As this Chicago Tribune report makes clear, the only substantive foreign policy act Hillary took as first lady was to give a speech standing up for women’s rights in China.
And yet, without the slightest chagrin, she criticizes Obama’s foreign policy experience as coming down to just “a speech he gave in 2002.”
I take nothing away from either speech, the relative merits I’ll leave for readers to weigh. But the truth is they’re both lightweights. And if this campaign is all about “national security” in any traditional sense McCain’s could cruise to victory.
To think that Clinton’s somehow “cleared the bar” vis a vis McCain because she’s got some Pentagon generals on her speed dial, and that she would be able to pivot the focus of a general election to, say, health care, is a Mark Penn fantasy — the same fantasy that sent Democrats crashing to defeat in 2004 and the 2002 midterms before that.
Listen: Hillary is John Kerry on the war. She was for it before she was against it. And she’s pulled an inverse Kerry on the surge: She was against it before she got cozy Brookings hawk Michael O’Hanlon and has seemed to embrace it.
After her fratricidal attacks this week, I’m finding it hard not to wonder if Clinton’s new strategy isn’t to damage the (virtually) inevitable nominee Obama so severely as to help propel McCain to a single term — giving Hillaryland and the “White Boys” one last shot at the White House in 2012, when the incumbent Republican will be … 76.