Why I don’t trust Hillary Clinton
Last week I attended a panel at The Tank in New York City, where Ari Melber of The Nation, Democratic strategist Scott Shields, and erstwhile John Edwards blogger Amanda Marcotte of Pandagon were giving a talk on progressive politics, netroots political activism, and how to combat the right-wing noise machine. (Majikthise has pictures for the interested - scroll down to March 4.)
The conference was attended by about seventy-five people, and of those, I’d conservatively estimate that 100% had their own blogs. I know this because everyone who asked a question made sure to mention the name of theirs. (Little bit of self-deprecating blog humor there! - although, in my defense, I didn’t ask anything). Really, this shouldn’t be a surprise; if we didn’t think there were others who were interested in what we had to say, we wouldn’t write for our blogs in the first place. The evening ended up being more like a conversation than a question-and-answer session, not that there’s anything wrong with that - although I could have done with a little less of the obligatory Kos-bashing.
In any case, I wanted to write about some thoughts that’ve been brewing in my mind on one of the evening’s themes. Amanda Marcotte in particular, recently retired from the John Edwards campaign after becoming a target of intense harassment and vituperation from bigots like William Donohue, spoke on the silly and pointless cult of apology that’s become one of the favorite tactics of the right-wing noise machine. The general theme is that, whenever a progressive does something that annoys conservatives, they and often everyone around them are subjected to a barrage of demands to “apologize”. This is not so much a request for a heartfelt expression of regret as much as it is a demand that the offender ritually abase themselves before the self-appointed guardians of decency and seek pardon for transgressing what those self-appointed guardians view as the bounds of acceptable discourse. Liberals do this too, but conservatives are particularly enamored of it.
The endless and insincere demands for apologies have grown to become one of the aspects of politics that annoys me the most. As Marcotte pointed out, what it’s really about is flexing political muscle and attempting to humiliate one’s enemies - along the lines of “I made you apologize, so therefore I am strong and you are weak”. The apology, if given, is not viewed as an expression of regret that clears the air, but merely an admission of guilt that can be more readily used to attack the giver in the future.
All of this came up in a discussion of the vote authorizing the Iraq war, which several Democratic presidential candidates voted in favor of - in particular Hillary Clinton. John Edwards, who was also in the Senate at the time, has publicly said “I was wrong” to cast that vote. Clinton, on the other hand, refuses to issue an apology and says that people who want her to admit that should choose another candidate, though she says that “if I knew then what I know now”, she wouldn’t have voted for the war.
As I said, I am no fan of the cult of apology, and I have not yet made up my mind which candidate I intend to support. But I’m very near certain that whichever one it is, it won’t be Hillary Clinton, and her stance on this issue is the reason why. This may seem to be a contradiction with the previous paragraphs, so permit me to explain myself.
Unlike conservatives who glorify a contrived cult of masculinity, I view apologizing not as proof of the giver’s ritual humiliation, but as a way for them to demonstrate what they have learned. It is appropriate in that context, when an opportunity for learning presents itself. To me, Hillary Clinton’s refusal to apologize for her vote authorizing war is evidence that she hasn’t learned anything.
Granted, she has said that she wouldn’t have voted for war if she had known then what she knows now. But what sort of statement is that? If she had known in advance that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, had nothing to do with September 11 and was bound to fall apart in a bloody civil war in the aftermath of invasion, she wouldn’t have voted to invade? I would certainly hope so! But that isn’t a bold declaration of political principle; that is just proof of some minimal connection to reality. That should be the bare minimum required for any candidate who wants to be taken seriously. But it does not go nearly far enough.
In essence, by refusing to apologize, Clinton is asserting that Iraq isn’t her fault. She wants to place all the blame on Bush for feeding misinformation to Congress, and none on herself for being taken in by that misinformation. That is not how our government works. Congress is not a rubber stamp, blindly considering only the information which the president wants them to consider and then obediently voting however the president wants. Congress is a separate and co-equal branch of government, and as such has not just the right but the obligation to exert its own authority by skeptically and critically scrutinizing any action the president wishes to take, and denying him the authority to take that action if the evidence does not hold up. In the runup to the war, unfortunately, Congress was taken in by hysteria and chose to abdicate that responsibility.
Yes, Bush bears the vast majority of the blame for lying and misleading this country into a bloody, disastrous war. But Congress is not free of blame either. Every member of Congress who voted to authorize that action bears a share of the blame as well. They can expiate that guilt in two ways. First, they should immediately introduce legislation to bring American soldiers home as soon as is reasonably possible. Second, at least as importantly, they should apologize forthrightly for their blind recklessness to lead us into war on dubious evidence in the first place. Again, this is not about ritual humiliation: it is about these congresspeople telling us what they have learned. They must prove to us that they now recognize Congress as a co-equal branch of government, one which has the authority and the obligation to act as a brake on the executive, and will not be blindly led into disaster by a warmongering president again. Hillary Clinton’s refusal to apologize, her refusal to shoulder her portion of the blame for the Iraq disaster, suggests to me that she has not learned anything at all from her part in this.
“Hillary Clinton’s refusal to apologize, her refusal to shoulder her portion of the blame for the Iraq disaster, suggests to me that she has not learned anything at all from her part in this.”
Here, here!
Plus, she’s really been cozying up to the Right in the last many months.
That’s a valid point about Clinton. Of course, keep in mind that it could be even more detrimental for her to issue the (albeit needed) apology in public. Just imagine the headlines at Faux… “Hilliary Clinton admits critical mistakes while she was in Senate, may have led to unnecessary U.S. troop casualties, see page 26, and new hairloss treatment for men, see page 30″.
Of course I am biased to the bone, grew up in a democratic, feminist, liberal (yes the L-word) household. My parents still had Dukakis-Bentsen bumper stickers until about a month ago. The Mondale-Ferraro one won’t even peel off, just kind of melted into the bumper, near the tailpipe on the Camry.
I don’t trust her either, but the very thing that causes your mistrust is the one thing I think she’s done right. She should have voted for the invasion. It was right then, and it’s still the right decision.
I am so glad that the mentality you display here was not in effect during WWII. We would have lost that war because every death, every battle lost, and every mistake made by FDR and his generals would have caused you to demand that we bring the troops home.
I see “Curiosis” is one of those conservative dead-enders, now down to about 25% of the population and falling, who still believe the war in Iraq isn’t the colossal blunder it turned out to be.
Really, Curiosis? And why’s that?
What was accomplished, and what is there about the other side in Iraq at the time, that you think is in any way comparable to the situation in World War II? So far as I can see, the most significant basis of comparison between Saddam Hussein and Hitler is that both led authoritarian states and both had mustaches. While I recognize that the War on Mustaches is deeply important to you, I really think our energies, resources, and lives can be better focused on something sane and productive. :/
Let’s see. In WWII, the axis powers directly attacked a major U.S. military base with a full-scale air and sea mission involving tens of thousands of troops, after several years of active fighting against our closest allies, killing overseas American civilians and soldiers every day.
For GWII, Iraq was minding its own business, and keeping Al Qaida at bay. Then that group of Saudi religious fundamentalists supported by Afghanistan attacked 2 sites on U.S. soil (with probable intentions on a third) using skills and weapons acquired in the U.S. So Iraq reluctantly opened up their facilities to weapons inspectors from the U.N, began dismantling their missiles, and even apparently reduced their material aid to regional groups hostile to Israel, all in order to avoid antagonizing the U.S. who was already poised to invade there before 9/11.
Curiosis is right. They are the same thing. It’s a good thing that our leader declared “mission accomplished” nearly 4 years ago!
What disturbs me about Hillary Clinton is her finger-to-the-wind politicking. I am concerned that she has very little idea about what she believes, assuming that she ever did. She has bankrupted her soul in her quest to become electable. Come’on, Hillary. Think about it. Wasting the lives of young soldiers? For what?
She was for the war when it was popular to be pro-war. Now she’s not sure about the war at a time when much of America is not sure about the war. See this data from Pew.
Don’t hold your breath if you expect her to be out in front of the people, you know . . . acting like a leader.
I agree with the main point of this article. Clinton is acting as though it is a good excuse that she was duped about the war, whereas it was a crime that she (and so many others) invited themselves to be duped. When Bush was revving up the war machine, why not state “The Emperor has no clothes”? You know, “The photos of trailers don’t convince me of anything.”
And now, how about “I screwed up” or “I used terrible judgment” or “I sat on my hands.” And then this: “Because I had no guts, hundreds of thousands of people are dead.”
Indeed, it is almost imposible to forgive someone is not sorry.
What’s really disturbing is that, if nominated, Hillary might still be the better of the two candidates from the major political parties.
In the post-Bush world, do we really want a “leader” who leads the way like Bush did with his “mandate” from the people?
I think Clinton will do just fine. She is smart, savvy, and willing to make decisions based on evaluation rather than on her pre-conceived notions. Unfortunately, I don’t think America is yet ready for a female president. Lets just make sure we get a Democrat in there, my vote is for Hilliary.
I agree with most of what Ebonmuse says, though with one key exception: Ebonmuse equates “apologizing” with “admitting you were wrong,” but these are not equivalent things. Apologizing refers to something you did; admitting you were wrong refers to something you believed. John Edwards admitted he was wrong, but this merely refers to what he believed; it is no more an apology than is Hillary Clinton’s reticence.
Personally, I dislike both candidates. Edwards strikes me as a moron with good looks; Clinton as a genius with poor judgment. Edwards appears to have no comprehension of basic economics and, I fear, would plunge America into domestic programs that are just as disastrously expensive as Bush’s misguided foreign programs. Remember: Edwards made his fortune by squeezing money out of corporations for the mistakes they made. He doesn’t appear to have the mindset to look beyond this bias, despite the fact that corporate malfeasance represents only a tiny fraction of the U.S. economy. I fear he would focus all is energy on chasing and punishing a few bad guys, while ignoring the huge gains to be made by helping the vast crowds of good guys. I think he would be a total disaster for America.
Clinton appears to be what Erich describes: a political kite who changes direction with the wind. Some people would call that leadership (i.e., find out which way the mob is moving and then jump in front of it), while others, like me, would call it spinelessness. Republican John McCain has this same flaw in much greater amounts.
The one interesting candidate no one has mentioned is Obama. He says many of the right things and does not have any of the cumbersome baggage from the Senate vote to invade Iraq. I am curious to see where he takes his campaign.
Subject to the Obama exception, and given the available choices, I agree with Erich: Clinton is probably the better candidate from either major party. She knows how Washington works — in both the White House and Congress — and she understands how to get things done. Yes, she has recently leaned farther to the right than I would like, but she is not currently in a position in which she can do otherwise. As president, that would change. The pressure to conform and compromise is much less on a president than it is on a senator. On critical issues, when push came to shove, I think President Hillary’s progressive roots would appear in places where Senator Hillary’s might not.
Of course, if I turn out to be wrong, I’ll say so, even though I might not apologize.
Just to make it clear, I’m not claiming that Hillary is the best candidate among the Democrats. The jury is out for me. I need to know more about Obama, who intrigues me (Rolling Stone just did a comprehensive piece no Obama). I also like the positions of Dennis Kucinich, who has proven himself oh-so-right on many issues where he disagreed with the mainstream. Why is it, then, that he is CONSTANTLY called a “dark horse” candidate? Gee, is getting elected about money, or what???
What I was trying to write is that Hillary, with all her faults, would likely be far preferable to anything that the Republicans could offer, given their history of corruption (pick the scandal de jour), their rape of the environment (let the toxins flow), their failure to enact responsible energy policy and their assults on the U.S. economy (massive trade deficits and budget deficits).
Hillary’s afraid to say what she really thinks–again. This time the topic is whether homosexuality is immoral. See http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/03/14/clinton-ducks-answer-on-whether-homosexualty-is-immoral/
Who is Hillary? She appears to be whomever she thinks the vast middle of America want her to be. She answers a question about her moral views by saying, “it is for others to decide.” What monumental BS. Voters will want to know what *she* believes, or else they will not support her. People want to stand behind a candidate who shares their values and who has vision, not some cardboard cutout who tries to fold and twist herself into whatever shape happens to be least controversial at that moment. Not that it’s necessarily analogous, but on the television show, “Survivor,” the people who try to fly under everyone’s radar tend to get picked off early. Hillary should take notice.
Now that Hillary’s focus groups have have a chance to tell her that it makes sense to say that being gay is not immoral, she’s said it. http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/03/15/clinton-clarifies-remarks-on-gays/
Well, isn’t it refreshing to have somebody who listens to the opinions of others who she respects? I mean, how do we make our opinions in the first place? Either by investigating the issues, or by reading a holy scripture. She is being watched like a hawk, I am glad (being a staunch supporter) that she didn’t blurt out something which could be twisted against her. For example, Howard Dean didn’t even *say* anything offensive last primary, he simply lost his cool during a televised appearance, one YEAHAHAAAAW!!! and that was curtains for him.
At this point, please don’t expect Hilliary to be able to come up with answers off the top of her head, like Bill was able to. Give her some time…please try not to judge her on what she doesn’t say. Anyway, it’s not like SHE will be the (only) one running things when she wins. Similar the way BUSH lets ol’ crackshot Cheney do the heavy lifting.
Ebonmuse states: I see “Curiosis” is one of those conservative dead-enders, now down to about 25% of the population and falling, who still believe the war in Iraq isn’t the colossal blunder it turned out to be.
Not at all. First, I’m a libertarian. Second, I’m not speaking to the current state of affairs in Iraq. I’m saying that the right course of action (based on ones knowledge at the time) can often turn out badly.
We should have invaded Iraq. Our mistake came afterwards when we failed to restore order and when we didn’t annihilate anyone who would use terror as a means of protest.
Think of Iraq as a brain tumor. It might stay dormant and never cause a problem. Or it might kill you tomorrow. Rather than take that chance, you decide to have surgery to have it removed. You end up with some brain damage and paralysis. Was having the surgery the right move? Based on what you wanted and what you knew at the time, yes. Even if the outcome was terrible, you chose the right course of action.
Dan states: “Let’s see. In WWII, the axis powers directly attacked a major U.S. military base with a full-scale air and sea mission involving tens of thousands of troops, after several years of active fighting against our closest allies, killing overseas American civilians and soldiers every day.”
Well, Germany never attacked us. Why did we go to war with them? Shouldn’t we have focused only on Japan? Or did we have the wisdom to recognize a threat before they instigated hostilities? Sounds kinda pre-emptive.
“For GWII, Iraq was minding its own business, and keeping Al Qaida at bay.”
I wouldn’t necessarily consider a WMD development program to be “minding its own business.” And how was Iraq “keeping Al Qaida at bay?” Wasn’t Saddam harboring several well-known terrorists?
“So Iraq reluctantly opened up their facilities to weapons inspectors from the U.N,”
Do you mean to suggest that someone in the world other than George Bush thought that Iraq might have WMDs? That can’t be right!
“began dismantling their missiles, and even apparently reduced their material aid to regional groups hostile to Israel, all in order to avoid antagonizing the U.S. who was already poised to invade there before 9/11.”
I’m glad that you were able to trust the promises of Saddam Hussein. I, however, would rather not have to bet my life on it.
“Curiosis is right. They are the same thing. It’s a good thing that our leader declared “mission accomplished” nearly 4 years ago!”
I’m fairly certain that the invasion of Iraq and fall of Saddam were completed around 4 years ago. Could that, perhaps, be the mission to which they were referring? Did people celebrate VJ day? How could they have done that when Japan still needed to be occupied and brought under control? Those crazy kids.
“Well, Germany never attacked us.”
I have been to the holocaust museum, have you? They gassed/starved/worked to blistering deaths/cooked many of my relatives, the Germans did. (And my grandparents were Jews born in Germany, for that matter)
“a WMD development program”
Actually, it turns out the Iraqis couldn’t figure out how to split a bran muffin, let alone atomic particles.
“Well, Germany never attacked us. Why did we go to war with them? Shouldn’t we have focused only on Japan? Or did we have the wisdom to recognize a threat before they instigated hostilities? Sounds kinda pre-emptive.”
No, actually, we attacked Germany because they declared war on us on December 11, 1941, four days after the attack on Pearl Harbor. For truth’s sake, do you know anything about history at all?
“I’m glad that you were able to trust the promises of Saddam Hussein.”
Absolutely no one ever advocated “trusting” Saddam Hussein. That’s why we enforced a no-fly zone on him and required him to submit to periodic visits by U.N. weapons inspectors. And like it or not, the U.N. inspections were working. They achieved the goal of preventing Saddam from reconstituting his WMD program, which is why Iraq was found to have no WMDs after the invasion.
“Did people celebrate VJ day? How could they have done that when Japan still needed to be occupied and brought under control?”
How many Americans died during the occupation and reconstruction of Japan, compared to how many have died and are still dying during the occupation of Iraq?
How many Americans died during the occupation and reconstruction of Japan, compared to how many have died and are still dying during the occupation of Iraq?
Actually it gets complicated here because the circumstances were different, and included radiation deaths, and propaganda-based death toll reporting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki
Back to Hillary . . . look how she’s “killing” one of her big supporters:
For the full post of E. A. Hanks at Huffington, click here.