by Jayne Lyn Stahl
 You may have read the transcript of a speech given by George McGovern in The Nation last week in which he rightly condemns the hubris, and inanity of those actions, by our president, that have cost the lives of more than the 3018 service members the former senator, and presidential candidate, cites. McGovern is right, too, to confirm what many of us already suspected which is that Bush pere was opposed to his son's preemptive manuevers in the Persian Gulf; right, too suggest that W. would have fared better had he listened to his "physical father" rather than the advice he claims came from a higher authority.
I confess, while I was a vocal, and persistent protestor against the war in Vietnam, and among the first on my block to speak out against that debacle, George McGovern wasn't at the top of my list for president the year he ran. He was too low on testasterone for me, at the time, though I now wonder if the warrior hormone, in the end, produces more worriers than peace.
After yesterday's announcement, we now have a candidate
who has no shortage of testosterone, Hillary Clinton. What she lacks is
credibility. Not only did Clinton vote in favor of the war, but she
watered down her pro-choice statements, so they'd be more palatable to
centrist Democrats and Republicans making one wonder just how far the
Senator is prepared to bend with respect to Roe v. Wade, an important
question in light of the current composition of the Supreme Court, and
the tenuousness of a constitutional amendment that guarantees a woman's
right to choose. One would also like to hear Clinton speak out against
the Military Commissions Act, the USA Patriot Act, the NSA electronic
surveillance program, and challenges to a free press instead of trying
to look commander-in-chiefish' during her Internet appearances.
We all remember what happened to the former Massachusetts governor, and
Democratic presidential candidate in 1988, Michael Dukakis, when he
tried to prove what a good commander-in-chief he would make. We don't
need more strength, and authoritarianism, or the illusion of
responsibility. We need more responsiveness. Hillary, or anyone else
who has designs on the Democratic Party nomination for president, will
need to display a rare synthesis of humanity, gentility, integrity, as
well as no-nonsense conviction. Personally, I don't question the
senator's change of heart on Iraq. I would like to see higher octane on
other matters like censorship, global warming, torture, and the illegal
detention of "enemy combatants"
at Guantanamo Bay, and elsewhere in the world. While we've had enough
pre-emption to make it through this Millennium, anyway, it would be
refreshing to see a proactive, rather than a reactive, approach to both
foreign and domestic policy. We need leaders who lead, not ones who
wait for cues from public opinion polls.
Make no mistake,
watching videos of Senator Clinton talking about setting up an
"exploratory commission," coming across strong, and undeniably
brilliant, makes me proud to be a woman, but we need a president who
will make us proud to be an American.
This is one election the Democrats simply can't afford to lose. The
candidate who takes his, or her party's nomination must be, in the best
sense of the word, unimpeachable and, more importantly, one that can
win.. This nation is in dire need of equal opportunity, and not
political opportunism.
|
