Gingrich predicts probable Clinton victory in 2008

Just a few days after describing her as “a serious, competent, formidable person,” Newt Gingrich has asserted that he thinks Hillary has an 80 per cent chance of winning the presidency:

Gingrich said his party does face a tough road in its quest to re-capture the White House. "I think the odds are 80 per cent that Sen. Clinton is the next president; I think she is almost certainly going to win the Democratic nomination," he said of Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-New York. "And I think unless the Republicans can find a way to represent real change for the current situation in Washington, unless they can convince the American people they represent fundamental change, I think they’ll have a very hard time. Link.

Can Hillary “out-Jesus” the GOP?

A very interesting article from Mother Jones about Hillary’s religious faith:

When Clinton first came to Washington in 1993, one of her first steps was to join a Bible study group. For the next eight years, she regularly met with a Christian "cell" whose members included Susan Baker, wife of Bush consigliere James Baker; Joanne Kemp, wife of conservative icon Jack Kemp; Eileen Bakke, wife of Dennis Bakke, a leader in the anti-union Christian management movement; and Grace Nelson, the wife of Senator Bill Nelson, a conservative Florida Democrat.

Clinton's prayer group was part of the Fellowship (or "the Family"), a network of sex-segregated cells of political, business, and military leaders dedicated to "spiritual war" on behalf of Christ, many of them recruited at the Fellowship's only public event, the annual National Prayer Breakfast. (Aside from the breakfast, the group has "made a fetish of being invisible," former Republican Senator William Armstrong has said.) The Fellowship believes that the elite win power by the will of God, who uses them for his purposes. Its mission is to help the powerful understand their role in God's plan. Link.

As a disclaimer, I must add that I don’t personally believe in Jesus or in a literal God with a Will and a Plan. On the other hand, I do see Christianity as a positive force whenever its emphasis is on brotherhood and compassion in the present world and not on soteriological superstitions regarding a future, imaginary one. Still, what a delicious irony lies here if Hillary is in fact more fervent and sincere in her faith than that sorry multitude of un-Christian Christian soldiers who despise her.

The American Conservative’s anti-Iraq War issue

Leon Hadar looks forward to the year 2010:

“The agreement reached in Bern is testimony to the willingness of all Iraqis, Arabs and Kurds, as well their neighbors in the region, to overcome deep-rooted differences,” Secretary Holbrooke said during a speech here three days ago. After expressing his gratitude to President Hillary Clinton . . . link

Paul W. Schroeder critiques the utopian optimism of neoconservatives and the inherently contradictory policy that this engendered:

The inability to locate WMD proved precisely what opponents of war had earlier contended: traditional international methods of containment, deterrence, and coercive diplomacy not only could work in the new age of terror, but in fact had worked. Iraq had no WMD because the previous decade of sanctions and pressure had effectively deterred Saddam from reviving his earlier programs. Thus, by insisting on military action, the U.S. aborted a long-established international protocol for fire prevention that had already succeeded in Iraq. It ignited a fire supposedly to counter another fire that was already effectively extinguished. Link.

Gregory Cochran makes the case for speedy troop withdrawal:

The bottom line is that we can get troops and war-fighting equipment out of Iraq rapidly and relatively safely, certainly in less than six months, probably in three. Neither the Iraqis nor the Department of Agriculture can materially interfere with withdrawal. It would be faster than that, except for complications such as evacuating contractors and completely securing or destroying advanced weaponry that we don’t want examined or copied by potential enemies. That, we need to be careful about. Fast withdrawal is safer than slow—it minimizes the slow bleed of occupation, and it avoids leaving dangerously weak forces in-country for long periods. Once we make up our mind to leave, “then ‘twere well ‘twere done quickly.” Link.

Justin Logan finds the case against Iran sorely short of evidence:

The second problem with the Iran blame game is that by and large the factions that the Iranians are accused of supporting and arming are the very same factions that control the Iraqi government. Both major Shia parties that comprise the Iraqi government have close ties to Iran, having been organized in exile there in the 1980s. Current U.S. strategy in Iraq is ostensibly based on consolidating enough support in the Iraqi government that U.S. troops can eventually leave. At the same time, the Bush administration is blaming the Iraqi government’s number-one supporter in the region for not being supportive enough. Link.

10 Reasons to Vote for Hillary Clinton for President

I was going to make my own list of 10, but I found that Hillary’s official site already has one:

1. To end the war in Iraq.

2. To achieve universal, affordable healthcare.

3. To create good jobs for middle-class Americans with the right investments in modern infrastructure and in new clean, energy-efficient technologies that reduce our dependence on foreign oil and combat global warming.

4. To provide world-class education, from universal pre-kindergarten to affordable college for all.

5. To promote 21st Century scientific innovation, including stem cell research.

6. To return to fiscal responsibility, move back toward a balanced budget, and safeguard Social Security and Medicare for future generations.

7. To restore competence and end cronyism in government, with a president who cares about and works for Americans who have been invisible to this administration.

8. To combat terrorism, strengthen our military, and care for our veterans.

9. To restore America's standing in the world and repair our alliances.

10. To build a more tolerant, united America, working to achieve big goals again, with a president who's ready for change and ready to lead from day one.

My only complaint about the list above is that they missed out the number one reason:

To protect human rights and individual liberties

Vast right wing conspirators having second thoughts

From the New York Times:

Christopher Ruddy, who once worked full-time for Mr. Scaife investigating the Clintons and now runs a conservative online publication he co-owns with Mr. Scaife, said, “Both of us have had a rethinking.”

“Clinton wasn’t such a bad president,” Mr. Ruddy said. “In fact, he was a pretty good president in a lot of ways, and Dick feels that way today.” Link.

Why this blog?

I like George W. Bush. I supported the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and I supported Bush against John Kerry, but Bush’s second term has been enormously disappointing. He seems to have wandered out of his depth. He has not provided convincing leadership-- especially on human rights issues. He doesn’t even seem to have a basic grasp of why it is that people think human rights are important. It’s hard to imagine that either Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton would have failed to take decisive action after Abu Ghraib, would have let the Guantanamo Bay fiasco drag on and on as it has, or would have allowed the nation’s military to get so thoroughly bogged down in Iraq at such enormous risk and expense.

But Bush isn’t the real problem. Bush himself is relatively moderate. Unfortunately, with the exception of John McCain, those Republicans who are seeking to replace Bush are way off to his right. Abuses that have arisen because of Bush’s limited competence seem destined to be deliberately intensified and expanded if he is succeeded by another Republican. Mitt Romney’s remark that “we ought to double Guantanamo” captures perfectly the general attitude of the Republican contenders.

America can’t afford a new wave of ideologically blinkered right-wing zealots who have the mindset of being at war with the rest of the world. Hillary is the moderate alternative: intelligent, mainstream and predictable. Hillary is about as radical as a jar of peanut butter. America needs a return to the traditional American values that conservatives are so fond of -- the values enshrined in the Constitution —and Hillary is the candidate most likely to bring that about.

This blog is not intended to promote Hillary the person—I have no idea what the woman is really like—but to promote Hillary the candidate. I reserve the right to criticize her views on occasion, and even to change my mind and endorse a different candidate if changing circumstances warrant it (although I don’t think that’s likely to happen), but it’s becoming more and more obvious to me that Hillary is the only person in the field who can be trusted to restore America’s moral high ground. Look at the alternatives: do we really need the unpredictability of a loose cannon like Rudy Giuliani or Barak Obama in the Oval office? I think not.