There is a lot of (justifiable) anger on this site about Geraldine Ferraro's recent racist rantings. While those rantings and the Clinton campaign's failure to respond to them are objectionable, the issue is largely will likely be forgotten in another news cycle or 2. The bigger issue of McCain's purported CIC credentials will remain at the forefront long after Ferraro (thankfully) is forgotten.
Yesterday's departure of Adm. Fallon as CENTCOM chair serves as a reminder that there are serious disputes about the projection of American power in the world. At best, Fallon's departure serves as the latest reminder that, for over 9 more months, we will still have a WH in which devotion to a narrow brand of orthodoxy is mandated. At worst, that departure, could be a prelude to an attack on Iran.
All Americans agree that we live in a dangerous time. The primary source of our disagreement, however, is whether the danger is solely external or whether it has internal elements as well. There are those of us who believe that the neocons have driven us to the brink of the cliff in the past 7 years, and one of the biggest priorities of this election year is to make sure that we're not driven off the cliff in the next 4.
Even a cursory review of John McCain's record and of his public pronouncements makes it painfully obvious that he will drive us off the cliff in the next 4 years if we hand him the wheel on 1/20/09. McCain is, to put it indelicately, every neocon's wet dream. He's all that Richard Perle could ever hope for in a prez.
It's not merely his 100 Years' War comment or his bomb, bomb Iran "joke" that we've all heard. McCain wants to form a "League of Democracies" to bypass the UN, he wants to expand NATO to bump up against Russian interests in Central Asia, and he wants to form a modern-day OSS that will be largely exempt from Congressional oversight. He rejects direct US-Iran talks, and he has made it clear that military force may have to be used to stop Iran from obtaining nukes.
I have a son who will turn 17 in 2012, and the genunine possibility that McCain's policies may lead to a situation in which my son could be drafted really scares me. The past 7 years have bankrupted the country, they've led to unconscionable death and destruction, and they've ruined this country's reputation abroad. Four more years of similar policies (or even worse ones) are an anathema to every Kossack.
Sadly, however, there's a leading Dem contender who feels otherwise. I've followed politics for almost 40 years now, and I don't recall ever seeing a candidate in even the bitterest primary fight publicly vouch for the nominee of the opposing party. Reagan didn't vouch for Carter in '76, and Kennedy didn't vouch for Reagan in '80. Hell, Ralph Nader, who ran as an independent, didn't publicly state that W was better than Gore in 2000.
HRC's repeated vouching for McCain's CIC bona fides is one of the most dangerous moves I've ever seen a Dem prez candidate make. It should disqualify her from being the 2008 nominee. If she honestly thinks that we should entrust Sen. Hothead w/ the authority to run American FP for the next 4 years, then she probably ought to form a party w/ JoeMentum.
HRC didn't vouch for Eisenhower or for Rockefeller or even for Ford. She vouched for a hawk's hawk who is mistrusted w/i his own party's Senate caucus. Even worse, she didn't merely do it once--she did it at least 3 times.
If a stupid off the cuff comment by Samantha Power disqualified her from serving as a FP adviser to Obama, clearly, 3 separate planned coments by HRC should disqualify her from becoming the Dem nominee. While the dog-whistling tactics of her campaign on racial issues are reprehensible, no one will ever die from them. If her vouching for McCain ultimately helps him get elected prez, people will die as a direct result of her comments.
Ferraro doesn't matter--McCain as CIC does.