Reader Posts

« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »

YOU'RE ALL MISSING THE POINT

avatar

I've been in a virtual fugue state this whole week.

Editorials, op-eds, and the blogosphere have argued everything from whether the Wright controversy has finished off Barack Obama, (as fervently hoped for by Hillary and her supporters), or whether his landmark speech on race took a moment of crises in the campaign and turned it into a moment of triumph, (which could very well be the case, but it is too early to tell); to whether a vote for Hillary is a symbolic vote for all womankind (or at least the so-called "shoulder pad feminists" who've broken many glass ceilings but not that one) or a vote for Obama is a symbolic vote for racial unity; to whether, yet again, this election truly is about the economy, stupid.

You get the idea.

And in all this opinionating swirling around and around, where it goes nobody knows...there is one thing that I have never seen mentioned, anywhere.

It is, after all, the point.  The ONLY point.

You see, this nomination vote, and this election are not about philosophical abstracts or political maneuvering or pundits punting.

No.

What this election is about, is life and death.

It's that simple.

If the Democrats do not win the White House in November, we will be dooming who knows how many American men and women to death in Iraq over the next four years, minimum, while President John McCain revs up Bush's War and ratchets up the hawk-talk worldwide.

This does not mean to imply that no one will die if a Democrat wins, by any means.  One thing anti-war activists are often naive about is the messy consequences of ending a war.  When an army is pulling out, they are more vulnerable to attack, for one thing.

However, if a president, consulting closely with military advisors, is, as Obama stated it first, "as careful getting out as we were careless getting in," then there will be a limit to the casualties.

If we stay in Iraq, there will be no limit.

Of course the troop escalation worked, in that it tamped down violence, as did the alliances between Sunni tribal leaders and the Americans, and al Sadr's cease-fire--all these things have helped tone down the violence. 

But that, contrary to popular opinion, is not the point, either.

What American troops are doing in Iraq with the troop escalation was described by one columnist I read, as applying a tourniquet to a grave wound.  You can stop the bleeding as long as the tourniquet is in place.  But eventually, you are going to HAVE to perform surgery or otherwise stitch up or treat the wound.  If you don't, then as soon as you loosen the tourniquet, the bleeding will start again.

The Bush/McCain administration believes that the tourniquet IS the war.  Period.

And so far, the merry little media is happy to go along with that viewpoint, from what I've seen on broadcast TV anyway.  Print media is a bit more nuanced, but many people just get their news from the boob tube.

While the military is working heroically to provide the tourniquet, this administration and their puppet-government in Baghdad have done nothing, made no progress, in treating the original wound. 

The Iraqi government is actually running a SURPLUS of from between 35 to 65 BILLION dollars, in foreign accounts.  They're supposed to be spending it on rebuilding their country, but why bother?  We're happy to do it for them, even if it bankrupts our own country. 

The big-deal Sunni alliance going on right now, to the tune of 100,000 former insurgents we are paying $300 apiece, a month, not counting arms and so on--are being supported entirely by the U.S. military.  Baghdad is supposed to put them on the Iraqi payroll but they refuse, and why not?  We're happy to do it for them.

So now, if we DO pull out...what will become of all those former insurgents, who will then be unemployed?

Could that have something to do with Bush and Co. wanting to keep us there?

We're supposed to be convincing Baghdad to step up on these and other matters, but they have absolutely no incentive to do so as long as we're there, employing their people, rebuilding their infrastructure, protecting their capitol, and providing bodyguard service for all sects so they can't kill one another, and pouring more billions into their coffers as they skim the cream off the top, in the form of graft, corruption, and bribes.

And according to a recent USA Today survey, most Americans believe that we SHOULD stay, at least until the country is "stabilized," whatever THAT means.

They believe this because it's not THEIR kid, or their spouse, or their mommy or daddy, who will have to do the staying and stabilizing.

This whole country--99 percent of us anyway--don't even have to think about this war.  And they don't.  Movies about the war are tanking at the box office.  TV news coverage has plummeted to LESS THAN 3 PERCENT. 

And when I post a blog about the war, my readership virtually disappears.

Way more interesting to argue politics as an intellectual exercise, or indulge in celebrity gossip.

The war's depressing and anyway, what can we do about it?

WE CAN VOTE.

Because the truth, as many other articles have pointed out, is that the U.S. military can't keep doing this indefinitely at these levels. 

The military is stretched so dangerously thin that the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff want to begin serious drawdowns.  These constant redeployments, stop-loss, and other dirty-trick ways of forcing the same troops to fight a Groundhog Day war over and over again is causing such a hemorhage of junior officers, noncommissioned officers, and experienced troops to leave that we can't fill the gap even when we let in high school drop-outs and criminals.

They are deeply worried about Petraeus's upcoming so-called "pause" that will stop the drawdowns and force units to remain in-country who are due to return.  Fallon knew that; he fought for it, and he got fired for it.  Oh, excuse me.  I mean, he RETIRED--and joined the graveyard littered with the bones of any high-ranking officer who DARES speak truth to power in a Bush administration.

So, here we are, languishing.  This is the fifth anniversary of the war and there will be a sixth one, because Bush and his pets are going to do everything in their power to bring out the magicians with their smoke and mirrors and repetitive chants and lull the American people and its media into thinking that the tourniquet IS the war, and it HAS stopped the bleeding, so victory is at hand!

Which brings me back to The Point.

As a Marine mom, whose sons and nephews have been fighting this war non-stop since it began, with six combat deployments between them, whose nephew is there now, whose son and nephew are at risk of being snatched back up and sent again even though they are now out of the military (those dirty tricks again)--I am begging anyone who reads my words who has not yet voted for a nominee:

TO THE BEST OF YOUR ABILITY, I BEG OF YOU TO CHOOSE A CANDIDATE WHOM YOU THINK STANDS THE BEST CHANCE OF WINNING THIS ELECTION IN NOVEMBER.

It is not about a "symbolic vote" for anybody for any reason!  Can't you see that?  We can't AFFORD that kind of sentimentality right now, on either side!

If you vote for someone because she is a woman or because he was a P.O.W. or because he is black, and you are not thinking ahead to November, and to four more years of war, then please, allow me to do that thinking for you.

Our men and women in uniform are being used and abused like so much cannon fodder.  Their lives have become nothing but fighting war and training to fight war, for five years.  (Actually, six, counting Afghanistan.)  Many of them enlisted after 9-11 because they were patriots who wanted to serve their country and fight terrorists. 

They wanted, as my son put it, "to be one of the protectors, not one of the ones needing protecting."

And for that idealism they've been used as campaign photo-op backdrops, sent off to war again and again until they turn up dead, wounded, stressed-out, exhausted, or worse; and their families have suffered terribly for it.  I read of one army captain who was not present for his four-year old child's birth because he was deployed, and who has barely seen the child during that time.  He has been gone three out of the past four years on combat deployments.

Good officers who love the military and planned a career in it are being forced to leave because of the stresses of constant deployments on their families, and because after four or five or six deployments, they've had enough of war.

They serve at the pleasure of their commander-in-chief.  They serve him, and they serve us, but who serves THEM?

In a major speech on the war this week, Barack Obama said this:

"We also know that there is another face of America that we have seen these last five years...Our soldiers have gone abroad with a greater sense of common purpose than their leaders in Washington.  They have learned the lessons of the 21st century's wars.  And they have shown a sense of service and selflessness that represents the very best of the American character.

"This must be the election when we stand up and say that we will serve them as well as they have served us."

Those of us out here, the 99% NOT fighting this war, have one perfect golden moment in history to step up and serve our armed forces who have given everything they've got to serve us.

The point is not whether we place a sentimental vote for a candidate who represents some sort of symbolic gesture or makes us feel good about our gender or our race or whatever.

NOT IF THAT CANDIDATE CAN'T BEAT JOHN McCAIN.

You all know how I feel on this.  In spite of the past few rough weeks, I still think Barack Obama has the better chance to win in November.  Most Democrats I have come to know online happen to live in areas where being a Democrat is not that unique, but if you come from an area as conservative as I do, or from any of the red states that Obama won in the primaries already, you should know that the depth of Hillary hatred runs deeper than good people can begin to imagine.

I don't know why this is.  I never have, frankly.  I've supported her and tried to explain for her for many years, and yes, I do think she could be a good president.

But as one Republican said to me, "I wouldn't mind an Obama presidency all that much, and I'm not crazy about John McCain.  But if Hillary runs, I will vote AGAINST her, and you will see a re-energizing of the Republican party that NONE of us could have imagined a few months ago."

In fact, in the state of Texas, Hillary won the popular vote by 100,000.  According to exit polls, 119,000 voters in the Democratic primary were Republican true believers who heeded their hero Rush's call, and voted for Hillary in order to give her a major primary win that could give her the nomination, because they're CERTAIN they can beat her.  And they are very worried that they cannot beat an Obama candidacy.

This is fact, according to exit polls and research done by the Boston Globe.

Hillary lovers discount all this, but it's out there, and it's very real.

I have believed for the past four years that if Hillary ran as our candidate, we would have another one-point heartbreaker like we have had the past two elections, and I can't take it again, not this time, not now, not with my family at war.

If you have yet to cast your vote, you may be undecided.  You may be leaning one way or another for sentimental reasons.  You may disagree vehemently with me, and that is fine.

But when you cast your vote, please God let it be because you honestly believe your candidate can beat McCain in the fall, period.

No other reason.

We have to win this election. 

It is a life and death matter. 

So far, almost 4,000 men and women have died in Bush's War.  (For every death, there are at least FIFTEEN injuries.  You do the math.)  If John McCain is elected, we can project ahead four more years and see, conservatively, at least 2,500 more dead soldiers and Marines--probably more.  That's not counting the maimed and the brain-dead and the emotionally crippled.

This is the most critical vote we as Democrats will ever cast.  We cannot cast that vote for anything less than dead seriousness.

If it were YOUR child whose life was at stake...who would you trust to take the White House in November and end this war?

Cast your vote for that person, for that reason, and no other. 

THAT is the point.


Comments (16)

Thank you Deanie! I just wanted to "appear" so that you know I am listening and rec'd your article. Provocative, thoughtful and IMPORTANT post - thanks again for writing it!

Best ~ Ardanien

Maybe you can make your "point" in smaller chunks spaced out over a couple days. Or perhaps, just be more concise.

Indeed. Most who oppose the war have little concept of either logistic or force protection.

We have a long road out, and it will be a rearguard action all the way. In addition, we have a great deal of weaponry, vehicles, and other hardware on the ground there that we will need to either remove or render unusable.

It's going to be a long process, and very dangerous, and it needs to be done in as well-planned and orderly a manner as possible.

avatar

Let me make a point - Hillary Clinton did not "win" Texas because of the republican vote. In fact, the republican vote went to Obama at a 1 - .08 ratio. Over 345,000 republicans broke as voters for democrats, Obama received 226,000 of those votes and Clinton received 119,000 votes. In Ohio republican voters broke 1 - 1 for Obama and Clinton.

Texan republicans broke 53% Obama, 46% Clinton, in Ohio the repubs broke 49% to 49%. In twelve primaries republicans broke for Clinton as a majority twice - in Alabama and Mississippi. There was NO Limbaugh effect.

Out of the last 4 elections, a democrat has won 3 times. The last election was so close that Ohio was the make or break state. Since that election, Ohio has cleaned up its political act and now has a democratic majority in power. Gone is Ken Blackwell and the republican machine that overwhelmed the electoral system with corruption and cheating. Any democratic candidate has to win Ohio, Pennsylvania, California and New York to win the general election and no democratic candidate has won in recent memory without Ohio. I know that Clinton can win those states, but I do not know if Obama can win those states. I do know that either democrat has a very, very good chance of picking up those states and has a far better chance than a republican. In my opinion, either democrat has an excellent chance of winning the general as long as we don't have a repeat of 2000, which is possible.

Frankly, I don't see the war as the defining issue of this election, I believe the defining issue will be the economy and the war will be seen not as the major issue, but the issue that is dragging the economy down the tubes. (I'm not making moral judgments, I'm merely pointing out facts. My son is in Iraq and while the issue is of paramount importance to my family, for the vast majority of people in this country it is not.) Since the press has chosen not to cover the war and to make this election about everything BUT issues, no one can be sure about anything, but all the polls indicate that the dems have the best shot.

"Any democratic candidate has to win Ohio, Pennsylvania, California and New York to win the general election"

No they don't.

avatar

Yes they do.

Do you honestly think that Obama can't win California in the general because he didn't win the majority of Democratic delegates?

Do you honestly think that Senator Clinton can win Ohio when John Kerry lost it?

avatar

Did I say that? Did you actually read the response? I did not say that he couldn't, I said that I don't know if he could, I then went on to say that either democrat can win, imo.

Secondly, Mrs. Clinton already won the dem primary in Ohio, she did so with Obama outspending her 4 - 1 dollars and Bill Clinton took Ohio twice. The governor of Ohio is a Clinton supporter, so yes, I believe Clinton can take Ohio and probably with a good margin.

O course, in recet polls, Obama does better head-to-head than Clinton v. McCain, in Ohio.

avatar

Current polls have Obama trailing McCain by 1 point in Texas, which Bush won by 23 points in 2004. If Obama takes that, he can lose Pennsylvania and come out ahead by 13 electoral votes.

Check out http://www.electoral-vote.com/ and compare the Obama vs McCain map to the final results from 2004:

http://electoral-vote.com/evp2004/dec/dec31.html

Bush took 22 states by more than 10% in 2004, and 15 of those by over 20%.

According to their map of recent polls, Obama flips North Dakota (63-35 for Bush in 2004) and is down by 3 points or less in Texas (61-38), Virginia (54-46), Nebraska (67-32) and both Carolinas (58-40 and 56-44). Only 13 states have the Republicans leading by a 10% margin, and only Oklahoma and Kentucky have McCain up by more than 20.

Even Utah, which Bush won 72-28 in 2004, has closed to 50-39.

The only trouble spots for an Obama candidacy appear to be Michigan, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey, but I have no trouble believing Obama can win those. The real story in this election is the collapse of the Republican voting block in the middle of the country. I don't think that a Clinton candidacy will necessarily stop that, but I believe Obama may be able to hurry it along.

(Rats. EV.com seems to have taken their election map down and put up the primary map again. I suggest watching that site anyway. It's a great resource. They did a comparison earlier in the race and came to the same conclusion SurveyUSA did a bit later: both Democrats will win in different ways.)

Sorry for the lengthy post, but the point is that there are going to be far more "swing states" than usual in this election, particularly if it turns out to be Obama versus McCain. Who polls better in two or three of them is not as important as in previous elections.

If leaving Iraq is going to cost us a great number of casualties, then all of the talk about progress in Iraq has been lies. Those casualties would be because the "enemy" is very strong, very capable, and getting more so every day.

If we delay getting out of Iraq, those "enemies" will only become stronger and more capable, and will inflict even more casualties when we finally do leave.

So, the argument that we can't leave because of the casualties it would cost us doesn't hold water.

Deanie, I agree with you totally - this election is a life and death matter and no one with the slightest tinge of patriotism should be voting for McCain, no matter who the Democratic candidate is. But, there is a world of difference between "should be" and "will be", so it does matter which candidate we choose. Unfortunately I don't know whether the racists vote will defeat Obama or the Hillary Hater vote will defeat Clinton.

Hoppy! and Deanie! I've missed you!

Back to the topic. As usual Hoppy nailed what Deanie put together.

And while I know that it would be probable political suicide, I wish both or one of the Democratic candidates would for once be truthful about Iraq and Al-Qaeda and the ME in general. It was in fact our policies that got Bin Laden to focus his activities on the US. It still is our policies that cause Bin Laden to remain focused on the US, when he's not busy focusing on Europe because of their shit.
Here's Bin Laden in Oct. 04

"O American people, I address these words to you regarding the best way of avoiding another Manhattan, and regarding the war, its causes and its consequences...

"But I am amazed at you. Although we have entered the fourth year after the events of 9/11, Bush is still practicing distortion and deception against you and he is still concealing the true cause from you. Consequentially, the motives for its reoccurrence still exist...

"He is like the ill-tempered goat that dug out of the ground the sharp knife (with which it would be slaughtered). [speaking of Bush]

"...A rational man would not neglect his security, property, or home for the sake of the liar in the White House...

Bin Laden has been consistent on this subject. And it very much involves our relationship with Israel, too.

If we don't know the enemy, there will be no peace and the killing of Americans and Iraqis and who knows who the next group is, will continue. And it allows McCain to continue on a course that he knows is false, but doesn't know there are so many better ways out (if I look at him generously).

Thanks for letting me rant on that.

avatar

Thank you Deanie. Beautifully written.

avatar

Well, it must be true then since...one Republican said to me, "I wouldn't mind an Obama presidency all that much, and I'm not crazy about John McCain. But if Hillary runs, I will vote AGAINST her, and you will see a re-energizing of the Republican party that NONE of us could have imagined a few months ago." So GOSH, lets all give Mr Obama the good go ahead.. WHAT IF...just like his advisor said on Television, his message to bring our boys home is just political talk? I live in Illinois, where Obama has not done what he promised to do during his campaign. THAT is not small for me,, that is BIG. My husband has voted republican for almost 40 years and this year he voted for Hillary. My republican daughter and her husband will vote for Hillary in PA next month. They even switched from Independant so they could cast their vote. People are sick and tired and need something more than the lovely speeches Mr Obama delivers. My nephew is in Iraq and I respect your opinion and how you feel, but lets get real. Now that the media is finally vetting Obama, he is losing.. many people on the blogs say they would like to take their vote for him back..even the polls aren't looking good for him. Hillary should win this and if she has to do it the hard way, well, Hillary knows the hard way.

I believe that barring something unforeseen, the November election will be decided by those who want to continue the war and keep the tax cuts voting one way, while everyone else will vote the other. It really doesn't matter which Democrat will be the nominee, it's actually much more important for us to keep the situation in the public consciousness and for only one of those solutions to be seen as "right".

Bev, your numbers seem a bit funny - it looks like Obama got 2/3 of Republican crossover votes in Texas, Hillary got 1/3.

But anyway, it's a losing argument - Republicans vote for Obama because he's Teh Awesome. They vote for Hillary because they're trying to siderail His Awesomeness. Two very different trends, with the obvious conclusion that Hillary should Just Give Up™©®.

Post a Comment

Inside Cafe



Cafe Features


October 6-10

Book Cover

October 13-17

Book Cover

October 20-24

Book Cover

November 17-21>

Book Cover

December 1-5

Book Cover





Book Club Archive



Masthead

Editor-in-Chief
Josh Marshall

Site Editor
Lila Shapiro

Intern
Claire Wilcox



Subscribe to TPMCafe's feed.
Subscribe to TPMCafe's reader blog feed.

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address