| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Why Hillary will never renounce her war vote |
| 2007-05-09 |
| 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 |
| #5 JohnQC, lol. then the reality of how right you are hit me yeah this is integrity at it's finest (sick feeling in stomach) |
| Posted by: Jan 2007-05-09 21:58 |
| #4 She would renounce her war vote, sell her child, adopt islam as her religion and dump her husband if she thought it would get her elected. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2007-05-09 13:09 |
| #3 Everytime the lie is said, I'll keep posting. WMD are chemical, biological, and nuclear. They have indeed found WMD and everyone in Congress knows it. THEY LIE and LIE again. Care to have these held in your town or neighborhood for storage? |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2007-05-09 12:47 |
| #2 "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 could believe that the war is a mistake because of how Bush waged it, which she could believe is he reason the country hasnt stabilized,etc. Thus she could in her heart of hearts NOT beleive HER vote was a mistake. "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 that was containment force - no fly zones, surgical strikes, etc. We can argue till the cows come home if that was actually sustainable (I lean to the view that it was not) all im saying is that Clintons statement, doesnt mean she wasnt deceived about the WMD situation in 2002/2003. And suppose she was not - was she not deceived, as were all of us, about how unseriously the admin would prosecute this war? "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 " Now thats really bunk. The Netroots folks despisal of Clintonism is far deeper than Iraq. Its about "triangulation" which goes againt their deep partisanism. Its about NAFTA, which goes against their protectionism and their populist hatred of Wall Street. Its about the Clintons alliance with Goldman Sachs, and Silicon Valley. And, to the extent its about foreign policy, its about the Clintons neo-Wilsoniasm, which they hate. and yes, its about Israel, which the Clintons have long supported. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2007-05-09 09:43 |
| #1 No matter which way she goes on this the whole contretemps shows her to be both a fool and a liar. She either lied then and is a fool now, or she was a fool then and is lying now. But she is a Demonrat after all so I'm just stating the obvious. |
| Posted by: AlanC 2007-05-09 09:38 |