Clintordination

Another example for those who don't think that the 42nd and 44th presidents aren't on the same page.

Yesterday Mrs. Clinton tacked back right again on the Iraqi front of the GWOT:

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton went toe-to-toe Tuesday with some of her anti-war critics, opposing a hard deadline for withdrawing troops from Iraq and urging Democrats to unite to win back Congress.

At a speech before a liberal gathering dubbed "Take Back America," the New York senator took grief from those in the audience critical of her vote for the Iraq war and her opposition to an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops.

"I do not think it is a smart strategy, either, for the president to continue with his open-ended commitment, which I think does not put enough pressure on the new Iraqi government," said Clinton, before turning to the anti-war liberals' core beef with her.

"Nor do I think it is smart strategy to set a date certain. I do not agree that that is in the best interests," said Clinton, prompting loud booing from some at the gathering.

I'm not sure why Hillary thinks the new Iraqi government needs to be "pressured," nor does it appear that she understands that the war is larger than just Iraq. But she does recognize that indulging her Ameriphobic audience - which she knows will back her when the time comes, however much they boo her now - will cripple her chances of flipping the additional "red" states necessary to secure another four-year lease on the national double-wide.

As if to add the exclamation point to my analysis, look at what Mr. Bill said at virtually the same moment:

Former President Bill Clinton has told Florida Democrats that the U.S. should not withdraw from Iraq until the political situation there is stabilized.

"The representative government in Iraq is a hopeful sign,” Clinton said at a fundraiser for the Florida Democratic party in Orlando on Monday.

"But we need to stay there long enough for the politics to get worked out. If we withdrew tomorrow, that government couldn’t survive.”

Clinton said he opposed the original decision to invade Iraq before military operations in Afghanistan were completed, but warned that more terrorists could emerge from Iraq without a U.S. military presence there.

Which is another way of saying that had it been up to him, Iraq would never have been liberated, because the Afghanistan excuse would have been perpetuitously open-ended.

But overall there is the same "third way" stance on the most critical issue holding back the Democrat Party. The lesson? The Clintons recognize, as the nutter fever swamps refuse to, that Ameriphobia simply is not going to sell in middle America. Democrats cannot piss in the faces of the "red" state 51% and expect to ever again win another national election. And it is the prestige that comes with being the only Dems to (collectively) win back-to-back national elections since FDR that will empower Hill & Bill to defy that pack of (indiscretely) traitorous rabble and still command their fealty two years from now.

If they want America to lose, they've got to win. And the Clintons are the only winners they've got.

That's logic even a nutter can follow.

UPDATE 6/14: Brother Meringoff must read this blog....