Just One Question, Mr. President: Where Were You?

There have been no overt references to it, but you would have to be a very casual observer of Hillary Clinton’s campaign to not know that one of the underlying premises behind the argument to vote for her is that such a vote would return America to the august days of Mr. Clinton’s presidency.

Intentional or not, as Mrs. Clinton flaunts her so-called 35 years of experience, the bulk of that includes her time as the First Lady, and serves as a constant reminder that electing Hillary Clinton as president would mean reinstating the only Democratic presidency in this country since the seventies.

In truth, without her marriage to the popular yet polarizing Mr. Clinton, Hillary Clinton would have no basis for a presidential run as a hawkish sophomore senator who has been following, not leading the way, on virtually every issue throughout this campaign.  True, she is a gifted politician in her own right, but without Bill, there would not be the strong support from the party apparatus, nor even a significant narrative to shore up what she lacks in actual experience in governance as well as experience as a holder of elected office.

So when Bill Clinton goes on the trail on Hillary’s behalf and makes the claim that he opposed the Iraq war from the very beginning, a couple of very intriguing questions come to mind.

The first is, if so, where were you, Mr. President, when your wife chose to cast the vital “yea” vote that allowed the war to happen in the first place?  In the answer to this lies a gaping hole in the theory that a Clinton presidency would be four more years of the Clinton presidency that we’ve already experienced.  That being that Hillary is not going to be cribbing off of her husband’s governing style.

If the Hillary is the sequal to Bill motif is true, and Bill’s assertion about Iraq is true, then I think it reasonable to assume that Bill would have counseled his wife not to cast that yea vote, and instead vote against the authorization to use military force, and Hillary would have subsequently followed that very good advice.

On the other hand, the other question is, how much was the ex-president really against the war?  Was it the black and white answer he gave, or was it a far more nuanced approach, and now for political purposes he’s engaging in that much beloved pass time of revisionist history on his wife’s behalf?  And if this is the case, is this yet another example of the politically motivated triangulation that Clinton has become so vested in throughout the course of the primary season?

There’s no doubt that a pro-Iraq war, or in fact a hawkish stance at all stands as a benefit in the Democratic primary, however, Hillary does have to come up with a non-substantial means of nodding towards the base in this regard such that she doesn’t actually have to change her real stance to protect her status as a war hawk when she goes to court the right in the general election (something she’s already been doing).

What better way to do it than to get one of the more popular members of the Democratic party to get up there and make the declaration in words and not in actions.  Actions we already know she’s failed to take in the past, and continues to fail to take today.

One Response to “Just One Question, Mr. President: Where Were You?”

  1. xranger says:

    I think the more Bill ‘n Hill talk, and lie, or get caught in lies, more people will stop and say, “Do we REALLY want them, again?”

    I mean, Algore couldn’t sweep into the White House on Slick Willy’s coat tails (like Bush Sr. did).

    The country will remember how tired we all were of the Clintons, and the neverending lies and scandals.

    Could bode well for your candidate, Obama.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Connect with Facebook