Actions Speak Louder Than Words

As a Marine, I've witnessed and been inspired by tremendous acts of courage on the battlefields of Iraq. This season, I've been inspired by a very different type of courage.

Tomorrow, on Super Tuesday, many Americans will go to the polls to make history in the 22 Democratic Party primaries. They will not be making history by voting for an African American. That has been done before. They also won't be making history by voting for a woman. That too has precedent in U.S. History. Instead, Americans can vote for someone who is running on her record. In a country dominated by politicians who love to re-invent themselves with the times or most current election- that is truly history making.

Isn't it ironic that the focus of Senator Obama's Iraq policy is one moment in the past? Is his 2002 speech against the Iraq war is indicative of his potential presidency? Words backed by a failure to act. After his initial opposition to legislation authorizing the use of force, Senator Obama has provided no leadership in attempts to oppose or end the war in Iraq. In fact, he has consistently voted to authorize the continued use of force.

Alternatively, Senator Clinton has demonstrated leadership to responsibly end the war in Iraq. Remember last year when she went head to head with the Pentagon to get the military to begin planning for withdrawal?

This isn't the first time that Senator Clinton went up against and changed flawed defense policies. A champion of veterans, she ensured servicemen and women were still entitled to their signing bonuses even though the Department of Defense wanted them to relinquish the funds if they were unable to complete their tour of duty due to wounds sustained in combat. She reached across the aisle to increase survivor benefits to families of fallen servicemen and women from $12,000 to $100,000. She has led efforts to address Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) suffered by troops due to concussion blasts from explosions and mental health issues and PTSD faced by returning Iraq and Afghanistan veterans. There is a reason the American Legion named her the "Unsung Hero" of the 108th congress. She rolls her sleeves up and has been for over 35 years.

I often hear alarms that Senator Clinton is too divisive a figure to unite this country. The sad fact is that anyone with as progressive an agenda as either Senators Clinton or Obama will have to deal with a divided electorate. The difference is that Senator Clinton has demonstrated her willingness and ability to reach out to more than just Senator Ted Kennedy at the State of the Union. Unlike Senator Obama who has authored a lot of legislation, Senator Clinton has actually passed a lot of legislation through effective bipartisan efforts.

She worked with Senator Lindsey Graham (who led the charge to impeach her husband) on extending health care to national guard and reservists. She's worked with other leaders of attempts to impeach President Clinton including Trent Lott to fix Federal Emergency Management Agency and Newt Gingrich on health care. She's also worked with Senators McCain, Graham, and Collins on efforts to address climate change.

Senator Clinton is the woman who was booed on stage by NYC Firefighters shortly after 9/11, only to be heralded as their champion for fighting to get them urgently needed medical care for pulmonary sicknesses sustained by the air at ground zero. Most of us would retreat and cower or vow revenge after suffering such humiliation. Instead Senator Clinton won their hearts by championing their welfare. Imagine if we were all so noble and mature in our personal and professional lives -- we can all learn from her example of not only forgiving, but also her willingness to find and work tirelessly for common cause.

In terms of her electability -- again -- look at her record. During the 2004 presidential race, John Kerry won New York on the shoestrings of New York City. Upstate New York, comprised of 40 of NY's 62 counties that are more representative of the Midwest and rural South than the rest of the State, all voted overwhelmingly for George W. Bush. Interestingly, in her re-election bid, upstate NY's Bush country also voted overwhelmingly for Senator Clinton. Instead of focusing on her natural constituents, Senator Clinton worked tirelessly to win over the conservative districts of the State through effective job creation, economic development, and agricultural policies.

I grew up with Chelsea and Senator Clinton is like a second mom. Before I left for my second deployment to Iraq, Senator Clinton told me that Eleanor Roosevelt kept abreast of developments, challenges, and achievements of Marines in the South Pacific through correspondence with her son, a Marine officer fighting against the Japanese. She expected the same updates from me. During her time on the Armed Services Committee she has become more knowledgeable about counter-insurgency than most officers I know. She was talking about the importance of political conciliation and employment and job opportunities for young Iraqi males well before General Petraeus transformed US Military efforts in Iraq. If President Bush has reminded me of the class clown and dunce, Senator Clinton has always been the hard working girl you want as a science partner. There is no one more competent or proven.

As she often says, next January our next President will have a stack of problems and a stack of opportunities waiting for them on the desk of the oval officer. Much of the country and the world is holding their breath for that moment. If Bush has done anything good for our country, it is providing consensus among his many detractors that we should move to universal health care, alternative fuels, return to surpluses and repair to our economy, and a more constructive foreign policy.

Today we have a proven candidate who has demonstrated an unparalleled level of substance and detailed comprehension of the most important issues to set our country back on its path. That, more than anything, is history making.

Comments

[Dirck]

Zach. Thank you for your service. I will be voting against your candidate, but I know I wouldn"t be voting at all if it weren"t for the sacrifices of brave people like you.

Hillary is completely unqualified to be our president. At an absolute minimum, our president should be someone with some executive experience, whether in public or private service. He or she must have taken a stand on something in his/her career, and have been around a few years later to deal with the results. It is, after all, pretty much the most important executive position in the world.

She"s been the Junior Senator from NY for all of six years. Hillary moved to NY because this is the one state with the electoral combination she needed to become senator " snobby east coast establishment types to nominate her, and masses of urban wasteland denizens dependent on DNC handouts to grab the majority. (She was unelectable in AK because much of the DNC establishment down there " ie Guy Tucker - was in jail as a direct result of the Clinton shenanigans.)

The last time the US elected a president with no executive experience was JFK. He was elected from the Senate (8 years), but was also a genuine war hero. To find another president without executive experience you"d have to go back over 100 years.

Of course, all of this goes for Obama, too. Let"s see him serve a term as IL governor or something. If he can clean up that mess I might even vote for him in 2016.

But its probably too late for Hillary. How can someone reach the age of 60 with no serious executive experience and presume to ask the American people to make her president? It would be interesting to see her try a term as governor of NY. I bet she"d wither under the pressure " as she is doing now in the contest against Obama.

http://www.dirckthenoorman.com/?p=785

[moda31]

you lost any credibility when you included HRC in the category of people who don't re-invent themselves depending on the time or election...she's the very definition of a shape shifter.

[ac1]

Thank you.

[edzeppelin]

Is this satire?

[AgathaX]

When you have a crazy president/commander in chief, cutting funding will not bring anyone home from Iraq: it will merely guarantee that the people there will have insufficient equipment and support. Once the military is in, you have to support them until there is political will to bring them home. To not support the troops with adequate funding would be unforgiveable.

[NABNYC]

Hillary Clinton provide leadership? Don't make me laugh.

Hillary Clinton voted for the war not because she thought Iraq was a threat to the U.S., but because she planned to run for President and hoped to get some Republicans to vote for her. It's just that simple.

She has never been honest about her vote. She has told so many lies about that vote that it's impossible to sort them all out. We need a flow chart, a pointer, and an overhead projector to try to track her stories. First she said Yes, we must invade Iraq. Then she said Well, Bush did it wrong. Then she said Well, I didn't mean to vote for war -- I thought I was voting for negotiations. Then she said "Well, Bush fooled me." That's when I stopped listening. Bush has an IQ of 60. He could not fool my cat.

Hillary's recent claim that she wants to end the war was solely the result of pressure from the Democratic grass roots. And as her competitors fall aside, Hillary is now backing off. She now will withdraw a few troops -- like two maybe -- then see how it goes. She's not going to end this war. She and McCain should be on the same ticket, because they both want to be war presidents, to kill lots of people. Twisted sister indeed.

Hillary and Bill demanded that they be the party leaders. Obama is a nobody from Illinois and did not walk into the Senate with anywhere near the status or clout of the Clintons. I think he will end that war. Hillary will start new wars, against Iran, against Hamas, against Hezbollah, and will have U.S. troops scattered all over the middle east for decades.

Vote Obama. Make an effort to save our country. He may not succeed in stopping these dark forces. But McCain and Hillary are committed to the policies which will certainly destroy our country. And maybe big chunks of the rest of the world too.

[DMDrury]

Thank you Zack for writing this article. Hillary is the first presidential canidate that I can remember that is actually running on substance and ideas. Still there are people who are going to dismiss her and accept the other canidate, because it makes them feel good. I agree change is important, but I am not willing to give my vote to someone with the hope that change will come. Awaiting a real paradigm shift.

[ProgressiveNotLiberal]

Hillary voted to allow Bush to take us to war in Iraq and she didn't even read the damn NIE. That is not leadership.
Hillary voted to allow the use of cluster bombs in civilian areas to prove she isn't soft on terrorism. That is not leadership.
Hillary did not help other Dems running for Congress in 2006 in order to spend a fortune on herself and horde the cash for her run now. That is not leadership.
Hillary fails on leadership. Hillary fails in judgment. Hillary fails to do anything that doesn't help Hillary.

Hillary can stay in her world where hope is a four letter word, but as for me, I dare to dream. Obama for President!

[Phoenix]

Unfortunately, this article reflects a regurgitation of talking points that - no matter their source - are weaved together to support your opinion, no matter how strained the truth behind those talking points might be. I appreciate that you have made a choice and will openly and steadfastly back that choice. I also find your reasoning in this case to be flawed.

[gargost]

It is no secret that I'm supporting Senator Clinton for President. What most people don't may not know is that I'm not a Democrat! For most of my life I've been a Republican, and in the past 3 years I've been registered as an Independent. So why am I supporting the Democrats? It is quite simple: since the first President Bush, the US has gone down hill when the Republicans have been in power. In the words of Congresswoman Lynn Schenk (fmr): "We are again in need of a Clinton to clean up the mess created by a George Bush! How fortunate for the Nation, indeed the World, that there is one available!"- Ms Schenk introducing President Clinton in a Sept 17, 2007 fundraiser. Senator Obama speaks kindly, and he's quite eloquent. Nevertheless, it is quite clear that he is not quite clear in what he says. People tend to get sucked in by listening to words they don't understand. I believe that Senator Obama will EVENTUALLY make a great President; but that won't be in 2008. If he continues growing as he has thus far, I will happily run his campaign in 2016! Senator Clinton has things I don't care about- after all, I am a Republican! I am willing to make this sacrifice just to make sure our country moves in the right direction; to get my buddies back from Iraq; to improve our economy; to lift our nation once again in the eyes of the international community!

[karmaburger]

Mr Iscol,

I thank you for your service and applaud your efforts to support your 'second mom' but your post is just silly. After charging that Senator Obama didn't do enough to end the war in Iraq you wrote:

"Alternatively, Senator Clinton has demonstrated leadership to responsibly end the war in Iraq. Remember last year when she went head to head with the Pentagon to get the military to begin planning for withdrawal?"

You then segued into a list of 'accomplishments' as if you had successfully proven your point with that statement. As if asking about a withdrawal plan - a plan she knew full well this president would never use - somehow absolves her from not reading the NIE before voting to give Bush the authority to go to war and voting against Reid-Levin.

I had to stop reading when I came across your answer to the charge the Senator Clinton is too divisive. Whether you agree that She is a divisive figure or not you cannot honestly believe that those perceptions are due to her progressive agenda!

Plain, unadulterated silliness!

[lgillooly]

If Mrs. Clinton apologizes for the Vote to give Bush the Authority to use force in Iraq the Corporate media will tear her to shreds. That is the reality.
She knows she was lied to,we know we were lied to.The guilty ones are the liars.Why isn't the media doing their job.
Clinton/Obama 08'

[hopeless277]

Funding for the occupation, not war, is not optional. Bush is holding every one of those 160,000 service members hostage in Iraq. Just as surely as Iran did with the embassy. He is literally saying 'if you don't give me the money I want, I will let these people die'. No Democrat has stood up to him. No Democrat will. My view is that the Clintons had their chance and blew it(or maybe just got blown). It is a new day and a new time. If it comes down to McCain vs Clinton, I'll go with McCain. At least he can keep his pants zippered.

[vbond]

"I grew up with Chelsea and Senator Clinton is like a second mom."

If she were "like a mother" to me, I'd probably defend her just as you are doing.

I appreciate your service, but this is not an effective or credible defense of your "second mother."

Sorry.

[cynara]

Nice post. I appreciate the details you highlighted about the positive changes Sen. Clinton has tried to bring about and her ability to work with people with whom she had once had serious conflicts.

That said, I still plan to vote for Obama. If Hillary and the rest of the Congress had shown the judgement he showed at the eve of the invasions, her tireless efforts to ease the pain of soldiers in endless redeployments and to provide more support for survivors of the fallen in this war would not have been necessary; there would have been no endless redeployments and no service members lost in Iraq.

Obama and Hillary are very close on policy. A choice for Obama over Hillary may have to do more with leadership style than substance. But posts like these remind me that if we wind up with Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton as president we will be blessed with a competent, intelligent, and decent leader.