MyDD :: Get Used to This

Get Used to This

by Matt Stoller, Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 01:35:11 PM EST

Hillary Clinton refused to deal with her Iraq vote. With her announcement, she just pretended she never voted for the war, and pretended that she has stood up to Bush on the war. This is an obvious lie, and now the RNC is now releasing 'research' attacking Clinton for waffling.

In an e-mail headlined "Hillary's Kerryoake on Iraq," the Republican National Committee charged that Clinton was trying to have it both ways over her 2002 vote to authorize the war in Iraq - an issue that has dogged her with left-wing Democrats.

They likened Clinton's handling of the war to Kerry's campaign opener in the 2004 race, when he said he voted to allow the conflict so Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein would be forced to comply with U.N. resolutions about weapons of mass destruction.

"Hillary Campaign Kicks Off With A Kerry Classic: Use of Force Vote Was Not a Vote for Use of Force," the statement said.

The RNC quoted top Clinton adviser Terry McAuliffe on the "Today" show yesterday morning, saying, "She voted to give the president the authority to negotiate and to have a stick to go over there and negotiate with Saddam Hussein."

"Sound familiar?" the e-mail said, saying Kerry "kicked off campaign claiming use of force was not a vote for force, either."

But Team Clinton blasted back that the GOP was using a tired fight.

"If the Republicans want to make this election a referendum on who's right on Iraq, they can be my guest," Clinton campaign spokesman Blake Zeff said.

If this reminds you of John Kerry and George Bush in 2004, that's not an accident. Clinton is running a campaign that is almost exactly like Kerry's, because she didn't and doesn't want to deal with Iraq. Her two stated priorities are climate change and health care, and neither of these is the main issue at hand in America today. If Clinton is up against a fresh Republican who doesn't have Iraq all over his hands, it's going to be ugly.

I'm going to delve into her 'plan' for Iraq in a follow-up post, but rest assured, Hillary Clinton's intellectually dishonest manner of dealing with Iraq isn't going unnoticed. It's going to tar her, and if we choose her as our nominee, it's going to tar all of us. For all those who think that the blogs are somehow an isolated arena that isn't in touch with the 'real world', watch the clip above. Hillary Clinton's lack of principle and intensely focused positioned and decades-long quest to be President is well-understood.

As Democrats, we need to pressure Hillary Clinton to deal openly and honestly with Iraq, and apologize for her vote. She needs to come out cleanly and say it was wrong. If she won't do this, we need to work against her in the primary. America can't afford another President who can't admit mistakes.

Tags: Hillary Clinton (all tags)

Permalink :: 55 Comments :: Post a Comment

Yup (none / 0)

This will, and should, kill her in the primary.

But I'm a little confused. I've heard reports that Hillary has disavowed her vote for the IWR--the way Edwards did--but I've also heard reports that she hasn't.

Anyone want to help clear this up for me?

by david mizner on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 01:40:41 PM EST

read your post again (3.00 / 1)

you have your own answer.

Hillary has both stood by her vote and disavowed it at the same time.. clear yet?

(actually - she said "if we knew than what we know now, there would not have been a vote" you figure it out and let us know)

McCain - a serial Opportunist, from marriage to policy positions

by TarHeel on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 01:46:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Loved that sketch (none / 0)

This is why I favor Obama right now. He is the only viable candidate who opposed the war from the beginning. That completely changes the tone of the campaign, and the discussion about the candidates and Iraq. While an apology is better than Clinton's current waffling, both will be used as targets for the GOP, as we see in the RNC press release.

by jj32 on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 01:43:51 PM EST

I am with you (none / 0)

There is poll conducted which shows Hillary has a 38% unfavorability by registered DEMOCRATS. Republicans is in the upper 70s. Lets not talk about cross over appeal she must curry with GOPers and Inds. How about our own party? Her ambiguous apathethic centrists statements only appeal to DLC wonks and not the liberal base of our party we tried so desperately to build from the grassroots up.

by optimusprime on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 01:44:41 PM EST

Re: I am with you (none / 0)

While I am not an Obama supporter, his main problem with me is his attitude towards the netroots and not being aggressive enough on his progressive ideas. What he doesn't share with Hillary are boneheaded actions like Hillary's conduct related to the war even when most repubs were saying it was a bad idea and expressed remorse.

What it takes to get a huge turnout for an election is a passionate core of grassroots supporters. Hillary has that in the northeast(especially those NYers) and the south(Southern Dem women, especially African American women seem to love Hillary) - two areas where the results are pretty much predetermined to be either for the dems or repubs. But does she inspire people outside these two areas when half the time they will have to pretend to forget her stance on Iraq? When I used to enter debates in 2004 about IRaq with my repub friends, I always had to cringe whenever I had to spin Kerry's and Edwards blunders in the past and the way the Dems attacked Dean(not that these repubs liked dean, but they liked to point it out in glee that even the Dems didn't truly have any conviction on the war). Do you really want to go to war for Hillary when you will have to defend her on issues you know she has done wrong?

by Pravin on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 02:08:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Especially those NYers... (3.00 / 0)

I have a feeling, just based on anecdotal evidence, she would not get the kind of support for a presidential run from NY which she enjoyed in the senate race, for the reasons discussed here.

by Shaun Appleby on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 04:07:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

the sad part is the SNL writers have MUCH (none / 0)

better political analysis than the actual show they're mocking and the rest of the MSM....

Corky from wonder years could run the GOP campaign against Hillary.

You already have "Hillary Care" TM that will sink any chance of improving health care and the Kerry-flip-flop no conviction meme.

Plus the only thing that can make wingers excited to vote for McCain/Giuliani is voting against Hillary.

Hillary will be for the GOP what Bush was for Dems in 2004, the reason to vote.

McCain - a serial Opportunist, from marriage to policy positions

by TarHeel on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 01:45:19 PM EST

Re: Get Used to This (3.00 / 0)

"Kerryoake" ... I gotta say I give them credit for that term ... pretty funny.

But your point is a good one, Matt ... she can't avoid this issue. It'll be the defining issue for the next two years, and no amount of "I'm going to deal with health care and energy independence" talk is going to get her off the hook on this one.

by BriVT on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 01:45:40 PM EST

Re: Get Used to This (3.00 / 2)

Let us not forget that Kerry, as flawed as he was as a candidate, still seemed more anti war even in 2004, than Hillary is 3 years later. Kerry was paying for his triangulation during the primaries and he paid for it in the general election where the republicans really was able to exploit that. In HIllary's case, there will be even more fodder because even now, you do not see any real outrage in the way she talks about the war.

Also Kerry was still dealing with a lot of the nation in denial about the war back then and I can see how some consultants steered him the wrong way prior to the election process. You would think Hillary would have had an easier job changing her stance months ago to ward off any twofaced charges the Repubs ARE GOING to throw at her. It took her a last minute charade of a trip(I challenge RIGHT NOW any Hillary supporter to convince me she actually learned new things on this trip that made her change her mind) to even come up with a reasonable stance on Iraq.

by Pravin on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 01:48:16 PM EST

Re: Get Used to This (none / 0)

Two things that factor into the HRC calculus, IMO:

1. Kerry lost.

2. Kerry had more room to reject the war because he was a decorated veteran, while HRC has to have some kind of ass-kicker credibility to be Commander-in-Chief (a title I'm beyond sick of hearing already).

by latts on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 02:32:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

IMO she should say (none / 0)

"I could not imagine that the President of the United States would lie about intelligence to get us into an unjust war detrimental to American interests. I apologize to the American people for trusting George W. Bush."

It's too late (politically) to apologize for her vote. She could still excuse it - if the excuse is a sharp counterattack. If she keeps waffling and evading, yes, this will be a millstone.

by curtadams on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 01:50:14 PM EST

the clintonistas (none / 0)

were so critical of Kerry's campaign that my hunch is they don't want to expose themselves to the flip flop meme.

because she would be the very last democrat to come around.. so they probably will never give the highly public rebuke needed to matter.

I suspect they will hope their money and inevitiability aura lets them not have to address this issue too much except for debates.

where you are right, she will blame bush.. (Bubba has as much said this "no democrat is responsible for Bush"... is what the big dog has said and she'll just use that.

McCain - a serial Opportunist, from marriage to policy positions

by TarHeel on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 01:58:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IMO she should say (none / 0)

IMHO 'trusting Bush' is almost as inexcusable as voting for the IWR.

by Shaun Appleby on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 04:12:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Perhaps (none / 0)

But if so, it's a sin that the American electorate will, if its members are honest, have to forgive-- because so many of them made the same mistake.

by Silent sound on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 05:50:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Perhaps (none / 0)

Granted, but this would have been a good 'leadership' opportunity for someone who wants to be a leader. There were 23 other senators, including one Republican, who voted against it.

by Shaun Appleby on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 08:21:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I think we should oppose her anyway (3.00 / 1)

I think a better question than whether she will take responsibility for being wrong is why she didn't do this a long time ago.

I think the larger issue at stake is that while Carville's plot to overthrow Dean flopped, Harold Ford is now running the DLC and stoked to run the effort to support Hillary. These are the people who want to kill the 50 State Strategy and if Hillary is the nominee then Democrats will be set back a decade (while losing seats). If Hillary gets control of the Party, orders will be handed down from above:

The "shit" Carville was referring to was the long-running feud between Rahm and Dean, which boiled down to Rahm's wanting Dean to give him more money-a lot more-and Dean's refusing to do it. Normally, the chairman of the DNC is installed by party leaders, but after the Democrats' 2004 debacle, there were no party leaders, and Dean won the chairmanship by winning over the anonymous state-party chairs and much neglected members of the DNC, the folks who actually vote on the matter. The state parties became his base of support, and Dean promised them two things: more money and more power.

It drove Rahm and Carville nuts. "The thing that stuns me," Carville says, "is that this is supposed to be a rigged deal-chairman of the party! The congressional leadership, the fund-raisers, people like that are supposed to decide. You [the state-party chairs and DNC members] are supposed to get a call and are told who to vote for! You're not supposed to really vote on this shit!"

Roto-tilling the grassroots.

- John McCain

by Bob Brigham on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 02:21:57 PM EST

Re: I think we should oppose her anyway (3.00 / 1)

It drove Rahm and Carville nuts. "The thing that stuns me," Carville says, "is that this is supposed to be a rigged deal-chairman of the party! The congressional leadership, the fund-raisers, people like that are supposed to decide. You [the state-party chairs and DNC members] are supposed to get a call and are told who to vote for! You're not supposed to really vote on this shit!"

This one paragraph is why I love the "netroots", and places like MyDD.

OMFGzers! People actually participating in a democracy? Heaven forfend!

Hmmmmmmm, this leads one to wonder what other supposedly "rigged deals" the netroots can make use of to advance their nefarious agenda of Democrats acting like Democrats?

by justathought on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 04:29:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Get Used to This (none / 0)

intensely focused positioned

Can Matt or someone explain this phrase from the original post? It looks like a typo but I'm not getting what it was supposed to mean.

Keep it short. DemocraticShortList.com

by Rob in Vermont on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 02:22:40 PM EST

Re: Get Used to This (none / 0)

Perhaps he means "focus-grouped" rather than "focused"?

sPh

by sphealey on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 02:35:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Get Used to This (none / 0)

Hillary Clinton's lack of principle and intensely focused positioned and decades-long quest to be President is well-understood.

I read it to mean this bolded sequence, but still, it reads like there's a missing comma (?) or an extra adjective.

by Books Alive on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 03:03:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

In 2008, Democrats should go 'clean' (3.00 / 1)

It doesn't matter if a candidate renounced their Iraq war vote. Go for a 'clean' candidate with no Iraq war baggage.

You always want to have the strongest position in any debate. Anyone who voted for this war is already starting from a very weak position in any debate no matter how you cut it. It shows poor judgement on your part. You can count on whoever the Republican candidate will be to tar any Democrat who voted for the IWR with a flip-flop label.

Democrats should be smart this time around because Iraq would be a huge issue in 2008. We will be best served with a nominee who doesn't have Iraq baggage around their necks.

by rosebowl on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 02:26:34 PM EST

Re: In 2008, Democrats should go 'clean' (none / 0)

I don't think the nation's elites are willing to tolerate an open, honest discussion on Iraq (and Iran). That's why they've co-opted Hillary -- her token, halfhearted "regrets" about the way the war has gone will serve as an acceptable enough "liberal" position on the war for the established power structure.

I think that was the real impetus behind the Howard Dean takedown in 2004 -- Dean would have hit a bit too close to the bone in debates against Bush. Kerry, by virtue of his votes, was suitably compromised.

If Gore gets in, though... we WILL be having that discussion, whether the elites want one or not. Unlike Edwards (who's a much better candidate than Hillary), Gore's hands are squeaky-clean on Iraq.

by Master Jack on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 05:53:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Get Used to This (none / 0)

I used to be on Hillary's email list... then with all her fence-sitting and "support" of the war, I unsubscribed. That had to be at least two years ago.

I couldn't stomach it then and I won't stomach it now.

Although I have yet to attend, Code Pink has a great action called "Listen Hillary:

"http://www.listenhillary.org/article.ph p?list=type&type=115

Check out the link for more info.

by j cro on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 02:37:54 PM EST

Kerry all over again. (none / 0)

I remember having this argument about Kerry on another forum before he was nominated. The Kerry supporter would insist that Kerry never voted for the war he just voted to give Bush leverage against Saddam and they would point to his Senate statement on the vote. I would argue that it didn't matter what he said about why he supported the resolution because weeks before the vote inspectors were already in Iraq and Bush had said it didn't matter what Congress did he could invade Iraq if he wanted to and it was too late for Saddam to meet his demands. It should have been apparent that Congress was voting for an invasion of Iraq. I have no doubt that Hillary supporters will try the same tactic. They will insist Hillary never supported the invasion and will point out her statement on the vote. I don't think it will work since people know how self-serving Hillary is.

by msstaley on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 02:54:19 PM EST

Oppose her anyway (3.00 / 1)

Why does she want to be president? Has she ever said? The skit picks up that she just wants it. No reason. It's an entitlement stand. Or, horrors, another White House soap opera like Bush/Show Up Daddy Bush. Could this desire be, Hillary/Show Up Bill the Humiliator?

by mrobinsong on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 03:01:23 PM EST

Another reason to oppose her: (3.00 / 0)

She is unelectable and will hurt the Democratic Party and our outreach to working class males and the Midwest.

The history of the left is a history of purists betraying the progressive movement so that they can feel good about their righteous selves.

by Populism2008 on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 05:10:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Get Used to This (none / 0)

Here Here!

Hillary needs to come clean about Iraq. I want Al Gore!

by abc on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 03:02:47 PM EST

Re: Get Used to This (none / 0)

I don't understand why Edwards gets so much praise for "apologizing" for his war vote. Is it to pressure Dems like Hillary to make similar commments? In my mind, if you voted for the war you made the ultimate mistake, resulting in the unnecessary loss of thousands of lives. Your actions can never be reversed regardless of how "sorry" you say you are.

Edwards does not deserve praise for coming out against the war when it's now widely unpopular and he's no longer in political office. He could have been an important voice against the war as a moderate Dem from a southern state. Now, being against the war fits his political agenda of running in a Democratic primary just like being in favor of the war fit his political agenda of being a Senator from North Carolina.

I agree that Hillary would benefit politically from saying the war was a mistake.

by BobbyNYC on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 04:02:40 PM EST

Re: Get Used to This (none / 0)

Edwards doesn't get off scot-free, but it's much better to apologize than not.

by Matt Stoller on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 04:08:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

people forget that most of the US (none / 0)

supported the resolution...

so as insanely disasterous as the war is now back than in 2002 the war was "popular" as the polls "said". This was also before Katrina.

certainly everyone can choose the candidate one wants. If you want someone who opposed the war CONSISTENTLY and tried to end it at every stage, Kuccinich may be the only candidate to vote that way EVERY time. Outside of drafting feingold.

anyhow, there is a "forgiveness" trait and "redemtion" theme that americans have historically liked and that may be part of it. Also, Edwards' public repudiation in the WaPost was a week before Jack Murtha came out so at least he was in front of the curve with the mistake admitters.

McCain - a serial Opportunist, from marriage to policy positions

by TarHeel on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 04:08:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Some people prefer someone who opposed... (none / 0)

...the war from the start. Others prefer someone who has the courage to say cut off the funding for the escalation.

Or you can have Choice C: Hillary.

John Edwards 2008

by MeanBoneII on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 05:20:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Some people prefer someone who opposed... (none / 0)

Are you serious? What courage? I like Edwards too, but it seems pretty easy to say "let's cut off funding" when you have no responsibility as an elected official to equip US troops.

by BobbyNYC on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 08:32:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Read the frikkin resolution (none / 0)

The word "Iraq" is nowhere in it. It is a resolution to authorize force against the perpetrators of the acts of 9/11! This is just ridiculous. Yes, the proper vote would have been to oppose the resolution, since we all know that use of force without the authorization of Congress is a bad idea, on top of being just plain wrong. But it is folly to suggest that those who voted to authorize use of force (the president already had such authorization anyway, by dint of being CIC, so the resolution was ipso facto meaningless) were voting FOR THE WAR.

Her vote should be criticized, but she has been an opponent of the Bush military policies, even though I would have preferred her to be more militant. Militancy doesn't sell well in upstate NY, and she needed their approval to remain in office. Though in all likelihood, there wasn't anyone likely to beat her, no matter where she ran. Reason? She's a very well liked figure, and left wing blogs might be well advised to recognize and acknowledge that fact. She's not a persistent cough, or a case of herpes. She's hanging around for a reason. People like her.

by mrblifil on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 04:10:53 PM EST

Re: Read the frikkin resolution (none / 0)

If we are talking about HJ RES 114 the title is To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

by Shaun Appleby on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 04:28:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Get Used to This (none / 0)

Hillary has supported the war from the beginning, not just in her votes but also in her speeches.

Even worse, it looks like she has endorsed the military solution to the Iran problem. At least, the last unambiguous statement (Dec 2005, Princeton Speech?) she is threatening war.

Edwards is no saint on this one, however. Yesterday in Tel Aviv he is quoted as saying that Iranian enrichment is 'unacceptable and that 'all options should remain on the table'. Please recall, that among the options that Bush put on the table includes bunker busting nukes.

by syvanen on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 04:39:00 PM EST

Re: Get Used to This (none / 0)

And not just targetting the nuclear enrichment facilities, either. A former military planner, Wayne White, has been reported to claim that a much broader attack on Iran is being considered, or at least planned. And there are alarming reports in the Isreali press on the subject as well.

by Shaun Appleby on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 05:00:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

WTF happened to this blog? (none / 0)

Ever since CLinton announce this blog has disintegrated into a reight wing blog attacking Clinton 24/7. What a pitiful disaster? And Yes I'm a fucking Clinton supporter!!

by bsavage on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 05:05:44 PM EST

wtf happened? (none / 0)

Er this is what it feels like being attacked from the left. If you would like to help relieve the pressure on Hillary, urge her to take a stronger stand against the war (and maybe clear up her stand on Iran).

by syvanen on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 05:35:13 PM EST

Re: wtf happened? (none / 0)

You know your comment would have made sense if I was a pro war idiot, but the thing is I'm NOT!! The last time I checked I was very anti war, pro choice and liberal in every other way.
Believe me if CLinton can protest the Vietnam War, I am sure that she can be against this war by Curious George.

by bsavage on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 06:29:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: wtf happened? (none / 0)

Sorry, I don't believe you, or the dozens of other venemous scolds who have graced us with their endless expressions of contempt for HRC.

What becomes clearer day after day is that a large (or at least, loud) plurality (majority??) of the visitors here would rather suffer torture than support her, not only in the primaries, but, should she win there, in the general election. (Many of these visitors, of course, were more than happy to savage those Democrats who refused to support Lamont after he won his primary.)

Well, given Stoller's post that heads this set of comments, I can't say I'm surprised. As he leads, so you follow.

Let's hope it works for you.

by deadline on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 06:48:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: wtf happened? (none / 0)

If "Stoller" told you to jump off a bridge would you do that too? It's clinton vs. Obama. Edwards is going to lose bad in the fundraising race. For the record, I have no problem supporting Obama if he wins in the primaries. Obama/Richardson would be a great tcket or Clinton/obama or Clinton/Richadson. Bottom line: If you were going to put money on who would in 2008 a Dem or Rep, it would be a Democrat. Most or all of the people on this site would have no problem voting for Clinton/Obama in the general. Unless you are going to vote for Nader....

by bsavage on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 08:04:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Here's what I'd like to know (none / 0)

Why are there no posts on this blog about the lesser known candidates like Gravel and Kucinich? By focusing on the most popular canidates, Stoller, Bowers, et al are perpetuating the electability meme that they claim to abhor.

by david mizner on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 05:39:14 PM EST

Re: Here's what I'd like to know (none / 0)

Because Gravel and Kucinich aren't running to win.

The leading Democratic candidates (Edwards, Obama, Clinton) all have relatively strong records. They need as much advocacy and resources as possible so we don't end up with President McCain and VP Lieberman.

by BobbyNYC on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 06:51:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Get Used to This (none / 0)

What's in it for Hillary to NOT come out forcefully against Bush's war?

The war is extraordiarily unpopular -- and even more so among Democrats. Why does Hillary think it's POLITICALLY smart to equivocate and waffle on Iraq? (and Hillary Clinton is nothing if not political).

Who is she trying to appeal to?

The worst-case scenario for the Dems is that the Republican candidate have his hands clean on Iraq (someone like Huckabee or even a "reformed" Hagel), while the Dem candidate waffles and triangulates, thereby enabling the pug to run to the left of the Dem on Iraq. That'll be a 2002-scale disaster all over again.

Maybe that's the idea.

by Master Jack on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 05:45:53 PM EST

What's in it for her? (none / 0)

She's in a bind. She feels she has to be more "hawkish" to have a chance in the general election. That puts her at a disadvantage, obviously.

John Edwards 2008

by MeanBoneII on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 05:50:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The war is unpopular! (none / 0)

The Democrats had this same asinine notion that they had to be "hawkish" in 2002 and 2004. Ask Tom Daschle how that worked out. And the war wasn't anywhere near as unpopular then as it is now.

Funny how Chuck Hagel, an uberconservative Republican, doesn't seem to think appearing "hawkish" is so important.

If Hillary really believes that, she has no business occupying any kind of leadership role in the Democratic Party. Beacuse that's just stupid.

by Master Jack on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 05:57:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yup (none / 0)

Both Hillary--and Obama, to some degree--have to stay in the center to cover weakness in a potential general election. But Edwards, as the best candidate in the general, has more freedom to move left--which is exactly what he's doing, and which is why I'm digging him.

by david mizner on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 05:59:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Again... (none / 0)

Opposing the Iraq war is the mainstream, centrist position. That's where middle America is at.

Any "weaknesses" Hillary and Obama think they need to cover by waffling on Iraq are a product of their own imaginations and too many beltway cocktail parties.

by Master Jack on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 06:04:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That's where she's heading... (none / 0)

...but she doesn't think she can look to eager to get there.

John Edwards 2008

by MeanBoneII on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 06:07:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That's where she's heading... (none / 0)

Funny how Chuck Hagel didn't seem to have too much of a problem getting there. And of course, there's Jack Murtha and a couple hundred others who are there and have been there for over a year.

Why is it so hard for Hillary?

by Master Jack on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 06:11:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hagel and Murtha are vets. (none / 0)

Hagel and Murtha have their military background. Hagel's opinions against the war have probably made him a nonstarter in the GOP primaries, but he can probably get re-elected to the Senate. Murtha has been the target of the right-wing machine, but he's got credibility on military issues.

I just don't think Hillary believes she can afford (politically) to not appear as "hawkish" as possible. Edwards is forcing her to move away from that somewhat.

John Edwards 2008

by MeanBoneII on Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 03:11:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yup (none / 0)

Is oppostion to the potential war with Iran and the assumption, by default, of executive branch power to wage such a war a left/right issue? If so, why doesn't Edwards unequivocally oppose it if he is moving to the left? In fact, why don't any of the 'front-runner' candidates make a stand on this?

We are endlessly debating the integrity of potential candidates vis a vis their IWR positions yet the same thing is happening again right before our eyes. I was very impressed with Biden's 'let me set a marker here' comment during the Foreign Relations Committee hearings with Condi recently. We need more of that and soon.

by Shaun Appleby on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 06:09:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Get Used to This (3.00 / 1)

Thanks for posting this clip. Pretty funny! John Podhoretz recently said something along the lines of: if Iraq doesn't stabilize significantly in the next 6-9 months, Jesus Christ could run as a Republican and lose to Al Sharpton. The thing is, somehow Hillary is the one person I think could actually lose to a Republican. I think people see her as going backwards. They don't want Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton. Hell, that could even lead back to another Bush! Get me out of here! People still want CHANGE, and HRC isn't a change; she's more of the same; she's Groundhog Day. I realize this is an idiotic sort of analysis, but no one ever went broke underestimating the American voter.

by LY of Brooklyn on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 05:57:12 PM EST

More of the same (none / 0)

Hillary's the status-quo candidate. That's exactly why she's garnered the support of the political and media elites in the country -- she's a safe, non-boat-rocking fallback in case the Republicans don't hold on to the White House.

If she wins the primary, the Democratic Party will effectively cease to be relevant. It'll be 1994 all over again.

by Master Jack on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 06:02:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"Apology" for Vote (none / 0)

Why does Hillary need to "apologize" for the vote, as distinct from stating (as she has) that it was a mistake.

I think that (to paraphrase), "if I knew then, what I know now, I wouldn't have voted for it" is pretty clear. It's pretty much what Edwards said.

What's the issue here, besides an apparent disdain for Hillary herself?

by borlov on Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 09:38:12 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.