To the thread; I missed most of the discussion of the "Hillary as a candidate" discussion. I was wondering, however, if anyone had any feel for her views on the Iraq war? For several years it has been my impression that she is a war hawk, primarily because her initial statements on the war were very hawkish, more hawkish than I thought were necessary to keep faith with the Democratic left.
And now, at a time when the war is seen by a large majority of Americans to have been a huge mistake and a quagmire, her opposition to the war seems to be lukewarm and politically motivated. I've never seen any real emotion from her on the waste of lives in Iraq while Obama and Edwards seem much more touched by that waste.
Even if she actually intends to follow through on her "get out of Iraq" pledge, I think this is an important issue. I would much rather have a genuine dove in the White House than a fence sitter or a closet hawk. In addition, I'd rather not have another president anxious to prove that he/she is not a wimp.
Finally, I think I understand why Obama and Edwards want to be president. Obama wants to unite the country, bring races, parties and people together and change the face of America in the eyes of the world. It's a great macro view. Edwards really sees the divide that exists between working people and poor people and the more privileged and powerful. I think both of them are passionate about their issues and I think that makes them relatively believable and credible with many voters (even though blind ambition seems more apparent in Edwards.)
With Clinton, however, the feeling I get is that she mixes and matches issues to create a voting plurality and if she has a heart-felt driving motive I haven't seen it.
Is her prime goal the presidency itself rather than a compelling policy or policies that she believes she is capable of furthering? Ed |
