You Can't Have It Both Ways, Hillary. Well, Maybe You Can

Now stumping across the country as the antiwar candidate, Hillary Clinton has done as much if not more than all of her Democratic challengers for the White House to usher in our current militarism. She authorized a resolution that was rightly seen by anyone with a brain and a secure sense of history as a pretext for invading and occupying Iraq, a cash grab for the Bush administration that so far has cost around a trillion dollars and millions of lives -- all of them innocent.

And now she's done the same with Iran, even though it's years later and she's nothing left to prove as a hawk. She's practically an incumbent, even though she's never been president, and Obama and all the rest are sniffing her fumes as she blows past them. But nevertheless, political opportunity comes first, and so does the ghostly specter of terrorism, which she must maintain at all costs if she's going to appeal to the much-desired middle of the political road. Clinton's vote to label Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist group practically telegraphs as much. Who is the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, you ask? Who cares? Do you live in Iran?

That Clinton found the time to give Bush yet another pretext for military violence, this time against the Iranian people, shows that she's still not sure if she's showing enough masculinity to win the White House. Someone needs to remind her that is was hawks who first got us into this mess in the first place. And then to compound the hypocrisy of that vote by asserting in a recent debate that she's open to unconditional diplomacy with Iran is lunacy. After all, she smacked Obama down for asserting the same thing a mere three months ago, and she just voted to label its army terrorists.

She's got less beef with Blackwater.

So yeah, lesson learned. Politics is a game of power and lies: You say and do what you need to say and do to win it. What you say and do may make zero sense, and might even be contradictory, but then again this isn't reality. It's game theory, a chessboard run by ideologues and demagogues, empowered by money and favors. And all that matters is not who dies or who pays, but who wins.

Because, the thinking goes, winning the White House means never having to say your sorry. Because you're not.

Comments

[inthenitemare]

I love the way Hillery has taken the whole "Audacity of Hope" thing and tried turning it against Obama by declaring that she's the one running the positive campaign while Obama goes on the attack against her! As if he were smearing her or telling lies about her.

The way I see it. If Obama even hints that there are differences between them on issues, Hillerys team calls it an attack.

[dejavu2]

You're absolutely correct that Hillary will say whatever she needs to say in order to remain popular, even if that means acting like a Republican on various issues. Which really means we need more people calling her out on her hypocrisy. I'm tired of her acting like a war-hawk to appease all the fear US citizens have. We'd have less fear if we didn't make ourselves a target in an unpopular war. I understand that many just want to ensure a Democrat in office, so the thought is -- don't slam the most popular one. But ideals shouldn't be brokered, especially when it comes to war and lives lost.

To point out the picture and declaring it a sign of misogyny is so reductive, which is in fact a tactic of the right. Have a sense of humor. I know I laughed when I saw that photo and I'm a woman. If you actually think readers of Huffington Post are so weak-minded that they would withdraw their support because of an unflattering picture then you've spent too much time in Hollywood. By that same logic I guess Hillary should get some breast implants...that would really bring in the votes. But lesson learned -- more war and less unattractive photos will make everything "right" in this country.

Don't worry Jane, your photo looks maavalous dahling. The diffuse lighting really works!

[Jane Hamsher - Huffpost Blogger]

Nice photo. It's always great to degrade women by portraying them in an unflattering light. Works really well for the right.

While there are many reasons to oppose Hillary Clinton, a lot of them are just excuses for plain old misogyny. Your use of this photo strongly argues that this is what is at play here, because there is just no good "liberal" reason to buy into that right wing frame.

[morphizm]

Jane, eh, what? The photo doesn't degrade women, or Hillary. It's a hilarious snapshot. Would a hilarious picture of Bush degrade him or his office? How about Larry Craig? Obama? Portraying someone in an unflattering light with a decontextualized photo can be anything from satire to criticism. But degrading? Nah. I fail to see the connection between my use of this photo and misogyny.

But there is a connection between ignoring the major points of this post and your declaration of misogyny. It's the same tired refrain. I would love to hear your objections to my arguments rather some specious fallback based on gender politics. Shall we duel by column? I welcome the challenge.

Scott Thill

[Simone]

Hamsher's correct. Any serious argument you have against Hillary is negated by that lousy photo.

[StephenJK]

I have to take issue with a couple points of your post, Scott. First, you ask "who cares?" if the IRG is declared a terrorist (supporting) group and then rhetorically ask "do you live in Iran?". If the IRG is even logistically supporting, if not directly acting with, groups w/in Iraq that are murdering our men and women in uniform then I care a great deal. Living in Iran has nothing to do with that amendment. That amendment has to do with building a dialogue and diplomatic case against Iran which can be used presently and in the future to encourage other nations to take steps to curb Iran's enthusiasm for supporting everything anti-U.S./Israel.

2nd point I can take issue with unless you modify your criticism to reflect all active democratic presidential hopefuls, is the vote to use military force in Iraq. Hillary is not the only democratic hopeful who voted for that thing. How about leveling the vitriol against all those who voted for it instead of singling one person out on it.

3rd and final issue is in agreement with Jane Hamsher. The style of your post, due to your choice of not only the picture but, your words as well, detracts from it's substance. And you're not the only one who chooses to use those whacked out freeze frames of Hillary to make her seem out of her mind. Personally, I do find it objectionable and borderline mysoginistic. At the very least it's sensationalist.

[bringbackimus]

Hillary Clinton has her own "Karl Rove" in Mark Penn. Clinton will say and do whatever her "handlers" and "focus groups" recommend, no matter how sleazy the recommendations are. She is more interested in power than honesty. I thought only the Bush supporters were ignorant fools, now I realize that there are just as many ignorant fools in the Democratic Party.

[BUSHsurvivor]

Oh the spin!

[olephart]

"Now stumping across the country as the antiwar candidate, Hillary Clinton"

Also seen were the champion of Jewish war orphans, Adolph Eichmann, the leader of the African Children's Relief Organization, Idi Amin and the Cambodian Peace Party's Chairman, Pol Pot.

[OrvilleHLarson]

Damn straight, Mr. Thill.

Hillary Clinton's corrupt, she's a warmongering neocon who's under the control of the Israel lobby, and she's owned by every big interest in town.

What more is there to say?

Dr. Ron Paul for President.

[scooperss]

Yup she is.