Walking Eagles

A joke about Hillary Rodham Clinton is making the rounds on the Net:

Senator Hillary Clinton was invited to address a major gathering of the American Indian Nation two weeks ago in upper New York State. She spoke for almost an hour on her future plan for increasing every Native American's standard of living, should she one day become the first female President. She referred to her career as a New York Senator, how she had signed "YES" for every Indian issue that came to her desk for approval. Although the Senator was vague on the details of her plan, she seemed most enthusiastic about her ideas for helping her "red sisters and brothers." At the conclusion of her speech, the Tribes presented the Senator with a plaque inscribed with her new Indian name: Walking Eagle. The proud Senator then departed in her motorcade, waving to the crowds.

A news reporter later queried the group of chiefs about how they came to select the new name given to the Senator. They explained that Walking Eagle is the name given to a bird so full of shit it can no longer fly.

According to Snopes, the joke was originally invented for John F. Kerry last June, and then the same joke began to make a butt of George W. Bush. The joke, being applicable to nearly all politicians in the United States, is likely to have a long shelf life. For now, it's Hillary Clinton's turn.

And why not? Look at opinion polls on "Election 2008" (!), and Clinton is all but anointed as the Democratic Party's presidential candidate. While I doubt that liberals and leftists will make the same stampede toward the Democratic Party in particular and electoral politics in general that they did in 2004, the opinion-making clique among liberals are already gearing up to "brand" Clinton as the "winner" whom we should all support:

It remains to be seen, of course, whether Clinton will be good for progressives or for the party as a whole. In the short term, though, she can certainly help the party -- if nothing else, she's at least beginning to develop a Democratic alternative that could constitute one path to political success. "Hillary may not be an iconic liberal, but she fights for the people liberals care about -- women, children, veterans, people without healthcare," [John] Podesta says. "Best of all, she's tough, and she knows how to win." (Greg Sargent, "Brand Hillary," The Nation, 6 Jun. 2005)

Alleged "electability" was the sole reason why legions of Democrats and other liberals and leftists felt compelled to choose the pro-war Kerry, casting out anti-war candidates inside and outside the Democratic Party against their own conscience, but, as we all know, the flip-flopper turned out to be a BIG FLOP. Are US liberals and leftists doomed to make the same mistake twice?

If that's the case, anti-war activists ought to do the damnedest to end the Iraq War and bring the troops home before 2007. Why? Look at what happened last year:

TABLE 1

FAVOR KEEPING LARGE NUMBER OF U.S. TROOPS IN IRAQ OR BRINGING MOST HOME IN NEXT YEAR

"Do you favor keeping a large number of U.S. troops in Iraq until there is a stable government there OR bringing most of our troops home in the next year?"

Base: All Adults

	Oct. 2003	Feb. 2004	April 2004	June 2004	Aug. 2004	Sept. 2004	Oct. 2004	Nov. 2004	NOW
	%	%	%	%	%	%	%	%	%
Favor keeping a large number of U.S. troops in Iraq until there is a stable government there	46	45	42	39	40	38	47	50	39
Favor bringing most of our troops home in the next year	47	51	51	56	54	54	50	47	59
Not sure/Refused	7	4	8	6	5	7	3	2	1

NOTE: Percentages may not add up exactly to 100 percent due to rounding.

Source: "Iraq, 9/11, Al Qaeda and Weapons of Mass Destruction: What the Public Believes Now, According to Latest Harris Poll" (18 Feb. 2005)

In short, after climbing up to the high point of 56% on June 8-15, the voices that said "Bring Home in Next Year" decreased significantly, reaching the low point of 47% on November 9-14 and getting reduced to a minority for the first time since Harris began to poll on this question in October 2003. That's the power of elite bipartisan consensus for "staying the course" on the occupation of Iraq.

Thankfully, the tide has turned since the end of the last presidential election, and now 59% of Americans are opposed to the Iraq War. If we cannot end the war before 2007, however, Walking Eagles -- especially "National Security Democrats" like Clinton -- will surely try to bring down the anti-war movement again in 2008 with the sheer weight of their bullshit.