Clinton does not equal Cheney in a pantsuit

Anonymous Liberal says this about Andrew Sullivan’s argument that Hillary Clinton will be just as bad on expansion of executive power as Bush and Cheney have been: balderdash. I agree. Strong executive? Sure, but there’s a hell of a difference between FDR, Truman, JFK, Lyndon Johnson and Bill Clinton, who were generally considered to be strong executives because they aggressively pursued substantive agendas, and the “Unitary Executive” and signing statements nonsense of this Republican administration – or Iran-Contra defiance under Reagan and George Bush I:

No one who would possibly be tapped to serve in Clinton's Office of Legal Counsel would subscribe to their fringe views. So there is no way that a Clinton administration would adopt anywhere near as hard a line on executive power issues as this administration has. It's just not possible.

Moreover, nothing could possibly do more to reawaken Republican concern for civil liberties and checks and balances than a Clinton presidency. Indeed, the combination of a massive Bush hangover and the return of conservative Clinton paranoia might be just the perfect storm necessarily to roll back some of the excesses of the Bush/Cheney era.

As readers of this blog know, Clinton is not my preferred candidate, but the idea that she's Cheney in a pant-suit is just crazy.