Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« She's Back! | Weekly Staffer Leaves »

Wednesday, August 8, 2007

The Kiss of Death?

posted by on August 8 at 11:40 AM

The king of the neocons, Bill Kristol, has decided that Hillary Clinton would make a good president:

Hillary Clinton is becoming the responsible Democrat who could become commander in chief in a post-9/11 world.

A sincere effort at flattery? A Machiavellian move to sink her campaign? Theories abound, and a good roundup of them can be found here.

RSS icon Comments


of course he is for her... someone will have to be president when the draft returns...

Posted by Phenics | August 8, 2007 11:54 AM

Nothing Machiavellian about it. Kristol is simply stating fact.

Posted by raindrop | August 8, 2007 11:54 AM

Conservatives think Hillary will be the
easiest Dem to beat in 2008 and will
support her until the day the nomination is secured. Rather like the Stranger endorsing Bush over McCain in the 2000
primaries. Hope Kristol's endorsement works out as well as that one!

Posted by butterw | August 8, 2007 11:59 AM

@3 yeah sure, Hillary will be easy to beat, I hope they keep telling themselves that and keep giving their endorsement... from my seat it looks more like punt a sucky team makes to avoid actually having to run their own plays. An HRC ticket is the one ticket dems will not defect from.

Posted by Phenics | August 8, 2007 12:08 PM

With the group the Rs have running they need a reason to show up at the polls. Plenty of Rs who wouldn't show up to vote would make to trip to vote against HRC.

I'm guessing that that is his logic. That asshat wouldn't endorse her otherwise.

Posted by monkey | August 8, 2007 12:35 PM

Agreed with Monkey. The fundies who might otherwise not vote (as the Rep. winner will not be to their liking) will come out to vote against her; many "independents" will also vote against her because they don't like her. Especially if Guiliani gets it. Hillary is the Republicans' best chance.

Posted by Dianna | August 8, 2007 12:41 PM

The fundies are going to do the same if Obama or Edwards or anybody else wins the Nomination.

Maybe they want Hillary to win because it's the only way the GOP isn't going to completely implode i.e. 90s GOP snark rebirth in 2009.

Posted by matthew fisher wilder | August 8, 2007 12:45 PM

Kristol is 100% partisan hack. @3 is right: If he's advocating for Hillary, it's because he suspects that she will be the easiest candidate for the Republicans to defeat. (He may be wrong, but that is almost certainly what he believes.)

Posted by tsm | August 8, 2007 12:48 PM

Technically Bill is the Prince of Neocons. His dad is the King.

Posted by DOUG. | August 8, 2007 1:26 PM

I thought Satan called Bill Kristol and Traitor Bob Novak home?

Posted by Will in Seattle | August 8, 2007 2:24 PM

Nothing major here. Clinton, Bill, is the most responsible of the current crop of losers the Democrats are putting out there.

Posted by swatter | August 8, 2007 2:26 PM

Okay, this is Bill fucking Kristol we're talking about here. If he thinks HRC will be the easiest to beat, that means that if we nominate her, she'll be an unstoppable juggernaut that will crush the GOP into a dust so fine it'll be undetectable without an electron scanning microscope. Why? Because like all neo-cons, Bill Kristol is wrong about absolutely everything.

Posted by Gitai | August 8, 2007 3:08 PM

"There's been a certain amount of pop sociology in America ... that the Shia can't get along with the Sunni and the Shia in Iraq just want to establish some kind of Islamic fundamentalist regime. There's almost no evidence of that at all. Iraq's always been very secular."

--BIll Kristol, 2003

What a genius.

Posted by DOUG. | August 8, 2007 3:17 PM

Well, Iraq *was* more secular than most of the Arab world. One reason is that they didn't have a sectarian government that organized power according to religious identity, and the government had a secular ideology and waged war on religious radicals. Now, thanks to us, they have a government of sectarians dedicated to killing each other.

The smart policy would have been to continue with the policy of Oil for Food, which despite its mismanagement finally ended the sanctions-related deaths that were common after the 1991 US invasion while still containing Iraq's military ambitions. Then continue to isolate Saddam, while promising redevelopment aid for an Iraqi government ruled by someone else. Iraq would have remained secular, though politically repressive, but there would have been an opening for long-term peaceful reform. The oil wells would have been kept pumping, too.

I still think the administration knew there were no WMD all along, and their fear was that the inspections would prove that, leading to an end of UN resolutions against Iraq and the associated US bombing and sanctions campaign. So they had to start a war before the WMD inspections could be completed.

Posted by Cascadian | August 8, 2007 5:10 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).