Every so often, since Nov. 3, 2004, the question of a possible Hillary Clinton run for presidency pops up. Most recently, Washington Monthly hosted a mini-debate over whether Hillary in '08 was a good idea. I haven't thought enough about this to make up my mind, so I'm posting this piece from Common Dreams just for your perusal, and because I don't want the debate over Hillary to be limited to: "She's too liberal!" -- "No she's not!"
More than 1,750 U.S. soldiers have died so far in Iraq, needless victims of Bush’s maniacal war. [Ed.-Don't forget at least 23,000 Iraqi deaths as well.]
So what is the leading Democrat proposing instead?
Withdrawal of the troops, and an end to the occupation, and a sober reassessment of U.S. foreign policy?
There was Hillary Clinton instead calling for 80,000 more troops for the Army so that the United States can be fully equipped to patrol the far corners of the empire at a moment’s notice.
Hillary, the darling of the Democrats for 2008 (pssst, I don’t think she can win!), has been steadily repositioning herself on the far rightward reaches of the Democratic Party when it comes to the Pentagon.
She’s always been for the Iraq War, and she still is.
And in case you needed any other clue about where she stands, she was accompanied by Joe Lieberman at her press conference calling for more troops.
“She has emerged as a staunch ally of the armed services and a strong proponent of a forceful American military presence abroad,” as a recent profile in The New York Times noted.
But we do not need Hillary Clinton to run the empire.
We need to stop being an empire.
And for those who invest in Hillary as some sort of savior, you’re making a bad bet.
I prefer the immortal words of Milton Mayer, who for decades wrote for The Progressive: “I won’t be disillusioned because I was never illusioned.”