What would Hillary do?

In response to Lyle’s post yesterday in regards to our military involvement in the mid-east ubu52 said, “My ideal candidate was Hillary and I think we all know what she would do.”

I honestly have no idea what Hillary do in regards to the mid-east if she were president. I suppose I could do some research on it but I don’t want to destroy this rather pleasant image I have of her flying over the desert on her broomstick turning princes into frogs.


10 thoughts on “What would Hillary do?

  1. Well, it’s not like she was squeamish about using US military might in a punitive fashion her first two terms.

  2. Hillary is well-known for being a military hawk. She has been ever since she was elected to the Senate.

  3. Hardly “well known”, ubu. She actually has a rather poor history of relations with the military, including as First Lady, despite the rather ridiculous attempt to dress her up as a hawkish Democrat for the ’08 primaries.

  4. Being a hawk has nothing to do with her “history of relations with the military.” Being in agreement with the military doesn’t make one a hawk. There are people in the military who aren’t hawks.

  5. Yeah ubu52 Hillary has no problem killing other peoples children for elective wars. Yippie!

  6. On practically every issue she’s ever commented on, Hillary has totally contradicted herself at some point. So yeah; I know exactly what she would do– she’d contradict herself. Other than that it’s anyone’s guess, as she is blown hither and thither by the political winds.

  7. Lyle,

    When has she contradicted herself?

    Personally, I value politicans who don’t hold rigid views because those with rigid views are less likely to get anything accomplished. “Works well with others” is a quality a good politican needs to have.

  8. Rigid views and “plays well with others” are hardly mutually exclusive concepts. I would argue that without a firmly anchored idea of where we should be heading, it is much more difficult to get anything done (are you listening, Republicans?) because then they end up falling all over themselves trying to be “reasonable” and “compromising,” then wake up wondering how they sold our birthright for a bowl of pottage. Compromise can be ok, as long as it gets us somewhere, which is something the Left has had in mind for some time and the “Right” has forgotten. Even there, however, there has to be some kind of “line in the sand” or else you end up in the same trap as the man with no conviction at all.

    To recap: Standing firm beats a bad deal any day of the week, but don’t let it stand in the way of a good deal. HOWEVER, you don’t know if it’s a good deal if you can’t point to how it advances your cause in some way, and if you have no firm beliefs you have no way of seeing whether that deal advances the cause, betrays some other cause that is important to you, or not.

Comments are closed.