- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Nor am I big fan of nominating Northeastern senators for president. In the entire history of this country, we've only elected two sitting senators to the presidency.
The Democrats have been handed a golden opportunity. The Republicans have already trashed their own platform on fiscal conservancy and ethics (Ney, Cunningham, Foley, anyone?) If the Democrats run a candidate who is strong on national security (such as Richardson or Clark), it puts the Republicans on the defensive and only allows them social conservatism as their unquestioned plank. Fine.
As a woman and in wartime, Hillary is going to be forced to become more of a hawk. She won't be able to help it, all of the stupid questions will be about her fitness to serve as Commander-in-Chief. Assuming she has any progressive plans, they'll get drowned out in the dialogue. Plus, all of the marvelous anti-Clinton drivel will resurface AGAIN and we'll get to hear about it all over AGAIN. Can't we get some fresh drivel for a change?
I really wish Senator Clinton had decided to stay in the Senate and serve as Majority Leader.
