Politics Hillary’s Problem
posted by on February 14 at 16:55 PM
It’s all over the web. Hillary Clinton is in a big bind over her stance on the Iraq war (see here, here, here, and especially here).
Voters in New Hampshire (and elsewhere) want to hear an abject admission of error from anyone who voted for the war in 2002. Edwards, who voted for the war as a Senator, offered his admission of error back in 2005. Obama doesn’t need to make any admission of error on the war, having opposed it long before it went so obviously bad. But Hillary… She has a problem.
Like Maria Cantwell in 2005, she is caught between two different constituencies and two different periods of time, the present and the future. In the here and now is Clinton’s need to appease Democratic primary voters who want to hear her admit that her vote for the Iraq war was a mistake. In the future are general election voters from both parties who will want to know that Clinton can make tough decisions regarding war and peace, and then stick to them.
The problem is heightened for a female candidate, I think, because every war position is automatically viewed by many voters through this lens: Is she tough enough to defend me the way a man would?
It’s not fair. But it’s the way it is.
Cantwell was able to thread the needle (and avoid the question) by buying off critics and meting out contrition in tiny doses during the primary, without ever actually saying flat out that she had been wrong to vote for the war. Then, in the general, she was able to say that she had essentially the same position as her male Republican opponent, Mike McGavick: They both supported the war initially, might not have supported it given what we know now, but anyway, here we are, and we need to start managing it better. The similarity of their positions allowed general election voters in Washington to use other litmus tests — the environment, education, character, etc. — rather than the question of who was right on the war, and this neutralized any female warrior problems Cantwell might have faced.
Clinton looks like she’s trying to implement the Cantwell strategy on a national level, throwing rhetorical bones to the base during the primary without admitting error, but leaving herself well-positioned to have the same stance as her opponent in the general (I supported the war then, I might not have supported it given what I know now, but anyway, here we are, and I think we need to change course).
The problem is that Clinton’s primary, unlike Cantwell’s, is going to be more than a year long. She can’t have Democratic primary voters demanding an admission of error everywhere she goes for a whole year without doing something to quiet them, especially when her opponents—unlike Cantwell’s—are serious contenders who have already dealt with the Iraq vote issue.
Clinton is going to have to say something more about her Iraq vote. And she’s going to have to say it soon. Giving the Democratic base what it wants on the war might make her more vulnerable in the general election, but if she doesn’t get closer to what they want, she may not even have a general election to worry about.
I don't get it.
Why not just say "we were lied to by Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell, Rumsfeld, et al, I wouldn't have voted for it knowing the truth now, and it's time to end the war which on that point 70% of Americans agree."
It throws the spotlight back on the cause of the war which was/is non-stop and continuous Republican lies and incompetent, disastrous leadership. Hell, throw that in, too.
C'mon Senator Clinton, cough it up.
Gonna have to say something soon. Long windy speeches aren't helping.
I agree. She can get away with having supported the war once. She cannot get away with supporting it now, nor with pretending that it's not happening. Even if the reality is there are no good options, she has to address it. 3,127. $366 billion, rising another billion every couple of days.
The only problem Clinton Wonder Woman has is to convince Obama to take the VP slot.
And how to spend the Mississippi River of money she will have. Watch her come to Seattle and break all records for this city.....can we say micro millions with style....
Long campaign, save some thunder for the long trail.... she is hardly started and her support is nicely hardening.
Another problem will be cub reporters talking incessantly about her problems. She has great experience dealing with that, though.
Ummm, like Clinton is not against the war, so she does not regret her vote. Simple as that. And that is why she does not deserve to be president.
I understand your concern, Eli, but Hillary is smart to keep strong. Hillary's biggest asset is her confidence. Kerry lost largely because he couldn't convince people he would be a consistent, strong leader. Hillary does not have that problem - she's got more balls than ten Kerrys. She's doing her best to protect that asset, even if it means ignoring the furthest left of her base. It's easy to admit a mistake later, if the war gets even worse; but she can't take back an admission of failure or the damage it would cause.
Christ! Sanders, you are being as bad as the mainstream media here. Almost a full-fledged member of the right-wing echo chamber with this post. Clinton, for whom I have no love, has said multiple times that she wouldn't vote for the war knowing what she knows now. Read Teh Daily Howler (or a billion of his other entries).
When you repeat the falsehoods without looking up the facts (it doesn't take much googling to find plenty of speeches of Clinton's apologizing for her vote), you become part of "them". If the left splits on all the good candidates, we end up with more bland nobodies like Kerry and Dukakis.
You know, I'd really like everyone who voted in support of the war to apologize. Regardless of what evidence was presented it would have been the wrong option. I remember watching Bush speak at ground zero right after the attacks before any mention of war and I KNEW he was going to push for a war and I KNEW it was the wrong thing to do.
So all the bad intell aside... going to war was the wrong thing to do. Saying, "I was misled" doesn't cut it. I don't mind the mistakes so much as them not learning from them. I want a leader who learns lessons, not is always right.
"Defend me like a MAN would?"
WTF is that supposed to mean?
Defend me like Geo Bush does?
Defend me like Rumsfeld did?
Defend me like Gonzales does?
NO THANKS....
MEN have never defended me.
They have tried to impress me with their idealized perception of their own dick sizes, but no defense of me was ever expressed or implied.
Hillary is not getting my vote no matter what, but it's most definitely not because she can't "Defend me like a MAN."
Good post old timer. Hard to believe these neo-liberals and their idiot notions on what is right and wrong and what works and does not work.
At least they don't become neo-cons and destroy America.
Eli,
I agree with King Rat, PLEASE read The Daily Howler et al. Clinton has said, quite explicitly, "knowing what I know now, I would never have voted for it." That sounds like admitting a mistake to me, or at least worth noting.
I also agree that this is an excellent example of how the media "echo chamber" works. Americablog doesn't quote from Clinton's speech directly -- only secondhand, from a quote (rather confusing, in context) in a Fox News story. HuffPo quotes James Carville, the NYT article, and the Fox News story via Americablog. Daily Kos repeats the NYT and Carville quotes from HuffPo, adds a Mark Penn quote from the NYT -- and finally quotes ONE sentence (the one from the Fox News story, of course) of what Clinton actually said! Is that one sentence the sum total of Clinton's public statements about her Iraq war vote? If not, what HAS Clinton actually said about her Iraq war vote, if not what all these people want her to say? One might think that to be relevant in some way, but good luck finding out in the echo chamber.
The fact that Clinton has at least said that, knowing what she knows now, she would not have voted for the war (which may not be enough for some people, but it's surely relevant to this issue?) is not mentioned in the NYT article or any of the blog posts -- only, oddly enough, in the quoted Fox News story!
(And some liberals wonder why Al Gore won't run for president again....)
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).