September 25, 2007
Queen Hillary
I know that Andrew Sullivan has been despised by the folks at Three Sources for a long time now. However, when one filters through his prose, there is a lot of truth to the his recent comments:
The conservative Washington Establishment is swooning for Hillary for a reason. The reason is an accommodation with what they see as the next source of power (surprise!); and the desire to see George W. Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq legitimated and extended by a Democratic president (genuine surprise). Hillary is Bush's ticket to posterity. On Iraq, she will be his legacy. They are not that dissimilar after all: both come from royal families, who have divvied up the White House for the past couple of decades. They may oppose one another; but they respect each other as equals in the neo-monarchy that is the current presidency. And so elite conservatives are falling over themselves to embrace a new Queen Hillary, with an empire reaching across Mesopotamia...
There is a large block of neoconservatives that are warming to Hillary because they perceive that a Democratic presidency in 2008 is inevitable and thus they must get behind the individual who will most exemplify their ideology.
What strikes me as especially surprising, however, is that the Democratic Party and its members seem so intent on winning the presidency that they are willing to nominate and elect someone who is largely out of touch with the party on their biggest issue. Hillary is much more of a hawk than many Democrats believe (or are willing to admit). Perhaps they are blinded by their hatred of Bush-Cheney or their nostalgia for the Bill Clinton presidency. Either way, however, they should be careful what they wish for.
Unfortunately, I think that these neoconservatives are so blinded by a somewhat like-minded individual on foreign policy that they fail to realize how her would-be expansion of government violates their other conservative principles.
Overall it seems that somewhat strange bedfellows are emerging.
Aside: As a libertarian, I did like Sullivan's criticism of the would-be oligarchy of BushClintonBushClinton.
2008 Race Posted by Harrison Bergeron at September 25, 2007 12:39 PM
I guess it has been a long time, but I wouldn't use the word despise. Andrew was my favorite blogger when I started. I modeled my idea of blogging and my style on him. I still consider him a superb writer.
And yet, he has, let me be fair here, gone completely and totally insane.
This post of his does relay a truth. There is an establishment Washington that supersedes party. The Clintons are the archetype, and the second Bush term became an example as well.
I think Brother Sully goes off the rails when he says that a continuation of Iraq policy makes Senator Clinton some sort of Bush III. There are important foreign and domestic policy debates. I find it unsurprising that they do not come down across distinct party lines (I wish it were more so).
Serious Democrats see that a McGovern or McCarthy candidate will fare as well as McGovern or McCarthy. Senator Clinton may be a Faustian bargain on the war, but they get a candidate who tows the line on every other issue.
Establishment Republicans' consent to her candidacy is overstated by Sullivan. Those wicked neocons who run everything also pick the Democratic Nominee? I'm not convinced.
Aside back: Those who wish to escape ClintonBushCLintonBushClintonBush would do well to fight all manner of campaign finance reform. Let big donors fund candidates and we'll see more serious players outside of the establishment.
Posted by: jk at September 25, 2007 2:26 PMNearsighted commentators and farsighted alike: change your orientation. You're only confusing yourselves.
Allow me to let you in on a surprisingly secretive fact: there is NO CHANCE RodhamClinton will ever again be allowed to occupy the White House, your neo-con/looney-left axis conspiracy theories notwithstanding.
You cannot be chosen to serve as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces during time of war, when among approximately 50% of the population -- men -- the overwhelming, vast majority will not seriously consider you for that role. It's out of the question!
Posted by: retrometa at September 25, 2007 4:41 PMI tend to think Retro is right. I haven't voiced that sentiment much lately because it just sounds so pollyanish. No whistlin' 'round no graveyards here!
Furthermore, I'm willing to wager that even if Barack Osama is, by some twist of probability greater than the Rockies winning the World Series, elected President... even HE would not precipitously withdraw our troops and leave the place to the wolves. There'd be a "period of evaluation" while he actually acquainted himself with what the hell is going on in the world outside of Washington and Howard Dean's email threads. It's sort of like what happened when Harry Reid became majority leader. (They farted around with minimum wage and some other bogus crap for "100 days" before quietly capitulating on the angry left rallying cry.)
Posted by: johngalt at September 26, 2007 3:21 PMProb'ly right on the next Commander-in-Chief. But I cannot agree on the current Senate Majority leader. I don't think he was educated -- I think he was whipped.
Posted by: jk at September 26, 2007 5:28 PM | What do you think? [4]