A number of observations came to mind while watching the Democratic candidates in last week's CNN/YouTube debate:
* It really wasn't so revolutionary. CNN narrowed the video questions out of thousands to the one's they wanted to see asked. I don't think any questions were asked that would not have been in a traditional debate.
* Of course, the way they were asked was different. Singing the questions, costumes and snowman puppets - Not sure how any of that adds to our democracy.
* Dennis Kusinich must've been thrilled to have Mike Gravel participating. It's the first time Dennis has ever shared the stage with someone crazier than he is (and what's more entertaining than an angry old man yelling at everyone?)
But on to the main event, Hillary vs. Barack. I've been backing Hillary Clinton for a few months now, ever since I shrewdly realized that my buddy, Joe Biden, has about as much a chance of being elected as I do. Being from Illinois, Barack is all the rage, but his lack of experience concerns me. That concern was justified when he was asked the question of whether he would meet with the world's most evil dictators. His answer was that talking was not a sign of weakness, which is true enough. But Hillary's point that automatically agreeing to Presidential summits without preconditions or lower level preparation talks could provide our enemies with ample opportunity to take advantage or score PR points at our expense. That is the correct answer.
Hillary Clinton's experience and clear thinking about world affairs has been on display throughout the campaign and I believe she is our best hope for getting our country out of the mess its in. In a field where the vast majority of candidates are falling over themselves to pander to the far left, Hillary's strong centrist worldview shows that we don't have to choose between the authoritarian tendencies of the Bush administration and retreating from our responsibility to win the War on Terror. (John Edwards said that The War on Terror was nothing more than a meaningless slogan, which cost him any chance at my vote.)
Hilary has been right all along on Iraq. Now that Bush's deplorable handling of the war has put us into an awful quagmire, it's difficult to see why the vast majority of Democrats initially supported it. Not just because of weapons of mass destruction. Saddam Hussein's brutality toward his own people, threat to his neighbors and support for terrorism were well established. He has nothing to do with 9/11, but was a major part of the violent Islamist extremist movement that also spawned Al Qaeda ("But Iraq did not attack us on 9/11!" many say. Well, Germany didn't bomb Pearl Harbor, but nobody regrets that we went after them.)
This argument would be conventional wisdom had George Bush and his cronies not mucked it up every step of the way. A definitive victory in Iraq would have made it an example of the success of democracy in a region that knows so little. Victory, however, requires developing contingency plans and not underestimating your opponent. Colin Powell had it right when he said you only go to war with overwhelming force and a clear exit strategy.
Yet we know what happened. Bush only listened to advice he wanted to hear. He did not trust the American people enough to be truthful about our initial reasons for being there and has such meager communication skills that he cannot make the case for why we need to win. Now, with a civil war erupting, things have gotten so bad we may not be able to win. What should have been one front in the War on Terror has diverted our resources away from other possibly more important fronts (Iran, Bin Laden). Bush is further diverted by the Nixonian corruption and secrecy permeating throughout his White House.
All this is to point out that Hillary Clinton is now right again. If we cannot win in Iraq, we must work on an exit strategy to get out. Thankfully, she won't pander to the loony left by promising an immediate withdrawal. Leaving carelessly would be as much a disaster as going in carelessly.
Those who don't like Hillary call her calculating, but don't we want a President who can think a few moves ahead? Watching that debate last week, Hillary Clinton came out at the smartest and toughest in the bunch. She's even starting to become more engaging and likable (but she ought to keep Bill with her just to be safe.) Barring any major missteps, I believe she is our next President, which may be exactly what we need.
* It really wasn't so revolutionary. CNN narrowed the video questions out of thousands to the one's they wanted to see asked. I don't think any questions were asked that would not have been in a traditional debate.
* Of course, the way they were asked was different. Singing the questions, costumes and snowman puppets - Not sure how any of that adds to our democracy.
* Dennis Kusinich must've been thrilled to have Mike Gravel participating. It's the first time Dennis has ever shared the stage with someone crazier than he is (and what's more entertaining than an angry old man yelling at everyone?)
But on to the main event, Hillary vs. Barack. I've been backing Hillary Clinton for a few months now, ever since I shrewdly realized that my buddy, Joe Biden, has about as much a chance of being elected as I do. Being from Illinois, Barack is all the rage, but his lack of experience concerns me. That concern was justified when he was asked the question of whether he would meet with the world's most evil dictators. His answer was that talking was not a sign of weakness, which is true enough. But Hillary's point that automatically agreeing to Presidential summits without preconditions or lower level preparation talks could provide our enemies with ample opportunity to take advantage or score PR points at our expense. That is the correct answer.
Hillary Clinton's experience and clear thinking about world affairs has been on display throughout the campaign and I believe she is our best hope for getting our country out of the mess its in. In a field where the vast majority of candidates are falling over themselves to pander to the far left, Hillary's strong centrist worldview shows that we don't have to choose between the authoritarian tendencies of the Bush administration and retreating from our responsibility to win the War on Terror. (John Edwards said that The War on Terror was nothing more than a meaningless slogan, which cost him any chance at my vote.)
Hilary has been right all along on Iraq. Now that Bush's deplorable handling of the war has put us into an awful quagmire, it's difficult to see why the vast majority of Democrats initially supported it. Not just because of weapons of mass destruction. Saddam Hussein's brutality toward his own people, threat to his neighbors and support for terrorism were well established. He has nothing to do with 9/11, but was a major part of the violent Islamist extremist movement that also spawned Al Qaeda ("But Iraq did not attack us on 9/11!" many say. Well, Germany didn't bomb Pearl Harbor, but nobody regrets that we went after them.)
This argument would be conventional wisdom had George Bush and his cronies not mucked it up every step of the way. A definitive victory in Iraq would have made it an example of the success of democracy in a region that knows so little. Victory, however, requires developing contingency plans and not underestimating your opponent. Colin Powell had it right when he said you only go to war with overwhelming force and a clear exit strategy.
Yet we know what happened. Bush only listened to advice he wanted to hear. He did not trust the American people enough to be truthful about our initial reasons for being there and has such meager communication skills that he cannot make the case for why we need to win. Now, with a civil war erupting, things have gotten so bad we may not be able to win. What should have been one front in the War on Terror has diverted our resources away from other possibly more important fronts (Iran, Bin Laden). Bush is further diverted by the Nixonian corruption and secrecy permeating throughout his White House.
All this is to point out that Hillary Clinton is now right again. If we cannot win in Iraq, we must work on an exit strategy to get out. Thankfully, she won't pander to the loony left by promising an immediate withdrawal. Leaving carelessly would be as much a disaster as going in carelessly.
Those who don't like Hillary call her calculating, but don't we want a President who can think a few moves ahead? Watching that debate last week, Hillary Clinton came out at the smartest and toughest in the bunch. She's even starting to become more engaging and likable (but she ought to keep Bill with her just to be safe.) Barring any major missteps, I believe she is our next President, which may be exactly what we need.
No comments:
Post a Comment