Is Pat Buchanan actually right about something?
Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 01:59:04 PM PDT
I normally can't stand Pat Buchanan. But last night he made a point that my father made months ago. I agreed with my dad (a hardcore democract) then and I have to agree with Buchanan now.
Perhaps the most important vote any senator can make, is whether or not to authorize an action that will get people killed. Far worse than anything to do with funding or oversight -- the vote on a war resolution has the possible impact on human lives.
Hillary Clinton can't say her vote for the Iraq War Resolution was a mistake. Because if she does she's then saying that in the biggest vote in her senate career (not a very long one) she got it wrong.
Sure, this admission would salve the soul of some of us Democrats. Personally, I think it's important and a true sign of leadership to admit ones mistakes. It's where healing begins.
But the republican's don't see the value in healing, especially during a campaign. And there machine would eat Hillary's admission for lunch. If she doesn't admit it was a mistake, they'll feast on her vote for the Iraq war instead.
You can hear it now:
McCain or Romney: "OH, so the war is a huge mistake?!? Well, Senator Clinton, oh behalf of the Iraqi people I still want to thank you for your vote. Even if it was a 'huge mistake.' Now I want to ask the American people. Do we really want a president who's most important vote in her very short life as a senator led us to such a huge 'MISTAKE.'"
Unfortunately for her, Hillary Clinton is in a "damned if you do and damned if you don't" position.
Last night in the debate, her refusal to come back at Obama on the topic shows that she and her campaign know she's completely vulnerable on this issue. They want off of it as soon as possible.
Just for myself, I can't advocate a strategy where we go into a general election campaign with a candidate who's so weak on an issue on which we Democrats should be the strongest.
Obama doesn't have this vulnerability on this issue. He's always been against this war.
I know some will say that he's voted to fund the war. But it's reckless and disingenuous to ignore that he opposed the war from the beginning just because he funds the troops now.
It's much easier to reinforce that you support the troops monetarily when you can also point to your support for them morally from the beginning.
Vote how you want. Flame if you will. I know who I'm voting for.
