I was over at Carpetbaggers, yet again thrashing about with Hillary supporters, and wrote a comment on Hillary's vote to authorize war in Iraq that I figured I'd share with you. But don't tell anyone else about this one. This post is just between you and me.
One thing I’d just like to mention is that the Iraq vote isn’t an isolated incident, but rather is symptomatic of the entire Clinton method. In essence, they’re not proactive fighters, but reactive. They wait for their opponents to establish the playing field, and then they find a key position to hide in which allows them to declare a relatively easy victory. Which is good in the short term, but in the long term, they end up going deeper into their own territory every time.
That’s how we got into Iraq in the first place. How often did we hear Bill’s and Hillary’s words come back to haunt us during the build-up to the war, and even afterwards? Too often. But why was Iraq such a big deal in the 90’s? They never threatened us. They weren’t going to attack us. I’m not big on countries flouting the UN or torturing people and whatnot; but are we going to pretend this was some special case for Iraq? Of course not. Some of our key allies do the same thing. The truth is that this was a big issue because the war mongers wanted to attack Iraq, and so Bill played it the best he could. He allowed them to set the stage, and then worked to stop their goals on it. But in the meantime, he wasted too much time on an issue that wasn’t vital to America’s security. And when he finally left, it really didn’t take too much, relatively speaking, for Bush to launch an unnecessary pre-emptive war that continues to screw us up to this day.
And that’s the thing, for as much as he was credited with it, Bill never did have the vision thing. He talked a good game, but in the end, always worked within the constraints that the conservatives set for him. Because he waited for them to make their move, and then reacted to it; rather than taking the initiative. And I suspect it’s because they just like winning battles, and don’t really have any broader goals beyond that.
And that’s exactly how Hillary looks now, and is why I prefer Barack. It’s not just a fluke that he’s better at staying on message and projecting a vision. That’s what he does. He’s not going to waste time combating every little squabble, but tries to focus on the Big Picture and staying with his own narrative. And it works, and is what we need in a president. Not someone who waits to find out where his opponent is going, but moving ahead, forcing his opponent to run to catch up with him. And so we see Fighter Hillary now playing nice with Obama, just as he had planned. It was obvious that Hillary’s strategy was to pull him into a mudfight to sully him, but he ended up pulling her out of the mud and sidelining Bill.
And that’s the same kind of stuff conservatives did to the Clintons throughout the 90’s. As I’ve said before, I always defended that crap, but I never liked it. I want a president I’m proud to support; not another I’m ashamed to defend.
Oh, and I finally got around to reading Obama's big anti-war speech from 2002. If you haven't read it yet, you should. Good stuff. Too bad more Democrats weren't saying stuff like this, rather than trying to prove their patriotic bonafides by allowing us to get rolled by the Republicans. And we ended up getting attacked as unpatriotic traitors anyway. Great plan, guys.