Against Bush 44
by tdaxp ~ January 15th, 2008
If elected President, Hillary Clinton will continue the worst behaviors of the Bush Administration.
By this, I do not mean the Iraq War. The Iraq War is a good thing, and Hillary is a firm supporter of it. By this, I do not meant the Containment of the Kremlin. Twisting the bear’s nose while Russia slides into oblivion is a good thing. By this I do not mean the “separate lanes” policy toward China: while not ideal, “separate lanes” at least keeps our countries moving in the right direction.
Rather, Hillary Clinton will not be able to explain why we are fighting this Long War.
Because defending America is a preoccupation of Republican candidates, every serious contender for the White House among the GOP can elucidate better rhetoric than George Bush. On national security issues, however, sympathy towards our enemies and suspicion about our own power tends ot make this difficult for Democrats in the post-Vietnam era.
The candidacy of Barack Obama is a unique opportunity for Democrats. Obama’s rhetorical “hope” recall nothing so much as the speeches of John F. Kennedy. Further, his comfort in the English language combined with family still living in Africa, that he will be able to militarily execute and politically defend operations on that continent.
The candidacy of Hillary Clinton would waste this opportunity. Worse, Hillary’s focus on domestic politics would prevent any coherent message. A Clinton presidency would present us with crisis-by-crisis defenses of policy, rather than the unifying themes possible under a McCain or Obama Presidency.
I think this is your...
January 17th, 2008 at 12:00 am
Is there any reason why you only mention 3 candidates? Last time I checked the calendar, we're only in January, and there are plenty of other candidates who need to be given consideration.
That being said, why is our mainstream media blacklisting the only two viable candidates for each party that I am seeing?
My ideal 2008 ballot would be a race between Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul. Enough of these ho-hum status-quo candidates that will do nothing but sit back and watch our economy collapse in their hands. It is ridiculous that these two candidates are systematically being weeded out of the races so early in.
For all of those of you that haven't noticed, there is really only one party running this country, the Demublicans/Republicrats; as they are all one in the same and not good for this country. Do some homework and realize that it's all a ploy from the Masons, Illuminati, PNAC, NWO, whatever you want to call it.
I just hate to sit back and watch the country fall under fascist rule, but I am sure glad to not be in the USA at this time. People in the middle class are too lazy and ignorant to realize what is going on; it's time to demand our country back.
Just know that Killary is just as bad as Robney, McCane&Abel, Fuckabee, and others.
January 15th, 2008 at 12:00 am
“…sympathy towards our enemies and suspicion about our own power tends ot make this difficult for Democrats in the post-Vietnam era.”
When you say sympathy, you sure you don't mean empathy?
“combined with family still living in Africa, that he will be able to militarily execute and politically defend operations on that continent.”
And it is for that reason I think that, with Obama, we have the best chance of intervening directly in Darfur and setting precedent in which we conduct policy towards genocide for years to come. Too bad the issue isn't hot this year, since that would firmly establish his victory and firmly establish an intervention effort.
January 16th, 2008 at 12:00 am
Jeffrey,
“When you say sympathy, you sure you don't mean empathy?”
Yes.
“And it is for that reason I think that, with Obama, we have the best chance of intervening directly in Darfur and setting precedent in which we conduct policy towards genocide for years to come. Too bad the issue isn't hot this year, since that would firmly establish his victory and firmly establish an intervention effort.”
Agreed.
Stephen Pampinella,
We might have learned COIN well in Afghanistan (though I doubt it), but of course learning COIN was not the purpose of the Iraq War.
I don't know what Hillary understands either — like Bush, she is hard pressed to actually explain herself, as opposed ot taking the steps needed to make what she wants to do politically possible.
Good thoughts on Obama.
January 15th, 2008 at 12:00 am
Solid analysis on Hillary. Although I disagree regarding Iraq (I think we would have learned COIN in Afghanistan, maybe not as fast but for far less cost), I'm not sure she really understands what Petraeus is doing. As for Obama, his inclusiveness is consistent and complementary with any military strategy of coopting once-enemy networks and integrating them into the Core. If COIN is like social work with guns (I think Kilcullen said that), then being a community organizer further helps his conceptualization of the effort. Hence, he is best to lead the Long War.
January 22nd, 2008 at 12:00 am
Concerned American,
OMFG, I just saw the light. My years of trying to master the concept of realpolitik within the context of Duverger's law have all been for nothing!!!
January 23rd, 2008 at 12:00 am
Concerned American,
I think Jeffrey's point is that the concept of “viability” is unjust, but none the less valid. Neither Kucinich nor Paul are viable.
Interesting puns on names, btw.