Hillary Panders While Iraq Burns
Arianna Huffington writes:
Hot on the heels of the release of the Iraq Study Group Report -- and a day in which 10 U.S. servicemen were killed and at least 84 Iraqis were blown up or shot -- Hillary Clinton joined with Joe Lieberman to hold a press conference today to announce the launch of a television PSA campaign about... video game ratings.
A commentator named flatulenceRus says:
This is a perfect example of how a hollow candidate with millions in contributions and high paid consultants sees the political landscape. Its all just a game and to win you must not lose. Being against violent video games is a safe position without any political risk. Meanwhile, back at the War she supports, our best and bravest are at risk. Their deaths are obviously just part of the game for Hillary and their lives aren't worth any political risk on her part. How brave.
I have already reserved a clothespin with which to hold my nose shut in the likely eventuality of Hillary Clinton becoming the Democratic presidential nominee. I grow weary after every election and mutter to myself that maybe I'll just give up voting. With the exception of my vote for Dennis Kucinich in 2004, I invariably find myself voting only to try to defeat candidates, state propositions and city measures.
I'd like to believe the rationalisation that we must ignore the craven campaign tactics of politicians because that's what they have to do to get elected so that they may then try to effect some positive change, but that only has a tenuous hold on me. The more I think about it, the more persuaded I've become that this is what politicians want us to believe, while their principal motivation is a power drive.
While I am often outraged at the antics of politicians of both parties and am at the moment deeply unhappy with our domestic and foreign policiy, I remind myself that from the death of FDR through the end of Clinton's presidency, we have had five Democratic and five Republican presidents and throughout that timeline, our domestic and foreign policy has generally remained consistent no matter which party had control.
The pessimist in me says why bother? The Democrats and Republicans go round and round about a small group of subjects-abortion, gun control, social security, and taxes- endlessly and the result remains largely the same. Even if there was a change in policy on any one issue, it wouldn't affect me anyway. I'm male (abortion), I don't work (taxes) and I don't own a gun. Any investment I have in wanting the laws to be one way or the other regarding these issues is largely an emotional and intellectual attachment to an abstract concept of pragmatic utilitarianism and social justice.
Any temporary change for the better is often later reversed. Our next president might end our military occupation of Iraq. But there will be other presidents, other Iraqs.
Think of how few really significant advances in governmental policies and programs that help the average citizen have been enacted into law in the last seventy or so years: the legalization of labor unions, the end of institutional racial discrimination, and the establishment of Social Security and Medicare.