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

[CyrusBeaucephus]

Isn't it awesome that our country's corporate political machine can give us the phony 'choice' of a pro-war calculating democracy-loathing female candidate vs a pro-war calculating democracy-loathing male candidate at a time when over 70 percent of the country opposes our out-of-control militarism. Wow! Only in America. Thats fucking awesome. Well go on and vote for her, by all means, and keep telling yourself that we have a government that represents the people. I won't have anything to do with it

[Rabbin]

I feel as a man that Hilary did not need to apologize for making a decision. Most of those in our Government made the wrong decision based upon the sales tactics of the President and his GOP Followers! For me as one who has worked with some from the Middle East. Use of a word or particular words is method of the zeal of conservative fundamentalism! It's just good salesman ship to sell the nation and the world on an idea!
The Republicans are just better at it then the Democrats!

For now I say good luck to the USA! And good luck to America trying to get over the greed misbehaving methods of our past and let us press on to greater achievements of the future! HIlary if you become our President then God bless and good luck to you too! God luck not for yoursake but for the sake of the US (us)and the world!

I feel the President and the GOP should apologize for selling the nation and splitting this nation upon right wing ideologies that were and are so wrong!

Hillary must say I voted for the war because I felt that it was the right thing to do at that time as did most of colloquies!

Now knock yourself out playing the blame game! Was it that our intelligence was off or was it played with to allow Bush, Chaney and others to have their way over common sense logic? As it reads to bare false witness over another is a violation of the commandments of the God many proclaim to follow! I tell you spin is just another way of violating such a law! So Hilary you have not need to apologize for getting sucked into Conservative Bush propaganda as did over half the nation! If you make it in as our next President? Hilary just remember not to follow the costly errors of this current leadership of this so called free world?

[Nutcase]

The best face that anyone can put on the intelligence preceding the war is that it was ambiguous. That is not the basis for the serious decision of going to war against anything less than the greatest of imminent threats to our security. It certainly isn't a basis for pre-emptive war.

The refusal of the international community to support us in a war against Iraq, as they did so overwhelmingly in Afganistan, should have given the thoughtful, responsible members of Congress pause. Calculations about a politician's future campaigns are rarely in the public's best interest.

Clinton's constituentcy's 9-11 concerns were most properly directed at al-Qaeda, the Taliban and Afganistan. Her putative mastery of military issues would seem to have given her an appreciation of the fact that the existing war against those entities would suffer from a diversion of resources to Iraq.

[youngharry]

Moreover, considering Hilary's BACKGROUND, she should have known that there could not be a mushroom cloud over the US in 45 minutes as claimed by Condi Rice and other Bushies. Without getting into technicalities, let's understand that in order for an atomic weapon to "explode", it must first "implode" and therefore needs a delivery system. Saddam had no Air Force, no Navy and no Missle that could reach the US.
How then was this atomic mushroom to be delivered? It was just more propganda of FEAR for Congress and America that should have been debunked by those in the know.

HILARY KNEW--OR IF SHE DIDN'T, SHE SHOULD HAVE KNOWN--THE CASE AGAINST SADDAM WAS PHONY AND SHE SHOULD HAVE EXPOSED IT. A REAL LEADER WOULD HAVE DONE THAT. INSTEAD SHE BECAME JUST ANOTHER TOOL FOR THE MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX AND THE OIL COMPANIES THAT WERE GOING TO REAP BILLIONS FROM THIS ILLEGAL WAR.

HILARY--NEVER

[lawyeredup]

Great response -- Rabbin; Not so great spin for Mr, Gizbert!.
Because George Bush and his Neo conservatives hench-men screwed-up "what was" a walk in the sand for the badest military men and women the world have ever seen, doesn't mean a vote to engaged "if necessary" is wrong. I do not believed that Hillary and those in the house and senate that voted on the Iraq resolution voted knowing that we were going to screw it up and,I will bet we wouldn't be having this debate if we were kicking ass like we were suppose to be. And those that voted in support of the resolution and, when thing when bad, apologized for their vote are the one playing politics; and those who were not even in a position at the time for their opinion to mean anything either way but goes around boosting of being against it from the get go -- are the worst.

[lawyeredup]

Hillary as nothing to apologized for; she's got my vote!.

[Democrab]

My wife is the gratest woman on this planet, and like me, she will vote for Hillary.

Everything about her candidacy is right.

The experience and the confidence that Bill will be whispering in her ear, whether she listens or not, are reassuring to us.

She's solid and the addition of Gen. Clark perfectly rounds off the equation.

I don't really care about the gender factor.

I just miss the nineties

[Julileegal]

I miss the nineties - me too friend, me too.

[ebbtide]

On another forum I will not name, so called "feminists" have gone berserk over the hillary laugh because some call it a "cackle", therefore it is "sexist". Obviously, these supporters posting on this liberal progressive popular blog, surely did not approve of the invasion and war in Iraq. Surely,Hillary did, and that is fact. So now, armed with pettiness and defense based on "sexism" on the part of Hillary non supporters, they go on and on and on about "sexism" because, well because Hillary laughed when serious items were to be discussed. She laughed and the laugh was inappropriate and indeed is high on the voice decible measure and could be called a cackle or a shrieking laugh. This is what I don't get. In the early part of the twentieth century, brave women stood up and demanded the right to vote. Many of them risked personal degredation and loss of career. They suceeded and now I see so called "feminists" ignoring her war vote, virtually embracing hypocrisy in order to fulfill their magical thinking that this will be the first woman president. Such is the way feminists embrace any one who will fulfill the promise of a first woman president in a hypocritical embrace. It becomes like anyone cricizing the state of Israel and it's policies, were immediately branded "ANTI-SEMITIC" by the influx of organised supporters who flooded the threads on blogs with taunts of "anti-semitism"

Sexism! Sexism! She cackles and laughs in the most serious of discussions and debates while avoiding answering the tough questgions and this we are to believe is an "intelligent" woman? Strong?

I agree with you totally.

[SensibleAmerican]

OK so we have discussed the gender thing. Needless to state, that a lot fo women in America who will vote for Hillary since it gives them a chance to break the glass ceiling. We recently reached a landmark when we had our first woman Speaker of the House after over 230 years!

Now, let's talk about race! Is Barack Hussein getting black support because of his color?! What's good for the Goose is good for the Gander!

[snidesnickers]

Regarding your dissing of my comment earlier today in this column about Hillary`s electability, I would refer you to an article in todays Los Angeles Times by Noam Levey. The headline reads: Local Democrats in West fear impact of unpopular ticket leader.

Seriuosly, READ! Still laughing?

[wrabbitt]

this all comes down to: we don't need a democrat or republican we need a AMERICAN to stand up for the people no more wishy washy,promise breaking,spineless jelly fish. we need an AMERICAN to lead us out of this mess

[Postroad]

I it possible to get published at this site if you like Senator Clinton? All the badmouthing. What happens when she gets the nomination? Then what will you say?

[bluebela]

If I decide to vote for Hillary Clinton, it will be for her qualifications and not because she's a woman. I haven't decided who I'm voting for yet; but I will consider voting for her, even though she hasn't pulled a "Jimmy Swaggert" and begged the Lord for forgiveness for that authorization vote, like so many think she should have. I respect John Edwards for having stated that he felt his vote was a mistake, but don't hold it against Clinton for not doing it also. But...it would be soooo nice to see a woman in the Oval Office. I just won't let it sway me, if I decide that another of the Democratic candidates reflects my point of view better than she does.

[Amberlass]

I may forgive her for the Iraq war. I will not forgive her for the Iran war, which she voted on this week. If the people of American have not learned by now that they bit off more than they can chew with Iraq; we are now under-manned and underequipped in the Iraq war. The American soldiers have learned by now they are fighting for nothing in this war, nor will they be fighting for anything in a war in Iran.
It is just a war to help Bush and Cheney, via Halliburton, to get their hands on some other country's oil.

[SensibleAmerican]

"Iran war"?! We are in war with Iran? Really? How did we get there?! Please explain the path and the route: real facts please, no propaganda stuff!

[lawyeredup]

WE ARE STILL THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. I PROMISED YOU, THE MESSUP IN IRAQ WAS DUE TO THE INEPTITUDE OF THE MOST SORRY GROUP WE HAVE RULING US AT THE MOMENT. A GROUP WITH NO FORESIGHT WHATSOEVER, A GROUP WHOM THEIR ONLY HOLD ON POWER IS TO FEED THEIR EGO BLOOD, AND MORE BLOOD IF THEIR IDEOLOGY IS CHALLENGED. INSTEAD OF DEBATE, THEY DERMANQUE WHOM EVER QUESTION THEIR WISDOM. ANY WONDER WE ARE NOW IN SUCH A SORRY STATE OF AFFAIRS.
THEY HAVE LIED FOR SIX AND A HALF YEARS AND THEIR HOUSE OF CARDS IS COLLASPING, THEY HAVE STOLEN THE FUTURE OF GENERATION TO COME AND THAT IS OBVIOUS BY WHAT HALLIBURTON, KBR AND ALL THEIR WELL CONNECTED CRONIES ARE MAKING IN WAR PROFITS.

[MAGLATINA]

IT SEEMS THAT THE ANTI HILLARY CAMPAIGN IS PUTTING A LOT OF EFFORT ON ITS "HATE" PROPAGANDA. MY ONLY WISH IS THAT REASON WILL PREVAIL.

[SensibleAmerican]

No maglatina, "reason" will not prevail! The same mindless herd who drove Al Gore over the cliff in 2000 is now ranting on this Board. They had their mind made up several years ago. No one knows the facts but Nader told them so!

Such insanity cannot possibly see "reason" ...

[pravin]

Why dont you address the points in the blog entry instead of defending Hillary blindly. Hillary has trotted out a lot of plans, but what has she accomplished in practice? Some average legislation. Did she achieve anything in education all these years?

And address the iraq war vote and the iran vote. And if you deny that the iran vote is just a building block to drum up credibility for another war, you are naive.

[BoulderSue]

I would have hoped by now that we were beyond voting for (or against ) someone because of gender, ethnicity or religion (that includes Mitt Romney, for whom I would not vote for love nor money: I just don't like him. He could be a pagan for all I care, though pantheism might appeal...).

[ballewb]

I write in response to the parenthetical comment:

(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.)

First, the comment is made, but not supported. I am willing to consider the validity of opposing views, but not without some sort of reasoning behind it. Merely calling an argument ridiculous avoids the issue and displays a lack of respect for the debate and those involved by resorting to out of hand dismissal over reasoned disagreement.

Second, the authorization also called on President Bush to continue working within the framework of the U.N. diplomatic structure to enforce its resolutions in regard to Iraq. http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdff) After the authorization, President Bush's diplmatic efforts were limited before military force was used. This is important because it raises the question of whether or not President Bush used the authorization in good faith with the intent of the authorization and Congress.

I don't consider it hairsplitting or mere semantics to reason from facts and give an honest assessment. If both sides of this issue would take that tack, we sould still be mired because it would require honesty, a quality that most politicians lack.

[almom2]

Hillary is brilliant and flawed. I do believe she will win the nomination and I pray EVERY DEMOCRAT will vote for her and stop maligning her. GW was a dangerous joke, but the republicans got behind him and put him in the white house. If we don't support Hillary, we will get what we deserve...another neocon that makes our world more dangerous and miserable. She ain't perfect but she will be a wonderful president.

[siegfried]

If we do "support Hillary, we will get what we deserve...another neocon that makes our world more dangerous and miserable." Why not vote for Dennis Kucinich? He got the right answer on the war vote, and he had the courage to swim against the tide and vote against the madness.

[bringbackimus]

I am a female Democrat and will NOT vote for Hillary Clinton. Clinton is trying to be a war hawk to get the military on her side, as well as republican males. She only cares about getting in the White House again. I am tired of voting for the lesser evil. A "lesser evil" is still an evil.

[josieb]

Why not vote for Kucinich? Because it's all about money in the primaries and Kucinich don't got anywhere near enough for those or for the media buys that he'd have to have, should he be the nominee. Ads aren't free, unfortunately. Bill Richardson is fourth, I think, behind Clinton, Obama and Edwards and he only has some paltry percentage of funds raised. And even at that, he's several candidates ahead of Kucinich.

[Spoons]

Voting for Kucinich would send the Democratic Party a message that needs to be heard. If they force Hillary down our throats, they will spend a lot of time trying to convince the half of us she has left behind to drown in the hold while she fiddles, not to jump ship. Barak is also a huge disappointment. Either could be a real hero, but that would take real courage. They're both dancing with the devil on the health care issue while what we need is real reform.

[Spoons]

Hillary also sold us out on health care. She wants us to believe that the problem is the solution. Her plan is more Corporate Welfare for the insurance industry than Health Care for Americans, loopholes included. Allowing profit-driven health insurers to participate in reforming our health care is like inviting the KKK to guide our Civil Rights or Al Qaeda to determine National Security. The industry's goals are totally perverse and contrary to being able to create an affordable, sustainable, moral health care system. Continuing an immoral and broken status quo, forcing everyone to feed the beast that is the problem while keeping Americans divided and conquered in myriads of aptly-named "risk groups" instead of united into one large "Protective Pool" will not solve the problem. Our country cannot afford to put off real reform any longer. The costs of the Invasion of Iraq are considerable, but they pale in comparison to the costs of not solving our health care crises. Is it asking too much of the insurance industry to figure out ways to make money that do not kill tens if not hundreds of thousands of innocent Americans, disable and bankrupt millions more, terrorize tens of millions more, and divert hundreds of billions of our health care dollars away from desperately needed care each and every year after year?

[Gaia's Shadow]

I'm no Hillary booster (I'll take Al if he runs, then Barack, thank you very much -- I like my leaders with JUDGMENT), but I think this is a little over the top. I am sure a tiny handful of women like my Mom (who is in her 70's) are swayed to some extent by Hillary's gender, but for the most part, Hillary's support results from nostalgia for the 90's, name recognition, and fear of screwing things up worse by going with a less experience/less well-known commodity.

[dirtystrat]

"Hillary's support results from nostalgia for the 90's, name recognition, and fear of screwing things up worse by going with a less experience/less well-known commodity."

We tried that before. His name was Jimmy Carter.

[khristmaskathy]

President Carter was a huge success. Bush is a failure.

[957]

If the only reason people vote for her is because she is a women than god help us all. So far she's not much better than bush.

[FlowerGirl]

If there is a woman around now like Barbara Jordan, please bring her forward. She would have been a great president. There are some women on the scene today that I could happily support. But Hillary Clinton is not someone I can or will support. Nor is any other, man or woman, who voted for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment.

[FranktheDem]

I totally agree with you regarding Barbara Jordan. She made more sense than any man or woman in the past twenty years. What a loss for America when she passed away. She would have made a great president.