Post by Damozel | On the foreign policy front, would Hillary end our long national rightmare?
“I won’t even wait until I’m inaugurated, but as soon as I’m elected I’m going to be asking distinguished Americans of both parties — people like Colin Powell, for example, and others — who can represent our country well, including someone I know very well....Because I want to send a message heard across the world. The era of cowboy diplomacy is over.”(WaPo via Memeorandum)
Her tendency to tack centerwards is one of the reasons I've leaned towards her in the intervals when my crush on John Edwards' powerful progressive platform appears an exercise in wishful thinking. Still: Colin Powell?
Don't get me wrong; I personally have forgiven if not forgotten. But what about other people? At The New York Times, Patrick Healy says:
And how will anti-war Democratic voters in Iowa, New Hampshire and elsewhere feel about Mrs. Clinton’s suggestion that she wants one of the architects of the Iraq war to serve as a goodwill ambassador? (WaPo)
Healy is right that there are a lot of "anti-war Democratic voters" who won't see Powell as the ideal choice for a "goodwill ambassador." But I'm guessing the really impassioned ones won't be voting for her in the primaries anyway. And if she gets the nomination \ they'll vote for her in preference to any Republican candidate or in preference to not voting (won't they)?
I'd say the better question is whether moderate Democrats like me, conservative Democrats, independents, and RINOs can stomach Powell. I imagine quite a lot of us are exhausted and sickened by the toxic polarization of the political system. We'd like a president who hears both sides of the issues, not [another] one driven by political ideology. So could we stomach Powell?
After all, there is this:
Though on the other hand there is this:
"So: was he lying then or is he lying now?" asked my colleague, the implacable D Cupples. But I remember feeling grateful at the time----even taking into account all the circumstances---that he'd said publicly what we all suspected (and often, based on nothing more than hints and vague allegations, believed).
I would prefer to see Colin Powell as the unwitting and---according, much later, to him---unwilling tool of the Bush Administration. But many bloggers, younger and more spirited and less credulous than I (after all, suppose he did believe what he was saying?), just see him as a tool.
"You can't be serious," said D Cupples bluntly---and she is not even a Democrat---when I once said I believed that Powell probably thought he was telling the truth to the UN. But even if he was, what of it? What of it? What was he doing serving the Bush Administration in the first place?
Other bloggers, less circumscribed by doubt than I always am, are quite certain what they think about this little instance of name-dropping or mentionitis.
For example, here is Melissa McEwan from Shakesville:
And that message ["The era of cowboy diplomacy is over"] is best sent by engaging the talents of Colin Powell, official international pitchman for the Iraq War....?!....
[E]ven if someone subscribes to this dubious theory of New Messaging, I cannot for the life of me understand why on planet earth Hillary has any interest in rewarding Colin Powell for bad behavior. And not just any old run-of-the-mill bad behavior, but quite possibly traitorous bad behavior.
After Powell's knowingly false dog-and-pony show for the UN, he shouldn't professionally be given the time of day by any decent person, no less the next president of the United States, no less a Democratic president. Ridiculous. (Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot.)
Here is Digby:
No, No, No. This is a horrible idea. I assume that Clinton thinks this would signal a return to "The Powell Doctrine" but even if it's decided that's a good idea, Powell himself should never be allowed anywhere near government again....
Clinton may think it's a neat idea to send a few Republicans around the world as envoys to show that America has a bipartisan foreign policy again, but she's going to have to look to people who have been out of government for a couple of decades if she expects them to actually have a credibility in the rest of the world.
Colin Powell sold his reputation and his soul when he helped the Bush administration sell a war he knew was bullshit. It's worse, in some ways, than what Bush did. At least Bush actually thought it was a good idea. ...
And anyway, there is no margin in rehabilitating members of the Bush administration. She will get no thanks for it and she knows it....No member of the Bush administration should ever be set out to represent this country abroad again. And aside from Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney, I can't think of anyone less credible than Colin Powell.. (Don't Call Colin)
PSoTD:
Two words: Colin Powell. Could she really be considering bringing back a proven political eunuch that helped push us into the most disastrous foreign/defense policy since, well, ever? Just the fact that she said it should be as good a reason as any ever provided to vote against her as a candidate.
Please, Democratic Party candidates, please point out the sheer banality of her suggestion. (Want a Reason To Absolutely Not Vote for Hillary Clinton?)
Attytood:
Hillary Clinton just doesn't get it, on so many levels. Her pandering to her pal Rupert Murdoch's Fox News and to the fairly non-existent swing voter won't win her one extra vote in November 2008 -- assuming she gets that far -- and it's also a slap in the face to most Democratic primary voters, proving that she has no idea how much her 2002-03 actions and statements regarding Iraq are reviled....If you must send a Republican abroad....Arnold Schwarzenegger? Hull-oh.. (Hillary needs a Colin-ectomy)
Matthew Yglesias at The Atlantic Online;
Powell's obviously a knowledgeable, experienced guy and I suppose it would make sense for a new President to talk to him and get his perspective on things. Maybe even send the message that it's not just Democrats who think the country's taken a totally messed-up course over the past few years.
But then again, if Clinton's looking to assuage people's doubts about her foreign policy judgment, this seems like a terrible way to do it. A lot of Clinton's pro-invasion advisors are too obscure for most people to recognize. But Powell was the public face of the Iraq sales pitch. He's also a man who did have enough independence from his commander-in-chief to undermine her husbands efforts to bring gay equality to the military when Bull Clinton was president and Powell was in uniform. But as Secretary of State he raised some skeptical questions about the war, heard some answers, and then not only hopped on the bandwagon, but used his leverage as someone with a reputation for skepticism to make the sales pitch all the more effective. (The Powell Gambit)
Steven Duncan, commenting on Yglesias's note, writes: "Does anyone get the feeling Hillary would just be a redux of BushII albeit slightly more competent and with a few less nutjobs filling in the holes?" Well, after all, Andrew Sullivan did call Hillary "Cheney in a pantsuit" during an episode of Real Time. So yes, I think there are some who already have that feeling. I am not one of them.
I have complete confidence in Hillary Clinton's
ability to steer a middle course in foreign policy. And though I
personally lean to the left, I disagree with Melissa McEwen that a course in
progressive politics is the solution to the damage done by the Bush
Administration. I think the solution is a policy that strikes a
balance between assuaging the anxieties of the fearful and timorous
right wing and answering the left's demands for accountability of the
chief executive to the people and for a restoration of the wall between
church and state. I am not sure that Hillary can do this. But I am
not sure that anyone can. But this....I don't know what to do with the sudden introduction of Colin Powell into Clinton v.2's hypothetical administration. While I find I can stomach it with a heavy dose of soppy liberal love for a redemption arc, it still isn't sitting well.
And setting aside the question of what this says about her judgment, I
can't help wondering about what she intended to convey to the public
from a purely tactical standpoint. Probably if you've been called
"Cheney in a pantsuit" on an episode of Real Time, you should wait till after you've got the nomination even to mention
Powell's name in connection with a position of authority in the
hypothetical Clinton v.2 White House. After the nomination, the choice
for Democrats will be Clinton or no one. So at best: weird tactics.
Oh, Al.
RELATED POSTINGS
The Hillary Clinton Nutcracker.
Cleavagegate Part 2: Let's Just Get All of This Out of Our Systems Now.
Cleavagegate: Hillary Clinton Rocks the Internets (and her V-Neck).
"She Thicks [Wo]Men's Blood with Cold" (Hillary Clinton, Part 2).
"She Thicks Men's Blood with Cold." Hillary, Dominating.
Run Away, Al!
Comments