Alright, finals are done with. I dominated them all and can consider my first semester of College a resounding success. Now that the busiest time of my year is over with, I can return here full-time. I’ve missed you, Dear Reader, and I’ve missed thinking inside the box — which is outside your box, and inside a box. Not to be confused with “the box” or bunker Mike Huckabee accuses Bush of operating in.
Mike Huckabee, who has joked about his lack of foreign policy experience, is criticizing the Bush administration’s efforts, denouncing a go-it-alone “arrogant bunker mentality” and questioning decisions on Iraq.
Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor now running for the Republican presidential nomination, lays out a policy plan that is long on optimism but short on details in the January-February issue of the journal Foreign Affairs, which is published by the Council on Foreign Relations. A copy of his article was released Friday.
“American foreign policy needs to change its tone and attitude, open up, and reach out,” Huckabee said. “The Bush administration’s arrogant bunker mentality has been counterproductive at home and abroad. My administration will recognize that the United States’ main fight today does not pit us against the world but pits the world against the terrorists.”
In one specific criticism, Huckabee said Bush did not send enough troops to invade Iraq. And he accused the president of marginalizing Gen. Eric Shinseki, the Army chief of staff, who said at the outset of the war that it might take several hundred thousand U.S. troops to control Iraq after the invasion. “I would have met with Shinseki privately and carefully weighed his advice,” Huckabee said.
Well, he’s right, isn’t he? I’m not a fan of Huckabee but I think he’s a perfect choice, politically, for Vice President on the Republican ticket and I don’t think he’s the monster some people might want to believe. I’m much more “comfortable” with the thought of Mike Huckabee than Mitt Romney, John McCain or, especially, Rudy Giuliani. (Who would’ve guessed that someone — in this case, Giuliani — would supplant McCain as my least-favorite Republican?) He’s said some ridiculous things, notably on AIDS, and I would never consider voting for him, but he isn’t so bad as most Republicans.
In another case of me declaring someone being “right” even if it causes a little controversy, allow me to praise Mr. Bill Clinton and pardon me if I “parse” him at the same time for these remarks he made in an interview recently.
In a hard-changing interview with Charlie Rose tonight, Bill Clinton said Americans who are prepared to choose someone with less experience, are prepared to “roll the dice” about the future of America. “It’s less predictable, isn’t it? When is the last time we elected a president based on one year of service before he’s running?”
“What do you want to do — whether you think it matters that, I mean, in theory, no experience matters,” Clinton said. “In theory, we could find someone who is a gifted television commentators and let them run. They’d have only one year less experience in national politics…”
And Clinton said the notion that experience led the politicians to sanction the Iraq War is “absurd.”
“That’s like saying that because 100% of the malpractice cases are committed by doctors, the next time I need surgery, I’ll get a chef or a plumber to do it.”
Towards the end of the interview, Rose indicated that Clinton’s staff was asking producers in his show’s control room to get them to have Rose end the interview.
And Clinton said: “Somebody will parse this interview…” to take his quotes out of context. “It is stupid… I think we are fortunate in having people..I think the relevant question from me is, who will be the best president who has a proven record of making change in the lives of other people.”
They may parse his body language. Toward the end of the interview, his hands began to shake and his face reddened as he discussed the political thicket his wife finds herself in.
First of all, Hillary Clinton has much less legislative and elected experience than Barack Obama, so it is dishonest as hell for Clinton to criticize Barack in such a manner. Second, his criticisms sound like those that could’ve been made against him in 1992 (but then again, he wasn’t a particularly great President either). Third, he should be ashamed of himself for allowing his wife’s “staff” to curb the interview. He either believes in what he’s saying when he agrees to do an interview or he doesn’t; his bullies should stay out of it.
That said, he said a little more about the political realities in this campaign and I thought it was a very interesting analysis. Here’s the “rough” transcription:
“Really, really interesting, that I’ve heard Sen. Obama a dozen times making some fairly derisive comment about Hillary…saying, you know, she had a decades old plan to be president…repeating this total canard that…totally fabricated account from an anti-Hillary book…as if it was something bad that he didn’t have a decades-long president…so on their website they put reports that he had been planning to run for president…and they put this thing when he was in kindergarten that he planned to run for president..but the Obama people got the press on their side…”
Rose asked Clinton whether he was nervous about the state of the campaign.
“Well, no. Let me back up. In January, when on New Years Day, she said she was finally going to try and do this… I said I’ll make you a prediction…allt he press will say you will coast to the nomination….I think you will have a difficult time getting nominated, and if you are nominated, you’ll win the general election handily…..[HRC asked why]…you’ll have to run in Iowa, which is the single most difficult state…but Sen. Edwards has a well-earned, huge cadre of support in Iowa because he’s worked it for seven years…Sen. Obama is next door, that matters.
Rose: “You think that’s the reason for the polls…”"
Clinton: “On Edwards, there is no doubt…So, look I’ve done this before. When I lost in New Hampshire to Paul Tsongas, I lost the first 10 miles next to the Massachusetts border. I carried everything from 10 miles north up to the Canadian border. There are thousands of Illinois students in Iowa colleges…who have never caucused before…[insists he’s not lowering expectations.]..he’s been to 75 counties, she’s been to 50..so my view of this is that I never thought she had a big lead in Iowa…the Iowa people have been really fair to her…they’ve listened to her and they’ve given her a chance, and she might win there…and it is astonishing…from the beginning of this race, she had a lead in 36 of 38 states…and not having good luck…what has really happened…what i have been frustrated about has nothing to do with her campaign…the challenges in the polls in the moments will be overcome..I can feel in Iowa, it depends on what people think the answer is…in New Hampshire…the Republicans have been attacking her in all the debates…those attacks affect independent voters…she is not in a position to answer back what the Republicans are doing in the primary…that has not been good…”
“In Iowa, nobody wants to go negative on television, so really it’s a war underneath the radar screen and it has more to do with how the press interprets it than anything else…what broke her momentum there was the extraordinary attention given to her not very great answer on the driver’s licenses….the press should have a common set of standards…”
The particular wisdom is on Iowa. He is absolutely right about the difficulties that she will face. I don’t think he’s right that Hillary would easily win a general election — I think it’d be impossible against a real challenger. But as I’ve stated before, this is an extraordinary campaign to “call” because of the sheer volume of significant candidates with “unelectable” qualities to them. Hillary? Woman. Barack? Black. Edwards? Known loser. Giuliani? Liberal Republican. Romney? Mormon. Huckabee? “No-name”, but that’s the easiest to overcome.
Who will win the Presidency? If nothing else, this election is going to show us how “liberal” (small l) the nation is.