When Charles Krauthammer wrote a column praising Hillary Clinton's foreign policy views, I thought that probably wasn't the sort of backup her campaign was looking for. It turns out, though, that HillaryHub.com, an official product of the campaign, is linking to Krauthammer's articles. So, yes, congratulations, she's official won the Chalres Krauthammer Primary.
« Nazis Everywhere | Main | Court Opinion »
Tone Deaf Lately?
29 Jul 2007 01:45 am
Comments (10)
They both back bombing Iran, as they did invading Iraq, so that's all you really need to know.
Anyone still arguing that Hillary Clinton isn't a neocon?
It was Bill Clinton who said he'd fight and die for Israel (nothing about America), and whose love for the Jews was demonstrated by his affair with Monica Lewinsky, so nothing about these shabbos boys would suprise me.
The only presidential candidate I can even bear reading about is Ron Paul and he's about as welcome in the MSM as a fart in a spacesuit.
Re "It was Bill Clinton who said he'd fight and die for Israel (nothing about America)"
-----------
Any citations,references etc for this claim?
I criticize some politicians for selling out to wealthy patrons,especially when the sellout screws the common citizens like myself. But such criticism should always be backed by evidence --by links to reputable sources.
Else you end up sounding like you are making things up. You end up appearing like rabid rightwing commentators or worse.
Google 'Clinton die Israel'.
It's a pity but I simply forgot the actual punchline to the Clinton/Lewinsky gag. Should have been 'Clinton's love for the Jews (ummm, Jewish people) was proven by DNA analysis on Monica Lewinsky's dress.'
"Yeah -- Krauthammer might be a clueless asshole *but* some of the issues that he raised will nonetheless _seem_ real to independent and centrist voters."
This isn't exactly the major voting bloc in the Democratic primary.
The degree to which the Clinton campaign is willing to take Democrats for granted is shocking. They seem to be so supremely confident that they are going to cruise to the nomination that they believe it is already safe to start running to the right.
I also enjoyed David Brooks' worshipful column basking in the glory of the Hillary. I have to say, when Krauthammer and Brooks are stumbling over themselves in praise of Ms. Clinton, hmmmmn, it does make you begin to wonder a bit. I think the more sober neo-cons understand that the bat-crazy Republican ship is sinking and they're latching onto Hillary as the next Great Neo-Con Hope. For those still grasping to the illusion that there's no substantive foreign policy difference between Hillary and Obama/Edwards, I'd say the threads are wearing a little thin on that one. She is clearly and unambiguously a good deal to the right of the other Democratic candidates.
She is clearly and unambiguously a good deal to the right of the other Democratic candidates.
This is why I'm not a subscriber to the "We are all just liberals" philosophy.
Hillary is quite liberal, she's going to fight the good fight on abortion rights. She would probably be a more ardent defender of gun control than any of the other candidates. Her proposals for child care might even be somewhat "left".
And her foreign policy team would probably be headed by Richard Holbrooke as SecState whose biggest claim to fame was doing an end run around congress to facilitate a genocidal campaign againt the Timors that killed about a third of them. This doesn't disqualify from being a liberal.
Comments closed August 12, 2007.

Yeah -- Krauthammer might be a clueless asshole *but* some of the issues that he raised will nonetheless _seem_ real to independent and centrist voters. Never mind disgruntled conservative voters, which might be less likely to hold their noses and pull the lever for e.g. Guiliani just because *she* is the Democratic candidate. So I think it's not necessarily a bad thing to her if Chuck Cabbagemallet essentially acknowledges the points she has been trying to make during he campaign...
Posted by MARCU$ | July 29, 2007 7:02 AM