In a speech today at George Washington University, Hillary tried to present herself as the most capable, trustworthy option to lead the U.S. out of Iraq.
"The American people," Hillary told her audience, "don't have to guess whether I'm ready to lead or whether I understand the realities on the ground in Iraq or whether I'd be too dependent on advisers to help me determine the right way forward."
She's right. The American people won't have to guess about those things because her vote to authorize the Iraq War tells them everything they need to know.
Is there really any doubt about why she voted for the war? Like Kerry and Edwards (who have admitted their mistake), Clinton didn't want to risk looking weak. Preparing to run for the presidency someday, she had to convince the electorate that she wasn't a weak-kneed liberal. No, she was strong and would prove it by sending us into an unnecessary war, ill-conceived war. There is nothing like sending other people to die to prove how tough you are.
The irony is that had she voted against the war, she would have probably easily locked up the nomination. She also might have faired better had she just admitted she was wrong.
But that's not the kind of politician Hillary is. She likes to talk about how tough she is--how she is fighter--but when it came time to make what was really a tough decision and vote against war, she balked. And when it came time to admit the consequences of her actions, she flinched and retreated into a parsing that rivals "what the meaning of 'is,' is."
There is no doubt that Hillary is smart, even brilliant. I do believe she "understands the realities on the ground in Iraq." That's also why I believe she knew better back in 2002.
Hillary's problem is not a lack of understanding--it's that she's a coward and will sacrifice other people's lives to bolster her own image and pursuit of power.
That's what kind of leader Hillary Clinton would be as president, and I haven't seen anything from her to suggest otherwise.