Running to be "Commander in Chief" = a guaranteed loss for any Dem

[eridani]

Because it's a Rethug frame, stoopid! In WW II we mobilized our entire society to fight actual armies of other countries, which is the only circumstance our presidents are ever called on to be a commander in chief. And does anybody ever remember anything at all about FDR being referred to as "commander in chief?"

What we are trying to do here is to elect a president. We are facing some very serious threats to our security in the form of global warming, peak oil, overconsumption and overpopulation--not a single one of which can be dealt with by military force. (I'm assuming that we can't possibly afford both the forceful conquest of a diminishing resource and alos the invention and proliferation of post-oil technologies.)

Terrorism is more of a threat in this century only because of the deep alienation of people whose lives and cultures are stripmined by global corporatism, and because of increasingly frequent resource wars. It has to dealt with by stopping the policies that generate it, and effective international cooperation in police work to deal with the handful of sociopaths that will inevitably try to take it out on everybody else regardless.

Clinton has already killed her own candidacy should she be in the general election by using Rethug framing (which says that a president is a "commander in chief" above all else because we ought to be engaged in a forever war even if it means making us totalitarian armed camp), and by fluffing McCain as a "moderate" who is more competent and patriotic than a fellow Dem.

[flor de jasmim]

1. Obama has given a nuanced answer about being CIC:

(I can't do him justice)...it's about MORE than military might--it's a question of making people safe, and that is done also through diplomacy, diminishing poverty, and a whole host of things that do not involve the military at all. It is also about keeping the soldiers safe (better training and equipment), etc. etc.

As on other issues, Obama SHIFTS the frame and makes it work.

[yellowdogintexas]

11. one of his greatest skills, is realigning the box of the discussion at hand

to view from a different angle.

this is a very good quality. It shows he is not going to be a my way or the highway kind of official like the current occupant

[anonymous171]

2. Clinton, unfortunately, is running a repug platform in a democratic primary.

:kick:

[splat]

3. Before you were born, the argument was that a woman couldnt be a c-i-c

Context, history, matter more than spin on this one.

[anonymous171]

4. Context: Hillary is running in a democratic primary.

History: Democrats win democratic primaries.

Hillary is running like a republican to win the Democratic nomination. An equivalent would be Giuliani running against McCain on a message of Change. It just doesn't work.

[splat]

5. Hillary is running for the presidency, and she has to prove she can be that

Doesn't mean her first choice has to be "bomb Iraq." Just means that she needs to convince people she can handle that role, too.

[anonymous171]

6. No. She has to get the nomination first. If she doesn't represent the party

then she simply cannot be the nominee.

[splat]

7. Even Dems become commander in chief -- and Obama doesn't represent the party to many

He came out of nowhere and has a slender portfolio in just about everything outside Chicago.

[anonymous171]

8. So you vote for only known entities?

Understandable but not commendable.

[Taxmyth]

9. Clinton as CIC

Our nations Military is damaged. It's being used right now to essentially secure an area so that multinational oil concerns can keep pumping the black gold. This is a national security issue as the US economy is entirely dependent on the flows of oil but it's not a military issue as the US Military had been redesigned over the last decade and the need for long term occupations was exactly what was redesigned.

When Bill Clinton was CIC, there was 1 US Military death from "Hostile Fire" during his entire 8 year administration. That is ONE. That was Bill but there is no reason to think that Senator Hillary Clinton would not have that same goal. Peace is not just a slogan.

Senator McCain believes that this is a Military issue and that keeping US Troops in the region is essential, Senator Clinton does not. This is a CIC issue and one that can be framed favorably for Senator Clinton especially given the record profits of the oil companies in the region.

Just my 2 cents.

[eridani]

13. Our military role in the ME is fucking up our access to oil so far

The Japanese have the right attitude, IMO. During the first Oil War, Bush the First had to do some armtwisting to get them to participate. A US ambassador warned of the horrible consequences for Japan if Iraqi oil remained under the control of a madman like Saddam. His Japanese counterpart simply replied that it didn't matter who owned the oil, as whoever owned it would quickly realize that they had no alternative but to sell it.

Besides which, I'm criticizing CIC as a meme, not as a job role. Keep saying CIC over and over, and the frame is that America must constantly be at war, forever. It's like wearing a sandwichboard reading "Repubs are right and we are wrong."

[ColbertWatcher]

10. So, what's the alternative?

I agree that "Commander" "in chief" is a GOP-frame, but how can the leader of the military be worded to no be so macho (for lack of a better word)?

That is in the constitution, isn't it?

[eridani]

12. The alternative is "president"

CIC is strictly a secondary role. When a president (like frinstance Bush) sees it as a primary role, it leads to getting rid of actual military people who throw out reality-based objections to pretend-soldier fantasies.

[ColbertWatcher]

15. But, the Constitution says...

...that the president is the civilian leader of the military:

"

Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States..."

So, what language shall we use as an alternative?

[eridani]

16. I'm talking about a MEME, not a job description.

The day to day running of a highly specialized military is a job for highly specialized people. The president is supposed to have oversight and set overall direction. That this is most of what being president is about is just bullshit. Emphasizing it says that the reason that the US exists is to be constantly at war. This is not something that the framers had in mind. They were unanimously opposed to standing armies.

http://polyticks.com/polyticks/beararms/fathers.htm
http://en.thinkexist.com/keyword/standing_army

Elbridge Gerry, of Massachusetts:
"What, sir, is the use of militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. . . Whenever Government means to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise a standing army upon its ruins." -- Debate, U.S. House of Representatives, August 17, 1789

Virginia Declaration of Rights 13 (June 12, 1776), drafted by George Mason: "That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

- James Madison, Fourth Annual Message, November 4, 1812-- large and permanent military establishments which are forbidden by the principles of free government, and against the necessity of which the militia were meant to be a constitutional bulwark.

-- "A Framer," in the Independent Gazetteer, 1791 Whenever people . . . entrust the defense of their country to a regular, standing army, composed of mercenaries, the power of that country will remain under the direction of the most wealthy citizens.

Thomas Jefferson quotes (American 3rd US President (1801-09). Author of the Declaration of Independence. 1762-1826) "None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army"

James Madison quotes (American 4th US president (1809-17), and one of the founding fathers of his country. 1751-1836) A standing army is one of the greatest mischief that can possibly happen.

[ColbertWatcher]

18. Good point, so...

...what you're saying is to get completely away from the entire notion of a standing army?

Since that is the basis for the GOP meme?

The language should put more emphasis on the civilian, non-military domestic issues of the president?

Hmm...

[eridani]

19. That would be a lot like trying to turn a battleship around with an outboard motor

However, by saying "president" in public statements instead of "commander in chief," you reinforce the meme that most of the serious problems we are now facing do not have a military solution.

Our economy has been moving away from making things for many years. We have way too many people dependent on playing bullshit financial games, working for a vast military establishment whose purpose is domination and not defense, putting each other in jail, and selling each other cheap imported poisoned crap just to make their livings. Actually changing that state of affairs will take a long time, but it will never happen unless we start talking about it, and especially framing our problems differently.

[WinkyDink]

14. ITA. Why is NO-ONE saying that a CiC is ONLY, STRICTLY, for the MILITARY?

The OATH:
"Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

From the "Presidential Powers" section of the Constitution:
"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
The President is the military's Commander-in-Chief."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution

[leftstreet]

17. Americans want out of Iraq!

Now isn't the time to be campaigning as a war president. That method will sink McCain, and Obama needs to keep steering clear of it.

[eridani]

20. True, but see the following--

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/80822/?page=entire

McCain and his campaign strategists understand (either consciously or just intuitively) that war is theater. They know how to write a script that evokes the mythic scenarios that have framed the discourse of American identity since colonial times. It's more than merely a script about good against evil.

It's about a particular kind of good: America as the embodiment of hope for Iraq, the Middle East, and the whole world; America freeing the world of the old chains of despotism, opening the way to a new, fresh life of democracy and abundance, American-style. It's about America as the land of the frontier, the nation of endless fresh starts, of perpetual youth and -- above all -- of innocence.

Which leads us back to teens scoring drugs. Why has the script of the war on drugs always focused on the threat to our children? It's not enough to depict drugs as a threat to public morals or worker productivity or whatever. The "war" gets strong public support only when it is all about the youth, the innocent victims who are the future of America, still needing our protection because they are too weak, too unformed, too impulsive to make sound, rational judgments on their own.

That's just the way the Bush administration, McCain and our mainstream media talk about Iraqis, of course: They can't possibly create a democracy, or any kind of stable government, on their own. We have to stay there until the job is done, or else leave them to suffer their own brand of adolescent chaos.