http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/15/washington/15clinton.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin
She makes it so easy. Like de Gaulle was the face of France, St Hill personifies the humanist empire.
[Clinton] said... that there were “remaining vital national security interests in Iraq” that would require a continuing deployment of American troops.My prediction: such jut-jawed plain speak is veep talk. But she'll never play Lieberman on Gore's next ticket.The United States’ security would be undermined if parts of Iraq turned into a failed state “that serves as a petri dish for insurgents and Al Qaeda,” she said. “It is right in the heart of the oil region,” she said. “It is directly in opposition to our interests, to the interests of regimes, to Israel’s interests.”
“So it will be up to me to try to figure out how to protect those national security interests and continue to take our troops out of this urban warfare, which I think is a loser,” Mrs. Clinton added. She declined to estimate the number of American troops she would keep in Iraq, saying she would draw on the advice of military officers.
Will the polls show a howl of disapproval from her base? Right now she has a gender gap on Oby -- they are close with males, but she's got 10 points on the cocoa Chihuahua among Dem gals.
This relentless iron-maiden act -- are the girls gonna go for that?
