It's the Iraq War, Stupid!

[Strider]

Since the Tribune takeover of the Los Angeles Times, the Times has slipped in quality...especially in the op-ed section, where we usually get the puerile prattle and ditsy ditherings of morons like Joel Stein and Meghan Daum.

So shock of shocks, this week, not one but actually two decent and noteworthy editorials appeared in the L.A. Times.

I'll post them seperately...first off, this piece that is as good an analysis I've yet read on the reasons Hillary Clinton snatched defeat from what seemed like sure victory when the campaign started:

"IT'S THE IRAQ WAR, STUPID"

Clinton's failed campaign resembled Bush's strategy on the Iraq war.

By Rosa Brooks Los Angeles Times June 5, 2008

'It's the economy, stupid," said James Carville, summing up Bill Clinton's 1992 win over George H.W. Bush. Bush started out with incumbent status and an impressive resume, but he never managed to wrap his mind around the fact of the recession. In the end, he lost to Clinton -- the candidate from nowhere.

Sixteen years later, it's Clinton's wife who's found herself in the elder Bush's position. Hillary Rodham Clinton began the Democratic primary with a famous name, thousands of Democrats who owed their careers to her husband, an enviable war chest and scores of superdelegates in her pocket before the race even began.

All the same, she lost. To a guy few had heard of four years ago. A black guy with the unpropitious name of Barack Hussein Obama, who had no money, no superdelegates and no political machine. But this week, he won, fair and square.

How did Clinton go from inevitable to irrelevant in six months? If Carville were still at the top of his game, he'd be telling Clinton: It's Iraq, stupid. In more ways than one.

Start with the obvious. The Democratic electorate was antiwar from the get-go -- yet Clinton voted in 2002 to authorize the use of force in Iraq. So did John Edwards, but he later offered heartfelt apologies for his vote. Clinton never got beyond a mealy-mouthed "mistakes have been made" non-apology. Obama wasn't in the Senate in 2002, but he managed to make the right call on Iraq.

Over time, Clinton adopted strong antiwar policies -- but in February 2007, she irritably insisted to a New Hampshire audience that "if the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that [2002 Iraq] vote or has said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from." Voters across the country took the hint.

In the January Iowa caucuses, Clinton only took a third of the pledged delegates; Obama and Edwards, perceived as more staunchly antiwar, cleaned up the remaining two-thirds. In New Hampshire, Clinton took nine delegates; Obama and Edwards took 13 between them. And so it went. Even in many of the states Clinton won, the "not-Clinton" vote was substantial.

But Clinton's Iraq problem went beyond her 2002 vote and her failure to truly repudiate it. She gradually sharpened her critique of President Bush's Iraq policies -- but ironically, as time wore on, the resemblances between her campaign style and Bush's Iraq strategy become eerie and striking. Like Bush and his Iraq campaign, Clinton, astonishingly, had no clear battle plan beyond the first weeks. Like Bush, she thought victory was inevitable -- she'd stun her opponents with shock and awe, and by Super Tuesday, the Democratic electorate would greet her as their liberator.

As in Iraq, it didn't work out. Shock and awe fizzled: Obama took Iowa and held his own on Super Tuesday. The insurgency spread like wildfire -- by mid-February, Obama was riding a wave of grass-roots support that Clinton had never prepared for.

By late February, Obama had built up a pledged delegate advantage virtually impossible for Clinton to eliminate, but Clinton's campaign responded to bad news in the race just as the Bush administration had responded to bad news from Iraq.

Staff loyalty was valued over staff truth-telling, so the boss was kept in a bubble, shielded from harsh truths. Change strategy? Nonsense, no need -- we're winning! Inconvenient facts on the ground? No problem; ignore the reality! Or perhaps we'll try a surge -- too little too late. Rules, regulations or laws getting in the way? Those don't apply to us.

Thus, the Clinton campaign insisted that caucuses shouldn't count, that Clinton "really" led in the popular vote (true if you use fuzzy Clintonesque math), that the Democratic National Committee rulings on Michigan and Florida's delegates shouldn't be honored, and so on. So much for the rule of law!

Reality-based thinking, that Democratic rallying cry, was also jettisoned. As late as Tuesday night, when Obama clinched the nomination, Clinton spokesman Terry McAuliffe was introducing Clinton as "the next president of the United States."

Right.

Maybe it was her husband's influence. Bill Clinton famously said that in times of uncertainty, "wrong and strong" beats "weak and right."

But Hillary Clinton should know better. The Democrats are in a position to retake the White House precisely because so many Americans finally got sick of George W. Bush, who exemplifies the "wrong and strong" approach.

But let's be reality-based thinkers. "Wrong and strong" eventually leaves us weaker, because wrong is still wrong. And the thousands of dead in Iraq are still dead.

And Hillary Clinton still isn't the Democratic Party's nominee.

rbrooks@latimescolumnists.com

[Big Klu]

She lost because of her inability to inflect her voice in public...and that jackass, corporate Patrick Bateman hairdo.

And possibly because her name reminds me of that spoiled chick on Fresh Prince of Bel Air.

She eats babies too.

[Gainsbarre]

I reckon she lost because she didn't have have the same charisma compared to Obama, which is nothing to do with their capabilities, it's just that Obama just seems more charismatic, and to be honest, I still don't think Americans would vote in a woman President just yet.

[Del Zeppnile]

Hillary lost because the DNC (Democratic National Committee) willed it to be so.

I saw this coming right when Ted Kennedy endorsed Obama. It was payback time for 40 years of pandering to African Americans for their votes. It has nothing to do with HIS viability as a canidate as much as the powers that be in the Democratic party wishing to extend their control and influence, and THEIR viability for years to come.

And thus Hillary and her beloved husband are expendable.

[Big Klu]

Hillary lost because the DNC (Democratic National Committee) willed it to be so.

I saw this coming right when Ted Kennedy endorsed Obama. It was payback time for 40 years of pandering to African Americans for their votes. It has nothing to do with HIS viability as a canidate as much as the powers that be in the Democratic party wishing to extend their control and influence, and THEIR viability for years to come.

And thus Hillary and her beloved husband are expendable.

None of that makes sense for a variety of reasons.

[ledbaby]

I reckon she lost because she didn't have have the same charisma compared to Obama, which is nothing to do with their capabilities, it's just that Obama just seems more charismatic, and to be honest, I still don't think Americans would vote in a woman President just yet.

Bingo we have a winner. Clinton lost for a variety of reasons and she will serve about as good as a VP IMO. The major reason would be the economy. War or no war the economy is so screwed....

Obama gives good speech and doesn't wiffle around on issues. Says it, and sticks by it.

Or seems to anyhow.

<sp edit>

[Pb Derigable]

No, she did not lose because of the Iraq war. It's seemed to me she wanted the troops out as much as he did. Yeah, i would like to see the Obama campaign put an ad up that says, McCain voted to continue financing the war, of course, the G.O.P. will just put up an ad that has the a pic of the army handbook page, where it says the first thing not to get paid is the troops. Then they will show Obama saying that "He supports the troops, but not the war" than the ad will say, "Really"

She lost because nobody has ever run a campaign in which the media was too busy jerking off to the other candidate that the forgot to do their job. Which if you add that she was trying for the quick kill and she did not worry about the caucus states. that problem exploded.

If Michigan and Florida was allowed to have their elections on that day and if Rev. Wright popped out a month earlier. ( every knew he was an asshole, just video looks better). Will Obama still be the Nom.

Even if Rev. Wrong never came out, If she just won MI and FL, (which polling suggest she would have). This race would've been alot closer and maybe it would've turn because i think some people thought this was a forgone conclusion 2 months ago. If you didn't have the media for the last 3 months that this is over, what might have been.

By saying she lost because of the Iraq war, is like saying Obama won because he bowled a 38 and Hillary never even bowled. The Iraq war was never an issue in the Dem. primary.

[ledbaby]

No, she did not lose because of the Iraq war. It's seemed to me she wanted the troops out as much as he did. Yeah, i would like to see the Obama campaign put an ad up that says, McCain voted to continue financing the war, of course, the G.O.P. will just put up an ad that has the a pic of the army handbook page, where it says the first thing not to get paid is the troops. Then they will show Obama saying that "He supports the troops, but not the war" than the ad will say, "Really"

She lost because nobody has ever run a campaign in which the media was too busy jerking off to the other candidate that the forgot to do their job. Which if you add that she was trying for the quick kill and she did not worry about the caucus states. that problem exploded.

If Michigan and Florida was allowed to have their elections on that day and if Rev. Wright popped out a month earlier. ( every knew he was an asshole, just video looks better). Will Obama still be the Nom.

Even if Rev. Wrong never came out, If she just won MI and FL, (which polling suggest she would have). This race would've been alot closer and maybe it would've turn because i think some people thought this was a forgone conclusion 2 months ago. If you didn't have the media for the last 3 months that this is over, what might have been.

By saying she lost because of the Iraq war, is like saying Obama won because he bowled a 38 and Hillary never even bowled. The Iraq war was never an issue in the Dem. primary.

Exactly, too many people wanna imply there's a single reason for something. All things aren't mutually exclusive OR ENTIRELY dependant on one another.

Good point pbblimp

[Suz]

It was a good enough reason for me to support Obama.

[Pb Derigable]

Well we all basically have one reason why we should support one over another. Democracy only works if we vote based on our most selfish means. Now i said that you should look at everything about an candidate, but you used that to choose what is the most important issue for you.

Yes, maybe we should choose the best candidate, but thats not democracy, thats American idol. We choose whom we believe what will do the most for us.

but for those who choose Obama over hillary because of Iraq. what was the reason

[Suz]

Well we all basically have one reason why we should support one over another. Democracy only works if we vote based on our most selfish means. Now i said that you should look at everything about an candidate, but you used that to choose what is the most important issue for you.

Yes, maybe we should choose the best candidate, but thats not democracy, thats American idol. We choose whom we believe what will do the most for us.

I never said that. It was enough of a reason by itself to support him over Hilary, but not the only reason I support him. He's got young people mobilized like I've never seen, and eager to participate. I have been voting for presidents for 20 years and never been as enthusiastic about a candidate. There's that little health care thing, too, which is a huge issue to me. I always admired Hilary for trying to address it back when it should have been, but nowadays her approach (and her husband) are just too much for me.

[Pb Derigable]

It was a good enough reason for me to support Obama.

I never said that. It was enough of a reason by itself to support him over Hilary, but not the only reason I support him. He's got young people mobilized like I've never seen, and eager to participate. I have been voting for presidents for 20 years and never been as enthusiastic about a candidate. There's that little health care thing, too, which is a huge issue to me. I always admired Hilary for trying to address it back when it should have been, but nowadays her approach (and her husband) are just too much for me.

Yes you did, you said it was good of enough reason to support him over Hillary. and i said most of us vote and should vote based on a single selfish reason. Now if the main reason you vote for obama is because he makes people happy, thats fine. If thats how you want to choose your president, just like how we choose a winner on American idol. thats fine. You may have other reason to vote for him, but there is usually a kicker. I'm not voting for obama based on Iraq, but i do use other reasons to point why i don't like his stance on Iraq.

If Obama and McCain flip flopped on Iraq, i will vote Obama, I'm not sure if there is any other issue i would do that for. I said before, i will pay his proposed tax hikes and pay for all the people in the world not have to work, as long as i don't have to carry a gun all day long to make sure i can get home that night.

If Obama and McCain flip flopped on Iraq, will you vote McCain. Or do you just like how Obama looks and sound.

[ledbaby]

In loving memory of our loved ones

[Suz]

Yes you did, you said it was good of enough reason to support him over Hillary. and i said most of us vote and should vote based on a single selfish reason. Now if the main reason you vote for obama is because he makes people happy, thats fine. If thats how you want to choose your president, just like how we choose a winner on American idol. thats fine. You may have other reason to vote for him, but there is usually a kicker. I'm not voting for obama based on Iraq, but i do use other reasons to point why i don't like his stance on Iraq.

If Obama and McCain flip flopped on Iraq, i will vote Obama, I'm not sure if there is any other issue i would do that for. I said before, i will pay his proposed tax hikes and pay for all the people in the world not have to work, as long as i don't have to carry a gun all day long to make sure i can get home that night.

If Obama and McCain flip flopped on Iraq, will you vote McCain. Or do you just like how Obama looks and sound.

Okay, then, sorry about the misunderstanding of the first part of it.

But please stop comparing my voting decisions to American Idol, it makes me sick. I'm not 14 fucking years old. I am sick of the Clintons and their patronizing attitude. I am also more than sick of the insane dipshittery we have had the past 8 years. The war is a travesty that had nothing to do with 9/11 and it disturbs me greatly. And if you think seeing teenagers who actually want to vote and participate (like I've never seen in 20 years)is nothing more than a little happy moment for me, you are mistaken.

[Pb Derigable]

Okay, then, sorry about the misunderstanding of the first part of it.

But please stop comparing my voting decisions to American Idol, it makes me sick. I'm not 14 fucking years old. I am sick of the Clintons and their patronizing attitude. I am also more than sick of the insane dipshittery we have had the past 8 years. The war is a travesty that had nothing to do with 9/11 and it disturbs me greatly. And if you think seeing teenagers who actually want to vote and participate (like I've never seen in 20 years)is nothing more than a little happy moment for me, you are mistaken.

No prob. if the Obama rockstar thing is just a good moment, and not a true issue, than it will not be used to against you.

But i will take issue with you on Iraq and 9/11. The travesty is that politicain wanted to cut the funding for the troops to end the war.