Note: This will probably piss off the ardent Hillary supporters, and it should. However, it should because of the hard right turn on neoconservative foreign policy issues and the threat of more vague war as well as the cover she is providing for the continuation of a failed and deadly policy by this administration. Let’s hope that there is some objectivity here as opposed to the “knee jerk freeper like sexist” strawman name calling that I have endured in the past for criticism of her words and policies.
I have thought Senator Clinton has done a pretty good job in the Senate. I say this as a New Yorker who saw some of the things she has done over the past six years for the state. I have also long thought that she would not make a good leader as far as President of the United States. There are a number of reasons why, some personal, some policy, some perception and some because of who she associates with. That is not to detract from her being a very capable Senator, but in this time in history, I feel we need a strong leader that “gets it”, especially with respect to this country’s priorities and our foreign policy role around the world.
Comments like this one that she made the other day about “things working in Iraq but only years too late in changing our tactics” and “we can’t be fighting the last war, we have to be preparing to fight the new war” are two of the most recent and most egregious examples of why Senator Clinton doesn’t “get it” on so many levels and is increasingly showing why she is not nearly the best candidate to lead this country through the next few, very difficult and trying years.
So, Senator – what exactly did you mean by “the new war”? I think We the People have a right to know just what war you have in store for this nation if you are to be trusted as our leader? Does the “new war” call for meddling and sticking your nose into another country’s political process and call for the removal of that leader, as you have recently (and so wrongfully done) about al-Maliki? If you are so interested in removing a country’s leader – especially one that has repeatedly failed to do right by that country, why not start right here in the US? Or is that not “politically feasible” for you?
Does the “new war” include praising a failed and fatally flawed non-mission of “whack-a-mole” in Iraq (especially since any reduction in violence in Anbar is wholly unrelated to the escalation), while ignoring the harsh reality of massive deaths to Iraqis, increased bombings, lack of any security, no political hope of reconciliation anytime soon or the findings of our own National Intelligence Estimate which was released right around the same time you made those asinine comments about “progress”?
Does the “new war” involve bombing Iran over reasons that have been proven unfounded, out and out false or specious at best? Does it involve ignoring reality and any hopes for peace in the Middle East? Does it continue the neoconservative doctrine of world dominance to the detriment of this nation’s infrastructure and economy?
Does the “new war” involve a war on the lack of fair and affordable health insurance for tens of millions of Americans? If so, then why are you waiting to “unveil” your plan, whereas a true leader would be out in front on this most important issue?
To me, each statement that is made about “progress” in Iraq – ESPECIALLY when it talks more about the failed mission that most of America wants over than it does about the heroic effort that our overextended and overworked (not to mention underpaid and underequipped) troops are putting in – with absolutely no idea as to what they are supposed to be doing is a failed statement.
There can be no progress that would bring the situation in Iraq any closer to a feasible resolution. There can be no progress when the main reason for a decrease in violence in certain areas is due to ethnic cleansing and segregation. That is not progress. That is more evidence of failure.
Calling for the replacement of al-Maliki is not “progress”. It is nothing more than asking for more time for the occupation, killing and attacks to continue. I’ll say it plainer for you: it is not al-Maliki. Nobody can fix this situation. To replace him would merely reset the clock for more death and theft waste of taxpayer dollars.
Sorry, Senator – you just don’t get the big picture. And being first lady for eight years is no more “experience” than working in the state legislature. It is merely a different perspective. And clearly, that perspective still hasn’t led you to say the things to articulate a vision that this country sorely needs.
We should be protecting ourselves. As your husband said, “strength AND wisdom”. That means preparing for NO war. Not a “new war”.
Those words are dangerous. Those words are counterproductive. Those words call for more of the same. You might as well say “meet the new war, same as the old war”.
And we don’t need, nor can we afford more of the same.
also in orange
Supporters of Hillary Clinton need to take heed: she is the pure DLC/AIPAC candidate in this run, which equates to Republican Lite and a continuation of Cheney-Bush foreign policy. That means some variation of “stay the course” in Iraq and an attack against Iranian nuclear facilities. The latter could easily generate into a wider Middle East conflagration.
An uninterrupted continuation of our economic imperialist policies will be disastrous. For us AND for the rest of the world.
Is she just posing?
Politicking?
Hustling for position and power?
Or is she so committed to “the middle” that she does not realize the universal fact that the middle of every sinkhole is where the deepest danger lies.
We shall soon see, because I still believe that she is going to win the whole thing.
We shall soon see.
Later…
AG
Sorry Arthur, you seem to be looking for the ideal soft pillow landing. It won’t exist. I’m willing to let myself and my country go; we are the greatest example of an excess and unnecessary society on Earth. We deserve to collapse and regroup. It won’t be pretty, and it’s not going to happen gradually. The utterly sick planet will go much faster than the excess mentality of the United States’ people. We will go down with global climate change and pollution, it will be a mess.
An uninterrupted continuation of our economic imperialist policies will be disastrous. For us AND for the rest of the world.
Shame on you for not being able to sacrifice! What kind of progressive are you?
running far hard right to prove she’s as manly.
She is so far right Zbig Brzezinski endorses Obama
Hillary should read this posting at “Army of Dude” via Steve Clemons over at Andrew Sullivan
are now saying the “new tactics” [ie: surge] are working.
they’re both positioning themselves to continue the status quo, with some minor reductions in troops [a situation that has to and will happen beginning in april 2008, unless they want to re-instate the draft] and perhaps a consolidation of what troops remain into the permanent bases that have been constructed.
both of them are too far right and that bodes ill for the future, much to the detriment of the feelings and desires of 3/4’s of the american electorate.
l don’t relish the idea of either one of them being on the ticket frankly, and a Clinton/Obama slate?….l don’t even want to think about it.
lTMF’sA
Yes, Obama is Clinton-lite. Nothing more. I have no motivation to vote for Obama any more than I’d vote for Clinton.
Kucinich or Gravel!!
It’s not a matter of getting it. Clinton wants power, period. She wants to be the President of the United States. That is the beginning, middle, and end of her ambitions.
To a (very slightly) lesser degree, the same appears to be true of Barack Obama.
I am not looking forward to 2008.
I hope Gore runs. Unless he decides to lead a campaign of civil disobediance.
That would be nice. Of the candidates currently running who have any chance at all, the only one I can stomach is Edwards, and he’s a bit too bourgeois for my taste.
SOHBG.
Her and her husband’s view of what the world “should be” in the shaping of “third wave” politicos, pundits and powerbrokers, is gone, obsolete, and useless. As our world collides with it’s pollution, overpopulation, and greed in the “First World” (spilling to the 2nd [China] and 3rd Worlds [India]), such elitist determinism shown by the Blair/Clinton/Thatcher/Kissinger/Bush-Saudi axis of oligarchy is failed, and Iraq-Afganistan are perfect examples of the failure. This oligarchy has been trying to squeeze easy victory/profit from the Middle East and South America for the last 30 years, and it’s a disgrace and is proven a failure. SA is radicalizing and socializing, and the Middle East is taking up arms and defending it’s soil, it’s religion, and it’s sovereignty.
Hilary represents the old and staid, she deserves nothing but failure and derision.
It’s a tough call on Hillary. She’s taking her cues from her hubby, who was Triangulator Rex, and survived. I don’t like what she’s up to, but will give her the benefit of the doubt. Those of us who like our politics not only up front and personal, but out in the open are very discouraged by her meandering. It doesn’t seem to reflect what can win, and more importantly, what can change American opinion about our role in the world. The next President of the United States will be in the unique role (since 1920, or at the latest 1945) of presiding over a nation that no longer calls the shots. This is going to be a big shift, and it’s not clear that any of our candidates have faced up to the fact that the big stick is now a limp noodle.
I don’t have the faintest idea whether Hillary is up to this challenge, but I recognize the reality that nobody is up to telling it straight to the American people. I bet a fair number of people on this blog aren’t up to facing up to it.
Knut said:
“I recognize the reality that nobody is up to telling it straight to the American people. I bet a fair number of people on this blog aren’t up to facing up to it.”
Perhaps. I’ll accept your reality challenge.
Ossama’s #1 rationale for attacking the WTC and Pentagon was neither the US troop presence in Saudi Arabia, nor the apartheid policy of Israel. Rather it was the 600,000 dead Iraqis, mostly children as a result of Bill Clinton’s embargo and the destruction of water purification and sewage treatment plants.
To act as if somehow the Clintons'(or Obama, for that matter) have a different power and empire agenda than the American Fascists is to be delusional. The game is fixed. The high cost of playing the presidential candidate game (compared to any country that has any real component of citizen decision making) requires adoption of the corporate agenda of resource exploitation to be (s)electable.
A Russian once said, the difference between us and you Americans is that we KNOW our democracy is fake.
For a graphic illustration of when US politics became a vehicle for expropriating domestic, as well as foreign income and wealth, check out Robert Frank’s graphs, before and after the Reagan years. FWIW, Robert has co-authored a number of economics text with Ben Bernanke, the current Federal Reserve Chair.
its the DLC stupid! The DLC. Hil will never waver from dlc philosophy. She is a loser. The dlc is going to bury the dems and ya know what? screw the dems. If they can’t see it by now they never will.
If she wins we’ll likely lose the congress to the republicans again. Fortunately it will be the dlcers that will be massacred the worse, like it was under Bill, so we can concentrate on actblue candidates.