Posted by
Sapper on Tuesday, March 27, 2007 3:48:14 PM
OK, the
NYT has an article (H/T Drudge) on Hillary's potential for positive relations with the nation's military and I just don't see how they can either believe it or write it with a straight face. Here's one of the quotes that I just can't believe the author really believes:
“I think eight years in the White House, traveling the world and seeing the United States military doing the nation’s business, and now her time in the Senate, has given her a significant appreciation of the military that maybe her husband didn’t have before the White House,” said Jack Keane, the retired general and former Army vice chief of staff who has become close to the senator.
Significant appreciation of the military? Maybe as props for photo ops or aerial bus drivers but I don't see Hillary as having any significant appreciation for the military. Certainly she can't be oblivious to the pervasive lack of respect many in the military have for her.
Another General is quoted with a laughable statement:
Donald L. Kerrick, a retired general and former deputy national security adviser to President Clinton, acknowledged that some people inside and outside the military were skeptical of Mrs. Clinton’s intentions and wary that she would shift federal dollars to domestic programs like health care.
General Kerrick, who is close to Mrs. Clinton, said he believed that her appreciation of the military was genuine, but that it would take time and effort for that to come across.
“If, as president, she treats commanders and troops the same way she does now, she will quickly gain their support and respect,” General Kerrick said. “Military people are very loyal to the chain of command, and to people who understand them.”
Well he got the last part right but that's about it.
I don't understand. This seems to be a puff piece for Hillary by her allies in the media but who is the target audience? The military? They aren't stupid enough to go for this spin. The liberal base she needs in the primaries? I really don't think they care too much as a group what the people in the military think. In fact, for a true liberal, I would think having military support would be a detractor. Is this just a feel-good piece of spin for it's own sake? I just don't get the point of this obvious piece of malarkey.
(Sister Toldjah is blogging on this and if you can stomach it, here's the Daily Kos.)
Update: Michelle Malkin beat me to the punch.
Update II: Besides the clever name, "Rounds Out" appears to be a good blog. He's covering this too. Looks like everyone beat me to this story today. I guess the sheer audacious ridiculousness of it all was too much for the blogoshpere to silently stand by and take.
Update III: The famous photo that has been widely re-posted on blogs today. (Notice the soldier crossing his fingers as he poses with Hillary in this photo op moment.):
