Chris Bowers: Hillary Literally Applauds Troop Escalation

[babylonsister]

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/75334/#more

Hillary Literally Applauds Troop Escalation

Posted by Chris Bowers, Open Left at 10:14 AM on January 29, 2008.

If Clinton applauds the escalation, then why should I have any confidence that she will keep only a small residual presence in Iraq?



Here is an important campaign difference:

Clinton and Obama's divergent views on the troop surge in Iraq, however, were plainly visible.

When Bush proclaimed, "Ladies and gentlemen, some may deny the surge is working, but among terrorists there is no doubt," Clinton sprang to her feet in applause but Obama remained firmly seated. The president's line divided most of the Democratic audience, with nearly half standing to applaud and the other half sitting in stony silence.

The most consistent criticism of Obama online has focused upon his rhetorical posture in relation to Republicans and conservatives: conciliatory language of unity, the use of right wing talking points on health care and social security, positing left-wing DFH strawmen (70's style, anti-military love-in was my favorite), triangulation that blames ideologues and partisans on both sides for polarization, etc. However, here is an instance where the roles are starkly reversed, as Hillary Clinton literally stands up and applauds George W. Bush for his troop surge, while Obama remains seated.

There are not many ways to interpret Clinton's remarks except as applause for the escalation she ostensibly opposed. Even if she was applauding "the troops," that would imply that the Democrats who did not stand up were somehow against the troops, which is the most vicious right-wing talking point of all. This is should also be a stark reminder of the difference between Clinton and Obama on supporting and not regretting / opposing the war in the first place, on Clinton's general hawkishness, on ending the causes of wars like Iraq, and even on the continued presence of a residual American military presence in Iraq.

If Clinton applauds the escalation, then why should I have any confidence that she will keep only a small residual presence in Iraq? This is a terrible move by Clinton, one that makes me feel as though more than five years have passed since the AUMF and nothing has changed, and that she is portraying her foreign policy views dishonestly during the campaign.

I think there are very clear differences between Obama and Clinton on this nexus of policy, rhetorical, and administrative issues. In the final analysis, it is why I definitely prefer Obama to Clinton in this campaign.

[Zueda]

1. Hillary will say anything and change nothing! n/t

[FrenchieCat]

2. But that is unimportant! What's important is that Obama didn't

extend his hand. :shrug:

[babylonsister]

3. After reading this, it seems more than ever the Hillbots needed a

distraction. Claire McCaskill claimed she asked Obama a question at the time Kennedy and Clinton were shaking. Whatever, it's much ado about nothing imo.

And I got the above info from MSNBC, just now, from a reporter on the press plane.

[lvx35]

4. goat humper announces that new goat humping strategy working, goat hump will soon be over.

Hillary applauds the end of the goat hump being in sight, Obama, disgusted, does not clap.

That's what the headline should be. This humiliation belongs to Bush the Clintons DID NOT INVADE IRAQ. They were in power. They could have. They didn't. So we know their applause isn't because they would have invaded Iraq or are "behind" Bush's mess, though they may applaud anything that sounds like an end to it.