Pacifist Feedback
From Patrick Ruffini's account of the Donk presidential debate last night:
Wow. I'll admit it, I'm surprised. I would have thought that anybody from the Clinton machine, much less The Smartest Woman In The World, would have recognized a triangulation opportunity when she saw one. This is the age of YouTube, after all, and there will be a general campaign for most of next year. For Hillary! to pass up a golden chance to burnish her fake national security toughness without having to further murk up her Iraq stance and record like this is little short of astonishing. You can bet that Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson (or, God help us, Rudy Giuliani) will get a lot of mileage out of that lame "We couldn't get bin Laden with cruise missiles" answer.
I also have to concede a bit of surprise at everybody on that stage not named Kucinich. I can believe that he wouldn't go after bin Laden even if the mass-murderer was set, gift-wrapped in a transparent plastic container, on the main drag of downtown Kabul with a pretty bow on his diapered head; he's a not-so-Crypto-Marxist who wants to see America humbled and destroyed. But the other candidates not immediately jumping at this "Ron Paul moment"? Hasn't the Donk meme been that Iraq was the mistake distracting us from the real "War on Terror" in Afghanistan? Forget that the main battle against al Qaeda is in Iraq; the Dems have clearly had a great deal of success in spinning public perceptions otherwise. Now their presidential aspirants won't even get behind the notion of getting Public Enemy #2 (Remember, George W. Bush is their Public Enemy #1)?
Not that the sentiment itself startles me; I've long maintained that once we're out of Iraq, the Left will start agitating against the war in Afghanistan as well. It's their candor about it. With as big a tailwind behind her as Mrs. Clinton and her party will have in 2008, can even she coast to a third presidential term for the infamous "Blue Plate Special" if the perception sinks in that voting Democrat will mean no "war on terror" at all?
I guess we'll see just how weary of the war the American electorate really is.
The key moment in the debate came when Dennis Kucinich said he would take no action if there was actionable intelligence about Osama bin Laden's whereabouts. It was meaningful not for what happened, but for what didn't happen. None of the candidates used this to tee up their Commander-in-Chief credentials in the same way that Ron Paul was drop-kicked in the GOP debate. When asked, Obama gave the right answer, but without passion. Inexplicably, Hillary went off on a vague non-sequitur about these being complicated situations and reminding us of her husband's failure to get bin Laden with cruise missiles. That's the moment where she lost the debate. If there was a question where even Democrats could show some bite and passion on national security, you'd think it's Afghanistan and the fight against al-Qaeda. Save for Joe Biden, I saw none of that this entire debate. Instead, what we got was milquetoast and lots of happy talk about diplomacy.
The weirdest moment: A five minute discussion of stopping the genocide in Darfur by boycotting the Beijing Olympics? Huh? And Chris Dodd called that going "too far." This is not exactly a strong and decisive bunch. [emphasis added]
Wow. I'll admit it, I'm surprised. I would have thought that anybody from the Clinton machine, much less The Smartest Woman In The World, would have recognized a triangulation opportunity when she saw one. This is the age of YouTube, after all, and there will be a general campaign for most of next year. For Hillary! to pass up a golden chance to burnish her fake national security toughness without having to further murk up her Iraq stance and record like this is little short of astonishing. You can bet that Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson (or, God help us, Rudy Giuliani) will get a lot of mileage out of that lame "We couldn't get bin Laden with cruise missiles" answer.
I also have to concede a bit of surprise at everybody on that stage not named Kucinich. I can believe that he wouldn't go after bin Laden even if the mass-murderer was set, gift-wrapped in a transparent plastic container, on the main drag of downtown Kabul with a pretty bow on his diapered head; he's a not-so-Crypto-Marxist who wants to see America humbled and destroyed. But the other candidates not immediately jumping at this "Ron Paul moment"? Hasn't the Donk meme been that Iraq was the mistake distracting us from the real "War on Terror" in Afghanistan? Forget that the main battle against al Qaeda is in Iraq; the Dems have clearly had a great deal of success in spinning public perceptions otherwise. Now their presidential aspirants won't even get behind the notion of getting Public Enemy #2 (Remember, George W. Bush is their Public Enemy #1)?
Not that the sentiment itself startles me; I've long maintained that once we're out of Iraq, the Left will start agitating against the war in Afghanistan as well. It's their candor about it. With as big a tailwind behind her as Mrs. Clinton and her party will have in 2008, can even she coast to a third presidential term for the infamous "Blue Plate Special" if the perception sinks in that voting Democrat will mean no "war on terror" at all?
I guess we'll see just how weary of the war the American electorate really is.
posted by JASmius at 5:51 AM
<<< Home