When Hillary sharply disagreed with Obama's pledge, in the South Carolina Democratic debate, that he would meet with the leaders of rogue nations like North Korea, Iran, Cuba and Venezuela, she was undoubtedly shooting from the hip. But when she and her campaign spent an entire week attacking and ridiculing Obama -- and now are well into their second week of criticism -- they appear to have lost their marbles.First of all, it would seem that referring to a position as "'naive' and 'irresponsible'" during the primary process, when that position is held by a majority of your party's constituency, is not wise. It seems to me that it would come across to the voters as an insult to their intelligence.
Put very simply, Hillary is on the wrong side of this particular issue for the Democratic primary electorate. Scott Rasmussen's daily tracking poll shows that Democrats agree with Obama that the president should meet with these foreign leaders without preconditions by 55 percent to 22.
[. . .]
Even as Hillary was calling Obama "naive" and "irresponsible" for his position, her adviser, Mark Penn, was going even further. He told the New York Daily News that Hillary's answer on meeting with rogue-state leaders was "a presidential moment" and that it "was an essential moment that showed she knows what it means to be president."
In addition, I can understand the fact that sometimes presidents have to be "presidential" and make the hard decisions that need to be made, even if it goes against the popular will, at least from time to time. However, considering the current state of public opinion toward the current administration, and its over-use of that prerogative, I don't think I'd be as quick to place myself in that same spotlight as Hillary is doing. In fact, the article goes on to note:
Do they not know that the issue is bad for them -- or, with Hillary staking out an intransigent and stubborn position, do they not care?In fact, my sister already considers Hillary to be simply "more of the same" in terms of stubbornness and unwillingness to admit mistakes.
Meanwhile, Obama, correctly reading the mood of the Democratic electorate (or correctly reading his polls), mocked Hillary's position as "Bush Cheney-lite," emphasizing Hillary's insider way of thinking.
What I see in Hillary is a sense of entitlement. She sees herself as the obvious choice for the nomination (almost heir to the office) and believes that the rest of the Democratic electorate sees her in that same way. As I've said many times before, I hope that she doesn't get the nomination. Hopefully her stubbornness and sense of entitlement will begin to resonate with the people who are looking for a change from "business as usual". I don't believe that we will ever actually achieve that change or that such a change is ever truly achievable.
Hopefully as the campaign progresses the Democrats will wake up to who Hillary really is and stop being mesmerized by the name "Clinton." My grandmother thinks she will be something of a Lurleen Wallace, but I know she won't. I don't know how many people out there are under her same misconception.