I've taken it upon myself to stir the pot regarding all things Hillary, not because I'm a hater (I'm not!); but because the 'traditional media's frame (with POLLS and POLLS and POLLS to support it) is that HILLARY'S NOMINATION IS ALL BUT INEVITABLE... NOT!!
The bloviating of Rove doesn't help, but even without Karlypoo the wind of the corporate so-called journalists blows strong, and doesn't help the democratic process (which needs time to winnow through the candidates and their positions to see what's actually wheat and what's chaff.)
More below:
(please stay calm everyone) HRC's speech to vets in Kansas City contains the following words(these are her very own words):
"We've begun to change tactics in Iraq, and in some areas, particularly in Al Anbar province, it's working.
We're just years too late changing our tactics. We can't ever let that happen again. We can't be fighting the last war. We have to be preparing to fight the new war.
And this new war requires different tactics and strategies. "
(Calmly now) Would anyone disagree that Hillary's position on the war is in alignment with the president's? She accepts the Iraq war and the frame that Bush has waged it with, right? She's not ashamed of that, so I hope her supporters aren't either. If they are uncomfortable with that position, perhaps their image of her doesn't jibe with her image of herself.
(Am I hating yet?)
So her words seem to indicate that she agrees with the need for the nation to wage this war, she accepts the administrations' strategic view of it; its just that the tactics have been wrong. But now that we're changing tactics, the change is working. This would seem to indicate the infamous "surge". So she's saying that the "surge" is working.
To quote Frank Dwyer at the Huffington Post::
What does Hillary mean by "working"? How is the surge working? What is it accomplishing? What is it meant to accomplish? What, in the war gospel according to Hillary, is the goal of the surge? Is it the same goal she had in mind when she voted to allow Bush to go to war in Iraq if he wanted to? Is her only regret now that our "tactics" were flawed, i. e., we did not send enough Americans to accomplish whatever the Bush/Clinton goal is right from start?
He goes on to say that while he was previously thinking of voting for HRC, after this speech he feels that he cannot. As a progressive, I agree.
Can we have a civil discussion?
Peace out.