Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
I've said many times she should have known better. I don't think she had any mal intent, but the risk of it causing a future issue was clear.
Most Dems won't hold it against her because they see the net value of her leadership. The way things are going a lot of Republicans are taking a similar position. The number of conservative papers and prominent figures endorsing her is astounding.
|
"the net value of her leadership"
She voted for the Iraq war, in her own words, "with conviction".
Then, when General Petreus pitched the idea of the Surge, she said that to believe the Surge would do what he claimed, "requires the willful suspension of disbelief". Those were her exact words. In other words, she accused the man of lying. And of course, the Surge did exactly what they hoped it would do.
As Secstate, she inherited a stable Iraq. When she resigned, it was in chaos.
Net value? It's debatable...and a serial liar, to boot. But if the election were today, I think it would be an electoral landslide for her.
"The number of conservative papers and prominent figures endorsing her is astounding"
And do you know why that is? Because people on my side are way more capable than people on your side, of being critical of fellow Republicans. On your side, all that matters is protecting anyone with a D after their last name. Her disapproval ratings are astronomical also, but you don't see liberals breaking ranks.