Ohio, Texas, and Rhode Island voters put the brakes on what only a week ago seemed like an unstoppable Obama ascendancy to the Democratic presidential nomination. Ohioans preferred Hillary Clinton to Obama by a margin of 10 percentage points (54%-44%), ending an twelve state streak of consecutive Obama primary victories. Clinton’s margin of victory was closer in Texas (51%-48%), and larger in Rhode Island (58%-40%). Clinton reminded us after her victory that “[a]s Ohio goes, so goes the nation.”Yesterday's results may shed light on the true meaning of Hillary's "experience." Benevolent Cleveland Frowns supporter Ben Keeler of The Keeler Report has a take on this race that suggests that Ohio voters might rightly be proud of their choice. That is, that “Clinton tells Democrats how it is on their side. Obama tells them what they want to hear. That is why he is winning - and why he will keep employing that strategy.” This take is consistent with Obama’s bashing of Hillary on her initial support of both NAFTA and the Iraq War. Perhaps Democratic primary voters have tired of the simplistic populist dialogue between these two candidates on these issues. If so, there are reasons for them to prefer Hillary over Obama. We have good reason to distrust the candidates’ position on trade generally, and on NAFTA specifically. At least Hillary has the benefit of having supported NAFTA in the past, if she doesn’t support it fully today. Further, she demonstrates at least some nuance in her position on Iraq, in contrast with Obama, who conclusorily and implausibly reminds us that he was “right from the beginning” about one of the most complicated and grand foreign policy endeavors in world history, the greater consequences of which might not be significantly realized for many years. True, Hillary has backed down, in varying degrees, from both of these positions; but it might well be the case that her earlier positions on these issues (her “experience”) demonstrated to voters a willingness to confront reality that Obama has not yet shown. On this view, March 4th primary voters chose substance over form.
But was substance really the winner last night? It might well be the case that the voters in Ohio, Texas, and Rhode Island do not perceive the difference between the candidates that I discussed above, but rather view them both as selling the exact same dream, and simply view Hillary as a better salesperson for that dream (i.e., the primacy of “health care, public schools, green energy, the eternal shafting of the middle class, the unions, protecting Social Security and Medicare.”) A less cynical view would be, however, that voters yesterday, particularly the older, more “experienced,” voters (who overwhelmingly preferred Clinton), did notice the differences thus far projected by the candidates on Iraq and the economy. Now consider that, paradoxically, Obama might actually be less likely to follow through on potentially disastrous economic and foreign polices than would Ms. Clinton. Obama’s senior economic advisor allegedly suggested to the Canadian Ambassador that Obama only espouses his populist rhetoric in an effort to secure the Democratic nomination – in other words, Obama feels it is necessary to kowtow to the vocal “netroots/wingnuts” minority to get himself in a position (the Presidency) where he may implement the policies in which he truly believes. If this is the case, it is time for both candidates to come clean as to exactly what they are selling. To that end, we might expect the candidates to begin answering the questions about where they truly differ that they have heretofore not discussed.
Note: The Ohio cartoon posted above is by a person called Natalie Dee. I don't know where she is from, but she might just be a woman after our own heart.
16 comments:
"Further, she demonstrates at least some nuance in her position on Iraq, in contrast with Obama, who conclusorily and implausibly reminds us that he was “right from the beginning” about one of the most complicated and grand foreign policy endeavors in world history the greater consequences of which might not be significantly realized for many years."
That's certainly one way to put it.
If you believe Hillary's "nuance" is her vote to authorize the Iraq war, you're actually making the mistake of taking Obama's "no" position on the war resolution as equivalent to him not understand the threat of global terrorism. Which is a sloppy and ultimately erroneous argument, but you're free to make it. You want to try and prove that negative? Be my guest.
The Iraq war resolution wasn't about the looming threat of Arab states gone wild, it was about a specific threat from Saddam Hussein that didn't exist. That Obama was against the war vote, and Hillary was for it, says nothing of either candidate's view w/r/t the current situation in the world. But given the way the war has played out thus far — like it or not, the elections happen in real time, not the "many years" during which you expect to perhaps learn the "real consequences" of the war (Which I suspect you already think you know. Which is dandy, but wrong. You can't see the future, except for picking the Super Bowl — good call.) — the vote is a liability, not "nuance."
San Dimas High School Football Rules
Bryan:
First, regarding your comment that "given the way the war has played out thus far (Hillary's vote) is a liability." The surge is working.
Second, it's absurd to conclusorily say that the "threat from Saddam Hussein didn't exist." As I have pointed out, "there is a good reason to view the US decision to depose Saddam as a worthy act of pre-emptive global hygiene by ridding the middle east of a murderous megalomaniac who 1) gassed, terrorized, tortured, and killed hundreds of thousands of people, 2) provided untold levels of support for terrorists, including the harboring of Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, 3) flagrantly violated UN resolutions, tossing out UN weapons inspectors, 4) invaded Kuwait, 5) attacked Iran, 6) plotted to kill a former American President, 7) retained the infrastructure and desire for making WMD, 8) bribed the leaders of France, Russia and other countries with UN subsidies designated to feed his people, and 9) “harbored a grudge against the United States that could have played out in many ways to harm Americans.”
Finally, Clinton, and Congress recognized this too, as shown in the Congressional resolution authorizing the War. As you know, there many other reasons articulated there beyond "large stockpiles of WMD." Additionally, that Saddam was a threat to restart large scale production of WMD, and/or sell know-how and technology to terrorists has been established. Here are some relevant portions of the Congressional authorization for the Iraq War again for you, since you seem to have forgotten about them:
"Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;
Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that. . .Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;
Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;
Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235
Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region
Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region...
Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups
Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;
Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688'...
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council."
The full text is available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html
None of what is pasted above has been disproven. How can you (or Obama) say "the threat" simply did not exist?
Your ability to recall and rehash the arguments we had five years ago, in front of video cameras, is actually quite striking. But you're wasting your breath. The degree to which you believe them is admirable: I won't lie. But if you don't respect what I said back in the day, when I "refuted" these arguments point by point (I put refuted in quotes for you), I'm not going to bother now. If the past 5 years haven't convinced you, then it's just something you believe, and I respect that. I just disagree.
But you miss my point: I'm not arguing against the surge as having worked — it has, and that's a good thing. When I say "the way things have played out," I mean exactly that: the way things have played out. How we got to the surge. It gets into an ends/means argument. I know where you stand. I stand on the other side.
I am not as complicated on this. I think, through a negative approach, she was able to convince her "base" to come back (after they left in February). She created some concerns about him not being ready.
Obama evidently did not respond the proper way.
I just hope his lesson from this is to match fire with fire and "go negative"
A great appeal of him is his steady demeanor. I would hate for him to get bi-polar like her and start being nice one second and then screaming about his opponent the next minute
(i.e.: hillary's "we'll be okay" debate moment - followed 24 hours later by screaming "you should be ashamed barack" (because you ran an honest ad.
she did a great job of politics as usual. But Obama still has the nomination in hand and should not stoop to her level. He could easily talk about Hsu or even whitewater, but he has not done that (despite their attempts to make the rezko deal something it is not).
I deeply hope obama takes the high road and stays on message.
I think we kind of seeing many Democrats coming back to Clinton. They were out there looking to see if there was a better option, and though many flirted with Obama, they are coming back now to HRC. A long way to go in this race.
Bryan: I can only assume that "refuted" is in quotes because you realize that you never actually addressed these points in any meaningful sense. If you had, I wouldn't "believe" them as much as I do. It looks like you continue to refuse to address them, which, as with Obama and Hillary, only serves to breed mistrust in your "position" on these issues.
Chuck: You might be right. There are two primary alternative explanations for yesterday's results. The one that you touch upon is that the candidate's are viewed by the electorate as selling the same thing, and voters in Ohio, Texas, and Rhode Island simply view(ed) Hillary as the better salesperson. As stated in today's post, there is a plausible alternative explanation.
I put "refuted" in quotes because I know you don't agree with me; it's not like, when I'm arguing, I'm making up things to disagree with you. I actually believe them and still do. But my inability to convince you isn't keeping me up at night, and to say I didn't do it in any "meaningful sense" — well, if you don't respect my opinion, why should I bother airing it in the first place? I respect your opinion. I think your posts are "meaningful," even if I disagree.
The reason I'm already happy with this campaign season is that I'm content with whomever is elected President. Not nominated, elected. And that's because for wherever I disagree with John McCain, I respect him, and he respects opposing opinions. One's own (twisted) logic is fine, but unless one can connect with people, they're not going to convince people of anything (this is obviously why Obama does so well, but that's far from why I brought it up). Your posts are obviously, on some level, a political exercise, but a nod to everything being about sports, I'm the Washington Generals and you're the Globetrotters. The game is rigged against me from the start if you're determined to dismiss what I say as "meaningless."
I would say it was fun while it lasted, but in truth, I'm not sure it ever started.
Here's where you respond "it's all in the game, homey..."
True. It's nothing personal. I understand that we have discussed these issues broadly in the past, and that that discussion reveals that we disagree. I simply don't remember you ever discussing answers to the more specific questions underlying these broader issues, just as you are not discussing them here. That is all that I mean by 'meaningful.' I don't mean that what you say doesn't mean anything to me. I just mean that your silence as to certain questions, as Barack's and Hillary's, speaks volumes to me. So, in a sense, "meaningful" was a poor word choice.
If you want evidence for this, look at your non-response when I made almost the same points on The Chief Source back in 2005. I'll break it down for you. After I briefly outlined some good reasons for going into, and staying in Iraq, as I have done here, you respond by saying, that we went to Iraq simply to "find weapons of mass destruction." When I posted the excerpts from the Congressional Authorization (the same ones that I have posted here), you responded with a sarcastic one-liner. Hardly a "point by point refutation," Sir.
Here is the link if you want to see for yourself.
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7575974&postID=113583706748757572
Well hold on just one second. You write in your first comment here:
Second, it's absurd to conclusorily say that the "threat from Saddam Hussein didn't exist." As I have pointed out, "there is a good reason to view the US decision to depose Saddam as a worthy act of pre-emptive global hygiene by ridding the middle east of a murderous megalomaniac
You're the lawyer, I'm the journalist, and you think you can quote me as saying the "threat from Saddam Hussein didn't exist." That's not what I wrote. I wrote that "a specific threat from Saddam Hussein didn't exist." See the difference? In a court or in the court of public opinion, where our two professions battle, you'd be slammed from the get-go. This is the foundation for your argument, but it's illusory because you're not listening to what I'm saying.
I'm not denying an amorphous threat of terrorism — just as I wasn't denying it in 2003, 2005 or in the first response above — and my point above is that there's no reason to believe that Obama, in his anti-war 2002/3 stance, denied an amorphous threat of terrorism. You then throw in what Wikipedia would call "weasel words" like "worthy" w/r/t the campaign - words that don't bolster your argument, because I'm looking for facts - and point out that Saddam was a "murderous megalomaniac," as if I disagree with that sentiment. You then laundry list the ways in which he's a megalomaniac, but again, I already agree: you're wasting your breath. No one is arguing that Iraq was a model state, or anything but a rogue state.
You then cite the resolution, on the basis that you believe it to be non-partisan. Which I would disagree with, and that's why I hold Hillary accountable. The resolution does what you did above: simply presents a laundry list of things we know. The key passage is the one allowing Bush to take "appropriate" action, and the actions resulting from the resolution were not appropriate, in my opinion. THAT IS NOT DENYING THE THREAT. We're a government of laws, but there are people enacting those laws (otherwise, they're just pieces of paper), and I didn't think then that Bush would act "appropriate"ly in enacting it, and I stand by what I believed then. You look at where we are now and say: the surge is working, this is a noble effort, so this is good. I say (and am astonished to have to say it to someone as enamored with the concept efficiency as yourself): the surge is working, this is a noble effort, and we could have done it so much better. I'm not saying there wouldn't have been a war in Iraq, just not the war that happened. The war ending up as a good thing, as you seem to think it will be recognized, and the day-to-day execution of that war are not mutually exclusive, but you treat them as they might be. We're the United States of America; we should ask more of ourselves that to get it right in the long run (and I'm not conceding that we will). If we're not able to plan for the present and the future, we're failures. Stop talking about how bad Saddam was and talk about how good we're supposed to be, and how the war at all has reflected that, and you'll know why Obama is so proud to have been against this resolution, in whatever manner he was against it.
I gotta go play hoops.
Bryan: In your initial comment, you said that “The Iraq war resolution wasn't about the looming threat of Arab states gone wild, it was about a specific threat from Saddam Hussein that didn't exist.” I pointed out, in response, that the text of the Authorization itself makes clear that it was about much more than a “specific threat from Saddam,” and that the “looming threat of Arab states gone wild” was certainly a consideration. This was the resolution that Obama is so proud to have been against, it contemplates far more than a “specific” threat from Saddam, and the way Obama currently touts his position most certainly does say something about his current view of the situation. In truth, the language of the Resolution currently tracks the good reasons for voting for the Resolution, which is why Hillary’s vote in support of it might not be considered a liability for a great many people. Also relevant to evaluating Hillary’s vote is an evaluation of the danger that Saddam presented at the time.
The best that I can make of the rest of your argument is that Obama should be proud of being against the War from the beginning, because it hasn't been executed perfectly on a day-to-day basis -- because it could have been done better. That is some excellent hindsight, but I'm not sure how this gets us even a millimeter closer to a resolution of the problems that we currently face.
Are we doing this today? Yes? Okay, let's begin.
So I was just looking back on the resolution, and was struck by this paragraph:
Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations"
Which means that Bill Clinton deemed "appropriate action" to mean "NOT going to war." Looking over the resolution, I don't see any new evidence from 1998 to 2002. So why, other than the passage of time, was the "appropriate action" to now go to war? Was it because:
a) George Bush was President, and not Bill Clinton?
b) The "continuing threat" had gone on too long?
c) The threat was greater now than ever?
I'm guessing that you'd say all three, while I'd say just the first. Given the 1998 vote, I can't quite figure out — and I'm quite serious when I ask you to help me out if I'm missing something — why the 2002 resolution was necessary, unless we needed to move into "de facto" war-waging instead of "de jure" war-waging. That is, the public would have not supported the 2003 war without the 2002 resolution, even if a prior resolution was on the books. But if we get into "de facto" stuff, let's not kid ourselves: the 2002 resolution was a vote for war, by the Bush Administration's best. In the words of fake SNL Bob Dole, I know it, you know it, and the American people knew it. And Hillary and McCain voted for this war, a war which Wolfowitz et. al said would be waged with our leaner military. You can call this "hindsight," but you know it wasn't, either — I and hundreds of thousands of others were in the streets, and making arguments like this at the time.
And guess what? We were right.
Looking back up at the 3 rationales again, given that there was no evidence for "3" — the resolution is basically based on "2" — one might reasonably ask, "if the continuing threat was so bad in 2002, why was it worse than it was in 2001?" Why didn't George Bush make war with Iraq his campaign platform? What changed? If Iraq was a threat in 1998, it couldn't have been 9/11. So really, what changed between the 1998 and 2002 resolutions that wasn't actionable on January 20, 2001? I'd love to hear it. My argument that THIS Iraq was ultimately not justified is that I have not received (snicker) "meaningful answers" to these questions.
And just to follow up on your closing: how this gets us a millimeter closer, etc., my point would be:
Given that George Bush never/hardly ever mentioned Iraq in his first Presidential campaign but has made it pretty much the centerpiece of his "legacy," it would seem logical to base our choices based on the judgment of these candidates. I could stand for some more specifics from Obama, and if that's really what the crux of your argument boils down to, I agree and put down my sword after much wasted "ink."
19-0
I resent the suggestion that your ink was wasted.
We'll pick this up in a later post.
Back to mining salt.
Excelsior.
I knew you were going to touch on that ink wasted line, because of course I don't think it was wasted at all.
Post a Comment