Like Chris at Political Forecast, I was surprised to hear that Tom Vilsack is planning on endorsing Hillary Clinton this early. Vilsack ran his short Presidential campaign being outspoken against the Iraq War, calling for the withdrawl of troops out of Iraq, opposing Bush's attempt to escalate the war with a troop surge, and even ending funding for the war.
This is nearly the opposite of what Hillary Clinton has pushed for in her position in the Senate. It is well known that Clinton voted for the war in the first place, unlike John Edwards she is unwilling to admit that her vote was a mistake, and she supports keeping troops in Iraq in definitely.
From MyDD...
In outlining how she would handle Iraq as commander-in-chief, Mrs. Clinton articulated a more nuanced position than the one she has provided at her campaign events, where she has backed the goal of "bringing the troops home."
She said in the interview that there were "remaining vital national security interests in Iraq" that would require a continuing deployment of American troops.
This is why I was surprised to read on iPol about a comment from a Hillary supporter at the Polk County off-year caucus...
Amanda said that she had been working for Tom Vilsack until his withdrawal from the race, but found it easy to join the Clinton campaign ... because of Hillary’s support for ending the war.The main thing that Clinton and Vilsack have in common isn't the war, it is the fact they were both leaders in the DLC, the Centrist, pro-corporate wing of the Democratic party. Hillary has no desire to get out of Iraq, except that it might help her get elected. Vilsack endorsing her makes me wonder how serious Vilsack was about his anti-war stance as a presidential candidate.
No comments:
Post a Comment