To End Another War: Richard Holbrooke
Let Richard Holbrooke be our conversational measure of what the Democrats are prepared to say and do in foreign affairs… to repair a “worse than Vietnam” blunder in Iraq, to undo a factional “hijacking” of American power, to recover a good name in the world.
Richard Holbrooke
Bill Clinton’s peacemaker in the Balkans in the ’90s and last UN Ambassador, Holbrooke will be in the scrum again if any Democrat wins the presidency next year, and a good bet for Secretary of State if Hillary Clinton wins. In the meantime he’ll visit us every month or so at the Watson Institute for International Affairs at Brown University. Holbrooke cut his teeth in journalism and politics at Brown and graduated in 1962 — by chance, the same refulgent Spring when I graduated from Yale, and JFK’s commencement oration teased that he had now “the best of both worlds, a Harvard education and a Yale degree.”
Confident cosmopolitanism in the JFK style is stamped on Dick Holbrooke and still shines through a tough professional education in the field — as an AID officer in Vietnam in the ’60s, Peace Corps director in Morrocco, managing editor of Foreign Policy and assistant Secretary of State for East Asia under Jimmy Carter in the ’70s. Then he was an assistant Secretary of State again, under Clinton, this time for Europe, and of course, the strongarm of the Dayton agreement that ended the war for Bosnia in 1995.
To End a War, his Balkan memoir, ended on what is now an ironic note of anticipation:
“There will be other Bosnias in our lives – areas where early outside involvement can be decisive, and American leadership will be required. The world’s richest nation, one that presumes to great moral authority, cannot simply make worthy appeals to conscience and call on others to carry the burden. The world will look to Washington for more than rhetoric the next time we face a challenge to peace.”
Richard C. Holbrooke,
A decade older and wiser now, Holbrooke is sobered but not exactly chastened by his own misestimation of the odds in Iraq. Not for him Bill Richardson’s line (which might be mine) that “Iraq is a symptom. The disease is arrogance.”
In the Holbrooke view of the US in Iraq, our comeuppance, in any event, is that by now “all the solutions are bad, some are worse than others.”
Chris Lydon
The nominal American expectation of a restored democratic authority in Baghdad is openly at odds with the rise of Kurdish near-sovereignty in the North and Iranian influence over the Shiite South.
“The situation is not amenable to a single central-state solution,” Holbrooke concludes. “It just won’t work,” and perhaps nothing else will until Iraqis have slashed and suffered their way toward an understanding of “the genius of federalism” and the natural reality of decentralized power in their divided land. This happens also to be the lesson of Holbrooke’s experience in the former Yugoslavia.
Our conversation at the Watson Institute this week is here in two segments.
In the first I asked for the earnest professional citizen’s appraisal of the Iraq damage, in the Middle East and beyond. In short: how bad is it out there? Holbrooke spells out his overall judgment that the next president of the United States will have “the worst opening-day hand in foreign policy” in our history: wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, a global climate crisis, African emergencies from Darfur to Zimbabwe — all on a “massive agenda” of repairing alliances and restoring respect.
Click to listen to Part I (29.7 MB MP3)
Listen to the second part, and join the genteel head-butting, please, with a comment. We mean to take up the conversation again in October.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
September 23rd, 2007 at 7:04 am
What is this? Are back doing shows or what? I miss your program very much. Losing it was like losing a good friend.
As far as supporting Hillary, I wonder how much of his support is filled in with self interest? I think his views on her, on John Kerry and Joe Biden miss the mark. They were kowtowed into supporting this war, lest they be accused of being unpatriotic.
September 23rd, 2007 at 9:58 am
Richard Holbrooke is all over the map in more ways than one. Though he is refreshingly candid in his assessment of the Bush administration (leaving aside his own related political ambitions), he is predictably evasive in assigning blame to Hilary Clinton and other high-profile Democrats who voted for the war. It is simply disengenuous of him to try and absolve HRC of her Iraq vote by parroting her statement that one can vote for someone else, as though that were a right he or she were entitled to bestow, all the while trying to frame any objection to HRC in the invidious terms of that supposedly dread thing, the single-issue voter. As for that single issue, it’s worth noting that with 2million dead and counting in Iraq, HRC’s position on the war has yet to significantly change. His other gambit is to elide the issue by saying “elections should be about the future,” while later stating that “experience matters.” Indeed it does, but what lessons are we to draw from our experience of HRC and her health-care debacle, her Iraq vote, her support for the death penalty, the flag-burning amendment, her less than praiseworthy record on the environment, etc? You don’t need to be a single-issue voter to be deeply sceptical of her campaign.
September 24th, 2007 at 5:28 pm
The way he called the Iraq War a “litmus test” and something of an “activist cause” was incredible. I expect people in his position to be much more aware about the concept of war and it’s impact on the entire planet, especially Iraq and the region. Do we really need to make that area of the world even less stable than it already is? haven’t we had enough of a hand in all that? His current cause with Sen. Clinton makes everything he speaks about suspect.
I’m not sure which is worse, his comfort level in doing what hurley describes so well or that he doesn’t see how much that damages his credibility.
September 25th, 2007 at 12:30 pm
josephmoyer is right: to reconfigure, for party-political-purposes, a grotesque imperial adventure as a mere rallying point for those beyond the sway of the DNC really is” incredible.” Invoke history when it suits, abandon it when it doesn’t. That’s what happens when you cede authority to the “experts” rather than to what we used to call the “grown-ups.” Or to common-sense. As George Trow put it, “In the absence of adults, people came to put their trust in ‘experts.’” He takes up his theme:
“Only an expert an expert can deal with a problem. Only an expert or a pleasant man on television with access to experts. Only an expert or a man on television who knows how to welcome an expert or a problem or love for a problem. An expert or a man on television or — in certain cases, an expert trained in the modes of action– a matron. In an age of no-authority, these are the authorities.”
A show on Trow…?
September 25th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
Chris, I’m struck by your argument (in the head-butting portion of the interview) about judgment. You and I agree that judgment is a key (maybe the key) trait for purposes of evaluating a candidate for the highest office in the land. You argued that Hillary’s vote to authorize war said something about her judgment. Holbrooke agreed (as do I). (Mea culpa: Like Holbrooke, I errred on this issue in 2002/2003.)
But here’s where it gets tricky. Holbrooke says “But it’s just one issue.” You reply, “But it’s such an important issue!” (My words in both cases.) And my question is, for purposes of evaluating a candidate, is bad judgment on the big stuff worse than bad judgment on the small stuff? Granted, Hillary’s misjudgment on Iraq was more consequential than a misjudgment on, say, fishing rights in international waters. But if we’re evaluating a candidate’s judgment, isn’t it really as a proxy for how we might expect the candidate to act on other issues, going forward? And in that case, is misjudgment in a really momentous field any more telling than misjudgment in other areas? As Holbrooke says, a lot of smart people got Iraq wrong, and (here’s where we might disagree) it’s not a matter of negligence — sometimes we try hard and get it wrong.
I say this all because with Holbrooke (and possibly contra you and Hurley, both of whom I greatly respect), I think we need to look at judgment across a broad field. I don’t support Hillary in the primary, but I don’t view that one misjudgment alone as a comprehensive indictment of her (or Holbrooke’s) credibility as a foreign-policy thinker.
On a more meta level, I worry that we on the broadly defined “left” have a tendency to get into these kinds of internecine food fights, and that it does little good for our cause. Rudy Giuliani can go in front of the NRA and get a polite reception because they think he might be their best chance. But many Democrats will not vote for Hillary even if she’s the nominee, increasing the chances that Romney or Rudy or Fred Thompson assume the office.
September 25th, 2007 at 4:07 pm
One other note. If JFK’s experience with the Bay of Pigs and the Missile Crisis is an example, a chastened HRC might exhibit better judgment on account of having been wrong. I know I’ll not look on the use of force again the way I did a few years ago.
September 25th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
Thanks Chris for posting these off-line conversations. Chris, you did an excellent job here.
I find Mr. Holbrooke’s arguments lacking, though I do find them to have a higher degree of reasonableness, while maintaining some degree of opaqueness, than listening to the neo-con chattering class. He sux less than most IMO.
My one piece of advice to Mr. Holbrooke: if you couldn’t imagine the depth or breadth of failure in the current situation regarding Iraq, or a foreign entanglement worse than Vietnam, then you need to take your imagination out of the metaphorical mind-closet once in a while and open it up on the open road. Honestly, how can someone who has seen so much of the world, engaged with so many human beings, not understand the quagmire potential, the powder keg potential posed by Middle East and Asian problems, especially given the passions and aspirations regarding religion, hegemony, and greed? Or, perhaps he is being insincere? Or simply naïve? Perhaps I’m too cynical and cranky. Bah! I stipulate I’m cynical and cranky while I dismiss my assertion.
Finally, I’ve enjoyed the previous comments on this thread…they are now stained by my cynicism and crankiness. I especially enjoyed the George Trow quote. My favorite quote regarding experts: Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts — Richard Feynman
September 25th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
Sutter: I think we need to look at judgment across a broad field…but I don’t view that one misjudgment alone as a comprehensive indictment of her (or Holbrooke’s) credibility as a foreign-policy thinker. Agreed. However, this will require a major, and I might be persuaded to suggest, a Monumental shift in the dialog happening here in the U.S. The media and political focus seems to be on Iraq. All seen through the frame of 9.11 and terrorism. Not my choice of frame. But, it would appear to a cursory examination that this is large portion of the frame. Until this frame changes, decisions regarding these matters will take up most of the chattering-mouth-cycles. Given the frame, decisions, postures, couching and phrasing, with respect to this matter will be given intense, vigorous scrutiny. Much of it will resemble a mud fight. Sort of like the censure of the MoveOn.org ad farce. Or swiftboating. All a smokescreen for a somewhat broken/crippled electoral process and information consumer.
IMO, an important task of the next President will be to formally and legally repudiate the doctrine of preemption. Then pressing congress to get us back to quaint pleasantries such as restoring Habeas Corpus. Staying out of my communications. End torture policies because the U.S. doesn’t do torture. Connecting to improved environmental policies…yeah, right, that’ll happen…
September 25th, 2007 at 4:55 pm
OCP, we agree on all counts. I believe that 9/11 and Iraq have crippled our politics, not just because they have led to the abuses you cite in your final paragraph, but also because they have stunted discourse on a whole range of issues — the environment, India, China, health care… — that ultimately will likely have far greater import for the nation.
September 25th, 2007 at 5:11 pm
Couldn’t agree more Sutter. Especially regarding health care…as a self-purported professional sector of behavior, it’s a Joseph Heller dream.
September 25th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
I have not read the comments here but just coming away from listening to both segments I am very grateful for this interview. I have always liked Holbrooke and after listening to him I like him even more. The maturity of his thinking, the nuances of it, is such a striking contrast to what we’ve been suffering these last 8 years.
September 25th, 2007 at 8:44 pm
I don’t see the point anymore to obsessing over the war vote in Congress and recriminating ad nauseum. Not at this stage when we need to be thinking about choosing people to take us forward. I guess Holbrooke has just convinced me. I am a recovering recriminator, I admit.
I voted for Kerry with the same feeling- disappointed in that vote but feeling he would be lightyears better than Bush again. I would vote for Hillary Clinton over Guiliani in a heartbeat with or without, but more enthusiastically with, Holbrooke in her dugout. Hey, we really need to repair the damage that has been done and get beyond Bush. So Holbrooke makes a very good point. It is bordering on obsessive and counterproductive to give so much weight to that one war vote. It’s the past. And it’s not going to make Obama ( or Kucinich) a good president.
Holbrooke makes a good case about the next president needing to hit the ground running. I think this is probably Clinton’s strongest pitch though I am not completly sold that any one of the candidates can do that including Clinton.
The Inkeberry list augmented by Holbrooke in this interview of how to begin go about it is excellent.
September 26th, 2007 at 1:42 am
We mean to take up the conversation again in October. Great. I’m looking forward to listening. From listening to the show, for me two issues fell out for the upcoming election: Accountability and qualifications
Regarding accountability, I’ll stipulate voting. But my cynical side suggests that is a canard. At the very least, it’s lacking.
For Mr. Holbrooke: Has there been any meaningful accountability regarding the Iraq war? Meaningful as in accountability that matches the projected outcomes. No, Presidential Medal of Freedom ceremonies do not qualify. And no, I’m looking for literal eye-for-eye, tooth-for-a-tooth reprimands.
Does Mr. Holbrooke see accountability enforced in matters of foreign policy mistakes (in general not just regarding Iraq)? How would he compare episodes that do get proper accountability with episodes for which no accountability occurs? How balanced or out-of-balance is the situation?
Does Mr. Holbrooke feel meaningful accountability is important or unimportant in assessing foreign policy management and why? How can accountability be improved, so we may perhaps avoid future quagmires? Or perhaps accountability is either a delusional ruse or simply unachievable in practical terms.
Regarding Senator Clinton’s position on Iraq as an indicator of qualification to manage the U.S. foreign policy apparatus: In my completely ‘unqualified’ opinion, I believe Senator Clinton to be as qualified as not just the current crop of candidates, but exceedingly qualified when measured against any historical candidates over my lifetime (The Atomic Epoch C.E.). Period. My opinion, I own it and won’t quibble about it with anyone. So, her position on Iraq doesn’t disqualify her in my ‘unqualified’ viewpoint. She hasn’t voted on this matter in the way I would, but that doesn’t mean she is unqualified to manage a monumental and potentially lethal foreign policy/military apparatus.
September 26th, 2007 at 1:45 am
With all do respect (and I mean that) Potter, I read your post and I listen to Holbrooke and I get SO frustrated. You write “one war vote.” It’s the classic argument but if you had a child blown to bits as a result of her “one war vote” would you get a little “obsessive” about it.
There is an important concept here that is being glossed over…it’s called negligence – “conduct that is culpable because it misses the legal standard required of a reasonable person in protecting individuals against foreseeably risky, harmful acts of other members of society.”
Now, I’m all for the concept of Truth and Reconciliation Commissions, but it seems to me we skipped a vital step in the road to reconciliation. Is not one supposed to ask for forgiveness before they receive it? Senator Clinton and Richard Holbrook might want to skip right to forgiveness (at least on their behalf), either by passing the buck or parsing language, but what I believe they are missing…is that a resentment is boiling under the surface…slowly boiling, and the lid will only stay on so long.
I can’t ask Mr. Holbrook this, so I’ll ask Potter and Sutter and OCP. Where would you draw the line? Let’s say the Iraq war gets even worse and a regional war breaks affecting the world economy and millions of people…and you and I lose our homes. Or lets say the Iraq war leads to widespread genocide. Would you at that point say that her vote precludes her from leading the free world?
Before I go, I’m still trying to follow Mr. Holbrook’s reasoning. If the Captain and officers of the Titanic miraculously survived, when it came time to judge their performance, we should only judge the Titanic voyage in relationship to all the successful voyages they took, right?
I’m not trying to be flippant…both catastrophes could have been avoided, but for fateful arrogance. There were multiple iceberg warnings and they were all ignored. There is of course a very important distinction, Captain Smith took responsibility for his actions.
Every time I look up and see the same old self righteous talking heads who blew the bugle on this march to war…I feel like I’m in some half-ass casino where a bunch of poker players went “All In” on a huge pot…they lost the pot…and now they all want to keep playing…and nobody is making them leave. Turns out they own the freak’n casino…the f**cking game is rigged…I gotta get the hell outta here!
September 26th, 2007 at 1:52 am
And no, I’m looking for literal eye-for-eye, tooth-for-a-tooth reprimands. Should be, I’m not looking for literal eye-for-eye … perhaps a freudian slip?
September 26th, 2007 at 2:26 am
Richard Holbrooke saying that he wants to talk about the “future” in response to Chris’s questions reminded me of Mark Maguire’s incriminating answer at the Senate hearing when asked if he ever took steroids, “I’m not here to talk about the past.”
Damn Chris, you stepped up to the plate on this one. Your courage to speak truth to power, even when that power wants to treat you as a good ol boy…had me jump’n out of my seat. You asked him the tough question (something Charlie Rose and Terri Gross don’t do), then when he avoided the question who followed it up with a second tough question (something Tim Russert doesn’t even do), then when he wiggled his way free from that, you asked him a third time and a fourth time, till he used up all his hollow talking points…and this future Secretary of State sat there (deep down, I believe) humbled.
Chris asked the most important question that can be asked, where is the new doctrine of the Democrats? The neocons moved the goalposts and the Democrats don’t want to move them back…hey they will say…this is how we found it.
Why don’t they want to change the doctrine? Richard Holbrooke might not want to answer you Chris, but Alan Greenspan will:
“Oil that is, black gold, Texas tea.”
September 26th, 2007 at 2:40 am
nother, i really like the casino analogy. Perhaps the walking around folks here in the U.S. and Iraq are the playing chips? The responsible parties in this madness don’t seem very chastened.
As to your question about where to draw the line, it’s a very difficult one. Your scenario is grim, but plausible. I’m assuming this grave situation has all occurred before the 2008 election. Perhaps, if my *ss is sitting out in the cold pondering how it got there, along with many other folks, my opinion may change. To be perfectly direct, I doubt voting be in the top ten things I need to consider in your scenario. But regardless, I will project my thoughts into the future and insist that I will still believe Senator Clinton qualified for the presidency.
One thing to consider, if we’re in what-if territory: Would President Hilary Clinton have gotten the U.S. into the current mess? I think not. Given that premise, I have a hard time disqualifying her. I’m not war gaming this stuff, just going on instinct. Always a dicey means of reaching conclusions. In my mind (where else?) President Bush and V.P. Cheney have most of the ownership of this matter and any attendant scenarios and unexpected consequences this war generates. The media may want to move the goalposts, but I will be unphased. This is President Bush and V.P. Cheney’s war. They own success and failure on this one.
For what it’s worth, Senator Clinton is not my first nor second nor third choice for president. But, if she is the democratic nominee, she’ll get my vote. Unless your scenario plays out and I have to concede, it would be foolhardy not to reconsider one’s position in these matters. I would guess my priorities would not involve voting at all…immediate and direct survival necessities have a way clarifying priorities…
September 26th, 2007 at 3:00 am
Thanks OCP.
With all due respect, Potter…not “do” respect…Duh! It’s hard to make a cogent argument that people respect when I start it out like a dunce.
I think I stayed up too late to write it. 
September 26th, 2007 at 3:48 am
Another aspect of the Iraq war Holbrooke might be asked to contemplate:
http://news.independent.co.uk/fisk/article2970762.ece
September 26th, 2007 at 7:16 am
Clinton is not my first choice either. I don’t like the pandering which shows some dishonesty and weakness. And I don’t like the fact that she was not suspicious enough of this President’s motives when she voted to give him unrestrained power to take us to war ( which speaks to her reasons).
The saying about not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good applies here however.
One can recriminate and hold accountable forever, and one should in these discussions and critical articles. But when it comes to making a decision about going forward,which is what my vote will be about, my choices will be very limited because of the whole rotten system and how certain people get to be considered seriously for president. The wisest best person is not running for president this time around once again. One must choose from what one has to choose from. It’s counterproductive and harmful, after a point
September 26th, 2007 at 7:18 am
( sorry- continued)
when the alternatives are frankly scary as they were in 2000 and 2004 to rip apart the better choice.
So in that heated exchange between Chris and Holbrooke, I saw some light. Holbrooke appealed to my yearning for us to start repairing, to survive and come through this- not to lead, just to survive and act responsibly in the world.
The question that Holbrooke did not really answer (and he couldn’t) was “will the next president come to terms with the reality on the ground?” But I was impressed with how Holbrooke described that reality.
Holbrooke also was in favor of the war at in the beginning. Soon after the invasion he saw what a mistake it was. I don’t think we would be better off without his contribution now because of that. There are many many others to name– good people.
nother- regarding your analogy, if the Titanic’s crew had somehow survived, we would of course judge them and not put them at the helm of the new ship, not immediatley. But we should find out if they learned something that would make them wiser. In this case, in 04, we had a chance to dump the captain and we the people did not by too close a margin again. The harshest judgement must be reserved for those at the helm who pumped the fear and took advantage of emotions of 9/11.
September 26th, 2007 at 7:32 am
Nother, the analogy to the Titanic serves in another way. If our big ship need some turning- and it does need some real turning around or changing course - this cannot be done but carefully and gradually. We are not going to get a socially progressive, pacifist, environmentalist elected so soon. Gore ( who is not even one) won’t even run.
September 26th, 2007 at 9:16 am
Has Sen. Clinton come out and apologized directly for being wrong? More importantly has she apologized for being arrogant about it now as though it were something so far in the past that it doesn’t matter, as though she didn’t have any more information (or at least access to it) than the common American did.
I like the analogy of the Titanic and the Casino, they’re both appropriate and both prove the point. If one gets it wrong, really very wrong, don’t be shocked when the masses won’t line up behind you. Name recognition does nothing for me; I only wish it were the same way for others so that they might look deeper and get a bigger picture.
Great link hurley. The loss of history is a big factor that none of the politicians seem to care much about. I also found it disturbing when Mr. Holbrooke talked about zero casualties during the air campaigns in Kosovo and Bosnia, locals don’t count?
September 26th, 2007 at 10:30 am
As usual, I agree almost entirely with Potter here.
Nother, on your question, there’s almost nothing that can occur now — some 5 years after HRC’s vote — that I would attribute to that vote. Like Potter, I don’t support HRC in the primary (my top two candidates, Obama and Gore, both opposed the war from the start). But I won’t blame her for the war’s inept prosecution, and I won’t even blame her for the war itself, for while it clearly was a mistake from the perspective of 2007 (or even 2004), it was a much much closer call in 2002/2003. As I said above, sometimes we try our best and make mistakes — that’s not negligence. Congress did, in my view, exercise due care here. You can exercise due care and still be spectacularly wrong. And if that turns out to be the case, it doesn’t nullify all the other times when you were right.
As for the Democrats’ “new” doctrine, I thought Holbrooke was fairly clear on this — the “new” doctrine will be the liberal internationalism of the Bill Clinton years. I suspect its neoliberal economic aspect will be muted a good deal reflecting more experience with the harsh edges of globalization, but otherwise I would expect from Secretary Holbrooke much of what we had from Secretaries Christopher and Albright.
Finally, all the talk about apology seems to suggest that the election is about what Hillary “deserves.” I.e., “How can she deserve to be president after wronging us, without even having had the decency to apologize?” As I know I stressed in the Nader debate, elections are about what we the people deserve, not what the candidates deserve. And if it’s Hillary against Fred or Rudy or Mitt, I know I deserve the former.
September 26th, 2007 at 11:07 am
Let me share a fascinating document that I keep posted in front of my desk.
It succincly addresses the point under discussion on this page — the notion that “nobody saw this coming,” or that there was no rational way to sort out the choices before the country and the Congress when President Bush asked for his war authorization back in 2002.
It’s an ad in the New York Times from September 26, 2002, titled: WAR WITH IRAQ IS NOT IN AMERICA’S NATIONAL INTEREST.
It is signed by an impressively scattered sample of 33 “scholars of international affairs” — from Harvard and MIT to Ohio State and the University of Washington, from Brandeis to Berkeley and the University of Texas to Queens College.
Written six months before the US invasion, the manifesto makes many far-seeing points. My favorite is: “Even if we win easily, we have no plausible exit strategy. Iraq is a deeply divided society that the United States would have to occupy and police for many years to create a viable state.”
Some people did see the disaster coming, precisely. It wasn’t guesswork. My point with Richard Holbrooke was: wouldn’t it be nice to hear some of these people in the media chatter on US policy, and to see them in a new administration?
September 26th, 2007 at 11:18 am
I cannot speak for others, but to be clear, I myself am NOT ot saying that nobody saw this coming. I fully recognize that many did. My only point is that many people also saw a _different_ outcome, and that I’m not sure that they were so clearly in the wrong at the time, based on what we knew then. As Holbrooke said, some who got it right got it right for the wrong reasons, but I agree that some got it right by seeing something that others (including me) failed to see. And yes, those people should be included in a new administration. But that’s not to say that those who got it wrong are tarred forevermore.
September 26th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
Many thanks to OCP for the Feynman quote. As Chris’ document shows, you didn’t have to be a genius on the order of Feynman to see the prospects for disaster in Iraq, as any child who has strolled into a beehive would know. Holbrooke’s faint praise of Feingold and Graham and others who opposed the invasion not so much damning but contemptuous. He’s irritated at the persistence of memory in certain quarters, but not chastened. He aknowledges criticism — to the extent that he does — not to learn from it, but to avoid it. The thought of him becoming the next Secretary of State hardly cheering — yet another example of people in power failing inexorably upward. He was dead wrong on the most important international issue of our time, and yet…If only the rest of us were similarly rewarded for our failures.
September 26th, 2007 at 12:38 pm
Sutter says: And if it’s Hillary against Fred or Rudy or Mitt, I know I deserve the former.
No, Sutter: You deserve better. You really do.
September 26th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
I agree Chris is would be nice to hear from some of these people and they should all have “I saw it coming” medals ( I am not begin facitious)- but I resist a purge of a lot of good people who got it wrong or half wrong or half right or who did not apologize for where they were at at the time. It’s counter-productive. And we don’t have to forgive them for that just the same as I don’t forgive Nader. ( Glad not to be the first to bring him up here).
Gosh golly gee folks! I was just listening to Norman Podhoretz on our local station this AM. He is the chief foreign policy advisor to Rudy Giuliani, says that Giuliani mostly agrees with him. NP also has the ear of our lame duck in the White House- still!. According to NP we are in the 4th World War and it’s with Islamofascism. He would not tolerate opposition while he was on either so General Odem and Chris Dickey had to be on spoke after he was done.
Last night I was going to link this:
Rudy’s New Foreign Policy Posse
and this:
“Who Has Their ear?” Foreign Policy Advisors to Clinton and Obama
and now from this AM, to get really sober, this interview with Giuliani the frontrunner’s man:
Norman Podhoretz
September 26th, 2007 at 5:27 pm
that’s facetious…
I must be altered by scenes from Ken Burns series on that good war. So many mistakes, such hugely expensive bumbling by so many in charge who got it wrong, sending so many to their deaths, so many needlessly slaughtered for that worthy cause.
Holbrooke lists Bushes “neaderthal reactions”: dread of the UN and multilateralism, fear of losing our place in the world (bringing that about) and the need for preemptive action. Compromise equals weakness. He called these know-nothing responses.
He says such tendencies will always exist. I think that’s a kind of wisdom and it serves.
September 27th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
But don’t you see, Potter…the list you just rattled off was the same damned doctrine that Holebrooke and Clinton signed onto – unilateralism, preemptive action!!! You might not want it to be true (and it would be convenient if it wasn’t) but their support for this unconscionable blight on human kind was the ultimate Neanderthal reaction!
And would I be presumptuous in assuming that you judge your closest friends not by their engaging small talk at dinner, but by their actions in times of crisis?
No sutter, judgment is not the same across the board…It’s when the shit hits the fan that we find out what people are made of…after the 9 11 we had excrement all over us…and the point is Potter, there WILL BE another 9 11, AND THE QUESTION IS POTTER:
ARE YOU CONFIDNET THAT THEY WILL NOT REVERT BACK TO THOSE SAME NEANDERTHAL TENDENCIES?
Sutter and Potter, you are all missing something vital here, Clinton has not said her vote was a mistake, she has said this administration just screwed it up. She is NOT saying that the actions of Bush were Neanderthal, she is saying the EXECTUTION was Neanderthal!!!!!!
So think about it, Chris got Holbrooke to admit that these actions were “Neanderthal” and the person he supports for president has NOT disavowed those SAME actions.
It’s an amazing intellectual feat by these Democrats to agree with and attack the Right at the same time…I guess this is what the Right mean when they say the Left have no convictions.
I’m actually in awe of the sophism on display. I mean, Richard Holbrook would have given Protagoras a run for his money. But my awe subsides, when I see people I respect fall prey to the self-serving sophilism. The rhetoric is so soft and fuzzy, it makes you want crawl under it and feel safe…but beware…there’s a lot of hungry moths up in that blanket.
September 27th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
I swear I don’t mean to misspell Richard Holbrooke’s name every time I write it.
September 27th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
I swear I don’t mean to misspell Richard Holbrooke’s name every time I write it. Hal Holbrook is easier to spell for me, and he’s way cooler anyway.
Great comments nother. It raises questions for me I need to explore within myself. I have a couple questions for you, and it’s offered looking for a sincere and reasoned response with respect to the current campaign realities: What do you think Senator Clinton should do at this point? If you could talk to Senator Clinton today or tomorrow after thinking about it, what would be your advise? I’m sort of viewing Mr. Holbrooke as a proxy approximation/facsimile for Senator Clinton’s policy POV on this matter; which may be a mis-measure of the actual situation.
What is your opinion of how Senator Dodd and Senator Edwards have handled their voting record on this matter and their rhetoric these days?
Does gender play any role in any of this; for me it’s irrelevant regarding leadership matters, but some insist it does play a role? Also, what role does personal history play in this? The Clintons have been under public scrutiny for quite some time (by their choice I would add), so I’m guessing they’ve given some fairly serious thought to the risk management aspect with respect to positioning; Senator Clinton is quite unexceptional in this as it is something any professional politician is required to do. I really don’t understand the ‘calculating’ label, all successful politicians are calculating as hell, otherwise they end up doing other things.
Finally, a hackneyed bromide that is silly, but I’ve seen it play out almost without exception in my life: Success has many parents, but failure is an orphan. In one of Potter’s links (thanks Potter), Richard Holbrooke makes it fairly explicit: Holbrooke told Chris Matthews on January 23, 2003, two months before troops opened fire. “The American public always supports its commander-in-chief and we unify in times of crisis, and if the action is fast and rapid and successful, afterwards everyone will think they supported it.”
Just seven months later, on August 26, 2003, Holbrooke’s views had changed radically: Iraq, in his view, had become the “worst foreign policy disaster since the Vietnam War.”
I really cringe and feel nausea when I read stuff like this, but could that be what’s going on here in the way these folks are trying to position themselves? Senator Clinton is sort of giving the policy a foster parents embrace it seems to me…sort of a Mango come hither, go away treatment. Rhetorical position/tap dancing is what these people are required to do, both for nefarious reasons and as a job hazard/requirement. Thanks amigo…
September 27th, 2007 at 9:32 pm
Sorry, nother, but we disagree, both about Holbrooke’s integrity and about mine.
September 28th, 2007 at 10:38 am
Sutter bro, you know i’m not questioning your integrity, don’t you? We are talking about the defining issue of this generartion…it’s a touchy subject…maybe I got a little emotionial with my capital letters.
Now if you came on here and told us that Jeter was a better clutch hitter than Big Papi, you might find me probing your probity!
I owe you a beer sometime, Sutter…and Potter too! (I probably owe Potter a few beers over the last couple of years)
September 28th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
Nother, I’ve thought about a lot of different ways to respond here. Ultimately, though, I’m going to resort to that famous philosopher of our time — Billy Joel. The song lyrics below (released in 1993 or thereabouts) certainly stand as an indictment of Bush and his posse. But they also have something to say about those on the other side who are so convinced that they are right on this issue that they believe those who don’t share their views are unfit for office, no matter what good they have done otherwise. The righteousness of my friends and allies on “the left” scares me deeply.
Billy Joel, Shades of Grey
Some things were perfectly clear,
seen with the vision of youth
No doubts and nothing to fear,
I claimed the corner on truth
These days it’s harder to say
I know what I’m fighting for
My faith is falling away
I’m not that sure anymore
Shades of grey wherever I go
The more I find out the less that I know
Black and white is how it should be
But shades of grey are the colors I see
Once there were trenches and walls
and one point of every view
Fight ’til the other man falls
Kill him before he kills you
These days the edges are blurred,
I’m old and tired of war
I hear the other man’s words
I’m not that sure anymore
Shades of grey are all that I find
When I look to the enemy line
Black and white was so easy for me
But shades of grey are the colors I see
Now with the wisdom of years
I try to reason things out
And the only people I fear
are those who never have doubts
Save us all from arrogant men,
and all the causes they’re for
I won’t be righteous again
I’m not that sure anymore
Shades of grey are all that I find
when I look to they enemy line
There ain’t no rainbows shining on me
Shades of grey are the colours I see
Shades of grey wherever I go
The more I find out the less that I know
There ain’t no rainbows shining on me
Shades of grey are the colors I see
September 28th, 2007 at 5:53 pm
Nother, I drink beer with Mexican cuisine.
I question my own feelings. I too was an idealist once. I guess I still am. But over the years I have learned that you have to be realistic as well. How do you get there from here, assuming that we both agree on there?
You gave the example of the Titanic. Well I see icebergs coming in this presidential race. I know that this ship is too big ( divided) to make any swift turns. I also understand that that is how we got Kerry last time around. Candidates seem to rise as they show their ability to win and that impression seems to snowball around a candidate and the sides get behind their nominee. It’s those in the center that will decide our fate once again.
In the light of that reality, Holbrooke does not look bad. And, as I said I am not very happy with Clinton, but I may not have a choice. We are not chooosing in a vacuum.
I almost wish that someone like Richardson ( or a third party candidate ) would really surge ( see the latest issues of “The Nation”) at this stage to push things. But I have strong feelings about spoiler candidates and the harm they can do. ( ie I think they can do some good as well).
Maybe more later.
September 28th, 2007 at 8:08 pm
Sutter- I think the Billy Joel emphasizes ( for me anyway) the main impression I got from this interview. It was all about the nuance which comes of maturity and experience. It’s not that one loses idealism about the way things should be, it’s just tempered by the forces out there.
Columbia University’s president, Bollinger, when he introduced Ahmadinejad of Iran, was wallowing in his own righteousness and seemed not to be hearing anything but his own applause Sure he was essentially right in what he said but what good did he accomplish?
I cringed. Some of what Ahmadinedjad said was also true.
September 28th, 2007 at 9:21 pm
I had a similar reaction to Bollinger’s intro. He started by talking about the value of free speech and our right to hear all points of view and to choose among them, and then went on about how great it was to be able to look evil in the face and know our enemy. If he believes the latter, it severely undermines his credibility on the former point.
And yes, I agree about Holbrooke and Billy Joel. In fact, I haven’t read it yet, but Holbrooke wrote the introduction to Paul Berman’s book “Power and the Idealists,” about what happened when the 60s generation assumed power in Europe. I suspect the intro, and the book, would bear out our impressions.
September 29th, 2007 at 8:32 am
The interview (and the comments here) make me think about the way diplomats must speak to (and hear) multiple audiences. Often the same words (or actions) will mean different things to different people. A good diplomat is always conscious of this three (or more) dimensional aspect. Modern media “flattens” the game board in varoius ways. It amplifies the crudest aspects of messages and greatly increases the possiblities of misunderstanding.
It was fascinating to listen to Holbrooke trying to walk the fine line between his advocacy for Hillary Clinton and his own lessons learned from the Iraq fiasco.
September 29th, 2007 at 10:53 am
Zeke- I agree.
Nother says
there WILL BE another 9 11, AND THE QUESTION IS POTTER:
ARE YOU CONFIDNET THAT THEY WILL NOT REVERT BACK TO THOSE SAME NEANDERTHAL TENDENCIES?
No. More important than that question may be the question “Will WE collectively revert to primitive behavior?” such that we’ll allow ourselves to be lead to war again. At least half of us misjudged on election day and again in 2004. Also we are inexperienced with regard to terrorist attacks. The Europeans, their various leaderships, are more mature in their responses it seems.
True-Clinton has not apologized for her vote but she has evolved her responses as the questions keep following her ( and they should). In the Fall of 2005 she apparently said it was a mistake to vote as she did. She’s said most recently that she would not vote that way again. She has also said that at the time she did not feel that the 2002 vote gave Bush a blank check. Read:
Hillary’s Political Horror Story
Says She Would Not Have Voted for the Iraq War
But her votes were, at bottom, serious misjudgments. And she did not do her homework. I wish she would say so plain and simple. I’d respect her more.
Now she just voted to name the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist group which can give Bush cover for starting war with Iran if he so chooses.
It may be good politics at home for her nationally, showing toughness. It’s getting a lot of people worried that we have been here before with this leadership and they should not be trusted. I don’t know what Holbrooke’s reaction or advice was on that vote or, if she asked for it or if she took it. I am disturbed by how equivocal and careful Hillary is. She is a political animal no question and it’s a turn-off.
Read Gail Collins NYTimes column today.
Clinton may also be gambling that Bush could not possibly start another war. But as a woman, possibly the first woman president we have ever had, she must feel it essential to prove her toughness in this way ( as opposed to wisdom and courage). Unfortunately. That’s reality.
Regarding Neanderthal tendencies that always exist, that’s a reality and it’s why we need maturity and courage in that office. Bush was from day one immature and played to the Neanderthal. Clinton should have seen that. But I don’t get quite the same feeling from Hillary Clinton (and those she surrounds herself with), despite her other flaws, that I do and did from Bush and Cheney. I don’t feel that she is going so far as to actually want a war to prove herself. That may be my misjudgment but again, I have to choose between less than ideal candidates. That’s about nuances that are important. Holbrooke was terrific about that in the interview. As I have said I am not enthusiastic about her. I am not enthusiastic about anyone- perhaps except for Gore who is not running. (We have been supporting Edwards.) But it’s Hillary Clinton who is emerging according to the polls. That might change. But who would emerge?
You have to figure and hope that should another 9/11 come, we will have the first such tragedy, our reactions to it, and the consequences of that, under our belts and we would be a little wiser. Actually John Kerry was already wiser in the last election.
I don’t think this country wants war or an excuse for one. I don’t think Iran does either for that matter. I think the voyagers on this Titanic are realizing that this ship will sink if it hits another iceberg. At the same time, the Bush threats and misguided “diplomacy” may move Iran further and faster towards a nuclear weapon, that many, especially the Israeli’s, dread and cannot live with.
So Nother, let me ask you- given the choice of Rudy Giuliani, advised by Norman Podhoretz or Hilary Clinton, advised by Richard Holbrooke, who would you vote for? Or would you not vote?
September 30th, 2007 at 6:28 am
An, ahem, dissenting view on HRC:
http://www.counterpunch.org/
September 30th, 2007 at 8:28 am
Hello Hurley- I am not defending Clinton here. I thought that was obvious but maybe I am too nuanced. In the Cockburn article (thanks- I would not normally read him) which is entitled “Clinton Time: Do We Set our Clocks Forward or Back?” Cockburn sets the clock back. As usual Cockburn doesn’t disappoint; he is harsh.
Columnists don’t have to deal with the entire public. But I bet there is plenty of room for Democrats to take a stronger stand on healthcare and the war.
One recent poll ( CBS) which asks which party will best improve the health care shows 62% think the Democrats will to 19% for the Republicans. Despite Clintons failures of years ago. the Harry and Louise ads included, and Republican cry “socialized medicine!”, the public must be taking into account that at least she has tried.
I hate defending Clinton. Again, I would vote for her in a heartbeat over any viable Republican candidate out there. That was my point. There are serious problems that concern me and the whole situation is very depressing when I think of the way things should be as opposed to the way they are. I suppose we could become happy ex-patriots. Have thought of it.
BTW Frank Rich has a column today about Clinton. :
Is Hillary Clinton the New Al Gore?
September 30th, 2007 at 9:16 am
I also wasn’t defending Clinton. (I used to think this sort of forum was ideal for exploring subtle arguments, but I’ve been changing my mind on that point of late.) But Hurley, you realize, don’t you, that Clinton and her advisors sit around asking themselves “How can we get people like Alexander Cockburn to write negative stories about us?”
September 30th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
Potter, Sutter, A striking synchronicity in your remarks. To quote Potter this summer, “maybe it’s love.” If so, I’m all for it. I wasn’t accusing either of you of anything, just bringing another perspective to the discussion. I wouldn’t presume to make Cockburn’s case for him, he having stated it so well. He is occassionaly harsh, Potter, but better that than the warped, emollient tones of that drab triumverate of Davids, Ignatius, Broder, & Brooks.
Sutter, I don’t take your point. I doubt Cockburn’s name has ever crossed HRC’s lips. When was the last time you saw HRC or one of her staff brandishing an issue of CounterPunch, angrily decrying the calumny, etc.? I’d love to see it, so please point me in the right direction.
As for the Clintons, Cockburn’s point that Bill ran an essentially Republican administration and HRC seems poised to do the same seems reasonable. The markers have changed, you need only look at the drift of the Supreme Court to gauge that. If and when HRC acedes to the White House, yet another long national nightmare may possibly come to an end, but I forecast a long malaise in its train. Nothing in HRC’s posture so far leaves me any hope. What has she done? What does she propose to do? Try as I have to fight through the thickets of obfuscation, equivocation, evasion, and so on down the line, I still haven’t any idea.
Any thoughts on Edwards?
Amitie.
October 1st, 2007 at 6:47 am
And this:
http://www.counterpunch.org/
Curious what you make of this stew, Chris.
October 1st, 2007 at 8:02 am
Hurley:
It’s possible that Clinton &/or staff has read either Cockburn or others. I would hope so. But their goal is getting into national office and surmounting all those ramparts and hedgerows in the way (I am watching Burns’ & Novak “The War” ).
Call Bill Clinton’s an essentially Republican administration, it was not the Republicans we have now. And he got into office at least in part because the country had moved to the right and so he moved the Democrats in that direction, triangulating. But he was still a Democrat. He appointed Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the Supreme Court don’t forget.
Frankly I would not rule out voting for a decent moderate Republican given a poor Democratic alternative. But I must say I found it hard to vote for Bill Weld as much as I liked him as a person- and I don’t remember if I did or abstained. Remember he ran against John Silber who was hard to take.
Yes-the markers have changed. That’s the point( !), my point and I think Sutter’s. Bemoaning that fact is not an answer to the question about what the response should be given the realities.
Hurley, that is NOT another perspective, it’s an apples response to a oranges dilemma. It’s griping. Okay- we can gripe.
Again, I am not talking about the articles which all make good criticisms, even harshly, that I mostly agree with, you are. I am talking about what a citizen is to do. Depositing a Cockburn article in front of me does nothing for that.
I hope you will take that point.
thanks & amitie.
October 1st, 2007 at 10:38 am
Potter, I sense I’ve offended you somehow — didn’t mean to, apologies of so. Your point about the Clinton’s goal almost tautological, so no use dwelling on it. Cockburn’s point about the Republican cast of the Clinton administration hardly refuted by his nomination of Ginsburg. Ford nominated John Paul Stevens, Bush senior David Souter, and neither in retrospect seems less Republican for it. I’m surprised by your approving mention of “triangulating,” the doom-laden brainchild of that lickspittle foot-fetishist, Dick Morris, who now, wouldn’t you know, is a commentator on Fox News. Remember the old saw about the acorn not falling far from the tree? Further down you seem to be framing any objections to HRC in pejorative terms — “bemoaning,” “griping.” Where Cockburn’s article is concerned, I see no evidence of that. It’s a carefully reasoned, factually based, and elegantly written analysis of certain aspects of HRC’s campaign. Being rather less dignified myself, I am indeed apt to gripe and bemoan, and I’m probably even guilty from time to time of being a less than stellar citizen, as you imply. But I refuse to be cowed by liberal opprobrium into casting a vote I wouldn’t otherwise cast. If it comes down to a vote between HRC and any of the Republicans now on offer (excepting Gravel), I might just hold my nose and poke the chad or whatever the hell it is one does nowadays, but I dearly hope this Hsu business spares me the dilemma.
October 1st, 2007 at 12:08 pm
Dear Hurley-
What is frustrating, not offensive, is feeling that I am not communicating somehow. I mentioned triangulating, not out of approval but because that’s what they did and it seemed to work for them. I don’t say I approve or disapprove. In fact Hillary may be doing the same thing now.
And I don’t understand how the acorn, Fox and Dick Morris, no longer involved with HRC I believe, applies here. What are you insinuating?
When Ford nominated Stevens and Bush nominated Souter I believe they were thinking they were going to get different results than they did. Not so Clinton.
Maybe HRC will be knocked out somehow. I don’t think Hsu will do it. But if not maybe we agree then that not voting is the worst choice of all. That’s enough of an agreement between us.
The country has been pushed (demogogued- “it’s your money”) to the right in certain ways because of the clever and I think immoral use of divisive hot-button issues. As well we are experiencing,with the rise of corporate influence, a corruption of our democratic process.
“compassionate conservatism” ( people fell for it apparently but which turned out to be an empty slogan) emerged in the Bush campaign as a response to the Democrats. It was triangulation, an attempt to take Democratic votes just as the Clinton wanted Republican votes.
Bill Clinton actually triangulated however, while Bush betrayed, lied and then governed as though he had a mandate from the far right.
So I suppose we need more dishonesty on the Democratic side to get some things done perhaps.
I thought you were griping and moaning Hurley.. and I amply agreed with the criticism above I thought. I am defending… not Hillary but the point which is that in the end we will have to make a choice even if we hold our noses. And it won’t be, as Nader said, no difference between the choices. I don’t think Holbrooke would be so bad.
Anyway- Hurley. No hard feelings. Truly.
October 1st, 2007 at 2:01 pm
Low blows, Potter — “griping,” “moaning.” Stoop not to conquer.
Triangulating: the ugliness of the word some indication of the forces behind it. You seem to be in a strange loop wherebye you don’t necessarilly approve of the Clintons and their methods, yet to criticize them is tantamount to a mild version of treason. I don’t mind anyone impugning my citizenship — au contraire — but we all know what Samuel Johnson said on the subject of patriotism. I think she’s a dreadful, doom-laden candidate, whether she wins or not, Her victory will mark the comprehensive defeat of anything we on Sutter’s generous definition of the left have ever hoped for.
October 1st, 2007 at 3:39 pm
Low blows???
Hurley to quote you: “Being rather less dignified myself, I am indeed apt to gripe and bemoan, and I’m probably even guilty from time to time of being a less than stellar citizen, as you imply.”
Except for the last phrase “less than a stellar citizen” - which comes not from me having no such thoughts- I am agreeing with your assessment of yourself, exhibited again in the last post. I ask myself now, somewhat surprised, if it is not you who are so offended in this discussion and the one with hard feelings.
I do not necessarily approve of Clintons but given the choice of HRC over Giuliani, for instance, there is no question. Do I sound like a broken record?? And to say that I consider criticism of Clintons treason is a straw man you set up, Hurley, misrepresenting again as you have regarding my mention of triangulating ( which set you off apparently) and going much further than I ( or Sutter) have. Where oh where have I come even close to suggesting not to criticize?
I must bow out of this.
October 1st, 2007 at 3:55 pm
– Bemoaning that fact is not an answer to the question about what the response should be given the realities.
– Hurley, that is NOT another perspective, it’s an apples response to a oranges dilemma. It’s griping.
– I thought you were griping and moaning Hurley..
The terms are yours, Potter, not that I take any offence. I was merely being ironic — and friendly — in quoting them back to you. I assume a certain esprit in these matters, without which the whole enterprise sinks into self-righteousness and confusion.
October 1st, 2007 at 4:29 pm
I’ve missed a few rounds here, but I want to chime in on a few things (surprise!).
First, on whether Hillary has read Cockburn — I’d bet everything on it. I am sure HRC read The Nation while occupying the White House, while Cockburn was still writing there. Maybe not regularly, but she had to have been reading it. But of course, my point isn’t that she needs to wave the bloody Counterpunch on the stump; rather, it pays for her to propagate the idea that “the lefties” think she’s too moderate. Whatever else she is, she’s been a brilliant campaigner, neutralizing the widely held belief that she’s a 60s radical (it’s not even proper for me to keep on using the “HRC” initials, since there’s not a “Rodham” to be found in this campagin) by taking great care to position herself toward the right. She knows that this strategy makes her somewhat vulnerable to Edwards and others on the left, but she also knows that if she tacked left she’d likely win the nomination while losing the general. We can gripe about the fact that this is so (and I think all three of us would agree that it’s gripe-worthy). We can also gripe about the fact that she’s been so controlled and calculating (it’s why I don’t support her in the primary). But she knows that her best path to the presidency involves annoying people like Cockburn.
Second, on our deeper issue here. If I may be so bold, I’m going to propose that our differences come down to this critical question: “When is the proper time to stop hoping/working for change (shooting for the ideal) and to start exercising power within the realm of what is feasible?” People in Hurley’s shoes, I believe, frequently assume that when people like Potter and I start talking about “what is feasible,” we’re giving in to a failure of will or imagination. “Why,” they ask, “limit ourselves to what is feasible, rather than changing the bounds of what is feasible?” For me, and I believe for Potter, that’s a flawed response, because we AGREE that we must work to change those bounds. But what is frustration to me (and maybe us) is that when it comes time to pull the level – and indeed for some time before that – it is critical to close ranks and work for the not-perfect-but “good” rather than taking our toys home because the realistic options don’t include what we perceive to be the “great.” As Potter indicates above, we on our side have a tendency to let the perfect become the enemy of the good. We’re not alone – the news today suggests that some Christian Conservatives are thinking of supporting a third-party candidate if Giuliani is the Republican nominee – but the other side is generally better at holding its nose and striving for power. Granted, the have to close their nose less, because the country has moved in their direction. But that only emphasizes what I say above: We need to move the goalposts back, and then vote in a manner designed to attain the power to do good, even if we don’t like the pants-suit in which that power comes dressed.
Ok, let the Sutter-flaying begin.
October 1st, 2007 at 4:31 pm
Ahem. People like Potter and ME.
October 1st, 2007 at 5:10 pm
Thanks Sutter- I was feeling quite alone and you put it much better.
To Hurley- I apologize to you. I would rather be friends and hear you moaning and bemoaning and griping no matter who named it first, but I just cannot take being misunderstood on this one. If you don’t understand Sutter’s, then I have to throw my hands up about getting through.
Also- Our congressman Jim McGovern is one of the very few that was against this war, actively so, from the very beginning and since. And we have strongly and proudly, with ongoing donations, supported him and continue to do so. Read this on why he is supporting Hillary Clinton.
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?bid=3&pid=186965
October 2nd, 2007 at 2:30 pm
Potter, I wasn’t offended, but your apology an elegant touch.
As for the elusive subject at hand: I’ve a sense of self-betrayal even being drawn into it. A brilliant 80-year-old mathematician friend gave me a dark look once upon a time when I asked him, a year-and-a-half before the presidential election, who he favored. I’ve tried to discipline my attention since, but alas I’m sucked into the media vortex, like the rest of us.
The position you and the ever wise and courtly Sutter espouse regarding HRC a reprise of views aired on the Nader thread, so no point rehearsing that argument here. But it’s worth noting that neither of you, in your occassionaly fierce advocacy of her candidacy –months before the first primary — actually say anything in her favor, offering instead stern directives about “feasibility.” “Feasibility!” What a slogan. What a measure of how deep in the tank we are.
Another thing: As much as I enjoy these exchanges, I suspect that any hope this show has of getting back on air depends in part on the participation of its audience, which is why I’m so often the first to arrive and the last to leave. Pitch in, anyone who happens to be lurking about.
October 2nd, 2007 at 3:05 pm
Ehrenreich making her case better than I make mine:
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/10/02/4268/
October 2nd, 2007 at 3:58 pm
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrggggggghhhhh. I. DO. NOT. SUPPORT. HILLARY. CLINTON. IN. HER. QUEST. FOR. THE. DEMOCRATIC. PARTY’S. 2008. NOMINATION. I hope against hope that Barack Obama will win the nomination. If not him, I hope that it will be Edwards. If not him, I hope it will be Al Gore. In my fantasy world, I still hope that Mario Cuomo has it in him. So, at best, she’s my FOURTH choice. As a result, I’m not going to go on and say much in her favor. That’s not my point here.
But if she’s the nominee, I won’t write in any of those folks instead, nor will I write in Chris or my college mentor any other person I believe would really make a much better president. I want to get a winning nominee whose views mostly square with my own.
Any questions?
October 2nd, 2007 at 4:14 pm
Hurley- I was also thinking about how, with no air time, so many are not posting. We can’t hold it up though.
I am actually reading “Les Miserables”, taking a break from Henry Miller and Emerson, and actually and dropped in for this and the interview w Edwidge Danticot… left you a note there btw.
You still leave me scratching my head about your perceptions, mentioned here more than once in one way or another: “fierce advocacy of her candidacy” and “You seem to be in a strange loop wherebye you don’t necessarilly approve of the Clintons and their methods, yet to criticize them is tantamount to a mild version of treason”
I am no fierce advocate of her candicacy and I have not only criticized her but linked here articles that do it better. Part of what is happening here is a response to balance your and Nother’s extreme reactions to her. I would not be surprised to see that you both have broken out in rashes over this.
Indeed come election time we may be faced with entirely different choices than we have now. But the principal remains. Since no one is ideal my vote will be about trying to move the country away from where it’s been these last 8 years. I think the majority want that. And so I am not going to hold my nose if I have to vote for Clinton, but I will cross my fingers and I will be somewhat worried.
We are deep in the tank and it IS about feasibility. You don’t think so?? You have not said anything about alternatives, who else that is running that you would support. And so, to just complain and see only the dark side, to me seems like griping and groaning. You can still be lovable though.
always a pleasure if it ends amicably..
October 2nd, 2007 at 4:20 pm
Sutter- I love the exasperation in
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrggggggghhhhh!
Beer and Mexican food anyone?
October 2nd, 2007 at 5:00 pm
Hurley- read the Ehrenreich piece. No problem with it but like the subject of it, not very original… they are all saying that. It’s not wrong. But it’s not about the voter’s dilemma. Everyone has to keep their schtick going……….