Is this about leading your troops, or leading your party?

Taranto has a piece from Friday about Hillary Clinton's proposal to repeal the legislation that origiginally authorized President Bush to go to war in Iraq. He says it better than I could.

So let's see. Mrs. Clinton supported the war when it was popular, then changed her position after public opinion shifted. She is now pretending Congress can put the toothpaste back into the tube by "repealing" the authority for an intervention that has already occurred. The legislation she is proposing has little chance of passing, since significant Republican support would be needed to override a veto. If it did pass, no one has any clue what practical effect it would have. It would be left to federal judges to sort that out.

Mrs. Clinton is seeking the presidency, so maybe the idea here is to make the job easier by delegating her commander-in-chief duties to Justice Anthony Kennedy. It's hard to see how the Times can keep a straight face while calling this "leadership," though."

One of our local bloggers from the other side of the aisle agrees with Senator Clinton. Shane at Netroots says: "I hope that the Democrat’s finally get it though. I hope that they get that the 30% that still support Bush and his pathetic war are never going to vote for a Democrat anyway. Ever. Listen to your base and be sensible. Don’t loose [sic] the 70% to try and gain the 30%. "

Wait a minute. I thought this was about the troops? Do you mean this is all about trying to shore up your base to win the Presidency? It's just a cynical maneuver for political purposes?

Oh, for shame.


Anonymous said...

Speaking of Leadership & Blogging...

Did you see the Fox News piece on the Military Blog Conference?

Learn more at Black Five

Allan said...

I suppose it's possible that I'm the exception that proves the rule, but I'm amused to note that in my case Shane couldn't be more wrong.