When the democratic nomination primaries have ended and when, hopefully without a contested convention, a candidate for the Presidential elections in November is found, there will be analysis galore as to why Obama prevailed. No surprise there, I am thinking along these lines since Iowa (admittedly a bit insecure after New Hampshire).
The missteps of the Clinton campaign are manifold and I have been rightfully corrected by our commenter bademus for forgetting two items when I last brought up the subject of Clinton’s ill fated campaign. There is a impressive series of major blunders to be found ultimately instrumental to her losing the nomination battle. And let’s not start with “marrying Bill”, however tempting that is. I’d like to put the start of when everything went wrong at the time when she voted for the Iraq war. You are very welcome to comment and send in your views and, most of all the stories that irked you most and the positive things as well. (Warning: You may see your comment posted in one of the next installments). So, hopefully, by the end of the primaries we have a clear picture of which events turned the inevitable candidate into a woman who lost the battle of her lifetime.
Her first campaign stop and probably most damning mistake: Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq war. As we are all bitterly aware, in October 2002 the Senate approved Public Law No. 107-243 the use of military force in Iraq and thus midwifed the ultimate catastrophic blunder of the Bush presidency. The war in it’s sixth year now has cost 4’024 soldiers’ lives, many more are maimed physically and mentally, often beyond recuperation, uncounted civilians have succumbed to the terrible bloodletting. The Iraq war has taken the focus from Afghanistan and the hunt for the alleged mastermind of 9/11. The stabilisation of Afghanistan after the ouster of the Taliban led regime has never taken place. The fall of Kabul back into the hands of the Taleban has been predicted for this year. The cost of this war has accelerated, if not triggered, the recent economic crisis in the US, which threatens to spread worldwide and will cost many people their jobs. It is small wonder, that the US and the UK, the most insistent advocates for the attack on Iraq, are hardest hit by the current economic downturn.
There was a choice. Many Senators did not vote for authorizing the war, nobody forced her to authorize the use of military force. There are good indicators, that this vote indeed was cast primarily to further her career and her prospects for a White House bid:
- Her insistence, that she was prepared to be commander in chief from day one, most prominently in the 3 a.m. ad,
- Her vote against banning clusterbombs in civilian areas ( Senate Amendment 4882),
- Her vote for the Kyl/Lieberman Amendment,
- Her vote for the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 and the fact that she never renounced that vote
were strategically planned to show her as a woman who has the necessary clout for commander in chief and to even go to war, if necessary. The consequences of those votes are calculated collateral damage in the pursuit of her own political ambitions.
Subsquently, the blood of too many people sticks to her hands in the mind of many progressive voters and the reputation of an opportunistic, stick-at-nothing, ambitious, power-hungry politician can not be overcome by her.