Nothing is more easily dismissed in debate as a cheap simplification of a politically complicated matter. Often these utterances are to score points with, well, the types of people who love cheap simplifications. Around my home, we refer to these voters, the cheap kind, as “the bumper sticker brigade”, those who are quick to put something often trivial, or marginally witty, on the back of their car’s to distinguish themselves as a member of an elite caste of supposedly trivial or marginally witty people.

Balderdash I say to the bumper sticker brigade – they can take their cheap sound bites and shove um right up their tailpipes.

It is exactly this type of rhetoric, the cheap kind that is the stuff of the modern political debate, a complete misnomer, for an event that has little to do with actual debate and more to do with bumper sticker public policy. Why we bother with this process is completely beyond me. The kind of people who watch the early party debates are likely the people whose minds are already made up – why else watch a horse race unless you have money on a horse?

Senator Clinton’s recent soundbite, where she called the Iraq War “Mr. Bush’s war” was met with applause and was regarded by many as, if not a rhetorical home run, then at least a triple. She wasn’t saying anything that couldn’t be gotten from any third rate blogger - hardly the elevated stuff we expect from candidates – and as much as I admire the work done by my peers, the blogosphere is a place for passion and not a place for innovative or effective policy.

Her labeling of this war, as Mr. Bush’s alone, is stupid. It trivializes the war. The burden of this war is not Mr. Bush’s alone but it is actually shared by thousands of families across the country. This war was initiated by a select group of people within the White House and DOD. Having no opposition from the public, or from any other sector of government (including the senate), it was allowed to happen. Though Mr. Bush’s government certainly got us into this mess, Hillary Clinton did nothing to stop the war from happening. In fact, she was one of its great champions in the senate. Her flip on the war shows us two things (at least) about what kind of person is lurking behind that botoxy grin and foppish hair. One, it shows us something about her judgment. Two, it shows us something sinister about her approach to politics.

First, if we are to believe Mrs. Clinton, she says that she would not have authorized this war if “we would have known then what we know now,” etc. This is an infectious backpedal. I think if you hang around the Senate cafeteria long enough you’ll come down with it and then will go around saying it to everyone you know. Supposedly misled, Mrs. Clinton was duped by Bush, even though her aides love to tote the fact that she is a voracious reader and always does her homework. How such a allegedly brilliant mind failed to ask any questions is beyond me since the case for war was something so fragile that a simple, well placed, “where are you getting this?” would have brought down the house of cards.

How was someone so well prepared not able to read the hundreds of pages of grave dissent (we forget that there was mass opposition now) that were published against this war before it began? There were lots of people, albeit not the majority, who knew that there was something sinister in the works. From foreign policy experts to former generals, there were a lot of credible people urging caution. Additionally, we now know that Mrs. Clinton didn’t even bother to read the latest intelligence reports before voting – shocking behavior from someone who is allegedly so well prepared for every occasion and from someone who claims to have agonized over the vote to go to war.

If we are to accept her claim that she was duped then what does that tell us about her sense of judgment? Not much I’m afraid.

Second, and more importantly, is the sinister belief that her war vote was pure politics. This is the belief is that Mrs. Clinton sensed, in 2003, there was something fishy going on but that she had to be a hawk if she was going to run for president. She had to be hard on Sadaam to look presidential or else run the risk of being labeled a softy liberal come the Iowa caucuses in 2008. My gut says that this suspicion will be confirmed and that her war vote had nothing to do with the actual evidence but everything to do with politics. In this case, her assertions now are completely disingenuous and (I’ll say it) completely dishonest.

Not to mention cheap – for Mr. Bush’s war is also Mrs. Clinton’s. Its not like she did anything to stop it from happening.