Skip to main content

View Diary: A question for Hillary supporters (Not a flame, I promise) (28 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Good point (0+ / 0-)

    You make a good point about collaboration.  Clearly it can get you in trouble.

    My response is that I don't think Obama thinks of collaboration as meaning a compromise of principles. He has said that it's the president's job to set the agenda. The collaboration part comes in accepting the other side's opinion in order to carry out that agenda. So in that case the issue of judgement is valid. Ostensibly, Obama would have us believe that if he had been president Iraq would NOT have been on the agenda.

    Personally I think he is oversimplifying the issue by making it just about judgement. But that's more so he can have a clear talking point to use in the debates. Just part of campaigning. More than judgement, it's about breaking free of a cold-war mentality. Some have called this the post-post-911 strategy and he is so far the only advocate.

    Also, as someone who opposed the war from the beginning, I personally believe that an objective look at who was trumpeting the war should have been a pretty good sign that it was a bad idea. The non sensical arguments being presented set off a lot of alarm bells, at least in my head. If they were that careless and bullheaded in their justification, it wasn't a big stretch to think they would mismanage things or that it was a long-term strategic no-no.

    Ending the cold war paradigm is my number 1 issue for this election. Imo,  it's the only way to really win the war on terror as well.

    •  Fair enough, but just one point (0+ / 0-)

      The argument about "just look at who wanted the war" is hardly distinguishable from the idea of demonizing people based on preconceived notions, isn't it?  I mean, if Obama's overarching idea isn't that you can sit down and consider the merits of positions rather than get obsessed with who the other side is or what they're identified with, I don't know what it is!  This is part of what I see as a double standard, in which it's triangulation/capitulation or just being a disguised Republican when Hillary (or Bill) Clinton do it or did it, but it's wonderful transcendence of petty partisanship when Obama does it.

      If Adolf Hitler's ghost had come into my office (such as it is) in 1998 and asked me to consider the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, I would have offered him a cup of tea and read his draft letter.

      To me it is all about judgment, and that's why I am OK with people who say they would never vote for Hillary Clinton because of Iraq.  (At least that they'd never vote for her in the primaries--even under the most damning interpretation she has to be less of a warmongerer than McCain or Romney.)  I don't see her judgment as having been as bad as people think, and to the extent that it was bad, she learns from experience (look at health care) more than most politicians.

      I've suffered for my country. Now it's your turn! --John McCain with apologies to Monty Python's "Protest Song"

      by Rich in PA on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 07:02:04 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site