As everyone here knows, Hillary hasn't generated much enthusiasm, if any, in communities like this one. The reasons, likewise, are familiar to all of us: she is too cautious, too measured, too calculating, and too late to the party in opposing the war plans of George Bush. But maybe, just maybe, she could significantly turn this situation completely around, by taking the lead and winning the fight to stop the attack on Iran. (Keep reading below the fold, and I'll tell you why this might work.)
Just now, she is hearing an earfull of Iraq everywhere she goes. She must be frustrated no end by the endless questions about her initial vote authorizing the use of force against Iraq, and her agonizing delay in changing her views on the war (if not on the wisdom of her vote). As one of her questioners said in New Hampshire last week (I paraphrase), no one can even hear her on any other issue, because of the sheer power of the Iraq war to wipe everything else from our minds, and the overwhelming sense that that vote was, indeed, a mistake.
Now here's an interesting idea: suppose Hillary were to lead the charge in the Senate to stop the attack on Iran that Bush and his henchmen are planning? What if she started making speech after speech about this issue, until the Senate had to act on it? What if she attacked the Repulicans on this issue, every day? Wouldn't that change your mind about her? Wouldn't that make you sit up and take notice, and maybe even come over and support her campaign? I know it would do for me.
There can be no doubt that the attack is coming. You can see the signs in the rhetoric that they're putting out. The plans have been drawn up. Reports about them have started to show up in the blogs, and soon will hit the mainstream news. Very soon, if Congress does not take action, it will begin.
Menawhile, Hillary has already spoken out on the issue quite clearly, saying that the President must come to Congress for authority to attack Iran, if that's what he seeks to do. But one speech will not be enough to stop a madman like Bush. Forceful action is needed. And none of the other candidates, save Wes Clark, seems to be willing to make an issue out of Iran. (Yes, I know, Edwards has spoken on Iran as well, but not very forcefully, and in any case he doesn't now have any power to take that forceful action, however much he might want to.) She is uniquely positioned to take advantage of the situation by forcing action in the Senate on this issue. She has the biggest megaphone in the nation. She has the right position on the issue, more or less. She could really make a difference here.
I'm thinking that maybe she could also do herself some good on the campaign trail, if she had the courage to stand up and fight for this. She could show that she has the capacity to lead the nation on an issue of vital importance. She could show that she's able to fight for something she believes is right. She could show that she's learned at least some kind of lesson from the disastrous Iraq vote. She could maybe even show that she has the capacity to be an inspiring leader, the kind that America is aching for.
So, what say you? Would you warm up to Hillary, if she stopped the attack on Iran?