1. Commander Jeff Huber, U.S. Navy (Retired) examines Hillary Clinton's potential as a commander in chief and finds her lacking in "Who wants to be a Commander in Chief?" As Huber puts it:
One can only conclude that Hillary is a closet neocon or that she's so afraid of being cast as weak on security that she'll give them whatever they want to keep them from calling her a girly girl on AM radio and Fox News.2. Raising Kaine contributor The Grey Havens takes on the Clintons flirtation with racism and racism-based election tactics in "Putting Decency to the Test." The Grey Havens poses a stark question to Democrats:
The question now arises: will Democratic racism give Hillary the nomination?3. From the Mosquito Blog, the Mosquito questions whether Hillary Clinton has the necessary honesty to make a good president in "We need HONEST Leaders."
Apparently, the Clintons are still listening to Dick Morris, because their campaign has been pushing hard to have Obama labeled "the Black candidate", and Bill himself seems to be racing towards the gutter.
Hillary and Bill Clinton have been campaigning like neocons not like democrats. You'd think they had morphed into Karl Rove himself with the divisive lies they keep spreading.4. From Democratic Central, blogger "cvillelaw" challenges Clinton's electability in "Warnings for Democrats about a Hillary-McCain matchup." Consider this:
There's one big fact that everyone can see . . . Hillary Clinton will lie and maybe stop at nothing to get elected.
Rich's theme -- with which I agree -- is that Hillary can't out-experience John McCain, so whatever benefit she claims in that field over the Democratic field, it will be lost in November. And she really can have no plausible claim to being the agent of change, particularly if she is making it clear that the two-for-the-price-of-one rationale that was advanced in 1992 and 1996 is making its comeback in 2008.5. Well known and much beloved Kossack Teacherken delivers his take on a column by Bob Herbert challenging the Clinton's dirty campaign tactics in "Bob Herbert has 'Questions for the Clintons'." Teacherken points to the Clintons' tactics as a cause for concern among Democrats:
It may be extreme to wonder if the Clintons can be other than divisive, but it is clear that they started with a substantial portion of the American electorate and many opinion makers who viewed them negatively, sometimes with outright hostility. One might have expected that their actions would not feed into that paranoia. Earlier this campaign cycle I used to argue that the caricature of Hillary was so over the top that when people would encounter her the expectation would be so low that she would easily exceed them and thus win a substantial number over to supporting her. I no longer think that. Watching her the past few weeks she seems to have decided that she is justified in using a scorched earth policy straight out of Carville, Penn, Atwater and Rove. While it would be expected that she would take advice from Democratic consultants who had helped her husband, that one can clearly see evidence of the approach of the consultants who elected the two presidents Bush is disturbing to many. And the rationalizations offered for some of the tactics, while they will be cheered by partisans of Mrs. Clinton, serve onloy to further alienate many others. They may lead to success in achieving the nomination, but one has to ask at what cost.This is a good first sampling that provides plenty of food for thought on this important topic. I intend to post additional roundups before February 12th with the goal of thoroughly vetting Hillary Clinton. When Virginia Democrats go to the polls on February 12th, they must make an informed choice.
If you have a post you'd like to see included in my next roundup, please post a link in the comments section.