After the November elections, while most conservatives were in a
dual state of shock and mourning, I advised
them to turn their thoughts to the joys of congressional minority
living: “And this, my fellow partisans, is where the fun begins;
fun, as in watching the loyal opposition twist themselves into
pretzels on the floors of Congress for a change.”
Well that twist contest has begun, at least verbally. The
problem for the Democrats — especially those in the 2008 White
House sweepstakes — is tri-fold. On the one hand, they must
appease their large anti-war base, yet maintain a mainstream
facade; all the while appearing to be Commander in Chief material.
What this means is that they’re liable to say almost anything in
service of these goals and in the process, they will be in
opposition to various party factions, and ultimately, to each
other.
For example, Joe Biden ticked off black Democrats with his odd
remarks regarding the ascendancy of Barack Obama, when he said of
the budding colossus: “I mean, you got the first mainstream
African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a
nice-looking guy. I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”
Shouldn’t Mr. Biden know that use of the word “articulate” in
reference to minorities is a no-no in liberal circles; that it is a
covertly racial code word? Yet these are the same folks who can’t
see that Affirmative Action they champion casts a legitimate veil
of suspicion over the accomplishments of all blacks, articulate or
not. Besides, calling Obama articulate may be an overstatement for
a man who has eloquently referred to
our efforts in Iraq as a “dumb war.”
Probably the best part of the whole thing was Obama’s reaction to the “slur” when he said, “You’d have
to ask Senator Clinton, uh, Senator Biden what he was thinking.” A
Freudian slip of the tongue by the articulate one? Possibly, but
maybe a little taste of the deliciously catty campaign season ahead
of us.
After all, Hillary Clinton hinted at this last week when she
said, “When you are attacked, you have to deck
your opponent. I have been through the political wars longer than
some of you have been alive. We’ve got to be prepared to hold our
ground and fight back.” It is regrettable that she and her party
cannot demonstrate that same resolve in holding our ground in
Iraq.
In the meantime, we can enjoy the gyrations of others who voted
for the War in Iraq while they do the John Kerry shuffle. Former
running mate John Edwards added a few new steps on Meet the
Press this week. When asked by Tim Russert about his 2004
defense of his vote after no WMDs were found, he gave this
rambling, incoherent answer:
When the campaign was over and the election was over,
we had a lot going on in my own family. Elizabeth had been
diagnosed with breast cancer, we were taking care of her. And for
the first time I had time to really think about, number one, what I
was going to spend my time doing, and, number two, my vote for this
war. And over time, when I reflected on what I thought was going to
be necessary going forward, to have some moral foundation to work
on issues like poverty and genocide, things that I care deeply
about, I could no longer defend this vote.
The operative phrase seems to be, “what I thought was going to be
necessary going forward,” which is another way of saying, “I stuck
my finger in the air to see which way the wind was blowing.” Also
going forward, or maybe in circles, is Mrs. Clinton; she who has
vowed to issue an
imperial edict to end the War should she
re-assume her share of the presidency in 2009.
Her statements like, “I want to be very clear about this: If I
had been president in October 2002, I would not have started this
war,” even though she voted to authorize it, demonstrate that she
is either an insincere panderer or an incredibly incompetent dupe.
But no matter how they get it, the left wing of the Democratic
Party wants an end to this war and will support the candidate most
likely to accommodate them by doing the Hustle.
