Dear Senator Clinton: Does George W. Bush Pass the Commander-in-Chief Threshold?

This is not a trick question. I really do need to know what you think, since your strong lurch to the right has confused me. Bush has been Commander-in-Chief for 7+ years, so he must have passed your threshold, right? Isn't that how you see it? I know he can't claim a lifetime of experience, like your good pal John McCain, or even eight full years of First Lady experience, like you, but still--he has actually been the Decider and done the job, so he's qualified. Right?
For you. Not for me.

For me, the actions Bush has taken as Commander-in-Chief conclusively demonstrate that he is not remotely qualified for the job. I feel the same way about McCain, too, of course (I thought we all did, all of us who oppose the war and have worked to retire -- and perhaps even incarcerate -- the neocons). McCain's unyielding, lonely, and even courageous support of Bush's illegal and ruinously destructive war in Iraq conclusively demonstrates to me that he too fails to pass the Commander-in-Chief threshold (whatever that is). McCain was brave and honorable, he sacrificed much to serve his country while the current Commander-in-Chief, and his VP, and your husband, and I, too, avoided that opportunity. He is apparently a better person than the leader whose mistakes he embraces, but does that service and the rest of his lifetime of experience qualify him to be our Commander-in-Chief?

How can you think so? What do you really think about the War in Iraq? You said the other day that we have given the Iraqis the gift of freedom. Really? Is that what we've done? At such a cost? Is that what we set out to do? Is there anything more required of us to put the icing on that little cake? Is that why you voted the way you did? Is that line anything but a charged, hyperbolic, patently false, disgraceful Republican talking point? Who are you? What do you really think? What are you really planning to do if you are elected? Tell the truth!

As for your own qualifications: your failure to read the NIE report before you voted to authorize the Iraq war; your inexplicable and falsely characterized vote against the Levin amendment; your vote for the authorization of Bush's war (which then became your war); and your truly astonishing vote for the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment to give your President similar permission to protect us in Iran prove conclusively to me that you are as qualified to be Commander-in-Chief as Bush and McCain, no more, no less. That is to say: not at all.

Which leaves us with eloquent (not a criticism), principled (not a criticism), and decent (ditto) Barack Obama, the only candidate still in contention who has not proved conclusively by his bad judgment and his actions that he is unqualified to be Commander-in-Chief.

You and Bush and McCain are on one side of that threshold, and, the way I see it, Obama's on the other. Your speeches and your ad campaign have indeed frightened me, though not perhaps the way you intended: I shudder at the idea of any of you three, the Commander or his like-minded Commander wannabes, answering that call at 3 A.M. Please: let it ring! It's for Obama!

Your allying yourself with McCain and your intense, serious, and probably effective efforts to tarnish Obama's candidacy have been useful for something, however. All along I've been assuming, despite my growing distaste for your campaign and your positions, that if on election day my choice was between you and McCain, I would hold my nose and think about universal health care and the Supreme Court and cast my vote for you.

You have managed to persuade me not to do that. I'll vote for Obama in November, or I will write in a progressive candidate. I will not vote for a candidate I neither trust nor respect. That's the threshold you've crossed. I will not vote for you and your mean-spirited, divisive, old, tired, selfish, vaunting, anti-hope, and anti-liberal Republican message. I suspect there are many like me, and I suspect further that you know all about us -- or at least think you do.

You and your embarrassing brain trust are pretty sure we'll come around because we have to. (Although your endorsement of McCain as a good second choice makes it somewhat less urgent for us to vote, doesn't it?) Anyway, whatever you think, I won't come around. On the day the House gives Bush his FISA bill with telecom immunity (a vote you skipped in the Senate), I'm changing my registration to Independent. I'll still donate to progressive candidates (mostly to help them win Democratic primaries) and I hope to vote for Obama in November, but I will never vote for McCain or any candidate who champions him over Obama, even if she has a lifetime of impressive ceremonial experience.

As for all the talk of a dream ticket -- would you consider that? Would you consider taking the second spot on the ticket? If so, if there is any way to stop this terrible, destructive assault on our future by ending this primary campaign now, please do it. I'm sure McCain is very grateful for your support, and he hasn't picked his running mate yet. You'll be able to deliver voters he can't get on his own: Limbaugh, Coulter . . . With two lifetimes of such good judgment and great experience combined on the same ticket, how can you fail? And then Clinton-Bush (Jeb, of course) in 2016. Happy hunting.

Comments

[DRHoen]

Hear hear!

[CubanPete]

NEWSFLASH! No civilain is qualified to be Commander - in Chief. Only a person who actually knows firsthand what it is like to be a member of the military should be in the position to send other military people in harms way. The whole nonsense about the CINC should be a civilian because we don't want any military person go "gung-ho" on the world has obviously been debunked by the actions of the last CINC (who contarary to popular belief - has never served in the ACTUAL military - he only served in the the rich boys, dress - up like a fighter pilot and escape from going to vietnam country club). That being said McCain is qualified. Hillary and Obama are not "automatically" qualified so the next qualifications required for this serious position of sending Americans into harms way should be who has the maturity and wisdom and experience in government and who would most people trust to send our military to fight only when necessary for America's safety and not any other country or for his/her personal interests. So Hillary was right about McCain having the experience over Obama - whether or not you believe she has more than Obama is up to each voter to decide.

[magen]

Hillary WON'T say her war votes were mistakes.

If they WEREN'T mistakes, and she doesn't REGRET giving these neo-CON a-holes these powers after they have sooooooooooo abused them, what does that say about her?

She deserves to be kicked out of the Senate as well, and as a NYC resident, I will vote her out as soon as I can. Schumer too-for giving us Alberto Mukasey.

[rflctammt]

I absolutely agree with you, Mr. Dwyer. We must all do our part to encourage Senator Obama and his supporters to maintain their integrity and KEEP THE DREAM ALIVE. Ms. Clinton has surely amazed and dismayed so many of us with her campaign's unprincipled tactics of late, but we must not falter in our desire and willingness to work for the change that Obama has inspired in so many. I also cannot imagine voting for Clinton after her unbelievable attacks, but I do not believe that we will have to make that decision. We need to stay out of the gutter and get back on the high road - spreading the word and showing people what it means to believe in the future: Call someone! Write a letter! Write three! Send an e-mail! Have a party. Volunteer or do a kind deed in Obama's name. Let the DNC and your senators and congressmen know how you feel! Let's all get out there! Now is the time!

[moevaughn]

re: Does GWB pass Commander-in-Chief threshold?

This is a ridiculous question. GWB is not running for office now. When he did run for president: no, he was not at all experienced in national security issues. Maybe that's why he ignored the memo warning him Al Quaeda was about to attack the U.S. In fact, GWB the candidate's qualifications (or lack thereof) to be commander in chief are more similar to BHO's qualifications (or lack thereof) than any of the candidates of 2008.

[DRHoen]

You totally missed the point. Let me spell it out for you: experience != qualified to be CIC. It's about judgement, which Bush, McCain, and Clinton appear to lack.

[moevaughn]

and you missed mine.

this is no time to have another president come into office, a la Bush, with training wheels intact. BHO is as under-qualified as GWB was, especially on national security.

a lot of people were against Bush's invasion of Iraq in March 03. The authorization resolution passed in fall 02 was not a blank check for war. The resolution required that Bush work with the U.N. to resolve problems with Iraq. Stop blaming, like Bush himself does, others for Bush's war. He broke it; he owns it.

[DennyCrane]

I agree. Hillary assumes that if she's the nominee, everything she's done throughout this campaign will be forgiven and we'll all rally behind her to defeat John McCain. Don't bet on it. Many of us won't forget what she's done. At the start of this campaign, I told myself I would never vote for a Republican, except maybe, MAYBE Ron Paul since he's the only anti-war Republican. Since Hillary was the frontrunner at the start of this campaign, I figured she'd be the nominee and I'd have no choice but to vote for her. But now I can't. There's no way I will ever vote for Hillary Clinton. Now I know what many of you are going to say. A vote against Clinton is a vote for McCain. Actually it's not. They're the same person. If HIllary is on the ballot, I'll write in Obama and I encourage every Obama supporter to do the same. Don't condone what this so-called Democrat has done by voting for her.

[LAJonathan]

EXACTLY. Thank you!

[whimsicalpig]

news flash, none of the 3 are suited or prepared to be the comander inchief.

I am tired of the "if hillary is bad then that must mean obama is good" arguement.

they are both ( hold that- all 3 of them) flawed and unworthy of the office

we are stuck with them because they were the "novelty" or "token" candidates that the MSM thought would pull their ratings through an undoubtedly long primary season

Sort of like Sanjaya on American Idol. a spectacle for their bobble-headed pundits to opine about

I shudder to think of any of them at the helm for the next 4 years,
an angry old white man with PTSD,
an egomaniacal over acheiver out to compensate for her husbands failures
and a slick , untested and oblique neophyte with un-attainable dreams and a band of crazed followers.

after 8 years of wandering in the wilderness waiting for the nightmare to end, this is the best america could come up with?

[jfor]

Are people who have a job, pay taxes, vote, love their spouse, love their children, love their families(even the crazy Bush loving inlaws), are honest and who are fair now known as crazed?

As one of Obama's supporters and one who voted for him, you can be assured ample thought, research and discussion was utilized prior to the decision to support him. While meeting him over a beer would be interesting it played no part in the decision making process.

[whimsicalpig]

what did you research?

He really doesn't have a body of real life accomplishments to judge him on.

All you can really do is read his writings and listen to his speeches.

Talking about doing something, opining on how things should or could be isn't a lot to judge a person aspiring to the highest job in the land.

You don't even have a plan from him as to how he would achieve his
"change" in real time.

Does he give a list of names of 61 senators and 180+ representatives who have signed on ( really signed a pledge) to his change agenda'

Have they all promised to buck their K-street sponors and vote against those sponsor's best interests to do all obama wants.

He is all about talk that you want to hear. that's real easy to do.

Honestly, have you really thought beyond the election? Just what makes you think ;the powers that really control this country will work against their own best interests just because you demand it.

He is advocating a system that will alter the flow of power and wealth, people with power and wealth don't give that up just because you ask nicely.

I realize that the current situation is hardly likable, but utopian solutions have been offered in this country many times in the past, never worked, never will.

You truely have to believe that there is inherent good in people in order to accommodate a philosophy such as his,

that is called a religion, not a political movement.

what he offers sure sounds fine, but I am not willing to give him the power to try, as I already know how it will end and we don't stand to get another chance if he fails

[DasBoot]

Thank you, Frank, for directing the hysterical public discussion to a real issue. Such calm analysis is needed at a time when the MSM lap dogs are jumping after every bone Hillary and McCain are throwing at them.

[leftintheoven]

Not only that but what you are seeing in Hillary's comments and speeches is what you will see if she ends up in the White House. She will turn on anyone who does not support her or agrees with her. In this case, she and Barack are very much aligned in policy and approach. But since he was putting her to shame on the campaign trail, she decided to get down, dirty and ugly about it. So she is now doing WHATEVER SHE HAS TO DO TO WIN THE NOMINATION. Professional therapy is in order for this woman.

The MSM won't touch the subject but she is an embarrassment to the Democratic Party. We need a calmer and more even tempered person like Barack Obama to lead this county back to some sort of respectability at home and around the globe.

[whimsicalpig]

we don't even know who this obama is.

He is still an unknown, untested quantity.

He is being given every quality that people want to take away from hillary.

Just because she is soooo baaaad doesn't make him soooo gooood.

He seems to be benefiting from being put in the right place at the right time by the MSM that thought a contest between the "novelty" woman and the "token" black man would lead to good 24/7 news coverage for this oh so long primary season.

don't you get it.

he isn't really anything but the repository of the other half of the democratic party's antithisis with the clintons.

Even those "Big Gun" endorsements he is getting are more wounds inflicted on the clinton's for past deeds than any thing else.

repeatedly tearing down hillary doesn't enhance obama, because there is still nothing being said about him.

we are just fooled into thinking he is everything hillary is not.

that has not been proven, but he is using a great tactic, he is letting people assume the difference must be there, quite ingenious.

[byrok67]

as my wife and i started out in this process, we indeed were leaning toward mrs. clinton. however, in time, we decided that mr. obama would bring more change, and therefore he is more in line to what our desires for OUR government are.

we started to support mr. obama, with the sidenote that regardless of whomever were to get the nomination, we would strongly back. we just thought that we could not pull a lever for any of the alternatives.

however sir, we now feel exactly as you do on this issue. mrs. clinton went from... having us definately, having us if need be, to us never casting a vote for her.

and we both voted for bill clinton twice, and hillary clinton for senator in n.y.

great post!!!

[Malarcus]

Another nod in agreement here, Mr. Dwyer.

[BeyondPopper]

No better reasons can be found to urge voters in upcoming states to vote for Obama, and end our national nightmare.

You have echoed what I have been saying for months, that there are too many Republican talking points coming out of Hillary's mouth for me to support her. At this point, she seems to be saying that if she doesn't get to be the nominee, she will do her best to sabotage the nominee and ensure that the Republican wins, so that she can run again in 2012 instead of 2016. Everything is secondary to her own ambition.

The truly sad part is, she may get her wish, and we won't be rescued from Republican mismanagement and corporo-fascism until the economy truly goes down the tubes. And we will be able to thank Clinton and Nadir for that disaster. Republicans, of course, are doing the damage, but we KNOW that's what they are for. Democrats are supposed to stop them, and we can be truly angry at them for not doing what we elected them to do.

Of course, the other criminals are the talking heads in the media -- aside from the few appearing on Olbermann -- who parrot RNC propaganda, turning their lies into the conventional wisdom, and encouraging the American people to vote against their own interests, not because they are stupid, but because they are so consistently lied to that they can't see the truth any more.

[zcosca]

Barack Obama shouldn"t go "negative", and in fact, going negative will be seen by many, at least be heralded by many over and again, as a betrayal of his "new way" of politics.

What Obama needs to do now is continue with his previously winning themes: he need to first declare that Clinton"s recent tactics, while marginally successful in the short term, are once again the old school, divisive, partisan-type politics that America has suffered through for the last few decades. He can argue that the Republican machine is just as good at that game and that her "experience" pales compared to McCains, so her run for the presidency would be more difficult. He can exhortively convince us that he will continue along his path of positive, inclusive politics to address America"s real problems and heal the wounds of partisanship; and second, he needs to return to the theme of judgment matters more than experience, that Cheney and Rumsfeld and McCain represent experience, but they have all been disastrously wrong for America over and over again.

In short, Obama should now begin his campaign against McCain to show the remaining Democrats how he will wage that debate, and to utilize his prodigious fundraising in that battle while he can. At the same time, he can maintain his campaign against Clinton by lumping her style of politics, and her experience and lack of judgment, with the old school of John McCain and George Bush.

[BeyondPopper]

scosca:

I don't know who you were replying to, as I never suggested that Obama "go negative" in my post.

In fact, I think you should be hired on by the Obama campaign -- right after I am -- because your strategy is IMHO exactly what he should do and exactly what will work.

One example is this business with NAFTA. First, the Clinton campaign accuses his campaign of double talk in order to get votes in Ohio. Then it turns out that it was the Clinton campaign doing the double talking, according to the Canadian government.

Much more of that, and the Clinton campaign can self-destruct without Obama's help.

We can at least hope.

[soylentgreenleftovers]

What a low "threshold" Hillary must have.


On one hand, stealing china on the way out the door & watching Bill sell pardons gets you over the threshold.


On the other hand, hanging by your thumbs in the Hanoi Hilton, acting a "Maverick", and joking about bombing another country gets you over the threshold.


God help us if that is the choice in November.

[dogboy]

Thanks! My wife and I agree absolutely. You put into words what I could not.

[boonagain]

I agree. This post encapsulates all my feelings and her neocon lite ravings have made me realize that, for my own self respect, I could never vote for her in the Fall.

She and her politics of destruction have to be stopped.


I wonder if the Clinton's close friendship with Bush 1 have come into play in this tactical way.