(Disclaimer: I am no dead-ender. In fact, I eat PUMAs for breakfast. I have every intention of getting Barack Obama elected to the White House. But in this particular diary, I intend to set the record straight on Hillary Clinton (and others) on two fronts. If no facts, common sense, or reasonable arguments could ever vindicate this woman in your mind, please save yourself some grief and stop reading. Otherwise, please continue; just prepare to reopen some old wounds.)
Vindication #1: "She will say or do anything to get elected. . ."
As Clinton supporter, there came a point late last year--as I was listening to Barack Obama at the Jefferson-Jackson dinner speech--when I knew he had found his "moment". It was the moment he pledged to bring the country together in a new majority, leveling a harsh indictment not only of the Bush brand of politics, but of the Clinton brand as well: "Triangulating and poll-driven positions ... just won't do."
I grimaced, at the time, at Obama's embrace of this oft-cited critique used for years to hammer away at the Clinton record. 'Clintonian' centrism was something I never had a problem with (vis-a-vis welfare reform and middle class tax cuts): so why was triangulation such a leper?
According to Wikipedia, in a nutshell:
Triangulation is the name given to the act of a political candidate presenting his or her ideology as being "above" and "between" the "left" and "right" sides of a traditional democratic "political spectrum". It involves adopting for oneself some of the ideas of one's political opponent (or apparent opponent). The logic behind it is that it both takes credit for the opponent's ideas, and insulates the triangulator from attacks on that particular issue. Opponents of triangulation, who believe in a fundamental "left" and "right", consider the dynamic a deviation from its "reality" and dismiss those that strive for it as whimsical.
Despite the unfortunate connotations ascribed to the word, triangulation--as described above--is a brilliant political strategy. Though he used the label to great effect against Hillary Clinton in the primary, Barack Obama has emerged in the general election as a political triangulator himself. For those who treat this as a smear, again, I suggest you disabuse yourself of the notion that centrism and triangulation were anything but expected of a successful politician. Obama has never believed in a fundamental "left" and "right": I assure you, furthermore, that his recent incorporation of oil drilling into a comprehensive energy plan (which some call a reversal) is both a triangulation and a poll-driven position. And I applaud him for it. The hard-hitting truth is that Obama is willing to say or do what it takes to win (on the other side, unfortunately, it looks as if McCain is too). In retrospect, Obama's brand of politics was and is vastly more "Clintonian" than ever expected in the primary. So count this one as a vindication for Bill, too.
Vindication #2: Hillary's Iraq War Vote
I and many others have long argued that hindsight is 20/20. The Bush Administration's manipulation of the facts and outright deceit of the American public in the run-up to the war are still being unraveled to this day.
But let's be clear: Following September 11 and prior to the Iraq invasion, amidst a positive Bush approval rating and substantial public trust in the 'War on Terror', there was little reason, if none at all, to believe the Administration would lie to us. Not only did the public trust the president, but so did the members of Congress who received the classified briefings that spotlighted (what turned out to be) false intelligence. Many of the respectable Democrats who voted for the resolution--Sens. Dodd, Biden, and Clinton included--believed they were authorizing the President to use the Armed Forces "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" (verbatim from the Iraq Resolution).
It was the Bush Administration that brainwashed Congress and the public into believing Saddam was an imminent threat. It was Bush who proclaimed, long after the passage of the Iraq Resolution, that war would be a last resort. And as Ron Suskind revealed today, it was Bush who withheld from Congress and the public the unequivocal fact he gleaned that Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction.
Let that last sentence, that last truly impeachable revelation, soak in. It tells us that it was Bush who subverted his own resolution, by pulling the trigger in March 2003 after having received (and hid from us) a crucial bit of information that quite clearly made the War neither necessary nor appropriate. Senator Clinton--as well as Biden, Dodd, and even John McCain, for that matter--are not responsible for starting the Iraq War. Bush is.
(John McCain is responsible and cannot be vindicated, however, for his reckless stance on continuing the war, and his confusion over Shia and Sunni, and his confusion over Al Qaeda in Iran, and his parroting of false Bush propaganda linking Saddam and 9/11 long after it was debunked, as well as his linking of the 2001 anthrax attacks to Saddam Hussein (propaganda that even Bush didn't concoct).
Vindications of Hillary Clinton #3, 4, and 5: Allow history to fill in the blanks.
|
|
|
Permalink :: 177 Comments :: Post a Comment
|
