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?
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Speaking as a voter and a woman, I will not support Hillary in the primaries. My candidate is Kucinich, even though I know he has a hard, uphill climb ahead of him. Hillary has made too many appeasements to the right. It is my secret belief she is actually a Republican in Democratic clothing. She has consistently voted for the war and the funding for the war. We can try to justify her votes any way we want to, but that fact stands on its own. Why is anyone surprised by her vote for the Iran resolution? It should come as no surprise to anyone since her history of being pro-Iraq War is there for all to see. She even admits that she will not pull all the troops out if she wins the election.
Believing women will vote for her simply by merit of her gender is an assumption which many people wrongly make. It is my belief nothing could be further from the truth. I think people will vote for her simply because they believe she has the ability to win. A plus in many minds is that hubby will be back in the WH supporting and helping her.
So, I will not support her in the primaries, but if she gets the nod as the Democratic candidate in the general election next November, I will hold my nose and vote for her, if for no other reason than we have to get a Democrat back in the WH, even if that Democrat leans to the right too much.
For 7 years I have had C-SPAN and CNBC on over 110 hours a week, What I have seen that has gone unreported, been misreported and disreported, along with the eroneous beliefs that stemmed from them could fill volumes.
When Senators were asked for their votes, they were taken into a room 5 at at time and shown the "intellige
Reading intelligence (at the top of those cylos)is more of an art than a science.
Kerry, Hillary and others MADE THE ***CONDITIONS*** for THEIR VOTE VERY CLEAR.
Based on what Bush said in Cincinatti
AS A ****UNITED FRONT*** TO INTIMIDATE SADAM INTO ALLOWING THE INSPECTORS BACK IN.
In the mean time Mr Bush was to form a coalition, just like daddy did, THAT INCLUDED IRAQ'S NIEGHBORS !!
AND ONLY IF Sadam EITHER DID NOT LEt the inspectors in, or was found to have traces of late stage WMD..ONLY THEN WAS WAR AGREED TO..**only as a last resort ***
But after getting that vote bUSH had to be cajoled to go to the UN, AND WHILE SADAM NOW COOPERATED, Nevertheless Bush PUSHED THE INSPECTORS OUT...AND proceded to enact the biggest flip flop in history, Dismanatling the Iraqi Army and trying to put it back together again.
Tim Russerts then spent day after day after day after day plaintively claiming "But John Kerry voted for "the" war" is now doing the same bullshit against Hillary. Not to mention the morally bankrupt Barak campaign using the old "it's not what you say but what people hear" Frank Lunz PSYCHOLOGIAL ABUSE OF THE ELACTORATE.
I WILL vote for Hillary because she is an good and intelligent Human being WHO DOES NUANCE!
If Hillary was lied to and bought that lie, first she needs to call out the liars, specifically and by name. Then she-along with Mr Edwards- need to explain how they allowed themselves to be duped while sitting in seats of high power and responsibility.
Her supporters say she was lied to, but Hillary does not say that. And frankly, falling for a con job under pressure is not a big selling point for a Presidential candidate.
If she was lied to let her say so strongly and without reservations, because to not do so means that she is now telling the lie herself. Make sense.
21 Democrats voted against the war...so did one Republican. But Clinton and Edwards voted for it. Edwards co sponsored the Resolution. The 22 who voted against Edwards/Lieberman Resolution made the right decision. Why are we even considering any of those who failed that important test of intelligence and courage?
Hillary is too smart to buy into a lie.
She lies.
I believe you make some valid points but I can't follow your writing. Caps, no caps, new paragraphs with subjects spilling over, misspellings. I'm wondering if you would take your time and clarify your point. Obviously you do your homework. Thanks
Sorry Miner Sam - those 8 years of pillow talk gave Hillary more knowledge, than any other Senator who voted, on conditions in Iraq. I also believe, as a feminist, and male, no one should vote for a person based on sex. The true feminist votes for the person. This Country is in serious trouble after the Clinton/Bush years and I am one that says CHANGE. The people in this Country also need to start taking some blame for conditions. We allowed it to get this far by our votes so lets do something and stop being led by the media and politicians. Use your brain when you vote - but first get the facts then make a choice that you think will bring the country where it needs to be. We damn sure are not there now after the last 16 years.
Hillary is the number one recipient of AIPAC money. She is poised to become the next Dick Cheney. She postures that she wants to nuke Iran (as per Olmert's instructions). The old Bush/Clinton gang has not melted away to Mena, Arkansas, by any means.
Let me make clear that I am absolutely against the Iraq war and I think that we could have been much smarter about Afghanistan. My son was with the 173d Infantry Division in Iraq the first year. At the time of the vote, we were living in a military community in Germany and everyone, I repeat everyone who had access to the same intelligence (wrong in intelligence as it turns out) supported Bush. I had very heated arguments with many people concerning the Iraq invasion, one of whom was my husband who had access to the same intelligence that the Senate had. He would shout at me that if he could just show me the intel I would understand and agree with him. Hillary didn’t just take Bush at his word. She also contacted experts in the field about the Iraq situation before deciding which way to vote. This is a fact that is not hard to discover. Senator Clinton has stated that had she know then what she knew latter she would not have voted in the same way. As to her being calculating, what does that mean? It is interesting that everyone who says that cannot verbalize why they think she is calculating. Quite frankly, I don’t see that she is anymore calculating than anyone else. It is amazing to me how many people want to bash Hillary, don't know a thing about her and then make stuff up to justify their dislike of her and a too lazy to actually do the research to justify their positions. If you want to know about Senator Clinton read “A Woman in Charge” by Carl Bernstein which is a well researched and unbiased account of Hillary Clinton.
Hillary is the perfect example of why people dislike politicians. Her views are molded to what is politically popular. She is not a leader she is a follower. Whether its Iraq or her shilling for the insurance companies and calling it health care she is just another Republican. Dennis Kucinich is a real leader,
against the war when Hillary, Edwards, Biden and Dodd were all speaking for the war and attacking Kucinich and the few others wise
enough not to be fooled by Bush and co.
Like most Senators, Hillary failed to read the most important intelligence summary pertaining to Bush's justification for invading Iraq before the Senate vote (the NIE report). One Senator, Graham, changed his mind and voted against authorizing war because he was unconvinced that the intelligence justified the war. Any Senator who cast what would likely be the most important vote in their careers without reading the intelligence report should not be in public office. Unfortunately, that includes almost every Senator. Did your husband and his colleagues read the NIE report, or was it other intelligence reports or information?
Have not read the Bernstein book but I have read "Her Way" by Gerth and Van Natta - both Pulitzer Prize winners. This book is also well researched (72 pages of notes and references) and seems unbiased. It shows her to be smart and aggressive but "triangulating".
When the all important vote was to be taken only 6 Democratic Senators read the the complete NIE report about WMD. She was NOT one of them.
Bob Graham, Chair of the Intelligence Committee who voted against the resolution
Quoting the book, p. 244, Unlike the abridged and sanitized summary, the longer, classified version of the Intelligence Estimate contained numerous caveats and dissents on Iraq's weapons and capabilities, making it sound less certain that the country posed a legitimate threat to the United States. The declassified version ......omit
At a time when she could have demonstrated real leadership, I believe she chose, instead to show that she "tough" - a hawk. A political decision not a moral one. I don't trust her decision making process.
Thank you for your thoughtful and sober post MJ.
For me as a woman- being a woman doesn't get Hillary any extra points.Hil
Hillary's pro-war vote is what will keep me from voting for her, even if she is the nominee. It will be the first time I'll sit out a presidential election. But despite her pro-war vote, she, like all the repugs, is corporately bought & owned.
Unless we've all given up on democracy in this country, we need to reject any candidate that is simply another lobbyist for the 'corpocrac
Not to insult kladinvt, but this is crazy thinking. Look at history -- nobody ever gets a perfect candidate. Bush is driving the Repubs crazy but even now, they can't quite disown him.
The idea that you would allow the candidate who opposes your interests to succeed because 'your' candidate is not perfect is hopelessly immature. Ask the Nader people.
Sheesh!
Each year more and more people say they are disgusted with "business as usual" and say they will vote Green, Libertarian or what have you.
And every year the Republicans and the Democrats sing the same sad scary song.
"You'll be wasting your vote! IS THAT WHAT YOU WANT TO DO?!"
No thank you.
Not this time.
If Hillary wins the nomination, short of Chuck Hagel announcing his candidacy with Lincoln Chaffee as his running mate, I'm voting Green.
I'll take the consequences.
Dan,
Don't be so freakin naive. We're not talking about imperfection here. We're talking about Hillary doing the same exact thing the repiglicans are doing. Voting for Lieberman's Iran saber rattling amendment is a clear sign of her support for war mongering in the middle east instead of using economic and diplomatic pressure. The issue of war and peace is a fundamental aspect of any presidential candidate. And if Hillary gets it completely wrong - there simply is no point in voting for her. She's no different than the current administration assholes that are sending this country down the crapper.
It's not that she's not perfect, it's that she is all wrong.
the "inevitable hillary" gang would have the media and the country believe that activist Dem women are ALL behind her. newsflash: most of us aren't. if she becomes the Dem nominee, i'll be sitting out this election, and i suspect there are at least 10s of thousands of otherwise powerfully active Dems who will do the same.
i would love to be in the position of being able to support a woman candidate for president. but only a REAL woman -- not a woman so eager to be one of the guys that she votes for a horribly ignorant and immoral war policy just to serve her own political ambition.
Jeanniebee, PLEASE DON"T "sit out" the election. Since 1917 seventeen members of my family have paid for your RIGHT and DUTY to vote with Two Killed in Action, Three Wounded in Action and several with terrible PTSD. PLEASE exercise the right we purchased for you.
As difficult as it may be for you, you may want to reconsider exactly what your relatives may have "purchased" with their blood. The reason our government now has more highly paid heavily armed mercenaries (up to $100K per year each) executing our "foreign policy objectives" in Iraq than uniformed US military personnel is because alot of people are stopping to think what they're getting themselves into before volunteering for the national guard or active duty in the armed forces. Blind support of an illegal war or obedience to a civilian commander in chief that commits high treason pushing this country into that war is neither intelligent, decent, nor honorable. Every citizen of the United States is dutybound to uphold the Constitution. And even the uniform of the US military is not a free pass to aid and abet someone intent on shredding the Constitution. I'm sure for most, the decision to sign up for military service is not easy or taken lightly. But with all the information available to interested, engaged, and responsible citizens of this country - it's hard to see how anyone could conclude that our aggression in Iraq or further aggression in Iran is justified. Therefore, anyone who pays the ultimate price in such conflicts must be willing to accept that at least some of their countrymen will justifiably consider that they have died in vain.
I wonder Jeanniebee if you can define a "REAL WOMAN" ?
.
And then show me a statistical analyses that you based your "newsflash". Suspicions doesn't count.
.
You have 10s years to do your research. I'll be waiting. Now scoot ! Thanks.
I am a woman and I will not vote for hillary. She is too calculating and I have a problem with someone checking everything they do to see how it will play. I know most politicians doublespeak but hillary seems to have made it an art.
Sir:
I consider myself part of the NY constituency you refer to. I was a block north of the World Trade Center on 9/11. Hillary's war vote does not speak for me or most New Yorkers who opposed this war.
Also, your facts about the inspectors are way off. Clinton didn't pull the inspectors they were thrown out by Sadaam when he discovered they were spying for the CIA and British Intelligence. Clinton should have pushed back and negotiated their return, but he didn't.
I agree the seeds of the Iraq war were sown during the Clinton years. Moreover I know Hillary intends to continue the war at present, or even expanded levels if she becomes President.
But to say that Bill intended a war with Iraq is a real stretch. The better explanation was that he was too cowardly to stand against the Conservative forces that ultimately painted this country into a corner.
I am a woman who would vote for Hillary. I am no Hillary fan. I would vote for Hillary, not because she is a woman, but because she is the best candidate.
I would love to live in the world where your moral certainty over the Iraq vote is the only factor I need consider. (Not much different from Bush's world, really).
But unfortunatly, I live in the messy real world, where the candidate I vote for needs to be able to fend off attacks from the Karl Rove's of the world with one hand, and run the country with the other.
Hillary is the only candidate so far that has shown she has a CLUE how to do that.. if you can name another, man or woman- I'd like to see it.
NOT True elion, simply not true about Hillary being the "best" candidate. She is in fact far and away the most dangerous of the bunch. No candidate is going to be perfect. Simply cannot happen. There are BETTER candidates out there. I cannot nor will I support a return to the Hill and Billary show. I've had it with dynasties of which the Clintons are among the worst. The Bushes and the "gender card" notwithstanding.
Hillary: best for what ?
Corporations.
elion10, The man is Dennis Kucinich!
--"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." --
Why should New Yorkers feel any differently about the 9/11 attacks than other people do?
Too bad you guys allowed us "girls" to get the vote since we are so silly. Don't like women much do you pal?
Here's that "Gender Card" again. Has NO PLACE in this or any other election. When someone can't make a rational argument for their candidate it's always safe to play that devisive "gender", "race", or "sexual orientation" card(s) which will then get people thoroughly distracted from the business at hand. Works every time. And it wasn't old Karl who came up with that one. Started with the Democrats. Your approach annoys me Marge.
There are many things Ms. Clinton has supported which makes me distrust her. Apparently she also voted to give our little dictator authority to bomb Iran. How sweet is that? I won't vote for her in the primaries because I feel she's more interested in garnering the GOP vote than appealing to the Democrats. I'd rank her right up there with Dianne Feinstein (my senator) which makes her one dip short of Joe Lieberman. The GOP wants her to get the nomination so they can scare people into voting for them again. OK, if it's a choice between her and Republican corporate whore then I'll hold my nose and cast my vote for her. At least she's an old school Republican. Sigh....
To clear the air, up front, I'm a guy.
My stance is "Yeah, this country needs a female president. But for the sake of feminism, it needs the RIGHT one." Something about Hillary draws out a lot of hate from a lot of people...I never could figure out why...but she does. From those who can't stand how she backed the Bush Administration not because she really believed in it, but because she simply wanted to be President and didn't want to be torn to shreds politically, to those who just plain don't like her, she draws a lot of attacks and a lot of fire from everywhere. Some of it may be undeserved, some probably is deserved. But the risk that is run is if she is elected, and even if she manages to do a passable job, she loses office in 4 years. If she's viewed as a failure, there are a lot of boneheaded people in this country that will subconsciously blame it on her being female.
She's already made a horrendously bad decision in regards to the Iraq war, and she has done a lot of things that we all know she doesn't believe in, just to further her political career. This just isn't the type of person that I'd personally feel comfortable with. If it were even Nancy Pelosi (well, it's gotten pretty hard recently, especially with her taking impeachment off the table), I'd consider it. But Hillary? It's not only dangerous, it would be insulting to me if I were a woman. She's viewed as an extension of Bill. That's really, really messed up. She's her own person...b
Condoleezza Rice would make a better President than Hillary.
Sorry Kendo. Rice can't close a deal for a glass of beer and a sandwich.
If Condi would stand up and oppose her "boss" on some issues, I would agree Kendo. But like that is likely to happen! When it comes to being able to do the job of president, Condi might be a reasonable choice.
The post is right on target, even a little soft. The women, primarily white, were the votes that put Bush in to begin with because he was more "appealing", remember? "They would like to have a drink with him". Especially in a personality perception running against the Bore Gore was. plus the the added influx of the "Christian Right" Family vaule good people votes that werew fooled. While hillary won't get those whittled down and split voters from the right in the same vein, she will get the ones who sympathize and emulate her for "standing by her man", and she will get the hate men voters, which there is a lot of closet feelings to tap into there. With the lack of number of these admitting bloggers to the commentary's challenge, the sound of their silence is deafening. But there is also bloggers that show there is still hope for a genuine candidate with a solid plan for America's restoration of its senses and to restore our liberties, because with Hillary, Our Nation/World will be worse than we are with Bush, and its already beginning to show the how, and the why!
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
