Why not Hillary?
Let me say, once again, that I will vote for Hillary as the nominee, that I think she probably will be, and that she will be a far better president than any Republican nominee. But this is about why I worry that she will not be a very good president. Less bad is not the same as good.
It goes back to the Iraq vote. I recently read that it is sexist to hold that against Hillary, since Kerry also voted for it, as did many others including a large number of males. But, in a way, that's the problem.
It's not my view that Hillary is a warmonger. Clearly, Hillary's vote was not the deciding vote. We cannot know how she would have voted had it been. Indeed as I recall it, the majority of the country supported action against Iraq; I believe Hillary and John Kerry were voting as the majority of their constituents would have had them vote. But, in a way, that's the problem.
It was a calculated position that minimized her (and his) opposition at the time. But it has harmed them both in the longer run, and especially Hillary, since she is running for the highest office at a time when the error is far more clear than it was in 2004.
That's what bothers me: shortsightedness. Calculation and devious statecraft are regrettable necessities in a president, and Hillary can be calculating and devious, and thinks in terms of statecraft. Good. But will her lack of foresight get us into even deeper mud than a principled position would do? Her record suggests to me that it probably would.
= new reply since forum marked as read
