A rose by any other name is still a failure

Today had some confirmation hearings for Obama's cabinet picks. One of them was for Hillary Clinton. The NYT had various esteemed intellectuals write in some questions they would like to ask Hillary. MICHAEL SANDEL, a professor of government at Harvard, had some deeply insightful analysis:

1. Some say “war on terror” is a misnomer that has led our policy astray. They argue that terrorism is a tactic, not an ideology or a cause, and that a war against it is bound to be ill focused and inconclusive. Do you think we should drop the term “war on terror,” and describe our policy more precisely as a war to defeat Al Qaeda and violent Islamic extremism?

What a different world it would be if "war on terror" were called something else. Obviously the name has caused us to go astray! I'm sure Bush would have waged a much more intelligent and strategically strong war on X if the name was better. Maybe his suggestion, war to defeat Al Qaeda and violent Islamic extremism, would have been better. On the other hand, maybe the addition of the word global would have helped. Perhaps 'global struggle against violent extremism' would have made the difference. Islamofascism maybe? It's hard to predict. Hopefully Obama and Hillary will pick a better name that will let them make more focused decisions.

On the subject of going astray, his 3rd question probed the ill effects of the Iraq war:

3. One of the most damaging legacies of the Iraq war is that it has given idealism and internationalism a bad name. How will you persuade the American people, and the world, that the United States can be a force for democracy and freedom? [force for peace excluded]

Yes, the most damaging legacy is the death of idealism and internationalism. What the fuck is internationalism, in the sense he is using it, and in what conceivable way did Iraq give it a bad name? If anything, Iraq is probably one of the more compelling arguments for "an appreciation for the diverse cultures in the world, and a desire for world peace" rather than one against it. If he meant the marxist interpretation, though he probably didn't, I don't see how it is even remotely related. I am glad someone finally asked this question since I have been struggling with one of my own. I have been trying to convince edgrimly for years now that the worst legacy of Vietnam is that it gave containment and cross-border bombing a bad name. How should I persuade him and the world that we can still defeat communism?

Tenacity

You heard a lot this primary about how hard Hillary Clinton works. How she never gives up and keeps campaigning till the bitter end. She liked to claim that's why 'hard working white americans' vote for her. One of the reasons she gave for staying in so long was that she wanted to stay in until all the states had voted to make sure 'every vote is counted.' It was the same reason she gave for counting all the MI and FL votes, which I won't get into here. More on that and Hillary another time.

For all the hype around her hard working and sticking to it, she still could learn a lot about that from Kucinich. The irrepressible Congressman is trying to start an impeachment of GW tonight in Congress. (Video) Belittled, berated, ridiculed, and scorned by nearly everyone, he is still plugging away.

Stick to your guns

Hillary Clinton is starting to act a lot like George W. When they're facing a tsunami of evidence that they either lied or made a bad decision, they will dig in and defend it to the death, never able to admit the truth or admit error and change course. The Bosnia sniper fire story for example. She repeated it multiple times, and when she was called on it, it was late, she was tired, and she 'mis-spoke' -- the word of the day now for when politicians lie or say stupid things like McCain confusing who is aiding and abetting whom.

Like W wants to stay in Iraq until we 'win', and then we can shake hands and head to the locker room, meanwhile winning their hearts and minds by destroying their country, Hillary will stay in her campaign until the bitter end.

Sure fooled me

My questions is...how forgetful does Hillary Clinton think we all are? She has a few excuses she has been making regarding her Iraq war vote-She made the best choice she could with the intelligence we had at the time, or it wasn't the war that was a bad idea but the execution of the war. Basically the same arguments that republican war supporters have been making.

The worst though, in my opinion, is when she claims that when she voted to give George Bush the authority to invade, that it was just to provide a credible threat to Saddam to get him to disarm. That George Bush took advantage of that authority and invaded not as a last resort but out of choice. Therefore it is all GW's fault and not all the people who voted to allow him to do it. To be clear, this is partially true. Bush was saying at the time of the vote all those things. That he would only invade as a last resort, and that the 'credible threat of force' is what was needed to get Saddam to disarm.

The problem is that even though those things may have been said, it shouldn't be an excuse. If you had eyes and ears around that time, you knew with absolute certainty that George Bush wanted to invade Iraq, very badly. There is no way that any semi-intelligent being could not have seen that. There was no intention to do anything else than get congressional approval then go balls to the wall to Baghdad after that. You may remember how he ordered the inspectors out shortly after that vote, while they were asking for more time. You may remember his Dirty Harry televised address giving Saddam 24 hours to give himself up or we invade. You may remember a year or more of W's propaganda leading up to the war. The way he talked about it being a bad movie that he didn't want to see again. Saddam is in league with the terrorists. He has nuclear bombs. He has stockpiles of anthrax. You could fill a novel with all his Iraq related rhetoric.

If you listened to W talk at all that preceding year one thing anyone but the most naive was sure of was that he was planning to go to war and was doing everything possible to sell it. If there is one thing that everyone should be able to agree on it is that GW was hell bent on invading Iraq, and was going to do so given any opportunity at all. If Hillary didn't know that and really thought he only wanted a credible threat of force, then I would say she is much to naive to teach 1st grade, much less be president. To say that it was supposed to be just for show and W snookered them all by actually invading, means you're either lying or more gullible than Gilligan.

Heard elsewhere-
Joe Wilson of Valerie Plame fame has come out and written an anti-Obama letter that repeats this lame excuse.
Scarborough too

Pack Your Bags

The time has long passed for you to go home. The only thing that you're accomplishing by sticking around is making yourself look bad, actually since you already looked bad I should say worse. You're trying to make your opponent look bad too but it seems to be backfiring. Sure there are a few people still on your side, but you have only came as far as you have so far because you had so much money at the start from your business friends, that you were declared the front-runner before a single vote was cast. Your friends in the media are trying to keep you propped up as well, though there have been some defectors.

Your sense of entitlement as if it were meant to be yours has kept you in the race much longer than you should have been. If you do manage to weasel your way onto the ticket somehow as VP or with superdelegates or the Florida and Michigan delegates you will only make it that much harder for the Democratic ticket to win. As you have said before, you think that should be the most important thing. It's largely due to you that this has happened. Thanks a lot. It wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing if it ends up as you and McCain. In a contest between two pro-war hawks, Nader might come up with a respectable showing and bring a third party closer to legitimacy. But that's not likely to be the case.

You inundate us with talk of your experience, but with the exception of being married to the former president, what is the difference? You have been in the Senate a little bit longer, but what you did there is not something I would brag about. You supported the war up until you decided to run for president and you were with Bush much more than you were ever against him. You didn't even bother to show up to vote on the telco immunity. You voted for the Iraq war, you hyped WMD and terrorism links, you ardently stood by Bush until you had to change to have any hope of getting past the primaries.

Please, please, pack your bags and go home.

Stealing from the penny tray

Maybe you are familiar with the primary contest that went on this year, where Michigan and Florida moved up their primaries to be earlier on in the process. The national democrat party didn't like it though and decided not to count their delegates. All the candidates agreed not to campaigni in either one. In Michigan, all of them but Clinton and Kucinich took their names off the ballots, and not that surprisingly she won that one (although not by as much as you'd think) In Florida Hillary showed up for some "fundraisers", technically not campaigning, and she's won that primary too.

Now she is trying to reverse the decision and get their delegates to count.

A letter for Ed

Edgrimly has been waiting with baited breath, and finally received the letter from Michael Moore he always wanted. He regales ed with tales of his dislike of Hillary Clinton, and laments the current field of W replacements.

Hillary Clinton: Keeping us safe from animated sex

Thank goodness someone is watching out for my children, god knows that I can't and risk them finding out who I am. It's good to see a candidate finally talking about the important issues that confront us today. Sex and adult content has no place in video games. I don't want my kids being subjected to blatantly sexual content while they are killing cops and pedestrians, and picking up hookers and then killing them in good fun. Why must these game studios ruin perfectly good shooting games with hidden pornography?