The Defection of Harold Mitchell

America is a premier republic, albeit not a perfect one, where everybody is at liberty to endorse a candidate of his/her own choosing,  and a man who votes one way and then turns around and vote the other way would not even be an issue here were it not for the dastardly and clearly opportunistic way it was done by a man who should have known better that a man of integrity  and principle will not switch sides at his convenience, based on an a flawed assumption that this primary is virtually over, and that Hillary will be the candidate at the head of the Democratic ticket. For Congressman  Harold Mitchell to abandon Barach Obama at the very moment he seems to have reached a cul-de-sac, with his poll numbers on a protracted standstill, is treacherous at best, and says a lot about Harold’s lack of integrity and principles. Jumping ship anticipative of perceptably imminent defeat of Obama is an act of inglorious defection bordering on desperation and betrayal. 

The Democratic take over of the Congress on Nov. 7 will be critical to the future of the Democratic Party as an effective political force sufficiently relevant to the lives of the working families as well as the the underprivileged of our society. As they prepare to govern, the Dems should take to heart the fact that this electoral victory is hardly a product of their tactical and strategic clarity as it an outcome of  factors outside the their control. Factors driven by the dynamics dictated by overreaching and corrupt practices as well as the arbitrary behavior of the Republican Party combined with unchecked and increasingly dictactorial presidency. For the past 12 years out of consistent control of congress, the Democrats have often been viewed by their feckless, impassive, if not downright spineless as an opposition party.  As they are on the way to power, they are confronted with the prospects of an effective and uncompromizing opposition whose mastery of oppositional politics led to the ouster of Democrats in the 1994 Congressinal elections

Strategic Confrontation as the only Option

Senator Russ Feingold is right, constant pressure has to be brought to bear on supporters of the war . But that will not be anywhere near enough, if only because the more momentum it has lost, the Democratic-led Congress seems to have put less and less pressure on the very individual who matters most, the president.  As a matter of fact President Bush has outflanked the Democrats on Iraq war to the extent that recently some Democrats were even considering suing for a compromise with the Republicans so that a bill could be crafted that the president would sign. Moreover, voting again and again for a bill so that pro-war Republicans should have to account for their votes before the  voters in their districts is tactically smart even though it does not go far enough if viewed from a broader strategic perspective of its over-reliance on Republican support.  An in-your-face strategic confrontation with Mr. Bush remains the only obvious option, yet untried by Democrats. It assumes that to sherpard a bill from legislation into law is a joint venture of congressional and presidential function governed by the principle of separation of powers. Hence the Congress is not required at all costs to submit to the president a bill of his own liking, or sue for a compromise just to conveniently preclude a presidential veto. Thus, in the current situation in which the struggle for advantage between the president and the Cogressional Democrats obtains, Democrats blew their chances in May of enhancing their political leverage, by capitulating, and  cowardly conceding to Bush everything he wanted: a bill without strings attached. This time around then the question becomes: Are Democrats ready to sell their souls again and surrender their principles? Or are their going to do the right and fight for their principles( assuming they might still have some left). With this in mind then clearly the Democrats have some work to do, that is, if one is to assume they are not going to roll over again. They should start galvanizing the aready anti-war public support in the event of another presidential veto. The president will have to account for his veto. The Repulicans should be made to account for their filibuster as well.

Troubling Implications of the Hillary Vote

For Hillary Clinton to have demanded that President Bush seek Congressional authorization before taking any military action against Iran is downright hypocritical in light of her recent vote for the Kyl-Lieberman bill that essentially empowers Bush to attack Iran, contrary to what Hillary herself had asked of President.

While the United States bombing of Iran would be foolhardy for countless reasons, not least from the standpoint of strategic prudence, its imminence seems beyond question, viewed from the plausibility of its orchestration and justification, as subordinated to a political calculation dominated by irrationality and absence of strategic clarity. And, while the surge-suppressed violence in Iraq has essentially receded to a considerable degree, the prospect of a renewed deterioration as well as the resumption carnage and its intensification should be a matter of concern.  Moreover,  the situation seems certain to get worse before it gets better, considering the absence of any effort inside Iraq to bring about political reconciliation rather than the piece-meal—albeit positive—short-term tactical accomodation between the U.S. military and the Sunni insurgents in Anbar province, which is currently being peddled by the administration to convey a false sense optimism that, indeed, a political settlement in Iraq is at hand. Even though this accomodation seems unamenable as a model for transplantation elsewhere in Irag due dissimilarity of social conditions that brought about intra-Sunni conflict and the attendant fall-out in the first place

Given the volatility of the Iraqi situation as compounded by the absence of inter-ethnic reconciliation, the social regression with escalating violence has never been as imminent, even in the face of the much-touted surge. In view of the inevitability of deterioration and concomittant violence underpinning the deepening quagmire, fundamental questions of consequential significance have not been adequadely addressed so as to understand the dynamics of the political situation that will ultimately determine the course of events in Iraq, instead the Administration has scapegoated of others and assigned blame without concrete evidence to substantiate its assertion against those whom it accused of stoking violence in Irag and killing American servicemen. Hence the vote by Hillary Clinton and her Democratic counterparts for a Republican bill declaring Iranian Revolutionary Guards terrorists has far reaching implications viewed within the context of its indisputable potential to authorize the unfettered  Bush Administration’s  aggression against Iran. The wisdom of such an aggression is questionable at best, since any attack on Iran would undoubtedly yield undesirable consequences, as it has a good chance of  leading to the inflamation of the situation that might stimulate a further deterioration, plunging American troops into a protracted quagmire that has the potential to generate into regional instability.

In view of the foregoing, then, it is difficult to find why the likes of Hillary voted for the bill if not for sheer opportunism on her part. Driven by political expediency, Hillary seems convinced beyond any shadow of doubt that the primary election is hers to lose, if only she could go beyond primary electoral politicking and straddle to the political center of American politics. And it does not matter how she gets there because for her the end justifies the means.