This is so damn sad, but my gawd can markos and dailykos please stop regurgitating Republican anti-Hillary spin? It's been coming hot and heavy lately, from kos himself today, a day before from Devilstower, and a few days before that from kos again.
Let's go over the basic anti-Hillary 'argument' again:
Was she really cynically playing with American lives back in 2002, doing anything to get elected even when it meant backing authorization of force in Iraq, all the while knowing Bush's case was built on a pack of lies? Shouldn't it be obvious to all that now, after all these years, she should come clean and admit her cynical, almost criminal motives back then, admit she was sending young Americans to their deaths knowing there weren't any WMDs, knowing that Iraq was no threat to its region or the US?
Why isn't it obvious to Hillary that it's time for her to come clean on her consultant-driven heart of darkness? It's obvious what she is to us here at dailykos, and to mainstream pundits and our cable TV friends like Chris Matthews and Don Imus. Why does she continue to resist what 'we' all 'know', that she's a cold-hearted, uncaring, driven woman who cares only about one thing, getting herself elected President? Why can't she just admit that, doesn't she know that then we'll all turn around and be real nice to her?
On the other hand . . . another way of looking at this Hillary hammering is that it is really sad, especially here. The corporate media will very likely kill off Hillary, and dailykos will have helped them do so.
Then they'll come hunting for Edwards and/or Obama. They'll be spun, very effectively I think, as lightweights in a very heavy world. Just like they killed off Gore in the run-up to 2004, which left a big hole in the Democratic field that was filled with weaker candidates.
What I ask for, at least here at dailykos, is that Hillary be given a legitimate chance to make her case for the presidency, based on her actual positions and background. I'm just asking for a fair fight, based on what people have actually said, and not on MSM propaganda and its 'reality' (and on real issues not this bogus, tempest in a tea cup one), on this explicitly Democratic Party backing site. Why will that seem like too much to ask, to many of you?
After all, it's very early: she might turn out to be the best and most electable of our set of admittedly all DLC-type candidates, when 2008 comes around.
Finally, about what Edwards has admitted to . . .
Has he really 'admitted' that he voted for the war resolution even though he thought it was a bad idea at the time? And that, by implication, every time for several years after that, when he repeatedly said he did not regret his vote, that he now admits that every time he did that he was lying?
Why does such an admission make many of you like and respect him more?
Because that seems to be what markos et al here are asking of Hillary: that she 'admit' that she voted for the war resolution even though she thought it was a bad idea at the time. And that she 'admit' that every time she has defended the vote -- because it was made in the real world where we don't have benefit of hindsight -- that every time she did that she was lying.
This is why many of us think this 'admit you were wrong' demand is an obvious Republican Spin Machine trap question. Damned is Hillary whatever she answers. Even on, especially on, dailykos. Sad.