Senator Clinton is already working on those 2008 votes

On December 19, Senator Clinton visited New Orleans. Of course, Sen. Mary Landrieu D-LA was there to shepherd the Senator around...oh, and be seen by the media. During the tour, Senator Clinton was quoted:

"There is a need to go back and find out what went wrong. What more do we need to do to protect this area?"

She went on to express concern that repair efforts on the levees may not protect New Orleans from future hurricanes. Now, you might ask yourself, "What is a Senator from New York doing touring the damage from a hurricane in Louisiana?" Last I checked, New York and Louisiana are quite a distance from each other so another hurricane hitting Louisiana would PROBABLY not affect New York.

My theory? Think about it. New Orleans is a major US city (well...used to be) that has a very high percentage of the population on public assistance. As stated in an OpinionJournal article on September 13, 2005, Brendan Miniter writes:

Anyone who has taken a non-drinking-binge tour of New Orleans, venturing outside the French Quarter and Garden District, might have noticed that New Orleans was a failing city. Tourism kept it, well, afloat, but large swaths of the city were mired in poverty for decades. One out of four New Orleans residents was living below the poverty line, and tens of thousands of people were living in public housing. These are the people who were left behind in the flood and who have long been left behind by failing schools, lack of economic opportunity, and crime well above the national average.

Now...Senator Clinton represents the Democratic party. Remember, the political party that is highly dependent on the continuing existence of a poverty class? These citizens are highly dependent on the federal government for their everyday existence. Therefore, Senator Clinton comes in as the Government Savior to fix everything and ensure that everyone goes back on the dole.

Why? Keep government dependents happy, and they'll be sure to vote for you in 2008 - as many times as possible. Please, unless the Democratic party from New York gets desperate, these New Orleans citizens won't be voting in 2006 in New York. This has GOT to qualify as vote buying somewhere.

Senator Clinton...so exactly what DO you propose?

The Washington Post carried this story on Saturday.

Senator Clinton was in Kentucky at a Democratic fundraiser trying to help the Democrats reverse the Republican control of the state. Her usual talking points included President Bush "ignoring an ailing health care system" and giving tax cuts to the wealthy. Tired talking points, but Democrat standards nonetheless. By the way, Senator Clinton will revive healthcare as one of her major platform issues in 2008. You watch and see.

But neither of those issues are up for consideration here. During her speech criticizing President Bush on the war in Iraq she stated:

"The time has come for the administration to stop serving up platitudes and present a plan for finishing this war with success and honor. I reject a rigid timetable that the terrorists can exploit, and I reject an open timetable that has no ending attached to it."

"Instead, I think we need a plan for winning and concluding this war, and the president can begin by taking responsibilities for the false assurances, faulty evidence and mismanagement of this war."

Ok, this is nothing we've heard before right? Or is it? Look at the second sentence...closely. Exactly what DO you propose Senator Clinton. Either you have a rigid timetable for leaving Iraq or you have a more open timetable that is dependent on the conditions in Iraq. Or did you forget your comments from November where you stated that we needed to wait on the results of the December 15 elections in Iraq?

Exactly, where is your plan Senator Clinton? You voted to approve the actions in Iraq based on the same intelligence that the President had been looking at. And before you start criticizing the intelligence, remember that HINDSIGHT is the only vision that is truly 20/20. Lastly, on the issue of mismanagement, um...shouldn't your criticism be aimed at the Generals actually waging the war? I mean, they're the ones on the ground actually managing the war. Ohhh...but accusing them of mismanaging the war would mean you don't support the troops. Can't have that, now, can we?

Blaming Bush for your own vote to go to war is FAR easier than taking responsibility isn't it?