Presidential Coglioni

Hillary Clinton lacks the coglioni to be president. Capisce?

Yes, there are plenty of sexist puns here. That's not what I'm talking about.

This senator of mine lacked the stones to stand up against the invasion of Iraq in 2003, when it was a popular idea and opposition was cynically branded as unpatriotic. This was not to faithfully represent her constituency: senators from Maryland, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and more voted against the Iraq War Resolution. Her political career was not going to end with a nay vote, though it might have slowed her straight-line route to the very top of her party. As she loves to remind us now, she had no firm conviction in the necessity of the mission; she only wanted to assist the diplomatic efforts of the administration. Bullhicky, but we'll get to that later.

She lacked the stones to make a noise of criticism for the following months and years, as the war was being poorly planned and executed, as troops were being sent into the field poorly equipped (and no one banged a louder drum about problems on the ground than the senior senator from Arizona). During this time she was content to maneuver her way onto the Armed Services Committee and build a reputation as some kind of foreign policy wonk and a stoic liberal hawk.

She lacks the stones to either a) commit her candidacy to the goal of promptly ending American involvement in this conflict; which has now devolved into the latest in a centuries-old series of sectarian clashes or b) promise us a President Clinton who will make bold, unpopular decisions and take on the uber-ambitious task of "fixing" Iraq. Instead she supports the sort of vague incrementalism that you usually get when you make foreign policy by asking for a show of hands from the peanut gallery. We must end this war in Iraq! But not surrender. We must secure peace in the region! But not increase our troop levels.

What this thinking ultimately amounts to is a withdrawal that is gradual enough that plenty of American lives will still be lost, yet quick enough for the country to be left in chaos, exponentially angrier at Americans, and ripe for courtship from its neighbor to the east. After all, that is the popular sentiment among idiots and anti-war-anti-surrender voters, a key demographic in midwestern swing states.

Ofcourse having coglioni has nothing to do with being a strong candidate, or atleast Democratic primary voters this year haven't demanded it. Try asking the senator from New York by way of Arkansas by way of Illinois why she voted for the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. If that isn't a bill that calls a spade a spade, I don't know what is. She promises us that she didn't think that vote would actually lead to a use of force, that she only wanted to provide our diplomats with the necessary leverage to force a peaceful solution. BULLHICKY.

She showed a serious lack of judgment by providing this cowboy of a president with bullets and then expecting that he wouldn’t use his gun. She showed a serious lack of understanding in the world's diplomatic system if she honestly thought that Saddam Hussein could be intimidated into rational decision making, which he had shown little of (the man ultimately bluffed his way to the gallows). She is currently showing a serious lack of respect for her voters if she thinks we can't handle the notion that she made an error...

and…

…she is showing a serious lack of presidential coglioni by not owning a serious mistake. Being president, being a leader of anything, does not mean never being wrong. It does not mean never showing a glimpse of regret for you missteps, unless we all take our leadership lessons from the current example. It means responsibility for the mistakes you do make. It means that if you screw up, it's your job to fix it. And whether you fix it or not, being a leader means that you are accountable for it all. We, the people, get to judge you, and punish you accordingly. In this country, that's usually nothing worse than losing your job at a pre-scheduled four-year interval. No guillotine, no firing squad, not even exile. Not that bad really.

Being an ideal candidate means never slipping up or having regrets. Being a Clinton means figuring out brilliant ways to spin and tap-dance and evade and change the subject and figure out how it's all someone else's fault. Being Hillary means sticking a finger in the wind and finding a way to say that you’ve always been dedicated to whatever the current trend is.

But the CIA promised me there were weapons! Carl Levin promised me this was part of a larger diplomatic strategy! Tough. You're a auditioning for president. Will this President Clinton go on television to take the fall for a failed invasion of Cuba? Will she be signing any landmark civil rights legislation that hands over a third of the country to the other party? Of course not, Kennedy and Johnson would have been different presidents if they had gone through the gauntlet of test audiences and marketing consultants that meticulously package everything about Hillary Clinton.

C'mon Trav, don't be so naive. It's 2008, candidates can't be showing that kind of bravado anymore! She might lose the election! Exactly. We’re a generation socialized by Reagan's and Bush's and Clinton's, and we've come to expect nothing better than Mitt Romney's and John Kerry's. Not surprising. It's been a good thirty-five years since an American president had a pair.

Back to the Stone Age Commander-in-Chiefing

There's one guy left in this thing who is eminently qualified to make the toughest decisions that a commander in chief will be expected to make. He is also willing to do whatever it takes to accomplish the mission, whatever that means any more. John McCain is a career soldier, and attractive because there's no one I'd rather have in that situation room if Iran and/or North Korea start trying to blow something up.

But a good soldier doesn't question why. A soldier's mindset makes bombing North Vietnam back to the stone age seem like a good idea if it furthers the mission. I'm not sure what the tactical equivalent would be in Iraq, but good president's do question why. Specifically, they question why they should send Americans into harm's way. Good presidents consider the option of withdrawal from a failed mission without injecting it with the inflammatory language of "surrender". This is a campaign parlor trick that is really no less duplicitous than those of John Edwards, who laid out his plan for a quick withdrawal from Iraq from campaign stops in New Hampshire. Apparently as President, Mr. Edwards wouldn't need to worry about the counsel of , what are they called, generals.

Of course McCain's background make him seem tenfold more authentic than Edwards was. The larger point is that a presidential candidate shouldn't make foreign policy or military decisions from the campaign trail. Nor should he make campaign statements that will handicap his ability to be commander in chief once in office.

Believe it or not, this post was going to be a gripe about Hillary Clinton. Plenty of time for that later.