23 March 2006

Hillary's Gamble

Apparently Hillary is intent on predicating her run for the Presidency in 2008 as a 'pro strong defense' democrat (last seen in 1960), for she has, for over a year now, publicly and purposefully refused to become the spokesperson/standard bearer for the anti-war, anti-patriot act LEFT, despite countless opportunities to do so, and despite it's size multiplying two to threefold. Most curious indeed.

Having observed her for over two decades now, and having developed my own personal assessment of her private and public selves (which are 95% the same), the only logical explanation I can surmise is that Hillary must believe that during the election season of 2008, the american electorate will be very much wanting a 'pro-military' 'hawk' from column B to preside over the government. A government presumably still under the artificial construct of being "at war", or possibly under the proper construct, complete with congressional declaration?

Such dispositions on the part of the majority of the electorate will not be possible if current trends continue. Therefore Hillary must be gambling that the continuing erosion of public support for overseas military actions will reverse itself and return to it's 2002 / 2003 proportions.

The only things I can think of that might possibly cause such changes in public opinion by 2008, would be another attack on U.S. assets within it's borders, or another war in the middle east, presumably begun with a large attack on U.S. (or Israeli) forces in the area. And never discount the possibility that the Israelis will grow impatient and force the issue themselves with an attack on Iran.

I do not see how Hillary could change her mind and go "Dove", as it would be out of character for her, and very risky. But so is her current strategy (now six years old). In that light, Hillary's presidential prospects rest upon one question "Will the U.S. be attacked again and/or will U.S. military forces be engaged in another "war" in the Middle East (or possibly elsewhere) ?

And, ever the cynic, as Hillary continues to try to emulate Thatcher and deny her McGovern-ness, I have to wonder "Does she know something we don't?"

stephenhsmith 23mar2006