Hillary & party leadership "Duck & Cover" strategy. David Corn...

Comment from AfterDowning Street:
Clinton is straddling, not leading, and much of the leadership of her party is essentially doing the same. That might help Democrats in the coming congressional elections by providing on-the-ropes Republicans with little to attack. Then again, it might not. But the conflicts and dilemmas posed by the Iraq war will probably persist. If so, Democrats could find that their biggest challenge is not the Republicans but themselves.
________________________________________________________
Last week, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton was giving a speech on "Women Leaders" before a crowd of thousands at Brown University when a fellow interrupted her and shouted, "Is it leadership to support the war?" Other hecklers joined in, and Clinton pressed on with her prepared remarks. She noted that "leadership on a broad, national, public level—it means standing for what you believe and inspiring others to do the same."

It may be wrong to equate leadership with a particular position on the war. But the protesters did raise a fair point about Sen. Clinton. She has certainly not taken a leadership stance in the ongoing national discourse on the war in Iraq. In fact, she has avoided the matter—talking about the war little and eschewing media appearances where she will likely be asked about the war. She has said that American troops should not stay in Iraq for an open-ended amount of time but they should not withdraw immediately. So she is for the status quo—as long as it does not last too long. That's not much of a position—and certainly not an act of inspiring leadership.

Last week, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton was giving a speech on "Women Leaders" before a crowd of thousands at Brown University when a fellow interrupted her and shouted, "Is it leadership to support the war?" Other hecklers joined in, and Clinton pressed on with her prepared remarks. She noted that "leadership on a broad, national, public level—it means standing for what you believe and inspiring others to do the same."

It may be wrong to equate leadership with a particular position on the war. But the protesters did raise a fair point about Sen. Clinton. She has certainly not taken a leadership stance in the ongoing national discourse on the war in Iraq. In fact, she has avoided the matter—talking about the war little and eschewing media appearances where she will likely be asked about the war. She has said that American troops should not stay in Iraq for an open-ended amount of time but they should not withdraw immediately. So she is for the status quo—as long as it does not last too long. That's not much of a position—and certainly not an act of inspiring leadership.

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/04/12/2008_looking_like_1968.php
_____________________________________________________________________________
Refusing to call for complete troop withdraw as soon as possible is not only bad politics, it is futhering a crime in progress. I am not necessarily agreeing with Corn's assessment, it seems clear that she wants the troops to stay until they are "successful", like Lieberman and the Bushboy. God save us from this nightmare.