The Talk Radio News Service

The Talk Radio News Service is the only information news service dedicated to serving the talk radio community. TRNS maintains a Washington office that includes White House, Capitol Hill and Pentagon staffed bureaus, and a New York office with a United Nations staffed bureau.

← Who did YOU pick? Gen. Obering and his colleagues confident their budget works →

The Moral Side of War: Hillary’s Jihad Volley, Revisited

April 17th, 2008 by Richard F. Miller · 2 Comments

On 26 February, this column opined (”The Moral Side of War: Hillary’s Jihad Volley”) that Senator Clinton, unable to win the nomination, was determined to wage the kind of primary campaign that would prevent Barack Obama from winning the general election. Her motives might range from personal (if I can’t have it, you’re not going to get it either) to political (I’m only 60 years old and am young enough to run again; thus, I don’t want you to win and potentially hold the White House for eight years.) Either way the aim would be to discredit Obama the same way that John Kerry was discredited in 2004: sufficient damage to preclude his future viability as a national candidate.

Last night’s Pennsylvania primary debate advanced Clinton’s objectives mightily. Unwittingly (or otherwise) ABC hosts Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos devoted the first 45 minutes to focusing on Obama’s negatives. Unfortunately for the would-be secular messiah, he didn’t perform well. Despite taking weeks of pounding about his racist pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the months of stories about his relationship with still-proud ex-SDS bomber Bill Ayres, and the flag-pin-in-the-lapel-flap, Obama’s answers were weak, sometimes contradictory and at times, not even credible. The silver tongue had tarnished.

For Jihad Volley purposes, it didn’t matter that Clinton looked less like the Heroine of Tuzla; all that mattered was that Obama didn’t look like an electable alternative to John McCain.

Today there was the predictable left-wing whining about an issue-free debate or ABC’s unfairness, or that Obama was suffering from the campaigner’s version of battle fatigue. Such complaints, while understandable from those who believe that St. Obama will usher the nation and world into the Age of Aquarius, nevertheless miss the point. Last night was exactly the kind of treatment that the junior–and increasingly, very junior–senator from Illinois can expect in the general election. If you will, analogize it to a soldier’s basic training: if he or she can’t stand the war games on Paris Island, you can bet that things will not go well in real-time combat.

On an unrelated note, I leave for Afghanistan next week, there to be embedded with the 4th Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne. I’ll have more to say about that and Afghanistan in general, very soon.

—Richard F. Miller, Military Affairs Correspondent, TRNS

Digg This [?]

Tags: News/Commentary · Richard F. Miller's The Moral Side of War

2 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Adkins // Apr 17, 2008 at 2:01 pm

    “who believe that St. Obama”

    So much for the objectivity of this article.

  • 2 Richard F. Miller // Apr 17, 2008 at 4:36 pm

    Adkins: This article isn’t meant to be objective. It’s an opinion piece. Having said that, let me add the following: It is my opinion that Senator Barack Obama is unsuitable to be President of the United States. He not only lacks experience, he lacks the political maturity and personal gravitas to lead an ethnically and racially diverse nation such as ours. His affiliation, and refusal to disavow, a patent racist such as Jeremiah Wright might be exhibit number one; his class snobbery, personal condescension and utter disdain for many of his fellow citizens, as he gladly explained to his San Francisco donors, is another reason; moreover, his pretenses to bipartisanship is not supported by a scintilla of evidence.

    The presidency that Mr. Obama is supremely qualified for is that of an Ivy League university. There, he would be surrounded by the herd of independent thinkers, the bien pensants he so obviously prefers.

    Frankly, I have few fears that Mr. Obama will be elected president. He has done an excellent job, by his arrogance and political incompetence, of swiftboating himself into oblivion. The candidate he most resembles is George McGovern, and the year is 1972.

    My guess is that he will share McGovern’s well-earned fate.

Leave a Comment

Note: clicking "Submit" signals acceptance of the comment policy printed below.

Comment Policy: We'd like the posts to be civil, of course (no profanity, personal insults, and the like), but we're also hoping that people try to be as calm, reasoned, and substantive as possible. So please, also avoid rants, invective, substantial and repeated exaggeration, and radical departures from the topic of the thread. Sticking with substance -- and staying on-topic -- will make the comments more helpful to other readers, and more pleasant.

As editors, we reserve the right to delete posts, and even to kick out posters, though we hope that both of these will be exceptional events. (We also reserve the right to be busy with other things, and therefore (1) not remove all the posts that might merit removal, and (2) ignore demands such as "You should remove A's posts, because they're just as bad as B's!")

Here's a tip: Reread your post, and think of what people would think if you said this over dinner. If you think people would view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who vastly overdoes it on the hyperbole, rewrite your post before hitting enter.

And if you think this is the other people's fault -- you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, but fools wrongly view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who overdoes it on the hyperbole -- then you should still rewrite your post before hitting enter. After all, if you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, then surely it's especially important that you frame your arguments in a way that is persuasive and as unalienating as possible, even to fools.

Our goal is to provide an interesting and pleasant environment that can help inform readers. To do that, we'll occasionally have to exercise our editorial discretion. Think of this as an in-person discussion group, where having different voices is critical to a great conversation -- but where sometimes the leader has to deal with cranks who sour the conversation more than they enliven it.

Naturally, there's always a risk that this discretion will be used erroneously, no matter how well-intentioned the editor. But discussion groups (especially on the Internet, but also off it) generally need an editor who'll occasionally make such judgments.

And, remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.