E-MAIL THIS LINK
To: 

Why Hillary will never renounce her war vote
Hillary Clinton is twisting herself into a pretzel on Iraq. Her latest effort to find some way to appease the Democratic Party's anti-war base is a proposal for a vote to "deauthorize" the war. Her proposal is unserious - and consciously so. There has never been such a vote in all of recorded history, and there won't be one now.

It's highly unlikely Hillary wants this transparent gimmick to be given serious consideration. Rather, she has signed onto it to give her something specific to say in speeches and debates when people ask her what she has done to end a war wildly unpopular with her constituents - a war she voted to authorize.

This raises the key question that I, as the author of a book on Hillary's presidential ambitions, am asked constantly. Why, people ask, doesn't she just say she was wrong to have voted for the war in the first place? Good question. And I have an answer.

Let's begin with the most rational premise, which is that in her heart of hearts, Hillary believes the war was a mistake: No WMDs, we haven't stabilized the country, America's reputation abroad is at a low point and so on.

She has said all this repeatedly. She has claimed to be among those duped into voting for the war - a disingenuous claim by most senators but especially coming from the wife of the president who said, in a nationally televised 1998 address, that "the credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program."

But she has not said it was a mistake to go to war, and she has not expressed regret for her vote. You know she regrets it, though. After all, if she hadn't decided to play hawk in 2002, she'd be the darling of the netroots activists who are instead seeking an alternative to her

And she would've remained the relentless subject of withering criticism from right-wingers - the very sort of criticism that would only soften the hearts of all Democrats who might find her a bit off-putting.

So why not simply say she is sorry for her vote and move on? Because she can't. Because to say such a thing now would be political suicide next year. Before those of you who are anti-war blow raspberries at me, I swear I am not saying this as a supporter of the war - which I am - but strictly as a political analyst.

Hillary wants to be president. She is the front-runner in the Democratic Party. The prospect of her winning the nomination and facing the voters in November 2008 is very real to her, as it ought to be. She does not want to do things to win the primary that will make her general-election victory more difficult. Saying she is sorry to have voted for the war and that her vote was a mistake would be a gigantic gift-wrapped treat for a Republican rival, and she and her team know it.

Consider the larger meaning of such a statement. Hillary would be presenting herself to the American people as follows: Iraq is the most important issue facing the nation, and the most important matter on which I have cast my vote in the Senate. And on this most important matter of our time, I was wrong. She wouldn't phrase it in that way, but that would be the gist of it.

And it would be the source of the Republican campaign's strategy against her. "She says the war she supported was a mistake. What else will she do that she will regret - and that we all will have to regret right along with her?" To go before the American people claiming to have been wrong on the central issue of your time is, to put it mildly, not a good idea.

I know that Hollywood movies about politicians always end with the politician apologizing for a past wrong and becoming more popular and beloved than ever. But that is why Hollywood is Hollywood and the real world is the real world.

What does a presidential contest come down to anyway but the question of which candidate has the best judgment? To acknowledge having had poor judgment may seem modest and charming. But it is also unnerving. It is the easiest thing in the world for a rival candidate to play on the unnerving aspect - and that kind of attack will have resonance.

Yes, I know John Edwards, who is running for president also and who voted for the war also, has explicitly renounced his vote. But he is trying as an underdog, and needs to do everything he can just to emerge from the second tier in the Democratic field.

Hillary is trying to thread a political needle here. It would be easier for her in the short run to stop trying and give her Democratic doubters what they want. In the long run, it would be very dangerous for her. Either way, she's not behaving very admirably. But she's doing what she has to do to win.

Hey, her last name is Clinton, after all.
Posted by: ryuge 2007-05-09
http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=187929