Those who remember the issues that allowed a young upstart from Illinois to outpace the Clinton machine way, way back in 2007 might recall that war was a chief concern. Specifically, Hillary’s refusal to apologize for her vote on the authorization was a lightening rod around which activist gathered before many of them knew who Obama was.
But, Hillary has nothing to do with Syria. She’s not Secretary of State. She’s not involved.
I know. Please, bear with me.
The polling on a conflict with Syria is rather clear. Americans don’t like the idea.
Senator Rand Paul, who is considering whether or not he will consider to consider a run in 2016 clearly knows how to consider a poll. His statement released today calling for a dialogue sets the stage for an, ‘I told you so,’ a little ways down the road.
Remember, there are no good options on Syria. The likelihood that things will go badly, no matter what, is rather high.
Another reminder, young people like to think of themselves as Libertarian, like Rand Paul.
As a very recent former Secretary of State, I believe Hillary has no choice but to agree with the administration’s stance or hold a strategic silence. Both positions allow an opening for someone like Rand Paul to exploit. He can always claim to have voiced opposition first.
I notice a bragging around these parts that our coalition of young people, women and minorities can beat all the old folks Republicans can muster in a National election.
My question is, and I really don’t know the answer, can a coalition of women and minorities beat a coalition of young people entranced by Libertarianism and expressing an anti-war stance with their vote, and all the old people Republicans can muster?
Because if things go badly in Syria (and they likely will), Rand Paul has a shot of putting that coalition together.