It’s always nice when David Brooks takes time to offer advice to Democrats, It always seem so . . . sincere. Brooks writes that if either Clinton or Obama are elected president, “the left” will demand a quick withdrawal from Iraq, leaving either candidate to face “. . . irate opposition from important sections of the military, who would feel that the U.S. was squandering the gains of the previous year. A Democratic president with few military credentials would confront outraged and highly photogenic colonels screaming betrayal.” They would be screaming betrayal, all right, their own. What ever happend to all that smarmy faux-patriotic crap from the right about the proper role of the Commander in Chief? And what about the long and honorable tradition of civilian leadership of the military? So if those photogenic colonels go on Fox News or PBS, whoever is president should simply fire them or reassign them to Fort Bumfuck for the rest of their careers. Clearly, though, Brooks & other right-wing hacks are already setting the narrative for the Republicans’ loss of the presidency & the attacks Democratic administration. Brooks shows not a shred of regret not a fiber of shame that the next administration will be hemmed in by the consequences of acts perpetrated by the worst, most malignant administration in American history. Whichever Democrat occupies the White House next year, they had better sit the Republican leadership down on the day after the inauguration & give them a choice between playing nice & getting ripped to pieces every day for their malfeasance.  I voted for Obama, but HRC might be better at this that my candidate, who I fear still believes it is possible to reason with the right wing. On the other hand, given the enthusiasm  of his supporters, Obama might win by a large enough margin to claim something like a mandate & then be able to use that to beat the Republicans with not only their failure to govern but their failure to let anyone govern.

I voted for Obama last Tuesday in New York’s Democratic primary despite the fact that I distrust his rhetoric of bipartisanship & especially his habit of framing the debate on economic issues in right-wing terms. For example, accepting as given that there is a “social security crisis.” I also think his health care plan, lacking mandates, is inferior to Clinton’s. (I’m in pretty much the same boat with Battlepanda on this cluster of issues.) But overriding my distrust of Obama’s rhetoric is my visceral reaction to the establishment of American political dynasties. I’m perfectly happy to have Hillary Clinton as my senator, but I don’t want her to be president. I just think it’s a bad idea. I even “like” her personally, insofar as one can like of dislike someone one has never met. But when I add Clinton’s vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq and her general DLC/corporatist orientation, I did not have to hesitate long before pulling the lever for Obama. (And, yes, we still pull a lever in my rural NY county — it’s about time we modernized the voting system, but the state government is so corrupt neither party seems capable of meaningful reforms.) I am hoping that Obama, once elected, will learn to rumble with the Republicans & will begin to work toward a more progressive form of politics. Perhaps it is a vain hope — I’ve grown pretty cynical in recent years — but it seems that such a scenario is more likely with Obama than with Clinton. Those are the calculations I’m making, at any rate. I certainly don’t feel any surge of enthusiasm for Obama personally, as so many apparently do; I do, however, feel a desperate need to remove the radical right from executive power & I think, in addition to what I’ve already noted, Obama is more “electable” than Clinton.