re: What's your point? That public support for a counter-terror campaign rose after 9/11? Granted. Still, when Clinton called on public support for the use of the military, he got it, think Kosovo, think even Desert Fox. If he had chosen to notice the African Embassy bombings or the Cole attack, he could have done a great deal more than Berger's legal-political calculations. But he was occupied with Monicagate and the Arab-Israeli negotiations, and left the terrorism question to Berger and Clarke.
One more note. Let's forget Clinton, different time, different politics. It really doesn't apply.
It's all about Bush, 9/11, terror and the economy. How has Bush performed, what are his accomplishments, how has he helped, how has he hurt. Nobody is voting for or against Clinton. He's history. Comparisons don't mean anything except to piss people off. So drop Clinton.
Frankly, most of the pundits say that that this election, surpisingly, comes down, at this early date, to 3% to 10% of likely voters. At this time it's usually ~25%. So the outcome will be determined not by ideology, but by organization, and who get's out their vote. It's old time Chicago politics, shoe leather on the pavement, driving reluctant voters to the polls. It's grass roots local, it's real politics. Which in a strange way is sort of refreshing. The folks that want it most will probably win.
John |
