EMAIL
PRINT
10 COMMENTS
Share and save this post:
Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form
Also in Election 2008
Bill O'Reilly Attacks Homeless Vets for Not Watching Fox News
Robert Greenwald Brave New Films
Blackwater and Blood: Spilling it in Iraq, Donating it at Home
Jeremy Scahill AlterNet
Big Media Fluff McCain, Stuff Edwards
Phoenix Woman Firedoglake
Here is an important campaign difference:
Clinton and Obama's divergent views on the troop surge in Iraq, however, were plainly visible.
When Bush proclaimed, "Ladies and gentlemen, some may deny the surge is working, but among terrorists there is no doubt," Clinton sprang to her feet in applause but Obama remained firmly seated. The president's line divided most of the Democratic audience, with nearly half standing to applaud and the other half sitting in stony silence.
The most consistent criticism of Obama online has focused upon his rhetorical posture in relation to Republicans and conservatives: conciliatory language of unity, the use of right wing talking points on health care and social security, positing left-wing DFH strawmen (70's style, anti-military love-in was my favorite), triangulation that blames ideologues and partisans on both sides for polarization, etc. However, here is an instance where the roles are starkly reversed, as Hillary Clinton literally stands up and applauds George W. Bush for his troop surge, while Obama remains seated.
There are not many ways to interpret Clinton's remarks except as applause for the escalation she ostensibly opposed. Even if she was applauding "the troops," that would imply that the Democrats who did not stand up were somehow against the troops, which is the most vicious right-wing talking point of all. This is should also be a stark reminder of the difference between Clinton and Obama on supporting and not regretting / opposing the war in the first place, on Clinton's general hawkishness, on ending the causes of wars like Iraq, and even on the continued presence of a residual American military presence in Iraq.
If Clinton applauds the escalation, then why should I have any confidence that she will keep only a small residual presence in Iraq? This is a terrible move by Clinton, one that makes me feel as though more than five years have passed since the AUMF and nothing has changed, and that she is portraying her foreign policy views dishonestly during the campaign.
I think there are very clear differences between Obama and Clinton on this nexus of policy, rhetorical, and administrative issues. In the final analysis, it is why I definitely prefer Obama to Clinton in this campaign.
Tagged as: iraq, obama, clinton, bush
Chris Bowers was a full-time editor at MyDD from May 2004 until June 2007. Some of his projects have included the creation of the Liberal Blog Advertising Network, the first scientifically random poll of progressive netroots activists, the Use It Or Lose It campaign, the nation's most accurate forecast of Democratic house pickups in 2006, and the 2006 Googlebomb the Elections campaign.
No comments:
Post a Comment