July 7, 2008 -
July 14, 2008 • Vol. 13, No. 41 Download Now! (pdf)

 

EDITORIAL
An Indecent Decision
by Matthew Continetti

SCRAPBOOK
Buckminster Fuller, Justice Anthony Kennedy

ARTICLES
Closing the Enthusiasm Gap
by Stephen F. Hayes

Very Retiring Republicans
by Fred Barnes

McCain, Obama, & the Catholic Vote
by Ryan T. Anderson

History's Fall Guys
by Dean Barnett

Shaken and Stirred Up
by Reuben F. Johnson

A Heaping Bowl of Mush
by Philip Terzian

Laughter at the Supreme Court
by Lee Ross

FEATURES
L'Affaire Enderlin
by Anne-Elisabeth Moutet

BOOKS & ARTS
Talking Politics
by Christopher Hitchens

Isn't That Special?
by Andrew Roberts

Boris the Good
by Andrew Nagorski

After the Fox
by Edward Short

Unholy Thoughts
by Stefan Beck

Speak the Speech
by Judy Bachrach

Rhymers' Dictionary
by John Simon

Keeping Score
by James M. Banner Jr.

Here's My Plan
by Matthew Continetti

Identity Theft
by Edith Alston

Cops on the Case
by Jon L. Breen

CASUAL
Lost in the Personasphere
by Andrew Ferguson

PARODY
Fred Flintstone wins McCain's eco-challenge


« Albright and Wolfowitz, Two Peas in a Pod | Main | Will Porter Goss Remain Silent? »

(Update) Hillary's Iran Dilemma

(Markos Moulitsas, founder of the liberal blog Daily Kos, is an example of why Senator Clinton may not have an easy run to the nomination. His piece in yesterday's Washington Post is also a reason Democrats would have been better off nominating Howard Dean in 2004. The ensuing electoral blowout would have thoroughly discredited the McGovern resurgence that has since gained momentum in the Democratic Party. Now Hillary faces a dilemma on the road to the White House.)

Posted on April 13, 2006:

The fact that the Democratic Party's base is firmly against the Iraq war has put its leading presidential candidate in a tough spot on Iran. Will Senator Clinton continue to embrace a hawkish position on Iran or adopt a softer line? She voted for the Iraq war but, unlike Kerry and Edwards, hasn't abandoned (so far, at least) her position in support of the war -- support that has brought her withering criticism from the Left. Will she defy the anti-war base again on Iran?

Last September, the senator stated, “a nuclear-armed Iran would shake the foundations of global security to its very core.” But she hasn't said much since, except to say that Bush should take the nuclear option "off the table" in reaction to Seymour Hersh's over-the-top New Yorker piece. Presumably she stands by her September position and would support the use of force should it be necessary to prevent a "nuclear-armed Iran" that would "shake the foundations of global security to its very core." But it's extremely doubtful that Democrats who oppose the Iraq war agree with Hillary's current position on Iran. They'd support sanctions but would rather live with a nuclear-armed Iran than with what they believe would be the consequences of an attack. This is probably why Hillary Clinton has been so quiet on Iran lately.

Since her election, Hillary has positioned herself as a Scoop Jackson Democrat on many national security issues. But Scoop didn't win the Democratic presidential nomination in 1972; McGovern did. It's not clear today that Democratic activists have learned the lesson of McGovern, which is why Sen. Clinton faces a dilemma on Iran and why her road to the Democratic nomination won't be smooth sailing.

Email the article (Update) Hillary's Iran Dilemma to a friend:

Send this article to:


Your email address:


Message (optional):


 
Contributors
Editor:
Michael Goldfarb

Contributors:
Dean Barnett
Jennifer Chou
Brian Faughnan
Ulf Gartzke
Reuben F. Johnson
Thomas Joscelyn
Stuart Koehl
John Noonan
Bill Roggio
Samantha Sault
Search
Archives
Contact
wws@weeklystandard.com
Categories
Feeds: Atom | RSS
[What is this?]
Powered by
Movable Type 3.2