The Individualist 12.12.05: Hillary The Hawk

Posted by Joe Rivett on 12.12.2005

It is time for Cindy Sheehan to stop attacking Hillary…

Why is the far left attacking Hillary Clinton? I feel the need to defend her for two reasons. First, I agree with her assessment of Iraq. It would be stupid to pull out right now this second. We do have a moral responsibility to fix the mess that we created. The Iraqi army is not ready to take control of its country. The US army can't even keep Iraq fully secure so I believe it would be a mess if the US army were to leave.

Secondly, I am tired of everyone thinking that every decision she makes is all about running for president. Is it possible that being the wife of the former commander in chief of the army and senator on the armed services committee makes her occasionally think like a hawk? Is it possible that she thought it made sense after 9/11 to confront asshole dictators and enforce UN Resolutions? It is not like her husband just ignored Saddam as Bill Clinton bombed Iraq in 1998.

Mrs. Clinton has done a fine job as senator, especially on military issues. She worked ferociously hard to save the base in Niagara Falls. She has made sure that veterans have received their proper benefits. Most importantly, she has not flip-flopped her position. She has supported the war and even proposed adding more troops to do the job right. She has made suggestions to President Bush about mistakes that have been made. She has yet to ask for a timetable using the experience she learned with timetables that were placed on her husband. Read what Republican senators said after our troops had a bad day in Somalia. A couple days later a timetable was passed for the US to be out in March of 1994. Not surprisingly, Osama saw how weak we were in that situation.

Dick Morris writes about Hillary's problem of pleasing the Left and the Center of the Democratic Party:

As happened in the 1960s, a new left is emerging around opposition to a war, leaving behind old-style liberals who support the invasion and grinding them underfoot. Hillary could be marginalized in 2008 just as Hubert Humphrey was in 1968 and she is determined to prevent it.

So Hillary has to figure out how to have her cake and eat it too — how to appease the gathering fury on the left while reinforcing her image as tough on national security.

So how can Hillary figure out how to diffuse the gathering fury on the left? I don't know if she can but I do know that I will listen to a first lady and senator before I listen to an actor and a mother who both think the war in Afghanistan was evil. Tim Robbins and Cindy Sheehan have even less credentials than me, (At least I have a BA in History and will have my Masters soon).

What Dick is forgetting is that Democratic Primary voters tend to vote for the more centrist candidates. Believe it or not, there were a lot more liberal candidates than Mondale and Dukakis. Clinton in 92 was certainly not the most liberal. John Kerry having voted for the war and the Patriot Act was not the most liberal.

By "staying the course" on her war views, Hillary has shown independence. Usually presidential candidates move to the left or right to prepare for the primary. Hillary could be an opportunist and call for a withdrawal similar to what Congressman Murtha proposed.

The reason why I am defending Hillary is that my view on the war is the same as hers. I thought it was fine to go into Iraq. A major shakeup in the Middle East was needed. However, the Bush administration is too incompetent to make Iraq a success. Yes, mistakes are made in wars, but people tend to get fired for their mistakes. Keeping Donald Rumsfeld is similar to keeping a coach that has had a losing season for five straight years with the resources to win. Bush has offered no new strategy that I have seen. Stay the course is the worst strategy when the course is not working. I read an article in the New York Times by Gen. Wesley Clark on what to do with Iraq and there were actual details and plans.

Instead of attacking Mrs. Clinton, Cindy Sheehan, Tim Robbins and all the other left wing peaceniks that had no problem with Bill Clinton bombing Iraq should focus their energy on the ones who started it. Although Hillary voted for it, I doubt if she were president after 9/11, the country would be in Iraq today. Sheehan and her crew should continue attacking George Bush. They should go after corrupt Congressional people such as Saxby Chambliss who put Max Cleeland's face next to Bin Ladin. They should go after that bitch in Ohio that slandered Congressman Murtha. They should go after politicians that say Iraq is fine.

The far left has tried this strategy of attacking moderate Democrats before. They went out and voted for the most annoying man on the earth Ralph Nader; because Al Gore wasn't liberal enough. And now we have to deal with an incompetent president.

I thought I would respond to some of the mail I received from the column on why Kerry lost…

Hi Joe,

To begin with, I support the war, and I voted for Bush...twice...happily...and would do so again. Just to get that out of the way.

However, I do agree with you that the reasons you mentioned were major flaws in the Kerry compaign and led to his eventual defeat last year. I think there are a few things you left out, though.

1. Letting go of the South: I got a pretty good feeling that Kerry was going to lose after he made the comment that he could win the election without winning a single southern state. To my knowledge, there hasn't been a US President since Lincoln who's been able to pull that off (and that was a controversial election, as well.) Instead of taking on the Southern states, working against stereotype, and maybe at least getting Arkansaw or Tennessee into the Blue section again, the DNC completely wrote off EVERY southern state except Flordia and North Carolina. It was stupid, transparent, and it cost them huge.

2. Swiftboat Veterans for Truth and Moveon.org: Personally, I think that 527 organizations are the invisible propaganda arms of the bi-partisan system, and that they should be outlawed. Nevertheless, the effect they have on elections is incredibly apparent. Last year, these two groups were probably the most outspoken on either side. The problem for Kerry in 2004 is that BOTH of these groups worked against him: the one deliberately, and the other because of very, very bad public image. Whether you think the SBVT were lying or not, the men speaking out against Kerry's war record and against what they felt was his betrayal of them in1971 came off to the American public as guinuine, and a legitimate question of Kerry as a commander-in-chief. Moveon.org, on the other hand, are perceived as nothing more than whiners, mudslingers, and modivated by either blind hatred of President Bush, an obsession with getting the White House back, or both. I don't know if the Swiftboat Vets cost Kerry any votes that his antiwar stance hadn't already, but I'd be willing to bet that Moveon.org's "silent endorsement" of Kerry probably cost him DISTRICTS in the states he lost simply because that organization is full of hateful idiots that turned away the Joe Liebermans of the Democratic Party who otherwise could have put him over the top. Which leads into the # 1 reason I think Kerry lost.

3. The Anti-war Movement & The NYC/GOP Convention Protests: Whether you agree with their positions or not, I don't think it's very easy to argue against this statement: activist demonstrators piss off the American public. Even when they AGREE with them! All of the grandstanding, attempted lawbreaking, general disruptions (one which happened during Bush's speech to the convention), and all the other stupid crap the antiwar movement engaged in during the GOP convention, and for the entire year of 2004, did more to HELP George W. Bush stay President of the United States than any bad strategy or mistep from his opponents could have done. All it succeeded in doing was 1.) discouraging and disgusting more conservative (and/or Reagan) Democrats into not voting because many of them still remember the Chicago riots of 1968 and hate the far-left for causing it, and especially 2.) putting anyone with far or even slightly-right of center leaning solidly behind the President simply so they could deny a victory to the radical leftists protesting the war. Even now that support for Iraq has diminished, I think it's still safe to say that people like Cindy Sheehan, Ward Churchill, and other outspoken demonstrators in the antiwar movement sicken the average American. Their idiotic statements and actions hurt any and all causes they rally around, and often the violence generated by those who follow them gives John Q Public the idea that the protesters WANT American soldiers to die, and want to HELP Al-Queda kill their families (which to my mind is not too far from the truth.)

On a personal note, I am a counter-demonstrator against antiwar political rallies. I have never seen as much intolerance, stupidity, racism, and stormtrooper-like behavior by a group of people than I've seen demonstrated by the scumbags that participate in these marches for "peace." I have witnessed physical attacks, the use of racial slurs, propaganda for "direct action" against the government for radical overthrow, and other insane things done by these low-lifes all because they hate George Bush, Republicans, or anyone that waves an un-defiled flag. I was even physically assaulted myself, and for no better reason than I was holding up a sarcastic sign that disagreed with the agenda of those around me, who were carrying mock posters of Bush as Hitler, signs saying "Death to American Imperialists" and so on.

You want a Democrat in the Oval Office after '08? I would suggest three things.

* Don't nominate the usual suspects: Dean, Kerry, or especially Clinton. You love her, but half the country hates her guts, and she wouldn't be any improvement over Bush in the "uniter/divider" department. I don't care what stupid-ass pundit of the week you put stock in, Hillary Clinton would loose and loose HUGE if nominated, even as VP. Choose someone else.

* Choose someone who can appeal to the South, and to more traditionalist Democrats. My personal choice would be Indiana Senator, Evan Bayh. Look him up! He's a terrific candidate, for all the GOOD reasons. He's a democrat I would vote for in a heartbeat, and many others would as well

* End the Antiwar movement, or at least try to cut off it's political influence within the DNC. Questioning the Iraq war is fine, trying to sabotage it is something else entirely, and that's the only thing those assholes are interested in. They are deadweight to the political process, which most of them don't even participate in anyway. The day that a Democratic candidate tells United for Peace and Justice to go Fuck themselves is the day I become a Democrat.

Thanks for your attention.

Robert Coleman,
Chicago, IL

Dear Robert,
1. Kerry had no chance in the South. It isn't his fault but more of his party's fault and their unwillingness to have a platform that Southerners can relate to.
2. I don't think any of the 527 groups had an effect. Most American people know that groups on the left and right flat out lie in their commercials. I think most Americans don't care what moveon.org is and how many purple hearts John Kerry legitimately received.
3. Anti-War protestors sure are annoying, and can be violent. I think this is probably your best argument. I see them and I don't want to be associated with them.
4. I think the Democrats need to have a governor run. As much as I like Evan Bayh, he has a voting record that can be cherry-picked. But you are right that they need someone that can at least win a few southern states
5. The anti-war movement is fine if you are a democrat so long as you don't acknowledge them or having Michael Moore at your convention.

Dear Joe,

Kerry was pinning his entire hopes on winning
Ohio. He had a better chance of making the NBA. As an
Ohio native, I can tell you this is a very Republican
state. What skews the numbers is that Cleveland and
Columbus are Democratic cities with large populations.
However, Cleveland is a declining rust belt city with
weak unions. This is in contrast to Pennsylvania,
which has what they call the Republican T, in the
middle and northern part of the state, but still very
strong unions in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh that get
out the vote for the Democrats. Columbus is filled
with college students, unreliable voters, and a
declining gay population. Columbus once had the second
highest gay population in the nation behind San
Francisco, not sure where they are now.

My dream ticket
John McCain and Joe Lieberman who actually flirted
with the idea of running together as independents
after working closely together in the Senate after the
2000 election in order to avoid gridlock.

Leonard Hayhurst
411 Movies Zone Co-Editor

Didn't know Columbus was such a homosexual hotbed so thanks for that info. I think you are right that he focused too much on it. However, instead of focusing so much on it, he should have maybe ran on things that people from Ohio care about. I think John McCain would make a great president but I fear Joe Lieberman would try to regulate my satellite radio if he had the power.

Hey Joe
Before I go into your article I should tell you I am a 26 years old registered Republican who Voted for President Bush in 2004.

I normally only read the 411 sections for Wrestling and Movies but your article caught my eye. I do like your reasons and I think you make a valid point for the reasons why Senator Kerry lost the election. I do think you missed two major reason as to why Senator Kerry lost the election.

The first is because I believe Senator Kerry was a weak candidate. I was in a discussion with a pretty liberal friend of mine the other day and we were discussing this point. I am one of the first people to stand in line and tell you that I have been extremely disappointed in President Bush's second term. I feel he went into the second term with so much on his to do list and he has not been able to accomplish much because so many other factors are preventing it. However, to me the option to elect the Senator just never appealed to me. An argument could have swayed me to vote for Senator Liberman or General Wesley Clark but the rest of the field did very little to appeal to me. George Bush was a very weak and beatable candidate who ran probably the past presidential election a person has ran since President Clinton was elected in 1992 (Its tough to beat an incumbent President with a 92% approval rating). At the time when most candidates that would have had a shot at beating Pres ident Bush I believe he was polling extremely high maybe even in the low 60's which turned a lot of canidiates including Senator Clinto off from running against him. Senator Kerry had very little crismia and I often found myself falling asleep during his speeches. The only item I remember from his convention speech was Senator Kerry saying "Reporting for duty" and he was as far from personable as a person can be.

The second reason was the Democratic party ran more of a hate campaign. Now what I mean by that was in 1996 when President Clinton was running against Senator Dole the Republican hated president Clinton so much that we ran the "anybody but Bill" campaign. Hind sight being 20/20 Senator Dole had no place campaigning against President Clinton. It was a mis match from the beginning but because Republicans hated President Clinton so much Clinton could run a campaign on the smaller issue like going to a town and getting them funding for cell phones for their neighborhood watch program. While Senator Dole had to campaign saying he is not President Clinton. It seemed like the same strategy was being used by the Democrats in 2004. They openly said "Anybody but Bush" but running this kind of campaign turns more swing voters off then anything else. It happened in 1996 and again in 2004. That campaign also helped energies the Republicans and brought us out in masses on election day as opposed keeping us at home.

Anyway, I enjoyed reading your column and I am going to be looking forward to your future columns on 411. Thanks for taking the time for reading my feedback to your column because I enjoyed going back in time and thinking about everything you said what I need to say to get my points across.

By the way my dream ticket on the conservative side would be...

President - Governor Bob Ehrlich (Maryland I have always been a big fan/supporter of him)
Vice President - Secretary of State Condi Rice

Actually I don't care how the ticket is I just like the pairing.

Take care and until next time
Scott

Dear Scott,

1. Kerry was a weak candidate in a weak field. Although Clark had good foreign policy credentials, he was weak on domestic issues and an asshole to interviewers that would challenge him. He has looked much better lately and could be a player in 2008. The 2008 field could be really strong on both sides which is more than I can say about 2004.

2. I don't think the hate campaign was enough. Bush's campaign acusations of Kerry were very misleading while Kerry's were partially misleading. If you compare Zell Millers keynote to Obama's keynote address, I think Bush had the more hate and that is why he won. He fought for the job and Kerry looked weak when a nation wanted someone strong.