Reply #44: Unlike Bush, who is simply half-witted, Hillary's problem is

[theanarch]

being too clever by half. It doesn't take "guts" to grandstand at a Congressional hearing; a better display of courage would be to admit her support of the war was wrong AND blame BushCo. for lying U.S. into it AND for mismanaging it to boot. With all due respect, i've seen this before, during Vietnam, and remember the excruciatingly glacial slowness with which Democratic (and quite a few Republican, mostly after it became Nixon's war) politicians dragged themselves from warhawk to pro-war critic to psuedo-dove over the course of years. It was only when public opinion turned so far against the war that supporting it became politically (that is, electorally) untenable that positions--and voting patterns--changed. Hell, even Leiberman called for Dumbsfeld's resignation...and not only because Joe wants (and will soon need) the job. They're getting the same message from their constituants, and trimming their sails (and rhetoric) accordingly...so unlike, oh, i don't know, Cynthia McKinney?

Unlike many here, who seem to demand an almost saint-like behavior from their elected officials, i have no illusions about the amoral personality any ambitious politician needs to succeed in politics; i even accept that as a given. Far more important to me than "moral character" or even personal deportment is where they stand on the issues, and how consistant and outspoken they are in advancing/defending them. As Mark Twain observed, "An honest politician is one who stays bought". By that definition, Hillary and Joe sold out a very long time ago.