DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> DC Viking: We interupt your regularly scheduled snark...

Monday, March 05, 2007

We interupt your regularly scheduled snark...

For the past few weeks, Hilary Clinton has been dancing around the technicalities of whether or not she is sorry that she voted for the Iraq War Resolution. This seemingly small, press-driven, mini-scandal perfectly encapsulates why I’d vote for Jessica Simpson before I’d nominate Hilary to represent the Democrats in the 08’ election.

Hilary has made several statements that seem to hint at her regret for voting in favor of providing the President with authorization for the use of force in Iraq. But she refuses to come out and say as much. On the surface this issue is trivial hair-splitting, the equivalent of Bill Clinton defining ‘is’, and unworthy of such media attention. But if you dig a little deeper her unwillingness to apologize for something widely recognized as ill-advised hints at how far she is willing to go to protect her image of toughness.

Fact #1 - Women are perceived by many voting Americans as being the weaker sex.

Fact #2 - Democrats have been painted as soft on the issue of national defense since the Carter administration.

Fact #3 - Hilary Clinton is a woman (pretty sure, the jury is still out on the whole cyborg thing) and a Democrat (technically).

When I accepted these facts I came to the conclusion that Hilary might be more dangerous than the current President when it comes to foreign policy. Consider the following scenario; Hilary is elected and inherits the Iraq War from the previous administration. Bush obviously has no interest in leaving Iraq and being labeled as a cutter and/or runner, so whoever wins in 2008 is going to have it dropped at their feet. If it’s Hilary in the White House, she’s going to be forced to act against the better angels of her nature. It will be impossible for her to pull U.S. soldiers out of Iraq, even if it becomes obvious to everyone but Joe Lieberman that the troops need to come home. She’s simply too afraid to be painted as a weak woman and Democrat, and as a result, she’ll lack the toughness to make any kind of concession.

I can see this playing out in any number of other geographical hot spots. Despot A makes inflammatory remarks, Republican mouthpiece B says that Clinton is weak if she does nothing, first female president C overreacts and weakens the standing of U.S. in the global community. Rinse and repeat as necessary. That's why when the time comes, I'm casting my vote for the Japanese guy from Heroes.

Labels: ,

5 Comments:

Blogger Frankly, Scarlett said...

Spot ON, my friend. Spot on.

2:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Exhibit A: Falklands war. Margaret Thatcher was put in a similar position. Argentina needed a distraction from their recent military coup, and they bloodied Britain's nose in the process. Maggie sent the troops so fast, they had to take cruise ships to get there. Not that Blair wouldn't have done the same thing, but there is more perceived "defensiveness" with a first female head of a state.

~Nato not NATO

3:27 PM  
Blogger ElleTeeJay said...

I'm not sure about Hiro as Prez. Secretary of State? Now that's an appointment! How could anyone say no to the guy?

1:22 PM  
Blogger DC Viking said...

Ok, maybe not Commander in Chief, but what about Sec. of Defense? He does have a sword.

11:59 AM  
Blogger ElleTeeJay said...

You realize that I am really fighting my inner geek by not filling an entire cabinet with "Heroes" characters, right?

1:39 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home