An inconvenient woman

heres-the-ridiculous-planet-hillary-new-york-times-magazine-cover-that-everyone-is-talking-aboutAll is not well on Planet Hillary. Her wretched interview with Jeffrey Goldberg will not only alienate some of the more alert liberals. It will, or it should, also anger President Obama’s most fervent supporters. She’s doing him like Bill did Sister Souljah, twenty years ago this past June 13.

The most important thing in the interview is that HRC reveals dissatisfaction with President Obama’s disinclination to wage war against the murderous Syrian dictatorship of Bashar al-Assad. This recalls her early support for the disastrous invasion of Iraq. It was not a mistake; it’s who she is. Moreover, this decision is not a dead letter. Syria’s tribulations could very well persist with Senator Clinton in the White House. In fact, it could get worse if ISIS continues to strengthen its grip in both Iraq and Syria.

The 2016 Democratic primary contest will beg for a peace candidate, and HRC has disqualified herself from that role. She might not even win the election if she’s runs on a neocon-lite foreign policy. Voters deluded into thinking Obama has failed to exercise America’s overwhelming, actually overrated power in the world may opt for stronger stuff.

The condescending attack on Obama rests on a pseudo-intellectual footing. Obama’s stance — memorialized in his determination “not to do stupid stuff” — she describes as shallow:

“Great nations need organizing principles, and ‘Don’t do stupid stuff’ is not an organizing principle.”

Remind you of the primary campaign in 2008, does it?

So what are HRC’s great and grand organizing principles? These have yet to be revealed. Perhaps there is a secret plan. Or perhaps she is all bluster and ill-considered action, just like George W. Bush.

The other sore point in the interview is the utterly bull-headed, unambiguous support, not for Israel, which could be expected of any Democratic politician, but for the Full Maximum Bibi. All of the Israeli government’s lies about the run-up and conduct of their grotesque “Operation Protective Edge” are endorsed. These lies have been well explicated elsewhere by liberal Zionists Peter Beinart and John Judis.

Here as well is an implicit disparagement of Secretary of State Kerry’s feeble efforts to get this U.S. ally to be a little more solicitous of U.S. peacemaking efforts regarding Gaza. It’s almost as if Israel is giving us the privilege of subsidizing its war machine to the tune of about four percent of Israel’s GDP.

And finally, to add insult to bone-headedness, criticism of Israeli policy is likened by HRC to anti-Semitism. We have to wonder, are the liberal Zionist Israelis who demonstrate for peace and are assaulted in the street by right-wing goons, are they anti-Semites too?



An inconvenient woman — 6 Comments

  1. I know you were plumping for Brown a week or two ago, but it’s very unlikely he’d give it a go at his age. Do you see any other plausible (ideally progressive) candidates for the Dem nomination at this point? I would never vote for HC, esp. after that interview – her views on Israel and Gaza astounded and horrified me.

  2. Joe Biden is plausible, though not especially progressive. Maybe a notch better than Obama. I’m not really plumping for anybody. I’m just trying to loosen things up.

  3. Yes what she’s saying is horrible, but I think it’s politics all the way down. She wants to come off as tough against her Republican opponent. They’ll try to link her to Obama.

    And I say this as someone who was for Obama as soon as he announced he was running. And this is why, not because Hillary is more of hawk but because she’s all politics and no principles. She says what polls well (or what appeals to the donors and media).

    It would be nice to get a primary candidate who would articulate the better position on foreign policy and economics.

  4. Keith Ellision. He is co-chairman of the Progressive caucus and will support a strongly progressive domestic agenda.
    Plus he is the one Member of Congress who is willing to take the lead in pushing back, at least moderately, against the pro-Israel consensus.

    He will probably be a no-hoper what with him being a Muslim and all that but I am not expecting anyone can beat Hillary in the primary anyways. At least, he can push her to moderate her positions if he runs a strong campaign.

  5. “Great nations need organizing principles, and ‘Don’t do stupid stuff’ is not an organizing principle.”

    Given the experience of the last century, “Don’t do stupid stuff” is pretty damn solid advice. It’s the core of the Hippocratic Oath; somehow I don’t see the likes of HRC improving on that. In purely political terms, whatever one thinks of the merits of libertarianism, “Don’t do stupid stuff” explains a lot of its appeal.

    Dem talent, like the political class as a whole, is really underwhelming. So I assume it’ll be HRC essentially by default. I’m not sure which will be more depressing: HRC’s presence itself, or watching Dem acquaintances turn their brains off en masse so they can defend policies that not so long ago could only have come out of the Republican Party.

  6. For a great nation, whatever that may be, to have great organizing principles its leader(s) must have principles. Given the current state of the political class and its paymasters, that’s a requirement far away in a distant place. Of course that doesn’t take into account that a nation, like any group, can have principles that are less than sterling in intent. Such nations and groups do plenty of stupid stuff.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.