Clinton Dodges Political Peril for War Vote (NYT)

Full 2 page story: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/05/washington/05clinton.html?ex=1155441600&en=e1069e6e42c194ea&ei=5043&partner=EXCITE

By ANNE E. KORNBLUT
Published: August 5, 2006

There was a time when Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s position on the Iraq war seemed to place her in the same political peril afflicting Senator Joseph I. Lieberman.

The senators, both Democrats, voted to authorize the military invasion and both refused to apologize for their votes as the occupation began to falter and opposition to the war swelled. Both were labeled as hawks within Democratic ranks.

But while Mr. Lieberman, his party’s vice presidential nominee in 2000, has wound up vulnerable to an antiwar challenger in his re-election race in Connecticut, Mrs. Clinton has suffered few, if any, serious consequences in her campaign in New York.


enator Hillary Rodham Clinton has not paid a price for her stance on Iraq


It is not simply because she faces token opposition; unlike Mr. Lieberman, who has long resisted turning against the war or President Bush’s handling of it, Mrs. Clinton has consistently tried to distance herself from her initial vote without repudiating it, becoming increasingly critical of Mr. Bush’s management of the war.

That process crested on Thursday at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, where Mrs. Clinton bluntly and publicly castigated Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld over the war, in an exchange that drew a considerable amount of news coverage.

but I do not think she could win anything else....

Change all you want Hillary......

the first time, let alone a second term. I still think I'm going to wake up from a very bad coma I been in the last 6 years.

tasinifornewyork.org

He's pretty great.

him, but IMO, it is time for both Hillary and Bill to retire from politics and just settle down into supporting the Republicans along with their friend, Lieberman.

He's been really supportive of my labor strike-- not using it for campaign purposes-- actually standing by us and picketing in the cold weather and going to jail with us. He's an old school progressive dem. And he's pissed. As close to a "straight shooter" as I've seen in a politician in a long while... no maybe ever. I really like the guy.

No way no how,they can go stuff her in a pepper.

And it might be lower than that. I do think he will get at least 20% of the vote.

With all the money Hillary has in the bank, the only thing standing between her and the nomination in 2008 is the result of the Primary race for Senate nomination. I'm remembering New Hampshire in 1968. Tasini doesn't even have to win, just make a very good showing. Hillary has a lot of money from out-of-state, so Out-of-staters, feel free to support Tasini now if you want a choice in 2008.

IMO, and should suffer the same fate.

This is from SaveElmer's post in GDP.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2753573&mesg_id=2753573

Her excellent ratings from most groups are usually poo-pooed, so now that we have found some people like, thought I would get it out there....show what a radical "right winger" she is...

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the The Humane Society of the United States 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Trust for Historic Preservation 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People 95 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Education Association 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Wilderness Coalition 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the League of Conservation Voters 95 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Children's Defense Fund 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Association of University Women 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Organization for Women 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group 91 percent in 2006.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group 100 percent in 2005

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence 100 percent from 1988-2003 (Senate) or 1991-2003 (House).

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Public Health Association 80 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Service Employees International Union 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 93 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 93 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the United Electrical Radio and Machine Workers 84 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Worker 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees 88 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Federation of Government Employees 83 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Committee for an Effective Congress 95 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 100 percent in 2005.

According to the National Journal - Composite Liberal Score's calculations, in 2005, Senator Clinton voted more liberal on economic, defense and foreign policy issues than 80 percent of the Senators.

According to the National Journal - Liberal on Social Policy's calculations, in 2005, Senator Clinton voted more liberal on social policy issues than 83 percent of the Senators.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Alliance for Retired Americans 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Disabled American Veterans 92 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Bread for the World 100 percent in 2003-2004.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the The Partnership for the Homeless 100 percent in 2003-2004.

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can...

like this bookmarked to offer as FACTS to conteract the DINO label. Although I don't agree with Hillary on every single thing she certainly is not deserving of the DINO label some would like to stick her with.

Although I'm a life long resident of upstate/northern NY and very much a Dem I won't be voting in this primary since both my DH and I ended up registered as "no party" when we moved up here and keep forgetting to change it. As for who I'll vote for in the main election both this Nov and then again in 2008... I'll vote for the Dems that win the Primaries. Heck, I have never cared for Schumer at all... but I'll pull the lever for that pompass twit as well.

which makes her something of a war criminal, in my book, at least.

49% of the country voted for him for President. Stop listening to right wing conservative press. Listen to leftist guerillas. :-)

who supported the illegal invasion of Iraq, including, but not limited to, the WH, SCOTUS, CONGRESS and the MSM, then they are guilty of war crimes, and should stand before the ICC.

I don't give a damn what party they belong to or how many others support them.

Fortunately, I care about more than just this war. If you actively work against the Dem candidate (whomever he or she may be) you guarantee a repuke victory and we all lose a lot more in the end. Working against a pro-war dem during primary season is right on, but I'd never work against the eventual nominee, IWR vote or not. There are too many other things of equal or greater importance to me and I need a Dem in office.

IN OUR NAME.

That is, these are WAR CRIMES being committed in YOUR NAME, whether you like it or not.

This must stop. It means more to me to stop the killing of innocent civillians in my name, than just about anything else.

Personally, I think the repuke environmental and corporate crimes do 10X the damage of the war, but you have to look at it differently to see the damage. I'm sorry there are other things I care about besides the war, but there are and I want something done about ALL of them.

NOT how things are perceived today after the revaluations of we were lied to etc.. At the time of the vote, it was a different world than we have today.

I mean, WTF do you think you're going to get if you work AGAINST whoever the Dem nominee is? Sheesh! :eyes: More of the same, thats' what. I don't want her to be the nom at ALL, but I'll vote for her if she is. The alternative is too terrifying, and 3rd party is a wasted vote.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Organization for Women 100 percent in 2005.

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can ...

but i am glad she is doing it also.

the difference between her and Lieberman is that she doesn't go out there and defend Bush so publicly the way Lieberman has done. and she doesn't criticize other Dems who criticize Bush as Lieberman does also. so it wasn't Lieberman's position as much as the way he behaved that got people angry at him.

how he would appear on TV everytime Dems were coming out and making some progress to defend Bush.

As long as Republicans respect him as a Great Man, he'll play their game, hook, line and sinker.

candidate.

"HAVE" to vote for her IF she were the Dem candidate, but I will not vote for her in a primary.

I'm not stupid enough to go third party just because I disagree with a couple of her positions. Bottom line, I agree with her on A LOT more issues than I disagree with her on. These people (in both parties) who make the war their ONLY position when it comes to voting, are shortsighted and fuck things up for the rest of us. There are plenty of other things I care about besides the war, and my vote will reflect that.

Here's what I ask people. Ok, so you have a dem candidate for president (just an example) who voted for the war at a time when there was pretty strong support for it...not from me, but... So anyway, you swear off that candidate, you say "He or She will NEVER have my vote because of that ONE vote they cast in Congress." Nevermind that they have wonderful stances on civil rights, the environment, energy policy, etc, etc, etc... Ok, so you're going to go for a third party and guarantee a repuke victory? It just doesn't make a bit of goddamn sense! At least with the dem, you know your views will be at least partially represented...even more than that. ARRRRRRRRGH! I get so pissed at these people. It's not ALL about the war!

if given the opportunity. There's absolutely no value in gouging her all the time. If only one person in the present administration were 1/100th as smart as she is...ah, that will never be.

position all along ... then we win. No way I support you Hillary.

But........... not to put too fine a point on it -- she has all the effing $$$... Of course no one is challenging her as they did Lieberman. She and Bill have called in every marker, every chit, every favor owed to them from his WH days, my friends, and built Hillary a bullet-proof war-chest. She has the most $$$. Period. And, in politics, it's $$$ that talks. Ask any lobbyist. I feel she is going to steam-roller her way into keeping her seat in NY, and then buy the nomination of our Party. That's right -- BUY the nomination. (Just as in poker, when there is a player at the table with an overwhelming pile of chips, who BUYS his or her way to winning every pot... her $$$ makes her unbeatable unless she pulls out on her own. And, my guess is THAT ain't gonna happen.)

I oppose her nomination, as I believe she is unelectable. But, I don't think either she or Bill has the capacity to be objective about that, and do what's best for the Party and the country. I think they think they are invinceable. I disagree with them.

TC

I wonder how much she paid the writer out of her aptly named war chest?

As a New Yorker, I can damn well assure the New York Times that there are many Clinton constituents who will not be voting for her this time around - specifically because of her position on the war and her pandering to the right. Yes, she will probably win again, but to say that there are no consequences to her warmongering is absolutely false. She will never get my vote again - and will not get those of many I know.

but then I looked at the byline, Ann Kornblut, the media whore who botched her LAST article on Hilary Clinton.

I'd rather save my strength and argue from a position of truth, not from another hit piece.

all the Dems that supported the IWR.

I just don't want the Clintons back in the White House. We can do better than replace one dynasty with another.