Democrats and National Security

The latest Gallup poll found that, for the first time since they started asking in 2002, Democrats "will do a better job than the Republican Party of protecting the country from security threats, 47% vs. 42%."

Hillary immediately disproved this silly notion by coming out against torture even in the so-called "ticking bomb" scenario. What is especially juicy about this is the fact that not only does it put her and Slick Willy on different sides of the issue (as if that's never happened before), it also contradicts statements she's made previously. So she was for torture before she was against it, or to frame it another way, she was for drastic measures in unforgiving situations for the sake of national security before she was against them. Ladies and gentlemen, the party the American people trust on national security. Cue the Churchill: "the greatest argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."

So what caused the change of heart? Knowing Hillzilla, most likely a poll. But more specifically, she's probably decided that leading in the polls isn't sufficient when the left wing hates you - case in point, the DailyKos diary entitled "Why It's So Important that Hillary be defeated" which has garnered over 1,200 comments (if you choose to visit, please remember to disinfect your browser. It may otherwise become progressive and start demanding union hours or similar follies.).

It's also possible that Hillary's looking for a bomb in New York, if only to end the recent suffering (dare we say torture?) of Mets fans, who have lost ten out of the last fourteen and four in a row.

[[I'm not even going to bother apologizing for my lengthy absence. Also, I amuse myself when I can link to Gallup, Politico, and ESPN in a post, as well as cite Churchill.]