Bill Clinton was regarded as one of the best presidents of recent memory. And he was given the credit as the first black president to boot. Al Gore was ridiculed for claiming responsibility for "inventing the Internet" and blamed for losing the presidency to the shrub, of all people.
Fast forward seven years, and Bill Clinton is reviled among many in the Democratic party, and his wife, the first serious female candidate for president in this great country is termed Billary, and various other B words, which I will not use here. Al Gore has reached near sainthood status, with many hoping that he will ride in on a white horse and save the divided and bickering Democratic party from itself.
The Democratic party turns. And continues to turn. Typical shortsighted backbiting, in combination with a variety of inexplicable changes of support for people and policies like NAFTA and free market Social Security reform, make it clear to anyone paying attention that the Democrats do not seem to have a substantive, cohesive vision for themselves, and certainly not one for America.
Democrats want out of Iraq now; damn the consequences. But many Dems also wonder why we haven't taken more decisive action in Darfur. Democrats want to help the economy, but also want to raise taxes and increase government spending. They want to create universal healthcare but they also want healthcare to be more affordable. Some will crawl out of the woodwork and claim that these goals are not mutually exclusive, but in any sober reading, they are.
There is no multilateral agreement about what to do in Darfur. One of the main states who objected to our invasion in Iraq was China, who has been blamed for helping to fund the situation in Darfur. It's really hard to make the case to exit Iraq now, which by all accounts would leave a massive humanitarian issue, and perhaps genocide, in our wake, and yet simultaneously make the case to go into Darfur on a "humanitarian" mission. Personally, I favor America taking action in Darfur and finishing the job in Iraq.
And were the US to take action in Darfur, like Iraq, it would have to be a unilateral, US-led movement. The UN has done almost nothing to try and resolve the situation in Darfur. I suppose they've been spending too much time focusing on Israel to be bothered with an African genocide (don't get me started). But this brings to mind the outrage by many on the left over Bush attending the 2008 Olympic opening ceremony. I understand why some would make that call given China's clear humanitarian rights abuses. But how can the left chastise Bush for being diplomatic with China, on whom our economy and security is dependent, and then chastise him for not being diplomatic enough with the likes of Iraq or Iran. This is the party whose front-runner promises to meet with Iran, without preconditions.