Hillary Clinton: McCain Cheerleader?

Jonathan Chait has interesting post up at the Plank examining whether or not Clinton would prefer a general election victory for John McCain over Barack Obama. I guess I'd like to think that Clinton wouldn't want this, and I doubt she does, but you never know. Chait makes a good point that Clinton would be the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination in 2012 if Obama were to lose the general, but I think that her chances would be even more lackluster then than they are now. Granted, that assumes that McCain would have a successful first term. I doubt that would be the case, since McCain has shown recently that he has little expertise in pretty much any policy area, leadership included. However, as I've mentioned countless times, the media's love affair with the Saint would likely result in them painting a lovely portrait of a McCain presidency.

Anways, I digress, Chait also hammers on the fact that Clinton really has no shot at picking up the nomination. If she does (somehow) get the nomination, she will have gained it by convincing the superdelegates that Obama is a wanker. If she does that, I really think its safe to say that the Democratic Party will fall into civil war. Clinton has damaged herself in the eyes of many Democrats that would've otherwise supported her had she won the nomination fair and square. It should also be noted that independents and Republicans find Clinton more or less radioactive. It has to suck to be Hillary Clinton, I do still have some sympathy for her as there is no way to determine how much damage the media's coverage of her has done to her campaign. That being said, what's done is done and we have to move forward. Hillary needs to realize that her continued presence in this primary is damaging the Democratic Party and the progressive movement. In short, she just got reelected to another term in the Senate, she should look to the best interests of the people of New York and return to her duties as one of their elected voices.

Bacevich on Obama and McCain

Via Matt Yglesias, I found this great article by Andrew Bacevich. Bacevich, a conservative, argues that Barack Obama would be a better president for the conservative movement than George W. Bush has been, or John McCain ever could be. It's really very intriguing, I wouldn't mind Bacevich's wing of the conservative movement returning to prominence in the Republican party. The article goes into how true conservatism has been slowly dying since 1980. He argues that the Republican Party's devotion to corporate excess and American empire has brought about it's doom. Bacevich believes that as the common sense candidate, a Barack Obama presidency would bring about a political climate ripe for the destruction of neo- and corporate- conservatism.

I concur, and while I certainly have little sympathy for coservatism in any guise, it seems like the paleocons or traditional conservatives, if you will, are the more inherently reasonable people in the tent. These are the guys that are against premptive war, the police state, and corporate excess. They certainly have a number of disturbing cultural and economic beliefs, but they are much more open to compromise than those that currently dominate the Republican Party. Bacevich certainly is a reasonable fellow. His book, The New American Militarism should be widely read by conservatives and liberals alike.

A Possible Solution

Via Marc Ambinder I found this interesting tidbit regarding the Florida delegate fiasco:

This comes from the ranking Democrat in the State Senate, Steven Geller (who hasn't endorsed anyone), and State Sen. Jeremy Ring. Half the delegates would be awarded on the basis of the Jan. 29 primary; the rest would allocated according to any number of scenarios, including an even split, a split reflecting the national popular vote, a split reflecting the national earned delegate count. To work, it would require both campaigns to sign on, and would require the DNC's credentials committee to approve it, a process that would not really begin until July.

Sounds like it could work. Obviously this means that Hillary Clinton would get more delegates than Obama, but let's face it fellow Obama supporters, if the DNC decides to seat the delegates at all, she's gonna win the state. However, Obama would still get a substantial amount of delegates, and I don't think this would effect his lead too much. At the same time though, it would seat the delegates, and shut the Clinton campaign up.

Delayed Response: Obama's Speech

Well, two days after the fact I still haven't said anything about Barack Obama's landmark speech on race in America. I thought it was brilliant and I can only hope that it will put the Jeremiah Wright controversy to rest. Obama managed to balance the speech very well. I was particularly impressed by how he explained that African-Americans' anger was justified. He also mentioned that the anger of some white Americans was justified. I'm not going into nearly enough detail on this, but I really don't have the time right now. So you should watch the speech and draw your own conclusions.

Five Years

I realize now that I neglected to mention in my previous post that today marks the 5th year anniversay of the Iraq war. Nearly 4,000 Americans have died and thousands upon thousand more have been greviously wounded, many of those individuals have likely suffered permanent damage. I would be remiss not to mention that hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians have also been killed in the ensuing violence. Frankly there isn't much that I can say that I haven't articulated before in previous posts to this blog. There is no doubt that the war in Iraq has been one of the largest foreign policy blunders in American history. The fact that hundreds of thousands of lives have been lost or permanently altered, both American and Iraqi, in a war that was predicated on lies is a tragedy beyond my comprehension. I simply do not posess the ability to transcribe into words the profound sadness I feel whenever I think of the war.

I suppose what I could reflect upon on this 5-year anniversary is what I've personally learned over the past 5 years. In a way, I've finally understood how meaningless war is. The fact that countries (not just the U.S.) resort to violence and killing to solve problems or to reach a stated goal is a particularly barbaric reality. I can understand when wars are fought in self-defense; as it is necessary for one entity to respond appropriately to another that is trying to destroy it. I can also understand when war is necessary to stop regimes such as the Nazis or the Japanese Empire. These enemies were hell bent on killing millions simply because said millions were different from them, or because they occupied a territory that the aggressor desired. Enemies like this can seldom be reasoned with and war becomes a necessity rather than a means to an end. However, we should never go to war unless we've exhausted every other avenue that might lead to a peaceful resolution. This did not occur in Iraq. There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator but he could have been dealt with had the UN been given the time and resources it needed. We should've exhaustively considered the consequences of our invasion. It's clear now that our government either was not aware, or more likely did not care about, the violent tensions between the Sunni, Shia, and Kurdish peoples of Iraq. It's also clear that there are those in our goverment whom to this day still don't understand the complicated ethnic and religous divisions within Iraq, John McCain chief among them.
I've learned that sometimes we are too quick to strike. We let our anger and our ignorance consume us, and rationality is left by the wayside. I believe that this is what happened with Iraq. 9/11 was still fresh in our minds and too many of us supported a war simply because we bought into the Bush Administration's lies that Saddam Hussein was partially responsible for the attacks on American soil.
I've learned that in times of crisis we often equate patriotism with supporting whatever the government does. We forget that one of the core principles of our democracy is our freedom to criticize our own government when we think it is wrong. Indeed the patriotism that existed after 9/11 through the first year of the Iraq war more closely resembled nationalism. Nationalism is a truly dangerous sentiment. It leads us to believe that we are superior to others, that we know what is best for other people. I consider myself a patriot, I love my country, but I am no nationalist.
I've learned that sometimes being a patriot isn't good enough. If your against the war you get questions like this: why don't you support the troops? Don't you know that your opposition helps the terrorists? Why do you hate America? I believe that we are better than this and that we have already begun to move past this. Unfortunately there are those in positions of power such as George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, John McCain, and Joe Lieberman that will probably never understand this, and that is too bad for them.

This post/note should not be read as a mea culpa or a condemnation of anyone. It is simply my reflection over the past 5 years of war. I think we have all learned a lot and hopefully we have all emerged from this experience as better individuals. I suppose only time can tell. It is clear that war is terrible. Even when a war is successful there are many that are left dead and many of those that survive do so with lives that are for all practical purposes destroyed. It is true that there are those that return from war as better people. I would be remiss to deny such a thing. However the fact that so many lose so much as a result of such senseless violence is a calmity of the human condition.

St. John the Idiotic

Yet more evidence that John McCain is a complete moron: he said yesturday in Jordan that it is "common knowledge" that Iran is training al-Qaeda operatives in Iran. Wait a minute...what? See, I was under the impression that Iran was a Persian country full of Shia muslims; whereas al-Qaeda is a terrorist group dominated by Arabs that also happen to be muslims of the Sunni sect. Why would Persian Shiites aid Arab Sunnis? Once again, my impression was that these two demographics have been in conflict with each other for upwards of a thousand years. Look, Iran is not exactly our biggest ally, nor should they be, but to say that they are training al-Qaeda operatives or even working in anyway with al-Qaeda is simply ludicrous. It would be like saying that the Orange Order and the IRA were banding together to expell the British from Northern Ireland. That just wouldn't happen. It's even more disturbing that the media is calling it a gaffe. As Max Bergmann writes at Democray Arsenal:

Many in the media seem willing to dismiss McCain's statement that Iran is training Al Qaeda as a simple slip of the tongue. This is wrong. McCain did NOT misspeak. If he had simply made the statement once, he could perhaps expect to be given a pass.
But he didn't just say Iran was training Al Qaeda once. He said it in his initial statement. He was then asked about it in a follow up question where he repeated it. It is not a simple slip of the tongue if when challenged on the "slip" you then. [He also repeated it on Hugh Hewitt's radio show] That is not a gaffe. That is called believing something that isn't true. It is called being confused. And being confused about the differences between Shia and Sunni when claiming that you should be elected president of the United States on your foreign policy knowledge and experience, is simply not okay. This is a big deal.

Indeed, this is a very big fucking deal! This is a very disturbing occurence. There are two possibilities here:

1. John McCain believes that al-Qaeda is being trained by Iran. In this circumstance that is quite alarming and I agree with Matt Yglesias: perhaps John McCain isn't really paying much attention to what is happening in Iraq.
2. McCain know that Iran and al-Qaeda are not in league but he is willing to lie about it anyway, IN FRONT OF A CROWD OF MUSLIMS IN JORDAN!

Look, I understand I'm biased and I obviously am not a fan of John McCain, but this is a truly dangerous situation. McCain doesn't know squat about the economy (by his own admission), taxes, healthcare, or really any other important domestic policy issue. Apparently, he also knows very little about foreign policy and national security (his professed strengths). Now, I know you may be thinking, "give me a break Scott, this is just one time!" Yes, this is just a single occurence, but if he doesn't understand the difference between Shia and Sunni muslims, and the shaky dynamic between the Persian and Arab ethnicities; then in reality everything he thinks he knows about the Middle East and the Arab world is probably wrong. This is stunningly idiotic. I hope for the sake of this country and this planet we elect either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton to the presidency over this know-nothing fanatic.

A Note of Explanation

Sorry for the slow blogging. The past two days I've been at the Take Back America Conference right here in DC. I'll be there again tomorrow. It's my hope that I reach my normal blogging output by Thursday. Until then I will try to post when I can. Thanks!