The Times' Pat Healy has an interesting piece today on Hillary Clinton, Miss Inevitable.
One of the most important decisions that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton made about her bid for the presidency came late last year when she ended a debate in her camp over whether she should repudiate her 2002 vote authorizing military action in Iraq.
Several advisers, friends and donors said in interviews that they had urged her to call her vote a mistake in order to appease antiwar Democrats, who play a critical role in the nominating process. Yet Mrs. Clinton herself, backed by another faction, never wanted to apologize — even if she viewed the war as a mistake — arguing that an apology would be a gimmick.[...]
“If the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that vote or has said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from,†Mrs. Clinton told an audience in Dover, N.H., in a veiled reference to two rivals for the nomination, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois and former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina.
Why is this horseshit? Read on.
One of the enduring characteristics of Clinton - and arguably, the defining essence of Clintonism - is that she will say what it is that she, via focus groups, has determined you want to hear. If you dislike flag-burning, sure, she'll sponsor legislation against that. If you dislike such legislation, sure, she'll vote against it. This is no different.
The most crippling burden on Hillary at this point in the cycle is precisely the perception that she stands for nothing but her own advancement, a perception fed by this demonstrated willingness to take any and all positions her team has determined to poll well. A well-publicized internal discussion - it doesn't get more public than the front page of The New York Times, not with this tight-lipped campaign that controls every aspect of its own sell - in which she decides to stick to her guns on the war defuses that perception. Given that the framing of her as a panderer is arguably more dangerous to her than even antiwar anger directed at her, this is, and should be seen as, merely another piece of smart positioning. One that, you can be sure, will be thrown overboard as soon as it has done the trick of establishing a countermeme to 'Hillary the panderer'. Prepare to hear, sometime closer to actual voting time, a heartfelt statement about how she's changed her mind; meanwhile, she needs to convince you that she has some backbone, and there couldn't be any clearer simulacrum of that than this announcement.
Remember, there is a year to go. Hillary simply does not take politically painful positions. She has the time, the money and the institutional support to ride out the backlash this will cause. Meanwhile, she'd like you to think she has some principles. Or, to quote one of her advisers:
“She is in a box now on her Iraq vote, but she doesn’t want to be in a different, even worse box — the vacillating, flip-flopping Democratic candidate that went to defeat in 2000 and ’04,†said one adviser to Mrs. Clinton. “She wants to maintain a firmness, and I think a lot of people around her hope she maintains a firmness. That’s what people will want in 2008.â€
Don't be fooled. There is no shocker here. And more crucially, no backbone.
Submitted by rwallnerny2007 on 17 February 2007 - 5:20pm.
Hillary's in a no-win situation with regards to the war issue. If she apologizes for her vote, as John Edwards did, she'll get called spineless. If you voted for an illegal war, what good is an apology other than as pandering? Yet if she doesn't apologize, she is accused of lacking the courage of her convictions and not taking the politically painful position. Damned if she does, damned if she doesn't. I think it is probably harder to do what she's doing, not apologizing and continuing to take the heat, than to do what Edwards did. It would be easy to apologize like Edwards. It would take the heat off of her. But evidently she doesn't think that it would be the right thing to do. It doesn't sound like a political calculation to me. It sounds like she thinks she'd have less integrity if she apologized.
...one could have the courage to say "I made a mistake", as John Edwards did. This whole "I'm not going to admit to making a mistake" is just another parallel between the Bush and the Clinton clans; two dynasties, and in some ways, two peas in a pod.
But again, I fully expect Miss Inevitable to have a change of heart going forward. Like I said, right now she needs to prove that she won't just say whatever it is that people want to hear.
Submitted by cotterpin on 18 February 2007 - 2:34am.
Hillary will not admit to a mistake for several reasons: 1) To demonstrate to the war machine (e.g. Boeing) she is willing to play ball. 2) To capture all the votes to the right of center. 3) To apologize would show fallibility, a human trait uncharacteristic of a corporate entity. 4) There was no mistake, she voted exactly as she intended to. 5)Arrogance.
Of course now she's allegedly announced her 90 Day Plan to begin withdrawal. This gives her an aggressive appearance towards peace without ever having to admit she made a mistake.
Which way will the wind blow next?
Submitted by rwallnerny2007 on 18 February 2007 - 2:34pm.
Maybe she's not apologizing because she doesn't think that vote was in fact a mistake based on what information they were given by the White House at the time. Were they supposed to be mind readers and automatically tell that the Bush administration and intelligence officials were lying about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction? Were they supposed to be able to read Bush's mind and automatically know about this whole other agenda? Every one of those senators who voted for this authorization were played for fools, but is that their fault? Or is it Bush's?
Hillary seems to be saying that it is Bush who needs to apologize, not her or anyone else who voted in the Senate. He knew the truth, they didn't. A leader stands behind his/her votes, regardless of whether they were right or wrong. A leader doesn't apologize and say "whoops I'm sorry" the minute public opinion changes in the other direction. That is what Edwards is doing. Hillary is taking the more principled position, she regrets her vote but she won't apologize for it, she'll stand behind it right or wrong.
If Bush, et al, were lying then Bill Clinton was lying before him because he said the same things.
But Clinton lying should not come as a surprise to anyone.
Submitted by mole333 on 18 February 2007 - 5:36pm.
No, not really. CLinton CONTAINED Hussein, as the UN intended, and prevented him from rebuilding his military. Notice how when we did (illegally) invade Hussein had no airforce and hardly a tank corps? His military was in a shambles. You can thank Clinton's policy of containment for that.
Now, if you remember, Clinton was accused of being obsessed with al-Qaeda. He repeatedly advised cutting off their funding by reforming international financial laws and actually attacking al-Qaeda bases. If only Bush and the Republicans had listed to his obsession rather than obsessing on Iraq.
A majority of Senate (and House) Democrats voted against the AUMF. What did they know that Queen Rodham did not?
This isn't leadership. Leadership is what Edwards did - saying he was wrong, and moving forward with a clean slate. Queen Rodham isn't capable of that; but then again, as she says, there are other candidates, featuring what are known as "principles". Or at least, other and better ones than "It's my turn to be President".
Besides, again, this is about positioning herself as not being a panderer. That would inspire the HillaryBots with visions of leadership; but that's not what this is. This is leadership, the televsion series. A fake.
Submitted by rwallnerny2007 on 18 February 2007 - 5:36pm.
To some, the act of John Edwards apologizing for his vote on Iraq reeked of political opportunism. He was running for president again and looking to position himself to the left and gain favor with the netroots, so apologizing for his vote was an easy thing to do. It was a way to get absolved of all his sins in one act so the left could embrace him. The thing is that he had left the senate so he no longer had constituents to whom he had to answer. This unlike Hillary, who is still in the senate and who still has constituents, particularly upstate, who support/supported the war and who have kids serving in the war. To them, any act of apologizing for her vote would seem like a betrayal.
Also quite frankly the issue of the war in Iraq has become a tool by some of the more active on the left to wield power over the candidates. The way it is being portrayed now, candidates for president on the democratic side are being told they must come forth on their hands and knees before the left wing powerbrokers and apologize for their votes and beg for forgiveness or they will be demonized. Some of the posts I have read on daily kos by markos and others for instance have all but demanded this, as if they want to force this apology to show the power and influence of the netroots. I fear that the netroots is thus causing the war issue to overshadow all the other important issues that are out there. As if national health care and post-Katrina racial issues are somehow not nearly as important as Iraq.
I think Hillary will gain points from the center by not apologizing, because the more they demand it and the more she refuses, the more she will be seen as refusing to bow at the altar of the netroots left. The more she will be seen as refusing to pander. If Markos and co. can't make her apologize, how much power after all do they have over her? Edwards came to them begging forgiveness. He kissed their asses. Hillary did not. Voters are going to remember that.
It's fairly typical of HillaryBots, I find, that they beasically make things up. Here, you claim to know exactly why Edwards distanced himself from his vote - because you can read minds or took part in the meeting where this was discussed, presumably. Thing is, you can't and you weren't, and there's no prior pattern of behavior establishing a case for your claims. That's what I mean when I say you're libelous, Wallner.
Next, re: constituents, again, bullshit. New York is one of the strongest anti-war states in the union, with over 70% opposition in a poll several months ago. An elected official who serves the less than 30% over the more than 70% deserves to be fired, not promoted.
Re: the netroots left. Two things: Americans oppose this war 2:1, so guess where the center - the one you always rail about when it comes to "DLCer" Edwards - really is on this? Next, if you hate the 'nutroots' so much, why are you here?
Find a hobby, Wallner, preferably one that doesn't include publicly slandering netroots candidates. Because that's not going to win you any love with the netroots themselves, of which this blog considers itself a part.
Got any dirt, tips, leads or money for us? Then drop us a line or two at editors [at] culturekitchen [dot] com or use our general contact form to reach everybody in the editorial team ASAP.
Nibble daily on our brainy goodness with our daily syndication digest. You'll receive an email with a list and links to the previous day's posts.
I would leave no troops in Iraq whatsoever...The difference between me and the other candidates is, they would leave troops there indefinitely, and I would not.
— Governor and Former UN Ambassador Bill Richardson
She's damned if she does, damned if she doesn't
Hillary's in a no-win situation with regards to the war issue. If she apologizes for her vote, as John Edwards did, she'll get called spineless. If you voted for an illegal war, what good is an apology other than as pandering? Yet if she doesn't apologize, she is accused of lacking the courage of her convictions and not taking the politically painful position. Damned if she does, damned if she doesn't. I think it is probably harder to do what she's doing, not apologizing and continuing to take the heat, than to do what Edwards did. It would be easy to apologize like Edwards. It would take the heat off of her. But evidently she doesn't think that it would be the right thing to do. It doesn't sound like a political calculation to me. It sounds like she thinks she'd have less integrity if she apologized.