Modo asks Hillary a question that she will not be able to answer in a gadzillion years.
If you know the dingbat vice president is agitating for a conflict with Iran, if you know that Condi is chasing after Cheney with a butterfly net on Iran and Syria, if you know you can’t believe anything this administration says, why vote to give them more backing on their dysfunctional Middle East policy?
Hillary might not be able to answer, but Dowd has an explantation at the ready.
By throwing in with Joe Lieberman and the conservative hawks on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard issue, she once more overcompensated in a cynical way. She’d like to paint Obama as the weak reed who wants to cozy up to dictators, while she’s the one who will play tough. It was odd, given her success in the debates conveying the sense that she is the manliest candidate among the Democrats, that she felt the need to man-up on Iran.
Perhaps Hillary really is casting cynical votes. That’s one possibility. The other is that she actually believes in what she is voting for, like invading Iraq and creating a predicate for attacking Iran. Which of those two possibilities makes you more comfortable voting for Ms. Clinton?
Is this the kind behavior that makes you want to go out and defend the Rose law firm billing records, the Marc Rich pardon, and all the other baggage from the misty past? Do Ms. Clinton’s decisions inspire confidence?
Her team is trying to wink at progressives…as if she doesn’t really mean it…she’ll govern on the left. Why should we believe her? When will she drop this charade and stand on her own two feet and show leadership? After she is President?
Enough with this. There are other, better candidates in this race.
