Saturday, April 12, 2008

R-D Politics

I don't really follow politics--because it strikes me as the only bigger time drain than following baseball--so I'm probably missing something here, but it seems to me that Hillary Clinton's quest for the presidency is handicapped because she initially supported the Iraq War but is now against it.

To me, that's not waffling, or indecisiveness, or anything of the sort. It's a (perhaps belated) recognition that the Iraq conflict has not gone as well as planned for the USA.

It's not like she's alone. Wasn't America's population in support of the war when it began? Haven't they (mostly) changed their minds? Should we condemn every citizen for not foreseeing what would happen?

I'll probably offend some people by comparing something as important as war to something as trivial as sports, but here goes. I thought the Patriots would win the Super Bowl often enough to make a money line bet at -400 profitable. I might have been wrong at the time, but a lot of pros were betting the same way, so I feel fine about it.

Obviously, knowing what I know now, I'd prefer not to have made that bet. Does that make me a waffler or a poor prognosticator? No, it simply means that the results don't always match the expectations.

No one can say for certain whether or not the Iraq War was a "good play" when it began. But certainly government officials thought so, or they wouldn't have started the fight. And whatever you may think of them, they were better informed than you of the possible outcomes.

Rant over. I'll try to make the next post less controversial and more baseball-centric.


Paluka said...

Aren't you ignoring the situation where a politician does something they know is wrong just because the mob (voters) are calling for it? I think it is dangerous to assume that all politicians are always doing what they think is right for the country- sometimes they are just trying to stay politicians.

Perfumes said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.