London Calling: Memo to Hillary Supporters -- Tell It Like It Really Is

I have a favor to ask of some of you Hillary Clinton supporters, particularly the females among you. And you are legion.

For once, I'd just like to hear one of you say something along these lines:

"Yes, I know Hillary was wrong to vote for the Iraq war. But I'm going to overlook that because she's a woman, and so am I. And it's time we had a woman president in the U.S."

I suspect that a lot of women, most of them committed Democrats, feel precisely that way. But they won't admit it, at least not the ones I talk to.

I understand why Ms. Clinton has decided not to come clean on why she voted for the war, and why she feels she can't apologize.

To disclose the former would reveal the kind of political calculation she'd rather not be known for, but is. And when candidates apologize, that can be seen as a sign of "weakness."

But I would hope that some of her fans could be honest enough to say what really happened in the Iraq vote. And why they still support her, despite hating the war.

But rather than do that, Hillary's supporters subject us to these absurd verbal contortions in trying to justify their candidate casting the same vote as the Republicans she's running against.

(And please, stop with the semantic, hair-splitting canard about the difference between voting for authorization and voting for the war. That's a ridiculous argument, always was.)

Hilary's supporters won't acknowledge that, in voting for the war, their candidate was still pandering to her New York constituency, well after the 9/11 attacks.

They won't admit that, like Cheney, Hillary has linked the Iraq war to 9/11, as recently as earlier this year.

And they try to paint her as a "victim" of bad intelligence, the exact same way the White House does with President Bush.

Think about that for a minute, in light of what we've just heard from Bill Clinton.

On the one hand, Hillary's campaign likes to point to her being more experienced than Barack Obama, because of her time as the First Spouse. But when it serves her political purposes, they'd rather we ignore what she learned during her time in the White House.

Hillary wants us to disregard, for instance, that it was her husband's administration that decided in the late 1990s that the Iraq sanctions were working and that there was no longer any need to keep the weapons inspectors there, to play cat and mouse with Saddam Hussein.

Remember those tedious eleventh hour ultimatums NATO gave Saddam, pulling the bombers back at the last minute when the dictator finally agreed to let the inspectors do their jobs? I do, because I was there covering them.

It was on her husband's watch that the US and NATO chose, wisely, to change tack. The new policy was to pull the inspectors out and simply bomb Iraq, in a limited but effective way, every time Saddam stepped out of line by building a new radar facility or breaching the no-fly zone.

And the policy was working.

Hillary Clinton's supporters love to tell us how much smarter she is than George Bush. No argument there.

But now we're supposed to believe that she swallowed the intelligence nonsense that Bush was peddling to Congress, on how dangerous Saddam had suddenly become, even though she knew, first hand from her days in the White House, how impotent Iraq really was.

None of it adds up.

Girls, we know, and so do you, that Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq war in order to position herself for the 2008 campaign. And it's tough to argue, politically, with her decision, given the way the Democratic race looks today.

But there's another aspect to this -- the moral question. And Hillary Clinton is on the wrong side of one of the most important moral issues of our time. For reasons of ambition and political expedience, she made the wrong call.

Tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis have died in a war she helped start. Thousands of American soldiers have been sacrificed, tens of thousands more maimed.

The congressional vote, of which she was a part, helped lead to the biggest strategic disaster in the modern history of U.S. foreign policy.

Despite all of that, millions of Americans are going to support her, simply because they feel it's time America had a woman president.

Well, the least they can do is admit that. To say it frankly, and honestly, in a way we longer expect of our politicians.

Or is that too much to ask?

Comments

[WhenIWasYoung]

feminists are like the christian right of the left. annoying.

[swkidder]

And, I hope, tens of millions of us who would consider ourselves to be feminists who would never, ever vote for Hillary Clinton. My own decision is that, should she be selected as the Democratic candidate, I will abstain from voting in a Presidential election for the first time in decades.
I held my nose and voted for John Kerry, but I need to keep breathing now. We have too much damage to fix in this nation and around the world, and we can' afford to pretend that Hillary is the one to lead the process. She sold her ass to wealth, privilege, and money years ago ... and there isn't enough time or money to buy it back. Furthermore, she shows no signs of wanting to do so.
Personally, I favor John Edwards precisely because I'm a feminist. He's married to a spectacular woman - everything that I wish Hillary were as a human being. If he can win her, and keep her for 29 years - he's my guy. There's more of us out there than the press chooses to believe.

[sugarmac]

When I ask people who hate Hillary WHY, their answers are all the same old stupid things the republicans have been exhorting for years as seen in the comments. I will vote for her because she is very qualified, is a woman and is 60 years old. This is really her only chance, since she will be 68 years old in 2016. If we are ever going to have a woman president in my lifetime, it's now. Obama will be well seasoned by 2016.
As for her experience gained as First Lady, if you referred to any other since Eleanor, I'd say absolutely NOT. But Hillary has always been interested and involved in world events, so she soaked up knowledge while in the White House. Bill was an excellent president and we will for sure get 2 for 1. As for her personality, I find her charming, but then who really cares about personality - we don't have to live or work with her. We should be more concerned with what they will do for the country. She is without a doubt, the most well informed person available and is correct in saying she can walk right into the presidency. We can't wait for a new president to begin getting the country back on track. It's too dangerous!

[JimPivonka]

John Kerry's speech at the time of his vote for the Iraq War resolution, as well as his excuses for that vote, are worse than Hillary's on that issue. (Remember how he was going to hold Cheney Bush responsible for the way the authority granted by the resolution was used? Made me sick to hear that BS at the time, and it has not improved in the remembering.

Kerry may have learned from his mistake, though. Hillary obviously has not. Richard Gizbert covers her failures regarding Iraq pretty well - though the tone of his address to women voters is revolting and yet another discourse on "moral" failure wearying.

I could overlook Hillary's errors on Iraq in exchange for effectiveness in accomplishing worthwhile political objectives today. But not after her collusion with Cheney Bush on Iran - witness the vote on the Lieberbush-Kyle resolution. And not after her failure to support efforts to roll back the Bush regime's attacks on the Constitution of the United States - witness her vote against the Levin amendment.

Hillary's collusion with the Cheney Bush drive for war on Iran is even more disgraceful than her vote on the Iraq War resolution.

Jim Pivonka

[Ipanemagirl]

this blogger wants us to vote for Obama, or at least someone other than Hillary, but her arguments in favor of this are incorrect.
First of all, based on the info we were all given, which turned out to be false, MANY of us voted for the war! As a woman politician, she would have been "fried on the spot" and labeled by all republicans as "weak in defense" had she not cast her vote in favor at the time. She has since rescinded her actions , admitting that based on what she knows NOW, she would have voted NO, but that does not seem to be enough for Clinton haters...no matter what she did, you guys would have have found fault. So lets move on...
I think that by electing her, she will find a diplomatic way out of this mess. If you want war , vote republican, (they are all GUN HOs for the most part), and soon we will have an IRAN invasion as well!
What is wrong with Clintons back at the white house??? It was a prosperous 8 years for all americans!
Lewinsky scandal pales beside all the perverted republicans , who lead double lives, and yet pretend to have family values for their base. Let's cut the hippocracy here!Clinton never claimed he was a monk!
We would be fortunate as a country to have the Clintons back at the white house instead of the embarrassing Club of idiots we have now . They have done SUCH irreparable DAMAGE, alienated us from all our allies,and killed so many people in the process, that I think , only a superwoman like Hillary, could turn our country around again. But honestly, I vote for her because I know the Clintons are capable people and know what to expect from them...and not because she is a woman.
All the republican candidates scare me, except John Paul, who will not win anyway, but at least has some sound thoughts and a touch of dignity in him that I cannot find in any of the other republican candidates!

[Nancyann]

As I registed democrat form NY I won't vote for Mrs. Clinton under any circumstances. She is a fraud and you can't possibly know what she would do if, God forbid, shegot elected because she panders parses, obfucates,flip flopsa and is so disingenous that you would be buying a pig in a poke.

[Blutenhalbmond]

Hillary is too smart a person to have fallen for any "false intelligence." Actually it was so false and so obvious as being false, that few congressmen or senators who voted for the war actually believed the Bush-Chenney lies.

So why did she in particular, vote for the war?The answer is that it is basically Israel's war that we are fighting with our blood, our money and our prestige. Remember where it was originally conceived!! From the desk of PM Netanyahu and the minds of Israeli generals and presented first to Bill Clinton in 1996, signed by neocons and ultra pro-Israelis--all.

Could any US senator with presidential ambitions ever have the guts to go against this formidable force? AIPAC, JINSA, American Enterprise Inst, WINEP? How could she have known how unpopular this war will become and the very public that in the beginning had cheered the death and destruction of a far away nation that had done it no wrong, shall turn against it? Ah, the fickle mob!!

However there is hope: we hear that our casulaties are decreasing and maybe in another few months time, the war shall be popular again and Hillary better not get too much against it!

[Grit]

I will vote for her if she wins the primary. It will be a usual vote for the least of evils. The biggest problem I have with her is the DLC. The Dems? rich mans club. Their list of big contributers is scary. And the fact that she seems to have a problem that Lord Bush has, can't admit to a mistake. The answer that she voted based on the best info available is BS and anyone that can't see that is an idiot.I have heard women say they are going to vote for her based solely on her gender, and I've heard women say they would never vote for her. You can't really tell if the polls are right or not. I have read and heard her campaign manager owns the company that does the polling for CNN and MSNBC. Its sad but I don't trust any of them.

[phyllba]

I will vote for Hilary, Obama,Edwards, Richardson over anyone the Republicans have. Do I think any of them is honest in the way my friends and I are? No.
Do I think they are not just making political calculations of their own for support? You betcha!
In other words, I don't think there's an idealist in the bunch of them. I listen to the Democrats and believe about a quarter of what I hear when they express their beliefs.
I know people, men and women, who won't vote for Hilary for any reason. That's her negative!
But these Democrats, in the age of mediocracy in politics, are what we have. I wish there were fewer of them and that they were better, but that's not our reality.

[Perazul]

The Democrats need a smart, tough candidate who can articulate the isses, develop Democratic "majoritarian" solutions, withstand the right wing swiftboating that is coming in the general election, and provide inspiration. Hillary Clinton works for me.

[CharliePfromHB]

Bill Clinton said that history shows that the winner of Presidential elections is always the person that projects the most positive message. I believe that this is because, the voters want someone who projects leadership, vision, and poise...can't be rattled by the opposition or the media. Maybe the Hillary tactic is to win the nomination and then refocus on the opposition. It's been done before. In the Clinton years and the Bush years the executive branch was always able to trump the Congress. I think the Repulicans went after the morals issues out of desparation, but Bushes handlers recognised that this could leverage the Christian right. Now we have a different morals issue...the abuse of power and lying to the congress, the American people, and to some of our Allies. So the question is can you win the Democratic Party nomination AND capture the imagination of the independents by demonstrating moral fiber, strength of character, and an international vision that can take on : terrorism; the multiple crises related to economic, ecological, world health; and the dominance that lobbyists and oligopolies/ cartels have on our political, social, and economic agendas. Iraq is a painfull symptom of the larger problems. Pulling out without addressing the rest of it, will not accomplish very much. So what is Hilary's vision and when is she going to communicate it? Or is she going to be manipulated by the oppositions fear tactics. Join the ticket... Hilary or Barack and learn from the experience. The nation needs Gore to stand up and declare that America has had enough "Assault on Reason." It's not a gender or race issue, it's what America needs right now.

[banksea]

ugh. unfortunately Hilary may be electable. I've come to think that NO ONE closely aligned with the Democratic Central Leadership Council is going to be good for the future of the country. (I think that's the title of that small group of major Democrats who are a private group and base their decisions on close advice from private for-profit business. I don't mean the Democratic National Committee, DNC.) Obama/ Edwards or Richardson for me! It would be a great ticket if all the Democratic Party candidates would agree that they will be part of the new Presidential Cabinet! Dennis Kucinich has the best proposed solutions but is somehow unelectable on a national scale. But Dennis would make a great secretary of state or health and human welfare cabinet member.... as would all of the DNC candidates. Why not run them all as a complete ticket? Just don't put Hilary in charge. being first woman isn't worth the baggage we'll get with her.

[xrayman]

This war is George Bush's war. To put in on Hillary Clinton is ludicrous. And to say that women will vote for Clinton only because of their feminist solidarity is demeaning.

Hillary is the best candidate for president of either party.

[Julileegal]

The biggest majority of the American people believed we should have gone to war. Why else did they vote for Bush and his lies.
Hillary is heading for the hill, so what happens now. Let's get her. Hey guys, give her a break. A woman running our country? I KNOW SHE CAN DO BETTER THAN What's in there now. I mean, after all Bush has Cheney to advise him. Well Hillary has Bill if she needs it. So what's your beef?
GO HILLARY GO. You have my vote.
The Jackals are out to get you, but we women will do as we did when we got the vote, WE WILL OVERCOME.

[momilitia]

Hillary has already learned the benefits of being a corporate whore, she learned it from Bill. That is plenty reason for me not to vote for her. Kucinich, the only choice.

[susanlno]

Please stop calling grown women "girls."

[Donald]

Speaking as the father of two young women, ages 16 and 18, hear, hear!

[Verity1025]

No "please stop", just stop doing it. Whatever is said just gets lost when the term girls is used. Very demeaning, as was Gizbert's whole post. I would like to see a woman as president of the USA, but I will vote for the best candidate, be they female, white, black, or purple.

[emariejon]

I agree. You just reduced the entire female electorate to an age not yet old enough to vote by the derogatory term "girls". What were you thinking??

[vitasackvillewesttexas]

geez - she's doing the same thing on iran. should have voted against kyl-lieberman. boo.

[mjwca]

Hilary's lean to the right goes far beyond her various votes on the war and constantly changing rhetoric to go with it. Her domestic agenda leaves much to be desired. For instance, healthcare proposal is devoid of all regulation to curb abuse, and is instead a boon to private insurers bilking the middle class for even more money. She is and always has been much more of a moderate Republican than a Democrat, as was her husband. Look at her career as a highly paid, highly successful corporate lawyer protecting corporate interests over the public good. Not exactly the best endorsement for a progressive candidate.