The New Republic

Wow!

Someone call the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, we've found an example of what was thought to be an extinct species: a reasonable, gracious Hillary supporter.

- WoodyBombay

April 7, 2008 at 2:19pm

This morning Hillary Clinton endorsed Nancy Pelosi's call to boycott the opening ceremonies at the Olympics to protest Darfur and Tibet.  As far as I know this is the first time in the campaign any of the 3 candidates have endorsed a unilateral U.S. move (rather than pathetic dithering at the U.N. or knowingly meaningless rhetoric warning Sudan to accept a greater African Union presence).   Senator Obama gave a mumbling "I can see both sides" non-answer to Chris Matthews last week.  Is he willing to make a decision now?  Has anyone even asked McCain his position?

Who knows -- the subject that gets TNR bloggers "frantically" to work is Rudy praising Hillary!  

Of course, there's supposedly not any differernce between the Dem candidates.  I wonder if someone in a Chadian refugee camp reading about this would feel the same.  Never Again my ass...

- Lymon1

April 7, 2008 at 2:29pm

Hey, lymon, you've been taking about this Olympic boycott thing for weeks now.  And I get your point: why are we focused on silly horserace stuff to the exclusion of real issues?  Gotcha.  But do you really think boycotting the Olympics will improve the situation in Darfur or Tibet?  How many lives will be saved?  My guess is: not one.

Like you, I very much want to hear the candidates talk about their plans for Darfur and (to a lesser extent) Tibet.  But boycotting the Olympics is a purely symbolic move that won't help anything at all.  It's a cop out.  

Also: gay hobbit endorses Hillary.

- ratnerstar

April 7, 2008 at 2:49pm

But Sam wanted to kill Gollum all along. If Sam had gotten his way, Frodo either would not have destroyed the ring, and Sauron would have triumphed, or Frodo would have perished on Mount Doom, suicide being the only way to destroy the ring without Gollum's intervention.

So if Sam supports Hillary, doesn't that mean that a vote for Hillary is a vote for Sauron?

- rhubarbs

April 7, 2008 at 4:05pm

Rat:  Given that Stephen Speilberg's initial "symbolic" move (forced by Mia Farrow's devestating WSJ editorial) with respect to the Olympics caused China to pressure Sudan into allowing *any* foreign troops into Darfur, I disagree -- at the very least it's precedence enough to at least try.  Talk about disgusting: we wouldn't put in a no-fly zone a la Iraq, we killed meaningful sanctions (read Ken Silverstein on the Darfur Accountability Act), and now we can't even threaten to make a meek symbolic gesture.

And given that 1/2 the TNR staff would be dead had the allies raised this kind of response to Germany (I know, we did it for reasons apart from genocide), and given TNR's blistering editorials on Darfur, I'm just asking they at least *pretend* to have meant what they said.  If they did the beat writers/editors would be all over this.  Instead they've gone invisible.  THey can't be *that* protective of Obama, can they?  

- Lymon1

April 7, 2008 at 4:52pm

actually, it is little known but Gollum was in fact inspired by Hillary Clintons quest for the nomination ring. see her scheming behind Obama's back, while at the same time publicly saying how honored she is to be near him.

lymon, I think it is a little bit in bad taste to be using Darfur as a cudgel against Obama. You do not seriously believe that boycotting the the opening ceremonies at the Olympics to protest Darfur and Tibet will make the slightest bit of difference. Hint: the Chinese have a billion people, they can overwhelm the activities making anybodies no show not be noticeable, besides Hillary knows full well that Bush won't do anything.

Hillary does not give a rats ass about Darfur or Tibet, and the Clinton administration toadied up to the chinese the entire time Bill was in office. Yeah, Hillary made one speech about "womans aka Hillary" rights,  As to her speech itself, she did not specifically criticize China, but the treatment of women worldwide and said such pablum as: "It is time for us to say here in Beijing, and the world to hear, that it is no longer acceptable to discuss women's rights as separate from human rights," meanwhile the Clinton administration went out of their way to soothe ruffled Chinese feathers. "There is nothing in her speech that in any way deviates from our approach on China," the official said, "or on our desire to get the relationship stabilized and to get some momentum going. This is a United Nations conference and she was speaking out on a global problem."

What courage, right?

If you want to be fair, you have to say a pox on all their houses since none of the candidates are endorsing anything near adequate to address this issue. I am sorry, but genocide should not be a wedge issue to score cheap political points. I have laid out solutions without referencing any candidate, that would be far better thing to do.

- blackton

April 7, 2008 at 6:06pm

lymon: fair enough.  I guess a symbolic move is better than no move.  I'll give Hillary credit for taking what appears to be the boldest position of the three, even if that isn't saying much.  But I'd be a lot more impressed if someone said "I'll put boots on the ground" (and then followed through).

- ratnerstar

April 7, 2008 at 7:00pm

ratnerstar -- and I'm not so naive to think that Hillary didn't time this to help deflect some of the Mark Penn story -- there are a number of options on Darfur and while I have my preferences, right now it's a struggle just to have them discussed.

blacton -- my beef with Obama on Darfur goes beyond the Olympics and pre-dates his run for the Presidency.  Several years ago Jeremy Levitt, a law professor in Chicago, wrote an editorial in the Sun-Times calling Senator Obama's first two years of invisibility on Darfur "shameful."  Then he stepped up...after George Clooney went on Oprah, but even then (as a TNR print article noted) he wasn't a very forceful advocate.  Then, upon anouncing his candidacy, he clammed up.  Except to make statements seemingly in contradiction with the ones he made in 2005.  

That said, I have no problem with the "pox on all houses" -- forget Hillary and let's talk about Pelosi.  Or Germany's chancellor, who has gone farther, or France's prime minister, who is contemplating it.  Out policy isn't because we had a robust debate and concluded we wouldn't do anything, it's because we *haven't* had a debate, because the media hasn't pushed on.

As to the effectiveness of boycotting the opening ceremony, I think the threat (as well as private threats -- demand NBC or whoever has the games cover Darfur, Tibet and China's role unless we see positive movement) might encourage China to pressure Sudan.  If nothing else maybe they (China) would purchase or supply the helicoptoers which the tiny peacekeeping force there doesn't have because nobody is providing them.  Genocide is the line where we don't play these kinds of realpolitik games to rationalize doing nothing -- or so I thought.

- Lymon1

April 7, 2008 at 8:44pm

P.S.  On Politico.com there's a funny comment to this story where somebody has Obama giving Wright's  "God Damn America" speech but substituting China for America.  It also has the Chinese inventing SARS to kill Europeans.  

- Lymon1

April 7, 2008 at 8:46pm