There's so much going on it's hard to track all of it, but I would be remiss if I didn't mention John Edwards and his impressive speech today on the war on terror. AJ at Americablog says what I think is about right.
The speech was perhaps most notable for what it did not include: absent was the reflexive bellicosity that conventional Democratic beltway wisdom has long insisted is necessary to project "strength" on foreign policy and national defense. There was no talk of "keeping all options on the table," no insistence that the Middle East only understands strength, and no blind endorsement of plans that deserve significant debate (such as increasing the size of the military).Edwards rejected the "war on terror", rightly identifying it as a political frame, and slammed the Bush doctrine of preventive war. He also clearly identified how the current administration is hurting the military, both in the field and at home, offering a persuasive alternative model for the civil-military relationship.
I'll quibble in that he says he'll leave troops in the Green Zone to protect the embassy, but the rejection of of fear is huge. By contrast, Clinton would not say how she would have voted on Feingold-Reid (she voted for cloture) and will not now say how she's going to vote on the new capitulation supplemental.
Either route chosen will bring with it huge potential political pitfalls, as Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., tacitly acknowledged Wednesday afternoon in her dismissive comments to reporters asking her how she will vote."When I have something to say, I will say it, gentlemen," Clinton told journalists.
I'm going to quote Digby.
Taking into account that this report is the usual Jake Tapper insider BS filled with GOP talking points, the fact remains that if Senator Clinton hasn't learned her lesson by now she never will. Voting for the Iraq resolution was the biggest mistake she ever made and it remains the biggest obstacle to her winning the nomination. Democratic voters reluctantly forgave John Kerry and John Edwards for making that boneheaded decision the first time but they won't do it again. If she votes with Bush on Iraq this time, it's over. She will lose the left wing of her party completely.In fact, I'm shocked that any of the Democratic candidates for president would even entertain a passing thought that they would vote for this thing. It was a bad political calculation in 2002 and it so much more stupid now that I can't even wrap my mind around the idea that they aren't rushing to the microphones to declare their vote against it.
I actually think it's a little simpler than this. Clinton is a hawk. She believes in the occupation and she doesn't want to withdraw all our troops from Iraq because she thinks they are protecting what she sees as vital national security interest. I'm not going to pretend this is a political calculation, I'm not going to be that condescending to Clinton. She genuinely thinks this and is pretty upfront about it (though she does try to blur the difference as a strategy, her policy statements are pretty clear). She doesn't regret her 2002 war vote, to her it wasn't a mistake. And now it's up to the Democratic primary voting universe to take her at her word, and debate whether it makes sense to leave troops in Iraq and choose Clinton as our nominee, or to ask our nominee to pull our troops out and choose someone else. This is what democracy is about, it's what primaries are about.
I'm looking forward to seeing which Senators filibuster the capitulation bill.
|
|
|
Permalink :: 60 Comments :: Post a Comment
|
In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.
If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.
