The Orbis

Although Hillary Clinton has an impressive record on many progressive issues, she is not a candidate true progressives should rally behind for a presidential bid in 2008. Unlike many of her Democratic colleagues who initially voted to give Bush the authority to take the country to war with Iraq, Sen. Clinton has stubbornly refused to repudiate her original decision. America does not need someone in office who is every bit as obstinate as President Bush is when it comes to revising a position or admitting a serious mistake.

It's not clear whether Clinton remains ardently pro-war as a political move to try to bolster a presidential run or because she actually believes that it is the right thing to do. Nonetheless, contributing to the drumbeat of dogmatic support for the war that is rampant on the right is not the way to get votes. What progressives need is a candidate with guts that has no qualms about challenging our participation in a senseless, bloody, and extremely costly conflict.

Just because John Kerry's seemingly amorphous position on Iraq failed to garner enough votes to propel him into the White House, doesn't mean that adopting Bush's war-mongering foreign policy is the way to win elections. Self-respecting progressives must acknowledge the Clinton positioning herself alongside the neoconservative architects of the war is the wrong way to begin a run for the White House.

Those who were fortunate enough to see former Sen. John Edwards speak at the Impact Symposium saw a legislator who wasn't afraid to admit that he made the wrong choice in voting to go to war in Iraq. In light of the revelations that there were no WMD and that the Bush administration distorted and stretched extremely suspect and thin evidence to build a case for unilateral and preemptive war, Edwards has rightfully come to the conclusion that we have made a terrible mistake.

Rather than admitting the obvious, Clinton has chosen to move in the other direction: calling for more troops and a heavier investment of human and economic capital in what has proven to be a disastrous conflict. Rather than reflecting back on the disastrous Vietnam War which she actively opposed as a college student, Clinton has abandoned some of her progressive values in favor of what is either a calculated plan to pander to pro-war voters or, even worse, an ideological commitment to this awful conflict.

The last thing progressives need in 2008 is more "triangulation" or "moderation" (which ultimately means giving in to the administration's position on Iraq). The Iraq War is one of the most contemptible policies that America has had to bear during Bush's presidency. Even many conservatives and libertarians have joined those on the left in actively opposing the costly and unnecessary war effort; it's not just progressives that are frustrated with our involvement in Iraq.

So with this in mind, there is no reason for true progressives to support Hillary Clinton's bid for the Democratic nomination. If she is so committed to seeking support from those on the other side of the Iraq War debate, perhaps she should seek nomination from the party whose position she is trying to emulate.

Article Tools