Biden over McChrystal. There weren't. And THAT is why I resent Clinton being in the cabinet in THAT position - we didn't NEED another hawk as Secretary of State.

But anything good that happens is because of Barack.



But Hillary is to blame for bad things.






:rofl:





(P.S. - for those who haven't figured it out, Barack is in charge... he also deserves the credit for the good things to come, but we can't blame Hillary when bad things happen).

and THAT is what you need to pretend doesn't matter.

If you believe Hillary was right to side with the hawk position, have the guts to say so.

I have the guts to say Obama made the wrong decision by going with the hawks....hawks like McChrystal, Gates, Holbrooke and Hillary.

said it yesterday to ABC Nighline correspondent - forgot her name.

pushing her own policies or is she doing what Pres Obama is asking her to do?

Its a long standing hobby.

'shit' to me would be a made up accusation. I never throw 'shit' at Clintons.

to roll?

However, we haven't heard of any. She appears to be careful not to express much in the way of opinion or ideas in public.

meeting was obviously an increase of British troops to Afghanistan - - yet HER name is really not attached to that outcome.

Sent to get more troops for Afghanistan, does so. Name not attached to that outcome. Cutesy press coverage. I still don't get what don't you like, (1) that she got troops as instructed, (2) her name wasn't attached to the British sending more troops, or (3) that she got cutesy press?

I like a SoS that gets the job done. If I don't like the job being done, I have to take that up with the President.

that many DUErs applauding her role as Sec of State are not aware that she was part of the group with McChrystal and Holbrooke urging Obama to increase military presence in Afghanistan.

Yes, she's now implementing the result of that debate, and so will Biden and Kerry and Reed who will work to make Obama's policy successful even though they disagree with it, BUT, some here wish to pretend that implementing Obama's decision was her ONLY role here.

throughly knowledgeable SOS in which she actually does play an important role of a real SOS. It seems to me she is playing it safe for her own benefit here, why I won't offer a guess. Will she be remembered by history as being a great SOS because her poll numbers are high? I think not, but if your remember back aways, this is how the Clinton's played politics, there was always much concern about poll numbers. Oh, and media attention.

in Obama's meetings on Afghanistan.

'shit' to me would be a made up accusation. I never throw 'shit' at Clintons.

Given that it is true, you need to ask yourself if your characterization is correct as it implies that you are extremely against what BLM correctly said HRC did. If you think that pushing for a more hawkish plan is bad, ask yourself if it is worse that BLM correctly said this is what HRC did or if the real problem is that HRC actually is a hawk.

Do you think that Clinton has been a good influence on Obama on this issue?

(PS I KNOW that Obama is the one with primary responsibility)

At least it's a break from Rahm being responsible for everything. If they only realized how insulting that is to President Obama - that his staff is leading him around on a leash.

not everyone that dislikes Hillary feels the same way about Bill.

Obama listened and, in my opinion, is in the process of making the wrong decision.

Do you WANT your Secretary of State standing WITH the hawks? Do you APPLAUD your Sec of State standing with the hawks?

Please correct your "facts".

grazie.

do exactly what the President asks. If she's standing with the hawks, it's because he's asked her to.

The fact is that Hillary Clinton (and Bill) are more hawkish than most Democrats and always have been. They both thought the Contras should be funded in the 1980s. In fact, the state department led to a muddled message on Honduras as they sent a letter to Republican Senators that was less negative on the coup than Obama's position.) In addition, before the elections in Iran, Hillary was more hawkish and negative about the official position. After the elections, she leaked that she would have made stronger statements - when in fact Obama played it perfectly. These are among the few times where you could see her personal opinion as opposed to the policy she had to defend.

in the 1980s? They weren't even on the national scene.

The fact is BIll Clinton was on a prominent Democrat in 1988. He was on the fast track then which was why he was given the key note address. One other source was that in Stephanopolis' book, he included a discussion of how he choose who he wanted to work for in the 1992 election. He spoke of how he had some major disagreements - including that - with Clinton, but he was incredibly impressed by him - so he opted to work with him.

The fact is that much of the DLC was for it. Al Gore included it in his 1988 platform. The fact was there were very few Democrats willing to speak out against it.

with all that cheap IranContra cocaine out of Mena Airport. He let Poppy Bush use Mena without any local scrutiny.

Biden, Kerry and Reed who tried to influence Obama to decrease the military presence.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/27/world/asia/27military.html?_r=1

Now...Biden, Kerry and Reed will act to implement Obama's decision, but, BEFORE the decision they stood AGAINST McChrystal, Gates, Holbrooke and Clinton who were decidely in the HAWK corner.

Seems to me you don't understand that debates happen in closed rooms BEFORE a decision is made, and once made, it is evryone's job to implement the president's decision.

not understanding gave me my biggest laugh of the day - thanks for that.

with hawks in the debate about Afghanistan BEFORE Obama made his decision about Afghanistan.

Funny that, eh?

Thank you.

And--the president selected basically all the (admin) people in the room.

Especially if he planned to tap hawks for OTHER positions of influence.

that is the best policy, yes, I do want her to stand with it and to advocate for it. I want the SoS to give the President the advice that she thinks is best for the Country.

What can you show us, by the way, that proves she influenced the President in this direction?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/27/world/asia/27military.html?_r=1

DU would have blown a gasket if Lieberman had been tapped for Sec of State, yet, many here manage to ignore that Clinton was always on the same page as Lieberman regarding war decisions.

never mind. Not worth it.

.

does not reveal WHAT advice he is hearing from them. And again, if she feels this is the best course, she should say so, shouldn't she? She is as important a voice as is the VP or, certainly, Colin Powell. The president needs to hear ALL points of view, not just those whom you don't hate.

That is the ONLY think that BLM said about Hillary in this entire thread.

Her point is that most people on DU are not hawks - and many are oblivious that Hillary Clinton is. The ONLY reason that some took this as attacking HRC is because they personally are for a more dovish policy.

and the poster's history here. It is well known how that poster feels about anything and everything Clinton.

the Bushes and their cronies throughout the 90s. I also fear Obama is being swayed to repeat that monumental mistake.

in any of the things I have seen this poster post. This is something that is an essential part of Hillary Clinton's job and if someone disagrees with Clinton's position here, it is valid to point out what it is. The fact is that BLM is 100% accurate that many people, even people interested enough to be on this board, do not know the positions Hillary Clinton has taken.

been standing with the hawks (her hawk views ARE her mindset) even as they praise her as Sec of State and lash out at McChrystal for pushing his hawk view.

Everything she said in this thread is backed by facts. Clinton is, by every account that I have seen, one of most hawkish members of the cabinet. All this poster did was to point that out.

What the Clinton supporters need to ask themselves is what their own view on Afghanistan is. Now, if they are for a more hawkish position than Biden, that is fine - and they should say so. Even if their reason is that they trust Clinton's judgment that is fine. Some of us have followed this more than others. In addition, we have all followed it in different ways. There have been four hearings in the SFRC committee and many detailed articles in the mainstream media. There is no one perfect option, there are several options, all with their own pros and cons.

The anger I see here, directed against BLM, is not based on "logic", here I suspect it is based on not wanting to have to accept that woman you admire is not on the side you yourself would prefer her to be. You are in denial and that is not necessary - you should be able to accept Hillary's position, disagree with it and still feel the same respect for her.

amusement is much closer to the truth

The troop levels in Afghanistan have little to do with Afghanistan. We are using U.S. blood and treasure because the decisions have everything to do with Pakistan and India.

And the next major beneficiaries if the region is stabilized are Russia and China.

I won't repeat your language, but you attacked her statement that Clinton was a hawk, which she was. Now, you could have responded - as you do here, that you agree with the more hawkish position and give the reasons why. You didn't, choosing instead to attack the poster and imply that her comment was not accurate.

Go back and review responses. I don't have any idea whose posts you are "actually" reading.

I am not hawkish. Nothing I have said (and nothing I believe) suggests that.

I have merely commented on the whole picture and how complicated the situation truly is. Unlike prior administrations - this one is looking at the entire situation for us, the region and the whole world. And frankly, neither you nor I or anyone else here knows enough to be making broad statements about the matter.

I did not say you were hawkish. I said that you could have said you agree with the more hawkish position, which seemed to be what you were justifying in your post. The fact is that in your first post you lashed out at BLM without addressing the substance of her comment.

Though none of us know everything, it is possible to have an informed opinion. Now, a few years ago, you would not have said that none of us knew enough to make "broad statements".

You are arguing a point I didn't make so you can just talk to yourself.



:hi:

Do you WANT your President standing WITH the hawks? Do you APPLAUD your President standing with the hawks?



The buck ends with Obama.. not Clinton.

I disagree with his decision. Do YOU agree with the hawk position?

BTW, I never SAID that Clinton made the decision, I said she INFLUENCED it by siding with the hawks. Did you side with McChrystal, Gates, and Holbrooke the last 9 months like Hillary did?

Are you pleased that Obama made his decision based on their hawkish views?

I'm not.

It is just as wrong to criticize Obama for positions some excuse Clinton for as it is to criticize Clinton for positions that we refuse to criticize Obama for.

The reason that Obama is lower is that he is given credit and blame for every policy the administration has. Clinton has not been publicly associated with any controversial policy.

publicity for her role standing with the hawks in the major debate going on about Afghanistan.

How admired would she be as Secretary of State here on DU if more understood that she has been using her Sec of State influence whilke standing AGAINST Biden and WITH McChrystal on Afghanistan?

for policies - they're his policies. And I'd love a link to where she is siding with the hawks. Thanks.

of her influence on the debate.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/27/world/asia/27military.html?_r=1

SOS Clinton's name is mentioned exactly once in that article - calling her more "hawkish" that VP Biden and aligning her with Richard Holbrook. And that he's merely hearing from them, not that they're driving policy which was the implication. But thinking back to the primaries, I'm not surprised to see you taking this tack.

in the internal Afghanistan debate.

But, even still, her hawk stance shouldn't be a surprise to anyone paying attention, especially since her longstanding position over the years has always been as a hawk.

The surprise is that you would challenge any post pointing to her role as hawk in the current debate about Afghanistan.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113783298

(By the way, this is not the only account that says this - every standard article on the cabinet meetings on Iraq have said so - including those in the NYT. )

I'd laugh....but... it's sad.

that he position is that of middle of the road - not on McKrystal's(I'm sure I'm misspelling this name and I apologize for that) side at all. She's for splitting the difference between the general and VP Biden. How does that make her a hawk?

In the March decision she sided with the hawks. Now, when the generals want to escalate again, she is for a smaller escalation. On the spectrum of people in Obama's cabinet, she is still on the hawk side (and near its end). Note that she is in agreement with Gates. It is with McChrystal that there is any difference. Now, that does not mean she is as much a hawk as Cheney.

You'd think they'd be interested in knowing these things.

mediawhore articles and cablewhoretv that have nothing to do with reality.

Good for Hillary and good for Obama. I want them both to succeed as well as the whole admin..our country and Planet have a big stake in this.

And,her opinion may just include a little self-interest. There is no way to really know.

Please read: "For opponents of a major troop increase, led by Mr. Biden and Mr. Emanuel, "Lessons in Disaster" -- which traces the hawkish war stance and eventual disavowal of it by Vietnam-era national-security adviser McGeorge Bundy -- encapsulates their concerns about accepting military advice unchallenged." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125487333320069331.html
This is about a book Rahm showed Obama and Biden.

Rahm probably does not want an escalation for political reasons but whatever it is, he is not a hawk on this. Hillary is more on the hawkish side but will go along with Obama's decision and it is his alone after he has heard all the advice.

support Biden.

but there is a problem in comparing the approval rating of a cabinet member to that of the President. The reason that Obama is lower is that he is given credit and blame for every policy the administration has. Clinton has not been publicly associated with any controversial policy. I suspect that many Democrats, unhappy with Obama increasing the number of troops in March, knew that Clinton strongly backed that position. If they knew it and it were the root of them not approving of Obama, they would not approve of Clinton.

Here is an article that backs up what BLM says:


http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113783298

I suspect many here who were ecstatic when Obama picked her for Secretary of State would have preferred that she had sided with Biden - and, more importantly, that Obama would have.

compare an apple and an orange. Of COURSE Obama's numbers are going to come down like that after being attacked by Repubs. every day and passing controversial legislation. I'm surprised Obama's still at 56% after so much so far. I'm happy for BOTH of them.

She seems to be fitting the SOS job like a glove.

I wish the article didn't have the comparison to the president. Just following her ups and downs and her handling of this latest position (SOS) is fascinating in its own right.

Not sure why some people unrecommended.

I think the article in the op is mush (I mean come on - she became a "Senate work horse"), but I see no reason to unrecommend it. I think many Clinton people might be mad a the discuss on Hillary's position in the cabinet meetings on Afghanistan. This is a subject that has not really been explored on DU.

For the rest, it is a worthy topic, but it would be worth its own thread. What are the position in the administration? Who will win?

The Times article is interesting as it defines 3 positions: not believing in counterinsurgency like Biden, believing in it like McCrystal, and people trying to find a solution in the middle like Gates and Clinton.

would unrecommend. I should have been more straight forward and said that I think it is Clinton supporters who unrecommended it because they are very uncomfortable having the discussion on who is where on Afghanistan. Like you, I think there should be an independent thread on Afghanistan and the options.

Prosense and Beachmom have posted some and I have posted things on the SFRC hearings. They sink pretty fast - as do those by almost anyone else.

Obama's war.

>>>>>
The thesis of Tuesday's NYT story is that this pattern may obscure her real influence. Secretary Clinton's power may come by way of serving as an amen corner for Secretary Gates, the most powerful member of President Obama's cabinet. By endorsing Gates's view on Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, and other issues, Secretary Clinton guarantees that the issue will not be framed internally as an us vs. him issue, where the "us" is Team Obama and the "him" is the holdover appointee from the Bush administration. She has thus played a crucial role in forging the most important, if most often misunderstood (cf. the curious convergence of views between former Vice President Dick Cheney and the Nobel Peace Prize Committee) fact about President Obama's national security policy thus far: its dramatic continuity with President Bush's national-security policy.

Ironically, however, that continuity may have played out its course. As the NYT story also suggests, Clinton and Gates appear to be teaming up to do something that Bush did not do: Stick with an incremental policy rather than embrace a surge. The reporters seem confident that Clinton and Gates favor a middle course between Biden's abrupt shift in mission and McChrystal's Iraq-like (Bush-like) surge in military and civilian resources.

Even without Clinton and Gates recommending it, most observers probably would bet that President Obama is going to split the difference in this fashion. The politics of the Afghanistan decision are such that a split-the-difference option is almost inescapable. Having the two most important cabinet principals endorsing it would make it virtually a foregone conclusion.

It would also do one more thing, which thus far has not happened: It would put Secretary Clinton's imprimatur on an important policy. The war in Afghanistan has already become President Obama's war. If he adopts Secretary Clinton's recommendation, it will also become her war. What comes of that war may well determine a key part of how history rates both of these political leaders in the foreign-policy arena.
>>>>>>

in any case...good for her. :)

Hard to believe that McCain was trying to sell Palin as Hillary 2.0.

:kick:

But if Gallup is going to compare her approval rating to President Obama's, than I realize that they are looking to start a fight, considering that SOS is carrying out the POTUS's......and isn't being dumped on day in, day out the way our POTUS is.

So I'm glad of the fact folks approve of her....and understand that in context, Gallup is trying to stoke some fires.

Sometimes you have to make decisions that are unpopular with some folks. Obama's contribution to world peace, as acknowledged by his being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, is a perfect example of this.

that it's easier for a figure like the SoS to maintain a high approval rating than it is for the President.

In early 2004, Powell had a 67% approval rate far above George Bush's - even after lying to the UN. http://pollingreport.com/p.htm#Powell (Bush was in the low 50s then)

Condoleezza Rice was in the 40s in 2008, when Bush was in the 20s. http://pollingreport.com/r.htm#Rice

Going back further, Madeline Albright did better than Bill Clinton. ( more than it looks at first glance as you have to adjust for the don't knows.) http://pollingreport.com/A-B.htm#Albright

She has dropped three points since the election. Obama has dropped 22, and comparing the President to the SOS is rather silly.



Hillary's rating is steady, and Obama's is higher than Reagan (by 13 points), Bush and Clinton at this point in the Presidential term.

You know, the BS about will she run or won't she run again? What other reason could there be to even compare someone like Clinton, who is just suppose to be a member of the cabinet to the President of the United States in favorable numbers. There are still people who support her who think the SOS position is just another route to the presidency. Actually, who really cares that as SOS her numbers are high? Luckily she has good enough press to be able to squash any gaffes or mistakes she makes.

usually do sneaky things like that. He just thought it was interesting. I actually don't think it's that remarkable, because the SoS simply isn't a lightening bolt figure. When you are less of a target then you have a smaller negative rating.

In early 2004, Powell had a 67% approval rate far above George Bush's - even after lying to the UN. http://pollingreport.com/p.htm#Powell (Bush was in the low 50s then)

Condoleezza Rice was in the 40s in 2008, when Bush was in the 20s. http://pollingreport.com/r.htm#Rice

Going back further, Madeline Albright did better than Bill Clinton. ( more than it looks at first glance as you have to adjust for the don't knows.) http://pollingreport.com/A-B.htm#Albright

Just because it was interesting? Why so?

I think she makes a good S.o.S., but I responded to the post as if were about her if people preferred he as president.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I've seen a few thousand of your copy and paste posts.

Or have you been lurking with a unique interest in my post?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

.

deserves better treatment than she gets on this board.

And, btw, STILL does?

Perhaps you are stuck in some strange time bubble or maybe you were looking for one of those old shut down Hillary worship sites.

The one where she fought for a job just like Obama did, and then graciously conceded and supported the presumptive nominee and then nominee?

Clinton threatens the nuclear option

:rofl:

I know your hatred runs deep, and it must burn you up that Hillary is appreciated and valued by Obama.

Just sayin'.

:shrug:

Maybe in the opinion of some of the Obama supporters. As for out there in the real world, more registered Democrats voted for Hillary than for Obama.

:eyes:

You and all your little tombstoned friends. :shrug:

The fact that she includes real back up is a plus, not a minus.

Too bad I found this thread after big honkin' dog turds were thrown at it.



:cry::cry::cry::cry:



Head of State!!! Head of State!!! Head of State!!! Head of State!!! Head of State!!! Head of State!!!



:rofl:

She is a great asset.. and her hubbie as well.

at this point, I wonder...

The usual responses from the usual crowd. Highly amusing.

:popcorn:

Oh yeah, congratulations to Hillary!!!

:D

I thought that most Democrats were critical of the Bush-Cheney administration for abandoning the war on terrorism in Afghanistan when they lied to the citizens and used 9/11 as their excuse to invade Iraq.

Obama said throughout his campaign that he was going to shift the emphasis back to Afghanistan since the terrorists presented the greatest threat to our wellbeing. Now I hear a chorus of Democrats opposing this policy and demanding that we get out of Afghanistan and Iraq.

I truly don't know what the best policy would be. Perhaps, as some suggest, we won't be able to really change anything no matter how long we stay and then again, some say that if we leave the terrorists will have won and will become a greater threat. Maybe it is a hopeless cause and the best option would be to go home and strengthen our home defenses rather than become involved in the tribal warfare that appears to be the region's most cherished pastime for the last few hundred centuries.

They are favoring the Biden counter terrorism approach over a possibly impossible national counter insurgency approach. The counter terrorism approach concentrates on preventing Afghanistan from becoming a haven for Al Qaeda. The counter insurgency approach aims to change the culture in Afghanistan and prevent the Taliban from ever returning.

The fact is that Obama's 2008 rhetoric - which owed a lot to John Kerry - is not inconsistent with either of the two alternatives - especially if it is coupled with an international effort to provide non-military funds and assistance to build infrastructure. (I actually hope that Hillary Clinton will switch to that position.)

Back when the Russians waged their own 10 year version of the Vietnam war, we supported some of the same people who attacked us years later. When the Russians had finally had enough, we left the Afghanis and Pakistanis swinging in the wind. After a vicious 5 year civil war, the Afghanis welcomed the Taliban taking power hoping that they would finally have some peace. Well, the medicine turned out to be worse than the disease.

The question is what should the US do this time around? If we withdraw, it will probably be a free for all like the last time and the Taliban will take over once again. That means that Al-Qaeda will move in too.

If we use drones and attack from afar, we will continue to kill many civilians. If we send more troops incrementally we might achieve some temporary success, but it won't be enough to eradicate the Taliban. If we send as many troops as the military requests we may "win" the war, but it won't be a permanent solution due to the vast corruption of the Afghani leaders. In time, the Taliban would move right back in.

Then what's the solution? I don't know and I don't envy the administration having to choose one out of several bad options. But, I do believe that the minute we fully withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan, there will be more bloodshed. Let's also not forget Pakistan where the Taliban has become quite bold in their attacks. Pakistan may end up being a greater concern as they have nuclear weapons.

:-(

Nothing new here...if she where president she would be equal to Obama's right now simply because the press would go apeshit to take her down too with made up shit.

Remember, a poll is only as accurate as the number of people responding to it.

If fewer than 300 million people answered it truthfully, it's useless as a gauge to determine America's collective mindset right now.