"Accountability in 2008"

Matt Stoller:

In 2002, Senator Clinton failed her most significant test as a Senator. She failed it badly. And she failed it for the next five years, until her Presidential campaign started, and she realized Iraq would still be on the table. She's telling top donors her two priorities are going to be health care and climate change, despite failing to do anything meaningful on either priority as first lady or superstar Senator.

I was surprised by her announcement. She glossed right over her own complicity in the last six years, her own lack of leadership on Iraq, the signature issue of our time. John Edwards has addressed the problem head on, admitting he was wrong, and Barack Obama ran an antiwar progressive primary campaign for Senate in 2003. Neither of these figures have the baggage she does on Iraq. Ironically, as inexperienced as Edwards and Obama are, and as little as they have gotten done, Clinton is just as empty if not more so. She has a fairly good voting record, better than Edwards, but no major accomplishments. Her website used to be peppered with petty legislation she co-sponsored with Republicans, not instances she 'stood up to' Bush.

Senator Clinton can be a great leader, but to date, she hasn't been anything of the sort, having coasted on her name, connections, and intelligence. Can she win? Any of them can win, and she's better positioned than anyone else right now. Can she be a great or even just good president? Right now, based on her track record of personal survival married to policy and judgment failure, it's hard to see her doing a good job. And I'm honestly not sure what to look for to suggest that she could be a good President.

Anyone have ideas? I'm particularly looking for anti-Clinton people to name what she could do to gain your support.