Will Hillary Clinton’s Unpopularity Among Liberals Hurt or Help Her?
By 2008Central.net | Related entries in 2008 Election, NewsThis week at the Take Back America Conference, Hillary Clinton was booed as she talked about the failure of the Iraqi government to capitalize on the opportunity the American military had given them. From the AP article:
On Iraq, Clinton said the military has succeeded by removing Saddam Hussein from power, giving Iraqis the chance for free and fair elections and to govern themselves.
“The American military has succeeded. It is the Iraqi government which has failed to make the tough decisions that are important for their own people,” Clinton said, although a loud chorus of boos cut off the end of her sentence.
“You know, I love coming here every year,” Clinton said with a smile while the crowd continued to boo, with her supporters trying to drown the protesters out in cheers.
Members of the anti-war group Code Pink stood up throughout the audience, raising signs and holding up their fingers in a peace sign.
“I see the signs - ‘Get us out of Iraq now.’ That is what we are trying to do,” she said. She said she is working with Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., to sponsor legislation to deauthorize the war.
Perhaps it was slightly ironic that this was the debut of Clinton using her new theme song (which has gotten so much attention because of the introductory Soprano video).
But more important is the notion that there is a level of antipathy towards Clinton on the left among some progressives; the easiest example is her vote for the Iraq war, but it goes deeper than that…
continued at 2008Central.net
This entry was posted on Saturday, June 23rd, 2007 and is filed under 2008 Election, News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
June 24th, 2007 at 10:25 am
You can make a valid argument that the Iraqi people have blown it by not putting aside the past and working to a unified Iraq. The Sunnis did stay out of the first election and are regretting it now. Yes the lack of troops certainly did contribute to the extremists gaining a foothold but the bottom line is that they found plenty of support in the general population, at least initially. Now things are changing, the tribal leaders are angry over Al Qeada challenging their traditional place in running things, and the militias are no longer seen as being benevolent protectors. Will this change translate into a decrease in violence? I don’t know, but to put the entire blame on the US ignores the responsibility of the people of Iraq to take charge of their own destiny.
June 24th, 2007 at 10:44 am
[...] Donklephant questions if Hillary’s unpopularity among liberals will help or hurt her. [...]
June 24th, 2007 at 3:18 pm
Now after reading this, how can ANYONE say she “panders” to her crowds? She isn’t even pandering to her base!
Gotta love her!
June 25th, 2007 at 9:08 am
Interesting how people booed her for proclaiming that the U.S. was successful in Iraq. God forbid that happens; we wouldn’t want the American military to actually succeed at anything, would we?
June 26th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
Whether we want the military to win or not, the fact is that they have NOT succeeded, or even come close to anything one could construe as a marginally positive result. It is also not the fault of the military, but the commander in chief, who has time and time again gone against the advice of a majority of his generals to ensure defeat in Iraq, or replaced the ones who disagree with him with yes-men with no principles. Bush (and his owners) are directly responsible for all servicemen deaths, as well as the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead and the millions displaced since this war began.
In other news, I really hope Hillary is not the eventual candidate, because I do not think she can win a general election (and she has been pandering far too much to the right, in a far too calculated manner).
Of course I’m still hoping Gore runs, and barring that, would go for an Edwards/Obama ticket.
June 26th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
I suppose then, that the members of Islam’s religious-right who have been pulling the triggers, detonating the bombs, and setting up the IEDs, are not responsible for their own actions; somehow, like Arab insects, they were stimulated by president Bush and therefore cannot be blamed. If the terrorists were white evangelical Christians or Jews, would you feel the same way?
Why not? If the “hundreds of thousands” of Iraqi civilian deaths were directly caused by illegal American military action - The Nuremburg trials set a precident that junior officers, NCOs, staff seargents and other low ranking personell cannot abrogate responsibility for war crimes to their higher officers.
Someone flies the F-18s to drop the bombs. Someone fires the tank shells into the civilian neighborhhods. Someone rounds up prisoners and throws them into the “gulags.” Nazi troops in WWII were not allowed to defer responsibility when they directly targeted innocents for execution in the ghettos and the death camps.
I suppose its the same thinking that leads you to believe Bush and his “owners” are the only people who have any moral culpability for any and all actions in the world.