And if it gets popular again?

Some people I know seem puzzled by my opposition to Hilary Clinton. She seems to be a fairly moderate centrist person, just the sort of person I'd be likely to vote for. My answer is fairly simple. If the Iraq war becomes popular again, I think she'll be for it again, and I don't want to vote for a public opinion poll. She makes the first Clinton seem like a paragon of political courage. Now, I liked the first Clinton (policy-wise, not personally, well, at least after '94 I liked most of his policies) despite his political cowardice, but at least he had the guts to seek middle ground. All that Hilary has shown is the ability to stand exactly where conventional political wisdom says a politic an should be standing to be popular. I find it amazing that Democrats will not give Joe Lieberman their nomination anymore because he continues to agree with Bush yet are considering giving Hilary their nomination after she went around acting like his cheerleader for the Iraq war. But, of course, political wisdom at the time recommended support for the Iraq war and a fawning attitude toward President Bush. And, of course, Hilary Clinton needs to be the next president. Because, of course, she is the only person, not only in America today but in America for all time, who can break the gender barrier and become the FIRST WOMAN PRESIDENT.
I, for one, still believe that people with the sort of mind-boggling desire for power at the expense of principle that Hilary Clinton has should under no circumstances be given power. People like her should stay as litigators and stay out of government, even if giving them power would make an important statement.
(And, lest that be taken as some sort of senseless lawyer bashing, I'm a law student with a strong interest in litigation....)

Primary debates.

After watching the primary debates and the past six years of Republican political dominance, is it any wonder that "Some Democrat" trounces "Some Republican" in polls but there isn't any Democratic candidate really in the running that can beat any of the Republicans with real prospects of winning his party's nomination in poll? When all of your even remotely exciting candidates seem to think that debates are good forums for making themselves seem stupid (Obama, Biden) delusional (Richardson on his policies, Kucinich on his chances of being president) nauseatingly phony (Clinton, Edwards) or just plain crazy (Gravel, who delivered the best points of the night, yet choice the rather unfortunate literary format of "insane rant") leaving only Dodd, sensible Dodd, interesting as plain, boiled chicken Dodd, you've got a problem. Don't get me wrong, Dodd would make a good president or presidential candidate in the 1930's, but please, please, Democratic party, don't nominate a smarter but less presidential looking version of Kerry. There are an awful lot of us that would like to elect a Democrat if you will only nominate someone palatable. (Well, all bets are off if Rudy can win the Republican primary without making us vomit, but that seems an ever more doubtful proposition...)

A modest proposal...

... for clarifying discussions of Iraq. Ban the use of the phrase "the enemy" and all variations on it. No "our enemy," no "freedom's enemy," no "America's enemies" None of it. From now on, instead of "the enemy" specific group of people that are our enemies must be identified. If we mean "foreign al-Qaida linked fighters" then that's what we have to say. If we mean "Iranian supported Shiite militia linked death-squads in the security forces we are setting up" then that's what we say. No more of this treating them as the same thing by referring to them both in the same phrase. The sooner we get into our minds that in this war "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" is not true, the better our chances of coming out with an even halfway decent solution will be.
Although we don't like to say it, we are working with Iranian backed groups in some parts of Iraq. For instance, we work with the governing coalition of the Iraqi parliament. This means that if the claims are to be believed, we are working with Iranian backed groups in some parts of Iraq, and being attacked by those same groups in other parts of Iraq. If we can't have faith that our friends and allies against one group of enemies in Baghdad are not our enemies in Basra, how can we possibly imagine that we might win this war
thinking about "the enemy" as a unitary force?