Hillary Clinton represents the war party in U.S. politics, which is much more important than any differences between the Rs and the Ds. This is a supra-party formation that insists that we spend our treasure, our prestige and credibility, and our children in arming for, training for and shipping out for—conquest. Despite the unfolding catastrophe in Iraq that grinds on year after year, this party remains in charge. Hillary is the guarantee that November’s election will not dislodge it.
Clinton’s performance at the state of the union address in January should be proof enough, and I can’t figure why the Obama campaign isn’t using footage of her leaping to her feet and applauding wildly in response to Bush’s stupid lies about the surge to drive a truck between the two of them on the issue.
Perhaps Obama thinks the voters lean towards the Hillary/Bush position, but sometimes one has to take a principled stand even if it costs votes. McCain did, and he’s looking credible or at least consistent on the issue as well as out of his mind.
Meanwhile, many people have pointed out that coverage of the war has dropped precipitously in our newspapers, and the murderous Iraqi gangs can take part of the blame for that as they’ve made it virtually impossible for reporters to generate news from the place. But the lapdog media are guilty too. We’ll have a new spate of stories when the 4,000-American-death barrier is crossed in a couple of weeks, then it’ll fade again in favor of more sad tales of mortgage foreclosures.
The debate Clinton’s stirred up about Obama’s experience misses the point entirely. Nobody seems to have a great plan for dealing with the mess Bush made, but for that very reason no one associated or complicit with that demented decision should be put in charge of it. That seems to me elementary—experience is good when it shows you’re not half simple.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment