Saturday, August 4, 2007

Estrich A Good Example of What's Wrong

Susan Estrich is one of the many movers and shakers in the world of politics who rode a losing horse (Michael Dukakis in 1988) and consequently landed a cush job as an opinion writer for a syndicated column. Unfortunately, Ms. Estrich is not much better at forming her views than she was at running Dukakis' campaign into the ground. Her most recent comments are found at the following link: .

Although humor was not her intent, I found the column funny. I also found it to be typical of the bubble in which pundits live. Note the following comments by Estrich:

If you read the pundits and pundettes, the consensus seems to be that Hillary has gotten the best of Obama this week, especially on Monday night, when she sounded more experienced and realistic about the world than her younger, more idealistic colleague. On the other hand, if you look at the focus group results, including one I read of Democrats conducted for Fox News, Obama was the winner, with people liking his optimistic idealism, not realizing it was somehow unrealistic or naive.

Of course, Estrich herself is a pundit and later in the same column says this: As a Clinton supporter, I would make the argument that it was George W.
Bush who was wrong, not Hillary Clinton.
In other words, at least one pundit is actually honest enough to admit her bias - and then tells us what the other pundits say. She supports Clinton - and therefore, she must do anything she can to ensure Hillary wins including calling Obama 'naive' and 'idealistic.' But the one that truly took the cake was this line:

Does the fact that he lived abroad as a child make him more qualified than someone who lived in the White House for eight years, and who has four more years of Senate experience than he does?

So according to Susan Estrich, the mere fact that Hillary lived in the White House for eight years qualifies her to manage foreign policy? Using that logic, Barbara Bush should be the Commander-In-Chief. She lived in the Vice Presidential residence for eight years, the White House for four, and has been able to visit it any time she wishes for the last eight. Not only that, she gave birth to two sons who grew up to be governors of large economic powers (Jeb in Florida and George in Texas) and one who grew up to be President.

Living in the White House is a prerequisite for being President? And as a military brat who lived abroad for five years during the Cold War, I'll take Obama's day-to-day living experience with those people over Hillary's pie-in-the-sky 'I married a President' experience any day of the week.

I wonder if Susan would apply the same standard to the candidate she managed, Michael Dukakis. It is amusing that 20 years ago when she ran the campaign, long-term government service did not provide meaningful experience while now she is casting her lot with a woman who wouldn't even be in the Senate if her last name was Lazio.

Hillary Clinton played patriotic politics with the war just like everybody else has done and is doing. The last thing she wanted was a successful war that she opposed, so she hedged her bets, knowing full well that if it went wrong she could say she was 'misled.' If the war had gone great, she'd be touting her 'insight' as proof she could run the military.

The fact is that Hillary Clinton, as I've noted before, is not even the most qualified liberal Democratic female. Why does Estrich think Hillary should move to the front of the line ahead of Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, Patty Murray, or Barbara Mikulski, who spent ten years in the Congress and has been in the Senate for twenty?

Probably because Hillary has already lived in the White House. One must realize when dealing with a liberal Democrat, you throw logic away and start with emotion.