Frustration, retribution, Iraq and Hillary

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

I think some of the wild bitterness in this primary cycle arises from frustration that this campaign is not about retribution. Bush and Cheney should live out their lives behind bars in The Hague. That much is beyond reasonable debate. But it goes beyond that. In a just world everyone who even voted for Bush would be deported to an uninhabited island; quarantined like an infection.

But that’s not going to happen, and I doubt any Democrat could win the 2008 election on a platform that 50% of 2004 voters should be deported to Monster Island.

An idealist watching a political campaign is like someone watching an Olympic high-hurdles race getting frustrated that the runners are too dumb to realize it would be faster to run around the hurdles. Bullshit, and ONLY bullshit, wins Presidential elections.

I was thinking about this a while back pondering Hillary’s “no apologies” IWR stance. On the surface it seems delusional. I didn’t think she’d be able to maintain it, but I was wrong. It’s actually quite clever.

Her stance is not a quirk of personality; it is a rigid, crafted campaign rule that was almost certainly devised by Bill, the best politician we have ever seen. A substantial majority of Americans supported the war (just like Hillary), turned on the war (just like Hillary), are worried about pulling out prematurely (just like Hillary) and are in no mood to apologize for supporting the war in the first place (just like Hillary)

It is the quintessence of all things Clintonian. Slippery, but highly effective if one’s objective is to actually win an election.

The reason Obama gets little traction with “I was smart enough to oppose the war” is the same reason Al Gore (who I adore) has concluded that he’s not cut out for American electoral politics. Whatever the problem is, the American people are largely responsible for it, they know it, and they don’t want their nose rubbed in their own idiocy.

Obama’s boasts of prescience and Edwards’ apologies can only appeal to people who never supported the war, and are proud of having never supported the war. Unfortunately, that’s only about a half of Democratic voters and only 25%-30% of the overall American electorate. Similarly, condemning Hillary as, “dumb enough to be fooled by George Bush” is not very effective in an electorate that gave Bush 90% approval ratings at one time.

Any politician who truly spoke truth to power would say, “This is you people’s fucking fault. You vote for morons and obsess over trivia. You are self-pitying drama queens who belong on a reality show, not in a voting booth.” That sounds like something I would say, but not anything like something Bill Clinton would say. (And that’s why I’m an embittered hermit and Bill Clinton is the only Democrat I have ever seen re-elected.)

[snowbear]

1. Cackle, Cackle

Welcome aboard K&H, but Hillary is NOT Big Dawg - so thanks, but NO THANKS.


I love the DLC this much!!

[janx]

4. I think you may have misunderstood the post...

;-)

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

5. Maybe not. Hillary gives me the creeps, but I don't mind if she wins the nomination

If she wins running right in the Dem primaries she is a remarkable politician. If someone knocks her off, then that shows something about their political capability, and good for them.

I am content to let the process find the best politician. I only care about winning. (I don't have to have a beer with any of them.)

[janx]

8. She has a lot of money, but

I'm not sure she could win a general election.

[emilyg]

11. How in the hell do you make fun of someone's laugh and live with yourself.

[snowbear]

13. Oh the "Cackle. Cackle" ... I got it right off of here..

And they found it in one of the major newspapers ~ thankyou kindly ~

[AuntPatsy]

14. making fun of someone's laugh is doing nothing more than joining

the ship of fools, stick to the issues which are much easier to use when getting a point across, I find this cackle thing pretty second grade and I can't believe how many people are mimicking the newest way to take a hit on Hillary, there is no need, the issues are more important and should for halfway intelligent people to get a better understanding of right and wrong.

[janx]

2. Very good points!

Many American people want to believe that everything is fine and that this country did nothing wrong.

[papau]

3. LOL - well said (from another loud and unelectable embittered hermit) :-)

:-)

[robinlynne]

6. Let's not confuse retribution with justice.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

7. Excellent point--I should have said Justice. (Though I doubt we will get either one.)

[truedelphi]

9. Thank you for the detailed explanation. I just saw Obama say the famous words

that "I had problems with the intelligence some six months before."

I found it less inspiring than I expected. Now that doesn't mean that I wouldn't vote for him, but someone else who did support the war in the first place might resent him pointing out that, in a sense, he is a better person than they were.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

12. Yeah, it's a no win situation

From today:

"On the single most important foreign policy issue of our time, I got it right," Obama said.

That should be a valid argument, but many voters hear the unspoken, "and you didn't"

Like many people on DU, I am proud of knowing there were no WMD before we went in. Gore didn't say that. Obama didn't say that. Hell, pretty much nobody but Scott Ritter said that. So I am way smarter than Obama and Gore, as well as Biden, Edwards, Hillary, Kerry, etc., right? So I get to be President (if Scott Ritter turns it down.)

But that's not how it works. There was no Scott Ritter victory lap on TV because nobody wants to be told how stupid they were.

[still_one]

10. Most Democrats did NOT vote for the IWR. Some did, including Hillary

The IWR WAS A VIOLATION OF THE War Powers Act. It enabled bush to invade Iraq without accountability. That is the fault of those who voted for the IWR.

If the War Powers Act wasn't over-ridden by the Congress, then in 60 days, Congress would have had to either, declare war, allocate up to a month to close operations, or withdraw immediately

Doesn't anyone remember Viet Nam, and why the War Powers act became law?

[truedelphi]

15. Memory faulty but I think it had to do with the fact that the Vietnam war

Like the Korean war before it, was never actually declared as a war.

I think the Korean War was merely, legally anyway, a police action??

There were several enlisted men who took it to the SUpreme Court as to whether they had to go to Vietnam or not, cased on the concept that how you can be ordered to fight and perhaps die in a war that technically does not exist.

[still_one]

17. You are correct it had to do with the Viet Nam war, but it had to do with

not allowing the executive branch to go to war without congressional oversight, and as you said not declaring a war

but it also had to do with the fact that the Viet Name war was based on a lie, just as the invasion of Iraq was

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

16. The IWR was a terrible thing, but probably not a War Powers Act violation

The War Powers Act is presumably superseded by prior congressional action. I'm guessing that if congress authorizes force in advance, action subsequent to that authorization wouldn't trigger the WPA because the act applies to unilateral executive action.

[still_one]

18. It contradicts the War Powers Act entirely. There is absolutely no requirement

for Congressional oversight from the War Powers Act. It is obvious, if there was, it would have kicked in 3 years ago, and it didn't

As to your point on unilateral executive action, that is what the IWR was all about, to give him that action so it would invalidate the war powers act

Congress rolled back the clock. No excuse for that

[karynnj]

19. Bill Clinton is a great politician - for HIMSELF

It also seems to be based more on an oversized personality and charisma. Look at whatthe political advise he gave to Kerry- per him or his people:

- To talk less on terrorism and Iraq - because they were Bush's subjects. (Kennedy's man, Shrum was also someone who thought that the emphais should be on economic issues - but Kerry gained traction in September, even before the debates, when he switched the message to Iraq (NYU) and terrorism (U of PA), following his own gut and the advise of his brother, David Thorne, and Teresa.

- Endorse all the obnoxious gay bashing referendums. This would not have given him a single bigot, but it would have lost likely losthim many votes and more importantly, his integrity.

Also, my problem is NOT that she won't say her vote was wrong. I think the left created part of that conundrum by validating the Republican view that a vote was a vote for war - even though Bush himself said it wasn't before the vote. The problem is the media refuses to make that distinction - even for Kerry who, unlike Hillary, spoke against going to war before it started and repeatedly made the case that Bush promised many things he did not do. Speaking out as prominently as he did before the war also meant he would be labeled anti-war had the war worked - making it harder to make a case that it was a political vote.

My bigger problem is that she did not lead at all on Iraq in 2005 through now and was one of the people hampering the efforts of those trying.