Centerfield

and typical of Republicans the misinformation gets spread like manure. Tek it out of context and treat it like the truth.

From the Clinton website
"Senator Clinton has announced that she will introduce legislation with Senator Robert Menendez to prohibit companies owned or controlled by foreign governments from purchasing port operations in the United States."

Owned or controlled by foreign governments.

There is nothing to prevent independent foreign companies from operating US ports.

McCain is scared of Clinton.

BTW, here's something to chew on.
In 1966 conventional wisdom was that Nixon would not run nor could he win if he ran for President in 1968.

here's the rest

First, we know from the work of the 9/11 Commission and other expert commissions that port security is one of our weak links. We have not funded it adequately; we have not taken it seriously. That's a particular concern to me as a senator from New York.
Secondly, we know from the press reports -- and I assume we'll get additional information from this briefing -- that the process used to review this transaction appears to be cursory at best.
A number of provisions were not required of the company. And it appears similarly that the mandatory requirement for an additional 45-day review when the entity involved is government-owned was ignored.
Thirdly, the track record of this administration on homeland security, its inadequate funding, its bureaucratic dysfunction at the Department of Homeland Security, as evidenced most tragically in Katrina, but in many other similar instances over the last four and a half years, does not create an atmosphere of confidence when looking at this particular matter.
Moreover, according to the Associated Press, this transaction was approved without many of the ordinary conditions that are placed on such investments.
The administration did not require Dubai Ports to keep copies of business records on U.S. soil where they would be subject to court orders. It did not require the company to designate an American citizen to accommodate U.S. government requests.

Gee, no paper trail, no accountability. Sounds familiar enough.

Posted by: Marcus at February 26, 2006 07:00 PM

I find all this figure-pointing to be juvenile.

I'll also add that McCain is being rather disingenuous since he's pointing out Hillary in a very crowded room. Sounds like something he and Matthews would conconct on Hardball.

I, no Bush supporter mind you, have very little to say in opposition to this deal. It all looks legit and I don't see how Congress could really STOP IT if they wanted to. What law allows them to do this? Sure they can delay for further review but beyond that I see nothing but kicking and screaming.

Posted by: John at February 26, 2006 07:41 PM

Funny how McCain only seems to pick fights with Democratic senators; methinks he got the memo about being too tough on Barak O'Bama, and decided to take on the famous white woman instead. ;-)

I think McCain's rep as "bipartisan" will get thinner and thinner as the '08 election gets closer and closer. Since he's an unknown in most circles, and the press likes him, he's gotten the field pretty much to himself. That will change with time, as this post argues.

Posted by: Blue Jean at February 26, 2006 10:14 PM

Whether the UAE is freer than China is irrelevant to our national security. There does not appear to be any threat coming from the Chinense government or its people. The UAE government may be ok, but there is no question that some UAE citizens support jihadists.

This Wilsonian rhetoric is totally wrong-headed. Democracy and freedom may be long-term solutions to terrorism, but in the short-term they increase the risk compared to a police state like China or Egypt. We need to live through the short term to get to the long term.

Matthew, I'm not greatly impressed by Hillary, but I'm becoming less enamored with McCain as he carries the administration's H20 in order to ingratiate himself with regular Republicans.

Also, of all the things we're doing in the Arab world, sticking it to the Emirs is not one of the worst. There is a lot of resentment among poor Muslims for their super-rich brethern.

Posted by: rickheller at February 26, 2006 10:30 PM

Mat you'd get cut feet for nothing. Mccain is dead in the water, he's a follower not a leader and isn't President material. Hillary is so far in front of him he might as well change his name to Bush he might stand a better chance. You might as well start thinking Democrat because thats what is coming.

Posted by: turp at February 27, 2006 12:17 AM

And the AOL people are still watching us...

Posted by: PatHMV at February 27, 2006 12:19 AM

eeek!

Posted by: Marcus at February 27, 2006 01:26 AM

Jean,

I think McCain's rep as "bipartisan" will get thinner and thinner as the '08 election gets closer and closer. Since he's an unknown in most circles, and the press likes him, he's gotten the field pretty much to himself.

I think that's probably a very fair assessment, although I suspect-- as in most elections-- we're soon going to see all the Presidential candidates running away from the center as the election approaches, or at least until they get out of the primaries. But then the question becomes do we want a leader who is generally centrist but runs to the partisans to win the election? Or do we want a leader who is generally partisan and stays with the partisans to win elections?

My thinking is that the former may potentially govern from the center once he/she is elected. The latter would seemingly have no reason to break from the partisan agenda. Of course, ideally, centrists would get a generally centrist candidate who runs to the center-- but that may not be an option. And if that's the case (as it likely will be), which one is most likely to carry the centrist standard while in office? I'm guessing it's the former.

But what do I know.

Posted by: Bobby at February 27, 2006 04:20 AM

I find it amazing that there is such outrage at the ports sale, yet the fact that the company that designs and builds our most top secret propeller systems for submarines and aircraft carriers is owned by a foreign company! Yes, the company is Rolls Royce, but that is only because they bought the previous owner of Bird-Johnson, which was a firm from Norway. Let's have congress investigate ALL foreign ownership, that should keep them busy enough to leave us alone for a decade or two.

Posted by: Brad at February 27, 2006 07:10 AM

I think McCain is the worst possible opponent for Hillary to face. She'd get her clock cleaned. McCain is charismatic and grandfatherly, and unless Hillary has changed, she'll appear strident, tense, and not very personable by comparison. McCain has the sort of obvious and long-standing independent/centrist appeal that will blunt Hillary's attempts to position herself in the the center. She'll look insincere and johnny-come-lately by comparison.

Hillarys chances rest on facing an opponent who is a socon darling. That's the kind of person she can beat.

I wonder how this South Dakota chapter will play out. IMO it's a radioactive topic for Presidential candidates, so I expect a lot of behind-the-scenes manuevering to get this off the table before the candidates are asked to make a stand.

Posted by: bk at February 27, 2006 09:07 AM

Define Irony: The fear the GOP has sown for the last 5 years to stay in power is now working against them.

The GOP answer to EVERYTHING is 9/11. Looks like the people have been listening. There has been no reason put forth by the Dems or the GOP as to why this port deal should not go through, yet the US populace is afraid of it. Who has been fanning the flames of fear the most since 9/11?

Posted by: Scott at February 27, 2006 09:15 AM

Here is a report that two Saudi suicide bombers who tried to destroy the oil facilities a few days ago come from leading Saudi families. I know Saudi clans are large, so its hard to determine how closely related this individuals are to Saudi big shots, but remember that Osama bin Laden himself hails from a very important Saudi family.

The point is that even if the UAE emirs favor us, some of their close relations support al Qaeda. This is not racism.

The fundamental question you have to ask yourself is, if the Dubai Ports company were infilitrated by Al Qaeda, would American ports be safe? If all their doing is collecting dividend checks, our ports are probably safe. But if they are getting confidential operational details about the ports, there is every reason to think they could outfox our port security officials.

Posted by: rickheller at February 27, 2006 09:21 AM

Bully to McCain. As to the charge of singling out Clinton, she's one of the few presidential candidates prominently calling to block the deal, although Frist also falls in that category.

Posted by: Scott Smith at February 27, 2006 10:40 AM

But Frist is retiring from the Senate this year, possibly anticipating running for President in 2008. Gotta take that into account.

Posted by: Tully at February 27, 2006 10:54 AM

Sure, Rick, if you think that terrorism is rocket science, and that what it takes to make a mark as a terrorist is a bunch of insider info and a bunch of islamic terrorist moles placed inside organizations that are obvious choices and which would be most likely to give potential employees a high level of scrutiny.

Let's be realistic here. If terrorists have a desire to say, bring a WMD here to the US, are they going to send it directly to the US on a boat? And if they do, will the success in doing so rely primarily on an insider port plot to get it here safely by making a conscious effort at derailing the security that's in place? Or do you just get find the smallest needle to put in the biggest and least suspicious haystack, ship the haystack, and then cross your fingers and hope?

I think it borders on absurd to think that muslim terrorist plan A, B, C or D involves infiltrating high profile international trafficking points of entry like airports and ports. Such locations are, as this dust-up proves, exactly the places most likely to arouse suspicion and make people look askance.

The fundamental question YOU and the other nellies have to ask yourself is this: EVEN IF the Dubai Ports company were somehow infilitrated by Al Qaeda, would these moles be able to change the operational procedures at ports in any way that we wouldn't immediately notice? And that's a question only people who understand the mechanics of port operations can answer.

I mean really. Are we going to just sign off if someone in Dubai or wherever changes the policies and suddenly gives some person the authority to tell all the port workers, "OK container X7-23UZFQ-R453 is exempt from the searching regulations, please put it on that truck over there which will then bypass all the security. Pay no attention to the sweaty guy in the turban driving it."

Have people been watching too many risky high-stakes hollywood pot-boilers and reading too many spy novels? Sure it's possible, but why get so worried about a low probability conspiracy angle instead of being very worried about higher liklihood threats?

My guess is that should terrorists get their hands on a WMD and decide to use it in America, it'll come through southeast asia muslim-friendly nations to a south or central american nation hostile to the US and with lax security. Then it'll get driven north in a produce or hay truck or something, and then flown across the border in the dead of night in the smallest plane possible.

If you just want to wreak havoc, here's what you really need: the will, the means, and the opportunity.

I refuse to get all bent about these suggestions when any terrorist with half a brain, presuming he can get his hands on a wmd, is either going to smuggle that weapon across one of the thousands of miles of our porous border in the dark of night or shoot it FROM across the border or fly it at us from a little plane.
So are we going to take away the pilot and fishing licenses of all muslims and not allow them to be truckers, too?

It gets me really angry when people refuse to look at the liklihood of domestic terrorism from the point of view of if I were a terrorist, what could I do, l and how would I try to do it if I wanted to successfully wreak havoc?

I'm fine with people who understand all the mechanics scrutinizing the nature of the deal, something which BTW no one has shown conclusively hasn't occurred.

But I'm not fine with a policy that assumes the worst of anyone with any connection to the muslim world. This is quite plainly xenophobia. Scrutiny? Fine? Due diligence? Absolutely. Assuming the worst because of your country of origin, religion, and or skin color? Sorry. Nope.

Posted by: bk at February 27, 2006 11:04 AM

I'm so sick of the false media created image of McCain as an honest straight talker when he is nothing of the kind. He is a fraud and a liar who has prostituted himself to the Bush administration. And remember these are people who attacked him and his family personally during the 2000 primaries. So he also has no self-respect. How can a woman still be married to a man who wouldn't even fight back for her and her family's honor? While Hillary has been smeared as cold, calculating and overly ambitious, it's quite clear those adjectives describe McCain.

With regards to the port deal, al qaeda has infiltrated the UAE.

http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/64126.htm

Posted by: Laura at February 27, 2006 11:57 AM

Does anyone else hear that squeaking noise? It sounds like the same note over and over and over and over. And over. And over. As if an overtight artificial knee mechanism kept jerking and jerking and jerking and jerking and jerking and jerking and jerking. And jerking. And jerking.

I wonder if maybe it just can't be lubricated by any sort of insight or rational discussion. When I investigate the source of this squeak, all I can find is fear and bile. It's a real mystery.

Posted by: bk at February 27, 2006 12:15 PM

BK,

While I'm a little uncomfortable with a foreign entity controling operations at some of our largest ports, I have to agree with you on the lack of a need for "I-SPY" stuff in order to smuggle relatively limited cargo into this country. The country is so big, with such a large border area that it amazes me we do as good a job stopping stuff as we do.

If I were writing a novel about some-one smuggling in something like that... the villian wouldn't even bother with trying to sneak through any of the large cargo ports. They'd buy a 30-40ft sailboat...stick whatever they wanted to smuggle in the hold.... mid-way across the Atlantic they'd change the flag they were flying and repaint the name to "Smooth Sailing - Willmington,DE." or something like that and sail right into any one of about a thousand different little ports that dot the New England coast-line.
Forget about customs or anything like that....most of those ports, the harbormaster doesn't even make you show a drivers license unless you're paying by check..... heck, you wouldn't even have to bother with a port if you didn't want to.... just moor someplace... simple as that.

Posted by: cengel at February 27, 2006 12:43 PM

Yeah, that's my point. What we have toirely on for safety is that there aren't many islamic terrorists, that they'd stick out like sore thumbs, and that they don't have the means. I expect that if they get the means in a WMD or 4, they'll find a way to use those means.

And if they had the numbers already on shore domestically, they'd have already scared us witless via a bunch of small widely spread incidents that made Americans afraid to go to the mall, commute to work, take a vacation, or go to sleep at midnight without posting guards. I mean seriously, if you had a couple hundered zealots committed to unducing terror, how hard would this be to do using say only gasoline and matches in the dead of night?

And FWIW Cengel, don't get me wrong. I'm uneasy about this foreign ownership too. I don't think there's anything wrong with being uneasy, at least at a glance, and then saying, let's look into this so that we can feel reasonably assured that what we're doing isn't a huge mistake, and/or that some other response wouldn't be a even bigger mistake.

The thing is that we can't just suddenly adopt a bunch of restrictive policies because we are afraid, and simply dismiss the likelihood that such policy changes will have serious ramifications. For example, we're a nation running a very large deficit and importing all sorts of stuff from other countries. These deficits are to a very large extent financed by foreign investment in our country, by entities buying our companies, our goods, and our bonds. AND, a lot of it is financed by what all these other nations believe our currency (and our country) to be worth.

if we start restricting the rights of foreign investors to buy and sell at a much higher level than we already do, what does that do to foreign investors' confidence, and what does it do to how they regard our country? people don't usually look in it this way, but foreigners invest in the US because they have faith in it:coldly, self-interestedly, economically. But faith nevertheless. We can't blithely eff with that. Not if we care about the value of our currency, about eeping our deficits sustainable, and about not spurring a wave of foreign disinvestment.

Posted by: bk at February 27, 2006 01:34 PM

bk, If McCAin is outright lying, misrepresenting CLinton's words, then he should be held accoutnable for it.

This post was about Clinton McCain and the fawning aspect of it, not the validity of using a government controlled company to run our ports.

Posted by: Marcus at February 27, 2006 03:48 PM

Sure Marcus, if that's what he's doing, deliberately lying, and not speaking off the cuff without a complete understanding of the proposal. That remains to be seen.

And while we are at it, let's notice that any proscription on foreign investment that applies only to governments is going to efffectively discriminate only against certain types of governments. Many western countries don't really have much if any company ownership, so those ones don't get effected. AND, even if Clinton's proposal effects fewer deals because it applies only to government ownership, it's still going to require some level of divestment.

So let's wait and see what the actual expected ramifications are for divestment before we assume that McCain isn't on target in suggesting her remedy will be problematic, even if his grasp of the details is incomplete. I'm going to guess that some of our more socialist friends, such as Canada, France, and some of our northern European allies, have some sort of governmnet finger in many of their companies' pies.

AND, let's not assume that government ownership is somehow inherently less troublesome that private ownership from the same country. For example, would we proscribe ownership by the Pakistani government or the Saudi government, but allow private ownership from residents of these nations? If anything, private ownership from nations some of us distrust would be even MORE troublesome.

Let's keep an eye on what we are trying to prevent here. And let's not talk ourselves into rationalizing a policy that sounds good at a glance but still has the end result of xenophobia targeted directly at muslim nations.

I want a policy based on some sort of concrete probable cause to be suspicious, not one that identifies all muslims as the category for suspicion, and then within that category indiscriminately assumes all to be unworthy of trust.

Posted by: bk at February 27, 2006 04:14 PM

"Owned or controlled by foreign governments.

There is nothing to prevent independent foreign companies from operating US ports."
-------------------------------------------------
Marcus,

Then I'm not sure the legislation in question actualy has any practical value other then the "feel good" factor. On first hand, the relationship between "independant private corporations" and the government in many countries is very different.... witness how many board members of "private" Chinese corporations also happen to be active duty Generals in the Peoples Republic Army.

Secondly, if the primary concern happens to be terrorism, I don't really think that "independent foreign companies" are somehow LESS prone to infiltration by terrorists then ones owned directly by foreign governments.... if anything I would conjecture the reverse to be true.

As I stated before, I do have some concerns about foriegn companies running major port operations..... but Sen. Clinton seems to be more interested in posturing for the cameras.......and fanning the flames of paranoia..... then doing anything that SUBSTANTIVELY addresses those concerns.....which, as far as I have observed, is typical behavior for her.

If McCain called her on it..... I say GOOD for him.

Posted by: cengel at February 27, 2006 05:13 PM

I have two off-the-cuff takes on McCain
1) It's good for centrists Democrats for him to do this. It keeps 'em honest (i.e. not playing to the wings). Granted the source may make the process a bit irritating but still a useful process. (Much like centrist Democrats criticizing a Centrist Republicans lack of criticism regarding Gitmo)
2)Yes, probable politics. Again a good thing in that a "Not Right Wing" Republican (McCain) finds a need to lash out at a "Not Left Wing" Democratic because he see's her as a threat in a future election. Wow, two centrists (or at least quasi-centrists) fighting it out. Isn't that a centrist dream?

Posted by: c3 at February 28, 2006 03:10 PM

This post was about Clinton McCain and the fawning aspect of it, not the validity of using a government controlled company to run our ports.

Yes. But the validity of McCain's statements is tied up with the validity of Clinton's case against DP World. If Clinton had raised a legitimate issue and carried it too far, it probably would not have justified such a response from McCain. But, with unanimity, to my knowlege, among those who know about port security saying that ownership of terminal leases at the ports being unrelated to any of the real threats, I find it hard to believe that it is a real issue.

Posted by: Scott Smith at February 28, 2006 04:28 PM

I have to disagree with that Scott and Cengel.
Regardless of the validity of Clinton's arguments it is not honorable for McCain to misrepresent her views. He can argue them point by point and characterize her views but to outright lie about her legislative intent? No pass here.

Posted by: Marcus at February 28, 2006 05:37 PM

Bobby,

we're soon going to see all the Presidential candidates running away from the center as the election approaches, or at least until they get out of the primaries. But then the question becomes do we want a leader who is generally centrist but runs to the partisans to win the election? Or do we want a leader who is generally partisan and stays with the partisans to win elections?

That's a good point. As Nixon said, you gotta run to the right to win the nomination, and then run to the center to win the election. The problem is, everybody's got a different definition of "the center", like the five blind guys and the elephant. Just look at the spectrum of opinion among the centrists here. Just speaking for myself, I'd put Hillary in the center, and McCain off to the right of it, but everybody else here will disagree with me. (Maybe we should have an open thread on that topic; where do you put Hillary? No obscene posts, thank you very much. ;-)

My thinking is that the former may potentially govern from the center once he/she is elected. The latter would seemingly have no reason to break from the partisan agenda. Of course, ideally, centrists would get a generally centrist candidate who runs to the center-- but that may not be an option. And if that's the case (as it likely will be), which one is most likely to carry the centrist standard while in office? I'm guessing it's the former.

But what do I know.

Oh, I think you know a lot, as your post demonstrates. Yeah, we'd all like a candidate that governs from the center, but as I said, the center means different things to different people. (I recall the days when W said that the federal government shouldn't balance its budget on the backs of the poor, yet his latest budget does just that.)

Now, some folks say that W's team governs from the 50.1 percentile; all they want is the half the people, plus one. They've been able to govern more from the right because they've had a big cushion; the war on terror. They got a lot of votes in 2000 from folks who didn't neccesarily agree with them, because a lot of voters didn't want to "change horses in mid-stream" as FDR's slogan went.

Now, this ports deal may be on the up and up, but it looks fishy to a lot of folks, and in politics, as in show business, perception is everything; that's why W's dropped 8 points in less than a month. The next GOP candidate, whoever s/he may be, probably won't have the luxury of leaning as far right as W has.
(Unless of course, the Dem candidate is Hillary. Brian's quite correct in his assessment; Reps left, right and center will flock to McCain if she's on the other side. Though I can't give odds to any other possible Rep.)

But, Houston, we have a problem; McCain's definitely running for the top spot, while Hillary may or may not be. Say what you want about her, she's one smart pol, and she doesn't place bets she can't win. So...if this isn't all dress rehearsal for 2008, then what is it? McCain's definitely gearing up for '08, but Hillary? My guess is she saw how bad Bill got burned by the GOP on the China port deal when she was First Lady, and she's not going to jump on the same stove again.

Now, kids, play nice. ;-)

Posted by: Blue Jean at February 28, 2006 05:59 PM

Jean;

Just speaking for myself, I'd put Hillary in the center, and McCain off to the right of it, but everybody else here will disagree with me.

Perspective is everything (and yes we have discussed this "Where is the center?" issue). As for me I'd see McCain in the "middle" of the Republican Party but clearly Right of Center. Likewise, I'd put Hillary in the "middle" of the Democratic Party and clearly left of center.

Now if there were a "real" center that combined everyone we'd have to debate how far out the "center" reaches into each party.

Its interesting to watch Hillary go through the same "process" with the Left that McCain has gone through with the Right (editors note: see Laura's comments).

An issue for both of them: the "likeability" factor.

Oh yeah and PS. I think McCain has a better sense of humor.

Posted by: c3 at February 28, 2006 07:07 PM

LOL, Chris. Yes, I would agree with you about the humor issue, as long as he stays away from "jokes" about the minor children of his political opponents. And he probably edges Hillary in the "likeability" issue too. Then again, he could make another mean crack like he did in 1998 and lose both issues to her again.

Posted by: Blue Jean at February 28, 2006 08:36 PM

Marcus,

Do you have any proof that McCain's remarks were calculated lies crafted to misrepresent her views instead of simply an off-the-cuff response made without his being fully informed as to the exact details?

Or does McCain, as a GOP member, simply not qualify for any benefit of the doubt?

I also notice that you've made very little effort to support the notion that the distinction you are emphasizing (foreign govts only instead of all foreign entities) is either 1) an important difference or 2)a policy tack which promises to be wiser than the one McCain mistakenly (or deliberately in your view) described as Clinton's.

At some point, are you going to address the question that both Cengel and I raised: why should we be suspicious of allowing ownership of sensitive American assets by foreign governments, but not ownership by foreign private entities?

I won't hold my breath waiting for you to address that, since it seems you're maingoal in this thread is to convince us (by repetition, such an effective strategy here) that McCain is determined to deliberately misrepresent HC. I think we're all clear about what you're selling, but you don't seem clear that no one' appears to be buying.

Posted by: bk at March 1, 2006 09:51 AM

Jean,

I have to admit my views on HC are biased. From a public appearances standpoint she seems to playing center-left....but my gut tells me that behind the public facade she is radical left (way left of Bill) and just pretending to be center to get what she wants.... the Oval Office.

McCain, I'd say is solidly conservative... which is fine with me because I'm conservative too.... but I also see him as his own man... and willing to cross party lines when the other side has an idea that makes sense to him. McCain is very ambitious as well...and he wants the Oval Office too.... the thing about him is that he makes no bones about it. My impression is that with McCain what you see is what you get (warts and all)....but with HC if she told me the time of day I'd be wondering what her angle was.

I'll admit that I don't have any hard evidence to base this on other then my gut feeling and a few personal anecdotes I've heard about her(and alot of other 3rd hand reports that could be complete spin).... but sometimes when you feel something strongly enough in your gut, you've got to go with it.

Posted by: cengel at March 1, 2006 11:03 AM

That's an interesting point, Cengal. As the posters on this blog have discussed many times, where you think the center is depends on your political point of view. It's true that a lot of conservatives would give the "honesty" edge to McCain rather than HRC, just as liberals would do the opposite.

Yes, I think she's more liberal than Bill. On the other hand, she's extremely cautious and canny; after the health care deal, that cat's not going to jump on that stove again. That's why I doubt she'll run for President. Like George Washington, she only fights when the odds are greatly in her favor. (Which explains her stance on the ports)

It's funny you mention your gut reaction to HRC: a lot of liberals feel the same way about W. (In fact, one of my friends calls his "mute" button the "W" button; he always hits it when W shows up on screen, so he won't have to hear his voice.) It doesn't seem linked to which way one leans politically, either; Chris Mathews likes to remind everyone he's a Dem, but his hatred of Hillary is almost palpable, while his love for W borders on the "Brokeback" scale. David Brock, on the other hand, was a committed conservative, until his biography of Hillary corrupted him (or as those on my side of the aisle like to say, "brought him to the light." ;-)

Perhaps we should do a psych study on why people react the way they do to political figures. Or at least, a new thread.

Posted by: Blue Jean at March 1, 2006 02:59 PM

Hillary is such an interesting mirror. Seems to me that liberals are far more prone to declaring that she won't run. Conservatives seem more prone to certainty that she is running, is more liberal and far less trustworhty than she appears, and that she must be stopped.

Among centrists, there seems to be a fair amount of the don't like/don't trust vibe, coupled with doubt that she'll run, and a "don't underestimate her" coda.

I think she's probably running, and that if she does, she'll win the nom. Winning the general elec depends on the opponent. I don't worry too much about whether she's more liberal than she appears. While I think her appearance as a pragmatic relatively moderate figure is genuine, and a result of contact with actual governance, I doubt how much it matters. I think it makes sense to view her policies through a lens that tries to see how she'll be required to govern.

I don't think she'll be able to get through any new expensive entitlements even if she wanted to. But then, I didn't think GWB even had any interest in doing such things, and then look what we got!

I think HC's genuinely hawkish, she learned too much about worldwide aholes while first lady to be a dove. I expect that if she does run, she's planning a stern prominent pro-national security speech that even calls out the most dovish democrats. It'll have to happen after she secures the nom, but IMO it's a given that her foreign policy prescription will be "tough andcompetent." She'll roundly criticize the GOP for failures, and for some choices, but not on the general direction of showing resolve, rattling the saber, and being willing to strike when push comes to shove. She'll take litle care to be fair in criticizing the GOP in its national s ecurity conduct, and this will anger all the people who would never have voted for her anyway, but probably not anger all that many moderates.

Posted by: bk at March 1, 2006 03:37 PM

Well, Mathew, it looks like one Clinton is for the port deal after all...

Posted by: Blue Jean at March 2, 2006 11:09 AM

Good work. I like your site. to Win Chips you should be very Industrious: http://www.voanews.com/ , to Bet Game you should be very Universal Love Pair is very good Cosmos , to Loose Soldier you should be very Full Steal Anticipate Steal - that is all that Girl is capable of

Posted by: Kyle Wilson at March 4, 2006 12:13 AM