No More Clintons
by publius

I’ve been settled on Obama for some time now. But in case I had any lingering doubt, Clinton the Bill pretty much sealed the deal for me by claiming (outrageously) that he opposed the Iraq War from the beginning (via HuffPost). It’s not so much his Iraq position itself that bothers me. It’s not even that he’s lying. It’s the nature of this specific lie that bothers me. And despite my affection for the guy, I’m ready to slap a “No More Clintons” bumper sticker on my car.

I recognize that it’s unfair – and possibly sexist – to base opposition to Clinton the Hillary on her husband’s actions. But he has injected himself into the campaign in a big way, so I don’t feel too terribly bad about it. Anyway, I am – frankly – still pissed at him for Monica. There’s a lot of lingering hostility. People give Al Gore a lot of grief for his 2000 campaign – some deserved, some not. But the truth is that if Bill Clinton (you know, the sitting President) had kept his g.d. zipper zipped, Dubya would be running some company into the ground right now. More to the point, there never would have been a second Iraq War. And even beyond the war, the opportunity costs of the lost Gore administration are too depressing to think about.

All that said, it doesn’t excuse the grotesque behavior of Ken Starr and the Congressional GOP in seeking impeachment. But interestingly, Clinton has – somewhat ironically – benefitted from the Clinton Derangement Syndrome these guys patented. Liberals’ animosity toward Republican overreach has distracted them from just how royally Clinton’s zipper screwed up the country and the world. It was an indulgence whose irresponsibility approached infinity. It makes for a great Shakespearian tragedy and all (the mix between primal lust and world-historical consequences), but I’ve grown weary of the tale.

More substantively, there are two broad reasons why I oppose Hillary – and both relate directly to Bill. The first – and more petty – reason is that she deserves some retribution for Iraq. Perhaps it’s purely subjective, but I still resent that she – and he – abandoned progressives from August 2002 to roughly the spring of 2005 (the time we needed them most). For me, it’s less about August 2002 to March 2003 – it’s more about the post-war. Hillary remained silent for a very long time, even after the magnitude of our failure was quite clear.

It’s a little bit like the scene in Braveheart where the undermanned, under-resourced army charges the British in a key battle only to have the nobles scurry off like cowards in the hopes of getting in on the action at a later date. Maybe the nobles would have ultimately come around, but William Wallace didn’t wait around to find out.

That’s why Bill’s statement is so galling. He’s pretending that he didn’t scurry off at that critical time when we needed him most – but that’s exactly what he did. Maybe he can pull off the whole “supported the authority, opposed the war” bit better than John Kerry did. But I doubt it. Every sentient being knew that the October 2002 vote was a vote for war. And on that critical battle – the only one that ever really mattered – both Clintons lined up with Longshanks. Maybe Bill whimpered out a meek hedge a few days before the obvious invasion. But that ain’t enough.

All of this relates to the second reason why I oppose Hillary – the Clintons are so scarred that they’re scared. Nothing bold will come from a second Clinton administration – and there’s a non-negligible chance that she’ll be pressured into doing something hawkishly stupid on the foreign policy front. Whether the flaw is action or inaction, the reason will be the same – they are intensely, neurotically afraid of appearing too liberal. The scars cut too deep.

As Sullivan and others have noted, the Clintons came of age in a different time. In their formative political years in Arkansas, they internalized the lesson of distancing themselves from the dirty hippies. And it worked for them – both in Arkansas and in 1992. And that’s all fine – politicians have to play the cards that historical context deals them. More power to them.

But 2008 is a new world. The modern conservative movement is both intellectually and practically exhausted. It’s still a powerful force, but the fires ain’t burnin’ like they were 20 years ago. There’s a window here to shift the course of the river – to enact not only a stable progressive majority, but to chart a lasting progressive course on the big issues of our day (health care, climate change, foreign policy).

Frankly, I have no idea whether Obama has the potential energy necessary to seize this moment. But I do know that Hillary – and her husband – do not. They too are spent forces. Sure, they know how to get things done, but when have they tried? The one time they tried – in 1994 – they got so badly burned that I can’t imagine they’ll stick their necks that far out again. The 1994 health care debacle, after all, merely reaffirmed the lessons they learned in Arkansas. Stick close to business. Triangulate. Don’t be a dirty hippy.

That’s why Hillary’s “old” Iraq positions are relevant to the future. The burning question on my mind is whether Hillary will be willing to at least try to take advantage of the necessarily-fleeting historical window that Bush’s collapse has made possible. Maybe she was timid in the past, but she’ll be totally different as President, right? Wrong. Iraq illustrates precisely how she’ll act. Whenever she fears her right flank is exposed, she’ll ride off with the nobles. Iraq is therefore relevant not because of what she did, but because it provides the best evidence of what she will do.

In other words, I’m tired of the Clintons. Let’s hope the geniuses in Iowa are too.