Here's a question.
Let's assume Hillary Clinton becomes the Democratic nominee in 2016 and subsequently wins the White House in November. A year into her first term, what do you suppose the people who supported her will say? The media elites, the Hollywood big shots, the political insiders, some of whom used their highly respected organizations to push her candidacy? How will they defend their actions, one year later?
Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers? You made a big deal out of AFT's decision to support Hillary's campaign . The rank and file didn't much care for it -- imagine, a union working to elect an anti-union candidate! What will you say when President Hillary puts her corporate handlers in charge of education and, a year on, they have continued to privatize public schools ? What will you say to teachers then? You thought she would keep her word ?
Director Rob Reiner? You make a living selling fantasy. Who knows why anyone would ask you anything political. But when anti-abortion extremist Joe Scarborough queried as to why you were encouraging people to vote for Hillary, you actually said, "she's the most qualified." Talk about making sh*t up. It's a line regularly tossed out by Hillary surrogates. But anyone who's taken the time to look at her record knows it ain't true. Not by a country mile.
The former-Secretary of State surges toward the presidency on a wave of death and destruction that rivals her hero and fellow war-crimes profiteer, Henry the K . The vote to invade Iraq? The bombing of Libya? The military coup in Honduras ? Regime change in Ukraine ? Threatening war with Syria and Russia and practically everyone else, including Palestinians ? Each one of these policy-positions sprang from the neoliberal head of Hillary the Hawk, each one was put into play by her and her associates, and each one was a complete disaster. Libya is a bloody war zone, Honduras is considered the most dangerous country in the world, Ukraine is ruled by Neo-Nazis and the citizens of Gaza are slowly being exterminated.
She came, she laughed , they died.
As for Iraq, it's not hard to understand why Ms Weingarten and Mr Reiner would rather not hear from gadflies like Medea Benjamin or Paul Buchhiet or Ted Rall. But hey, if you've got celebrity status, and a gazillion fans, and you're willing to go on national teevee and peddle big-time falsehoods, then you have to expect to get called on it. So pay attention. It could come in handy.
The reason it's important to remember Hillary's Iraq vote is not just because she led the rush to war based on "cherry picked" intelligence, which in itself shows incredibly bad judgment. Her vote is important because, as a member of the Senate's Intelligence Committee, she was one of the few people who had access to the National Intelligence Estimate before the invasion. She might have seen the discrepancies in the sources. She might have noticed the opaque lines of dispute between agencies, the differences in methodology and interpretation. She might have walked away with questions, doubts. She might have even tried to prevent the US from blundering into the worst foreign policy debacle in its history. She might have -- except she didn't read the report.
Let that sink in for a moment.
Senator Clinton was tasked specifically with making sure the intelligence communities got it right. The Bush gang was talking full scale war . WMD's and mushroom clouds and all that. You'd think Senator Clinton would be concerned. You'd think she'd want to gather as much information as possible from as many sources as possible in order to make an informed decision. Instead, she did the opposite. She voted to take this country to war without even bothering to read the government's case for doing so. How's that for qualified?
A year into Hillary's presidency, what will you say to the families of the women and children killed or exiled as a result of her policies? What words will spin enough cerement to wrap the bodies of the innocent? You were confused? You thought you were doing the right thing? You were misled ?
Predictably, when it comes to framing the election in Hillary-friendly terms, not all the players are as obvious as, say, Madeline Albright , who is surely the answer to the question, "can women in positions of authority be as evil as men?"