Hillary's Clearest Voice--But Why?

I can only imagine the speech Hillary shared tonight coming from a deep reflection on the reality before our country--honestly. I didn't hear her speak with that degree of clarity throughout the primary season, though perhaps I missed some of the occasions where she did. Nevertheless, she seemed much more at ease and at the same time full of conviction as she spoke tonight; I almost just went to sleep instead of listening because I was quite frankly bothered by some of the ways she handled the primary season, and expecting a pat speech that I'd rather sleep through. So either she's an unreal actor or she was deeply moved by considering the depth of importance behind this race--I think it was the latter.

I'll look to paste the video in here when it becomes available, so take a listen if you didn't hear it yet--not to just hear some difference in her speech though, but because of the education and the encouragement she actually provides on the absolutely critical issues before us: lack of affordable health care, devastating conditions for the poor (and increasingly, the middle-class), unhealthy foreign policy, and so on.

As a last reflection on the speech though, I suppose it's most moving because it, as I noted above, does seem to have been Hillary's clearest moment this election cycle; maybe that indicates how important everything is...that is, if she was able to actually change the nastiness that at times characterized her campaign, perhaps it was because she realized how we may be reaching a tipping point where the damage to our country and our people, the rest of the world and so forth, is becoming irreversible--perhaps she's more clearly realizing the actual consequences that are behind the already cliche-sounding phrases about McCain continuing Bush's policies. That's my view after hearing the speech at least, that she may simply have taken the time to reflect on the treacherous waters that she would be culpable for helping propel us into if she did not fight hard in the opposite direction. Hopefully the damage that she did do (in my honest opinion) can begin to be outweighed by speeches such as this, though unfortunately actions have consequences, and we will see.

Above photo credit: Wall Street Journal.

Update: Here's the link to a video of Hillary's speech.

Why Isn't War More Painful for the Rest of Us?

War is hard, I've been reminded with recent news coverage. I've never known this through my own experience, and obviously have a sense, like everyone, that it's painful. Human coverage is what brings it home though, I believe, and that's what did it for me recently; like so many otherwise distant experiences, individual, human stories can communicate so much. So I thought I'd write down some thoughts on this. I'll end the post with links to a handful of the TV and radio pieces that led me to write this, for anyone who wants to check them out; they're pretty tough, though worth checking out for anyone who, like me, feels quite distant from the reality of these wars that our fellow Americans have been asked to fight.

I think that many of us who aren't in the military, or don't have family or close friends in the military, haven't felt the real pains of war. I think this is true in many ways, though I wanted to specifically highlight how many haven't felt the emotional pains of war. However, as a sidenote, I don't think many of us have felt many economic or other pains either (at least not middle to upper-class Americans). Lots of people have noted this by pointing out that Americans haven't been asked to sacrifice at all, through higher taxes or in other ways that were common in past wars. For my part, I undoubtedly believe that we should be asked to give more, especially since we are hemorrhaging money and resources in these wars, and so many lives have been lost; it seems quite distant when one thinks of their country being in debt, but it just isn't small that our country has been spending over $10 billion each month in Iraq.

In terms of the emotional pains of war though, the news coverage I mentioned has made me realize how I haven't hurt or mourned much, at least not in ways that come close to the pain and loss that Americans, Iraqis and Afghans have felt. Is that my fault? I don't know, perhaps in part. But maybe the President and others could do more to bring the painful substance of these wars before the eyes and hearts of the American people (and the world for that matter).

In my last job I wrote some about Congress and budgets and related issues, and so I wrote a piece on what the President had to say in his annual State of the Union address back in early 2008. The hubbub about his State of the Union addresses has naturally died down over the years, in terms of press coverage, however it is still considered a significant event. What if the President had some events to highlight the realities of these wars, where he called for similar news coverage? Some might say this would kill his image politically. One, humanity has precedence in my view; but two, a human side to anyone, politician or otherwise, is good. Imagine, for instance, if he started some nationally-covered TV address saying something like:

"We have young men and women dying, as do the Iraqis and Afghans, and so I want to take some time to talk to the American people about how sacred these losses of human life are--why? Because life is sacred, and we need to tell the stories of what is lost when someone dies in order to remember that; and similarly, we need to tell such stories if we are going to understand the need to resist anything that might put more lives at risk, unless we absolutely have to do otherwise."

Wouldn't something of that nature be truly significant to hear a President say? I think it would, particularly if he followed it up with individual stories of lives lost, as well as respectful, caring discussions with families of those who lost their lives in Iraq or Afghanistan. Something like that could easily be put on some major news channels, or C-SPAN or PBS, as happens with the State of the Union and other major addresses; I'm sure people would ache to hear it once they understood the general idea. I also think that Obama would have the gall and understanding to deal with realities such as this straight on, whether in a similar fashion to what I described above or in other ways.

Taking a step back, the basic concept of war is tough for me to swallow, admittedly, however I can say that if it is ever merited--which I grant may have been the case with Afghanistan--it must be done with the utmost respect for human life; more specifically, I believe it should be done with an attention to detail that weighs our time in war by the hour, not the month or year, resisting even another hour or day of war, with the intention that not one more person's life should be put in danger than is absolutely necessary.

That said, based on the evidence, I can say that I have unequivocal problems with the idea that we went into war with Iraq, most specifically because there was not what is considered an "imminent threat." As Senator Carl Levin, a respected senior Senator from Michigan, said in a 2002 press release opposing the vote for war with Iraq, "This grant of authority is also unacceptable since it empowers the President to initiate the use of U.S. military force although the threat against which it is used is not imminent. International law has required that there be an imminent threat before one initiates an attack under the rubric of self defense." For more information on that vote, and why I personally have an irreconcilable doubt about those that voted for it--from Hillary Clinton to John McCain--see this first piece on that vote; for a contrast with those who supported the war, take a look at this piece I wrote on Obama's 2002 stance against it, and this piece on Rep. Dennis Kucinich's stance (Kucinich is a member of the House of Representatives who, like over 150 other members of the House and Senate, voted in 2002 against our invasion of Iraq; he also ran in the 2007-2008 Democratic primary for President).

But now for a quick list of the news sources that recently shook me into reality about the tragedy and pain that comes with war (and thus spurred this blog post):

-A radio piece from the show "This American Life," telling the story of John, an Iraqi veteran who was so shaken by his experience that he felt somewhat pushed towards violent acts at times. He also has been haunted by ugly dreams, and was sent to prison for attacking his fiance and others; you can listen to a short promo for the piece here, though the full radio piece should be available shortly it looks like (I'll post it when it is, I think they still have to load it onto the website since it aired today); update: here's the full piece available for listening online, just scroll down to "Life After Death" and click on "full episode";

-Coverage from Bill Moyers Journal of the documentary "Body of War," and the struggles of an Iraq war veteran named Tomas Young who was shot and paralyzed in Iraq; watch (or read the transcript for) the two-part series online here;

-A piece from the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, a daily news show on PBS; the piece highlights conversations with children whose parents have been in Iraq and Afghanistan. It also discusses the fears and stress this places on the children, and highlights a camp which the kids can go to and meet other military children. You can listen to the piece here (though the video version of it should be available as of Monday, July 21st, just search for "camp for military kids" on the NewsHour site).

I'd be interested to hear any thoughts back on this overall issue, as it's obviously such a weighty topic with so many factors involved. As a last note, I have been on a little hiatus from posting because I took two weeks off in between jobs, but also because I was a bit troubled with Obama's stance on not accepting public financing; I wanted to spend some time researching it. I've looked into it a bit, and while I still have a few things I'd like to look into, I feel it was merited on a whole. I hope to have a piece on that before long.

Above photo credit: New America Media.

Update (I also added this same note to the end of this post): As an addendum here, I just watched Obama speaking at a faith forum where he talked about the "solemn obligation that you do everything you can to get that decision right," talking about decisions of war and peace (see the last 30 seconds of this video); that's a solemness I must say I do not see in the disgusting casualness with which McCain approaches issues of war--e.g., in the way he has literally joked about the idea of bombing Iran (video here). I'll hope to write more about the faith forum and McCain's overall views on war later.

Update 2: I just watched a tough TV news piece tonight, 8/21, on the grieving that families go through at the loss of their family members in Iraq and Afghanistan. You can watch the full piece online here; it includes a discussion with a Marine whose job has been to deliver the news to families about the death of their loved ones. You can see the newspaper series the news piece was based on here, where you can also see some of the tough pictures that go along with it.

Conceding Clinton, Magnanimous Obama

I had to stick this great front page shot of Obama during his acceptance speech for the Democratic nomination (June 3rd of last week). The annoying thing, of course, is that it's been inevitable for so long that it took something out of the event--though it was quite good and hugely energized still (watch the whole speech here, as it's definitely worth it and undoubtedly historical).

Clinton did her part for that night too though, with her non-concession, as it were. The other shoe did of course finally drop on Saturday as Clinton conceded and endorsed Obama. It was a long time coming, but thankfully it did. I felt a bit underwhelmed, but then again I should've expected as much, given her antics leading up to it; she did have some interesting things to say no less, even if she was 45 minutes late to the speech. And, to say clearly, I think it is not small but huge that a woman got this close to becoming President of the United States--I just feel she did it in an overly-ambitious way that really did smack of entitlement, etc.

Below is the video of her speech, followed by a short clip from Obama's above acceptance speech (and a bonus video for my fellow Virginians); in the clip he directly addresses Clinton, and it's nothing if it's not generous and big-hearted, demonstrating his ability to take the high road. This is particularly true given that he gave the speech on Tuesday, after he had secured all of the necessary votes for the nomination, but four days before her below concession speech; in fact, as some of you probably saw, she was still claiming that she had the proper right to the nomination that night.

Clinton's speech:



Clip from Obama's nomination speech, as he addresses Clinton during it:



Bonus--for you fellow Virginians out there, take a look at Obama's first stop after he was officially nominated (we can expect the hoopla to only increase as November nears I'm sure, so look out for appearances if you're interested; note the nice intros for our Virginians, Sen. Webb and Gov. Kaine, who are both talked about as potential VPs):

Past Series: My Major Qualms With Clinton

Here are links to a past series I did on my major issues with Clinton (though I thought I would take it off the front page of the blog since she's now dropped out; I post-dated it (handy tool in Blogger) so it wouldn't show up on the front page of the blog):

Qualm 1: Vote on Iraq
Qualm 2: Democratic Devolutionist
Qualm 3: Lack of Integrity
Qualm 4: Two Families + 25 Years = Too Much
Qualm 5: "Experience"

Update: Although I think some damage was done with the cavalier, sometimes unethical way the Clintons approached the primary season, Hillary seemed to really have realized the gravity of the consequences of having McCain and not Obama in the White House with her boo-yow speech at the Dems Convention.

Clinton, Going Down Flailing

I was ready to put this post up to deliver a good elbow to Clinton's side, given some recent talk from her campaign. Then I thought I would take a look at her site to see what she had up there on this last day of the primaries. As I did, I had in mind a post I'd read earlier about how Bill Clinton may still be seeing women on the side, and so I felt bad for her. With that in mind, if she had a realistic, humble front on her website I may have skipped this post.

Alas, she did not. Rather, she appears to have decided to go down flailing. While I still feel sad about the way Bill may be treating her (though it was not clear from what I read), I am nevertheless angry about a particular aspect of her recent politicking: her claim that she has a higher popular vote count than Obama. This is abhorrent to me, given: 1) the duplicitous way she comes up with the count, and 2) the way she is touting that contrived count before Americans, directly egging on the idea that Obama has not been chosen by the people.

First, with the count, she has herself around 200,000 votes in front of Obama. To reach (and yes, she reaches) for that magic (yes, it takes a little) number, she counts Michigan. She generously grants herself 328,309 from Michigan and Obama zero--yes, zero, out of the 238,168 that voted for what appeared with the name "uncommitted" on the ballot. He took his name off the ballot, as did four to five other Democrats in respect for the party rules that Michigan violated. She said Michigan did not count. The rules committee of the Democratic party said it did not count. Read more here. So not only is she manipulating the numbers, but she's throwing it out before voters with ads such as this--aired this week--and doubletalk such as this, on her website.

I'd love if there could be some substantive show of unity from her side, allowing her past lack of integrity (such as this) to be overlooked, but her over-ambition is simply too much to allow for that. This over-ambition is one reason I wrote about not wanting her as vice president and one reason I wrote back in February about how I thought she would be a Democratic devolutionist (she may yet deliver on this if her self-absorbed antics have their way and affect the willingness of voters to support Obama--scratch that, I think she has already affected the willingness of at least some to support Obama). If ever I got into the habit of thinking someone's a-okay because they wear the right party affiliation, she and Bill have throughly cured me of that. What are your thoughts on 'ol Clinton after this mess of a primary season?

Update: Following the final primaries tonight, Hillary kept flailing in her speech, with comments such as the following, which are nothing short of counterproductive in my view: "And I am just enormously grateful, because in the millions of quiet moments, in thousands of places, you asked yourself a simple question: Who will be the strongest candidate and the strongest president? Who will be ready to take back the White House and take charge as Commander-in-Chief and lead our country to better tomorrows? People in all fifty states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the territories, all had a chance to make your voices heard and on Election Day after Election Day, you came out in record numbers to cast your ballots. Nearly eighteen million of you cast your votes for our campaign, carrying the popular vote with more votes than any primary candidate in history. Even when the pundits and the naysayers proclaimed week after week that this race was over, you kept on voting."

Die, Dream Team, Die, says Pelosi

Picture from this great Economist article on the subject.

What a misnomer, "dream team." Perhaps all those touting the miscalculated idea of an Obama-Clinton ticket are really GOP strategists in disguise. Either way, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi--the highest ranking Democrat in the land right now--appeared to usher in the welcome demise of the idea last week on the PBS "NewsHour with Jim Lehrer." Here's the question and answer from it:

JUDY WOODRUFF (with the NewsHour): Do you still believe that an Obama-Clinton or Clinton-Obama ticket is not likely?

REP. NANCY PELOSI: I do. In all honesty, I do think it is not likely. They haven't asked me who I think should be their running mate. You have. And I don't think that would be the ticket that will win for us.

Let me say it another way: I don't think that's the ticket that is going to happen. If it is the ticket that happens, it will be the winning ticket, but I don't see it happening. (Read or watch the whole interview here.)

Hear, hear. The idea has been misguided from the start, particularly when you consider the baggage involved--namely the Clintons' matching husband-wife baggage. If the primary season has revealed anything, it's that the Clintons never had any lessons on playing second fiddle. A Vice President Billary Clinton (as Colby King of the Washington Post dubbed the duo here) would be a disaster in the making.

Most prominently perhaps, as my friend Cecilia pointed out to me recently, the alpha-alpha combination of Obama and Clinton (and Clinton) would be a nonstarter in terms of actual governance. How would the former President and First Lady (particularly this former President and First Lady) not try to continually overstep and outdo a President Obama? Also, as I detailed in this post on Hillary's potential devolution of the Democratic party, I believe her presence on the ticket with Obama would turn significant numbers of people off who would otherwise support him--she's just that divisive in my view, even if she hasn't earned all of those sentiments.

more at twiigs.com...

Update: If reports such as this are indicators of a push by Clinton for the VP spot, I worry that she will try to force the issue; boy I hope not, that is just more than she has the right to do--particularly given the negative factor I think she would represent on the ticket.

Update 2: I just came across a number of posts in my Google Reader (a great tool) on this very subject: here with Robert Reich, here at The Nation, and here from Harvard's Saguaro Seminar blog (a wonderful blog that reflects on issues of "social capital"). I especially appreciate the following thoughts from the last of those three pieces at the Saguaro Seminar:

"In choosing a vice presidential running mate, we hope that Barack will find someone other than Hillary Clinton who can help to reunify the Democratic base of working collar Americans and older Americans. Choosing Hillary only shackles Barack to the scorched earth politics of the past as we witnessed in great quantity from her during the primary season. Moreover, as we often write about in this column, trust is an extremely valuable commodity and hard to repair once breached. And with Hillary as his Vice President, President Barack Obama could scarcely take a business trip without fearing a palace coup during his departure. Whether one’s grist is Shakespearean tragedies or the U.S. military during the Vietnam War, it’s hard to build an effective team around fratricide." (emphasis mine)

I would (excitedly) add that I found out tonight that Obama actually participated in the Saguaro meetings at Harvard from 1996-2000, which were aimed at "developing recommendations for strategies that would help foster the growth of social capital and civic connectedness in America." He was among "33 accomplished thinkers and doers who serve as a catalyst in determining the kinds of changes and strategies necessary to increasingly connect Americans with their communities and community institutions."

Update 3: Here's O. himself talking about the possibility (along with other interesting issues), where he says he's a "big believer in making decisions well," adding the following: "I think it's not just in my interest and Sen. Clinton's interest, but in the Democrat Party's interest and the country's interest to make sure I make this decision well. And I will be deliberate and systematic about it, because this will be my final counselor when I'm making decisions in the White House and I want to make sure I get it right."

Another Close to Clintons Endorses Obama

Add one more from Bill Clinton's former crew to Obama's list of endorsements: former Secretary of Labor, Robert Reich (left). Bill Clinton's former Secretary of Energy (and former 2008 presidential candidate), Bill Richardson (below right), offered his endorsement of Obama about a month ago. Tony Lake (below left), the former National Security Adviser for Bill Clinton, has been a long supporter of Obama's, and serves as a senior policy adviser on his campaign; this is particularly significant, as National Security Advisers serve as the chief adviser to the president on national security issues. The movement of those who served closest with Bill Clinton to Obama's camp speaks volumes; I don't think it demonizes the Clintons, as people are generally not that black and white, but I do think the endorsements reveal thoughtful decisions by some who worked closely alongside Bill and Hillary. It should similarly allow the fears of O's inexperience to fall away all the more. Reich's endorsement yesterday, posted on his blog here, reveals a surprisingly logical decision, that notably is based on Obama's positions and demeanor, not, in large part, on Hillary's negative qualities (though there are certainly some that deserve consideration). Here's Reich's thoughts:

"The formal act of endorsing a candidate is generally (and properly) limited to editorial pages and elected officials whose constituents might be influenced by their choice. The rest of us shouldn't assume anyone cares. My avoidance of offering a formal endorsement until now has also been affected by the pull of old friendships and my reluctance as a teacher and commentator to be openly partisan. But my conscience won't let me be silent any longer.

I believe that Barack Obama should be elected President of the United States.

Although Hillary Clinton has offered solid and sensible policy proposals, Obama's strike me as even more so. His plans for reforming Social Security and health care have a better chance of succeeding. His approaches to the housing crisis and the failures of our financial markets are sounder than hers. His ideas for improving our public schools and confronting the problems of poverty and inequality are more coherent and compelling. He has put forward the more enlightened foreign policy and the more thoughtful plan for controlling global warming.

He also presents the best chance of creating a new politics in which citizens become active participants rather than cynical spectators. He has energized many who had given up on politics. He has engaged young people to an extent not seen in decades. He has spoken about the most difficult problems our society faces, such as race, without spinning or simplifying. He has rightly identified the armies of lawyers and lobbyists that have commandeered our democracy, and pointed the way toward taking it back.

Finally, he offers the best hope of transcending the boundaries of class, race, and nationality that have divided us. His life history exemplifies this, as do his writings and his record of public service. For these same reasons, he offers the best possibility of restoring America's moral authority in the world."

Six of One Dem, Half Dozen of Another? A Call to Consider (and Act On) Your Support

I believe the real test of one's support is to act on and defend it--something I would respect in any supporter, whether Democrat or Republican. Particularly in the case of Clinton and Obama, given McCain's virtually solidified place as the Republican nominee, I would encourage anyone to consider their support carefully, and to consider acting on it. I don't mean this as a taunting challenge, but I think it moves one to fully consider the attributes of a given candidate.

Specifically, I would encourage anyone who is supporting one of the Dems to deliberately consider if one is preferable, as I discuss a few paragraphs down, but to also consider how you can multiply that support by contacting voters in upcoming primary states. This can be done by contacting those you know, or by using either candidate's online calling systems (if only for 30 minutes to an hour, as I definitely know what's it like to be busy). The races are close, and these are neat, empowering ways for those outside the upcoming states to participate and influence the process--and in a way that, in the end, may be able to affect the outcome one vote at a time. The technology in place via both candidates online systems only gives you numbers that have not been called (with some occasional mistakes), and Obama's system even allows you to target calls to women, students, or Latinos (or you can just get a general list of numbers to call). For either system, you can call from home, as I mentioned, and simply need to create a username and password to get started. Clinton's system can be accessed here, and Obama's here.

Having had a few opportunities to make calls in the past, I've found that many want to talk one-on-one with someone about the issues at play, and that they have a sense of the import of their decision, and the troubled place of the country right now. As a quick suggestion to anyone who does make the effort, I would highly suggest starting out by asking questions, opposed to telling somebody this or that, as it engages them, and allows them to attempt to reason through their vote.

In that vein, although both Clinton and Obama's systems have what I imagine are helpful scripts, I've found it helpful to just ask something like if they are voting in the upcoming primary, and if so, if they have decided who they are voting for. If it's the candidate opposite yours, sometimes people are willing to hear you say something like, "I respect your decision, but would just challenge you to consider this or that" (being sure to make it a fairly quick line, which they then may be willing to engage with). If they are undecided, I've found it helpful to ask if they have any doubts or questions regarding your candidate. There's no avoiding some callers who just aren't willing to talk, will hang up on you right away, or will otherwise be straight up rude to you. I, for one, think that those negative aspects of the experience highlight the need for people to realize that productive dialogue can happen without having to act in those ways--a need which can be best combated, in my view, by deliberate attempts by whatever parties to start substantive dialogues about issues.

And now, a final note. I think, as my above title demonstrates, that it does matter which of the two remaining Dems makes it to the White House (if one indeed is able to). I especially feel the need to point this out because there is, what I believe to be, an unmerited sentiment among some that either Clinton or Obama is okay by them--if you ascribe to that mentality, I would just challenge you to be sure that you have calculated why you believe that to be the case. I will note a few of my posts in a moment that I believe highlight the reason Obama is highly desirable as a candidate and President, although I should say that I would support Clinton if she got the nomination; I think that she would be highly preferable to the type of policies McCain supports: maintaining Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy; not aiming for an overhaul of the health care system; maintaining the present approach to the war in Iraq; and other policies which I believe are unhelpful to the middle and lower classes.

Here are a few posts I've written though, taken from my "major qualms with Clinton" to the left, that stand out to me as reasons why I think Clinton is a somewhat troubling choice for the nomination or the Presidency. And again, I would challenge any readers to consider whether their support of Clinton, or their openness to either candidate, is merited, given these points:

1. Her vote for the use of force in Iraq in 2002;
2. Her earned and unearned devisiveness, and the threat that could mean for her electability in November, and for the length of time that the Democrats may remain in control of the White House and Congress;
3. Her and Bill's spotty integrity on the campaign trail;
4. The highly questionable nature of two families having control of the White House for 24-28 years; and
5. The quality of her highly-touted "experience."

Conversely, I do not see this simply as a matter of being against someone, but also being for someone: someone who stood up against the invasion of Iraq in 2002 with uncanny accuracy as to its flaws, as well as someone who has demonstrated (of all things) his experience over years of public service and life in general (for notes on the specifics of Obama's 2002 predictions of Iraq's flaws, check this post of mine, and for a detailed look at the experience question with Obama, check this recent post of mine on the subject).

Finally, I think a deliberate choice of one of these two candidates is important because it can contribute to the outcome of the race, as I noted above. This is more and more the case given the fact that Tuesday's vote may not turn out to be as decisive as was previously thought--namely because the Clinton camp seems increasingly intent on pushing the race to the last possible moment (even though, I would add, their campaign would need more than 3/4 of the vote in the rest of the races to win the nomination). So consider getting involved by making calls through the candidate's online systems, and/or contacting those you know in the upcoming states (Texas, Ohio, Vermont, or Rhode Island most immediately). Both of these acts, even though they do not involve marches on Washington or casting a vote, are capable of asserting one's role in our democracy--and, I would note, capable of multiplying one's influence beyond that of a single vote.

Pray Tell Hillary, What KIND of Experience?

A resume from floor to ceiling tells a potential employer that the applicant has experience, yes. But what employer worth his salt would stop there? Might there be a second, more important question asked, regarding the quality of that experience?

Hillary indeed has experience, but her strident touting of said experience belies the dirty underbelly of the issue. Case in point (the most important case in point): Of the two Dems left in it, Mrs. Clinton is undoubtedly the one with the most experience--indeed the only experience--of sending us into what has been described as the “worst foreign policy disaster since Vietnam” (those are Richard Holbrooke’s words, former UN Ambassador under Bill Clinton and purportedly a possible Secretary of State under Hillary). Not only did Hillary support this war with her early vote, but as also noted in the above article, she plans to enlist the same crew if she were to make it to the White House: "Clinton has lined up a foreign policy team dominated by those who shared her early support for the war in Iraq, but then, like her, changed their minds."

But more to the point of this post, her "experience" is marred by this vote in my view. Of the myriad issues comprising the arguments in this primary season, we must remember that they are not all created equal. War must be paramount if we are to claim a high view of human life. The hundreds of thousands dead because of it, must be at the forefront of our mind when considering "the issues." Thus her vote is deeply troubling, based on my analysis of it. And, simply speaking, it has told me enough about her experience for me to realize that I do not want her as my president.

Yet each one of us, if we are to make our decision with the most information possible, must examine the details of that vote to come to a thoughtful determination. I do not want to go into the full reasoning for my decision here, as I have done so in past posts, but I'll provide a few links here before explaining a bit more why I find her vote to be so troubling. As I have described here, there were over 150 members of the U.S. House and Senate that opposed that 2002 vote to authorize use of force against Iraq. In that same post, I lay out some of the reasons those members of Congress voted against the war. I also discuss those reasons here, in a post highlighting parts of a speech given by Congressman Dennis Kucinich (former presidential candidate) a week before the vote.

Furthermore, when Clinton was preparing to vote for this use of force against Iraq, Obama was, as all likely know by now, opposing the war in a 2002 speech, including the now famous line, “I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda” (emphasis added). Both of Obama’s points about the problems of an invasion and the strengthening of Al Qaeda were unfortunately proven true. (More excerpts and a link to the full speech are available in this previous post.)

To draw out my initial analogy though, imagine, if you would, an employer who is considering hiring an accountant. One candidate has years of experience, and has shown to do well in a number of areas. However, at one point she, in conjunction with others, made a decision that caused an accounting disaster, plummeting her organization into debt. Might this be a fair, and even more so, a necessary consideration for the employer? Is it not one of, if not the most important consideration in terms of that accountant's “experience”? And lastly, would it not augment the need to consider this aspect of her experience if many of her coworkers had warned that she and others were making the wrong decision? Certainly the details of the scenario would have to be examined prior to a final decision by the employer, but a nuanced judgment would be needed, wherein the employer would weigh the good and the bad of her experience. Indeed a judgment might be made that yes, the accountant did have some good experience, but in one of the most integral areas of her job, she made the wrong decision—thus, to overstate the obvious, she had some significant bad experience.

Imagine further that the employer had an alternate candidate who had spoken up, albeit from outside the organization, warning against the bad decision that was eventually made. It stands to reason that this aspect of the alternate candidate’s experience, and the judgment it showed, would be a significant factor, particularly given that the area in question was central to the job. If the alternate had less experience, the question might then become, does he have enough experience? And this question is where I will end this post and pick up with my next, "The Rich Experience of an Obama."

Update: An addendum here, from a recent Washington Post article: "[Clinton's] refusal -- her inability -- to simply confess poor judgment says to me that her vote was politically motivated. In that, she was not alone. All of her 2008 Democratic primary colleagues who were in the Senate at the time voted for the war resolution. Many other Senate Democrats voted against it -- on the basis not of different facts but of a different judgment about the same facts." Based on the facts that were available at the time, as I linked to above, and the sentiment around the country that we needed to be "tough on terrorism," it's not beyond possibility in my mind that Clinton voted politically and not ethically. If it was not political however, I find it no less troubling: she either wasn't diligent enough in researching the available facts (which does not seem as likely), or she did not view war as an utter last resort, as I feel compelled to (along with those such as Sen. Carl Levin, as noted here).

Update 2: I should add that while Clinton's 35-year claim to experience is true in part, as noted in this CQ article on it, some aspects of it are worrisome, on top of the Iraq war vote; namely, her attempt at bringing about health care reform during the Clinton Administration excluded even some Democrats, and was of course unsuccessful on a whole.

Obama Wins by Over 21% in Each of Three Primaries Tonight

Obama supporters in Richmond, VA tonight. Photo credit to Reuters.

Obama swept the three races tonight: 68% in Washington state to Clinton's 31% (96% reporting)--a 37% difference; 57% in Louisiana to Clinton's 36% (99% reporting)--a 21% difference; 68% in Nebraska to Clinton's 32% (100% reporting)--a 36% difference. The point of relaying this is not to disparage Clinton, but to emphasize Obama's electability, and to report the reality of what's going on. The candidates are at a "virtual tie" according to this Washington Post article, which explains more of the details on the race (along with the specifics on the Republican races tonight; according to this great NPR map which I like so much, it shows Huckabee won in Kansas and Louisiana, with Washington appearing to go to McCain).

Clinton and Obama spoke after the results were known in my great state of Virginia, at the Virginia Democratic party's Jefferson-Jackson dinner. Clinton hasn't posted her video yet of the speech, but I'll put it up when it's available. For right now however, here's a compilation of clips from her speech that I found on the Washington Post's website.

Here's Obama's full speech made available through his site:

Two Families + 25 years = Too Much

Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush—Clinton, Clinton? An old point now, to be sure, but is it not valid? The reality being discussed by many is that Bill Clinton would play a significant roll in the presidency (not hard to imagine given his prominence in the campaign thus far). What's a term limit then though? Perhaps I can understand allowing it legally, so as not to tell any American that they cannot run for president, but on another level, it’s entirely disconcerting.

Sure Bill had his strengths, and significant ones, but the monarchical feel to a repetition of families such as this is unsettling, to put it mildly. What's the count? That would be...four for George Sr., eight for Bill, eight for Bush Jr., and four to eight for Hillary. So 24-28 (long) years of two families running our country (and with our behemoth sway globally, one must consider the ways these two families have "run" the world as well). On the conservative side, that's one year short of a quarter century--and one quarter century too long for two families, in my opinion. So much can happen in 25 years! What more can one say?

more at twiigs.com...

Update: Whoops, in this vein, a little Freudian slip recently by Clinton the 1st? Purportedly, the line where he says "if you elect me" was in connection with the first part of his statement where he said "Hillary says"--I don't buy it personally. Either way, I love one of the comments to the above article where a reader said: "Can you hear it? The State of The Union Address: 'Ladies and Gentleman...The PRESIDENTS of the United States!' "

Hillary's Earned Opposition: "Obama is a Reaganite"

I believe the Clintons have, in many ways, been earning the negative opposition they are facing. As I noted here, this opposition, and the inseparable sentiments about her husband, are enough to bring into question: 1. her ability to win the election in Nov., if nominated over Obama; 2. her ability to build support for the Democratic party and not quickly lose the opportunity for the party to move forward a progressive agenda over some number of years; and 3. perhaps most importantly, her desirability as a President, given the nature of the negative and disingenuous statements by her and Bill of recent (and this does not even touch on the myriad incidents and sordid history of their past years).

The example I'll discuss here is again, just one of the reasons why the Clintons have earned this opposition, and centers on an attack about two weeks ago, leveled by the Clintons on Obama for his "Reagan statement." In the South Carolina debate, as well as in paid advertisements, the Clintons denigrated Obama for his comments about Ronald Reagan. The terrible irony is that Bill Clinton, as detailed in this Washington Post article, praised Reagan in numerous ways during his run for the White House in 1991-1992. He said things praising Reagan's work on the Cold War, esteeming his "rhetoric in defense of freedom," and his work in "advancing the idea that communism could be rolled back." The Post article notes that during that time, the Memphis Commercial Appeal said that Bill "set himself apart from the pack of contenders for the Democratic nomination by saying something nice about Ronald Reagan," revealing his "readiness to defy his party's prevailing Reaganphobia."

Now, turning to Obama. The part of Obama's statement in question, which can be found in video and text form here, was as follows:

"I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn’t much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing...I think it’s fair to say the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last ten, fifteen years, in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom."

In response to these statements, as noted in the link from above, Hillary stated: "My leading opponent the other day said that he thought the Republicans had better ideas than Democrats the last 10 to 15 years." Her husband said, "[My wife's] principal opponent said that since 1992, the Republicans have had all the good ideas....I'm not making this up, folks." Nowhere in Obama's statement does he say the Republicans had good ideas--nowhere. Rather, he says they had ideas that mobilized people, shook things up from the regular approach to things. As it says on this Chicago Tribune blog, "When the Clintons used "better" and "good" in alluding the Obama's remarks, they weren't paraphrasing, they weren't misremembering, they weren't distorting. They were simply lying."

Hillary went on to attempt to "call Obama out" on this in the SC debate two weeks ago; her statement and his reply can be found in the video below. In it, Obama points out that he has "spent a lifetime working against [Reagan's] policies," and that nowhere in his statement does he say Reagan's ideas were good or what was needed.



Hillary also paid for advertising, such as the radio ad below, that again seeks to paint Obama as one who accepts and endorses the ideas of Reagan (the ad was soon pulled from the air by the campaign):



I will not willingly accept these thin ethics again in a President, I just can't, it's not good for anyone involved. This is one reason, among others, that Obama has my vote. As noted in the wonderful thoughts of 90-year old NPR commentator Daniel Schorr, who won three Emmys in 1972 for his coverage of the Nixon Watergate lies, lying has become a shamefully acceptable practice. That short radio piece can be found here, with another short piece on lying in government here. Answer the poll below and/or write in a comment if you have any thoughts on this.

more at twiigs.com...

Update: Frank Rich of the New York Times noted another instance of what he calls not just a lie, but a "bigoted lie" by the Clintons: "Last month a Hispanic pollster employed by the Clinton campaign pitted the two groups against each other by telling The New Yorker that Hispanic voters have 'not shown a lot of willingness or affinity to support black candidates.' Mrs. Clinton then seconded the motion by telling Tim Russert in a debate that her pollster was 'making a historical statement.'It wasn’t an accurate statement, historical or otherwise. It was a lie, and a bigoted lie at that, given that it branded Hispanics, a group as heterogeneous as any other, as monolithic racists. As the columnist Gregory Rodriguez pointed out in The Los Angeles Times, all three black members of Congress in that city won in heavily Latino districts; black mayors as various as David Dinkins in New York in the 1980s and Ron Kirk in Dallas in the 1990s received more than 70 percent of the Hispanic vote. The real point of the Clinton campaign’s decision to sow misinformation and racial division, Mr. Rodriguez concluded, was to 'undermine one of Obama’s central selling points, that he can build bridges and unite Americans of all types.' "

Update 2: Robert Reich, who I've mentioned previously was Bill Clinton's former Secretary of Labor, explains some of the unethical breeches he has noticed in the Clintons' campaign: "I write this more out of sadness than anger...While it may be that all is fair in love, war, and politics, it’s not fair – indeed, it’s demeaning – for a former President to say things that are patently untrue (such as Obama’s anti-war position is a “fairy tale”) or to insinuate that Obama is injecting race into the race when the former President is himself doing it. Meanwhile, the attack ads being run in South Carolina by the Clinton camp which quote Obama as saying Republicans had all the ideas under Reagan, is disingenuous. For years, Bill Clinton and many other leading Democrats have made precisely the same point..." Read more here...

Hillary: Democratic Devolutionist

Yes, the above is about what I think Sen. Hillary Clinton would do for the Democratic Party if she were to be elected President. But believe me, I have no interest in simply flashing inflammatory images across the screen; rather, I have found that this point is supported by some simple facts that I, and numerous others, have observed. In my following post I'll note some reasons why I find that this polarizing quality is earned, not simple a fabled story of the political right.

As for this post though, I would like to point out the consequences of Mrs. Clinton's polarization. It is such that she would be voted out of the White House as quickly as she was voted in, in my view. (A serious qualification has to be added here to say that her ascendency into the White House is far from a given. The seemingly venomous opposition to her from various corners of politics simply makes her too risky to be the Democratic candidate for President in my judgment). But, if somehow she was able to get into the White House, I believe her polarizing nature would do a significant disservice to the Democratic Party (albeit somewhat unintended). The risk is simply too great that this polarization would impassion the political right to mobilize their base and once again flip the White House back into Republican control, thus cutting short the Democratic Party's opportunity to make any solid headway with a progressive agenda.

I'll make a quick point here for those who are uncertain of the degree of her polarization, although I would be surprised if any readers have not witnessed (or expressed) such polarization themselves. Note exhibit A, to the left. I first saw such a doll, alongside a Bush voodoo doll, at the popular bookstore chain, Borders. Plainly speaking, I think it's tasteless. But it is, nevertheless, representative of some of the strong feelings against her; and, it is worth stating, that there is no such Obama doll (or for that matter, McCain or Romney doll). Feel free to look for yourself, but on the Borders website here, and another site here, there were only Bush and Hillary dolls. The latter site even has toilet paper that can come with the image of Hillary, Bush or Cheney. The fact that Hillary uniquely falls into a similar category of the now infamous Bush and Cheney-opposition highlights the extreme nature of her divisiveness. I don't think it's entirely merited, as noted in a recent Washington Post article: "the same irrational Clinton hatred is alive and well in certain parts of the media." However, I would insert the word "somewhat" before "irrational," because I believe Hillary and her husband have earned this opposition of recent. As I have mentioned, I'll note in the following post some of why I believe this is so.

Update: To further emphasize an above point I made, the general election in November will undoubtedly be decided by middle voters. There's a block to the left and to the right that we can safely predict will vote their party, thus the moderates and independents will determine the election. Hillary's divisiveness, and the earned and unearned opposition to her and her husband, would entirely weaken her ability to garner those middle voters; conversely, Obama has consistently shown himself as stronger with independents than Clinton.

Update 2: Two new polls, one from Gallup and one from AP, place Obama as the most likely to win the general election race against McCain. Details here.

Nevada Primary Results...

These results below are with 89.9% of precincts reporting, and show Hillary in the lead by about 5% over Obama. Edwards is coming in a full 42% behind Obama though, surprisingly low with only 3.75%. You can find the results here on the NV Democratic website, and here on CNN. CNN has the same numbers as below right now, but also has the Republican numbers, with Romney taking 52% of the vote, with Paul and McCain in second place with only 13%! That's with 79% of the precincts reporting. I guess Romney has some real pull there, what an incredible lead though. CNN has predicted Clinton and Romney are the winners, but it's hard to take much from the media projections, wrong as they were in FL in 2000. The final results should be in soon enough though, and you can keep checking the links above for updates. Here's another neat link that breaks down who voters chose among Democrats by gender, main issue, etc.

	Senator Hillary Clinton: 50.77% Senator Barack Obama: 45.13% Senator John Edwards: 3.75% Uncommitted: 0.3% Congressman Dennis Kucinich: 0.05% Senator Mike Gravel: 0%

Update: As everyone may have seen by now, with 98% of precincts reporting, Hillary apparently received the highest percentage with 51%, Obama 45%, but it appears that Obama may have received one more national delegate because of the way votes from certain parts of the states are weighted. I found two somewhat conflicting takes on it though:

1. NY Times article:

"Mrs. Clinton scored a clear victory measured in the number of people attending the caucuses on her behalf. But Mr. Obama’s campaign was successful by another measure — in the allocation of delegates to the national nominating convention, a result of a complex formula that gave more weight to votes in some parts of the state."

2. Congressional Quarterly article:

"But the Obama campaign caused a stir by spinning the outcome into a win for its candidate — claiming he had clinched 13 of the state’s national convention delegates to 12 for Clinton, based on the fact that he performed well around the state while Clinton’s overall lead was built on her big edge in Clark County (Las Vegas), the state’s major population center. Both the Clinton campaign and the state Democratic Party disputed Obama’s claim, noting that no national convention delegates were actually allocated on the basis of Saturday’s results, only the first stage in a multi-step process."

There have been similarly different takes from each of the two candidates, with each basically claiming the victory for themselves. Here's an excerpt from each:

-Clinton (in an email sent to supporters):

"Dear Friend,

Have you heard? We just won the Democratic caucuses in Nevada. You have done so much to make winning moments like this possible. Thank you!

People across the country are placing their faith in our campaign, especially those hardest hit by the recent downturn in the economy. We can't let them down. We're working together to bring about change, and America is responding to our efforts..."

-Obama (in a statement released tonight):

"We’re proud of the campaign we ran in Nevada. We came from over twenty-five points behind to win more national convention delegates than Hillary Clinton because we performed well all across the state, including rural areas where Democrats have traditionally struggled. The reason is because tens of thousands of Nevadans came out to say that they’re tired of business-as-usual in Washington and ready for a President who can bring this country together, take on the lobbyists and special interests, and end the politics of saying and doing whatever it takes to win an election..."

By the way, with 95% of the vote in, McCain looks to have taken South Carolina, winning 33% of the vote, with Huckabee next with 30%, Thompson 16%, Romney 15%, Paul 4% and Giuliani 2% (the Democrats' SC primary won't be until next Saturday, Jan. 26th). Also, it's no small thing that Paul, at this point, beat McCain by a percentage point (14% to 13%) in Nevada.