politics
Major General Paul Eaton Goes to Bat for Hillary
By Kaylee Porter, 5-21-08
Major General Paul Eaton visited Hillary Clinton's Missoula campaign headquarters today to share his views about Clinton's ability to handle military matters. "I want Hillary Clinton to be Commander in Chief for my sons," he said. "If we don't get Hillary as president, we get John McCain." Photo by Alexia Beckerling
The mismanagement of the Iraq War and Sen. Hillary Clinton’s preparedness to be Commander in Chief were the focus of an informal discussion lead by Major General Paul Eaton Wednesday at Clinton’s Missoula campaign headquarters.
Eaton, touring Montana on Clinton’s behalf, was the Commanding General of the Coalition Military Assistance Training Team in Iraq, where he was charged with training the Iraqi military from 2003 to 2004. He said the current administration has waged the war incompetently, citing the lack of diplomacy in the Middle East and the lack of support for American soldiers and veterans.
“We’ve got to get a competent leader into the White House,” Eaton said. “Hillary Clinton is hands down electable because she is smart and she is tough.”
Eaton said he thinks Clinton is a stronger candidate than Sen. Barack Obama because she has carried important swing states like Pennsylvania, Florida, Kentucky and Ohio. Appealing to the blue-collar demographic in these states is vital for winning the general election, he says.
City Councilman Jon Wilkins, who attended the discussion, also said he believes Clinton is more electable.
“She has more experience really,” Wilkins said. “I get along with the Republicans on City Council and they are telling me that they’ll vote for Obama in our primary because they don’t think he’s electable either and that way McCain will win.”
Other people who attended the discussion felt differently, however. Jeff Renz, a professor of law at the University of Montana, said the discussion was interesting, but he disagrees with the statement that Clinton is more electable than Obama.
“[Obama] is pulling out people who haven’t voted before in numbers that haven’t been seen before,” Renz said.
Regardless of which candidate is more “electable,” one thing is certain—the looming Montana Democratic Primary is crucial to both campaigns.
“One of the good things about this very unusual election is that every states is, and has been, important. South Dakota and Montana, among the last to participate, for so long have been neglected...but now every American will have a voice,” Eaton said.
After the discussion, Eaton went on to visit with Missoula veterans and has stops in Helena and Great Falls planned for Thursday.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
Add your comment below
“[Obama] is pulling out people who haven’t voted before in numbers that haven’t been seen before,” Renz said.
Professor Renz' point is a good one; however, as odd as it may seem, it's not the case. There are a number of studies of the race available but the truth is that the higher the turnout of voters -- and it has set records in a number of states -- the better Senator Clinton does. Obama does not, actually, benefit from higher turnout. That's the perception, yes, but it's not backed up by the statistics. And it grossly understates the astounding surge of women who have mobilized behind Hillary Clinton.
And a number of states where Obama has done well, with large turnouts, are not going to vote Democratic in November.
The notion that Obama can win this race with "new" voters who are mobilized by his rhetoric is simply not supported by any analysis of the electoral college or of votes already cast in key states. There's a saying going around now within the Democratic party: "It's the map, stupid." No disrespect meant -- that's just the slang of the day, these days.
But the point is, looking at the electoral college map for the general election, the advantage of Senator Clinton versus Senator Obama is staggering. The "new voter" strategy simply doesn't hold water. Nothing against Senator Obama. Seems to be a nice fellow, just not ready. And, at this point, not electable. You can't be president if you don't win the election.
And, speaking to the article, Gen. Eaton's appearance on Sen. Clinton's behalf, as well as the appearance of the cadre of rural agriculturalists from New York State (many from upstate, traditionally Republican areas of the state) who are pounding the ground for her across Montana and S. Dakota, speaks volumes about the broad cross-section of voters that are backing her experience and toughness. If ever a person has been thoroughly vetted and tested in the crucible of politics, it is Senator Clinton.
Best wishes to all.
Thank you, Mary
1. He cannot win over McCane with most members of the military or their families, since he refuses to honor the flag: his refusal to place his hand over his heart during the Star Spangled Banner is failing to salute the symbol of our country.
2. He cannot win over McCane on foreign policy during this dark, ethnic, hate-filled period by back away from his open-armed (Chamberlain-like) approach to our adversaries
3. He cannot win over McCane by spewing platitudes, since the news media will get the predictable right-wing think tank feeds on his weaknesses and mistakes, which he is not able to handle: he has a "glass jaw" (conservative commentators)
4. His issues priorities are not well aligned with the general public. His website devoted 26% of the references to issues to "ex-offenders," but not one word about unemployed.
The news media have done us a grave disservice by wearing kid-gloves when dealing with O'Bama. I appreciate the integrity of those like General Eaton who are in a potition to understand the potential damage of O'Bama representing the Democratic Party (much less being President) who stick by Senator Clinton. Thank you General!
Harsh? Not so. But, if you feel it is you have only to demonstrate otherwise with serious research, rather than lemming-like behavior. I'd love nothing more than to be surprised by serious, (not necessarily) original, factual reporting instead of what is commonly done. This article is little different from a tape recording, but at least it is not laden with gratuitous editorializing. However, the attempt at "fair and balanced" flops: the vague "Other people who attended" followed by one person's opinion does not constitute a poll. What is your point? Reporting does not always have to contain full and balanced point and counter-point. If there was one person out of 10 (how many?) do you really feel it is necessary to look for the lone dissenter? All possible dissenters? You left an impression not supported by evidence. This is deceptive. Think about it.
and the remainder with Independent parties, the green party etc.
How would a reporter convey the content of a meeting where people are voicing opinions in any other way than to relate the opinions spoken? No one is without bias including you, sir, hence your negativity. Are you aware of the origins of your bias? I know mine!