Hillary Clinton's supporters

It is really interesting reading some of the pro-Hillary responses in the comment section of various articles in the internets. I have noticed that Hillary supporters are quick to point out that because Hillary won a primary (like WV) that Obama can't win against McCain in the general election come November. This sort of mindset reveals that a vote for Hillary is a vote for McCain.

Another interesting bit of information that might be of some note to Hillary supporters, according to the exit polls, those that voted for Hillary did so because of her husband. I guess the people of WV figure that a vote for Hillary is a vote for her Bill.

It looks like Hillary has but one objective, win the Democratic Party nomination. If she doesn't win the nomination then she appears determined, destined to destroy the party with blessings of her aforementioned supporters.

Calling John McCain at 3 am

If experience is the measure by which we are to select our preferred presidential candidate in the 2008 election cycle then all I can say is: We are fucked! Let's face it the candidates with the most experience are Hillary Clinton (according to her) and John McCain. Now we should remember that the experiences of both of these candidates led them to vote in favor of abdicating their constitutional role to declare war against Iraq and allow Bush carte blanche to do whatever he has seen fit as it pertains to the invasion and occupation of Iraq. (Bush has seen fit to interpret the same abdication as giving him the authority to attack Iran. But that is another cartoon and another post.) Neither Clinton or McCain have the wisdom to be the President of the United States. Of course Bush didn't have either wisdom or experience and look what he has done to make the world more unstable.

The Red Phone

It's 3 am and the red phone in the White House on Pennsylvania Ave. is ringing. Who is going to answer the phone? If you want someone with experience then you'll have to accept that between the Hillary Clinton and John McCain, then McCain is the candidate for you. After all, McCain has more experience than either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.

Of course, the same experience that Hillary claims would make her a better commander-in-chief is the same experience (when her husband was the president) that led her to vote in favor of the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Her experience was surely lacking when she voted to support Bush's personal vendetta against Saddam Hussein cause he tried to kill his father. Why should her experience be any more valuable now then it was back then?


An aside: If Hillary is the DNC candidate it will be interesting to see her try to out-hawk McCain on Iran. Oh boy I can already imagine the cartoons...

The Call at 3 AM

I was watching the news, and Hillary was talking about her victories in Rhode Island and Ohio. Her first victories after losing 12 states in a row to Obama. She was on the stump throughout her "victory" speech while in Ohio. Hillary began touting her commercial and her argument that Obama doesn't have the experience necessary to take the call at 3 am. To Hillary's way of thinking, she has the experience (most of it her husband's) to answer the "red phone" if there were an emergency at 3 in the morning.

Now, as she spoke I got to thinking about if Hillary does become the Democratic Party presidential nominee and faces John McCain in a presidential debate. I started to wonder about the intellectual honesty of Hillary Clinton. Imagine that while in a debate with McCain the moderator asks Hillary Clinton:

"During the Democratic Primary you ran a commercial that accused Barack Obama of lacking the experience it takes to respond in a moment of crisis should the call come in at 3 am. Now, your opponent is a former POW, a decorated military man who has served his country for the better part of 30 years. If the phone rings at 3 am, do you still want the person in this debate with the most experience to take that call? And is that person you?"

If Hillary Clinton is "intellectually honest," then she would have to defer to John McCain. Let's face it, if you want the person answering the phone at 3 am to have the most experience, then McCain wins hands down against either Democratic Party candidate.

It was funny that Bill Bennett said on CNN that McCain would be able to use the Hillary "3 am" commercial against Obama by changing the ending that showed McCain answering the phone. Bennett was right. But Bennett was also short-sighted. McCain will be able to take Hillary's vaunted commercial and use it against her. And she won't have her experience to stand on.

Republicans Retreat From Their War History

How the GOP ditched decades of hard-headed foreign policy realism

Steve Chapman | May 10, 2007

We all know that when it comes to war, Republicans are strong and resolute, while Democrats are weak and craven. We know because Republicans tell us so.

Those have been the constant GOP themes in the congressional debate over the Iraq war. House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio accused Democrats who want to mandate withdrawal by a certain date of proposing "a timetable for American surrender." They were cheering for "defeat," charged Arizona Sen. John McCain. President Bush vowed that unlike his partisan opponents, he would not "cut and run."

During last week's Republican presidential debate at the Ronald Reagan Library, Rudy Giuliani cited the 40th president as a model of fortitude in dealing with enemies. Among "the things that Ronald Reagan taught us," he declared, is that "we should never retreat in the face of terrorism."

No one present was impolite enough to mention that far from spurning retreat in the face of terrorism, the Gipper embraced it. After the 1983 terrorist bombing in Beirut, which killed 241 American military personnel, he recognized the futility of our presence in Lebanon and pulled out.

Boehner portrays himself and his colleagues as brave patriots who would never accept anything less than victory in war. But in 1993, when things got tough in Somalia, he voted for withdrawal. John McCain likewise favored "defeat" in that conflict. He opposed a timetable for withdrawal not because he wanted U.S. forces to stay but because it would take too long. Our soldiers, he insisted, should leave "as rapidly and safely as possible." Or, you could say, cut and run.

At the same time, Democrats were warning of the dangers of retreat. Among them was a senator from Massachusetts named John Kerry.

Both times, the Republicans favoring withdrawal had the right idea. In neither case was our intervention justified, and nothing at stake in Lebanon or Somalia was worth the cost in American lives.

They also favored an outcome short of victory in the Kosovo war of 1999, when the GOP-controlled House voted down a resolution supporting the president's air campaign. Most House Republicans also supported a measure calling for the withdrawal of American troops from the Balkans.

Back then, House Republican Leader Tom DeLay said, "The bombing was a mistake," and urged Clinton to "admit it, and come to some sort of negotiated end." Can you guess the title of DeLay's new book? No Retreat, No Surrender.

The truth is, Republican presidents are not known for staying the course in the face of adversity. Dwight Eisenhower ran on a promise to end the Korean war, which he did -- on terms that allowed the communist aggressors to remain in power in the North. Richard Nixon negotiated a peace agreement with the North Vietnamese government, which provided for a U.S. pullout. Gerald Ford presided over the fall of Saigon and the final, humiliating American evacuation.

In those instances, the presidents came to grips with the unpleasant truth that sometimes, you can't achieve the desired outcome without an excessive sacrifice, if at all. But when it comes to Iraq, Republicans insist we should be ready to pay any price in pursuit of a victory that has eluded us for so long. In their view, weighing the costs against the benefits, or acknowledging that we don't have a formula for success, is tantamount to appeasement.

What Republicans stood for in the past was a sober realism about the limits of our power and our good intentions. That spirit is absent today. They act as though slogans are a substitute for strategy. What they claim as steadfast resolve looks more like blind obstinacy.

It's silly to say victory is the only option unless you actually have a way to achieve it and are willing to commit the necessary resources. The administration and its allies on Capitol Hill insist that this time, they know what they're doing. But they said the same thing at every point along the way, and if they had been right, the phrase "Mission Accomplished" wouldn't be a national joke.

Maybe at last they have found the key to success. More likely, though, they are just wasting lives and money postponing the inevitable. It's terrible to lose a war. But as several Republican presidents could attest, it's even worse to persist in one you can't win.


H/T to Antiwar.com and Reason Magazine.