McCaskill's Anti-War Dilemma
The NYTimes ran a story today on Hillary Clinton and how the rabid anti-war core that controls her and McCaskill's party want Clinton's head on a stick unless she publicly proclaims that she was wrong to vote for war with Iraq. John Kerry's former senior adviser provides McCaskill a glimpse into what the demand from today's Democratic party will be related to Iraq with this statement addressing Clinton's vote for war with Iraq:
said Robert M. Shrum, a senior adviser to Mr. Kerry in 2004. “I think there’s this tremendous desire in her campaign not to get into a position where you’re identified with traditional Democratic views. But this is now a party that is strongly antiwar.......................
NYT Link
A hard-core anti-war agenda defines today's Democratic party and it grows daily, confirmed from the 2004 Dem candidates own senior advisor. Not a good tent for a blue dog Democrat from a moderate Midwestern state like McCaskill to be in one would think, regardless of public polls on Iraq. If the anti-war agenda reaches the point of the Dem controlled Congress promoting voting to cut-off funding for the troops (and such a strategy is in the works), that will be a very bad place for McCaskill to find herself in politically. To stay a "true" blue dog she could not vote for such a measure. If she remains a blue dog and votes against such a measure then the rabid anti-war radicals who control her party will come after her just like they are coming after Clinton right now for her vote....................
Her vote on this non-binding resolution today related to increasing troops in Iraq was easy for McCaskill. The future votes McCaskill will be asked to vote for to maintain her parties anti-war position, will become much more difficult for her politically back home................................
said Robert M. Shrum, a senior adviser to Mr. Kerry in 2004. “I think there’s this tremendous desire in her campaign not to get into a position where you’re identified with traditional Democratic views. But this is now a party that is strongly antiwar.......................
NYT Link
A hard-core anti-war agenda defines today's Democratic party and it grows daily, confirmed from the 2004 Dem candidates own senior advisor. Not a good tent for a blue dog Democrat from a moderate Midwestern state like McCaskill to be in one would think, regardless of public polls on Iraq. If the anti-war agenda reaches the point of the Dem controlled Congress promoting voting to cut-off funding for the troops (and such a strategy is in the works), that will be a very bad place for McCaskill to find herself in politically. To stay a "true" blue dog she could not vote for such a measure. If she remains a blue dog and votes against such a measure then the rabid anti-war radicals who control her party will come after her just like they are coming after Clinton right now for her vote....................
Her vote on this non-binding resolution today related to increasing troops in Iraq was easy for McCaskill. The future votes McCaskill will be asked to vote for to maintain her parties anti-war position, will become much more difficult for her politically back home................................
posted by Steve at 5:19 PM
