Hillary Clinton, while no George Bush, cannot by any measure be considered an anti-war candidate. So I'm wondering, and this is the big danger to our party, why there isn't more of a profound concern about how dangerous she really is. Why aren't there PACs lined up against her stance on the war? Why are donors rushing in to support her? Why are her supporters going along with the fiction that opposition to her candidacy comes from some blind hatred of Clinton instead of a real disagreement with her policy choices and her judgment, both of which are demonstrably bad for America and the Democratic Party? Why aren't local bloggers demanding she answer questions at events? Why does Vilsack get off scot-free for endorsing her?
We're having a big fight over a supplemental bill, which we all know can only bring the date of the war's end closer but cannot end the war before Bush leaves office. And the fight is among a group of progressives who all agree on the ends but disagree on tactics. The amount of heat generated is high relative to concern about what happens in Iraq after 2009. That does seem to be where we actually have leverage. Whatever you think about the supplemental fight, our party's standard-bearer at this moment does not represent the party or the country.
What is going on with us Democrats? Are we really that stupid?
A fair question. Democrats elect a new Congress because they are fed up with income ineqaulity and the War in Iraq, and yet, they seem poised to choose the candidate who is the most friendly to big-business and the most hawkish on the War on Terror. It boggles the mind.