Hillary Clinton's planned, orchestrated and
calculated personal attack on Barack Obama
is Exhibit A revealing why she would be the
weakest possible Democratic nominee and
why so many Democrats and independents
feel such extreme distrust of her.
Hillary Clinton is lying about Obama. She knows very well that Barack
not recklessly rush into diplomatic negotiations with any nation.
George Bush has held diplomacy in contempt
for his entire presidency. Diplomatic moves
will be eight years late when the new President
assumes office, hardly rushing into anything.
Hillary Clinton's attack on Obama was personal
and the kind of smear tactic reminiscent of
George Bush and Richard Nixon. To falsely
claim Obama is naive, etc., is not only factually
wrong but represents the low road politics that
Democrats and Americans loathe about George
Hillary could not professionally and responsibly
draw serious policy lines with Obama about
diplomatic negotiations, because she basically
agrees with him, which a professional and
serious policy discussion would make clear.
Hillary was therefore attacking Barack for
taking the same position she takes, unless
she is maneuvering away from her long
term position in one of her insufferable
political maneuverings and calculations.
On the fundamental diplomatic issue of
whether the U.S. should be a leader for
a diplomatic solution for a broad Middle
East peace and whether the U.S. should
attempt negotiations with Syria and Iran,
Obama is 100% right in saying yes.
Whether Hillary agrees apparently depends
on her political calculation of the week.
If there is one national Democrat who has
no right to claim any advantage because
of experience, it is Hillary Clinton, who was
catastrophically wrong about Iraq in 2002,
2003, 2004, 2005, and throughout 2006.
Hillary's Iraq problem is not merely a bad vote
to authorize the war, it was five bad years of
standing side by side with Bush and Cheney
in supporting the war. For all the disasters,
blunders, misrepresentations, corruptions,
and catastrophes regarding Iraq policy from
2002 through 2006 it is perfectly fair to state
the damage was done by the Bush, Cheney
and Hillary Clinton policy.
This is the value of her "experience"? She
calls Obama naive?
Like Bush, from 2002 through 2006, she clung
to a disaster. Like Bush, she ignored high
level advice for her to change. Like Bush,
she refuses to admit making mistakes. Like
like Bush, she resorts to ad hominem attacks
against opponents, a fatal attraction she cannot resist.
Obviously there are major differences between
Hillary and Bush; but ominously her stand on
Iraq and political exploitation of the issue show
In a recent debate, Hillary said that America
was safer under George Bush, just not safe
enough. America is not safer under Bush,
who has failed to solve the great danger and
has created new dangers. If the value of
Hillary's "experience" is that she believes
America is more safe under Bush, Democrats
need a different kind of experience.
In another recent debate, Hillary adamantly
refused to take a position on a Scooter Libby
pardon. Three times she refused to even give
a pro forma answer. With a knowing smile she
said she would only talk about issues that
matter to Americans. Until of course Bush
issued his commutation, which created a political firestorm that
in Hillary's polling, at which point she reversed her position yet
There is more, but this is enough.
Hillary Clinton has a fatal attraction for always
seeking the most clever maneuver, always
making the most clever calculation, always
positioning herself for what she sees as serving
her personal ambition, always doing what
she thinks is right for Hillary.
The cost of this "experience" is support for the
greatest military blunder in American history
when her principled opposition would have
saved American lives and prevented American
She supported this catastrophe in 2002; in
2003; in 2004; 2005; and throughout 2006
and still believes today that America is safer
under George W. Bush.
To launch a premeditated personal attack
is a misreading of the Democratic Party,
a misreading of America, a misreading
of diplomatic strategy, and a misreading
of the kind of President that Democrats
want to nominate and Americans want to