Ready on Day One... NOT!

[Carolina]

by Larry Beinhart

In order to be READY ON DAY ONE ... you have to be ready a long time before that.

<<<snip>>>

Hillary Clinton entered the race with the majority of the big time connections ... huge sums of money... the most expensive and well placed operators and consultants that Democratic money could buy. The race was hers — to win or to lose... But... she didn’t have a plan.

<<<snip>>>

She had a strategy of going after the big states... imagining that the system was winner take all, like the national elections with the electoral college, and failing to understand proportional representation... the wrong strategy... that neglected reality.

Once she was under pressure, she began to behave badly. She told stories like the one about being under attack in Bosnia. She tried to cheat, insisting that the Florida and Michigan delegates be counted, even though the rules had said they couldn’t be and she hadn’t complained when the ruling was made.

She was NOT READY on DAY ONE of the CAMPAIGN... she will NOT BE READY on DAY ONE of the PRESIDENCY.

Her record in government tells us much the same thing.

<<<snip>>>

Ms. Clinton faced two big tests.

The first was health care... She did the planning in secret. Even the names of the members of the task force were kept secret, Dick Cheney style. This, rightly, offended many people in the field.
When the proposal was finally released, it was ... long and madly complex... insuring that no one could read it. Except corporations and lobbyists determined to oppose it...

<<<snip>>>

went through insurance companies... insuring that it was the most expensive method. It relied on regulations to control costs... creating maximum government bureaucracy. It pushed HMOs... Finally, she did not prepare for the industry reaction, the lobbyists and the advertising campaign against her. Hillary Clinton WAS NOT READY and she set the sensible idea of national health back by at least twenty years.

The second big test was the vote on the Iraq War. She did not read the national intelligence estimate... It was possible to figure out that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with Al Qaeda, that he didn’t have weapons of mass destruction and that the post war occupation would be a quagmire without access to “secret” government documents. But she didn’t figure that out. Neither... did her staff. She, and they, were conventional Washington insiders and accepted the conventional wisdom. When it came time to run for president, she staffed her campaign with similar people, and if she is president, we should expect them to trundle along.

She now claims that she didn’t know how George Bush would use the authorization. That shows she’s a bad judge of character. It is most likely that she voted as she did... to appear “tough on terrorism.” That is, she was afraid to take the really tough position, because her eye was on presidency, and the pose was more important than the realities.

CLINTON WAS NOT READY to do the work, and not ready to deal with reality... Someone who does not read the best available information... someone who did not have the forethought to ask about the consequences and the downside risks, is NOT READY TO BE “COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF.”

Read the rest of this damning article on HRC, and McCain also, at http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/05/22/9152/

[BlooInBloo]

1. She wasn't even ready on day 1 of the primaries for fuck's sake.

[LSparkle]

3. It doesn't matter if you're ready on Day One if you flame out by Day 100

Her campaign was in trouble by Super Tuesday ... The presidency,
like this primary season, is a MARATHON, not a sprint.

[Carolina]

6. good point

especially since she was so confident that she'd have it all wrapped up, or rather handed to her by February 5th (Super Tuesday)

[ClassWarrior]

2. She's also an executive who runs her organization under a deficit.

NGU.

[Carolina]

9. yet it's the economy, stupid

and the harpie Hilbots buy her crap!

[patrice]

4. I was just thinking how her vote on the IWR manifests her OWN reverse SEXISM.

First of all let me say that I don't think she voted for war; she voted for an at least even, 50:50, CHANCE of war. If she thought the chance was less than 50:50 against war, then that is her own delusion and why did she buy into that delusion?

Because she was planning to run for pResident and needed to show that she is "strong on Defense". Why did she pick this particular way to show that she is strong on Defense? Well, first off, it was the one that was offered to her, so she is a Reactionary, not a Leader. And second of all her assumptions about how a WOMAN shows she is strong go something like this "Women show that they are strong by doing the same things that Men do." A very common notion amongst some "Feminists" and a very Sexist notion INDEED.

The Men lead the way on the IWR and she followed, because she apparently thought the risks were worth the benefit to her political career. She shows that Women are as good as Men by doing Men one better at their own game and her own campaign has been an example of not being able to think creatively about what it means to be a Woman.

[BeatleBoot]

5. lol!

And he is?

:rofl:

Get me a shovel.

It's getting deep in here.

[Carolina]

8. Can you deny the truth of the article?!

No, so like the lemming Hilbot that you are, you twist, distort and project.

Everything about HRC's campaign and her record clearly PROVE that her 'ready on day one mantra' was crap. That she was and is all hot air and, like repukes, she adopts an MO of repeating lies until they become accepted truth.

She's despicable; and I can't wait to see New Yorkers kick her carpetbagging ass out of the Senate when she slinks back to it after the August convention.

[baldguy]

7. Don't you see? The campaign was only a formality for Clinton.

She was & still is the only logical, rational, realistic choice for the Dem nomination. And anyone who sez different is a sexist unAmerican pig.

:sarcasm:

[Carolina]

10. Exactly!