For all the supposed lack of policy differences between Obama and Clinton, even on their Iraq withdrawal plans, this remains a fundamental, deeply ideological discrepancy. As I wrote earlier today, the Iraq war has ended America’s brief tenure as the world’s only superpower, and effectively instigated a genocide in Iraq. If you still think this was a good idea that was worth the costs, even if it was badly managed, then you simply have a fundamentally different view of the world and America’s role in the world than someone who thinks the war was a mistake and not worth the costs. Even though I know it is something no presidential candidate can ever directly say and still hope to remain viable, the fact is that our soldiers in Iraq did not die for a good cause. Quite the opposite has occurred: they died as part of an effort that has eroded America’s power faster than any other event since the Civil War, and which has created one of the worst humanitarian crises in the past fifty years. It was a mistake of colossal proportions, not “the greatest gift one can give to a fellow human being.” A candidate’s ability or inability to recognize that mistake remains the best possible way to measure how effective a Commander in Chief he or she would be.
The standard argument made to counter this line of reasoning, and you can see it in Bowers’ comment section, is that Obama did not do enough, or really anything at all, to end the war once he was elected to the Senate. While that argument isn’t actually a logical counter to what Bowers is pointing out, it’s not without its merits. Chief among them is that it’s true. He didn’t do enough. Nobody much has.
Something Atrios has pointed out repeatedly over the years is that a really good way for a leader to demonstrate their awesome leadership is to, you know, lead. That hasn’t really happened, or at least not in a way I find satisfactory.
Everybody has their own set of criteria when deciding on a candidate and weigh the issues according to those criteria. Clinton, Edwards, Dodd and Biden’s vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq is a deal breaker for me in terms of my vote in the Democratic primary. No amount of contrition or good deeds could ever win me to their side or convince me to overcome my objection to their candidacies and vote for any of them in the primary. While I will absolutely vote for Clinton in the general if it comes to that, I would prefer to see all four of those people, and indeed anybody who voted for the Iraq war, permanently forced from the public stage to live out their lives in shame. I’ll try to outline my thinking on that in more detail if I ever get more than five minutes to collect my thoughts, but clearly I consider that issue extremely important.
Anyway, sort of a long and sloppy way of saying not much at all. Use this space to discuss baby bunnies.
