First off, he's awesome. Just kidding, Conor.
My electoral priorities are as follows:
(1) rejection of Bush's prerogatives re: torture, habeas corpus, signing statements & other unconstitutional distortions of the executive branch. One of these days I'll haul off and exorcise my thoughts on the absurdity of the national torture debate, but not today.
(2) the restoration of positive international opinions of the U.S. vis-à-vis our image & the policies that engender it
(3) bipartisan pragmatism
(4) volunteer-/work-oriented national service, public works, and environmental programs redolent of JFK & FDR that espouse personal responsibility and defuse Republican critiques of "liberal handouts"
(5) a new bicycle
To close, I'll crib a few lines from Conor's post. Why rewrite something when someone else nailed it the first time?
Yes:
Obama opposed the Iraq invasion when doing so was politically suicidal. He chose conviction over ambition, and he made a leap that is still not adequately recognized. He did not just oppose the tactical modalities of the invasion or the occupation; he rejected the premise of the entire enterprise.
Hell yes:
[Hillary] has tried on many excuses for this shift, most of them centering on how this ultra-competent, ready-to-lead, vastly over-qualified Senator was duped by an idiot into believing provably ridiculous fantasies about Iraq. It obviously takes a delicate balance (or is it a delicate shamelessness and pathological inability to take responsibility for her actions?) to argue that Hillary Clinton was fooled by George W. Bush. The point is, Obama was not.
1 comment:
I'm a part of Obamarama myself, but Dennis Kucinich laid out Hillary's problem with Iraq pretty well.
Post a Comment