HuffingtonPost is carrying a story this morning entitled:
The Attempts to Discredit Obama's Iraq War Stance Have Begun
The story discusses the Clinton campaign's erroneous attack strategy, which is basically that Obama wasn't "brave" to come out against the war because the senate race was a couple of years away and beside, Obama's constituents were not very pro-war.
The strategy is ridiculous to begin with, because the truth is the truth: Obama came out forcefully against the war, just as most of us here did, while DC was busy polishing bush's butt.
But it also tells us something about Clinton's concept of "leadership", and indeed, highlights the contrast between leadership and what is done every day in DC.
Clinton's basic argument is that Obama "had it easy" because he didn't have to upset his constituents or endanger his senate campaign with anti-war talk. (The truth is that scandal - and Alan Keyes - took what promised to be a very difficult campaign and made it a relative cakewalk, lucky for us.)
The clear implication is something to the effect that Clinton would have been anti-war but that would have upset her constituents, so she voted for the IWR.
You know, along the lines of "Oh, sure you were anti-war! No one would get mad at you!"
So where is the whole "vote your conscience" thing?
What about leadership??
See, I thought the concept our founders had about elections was:
- Candidates said what they stood for and what they would do in office.
- Voters would choose the person they felt would best represent them.
- The now-elected official would take his (c'mon, Jefferson didn't envision a "her") spot in the state house or the congress and vote his conscience.
It's the idea of wanting to lead v. wanting power.
If you want to lead, you tell us your vision and work to convince us to follow. If you want to lead you earn our trust, and then even if we disagree we know you are doing what you think is right. And we believe in you and your vision and we know you're working with us to get there. See: Russ Feingold.
If you want power, you tell us what you think we want to hear, fool us into following until you get into office. And then once in office you spend your time not doing what you think is right but making sure you don't upset the wrong people, the ones with money and power to keep you there. You ride the fence so neither side sees a contradiction with their position and in the process end up saying nothing. See: Triangulation.
By saying Obama's anti-war stance was not courageous, Clinton's campaign clearly implies there is no intestinal fortitude involved in voting one's conscience. It implies that she would have come out against the war if she didn't fear a backlash her pro-war constituents. And it even seems to be saying, without shame, that it's okay to vote against your conscience in order to avoid pissing off your constituents.
Are they implying Hillary Clinton would have been as thoughtful and correct about the IWR as Obama, if only she didn't have constituents to fear? She would have seen the "evidence" for the shite it was, she would have done the right thing, except for that?
This is not embarrassing for her? At least Edwards actually believed at the time he was doing the right thing. He has never said "I voted that way because I was afraid I'd lose votes." He says "I really messed that one up." (Even if he did what he did for votes, he's not shameless enough to cop to it.)
Obama was brave simply for stating what was in his heart. It's always the bravest thing to do.
Sometimes now I don't think he's doing that, that his handlers have gotten ahold of him and told him he has to triangulate to win. And it makes me sad. Any handlers who might tell any candidate s/he has to try to please everyone now instead of stating what they really believe should be fired immediately. See: Shrum.
Leadership demands so much more than that. Remember when Howard Dean was riding high, and the MSM couldn't get over how "stupid" we were that we didn't seem to notice he wasn't actually a "liberal"? They didn't understand that we found him refreshing because he was FEARLESS, not because we always agreed. He said what he believed. Even if we disagreed we knew he'd always say what he believed, and he'd always do what he felt was right.
Leadership is about vision, and it's about trust. It's about doing the right thing even when it's difficult or scary. And it requires something from us, too: that we stop demanding purity on issues and start demanding they simply tell the truth about where they stand and what they'll do, as LEADERS.
It's not about saying what people want to hear even when in your heart you disagree - even when people will die - because you're scared to lose votes.
Voting your conscience. Doing the right thing. It is perhaps a naive concept which began to erode with the first election, but it seems now most of our leaders have totally forgotten it.
UPDATE
Link to the relevant Hardball transcript between Wolfson (HRC) and Axelrod (Obama): http://www.msnbc.msn.com/...
Link to the Huffpo piece: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
UPDATE II Let me say that I have been very impressed by Hillary Clinton at the debates lately and I will vote for her if she's the nominee, without hesitation. I'm not an Obama supporter, either. I think it's Edwards (barring a Gore entry). Edwards has his own issues with the IWR. This diary is about the sad state of politics now, that money and bullshit have taken over, drowning out the idea of voting for what you believe in and doing the right thing, and replacing it with showmanship and self-editing.