A Problem With Hillary

Update [2007-10-3 17:4:47 by Big Tent Democrat]: Jane gets it.

Via Matt Yglesias and Kevin Drum, Here is my problem:

A list of the national security and foreign policy advisers to the leading presidential candidates from both parties.


Hillary Clinton

. . . Michael O'Hanlon, Brookings senior fellow and former Congressional Budget Office defense and foreign policy analyst, supporter

Michael O'Hanlon? The Iraq Debacle supporter, surge supporter, and serial dissembler on his support for the war? Why would Senator Clinton want the support of someone who has diametrically opposed views from hers on the most important foreign policy issue of the day? Indeed, why in heavens is O'Hanlon supporting her?

Can you imagine a campaign against a Republican who can cite Hillary Clinton advisor Michale O'Hanlon on how Hillary is wrong about the Iraq War and the Surge? This makes no sense. Hillary should immediately renounce O'Hanlon's support and frankly, it is hard to fathom why he is supporting her. They completely disagree on the most important issue of the day. Blatant careerism I suppose.

< On Iraq: Is Steny Hoyer The Problem? | The Uncleansable Stain >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    They completely disagree... (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by joejoejoe on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 04:39:25 PM EST
    ...on the most important issue of the day.

    Or they agree and Sen. Clinton is selling everyone a bill of goods.

    ::Are:: they diametrically opposed? (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Edger on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 04:55:37 PM EST
    Clinton's Strong Defense Legacy
    Foreign Affairs, November 2003
    Michael E. O'Hanlon

    Simple (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by manys on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 07:17:27 PM EST
    Hillary is the Establishment candidate and O'Hanlon is well-versed in crafting Establishment-friendly sequences of words.

    serially (none / 0) (#4)
    by oculus on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 08:21:38 PM EST
    Jim Webb was asked if she would be (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Geekesque on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 10:43:40 PM EST
    significantly different than Bush when it came to Iraq.

    His verbatim answer:  "I hope so."

    Well, isn't that reassuring! (none / 0) (#9)
    by robrecht on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 06:47:23 PM EST
    Who is Kenneth Pollack advising? (none / 0) (#5)
    by oculus on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 08:22:01 PM EST

    What Is It You Don't Get? (none / 0) (#8)
    by MSimon on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 01:17:42 PM EST
    There is a reason the Dems can't get anything more anti-war passed than resolutions and not many of those.

    The Dems don't have the votes. The Congress may be controlled by the Dems but it is a conservative Congress. You know the Dean "Southern Strategy".

    Hillary wants those Southern votes.

    By the end of Nov '006 I was predicting this. It was obvious. Sadly you guys let your hopes get ahead of reality.

    Lieberman won. Big clue.

    The war is not as unpopular as you think. Losing the war is unpopular. Hillary wants to be a winner. So she will do her damnedest to win the war.

    They threw you Pelosi and Reid like they would throw a dog a bone. No meat is on that bone.


    Look at it another way: if you want something done about Darfur and/or Burma a win in Iraq is mandatory.

    Many of the most evil dictatorships on the planet are resource extraction dictatorships. Burma is a case in point. "No Blood for Oil" means no help for Burma. Way to paint yourselves into a corner.

    You will have to decide what to do. However, your problem is obvious.

    You aren't as important as you... (none / 0) (#10)
    by elrapido on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 06:51:25 PM EST
    ...think you are, Armando.  Sen. Clinton doesn't need the netroots to win the nomination or the general election.  You'll get over it.