Instead of posting from the numerous far left blogs that pounded her, I want to say something about the "Take back America" debacle...First, I don't like the Hillary. She is a consummate politician though... Second, She is a democrat. Third, However she is very, very smart... In fact, I wondered what the heck was she thinking? Surely she is too smart for this...You have the usual players of the Dean, and the Kerry...with Kerry especially sounding most cut and runnish and especially demonstrative of blatant indecisiveness...wow. But here is the Hillary, whose husband while highly intelligent can only come close to her....So why did she do this? Surely she is intelligent enough to have seen the response ahead of time...Why did she go against the cut and run gang?...This is your star!...This is the MVP leader showing the way, but she gets booed as a fool...She gets refuted by her own in blatant terminology.... How could you?...This is your Hillary! How could you do this to the one who could have that winning formula? Surely no one doubts her virtues, but now the creative direction is hijacked mutiny style...Whether this is all part of a moderate policy-far left policy attack style leaves much to be desired. If this is a "strategy" of putting on different voices it belittles the essence of the Democratic direction...If this is a rebuttal of moderation, than America will surely be "lost" again to the Darkside... and a certain Hillary has gained respect for leadership ability...
Democrats have a tradition of having a host of different voices in the party, ROXRAN, unlike the GOP, who's leadership has demanded that Republicans march in lock-step, or risk (and it is a very real risk) being shut out of leadership positions, and even have opponents funded to run against the, "offender," in the Republican primaries. The two parties are different. They have been different seemingly forever, thank god. And just because the reaction was mixed, it doesn't really mean anything with regards to a possible run for President in the primaries. It's merely a vocal expression of opposition from a group within the Democratic Party. No biggie, we do that a lot, LOL! (and I hope she doesn't get the nomination for '08!) Keep D&D Civil.
Hillary stops mattering when the Republican party figures out how to field serious female Presidential candidates. Alas, most educated women with any experience in the public sector are pro-choice, so, probably not gonna happen. Condoleeza might work, if you really believe a black woman who grew up in the South and was an academic provost at Stanford (aka Berkeley-South) is gonna tow the party line on affirmative action.
ROX setting aside your incoherent rantings about Hillary, why do you perpetuate the lie that all the dems want to do is cut and run? It's simply not true. No one, not Kerry, not Murtha, not Dean has ever advocated a policy of cutting and running (except of course the liberal fringe wackos, god love em). But no one with any consequence is advocating cutting and running. Which btw is a strawman in of itself. What does that even mean? cutting and running? It's just a nice catchphrase to get the panties of the frightwing of the republican party all in a wad. Now if you would honestly look at the positions they have taken, yes I will admit that they often do not speak with a united voice on how to proceed, you will see that everyone is for completing what was started. What is interesting is that if you notice, the republicans are quietly adopting some of the democrat's ideas on how to proceed in Iraq. Namely drawing down forces to an over the horizon strike force that is only utilized when necessary. Anyway, yes! You do have a point about Hillary and her seeming indifference to changing, or at least contemplating different scenarios, about how to proceed in Iraq. But please don’t mistake that as a weakness. On the contrary, I think it’s healthy to have the conversation; from both the republican and democratic perspective.
