Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

The Hell with Hillary Rodham Clinton

okanogen's picture

There, I said it, and here's why, she has failed the same test Colin Powell did*. The test of maintaining personal integrity over being a team-player. I thought she had more backbone and I am ashamed to admit that I donated the max to her primary campaign. Live and learn.

Some may say she couldn't do anything, trapped in a gilded cage, blah, blah, fucking blah. All that shows is how little she DID do prior to Obama going "all in" with his generals.

Either way, she is a loser. If she agrees with Obama, she is dumb and/or disinterested and/or for the kind of Empire America everyone (including me) hoped she was against, but feared she was for. In other words, no different at all from Obama. If she doesn't agree with Obama, she has no influence as Secretary of State and is also too weak-willed to admit it and leave. If as Secretary of State you can't influence the decision to continue or end a fucking war, what are you sticking around for?

What I would have respected her for saying:

Mr. President, as you know I have argued strongly against taking drastic actions which would escalate this conflict as I believe there are far, far superior alternatives to solving this very difficult problem. I believe the prospect of ratcheting up this war by sending a very large number of additional US soldiers to Afghanistan for an unknown period of time is unsustainable either militarily, politically or economically. I am so firm in this belief and realize this decision is so critical to the future of the United States and indeed the world, that should you decide to escalate this conflict in this manner and at this time, I do not believe I am capable of publicly defending that course of action with the rigor and energy you would require. I understand this will be your decision, and do not wish to unduly influence it, so for that reason I humbly submit my resignation as Secretary of State for your approval, as I serve at your pleasure. Should you accept my resignation, I give you my word that I will, as a private citizen, continue to provide all of the support I can to you, to your presidency and to the United State of America and the principles we all share as Americans.

Dutifully,

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State

This was the letter not written, but see how easy that is/would have been? How would the world have been different had Colin Powell written something similar to GWB and acted on it?

YMMV

*UPDATE: I should have added from the start rather than as a qualifier in the text that if she agrees with this policy that is equally bad, if not worse. Same with Colin Powell. He says he was "mislead" on the WMD, and though he disagreed went along as a team player. Either way, he was wrong, and either way their legacies are tarnished. That's in my eyes, but YMMV.

0
No votes yet

Comments

Submitted by hipparchia on

which is part of why i was hoping she'd be picked for vp, so she could spend more time on domestic issues, since she's somewhat left of obama here at home. away, though, they're all hawks. we sorely need someone who will help rein in obama's warmongering bent, and a team player isn't likely to do that.

Valhalla's picture
Submitted by Valhalla on

I wish she were far less hawkish too. As Lambert says below, they're all Empire. But I think as vp or one of the cabinet positions (any of them), she'd be drowning amidst all the FAIL campaigns so while the quality of her influence on the domestic side would be better, the quantity would be near negligible. Originally, I hoped for a domestic position for her too. But now I think she would not have been able to stop the massive economic, health care, and regulatory fails on the domestic side.

Outside of the wars, she's done a lot of good as SoS with regard to carrying through on her longstanding theme of women's rights are human rights. I don't see that any of the other potential SoSs would have done that. On that issue and a few others, her influence is close to irreplaceable.

Unfortunately, when we're talking about war and human rights, the good and bad don't really balance out like credits and debits on an accounting spreadsheet. The only calculation I'm left with is that without her at State we'd have missed out on the good stuff, but with her there the bad stuff (hawkish warmongering) isn't any worse.

Because the problem is not that we have too little condescension from our tribe. -- okanogen

okanogen's picture
Submitted by okanogen on

I'm sure she has done a lot of good, but no, they don't balance out and I thank you for writing that.

Others may be ok with excusing her on this. Not me. As my sig says, I don't fall in love with politicians, but even despite that, apparently I was wrong to expect more of her and needed to relearn the only way to look at a politician is down.

Sorry, I don't fall in love with politicians. I'm not that desperate.....

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

This was always going to be Clinton's position because she and Obama do not disagree on foreign policy. They never did and, yes, her support for Afghanistan escalation is wrong and it is a tragic mistake for Obama and his administration. However, unless I missed the speech where she went before the UN and lied about why we're going to invade another country, she's nowhere in Powell's league. Powell didn't just go along with a bad policy or support a bad policy, he was a key figure in the public lies used to sell the Iraq war. Let's not let Mr. Powell off the hook or reduce the seriousness of what he did just because there's disappointment in Clinton's support for Afghanistan. Powell deserves to be remembered for the true awfulness of what he did, not the media spin that he was just a good soldier.

"Do what you feel in your heart to be right -- for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't. " - Eleanor Roosevelt

madamab's picture
Submitted by madamab on

My mileage is varying quite a bit. Why do you think she disagrees with Obama? And why is it incumbent upon her to resign? Why isn't it incumbent upon the Commander in Chief to make better decisions about the war?

I agree with you, BDBlue, on this one. This is nothing compared with Colin Powell. All she is doing is agreeing that an existing invasion should be continued.

Is she wrong? Yes, in my opinion. But I have always been far to the left of her on war and peace. That is why I did not strongly support her for President until I had seen her in a couple of debates, and I realized how much better she was than everyone else on that stage. But that didn't mean I suddenly thought she and I agreed on the Iraq and Afghanistan occupations.

If she were President, would this be happening? I don't know. Maybe. As Hipparchia said, she and Obama have always been pretty close on FP positions. Why people thought he was some kind of dove is beyond me. They're both hawks.

:-(

In any case, should Obama ask her to go before the UN with some sugar and cartoons and pretend that Achmadinnerjacket has nuclear weapons and that's why we're invading Iran, I expect her to smile sweetly, say "No," and continue going about her business.

As for her resignation, I think we can trust her to handle her career. She seems to be doing pretty well so far.

Never vote for people who hate you.

ERA Now!

The Widdershins

Submitted by lambert on

Yes, there was no daylight between Obama and Clinton on the empire at all. That said, it would sure be nice if she encountered an issue of principle that she just couldn't stomach and, like the Brits do, resigned over policy. Save yourself, Hillary!!!

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

madamab's picture
Submitted by madamab on

I think the only reason she accepted SOS was because she knew that she would have no significant disagreements with Obama in that area.

Obviously she is not on his domestic policy team for that very same reason. I doubt they could find a single thing he's done on health care that she agrees with, or on women's rights, or the economy, to name a few.

Our public servants in America are never where I want them to be. Even Russ Feingold disappointed me recently by voting against Mikulski's health "insurance" reform amendment to ensure that mammograms and wellness exams were covered. He said it was too expensive! ORLY, Russ? I expect you to say the same about the entire Senate bill and vote Bernie Sanders' single payer bill, then! After all, it's the only bill in the Senate that will actually SAVE MONEY!

I guess my point is that I hope Hillary is not taking hits she doesn't deserve because people don't understand that she is an unapologetic war hawk. If you don't want to support her because of that, that's fine. But she's always been pretty clear about that aspect of her politics. I don't think she is any worse than any other Democrat who could be President in that area, so I supported her because of her domestic policies.

I still do.

Never vote for people who hate you.

ERA Now!

The Widdershins

okanogen's picture
Submitted by okanogen on

I don't need or expect, or want her to be "Obama's mama". I wanted her to not be wrong on escalating the killing in Afghanistan.

She is wrong either way, as I said.

Sorry, I don't fall in love with politicians. I'm not that desperate.....

Submitted by lambert on

I thought the empire was a wash between them both, and Hillary was clearly better on domestic policy, so, just like you, madameab, the choice was an easy one for me to make -- and one shared by the majority of the Democratic voters....

That said, I wish she would change her views. Even I wasn't nearly cynical enough about Obama, and this administration is more corrosive than I ever imagined it would be (I envisioned more lack of progress; I didn't see massive, gleeful destruction). One could hope that seeing this administration from the inside would lead to a change of heart. Perhaps, for an insider, it's always been as it is.

For people who care about the domestic policies she supports, Afghanistan makes her a wasting asset.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

Valhalla's picture
Submitted by Valhalla on

it was always Clinton who was the more practical candidate. None of the ills that were going to be facing the next president after Bush were ever going to be cured with fancy speeches.

The only argument that can be reasonably made (I think) that Clinton would have acted differently than Obama on Afghanistan would be on that basis -- because she was better on the domestic side and may have been more likely to want the billions for war going instead to health care and (a real) economic recovery, helping homeowners, etc.

That is the only basis that she can be influenced as SoS, I guess. The war(s) cost us too much, both in actual $ and opportunity costs. She won't suddenly become anti-Empire, and she never promised us transformation transcendence in foreign policy.

Although, to be relentlessly bitter and negative for a moment -- even if we got all the troops out of the Middle East and Afghanistan right this minute, I have a feeling all the money would just go straight into the Wall St-bankster-insurance parasite executive bonus IVs anyway, so on the pragmatic front, what's the diff?

Because the problem is not that we have too little condescension from our tribe. -- okanogen

madamab's picture
Submitted by madamab on

I don't really see any Democrat (or Republican, natch) as being good on issues of war and peace. No prominent or powerful Dem has ever led the Party to stop throwing money at Bush's occupations, so that leads me to believe there is no difference between them. Thus, FP is always kind of a wash for me when it comes to Dems. HRC is no different.

I, too, was not cynical enough about Obama. But I've come to believe that there is no "cynical enough" when it comes to him. He really is that bad.

Never vote for people who hate you.

ERA Now!

The Widdershins

madamab's picture
Submitted by madamab on

No U.S. President in recent memory has been able to break out of the box of American imperialism and exceptionalism. That's what Eisenhower was talking about when he warned us against the military-industrial complex.

Sometimes I really wonder if we'll even survive for another 20 years as a country. Our national discourse is so free of any type of depth or reality that I don't see how we can change it.

Then, at other times, I think we already are changing it. That 40% of disenchanted Democrats is an awfully large number of people.

Never vote for people who hate you.

ERA Now!

The Widdershins

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

I started to get over the idea that the Dems and Reps were different on war, during Kerry's run in 04.

I mean, yeah sure, if Gore had won in 2000, I don't think we would have gone into Iraq, but the plan the US used to go into Afghanistan, was drawn up after the Cole bombing, and probably would have been implemented after the election, had Gore won.

He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond

DCblogger's picture
Submitted by DCblogger on

And HRC has never done anything like that. However, she is a horrible hawk. I was incredulous when she was appointed, because Obama put her in charge of the only thing she got wrong. It is as if Obama's whole peace routine was just an act. Oh wait .....

Submitted by Tlaxcala (not verified) on

The DLC turned Hilly into a whore. After the mobsters called 'Health Care Insurers' cut her legs out from under her when she was the presidential wife, she joined The Family, where all the whores hang out. Her recent transparent 'support' of the Zionist led, coup de etate in Honduras, is only the latest treason. No reason to feel sorry for a FASCISTPIG. She made her choice, $$$$$$$$$$$

Valhalla's picture
Submitted by Valhalla on

regard to our female Secretary of State?

I would not have bothered to respond to this, imho it doesn't advance the conversation, but I do object to the prostitutional language -- just a bit too reminiscent of the misogyny of the primaries. Thanks.

Because the problem is not that we have too little condescension from our tribe. -- okanogen

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

Along with "Zionist" led coup, huzzuh?

He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond

madamab's picture
Submitted by madamab on

I have read this person's comments, and they've all been offensive to me, both as a woman and a liberal.

I have found that many of the people with whom I would agree on American imperialism, are also infected with virulent anti-Israeli sentiment, amounting to bigotry. That's why I could never vote for the Green Party or Cynthia McKinney. Wayyyy too much of that ignorance going on.

It's tough out there for a female, Jewish liberal, I'm telling ya.

;-)

Never vote for people who hate you.

ERA Now!

The Widdershins

dr sardonicus's picture
Submitted by dr sardonicus on

I have heard that there were two teams once upon a time, though...

This is the main reason I kept the Hilobamarama at arms' length. Ultimately, the differences being argued over were too minute to matter; at the end of the day both were conservative, pro-empire Democrats, as well as also being the best our system can do. I don't vote for Democrats, I vote against Republicans, and for that purpose either one would have done.

Don't no don't now try to get yourself elected
If you do you had better cut your hair

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

I'm sure the people who would still be in their houses, had HRC's HOLC idea been enacted, would agree with you that the "differences being argued over were too minute to matter". Or not.

No, there was absolutely no daylight between them when it came to foreign policy, but I'm really tired of this idea that there weren't significant differences between the two when it came to domestic policies. And the idea that those who believed HRC's policies were better, were just too stupid to know better, is really tiresome and insulting.

And don't forget, one candidate was willing to corrupt the entire primary process and accept stolen votes, while another played by the rules, but those differences apparently, are also too minute to matter.

He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond

okanogen's picture
Submitted by okanogen on

I'm sure that if HRC was president, much would be different. That is why I supported her over Obama. But that is a world that does not exist.

There are many different futures that didn't happen for me either, that doesn't mean I get a pass on my actions in this one, and she doesn't get a pass either. Or at least not a pass in my opinion.

I realize she isn't President, but she is Secretary of State, ultimately she needs to accept her share of credit or blame for this decision. I'm sure she would expect no less than to be judged on her actions or inactions.

Sorry, I don't fall in love with politicians. I'm not that desperate.....

quixote's picture
Submitted by quixote on

Obama's foreign policies are not Clinton's fault. Suddenly she's going to be the focus of anger? Hello?

If there was no difference between them on war -- (which I doubt. Yes, she's a pragmatist. My point, precisely.) -- if there was no difference, then everybody should have voted for her because she was way ahead on everything else. Eg HOLC, as mentioned above.

I'm sorry, but I have no patience for dumping on Hillary for some airhead's decision. I'm sure he'd love her to resign. Then he could fill the slot with some total stooge.

okanogen's picture
Submitted by okanogen on

If not foreign damn policies?

Focus of anger? Hardly.
Exempt from anger? Maybe in your world.

Some total stooge? Hmmm, now what would be the difference?

Sorry, I don't fall in love with politicians. I'm not that desperate.....

madamab's picture
Submitted by madamab on

I don't think that the OFB should be able to get away with making this Hillary's war. I don't like that she agrees with him, but that doesn't make war and peace her decision.

He is the Commander in Chief, and he is the decider. The OFB reminded us of this constantly. So their idiotic attempt to put all of the blame for the escalation on her is really untenable and moronic, IMHO.

Never vote for people who hate you.

ERA Now!

The Widdershins

okanogen's picture
Submitted by okanogen on

Not from me.* I put full blame on Obama. But as Secretary of State, Clinton is not blameless. Not unless she resigned. No one is blameless. That goes for Richard Holbrooke as well.

* Although not surprised if it did. For some Obama can't fail, he can only be failed.

Sorry, I don't fall in love with politicians. I'm not that desperate.....

Submitted by lambert on

This post isn't about the OFB. What am I missing, here? Are they doing this over at Big Orange, or something?

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

Submitted by lambert on

Feel free to post a takedown, if you like. The quality of Examiner stuff, whoever the heck they are, is wildly various.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

Davidson's picture
Submitted by Davidson on

That part of her foreign policy was typical of an American politican: heinous. Even if she had pushed through on gender, it wouldn't have made an impact on her calls for imperial actions in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq. It would have been more of a show than anything substantial.

I voted for her and donated the max amount of dollars to her campaign solely because of her domestic policies, in particular her economic proposals. Her gender was a big bonus, sure, but it wasn't the ultimate factor. The economy was. Her being hated so much that she felt she had no choice but to go to the left was great insurance that we would have a chance, some leverage with her.

@Aeryl: I agree with you: I, too, am tired of so many people being scared to admit that Clinton would have been better, if not much better, on a host of domestic issues (e.g., gender rights, gay rights), most particulary the economy. No doubt in my mind she would have been significantly better on domestic issues. Your mention of how she continued to push for HOLC in September 2008 is just one stark reminder, especially when you compare it to Obama's limp-dick approach (Also: she called her shot way back in early 2007 while Obama dismissed her). Now, he's upped the ante to nagging the mortgage industry for show. Ooh!

I read Joan Walsh's opinion on "progressive" self-delusion on Obama and Afghanistan and it bothered me that at the end she felt compelled to say, "Hey, I don't think Clinton would have been any better, across the board, as president!" It reminds me of last year during the primaries where you had to "confess" you hated Clinton if you were making any sort of criticism of Obama or correcting someone's "facts" on Clinton so as not be burned alive. It's a continuation of the hysteria from last year: It doesn't matter what Clinton says or does because she is never to be trusted.

Her economic proposals were to the left of Obama, but it was because of her record and that she actually knew what the hell she was talking about there was some firm ground to stand on with her. With Obama, even if you refused to look at his record or his ties, there was nothing to stand on because he had no record of fighting for anything left of center. His policies were based on right-wing framing and he was just fluff. He became a sputtering fool when discussing policy (Remember, the "progressive" freak-out over the ABC debate?). Her campaign was nuts and bolts, while his campaign was personality. I needed the former. Now, we're stuck with a somewhat charming president Lieberman. Look over there, a photo of his adorable family lighting the Christmas tree!

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

The empire is all connected, economy and war. To the extent Clinton's better domestic policies (and I do think they would've been better, if still far from perfect) helped the economy, that would've relieved some of the pressure for more war if only because, in addition to everything else, the war machine is the only stimulus Obama can get through Congress at this point (you can't cut defense spending because that's propping up what's left of the economy). I don't count that bit of pressure downgrade as nothing. I've already noted that I didn't - and don't - expect Clinton to be any better than Obama on foreign policy in terms of ideology, but I did want to note the economic aspect of war because I do think it's part of a larger problem. And it's that larger problem - the structure that has been set up to pressure and ensure that all of our elected leaders serve corporations and empire first - that must be dealt with or we're never going to right the ship.

And, I confess, to believing that, to that end, reigning in the empire starts at home with a restructuring of the American economy. Right now, we depend in a lot of ways on our war machine to bolster the economy, many of which we're not even very aware of. So long as the economy is so intwined with empire, we'll never be able to really change the foreign policy of this country because of the nasty domestic political implications. To that extent, given the near consensus in the Village on FP issues, it becomes doubly important to look for any movement leftward that's possible on domestic issues. Because, IMO, they're intertwined.

And, yes, Davidson, Clinton was never good on war. But I think most of her supporters knew that (I did, at least). The mistake was made by the Obama supporters who, despite his identical vote record in the Senaet, thought he'd be any different than the rest of Versailles.

"Do what you feel in your heart to be right -- for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't. " - Eleanor Roosevelt

madamab's picture
Submitted by madamab on

The basic difference between Hillary and Obama is that she actually proposed real, concrete policies that would change the direction of America. And she would have carried them out, too, because she is the type of politician who keeps her promises.

I am hoping that she will be able to push the Afghanistan situation in a more tenable direction for both the Afghanis, and our troops in the field and in Iraq. Certainly Karzai appears to listen to her and trust her. But if we want to embrace real change, the only thing we can do is declare victory and go home.

Until the Afghanis decide that they do not want the Taliban, the Taliban will stay there. And that is what we never learn in America, because our oil and natural gas are under their sand.

Never vote for people who hate you.

ERA Now!

The Widdershins

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

I don't know about her being the type of politician who keeps promises, but I think she would've faced more pressure on keeping those promises than Obama has and would recognize the political implications of not improving the economy for average Americans.

"Do what you feel in your heart to be right -- for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't. " - Eleanor Roosevelt

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

But are we doing a gaming column this weekend? I have a review I can do, so just let me know.

He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

Thanks!

"Do what you feel in your heart to be right -- for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't. " - Eleanor Roosevelt

madamab's picture
Submitted by madamab on

She was my Senator for 6 years and I paid VERY close attention to what she did and didn't do.

She kept her promises. And I think, along with her just being a person of integrity, there is a somewhat cynical reason why: she wouldn't get away with not keeping them. She is too scrutinized and hated by the Village.

Never vote for people who hate you.

ERA Now!

The Widdershins

Davidson's picture
Submitted by Davidson on

Like you said: they both had the same exact Senate record on Iraq. But the OFB insisted on pointing to the magical 2002 speech and his disingenous remarks about having opposed the Iraq war from the beginning, when he simply opposed it at the beginning. Even then it was politically necessary considering he was running for IL State Senate in a liberal, anti-war district (Another point that rarely sees the light of day: he wasn't running for U.S. Senate at the time, as Obama once claimed in a debate, but even if he was it wouldn't have hurt him since Durbin won re-election that year and he voted against AUMF). When the Clinton campaign called him out, they got burned. Bill Clinton himself got smeared as a racist for calling that delusion, that Obama pushed himself, a "fairy tale."

Senator Obama gave an anti-Iraq speech in 2002 that he removed from his website in 2003, calling it "dated." When he got to the Senate, Senator Obama failed to take advantage of the opportunity provided by his new position and did little to turn his words into action until he became a White House candidate. In fact, he voted for over $300 billion in funds for the war and waited 18 months to speak on the Senate floor about Iraq, delivering a speech AGAINST the Kerry amendment that set a hard deadline for withdrawal.

When he took over the subcommittee that oversees NATO and Afghanistan and had a chance to follow up on the part of his 2002 speech that argued that Iraq diverted attention from Afghanistan' he failed to hold a single hearing. And as a candidate, he regularly touts a plan to set a hard end date for Iraq that has now been dismissed by one of his foreign policy advisers as just words.

Voters need to know whether they can count on their candidates to act on the ideas they tout on the stump. While Senator Clinton has acted on the words she uses on the campaign trail, Senator Obama's words aren't backed by action.

At the end of the day, the true test for a president is not the speeches he or she delivers - it's whether he or she delivers on the speeches.

And still, in spite, of being lied to by this man, they backed him fully. There was never any basis whatsoever for anyone to have ever thought Obama would be any better than Clinton. If anything, Obama was more saber-rattling on Pakistan when his "foreign policy" speech on August 1, 2007, in which he threatened the sovereignty of highly unstable powder keg if he had "actionable" intelligence as POTUS.

They're both sick bastards when it comes to war, they really are, but Clinton would have been rightly set ablaze from the so-called "left" from the beginning as a warmongerer, while too many justify giving Obama a damn Nobel Peace Prize. The more bizarre and detached from reality the reaction to Obama is, the more I'm convinced we would have had good leverage with Clinton--on domestic issues. I don't know of anything short of national protests that could stop the war machine that is Washington, D.C.

S Brennan's picture
Submitted by S Brennan on

I think there are some good comments above [exception being Tlaxcala], however I think Calais has a poor understanding of American Government. The Secretary of State is a cabinet officer position and such she can try to influence the Chief Executive in private, but not in public. She is not shilling Obama's war as Powell did Bush's, she is supporting Obama's desire to have a victory with his name on it...as she must, it's her job. She is not supposed to offer her opinion publically, asking her to do so, is asking her to make a fool of herself.

This is Obama's war now, not Hillary's or Bush's there is absolutely no need to have a large-scale ground war in Afghanistan for counter terrorist reasons...this about a pipeline that the US can not afford. Again, the war at this point is all Obama, at the end of 2008 we had something like 40,000 troops we will have something like 110,000, along with some 30,000 combatant contractors the current administration has added.

gqmartinez's picture
Submitted by gqmartinez on

OK, that is somewhat facetious. But we knew her position, more or less, since the primaries. Pretending that her reaction is somehow mind-opening and revealing is childish. That's not to say she is above criticism--I'm with Eric Massa on this--but, please, this place tends to be a little more mature than GOS so I don't expect puff pieces about sudden revelations.

As Lambert says, it would be nice to "change her views". Given her general consistency on the issues over the years, its a much more worthwhile endeavor to figure out how we can change her--and the other office holders'--views on the matter than pretend that she is doing anything different than she said she would. Or just paint her as always being wrong--which she was on some issues.

This is another example of propagating the "duplicitous bitch" meme. If she were actually being inconsistent, then this post would be warranted *in the manner in which it is presented*. As it is, she's been consistent--consistently wrong. I have to say, it is at least a little interesting to see how the inaccurate description of Hillary suddenly changing under pressure can be so easily extrapolated to ignore the real differences between the two in other areas.

Only tyrants rig elections.

okanogen's picture
Submitted by okanogen on

There were more tacks to take even for people with both Obama's and Clinton's earlier stated views than the maximum intrusion of 30,000 additional troops into Afghanistan. The opinion even within the Village was divided. Even within military circles was divided. I didn't expect her to share my views, I expected her to not be a military maximalist. I was wrong.

So of what kind of minds is consistency the hobgoblin?

This is not a puff piece, nor any more childish than your ill-informed defense (if you could call it that) of her stance. And again, we live in the world where she is Secretary of State, not the imaginary world where she would have done things differently. She gets no pass from me in this world for her actions. Does she from you?

Duplicitous bitch? Hardly. I'm tired of defending someone who is wrong. YMMV.

Sorry, I don't fall in love with politicians. I'm not that desperate.....

okanogen's picture
Submitted by okanogen on

Read the whole thing please, he is more eloquent and persuasive than I.

"In any case, according to our progressives, not only was there no choice but voting for Obama, there is no justification now for criticizing him for doing what we savvy people knew he was going to do. Anyone who, like Hayden and Wills, is now breaking ranks with Obama over Afghanistan is just "having a fit," and being "silly" and "puerile."

No, it seems that the only thing that responsible, savvy progressives can do now is keep faith with the president – keep up our contacts with the Administration, keep our feet "inside the tent," keep our savvy listservs going -- and "push [Obama] to better solutions," as Walsh tells us."

and further:

"Well, we all need to mind our behavior, of course, just as our parents sternly admonished us. So by all means, let us not be indecorous in our opposition to murder and corruption. Let us not be intemperate in our resistance to evil. And for god's sake, let us not be silly or "have fits" in our dissent against atrocity, deceit and destruction."

But earlier (and directly in my defense):

"Both Digby and Walsh are at great pains to establish how savvy they have been about Obama from the very beginning. For example, Digby writes: "I never had any illusions about where he and most of the other Democrats were headed with the "Good War" narrative. It always ends up the same way." She ridicules Hayden for declaring, during the campaign, that "all American progressives should unite for Barack Obama," and for now being disappointed that the president is not "the second coming of Ghandi, Houdini and Jesus Christ," as Digby scornfully describes Hayden's earlier belief.

Fair enough. It's true that Obama made no secret of his intent to escalate the wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and anyone who didn't expect him to do so was being wilfully blind, or naive. On the other hand, what these savvy commentators fail to note is that Obama has already escalated the Af-Pak war, earlier in his term -- an escalation as large as Bush's "surge" in Iraq. And obviously, this effort didn't work; hence the latest "strategic review" that led to Obama's fateful West Point speech. So although Obama did promise to escalate the Af-Pak conflict during the campaign, he did not promise to keep doing it, over and over, even in the face of obvious failure. Thus it is not inherently "silly" or irrational for an Obama supporter like Hayden or Wills to feel betrayed by this second escalation, and by the transparently specious rationales that Obama offered for it."

Sorry, his emphasis formatting was lost.

Sorry, I don't fall in love with politicians. I'm not that desperate.....

gqmartinez's picture
Submitted by gqmartinez on

I am not arrogant enough to think that bloggers can leverage presidents. However, the big difference between Clinton and Obama after the primaries is that Obama didn't have to receive the most "votes" after the primary to become the nominee, and the way in which he became the nominee was abominable. If you don't need honest elections to chose leaders, you can't hold the leaders accountable. I keep harping back to this because, in the end, we lost all chance of "leveraging" Obama when we pissed away the need for honest elections. The post-primary fawning made leveraging even more difficult, to be sure, but the current state was set in stone when progressives and Dems accepted fraudulent elections.

Hillary may not be perfect, but more than most politicians I've ever seen, she doesn't lie about her position much. You know where she is going to be wrong. Remember campaign finance way back when? It was the popular progressive thing to say they would receive public financing, she didn't go with popular sentiment at the time. She never backed down from her vote on AUMF (placing the blame almost exclusively on Bush, which would have been a political winner for progressives, btw). Etc.

Only tyrants rig elections.

madamab's picture
Submitted by madamab on

I know for a fact that she is leverageable. When I used to participate in canpaigns to call and write her to take liberal positions (if she was wavering on something), then 90-95% of the time the campaigns worked.

Perhaps instead of demonizing her for being wrong, we should try to push her in the right direction. She is one of the few people in the Administration who actually gives a sh*t about the "little guy."

Just sayin'.

Never vote for people who hate you.

ERA Now!

The Widdershins

okanogen's picture
Submitted by okanogen on

In the imaginary world where Hillary Clinton was elected president, if she had made this decision to send 30,000 soldiers into Afghanistan, I would have written a post condemning her in even more harsh ways. I wouldn't have cared "what I was supposed to know about her views". If the rubber hit that road, I would have denounced it.*

We don't live in that world. I hold Clinton responsible for her actions in this one. Just as I do Obama, and he I hold more responsible. Having said that, which is worse active or passive malfeasance?

*Update: I think the difference is that I actually expect politicians to lie, rather than tell the truth (YMMV), and yes, I did sense (and I cringe as if hearing an OFB say that) that because her views on so much else were so much closer to mine, that she would be less wrong on militarism.

Sorry, I don't fall in love with politicians. I'm not that desperate.....

tarheel-leftist85's picture
Submitted by tarheel-leftist85 on

Compartmentalized from economic issues. I don't think politicians take us to war because they're mean bullies, or even because they have electoral incentives. Rather, foreign policy is explicitly a product of corporate interests enjoining the government to secure contracts for them. Rather than cultural hegemony or being bullies for the sake of it, imperialism is simply an exercise in corporatism on a global scale. Having said that, I was a supporter of Edwards, then HRC--both we're sufficiently left to warrant my vote, but especially Edwards because he talked explicitly about class and corporate ownership of the country. HRC began to do that at the beginning of 2008, but it was simply too little, too late. Had she originally come out talking about class and corporate hegemony the way Edwards did, we'd be looking a Pres. HRC. Back to "war and peace"--I don't think that politicians opt for the former even because of the perceived hawkishness of the public; otherwise, why would we continue to occupy places when it becomes so unpopular. Rather, economic incentives give us a tidy and powerful explanation. Because the State and Defense Depts. are indefinitely extending contracts for mercenary outfits, we need to put them somewhere. And, perhaps, Democratic politicians see an opportunity to suck at the proverbial teet of the mercenary industry, with NewDiplomacy™ contracts (corporate plunder followed by an interpretive multi-cultural dance). Anyway, the economic explanation of things--even "foreign policy"--sufficiently *everything* going on right now, however oversimplified it may seem. So whether it's bashing the powerful woman (i.e., Hillary's war, which is probably the marketing strategy for BloggerBoiz™..."Progre$$ives say Hillary must go!" web-ads at OpenLeft will appear soon no doubt), bashing Jewish people, or compartmentalizing economic predation at home from our imperialistic actions abroad--all will lead to erroneous perceptions. Of course, this isn't Hillary's war; of course, it's not Zionists (in fact, such an appreciation of events reminds me of the Obama strategy of race-baiting); but, of course, our foreign policy has everything to do with our domestic economic agenda of upward wealth redistribution. It's time all of us appreciate it. "Progre$$ives" didn't with Obama, instead relying on a commitment-less speech; instead of thinking about an economic critique of the war, it was aesthetic pacifism.

"It's all about rents and rent-seeking."

S Brennan's picture
Submitted by S Brennan on

When I said:

"however I think Calais has a poor understanding of American Government. The Secretary of State is a cabinet officer position and such she can try to influence the Chief Executive in private, but not in public. She is not shilling Obama's war as Powell did Bush's, she is supporting Obama's desire to have a victory with his name on it...as she must, it's her job. She is not supposed to offer her opinion publically, asking her to do so, is asking her to make a fool of herself."

It should have been Okanogen not Calais

okanogen's picture
Submitted by okanogen on

but thanks for putting my name in your comment where you explain my "poor understanding".

You apparently have a poor understanding of what I wrote. I never said a damn thing about her i"nfluencing in public". Regarding offering her opinion publicly, the hypothetical letter of resignationanticipates exactly that, if you bothered to read it. Kindly read closely before you assume someone's "poor understanding", especially when you are calling them out by name in your comment title.

Sorry, I don't fall in love with politicians. I'm not that desperate.....

S Brennan's picture
Submitted by S Brennan on

I didn't say you have a "poor understanding"

I said you have "a poor understanding of American Government"

I also didn't have a:

"have a poor understanding of what [you] wrote...I never said a damn thing about her I"nfluencing in public"

anybody reading my post will see you are delusional on that count. I simply stated what her duty is. Thankfully, you have no influence over others and never will.

I don't really like Hillary, but at least she has the fundamentals of Government down...you do not. But Hillary is lacking in one area in which you excel, she does not have that nasty passive aggressive streak that are so typical of the Northwest.

Again, yours was a laughable, self-aggrandizing post that ignores reality. If you want to help the "left", join the Republican party.

Submitted by lambert on

Here.

"[You have that] passive aggressive streak that are [sic] so typical of the Northwest." Retraction, please.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

okanogen's picture
Submitted by okanogen on

I don't mind having my own personal stalker. It's flattering, in fact, I miss the attention since the last one left.

Apparently, I "lack(s) the intellectual chops to understand", specifically I"fail to understand in his [my] NW passive aggressive way, is [that] criticism shouldn't be taken as personal attack, often it [is, sic] meant to help the person accomplish their desired task.". And that's how I take his criticism: it was obviously meant to "help" me, really! It helped me to "keep sreading your [my] bile Okanogen".

Even though I'm not from the Northwest. The rest is all true (if repetitive).

Sorry, I don't fall in love with politicians. I'm not that desperate.....

Submitted by lambert on

I have my own, and it's creepy. Worse, it's bad for the threads. Poor arguments shouldn't be propagated. That's why I want a retraction, not for civility.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

Submitted by Tlaxcala (not verified) on

I'm a liberal Jew, and I see your site is infected with the IDF warriors trying to clean up BLOODYISRAEL's sullied 'reputation'. I'm not at all anti-semetic, nor a 'self-hating Jew' that's just more IDF caca. I'm ANTI-EMPRIRE in every form, esp. having the Pipeline from HELL make BLOODYISRAEL an OILEMPIRE!!!! Wipe BLOODYISRAEL off the map. It was only meant to be the whore for the MIC/Propaganda/PETROLEUM empire. WHORE!!!!

okanogen's picture
Submitted by okanogen on

nt

Sorry, I don't fall in love with politicians. I'm not that desperate.....

Submitted by Randall Kohn on

Then I could tell you what I REALLY think.

JFK has been shot, we miss him a lot
He always knew what to do

-- Philly Cream

wrensis's picture
Submitted by wrensis on

How did all of this prove useful. Isn't it time to give up the Hillary rants and find something productive we CAN change???

And, incidently I did vote Green and did it not as a wasted vote but because Cynthia Mckinney did stand up and got what for it????

wrensis
Disturb the comfortable and comfort the distrubed

okanogen's picture
Submitted by okanogen on

Well.

Good questions.

My original point in writing this was my deep, personal, disappointment with Hillary Clinton for enabling and being a party to an immoral, misbegotten expansion of our imperial war on unspecified brown people in Afghanistan. Just because Barack Obama is President doesn't let her off the hook for her complicity in this monstrosity.

And my coming to that opinion is part of the eye-opening I've experienced both during the primarez and through reading people like Arthur Silber (whose writings and views, btw, are not tolerated on A-list blogs like FDL, you will never see any oxygen thrown his way there).

The formulation of including Hillary Clinton and calling her out by name here is that many assume that Corrente is some hotbead of kneejerk Clinton-worship. Certainly people's mileage can vary on her, (and mine certainly did previously!) but at the end of the day, we can only express our opinions in the small hope that we "disturb the comfortable". I was drawing a deliberate line in the sand on my viewpoint and invited others to follow. Frankly, I thought it was a really "useful" discussion.

You voted Green, some might argue that didn't do anything "useful", but not me. You expressed your opinion and in a democracy, that's a damn good thing.

I'm assuming you found your way here from my link at FDL and Jane and other's comments regarding her post on the primarez. So, welcome!

Sorry, I don't fall in love with politicians. I'm not that desperate.....