The aftermath
The writing of the obituary of the Hillary Clinton campaign for the Democratic nomination for president began in earnest on Wednesday morning. Her narrow win in Indiana coupled with the loss in North Carolina has all of the pundits weighing in.
I don’t think anyone can deny that the path to the nomination hasn’t narrowed. The argument that remains, and has been a consistent theme of the campaign, is electability. It is what drew me to her candidacy in the first place. Pragmatic? You bet. A win in November has always been what I wanted.
I never had any intentions of being involved in a national campaign. As time has gone on, though, something changed. Somewhere along the way, I became personally vested in this campaign. Maybe it was NH and her “finding her voice.” Maybe it was the knowledge of what it’s like to run a campaign when it seems that so many people - particularly the media - are aligned against you. Maybe it was the attacks that I have gotten for my support of Hillary, ones that have come face-to-face and via emails. Maybe it was the the email from the 76-year-old Alaskan caucus goer who felt completely disenfranchised by the process. Whatever it was, the effect was a strengthening of my support for Hillary, and an increased willingness on my part to do what I could to help her succeed.
That willingness has put me in a position that I’m sure others have experienced when working on a campaign. Probably the biggest thing is that you become privy to information that you cannot share, some of it things you’d just as soon not know. Yep, like watching sausage being made. I’ve seen sausage being made, both for real and in campaigns. It ain’t pretty.
In 2006, there was a great push to get Democrats in control of Congress. We did that and what has it gotten us? Are we still in Iraq? Have we rolled back the Bush tax cuts? Has the deficit gone down? In other words, are we better off today than you were before? Only the most biased among us would say yes.
Oh, I’ve heard all of the excuses. And that’s all they are - excuses. There is no political will in Washington to do the right thing by the people of the United States. It is business as usual, only the characters have changed.
We all want to believe that changing the president will change things in Washington. Nothing could be farther from the truth. As Hillary has been vilified in the press and on the blogs, one of the major memes has been that she represents the “old” way of doing things. Well, doesn’t saying one thing while doing another represent the old way? Isn’t having your surrogates do your dirty work the old way? Isn’t blaming your opponent for your own behavior the old way? And isn’t trying to not count votes that favor your opponent, most notably FL, the old way?
The old way can never be changed at the top until we change it at the bottom. More than 29,000 people (pdf p. 457) voted in Norfolk in February’s primary while just over 8,000 bothered to vote in last Tuesday’s council election. In a city that has more than 105,000 registered voters, that is pathetic. Given the chance to influence those politicians closest to us, the people punted. It is no wonder, then, that those in Washington, far removed from the accountability to the people, don’t give a damn.
The blame lies with us. Ours is a populace that fakes concern for what goes on in Washington, because we fail to look beyond the soundbites. Our opinions are not shaped by the facts - what exactly are the differences in the platforms of the candidates? - but by fear and innuendo. Lies and distortions spread faster than truth - no, Obama is not a Muslim - helped in no small part by the echo chamber that was once the independent media.
The choice of new versus old is a false one, because the political process is stacked against it and there is no will at any level to change it. So for me, I’d rather have someone who knows how to negotiate it (like LBJ) than someone who will be stymied by it (like Jimmy Carter). As long as she’s willing to run, I’m with Hillary.
May 24, 2008
I learned a lot about politics as the result of my run for City
Treasurer. This blog is my way of staying in touch with those who supported me and reaching out to those who did not.
Good post.
However, I respectfully disagree that the premise “the choice of new versus old is a false one”- if that was the case- We would not have had Bill Clinton elected President in 1992 (remember in the “War Room” his slogan was “Change versus more of the same”). If the choice of “new versus old” was indeed a false one- we would have Senator Allen.
It’s going both ways, I don’t like things that I’m hearing from her campaign (not her, but Begala, Carville, and previously Penn). I am neither African American nor an “Egghead” and am supporting Senator Obama.
I know how heated things get in primaries but as I have said before- supporters shouldn’t disparage other supporters. I’m not a “bot”- nor a “Kool aid” drinker- but some in the Clinton Camp have used these derogatory terms.
And let me also say this again, the Clinton’s brought me into the party and were a huge part of my political awakening. They were my role models. Obama has done the same thing for many in a different generation. I was in my early 20s in during 1992 and was part of the youth vote that was mobilized by President Clinton.
The pundits will spin excessively on whatever is the day’s issue- meanwhile we are paying a mint to get gas, the price of food is rising, I have friends in Iraq that I pray will stay safe, and don’t even get me started on healthcare. These pundits love the “horse race” and have built their career around “picking horses” and will focus on what color pantsuit a candidate is wearing instead of what policy he/she is proposing.
I have started to turn off the news and limit my internet browsing to just a few selected sites. I’ve seen stories that are vilifying both candidates and I’m tired of it. Meanwhile, McCain is getting a free pass.
I spent the morning calling people who have signed up for the DNC’s Nighborhood Laders program and heard people on both sides say “If he/she doesn’t get the nomination then I don’t want to help”. That concerns me, regardless of what happens in the next month I hope Democrats see the forest through the trees and know that our true opponent is McCain.
Like I’ve said- I’m looking forward to a Democratic President, Senator Warner, and Congressman Nye.
And the icing on the cake will be Virginia’s electoral votes cast as Democratic ones!
I’m with you, Vivian!
I’ve seen so many fellow Dems up here in NoVA, activists and local elected officials, jump on the Obama bandwagon out of perception and convenience but without any clear understanding of how this alternative will face October and beyond.
With Hillary, we face an opportunity to walk in October. With an Obama/Hillary ticket, we face an opportunity to run in October. Yet, with the likes of Ted Kennedy, Kos (and his following), and now the media (last night’s cnn and msnbc were dismissive), Dems face crawling through October. Can we stomach that again, after 2000 and 2004?
The media and the major polling groups have left Hillary behind for a McCain/Obama general election. But I’ll be in West Virginia tomorrow. I too will not lay down to the media or blinded bandwagon rhetoric.
The true measure of character is conviction. Your character is above so many others in Virginia Dem politics. Thank you.
Typo- DNC’s Neighborhood Leaders
Wow! Great statement that shows a good grasp of the real world, not the one we wish we had. I have absolutely nothing against Obama and if he is our nominee, I will support him proudly for November. But, like you, as long as Hillary is in the race, I stand proudly with her.
Competence and experience count for a lot.
You are correct AIAW, Competence and experience DO stand for a lot! That’s why I am so glad we have TWO awesome candidates!
i’m curious to know how you can endorse Ms clinton when she lied about her bullet dodging trip to war torn herzegovina/bosina when a video camera was recording her arrival - smiles and daughter in toe
what haven’t the press told us about her lying
frankly that did it for me
i could never support someone who’s that stupid and arrogant to think she can get away with such a lie knowing she had a camera trailing her! thank heavens for digital technology
at least this keeps some of our politicians in check!
i’m really curious to know, as Dr phil often says, “what do you say to yourself to make it OK” to support hillary clinton for president?
it’s so hard being subjected to this never ending saga leading up to the elections for your new president
it’s obscene the amount of money american politicians spend to fulfil their ambition to be president
the american dream?!
it’s actually very funny to watch
it’s like watching a chaotic hysterical croud at a circus that those of us who do have a tv are subjected to ad nauseum
it’s a dream only for the very wealthy
power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely! [can't remember who said this]
i hope yr dreams come true
hoh,
Candidates get exhausted after weeks of 18 hour days. I cannot name one candidate who, in the past 12 years who has NOT make a mistake on the trail.
Give me HRC anyday over John McSame.
“Competence and experience count for a lot.”
Then how in the world could you support either Democrat against McCain?
Well, hmmm…..let’s see,
McCain=100 years in a Iraq and more of the same.
McCain is not the McCain that ran 8 years ago, some “maverick”.
McCain offers no new ideas…just McSame.
I don’t hear you belly-aching to get out of Japan, Germany, or Korea. Why are you then unwilling to keep troops in Iraq?
Anon, is there a special pleasure you get out of demonstrating your talent for stupid? I mean, I know kids who do the same thing, but they grow out of it. You? Not so much, it seems. If you’re just trolling, at least be funny about it.
No, BM, claiming that “competence and experience” are important, then supporting either Clinton or Obama, who have neither, is stupid.
Then attacking McCain for being willing to stay in Iraq, when one is willing to stay in Germany, Japan, and Korea, is similarly stupid.
Anon E. Mouse,
Japan, Germany and Korea are not analogous. Troops stationed in Japan, for example, are not shot at by the populace and they are not in imminent danger of losing their lives to IEDs or violence. It is just silly to make that comparison. Germany, Japan and Korea are not in the midst of insurrections. Sectarian violence does not disrupt daily life in any of those countries.
To your earlier point, about McCain being the choice for competence and experience, I would like to hear a well reasoned case for that. Particularly on competence, how does he demonstrate that better than the two candidates on the Democratic side? Personally, I don’t understand why McCain is running. He hasn’t really elaborated on a vision he has for America. He seems only to have grasped this nomination by sticking around and letting his opponents take each other out. And he seems to have forgotten who he was or at least the man he used to profess to be. His positions have changed dramatically over the course of one campaign. It is amazing how questing for the Republican nomination can so thoroughly change a man’s views.
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the Werewolves. They used many of the same tactics the terrorists are now using in Iraq. Our military government in Germany lasted until 1955. We got a civilian government in Iraq much sooner. That government, duly elected, has not asked us to leave, either.
The question is, do you want Iraq’s oil revenue going to terrorists, or to Iraqis?
As for McCain’s experience, we can point to many instances of his working with Democrats to get things done: the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act, Lieberman-McCain Climate Stewardship Act, the Gang of Fourteen, the McCain-Kennedy Immigration Act. Not all have passed, but he has tried. How much has Obama, the “Unity Candidate,” worked with Republicans? How much has Clinton worked with Republicans?
Now, you way he has not “elaborated on a vision he has for America.” Then you say, “his positions have changed dramatically…” Which is it? If he has not elaborated on a vision, how do you kknow his positions have changed? What positions has he changed? Has he really changed his positions, or is it just that he is willing to work with the Democrats to get things done?
If you want bipartisanship and unity, McCain is your man.
no offense but whenever two states vote and they even split the delegates ( which didn’t happen) the road has been narrowed by 2 states. there are only 5 staes left and Puerto Rico. The road has indeed narrowed, tremendously. If electability was the ultimate goal, instead of such things as the process, the will of the voters, and following the desiganated rules then I encourage the Democratic Party to never have primaries and caucuses again, since they would amount to a joke on all the Democratic voters. Lord help us if we become Republicans where there is a order by which one runs for office, instead of our vote.
Well, I’ll give McCain this, he is unifying. By his own admission, he doesn’t know what to do about the economy, and he envisions 100 more years of war in Iraq, but at least we’ll all be f*cked together.
Anon E. Mouse, you ought to read your own source on the Werwolf. To wit,
“They committed arson, though perhaps less than they are credited with: every unexplained fire or explosion associated with a military installation tended to be blamed on the Werwolf. These activities slackened off within a few months of the capitulation on May 7, though incidents were reported as late as 1947.”
In other words, they dried up within a couple of months of the Allies’ “mission accomplished” moment. Their biggest coup, assassinating the mayor of Aachen, came a month before Hitler shot himself. After the surrender, the bad guys who weren’t caught either ran to South America or disappeared into ordinary civilian life.
The situation in post-World War II Germany is in no way comparable to that in Iraq. Our military presence after the war was devoted largely to cleaning up the Nazi leadership (through use of open courts with due process) and to deterring further Soviet expansion. There was no internal guerilla movement to speak of. The occupation forces were not suffering hundreds of casualties a month. The Werwolf were little more than a minor criminal element.
Nor is Korea comparable to Iraq. Though there have been more incidents than in Germany, the Koreans are divided into two well-defined factions with a clear geographic border. Also, in Korea, we do not occupy or police areas where the hostile faction lives. The Iraqis, on the other hand, are broken into numerous tribal, religious and ethnic factions who live cheek by jowl across the country, in areas our troops attempt to police day after day. Again, our casualties since 1953 have been nowhere near comparable to what we’ve suffered in Iraq since 2003.
Any attempt to compare the occupation of Iraq to those of Germany and Japan is apples and oranges. McCain’s blather about a “100 year occupation” assumes that we will stay in Iraq until we somehow magically turn Iraq into occupied Germany, then go on with 100 years of gemutlichkeit. It’s utter nonsense, and it shows clearly that McCain’s foreign policy experience has taught him absolutely nothing.
And despite all that, we have far fewer casualties in Iraq than we had in WWI, WWII, Korea, or Vietnam. So why the yellow streak? Why run away when our casualties are so low?
There is a duly elected government in Iraq. That government has not asked us to leave, because they recognise the threat that the Islamic terrorists pose. When we left Vitnam, many thousands of people who worked with us were murdered. Is that what you want for Iraq? Do you want the U.S. to have the reputation of running after a few thousand casualties? Hell, we lost more Marines on Iwo Jima (6800) than have died in Iraq. When did the Democrats become such wimps?
Anon,
Are you posting from Iraq. I was just wondering if you have had to leave your family 4 or 5 times since the beginning of the stupidity called Iraq. Democrats are definitely not wimps since there are far more elected officials in congress serving on the Democratic side that have actually been in the military. I ask you which nations have fought against the war on terrorism by thinking invading countries will do the trick. Only one-the U.S. Germany, Britain, France , and Spain all enjoy better success against terrorism than the U.S. They realize terrorist, unlike countries move around so it is a lost cost to assume you take over a country and you defeat terrorism. Anon it is real easy to be gung-ho ahead as you and Bush are when you have the comfort of sitting in your nice cozy living room and blogging about someone being a wimp. Would i be fair in saying you are a wimp because you are not there? I will not go there as you have done.
No, Anon is posting from under a bridge. It consistently amazes me how many really really smart readers Vivian’s site gets, yet so much of the comment time is spent addressing the various idiocies that flow from Anon’s keyboard.
Have you seen the latest Reverend Manning video?
“Germany, Britain, France , and Spain all enjoy better success against terrorism than the U.S.”
Really? How many terrorist attacks have occurred in the U.S. since 9/11? How many in Germany, Spain, and England?
You’re right about one thing, Gene, our troops in WWII had in much easier — they only had ONE tour of duty.
BM, do you have any counter arguments, or do you just like to be insulting?
Mouse, why aren’t you in Iraq if you feel so strongly?
Just wondering?
Honestly, I volunteered. However, having had three knee surgeries (a ligament replacement and half of the cartilage removed), I did not pass the physical.
That’s good Mouse, sorry you weren’t able to go. I have three friends there that I pray come back ok.
I lost my former boss in Afghanastan in January. Needless to say, I support the troops but am ready for them to come home.
Anon,
they have had way fewer than the U.S. since you have to consider every troop that has died in Iraq as a terrorist act. Remember we are making their task very easy, the terrorist that have came to Iraq since the fiasco don’t even have to plan an attack against our mainland all they have to do is sit in the country of Iraq and fire away. Shoot they haven’t even got to buy gas to shoot at americans over there , just go down the street. Are you really scared of the terrorist. Do you wake up in the middle of the night with a cold sweat thinking they are going to bomb your house. Americans are a bunch of wimps if they fear that easy or think that the terrorist are out to get them.
At the risk of being told to STFU by the kumbaya wing of the Democratic Party, I stand with HRC today, tomorrow and beyond. The respect and admiration I have developed in the past few months has no bounds. The hate mongering and absolute lack of respect she has endured by the fawning Obamedia and bloggers would have shrunk most people from the fight. I now wish she would have been my first choice last year.
Mouse, most supporters of this strategic blunder in Iraq have deluded themselves into conflating Iraq with the GWOT. Iraq had virtually nothing to do with what you people call islamo-fascist terrorism. In fact, Iraq was more of a bulwark against it, a strategic counterweight to Iran in the region, with the secular dictator Saddam in power. This war has made both the threat of terrorism worse while actual terrorist attacks have exploded worldwide since. Randy is impeccably correct, to make false comparisons to WW2 and the Cold War to Iraq is both intellectually lazy and is factually an absurd claim to make. If blowing $2,000,000,000,000.00, wrecking our magnificent military and causing incredible death and destruction of Americans and Iraqis only to make matters worse is something you embrace, seek counseling at your local Bush addictive rehab center.
Oh, since Iraq is this democratic wonderland, maybe Jenna is honeymooning there this week, you think?
Sorry about your boss. Well all die — I’m glad he died well.
Gene — If they weren’t in Iraq, they’d be training. And that’s no picnic, either. Our military death rates aren’t much worse now than when Clinton was in office, and are lower than when Reagan was president. Even Carter had more military deaths in 1980 than Bush has had in ANY year.
http://www.murdoconline.net/pics/Death_Rates.pdf
Now, your point about “making their task very easy” is well taken, and that is part of the reason we are in Iraq — our military fights them over there, so we don’t have to fight them here.
This is the most vile and disgusting charge you apologist for Bush make. Take your flypaper theory and stick it. You are now just a blithering idiot worthy of contempt and scorn. How God Damn insulting you embrace the policy that sent my Marine to Iraq to attract people into Iraq to kill him so we might kill more of them while they are there. You are an imbecile if you think we are going to put the last bullet in the last terrorist and declare victory and end terrorism. Go to bloody hell you soulless bastard.
We went into Iraq because bush and the noecons ginned up a war rational, to disarm Saddam from his WMD. If you had a damn clue, you would know that only about 2% of the people we are fighting came there to kill Americans. The rest are part of indigenous sects or tribes fighting for religious, political and financial reasons. You are too stupid to even know that the Maliki political part is SCIRI, The Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq
Damn, you ruined my Sunday night with this crap. Too bad 4000 Mothers could not truly celebrate today because of you and your little despot, bush
NND, it’s not worth a ruined Sunday night. Seriously, Anon is a semi-competent troll, at best. He does well here because folks here expect a basic level of sincerity on the part of any commenter, and Anon abuses the hell out of that, over and over again. So, completely undeserving of even an ounce of your worry or anger.
Boy - talk about a thread getting off-topic! Thanks for nothing, Mouse.
proudvadem - when you say things are going both ways and proceed to give only an example of what the Hillary campaign has done, it doesn’t square.
AIAW, Bill & NND - glad to know I’m not the last Hillary supporter in Virginia.
hoh - if that’s the only reason you couldn’t support Hillary, I think that’s pretty shallow.
gene - since you’re so concerned about Democratic voters, how about your candidate allowing the votes for FL and MI to count?
MB - right as usual.
All - sometimes it’s best to just ignore Mouse.
Vivian, you brought up Iraq in your post, and proudvadem commented about Iraq before Mouse did.
How does that equate to Mouse taking things “off topic”? You didn’t say “sometimes it’s best to just ignore proudvadem for starting the Iraq debate in the comments, but you want to ignore Mouse for responding.
Boy, liberals are weird about free speech.
NND, your Marine was not drafted, and Sen. Clinton voted for the war without even bothering to go read the intel reports.
All of which ignores the fact that of all the Democratic candidates for President this year, the Democrats will nominate the LEAST qualified. Pitiful, but not surprising.
“Democrats are definitely not wimps since there are far more elected officials in congress serving on the Democratic side that have actually been in the military.”
And your Democrats in Congress (including Sen. Clinton) voted to go to war in Iraq, and continue to fund the war. It seems they know better than their core constituency.
Actually, Gene, it seems you are incorrect. Here is a site that track who in government has served in the military. 12.5% of Republican congressman have served, vs. 9.9% of Democrats. 16% of Republican Senators have served, but only 13% of Democrats.
Where did you get your numbers?
Go to hell you little pipsqueak of a mouse.
My Marine was not drafted but he answered the call to serve his country, prior to 9-11. Just because we do not draft does not mean little tin horn chickenhawks like bush and cheney, with subservient cowards like you, may misuse their service by sending them into a needless and unnecessary war. There is not greater stain on the entire neo con cabal that the stains of the red blood of the soldiers sailors and Marines who were sent to their death and dismemberment for some idea ginned up in a right wing “think” tank.
By the way, Senator Clinton voted for the Authorization to Use Force as THREAT of force as leverage to go to the UN to return UNMOVIC and the IAEA inspections regimes back into Iraq. I actually applauded the success of this when the inspectors were in fact reinserted into Iraq. But they were finding that Iraq did not in fact still posses the prohibited WMD and blew a hole in the entire war rational. It was your boy bush who lied to all when he announce the AUF vote was a vote for peace. It was your boy bush who lied to the world when he promised to go back to the UN for a second resolution if war was the next step. It was you boy bush who misused the AUF, just like he misused and broke our military.
You right wing apologist for bush are either uninformed idiots or just plain stupid. In your case, I bet both.
Vivan,
Yes things DO go both ways. I have never said the Obama campaign has been a perfect one, nor he a perfect candidate. In my eyes, for there to be a “perfect” candidate- Paul Wellstone would have to come back to life.
I am pragmatic enough to say it DOES go both ways- I’m not happy with things the Clinton campaign has said- especially about the youth vote. It makes me very happy to see the under 35 vote start to get mobilized. And like I said- this same argument was made in 1992 when I part of that “youth” vote that swept Bill Clinton into office.
Let me just say this, neither campaign can claim to wear a “halo”. I don’t like things I have seen on both sides and I know that this is how things get. This is the reason I’m not on the campaign trail anymore- I don’t have a stomach for it. As much as I love politics- I don’t like the way that primaries become “us vs. them”, when in turn- we are ALL Democrats.
“My Marine was not drafted but he answered the call to serve his country, prior to 9-11.”
Good for him. I notice he is still in, too.
“Senator Clinton voted for the Authorization to Use Force as THREAT of force as leverage to go to the UN to return UNMOVIC and the IAEA inspections regimes back into Iraq.”
That’s a good one. Congress voted for the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 on October 11, 2002, more than three weeks after Iraq had agreed to allow the inspectors to return without conditions.
Why would Clinton vote to authorize the use of force to get Iraq to do what it had already done? Maybe since she couldn’t be bothered to read the intel reports before sending the troops to war, she couldn’t be bothered to learn that Iraq had already agreed to allow the inspectors back in. Maybe she couldn’t be bothered to actually read the Resolution before she voted on it.
Brian - I mentioned Iraq. There’s a difference. It’s called context. If you don’t get that, then I guess you’re in the same boat as Mouse. Or is Mouse your alter ego?
And don’t throw that “free speech” stuff at me. There are always limits to free speech. Telling folks to ignore Mouse in no way limits his free speech. If I wanted to limit his free speech, I could just ban him. Which I’m tempted to do quite often.
NND - calm down. It ain’t worth it.
Mouse - cool it. I mean it.
Vivian,
I have no problem with giving Hillary her delegates alloted for 55% of the vote in Michigan, and the other 45% to Barack, and also have no problem alloting Hillary her delegates from Florida which would be based on about 54% and allot Obama the rest of the delegates. that would be the fairest way to resolve the issue. Would not change anything however. Also you act like I am one of those out there beating the Bush for Obama and you know that has not happened. I am not outspoken for either candidate, just stated my preference and have basically left it alone. My candidate wil be the one that wins this thing, which based on the numbers will be Obama. Ask NNDEM how serene I am about the whole thing. Oh NNDEM, just to make you feel at home and keep your streak going- STFU. P.S. That should win me a nice cold 22 oz. pitcher of some nice cold true Irish Ale.
Pipsqueak:
I still haven’t decided whether you are ill-informed, stupid or both.
October 10 - The United States Congress passes the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq.
November 8, 2002
The UN Council votes unanimously for resolution 1441, the 17th Iraq disarmament resolution passed by the council, calling for immediate and complete disarmament of Iraq. The resolution also demands that Iraq declare all weapons of mass destruction to the council, and account for its known chemical weapons material stockpiles.
November 13, 2002
Iraq accepts U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 and informs the UN that it will abide by the resolution.
Weapons inspectors arrive in Baghdad again after a four-year absence.
Maybe conservatives have their own special calendar that goes backwards, like the way they think!
NND, Iraq’s acceptance of U.N. SCR 1441 in November is little more than a reiteration of the agreement of 16 September, 2002, to allow the inspectors in “without conditions.” They had already agreed, as of Sept 16th, to allow the inspectors to return. Why did Clinton, three weeks later, vote to authorize the use of force to get Iraq to agree to allow the inspectors to return?
Who the hell gives a hoot about these stupid resolutions by us or the U.N.. the fact is that we are there, we are losing lives based on a bunch of lies(proof is in watching Colin Powell speach at the U.N.) in violation of Bush’s oath of office. Nobody lives by the UN resolutions. the U.S. is a main violator of any resolutions that might come down the pipeline, followed closely by Israel, and then the other countries just line up behind all the rest. Just this dialogue between Anon and NNDEM proves Iraq was a major disaster and we need to get out. Our Troops did what was called on them to do and we won, now it is time to get out and if the Iraqi’s want to kill each other and can’t get their stuff together then that will be their problem. It is not like they have not had the same problem before. P.S. Our troops signed up to defend our country not because the CIC says so, but because our country is somehow threatened and they were never told before hand that they could lose their lives based on big lies.
Vivian,
I’m sorry to say that I am one of those registered voters in Norfolk who didn’t vote in last Tuesday’s elections. Why you may ask. My answer, that I am disillustioned by the choices. It’s not so much voting for the best person, it’s become more like voting for the lesser evil. Too bad there aren’t more down-to-earth folks that are willing to represent the people - the “real, hard-working, low and middle income people” and have their best interest at heart. The whole situation is a sad one.
Let me type this thing out for you real slowly for easy comprehension……..
1- The AUF was passed to provide the leverage for the US to go to the UN to get a resolution of disarmament and a vigorous inspections regimes back in Iraq.
2- The UN passed the resolution and the world knew there would be military consequences should Iraq fail to comply.
3- Iraq capitulated, accepted the new resolution and UNMOVIC and the IAEA reentered Iraq.
4- The Inspectors were provided unfettered access to suspected sites, finding nothing but a technical violation of Al-Samoud intermediate range missiles that had a range of a few miles over the allowable limit. They were bulldozed and destroyed.
5- No other violations were being found and bushco was screwed…their rational for an invasion and occupation (the marketing campaign for a new product (the war) they rolled in in September) was blowing up.
The threat of force in conjunction with robust diplomacy worked for the stated goal of verifiable disarmament by Iraq. It WAS A SUCCESS and that is what Hillary voted for. Her error was thinking shrub was a man of his word and would abide by agreements he made. I fault her for that and I fault me for giving bush credit for this great diplomatic success which turned out to be a lie and charade he perpetrated on the American people, the Congress and the world.
It did not matter if vague earlier statements were being made. They were distractions to stop the real diplomacy going on at the UN. If that is all that was required, the inspectors would have already been in Iraq. Read some of Ambassador Joe Wilson’s articles on this and how the real world operates.
You are deluding yourself into thinking anything other that bushco made a strategic blunder of catastrophic proportions and no re-writing of history will prove anything other than that fact. The real grown-ups, men like Jim Webb and Anthony Zinni, predicted the clusterF that was to follow this reckless and wrongheaded decision to invade and occupy a country in the heart of the middle east. Damn, anyone who as seen Lawrence of Arabia could have predicted it.
Gene is right that, whether the reasons were right or wrong, we are now in Iraq. Vivian is also correct that the Democrats in Congress have the power to pull the troops out, and have not done so. Both Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton have voted to fund the war. At least McCain’s votes match his words.
If it were a matter of Iraqis’ killing each other, I would probably agree with you, Gene, that we need to get out. Unfortunately, it is not that simple. Leaving Iraq would give terrorists a haven, and they would have oil revenue in abundance.
If, as you say, that our troops “were never told before hand that they could lose their lives based on big lies,” then their high school history professors were delinquent in teaching about the Gulf of Tonkin incident that Johnson used to get us mired in Vietnam.
BTW, our nation wasn’t threatened by the Kosovo conflict, either, nor by Somalia, but Pres. Clinton sent them there. If Sen. Clinton wants to claim her time with Bill in the White House as “experience,” then she should answer for the deaths of our soldiers there.
NND, if your assertion is correct, why did Clinton vote to fund the Iraq War for FIVE YEARS? Her words, and yours, do not match her votes.
Furthermore, WMD and the return of the inspectors was not the sole intention of the Resolution. More than half of the WHEREAS clauses of the resolution were NOT related to WMD or inspectors.
Anon,
It is as easy as pulling our troops out. Ask the damn troops how long it would take them to pull back to the Kuwait border. they would be more than anxious. Secondly Anon the Iraqi’s will stop the terrorist from establishing a base their if that is their desire. There was not an established base there under Saddam and once we leave they would have no reason to stay there. We allowed for the terrorist in Iraq. I cannot clearly look my grandkids in the eye if I wasn’t out there pushing to get the hell out of this fiasco. My hope is that my grandkids will not have to deal with an administration that cares so little for loss of life by Americans that they would send them to a foreign land to fight based on lies and revenge. this war was predetermined the day Bush took office and the whole world knew it, but many chose to ignore it. Anybody with any sense could have seen it coming way back in 2001.
Until we change in america I cannot in good conscious encourage my sons, daughters, or grandkids to enlist in the military services. They do not need to be the pawns by which America claims their domination over the world because of an administration that wants POWER. They are living human beings.
MB said,
It consistently amazes me how many really really smart readers Vivian’s site gets….
And it gets you, too.
NND said,
You are too stupid to even know that the Maliki political part is SCIRI, The Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq
Someone who thinks himself so knowledgeable would surely realize that SCIRI has changed its name, right?
The troops I know who are there or have been there do not want to surrender.
“There was not an established base there under Saddam….”
Wrong.
“…and once we leave they would have no reason to stay there.”
Yes, they will: oil money.
Unlike you, I encourage my children to go into the military.
So, to summarize:
Hillary’s got some fantastic and dedicated supporters who are going to stick with her.
Mouse has earned some return on his trolling (and reproduced, apparently. Good god.).
And most of the Republicans that show up here still aren’t very bright.
Can we stop now? Kthxbye.
You forgot to mention that BM has nothing but ad hominem attacks.
Yes, God is good.
To a possible take on the original post. Are any of the HRC supporters willing to go McCain in the general if it’s BO v JM ?
Also since there are clearly some devout Dems here I’d like to ask another question somewhat hinting to the original post and the off topic thread. Clearly people are angry at the GOP/Bush policy but doesn’t the Dems due to ineffective leadership since 06 deserve some electoral scorn come Nov. ?
in2 - I’m trying hard to imagine a genuine HRC supporter who would actually vote for McCain, come November. At best, it’s a really tiny group, I think. Really tiny.
The Democratic leadership deserves *loads* of scorn. A full on WTF-are-you-people-doing-!?!-kick-in-the-ass serving of scorn. But given the choices this fall, the ballot box (on that day) is not the place to serve it up. Cutting off your nose to spite your face, and all that. Let’s put a Dem in the White House and increase the majorities on November 4th. On November 5th, we train our sights on our elected Dems, giving them no quarter for excuses and dithering.
I vote for and support Democrats because I want a better country. Not simply because I want Democrats in charge.
“I vote for and support Democrats because I want a better country.”
OK, I’ll buy that. What policies or programs, exactly, do Democrats favor and Republicans oppose that you think will give us a better country?
This is a wonderful post. I too became very invested in the campaign for Hillary Clinton, even though I had a tough time at first making that choice. I do care about electability, a lot, and I don’t think Obama can pull it off. But I also care about principles, and I don’t see that he has anything particularly more principled in his campaign or character than any other politician. And I do not think he is as devoted to public service as Hillary Clinton.
huntingdonpost - thanks for stopping by. You did an excellent job on your post as well.
I fully understand your point about the political process. As for siding with Hillary … that is a matter of choice. One must admit that Mrs. Clinton, at least to the Exit Polls, has a problem with credibility.
“The circumstances by which you live determine your reputation, but the truth you believe determines your character.”
Rather than expound on what I’ve already written I’ll provide the links:
http://bbooth.wordpress.com/2008/05/02/fanning-the-flames-of-discord/
http://bbooth.wordpress.com/2008/05/11/what-if/
What would the outcome of the race be … if Mrs. Clinton had use the strategy of unification as opposed to preying on the fears and prejudices of the nation?
Definitely keep your posts coming. Your thoughts are most insightful and opens up the forum of discussion.
Brian:
You are correct. After spending a few hundred billion dollars and a 30,000 American casualties, the Islamic Revolution in Iraq won and therefore dropped the revolution name from the party.
I bet that makes you bush apologist do somersaults with glee knowing our blood and treasure brought forth the Islamic revolution in Iraq. Good for you!
NND,
I would not have thought it possible, but you appear to have gotten even dumber as this thread has progressed. That’s quite an accomplishment. Congratulations.
I am not sure being called dumb by a blithering idiot is an insult. May I direct you to the local Marine Corps recruiter you coward?
Yeah, right…. in the right win bizzaro world.
Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,
1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq’s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);
2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;
3. Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;
4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq’s obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below;
5. Decides that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC’s or the IAEA’s choice pursuant to any aspect of their mandates; further decides that UNMOVIC and the IAEA may at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside of Iraq, may facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq, and that, at the sole discretion of UNMOVIC and the IAEA, such interviews may occur without the presence of observers from the Iraqi Government; and instructs UNMOVIC and requests the IAEA to resume inspections no later than 45 days following adoption of this resolution and to update the Council 60 days thereafter;
6. Endorses the 8 October 2002 letter from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq, which is annexed hereto, and decides that the contents of the letter shall be binding upon Iraq;
7. Decides further that, in view of the prolonged interruption by Iraq of the presence of UNMOVIC and the IAEA and in order for them to accomplish the tasks set forth in this resolution and all previous relevant resolutions and notwithstanding prior understandings, the Council hereby establishes the following revised or additional authorities, which shall be binding upon Iraq, to facilitate their work in Iraq:
– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall determine the composition of their inspection teams and ensure that these teams are composed of the most qualified and experienced experts available;
– All UNMOVIC and IAEA personnel shall enjoy the privileges and immunities, corresponding to those of experts on mission, provided in the Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations and the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the IAEA;
– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have unrestricted rights of entry into and out of Iraq, the right to free, unrestricted, and immediate movement to and from inspection sites, and the right to inspect any sites and buildings, including immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to Presidential Sites equal to that at other sites, notwithstanding the provisions of resolution 1154 (1998);
– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to be provided by Iraq the names of all personnel currently and formerly associated with Iraq’s chemical, biological, nuclear, and ballistic missile programmes and the associated research, development, and production facilities;
– Security of UNMOVIC and IAEA facilities shall be ensured by sufficient United Nations security guards;
– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to declare, for the purposes of freezing a site to be inspected, exclusion zones, including surrounding areas and transit corridors, in which Iraq will suspend ground and aerial movement so that nothing is changed in or taken out of a site being inspected;
– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the free and unrestricted use and landing of fixed- and rotary-winged aircraft, including manned and unmanned reconnaissance vehicles;
– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right at their sole discretion verifiably to remove, destroy, or render harmless all prohibited weapons, subsystems, components, records, materials, and other related items, and the right to impound or close any facilities or equipment for the production thereof; and
– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to free import and use of equipment or materials for inspections and to seize and export any equipment, materials, or documents taken during inspections, without search of UNMOVIC or IAEA personnel or official or personal baggage;
8. Decides further that Iraq shall not take or threaten hostile acts directed against any representative or personnel of the United Nations or the IAEA or of any Member State taking action to uphold any Council resolution;
9. Requests the Secretary-General immediately to notify Iraq of this resolution, which is binding on Iraq; demands that Iraq confirm within seven days of that notification its intention to comply fully with this resolution; and demands further that Iraq cooperate immediately, unconditionally, and actively with UNMOVIC and the IAEA;
10. Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programmes or other aspects of their mandates, including on Iraqi attempts since 1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by recommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such interviews, and data to be collected, the results of which shall be reported to the Council by UNMOVIC and the IAEA;
11. Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;
12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;
13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;
14. Decides to remain seized of the matter.
All of you - stop the name calling. Either show some civility or I’m shutting down this post.
To you Vivian, I apologize.
Even as a retrospective exercise, Iraq was a matter of life and death for my kid and have no fuse for the right wing war apologists, much less a short one.
I admire your call for civility, Vivian. Emotions are running high. I have think the most amazing thing is how people resort to calling others stupid or dumb because we have different preferences. Comments like Brian’s made are getting more typical–ad hominem attacks that don’t enlighten anyone.
Stop by and see what you think of my picks for a Hillary Cabinet (all serious).
I’ll state upfront that I’m supporting Sen. Obama and have been for over a year (I live in Illinois).
That said, if Sen. Clinton were to garner the nomination, I will work for her this election year just as hard as I will for Sen. Obama. (Same if Sen. Edwards or Sen. Dodd or another of our candidates were to have earned the nomination.)
Overall I enjoyed your post and think your loyalty is great and serves our shared party well. But, I do have one nit to pick with your post.
You wrote, “And isn’t trying to not count votes that favor your opponent, most notably FL, the old way?”
…The state parties of Florida and Michigan both knew the DNC rules from the get-go. All of the campaigns agreed to abide by the rules and didn’t visit FL or MI to campaign out of respect for those rules. As has often been noted, members of Sen. Clinton’s campaign staff voted in favor of those rules at the DNC.
Like them or not, the rules are the rules. I have no doubt a plan will be formulated to seat the FL and MI delegations (or a prorated portion thereof, as the Republicans are doing).
But one can’t logically complain about the rules after first agreeing to them… the result would be anarchy (and would likely lead to Thanksgiving primaries and caucuses instead of early January ones).
It’s minor nit on my part, but understandably a major bone of contention among Sen. Clinton’s supporters.
I wish you the best.
Rob - FL’s Democrats had no choice in the matter. (The Republican legislature set the date and did them in.) That’s the reason why I so strenously believe that those delegates should be seated and should not be penalized. MI is another issue altogether, and I honestly wish that the two states would not be combined.
NND,
As a courtesy to Vivian, I’ll refrain from saying what I think about you and your posts. I’ll merely say that smug, preening self-righteousness from anyone is annoying and deserving of mockery.
I guess that smug, preening self-righteousness comes with being correct, I suppose. And if annoying is the least I can become to a bush apologist, I will have to work much much harder within the rules of propriety set down by VJP.
Vivian,
“On 10 June 2007, the Florida Democratic Central Committee voted unanimously to support the state’s 29 January 2008 primary.” http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/FL-D.phtml
Furthermore, rather than “having no choice in the matter,” “The Florida House voted unanimously to move it up….” http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/04/us/politics/04florida.html
Is the Florida House made up entirely of Republicans?
Mouse - catch up. We already talked about this here.
Not a single protest vote, Vivian? AND the Florida Democratic Central Committee stood by the decision, also unanimously?
In fact, the effort to move up the date was sponsored by a Democrat, Jeremy Ring. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=printer_friendly&forum=132&topic_id=4626494
Here is a telling quote: “Florida Senate Democratic Leader Steve Geller stated on the Senate floor that he was offering an amendment to move the primary to February 5 only because he was threatened by DNC Chair Howard Dean. Sen. Geller than mocked his own amendment which failed on a voice vote without any debate.”
That does not sound like a railroading to me.
Vivian,
If I may comment on your actual post instead of the rodent-based idiocy …
I think that you should stick with your candidate as long as you believe she’s the one you want. I wouldn’t ever back her … but that’s me.
I was with Mike Huckabee when he was polling at 1%. People told me I was crazy and was wasting my vote. I stick by what I did as right.
I am now backing Joe Schriner as am independent, because I believe that he’s the right person for me to back — I won’t go with McCain, Obama, or Clinton.
In all cases, at every moment, every voter should back a candidate that he or she really wants to see win, who shares his or her values, and is the right person for the job. No one should ever just back someone because other people say so.
The Democratic side is very interesting right now, from my point of view.