For years, I couldn't understand the
visceral hatred of Hillary by so many people. She struck me as an
extremely bright woman who could show a rare, extremely high level of determination to work for what she thought was important. Sure, there were troubling
things in her past like her cattle
futures trades which smelled of favoritism, but that seemed
to die down. And, of course, there was her secrecy and my way or
the highway approach to the health
care task force, but perhaps she learned from those
mistakes. All politicians have skeletons in their closets. It's
part of being a driven person.

She often talked about the “scars” she has from those days.

In the early debates, I thought she did very well. I thought she showed she would make a good president. She was impressive.

But after SuperTuesday, and especially after the Potomac Primaries, it became clear to me that she had no plan to win the nomination except by denigrating those who dared oppose her (states that "don't matter", caucuses "don't matter", the pledged delegate count “doesn't matter” - only the super delegates matter, delegates can change their vote at any time, etc., etc.). Her campaign's tone-deafness on race, her stupid promotion of McCain, her self-proclaimed vast experience and competence yet her inability to even pay her campaign's bills!, and her latest (though several-times repeated) comments about "assassination" make it clear that she' not "ready from day one". She's not ready at all.

Her tone-deafness on discussing issues (and non-issues), her conviction that she's right and her critics are always wrong, her inability to learn from mistakes, her alliances with her reactionary long-time critics like Scaife and Murdock, and on and on, make me see that (while she would likely appoint some good people and think about issues, if given the chance) she would be a continuation of Bushism - 50%+1 is all that matters.

Finally, her tone-deafness on the problems created by her sticking in as a candidate until the end of the primaries. It's not the fact that she's sticking in that's the issue for me, it's the way she's been campaigning. I won't go through the details of the stupid and almost evil way she's been campaigning recently – Keith Olbermann covered them very well last night. In short, it's her say-anything style of campaigning that's the problem, not the calendar.  Pointing to June being important in the past says nothing about why she's running a scorched Earth  campaign against Obama now.

Her “scars” apparently have taught her nothing.

In the Bible it says they asked Jesus how many times you should forgive, and he said 70 times 7. Well, I want you all to know that I'm keeping a chart. - HRC.

Ha. Ha. Not.

While her reactionary critics are often unfair, often evil, and often illogical in their criticism of her, IMO, she is pathological. She's learned nothing from her past, her scars, or even past campaigns. Statements like “she's tired” don't excuse any of these things. She's has no reasonable rationale for continuing to campaign for the presidential nomination.

If she does not “suspend” her campaign by the end of the week of June 3, IMO, she will have completely destroyed her remaining goodwill among many in the Democratic party and the electorate. Her hubris and tone-deafness will finally give her reactionary critics the victory they've wanted since 1992.

I've
been struck by how surreal the presidential campaign has seemed this
past year. The second most popular Democratic candidate has praised
the presumptive Republican nominee while denigrating the presumptive
Democratic nominee. The presumptive Republican nominee has done
almost nothing to distance himself from the least popular president
since such polls began. And so on.

But
what causes me to write is the recent brouhaha about McCain and Bush
and their charges of “appeasement”. As Obama and others have
pointed out, it is a ridiculous distraction from the real issues that
the campaigns should be about. But perhaps it is more than that.
Perhaps it actually a window into the thinking of the Republicans.

Recall that we're engaged in a “Long War”, nee “GWoT”. A “war” that may last for “generations”. If one accepts this, then it's not a great leap to view all international relations through that window.

“Every nation in every region now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.”

Since George W. Bush represents "us", it obviously follows that if you disagree with Bush you're wrong and dangerous...

Clausewitz's famous quote is often given as, “War is nothing more than the continuation of politics by other means.” I think that is commonly understood to mean that war is, at its most basic level, a way for countries to influence the policies of other states. It also means that wars start and end via a political process. Wars only end when enemies come together and talk and reach an agreement. Peace is the result of a political process – it is not the result of the last battle. And political processes require discussions. The days of Unconditional Surrender are long past.  Anyone who is involved with deciding questions of war and peace, or hopes to be so involved, should understand these simple ideas.

But
these days, in this political season, Clausewitz's axiom seems to
have been turned on its head. War isn't a part of a Political
Framework, but rather Politics has become part of a War Framework.
See if you recognize these tactics:

• “Us”
  versus “Them” dominates political battles. Delegates who change
  their minds or advocates who don't give expected endorsements are
  engaged in treachery. Personal loyalty counts for more than
  coalitions built on common ideals.

  
  

• Withdrawal
  is not an option. Any tactic is acceptable to win the immediate
  battle. It doesn't matter if it is a Pyrrhic victory.

  
  

• Defeat
  doesn't come from an understandable choice of the majority of the
  voters, but is rather a result of an unfair system that cheats the
  more qualified, more experienced, and more entitled candidate. If
  the system were fair, the result would have been different. Those
  who disagree with the ruler's policies are supporters of surrender.

  
  

• Immutable
  personal characteristics and the views of associates or
  acquaintances are more important than a politician's policy
  positions, general thought processes, choice of policy advisers, and
  ability to communicate views to others.

  
  

• “Elites”
  of various sorts distort politicians' messages by not accepting
  their campaign's spin on the plainly observable facts. Comments on
  blogs and discussion forums are illegitimate because they haven't
  been “vetted” by the TV talking heads or the campaigns. But if
  something appears on video tape – Whoa Nellie! All bets are off!
  No matter the issue, if there isn't video tape – the press doesn't
  care. If there is, we don't hear the end of it, at least until the
  next salacious tape appears.

  
  

I don't accept this New Clausewitzian thinking in politics or international relations.

I think it is clear that discussions with Iran, Syria, and other countries that we have policy disagreements with makes sense. In fact, it's required if we ever want to resolve long-standing issues. It's not appeasement and it's stupid to say that it is. And intraparty disagreements should not be viewed as acts of war, either.

While passions are high in the Democratic party process right now, I don't think that most who claim that they are strong Hillary supporters yet won't vote for Barack will actually carry through with their threats. Many voters still don't know much about Obama, and many don't know as much as they should about McCain. It's a long way until the conventions, and a longer way still until the election. There's plenty of time to educate the vast majority of voters who didn't participate in the caucuses and primaries. I suspect that as time goes on, Barack will get stronger and McCain will get weaker. The vast majority of Democrats will support the nominee because he's much closer to their views on a host of issues than is McCain.

Perhaps by noon January 20, 2009 this time of inverted Clausewitzian logic will be looked back upon as an aberration. At least, that's my hope.

Thanks for reading my essay. I welcome your comments.