Clinton: Candidates won't be damaged by initially backing the war in Iraq

She also voted against a July 1, 2007 deadline.

Not just a river in Egypt!

illegal and immoral war!

The IWR was not that big an issue in 2004. Kerry won the primary remember! He was laying into Bush about the war in stronger terms than all the candidates did through 2006. Kerry even called for regime change in the U.S. during the war.

Again, they voted against Kerry's July 1, 2007 deadline.

why would it be a bigger issue in 2008?

Hillary is most likely correct here.

This is Bush's war, but ending the war and forcefully advocating and supporting any means to end the war matters.

but, you know, even as a Kerry supporter, I didn't agree with the Kerry/Feingold amendment.

I don't think it's a very compelling argument - I don't think a lot of people are going to base their primary vote on HRC's "no" vote on that amendment, or see that vote against it as "not forcefully advocating and supporting any means to end the war". There are genuine disagreements over the best strategy to end this war.

in January, they all jumped on the bandwagon. Hillary, on the other hand, made it clear last week that she is not for a timetable or cutting funding.

but that the Clintons did not want the disscussion itself in the Senate. They were more concerned with the idea that it could hurt in 2006 if Bush announced a withdrawal of some forces. It was immoral to avoid the issue of Iraq for political gain - and it was bad politics. I doubt the Democrats would haev done as well had the Senate done nothing on Iraq.

This was the same as on Alito. Hillary Clinton gave a strong speech against him, then was adament behind the scenes that filibustering him was a bad idea. Now, she says "I fought Alito". If the Clinton wing of the party made a strong effort to fight him on the unitary president/balance of powers issue they likely could have stopped him. That, not Hillary's speech mainly on a woma's right to choose, was the reason to oppose him - and we could have won.

"immoral" and "political" in them.

I don't expect politics to be a field where morality holds much sway - all too often the game is conducted for whatever advantage can be had at the time, knowing full well that the other side is not going to award you any points for fair play. The real question I have to ask is the same that I had to ask of Kerry - If this person were President, would we be in Iraq right now? This is Bush's war, and AFAIC that point can't be repeated often enough.

The real test of whether or not the Clinton's decision was good or bad politics (if indeed things played out a you state, a conclusion I am far from accepting), will be decided in 2008.

As far as Alito goes, hindsight is 20/20, I guess. For myself, "could have" are two more words I am not comfortable with, especially when it comes to politics.

for the vote. The reason Kerry's position was complicated was that there were at least 3 issues that were conflated and intentionally confused by the media.

1) The vote
2) Whether we should have gone to war
3) What to do now (where now was then defined as 2005)

Kerry was on record before the war started as being against going to war at that point.

The Clintons did not speak out in 2003 before the war. In 2004, they did not say as Bill Clinton did in 2006 that all the Democrats other than Leiberman voted to get the inspectors in. At that point, it still carried a possible future cost to do so - so they didn't.

In 2006, it was the most palatable reason for voting for it and to Hillary's advantage, so they said it.

3 issues that were conflated and intentionally confused by the media.

1) The vote
2) Whether we should have gone to war
3) What to do now (where now was then defined as 2005)

Kerry was on record before the war started as being against going to war at that point.
The Clintons did not speak out in 2003 before the war. In 2004, they did not say as Bill Clinton did in 2006 that all the Democrats other than Leiberman voted to get the inspectors in. At that point, it still carried a possible future cost to do so - so they didn't.

In 2006, it was the most palatable reason for voting for it and to Hillary's advantage, so they said it.

In 2004, it was an issue in the primary - because it was in the interest of Dean to make it so. It was why a moderate former governor became the leading candidate of the antiwar movement. At that time, the country was far less antiwar than now. Even then, Kerry had to mend riffs due to his vote. Kerry was able to because of his personal history and the fact that he did speak out against the war before it started.

Though the media did the best to hide it, there was consistency between what Kerry wrote in a September 2002 NYT op-ed that was seen as anti-war, his explanation of the IWR vote on the Senate floor and his January 23, 2003 speech against the Bush movements towards going to war. I had gone with my teen daughters to protest in DC and NYC in early 2003, I would not have supported Kerry in the primaries if that were not clear.

In 2008, it will be an issue in the primaries because it is in the interest of the two major opponents. Just as Dean used it is 2004, Obama and Edwards will use it in 2008.

In 2004, Kerry in the primary was able to overcome it, Hillary is using the same reason now, but Obama's campaign can ask about why, when more was known after the inspectors were in and finding nothing, the Clintons who had the biggest megaphone in the Democratic party were silent.

The 2008 primary could end up very nasty on Iraq with -

Obama's people questioning BOTH Edwards' and Clinton's votes.

Edwards attacking Clinton for not admitting the vote was wrong, while attacking Obama and Clinton for not being sufficiently antiwar now.

Obama is running on being a healer. He can attack the others without mentioning their name - by just emphasizing that he spoke out in 2002. Clinton will likely attempt to say above it speaking of experience (having eliminated the most credible alternative experienced candidates - Gore or Kerry). Edwards, in a complete change from 2004 is now attacking the others.

An interesting scenario would be if Carter, Gore and Kerry simultaneously endorsed Obama (or less likely Edwards). This would put three people seen by many as principled voices in the Democratic party against Clinton. Their experience could confer gravitas to the candidate they endorse.

and quite frankly even Kerry wimped out on Iraq going so far as to say as late as August 2004, that knowing there where no WMDs in Iraq, he'd still have voted for IWR.

Now after continued FAILURE in Iraq with so much more death and destruction and no end in sight, IWR has come front and center as Senate Dem candidates who voted for it and other war supportive measures, now bob and weave with apologies, excuses and other speechifying bullshit.

Kerry's speeches mean and meant nothing. We knew the truth about Bushco BEFORE October 2002. Robert Byrd, Bob Graham, Ted kennedy, Patrick Leahy, Russ Feingold, Barbara Boxer ... a score of Senate Dems knew and warned against ceding so much authority (power) to the executive, against haste in going to war.

The test of leadership is not what they say AFTER THE FACT, it's what they DID WHEN IT MATTERED.
Kerry failed and he's finished, his time is past while the current contenders still leave much to be desired on the entire war issue. Talk is soooo fucking cheap.

It had no impact on primary voters. Seems the top tier of candidates are IWR voters with a least one advocating an open-ended approach to withdrawing troops.

how the IWR is having an impact now which is why I began my post with the comment that 2004 seems like eons ago.

Nonsense ... I think not. The whole point is that many who voted yea are having to duck, bob, weave and dodge because THAT FUCKING VOTE WAS NOT NONSENSE, the truth that we at DU knew before 10/2002 is percolating to the top AND KERRY LOST!

we simply cannot nominate another candidate who voted for the IWR.

the election process. The IWR did not send this country to war and did not stop Kerry from entering the oval office.

McAuliffe and his CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT Office of Voter Integrity did.

the war against me - don't vote for me." Period. End of discussion.

no one contesting it, is the way Clinton goes. She doesn't want to make waves; does she have any ideals? Is there something in her heart that might, for a change, inspire her to vote the right way, because it's the right thing to do? I'm waiting to see that.

:eyes:

That is my one sticking point which is preventing me from actively supporting Edwards. As to Clinton positions ....

I agree with you 100%

only those who voted agaist the bs iwr deserve our votes....unless like edwards they confess they screwed up and are sorry.

If Hillary sucks, Edwards sucks far more. He was on the Intelligence Committee and still co-sponsored the IWR against the far greater wisdom and experience of people like Graham, Durbin and Levin, who knew enough to vote NO. Edwards voted for the IWR and against both Levin's and Durbin's alternatives to the IWR. Would it have changed anything if he had voted YES on Levin and Durbin, no. But it might have indicated some of the "conflict" he now claims. Instead he went all out for the IWR as much as Lieberman. He certainly should be sorry, and on a human level it is possible to forgive, but he doesn't deserve our votes. "Sorry" can never make up for it.

because a profound lack of judgment should be the biggest disqualifier to being president. To now say, "please
elect me because this one gigantic (just a vote) error for which I make apologies/excuses for is not as important as what I will do now." Spare me. Past behavior is indicative of future performance and those two had the MOST access to information than any other candidates and they still fucked it up beyond all recognition.

Neither is a leader until there's an election and then political expedience is the guide.

No question there for me.

but I'd vote for Clinton before I'd ever think of voting for Edwards. He's got more to answer for IMO.

/spelling

Sorry simply doesn't cut it. He was a real hawk and only changed when the tide of public opinion could no longer be ignored.

His sorry excuse is just that sorry.

Bring up Clinton's IWR vote, or Edwards' astonishing co-sponsorship of the thing, and half of DU comes down on your head. "Oh, they were misled!", "Oh, you're ignoring the political realities!", "Oh, why bring that old history up - you're just bashing a Dem!", and so forth.

If people can be such apologists on a decidedly-left web site, then she's probably correct with regard to the general electorate.

We have well over 3000 of our soldiers dead because they are fighting a war they should have never been in. I blame her and anyone else who voted for the authorization. I blame bush as well. I am to the point to where anyone who voted for the war, should have their children over there participating in some form or fashion in the war. It should be mandatory. Then we will see how long the war last.

because they supported it initially, too.

And focusing on Hillary .... Her attitude sounds to me like if we had gone ahead and just nuked Iraq then it would have been fine and good, this whole regime change preemptive war concept would be okee dokey if Bush wasn't so inept he couldn't do it right?
That is way worse then Edwards good natured fool routine ...
IMO

But she has to pass muster with primary voters first, and websites like these are much better indicators of where those voters lie because as a rule the people who vote in primaries are also usually the most partisan members of the party.

her in the primaries with liberal voters but I don't think it will be very relevant in the general if she gets there. I think I am fairly typical of a liberal who really has a hard time with this but most of the folks I know who lean Democratic don't really care as long as she isn't cheering leading for the war at the present. Having said this I don't see much enthusiasm for her candidacy. I think either Edwards or Obama are better choices. They both have the charisma and smarts it will take to beat Rudy who I think will end up with the G.O.P. nomination.

all these hoodwinkers who think a little more hoodwinking ok...it's not ok! the bush regime is a criminal regime. And the people, both repub/dem and the unrepresented, know it and recognise that pretending bush (and everything bush has done) is just routine amer politics/nothing to see here, move along etc, are pissing into the wind..... the pigmedia needs killing, like ted bundy, only worse

Does Hillary Clinton's position on the war in Iraq make you more likely or less likely to support her, or does it make no difference to you? More likely, 48%; Less likely 9%; No difference 43%

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/RCP_PDF/Marist050807.pdf

For anyone interested:

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/apr/05/compare_and_contrast_hillarys_and_edwards_votes_on_iraq

It would be nice to find a way to get people to actually care about voting record.

So it's not lost over time.

excellent comprehensive voting comparison. Thanks!

:thumbsup:

With the exception of Kucinich, Edwards is the most progressive Presidential candidate.

He supports a residual force only under very limited conditions - which is quite reasonable. He was against the IWR.

Obama has voted exactly the same as Hillary on all 69 Iraq bills that he has been able to vote for, except for one in which Hillary actually voted the best way. Hillary voted for the IWR. The majority of U.S. Senate Democrats voted for the IWR, including anti-war John Kerry.

Obama never talks about important issues. My impression of him is that Obama is like "thank god I wasn't in the Senate because I would have had to vote for the authorization or be branded a terrorist when I ran for President".

Obama, had he been in the Senate, would have been like Kerry. Voting for the resolution to give Bush the leverage he said he needed to insure Saddam was not a threat, BUT then continuing to speak out when Bush seemed likelyt to attack without doing what he said.

The more likely possibility would be he would haev voted against it.

In either case, he was not a hawk like Edwards AFTER the invasion or silent like Hillary.

with the fear climate of the US at that time, then you have a very poor memory. The majority of the population, at that time, was clamoring for revenge for 9/11. Bush played on that fear. Now, the majority clamors for the opposite, but that was certainly not the case at the time of the vote. We have a representative form of government, and our politicians agree to speak for the majority of their constituents. Hillary has done that in both cases.

Are you saying that they did the wrong thing?

:shrug:

Wellstone unfortunately died - he was in a tough race but likely would have won.

Many who voted FOR it are gone.

I made a comment on our representative form of government; that's all.

By election time, I am guessing DUers will claim Hillary was the sole sponsor and Democrat voting for the thing.

Here are the 23 nays from the Senate

Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chafee (R-RI)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (D-FL)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden (D-OR

Why not just make policy according to opinion polls.? :shrug:

If the Dems had made the case, as they have since, that war in Iraq was a diversion from the WOT and would actually drain resources, weaken the WOT, sap our armed forces, cost our treasury hundreds of billions of dollars, result in hundreds of thousands of deaths, and accomplish little more than to heighten the threat of terrorism worldwide and in Iraq, instead of going along to get along on Iraq, our candidates would not have to be scrabbling on this issue. I do not agree that "to speak for the majority of their constituents" is adequate in times of national crisis and climates of fear, when our Congress needs to be thinking of the nation and not simply their districts. The public was misled by the Bush administration, and while I am sensible that every IWR vote is not equal, based on other actions taken at the time or position in terms of intelligence access, when they could have served the country as loyal opposition, only those who voted NO to the IWR actually did.

The people she is supposed to have represented -- the people of New York -- were flooding her with calls to NOT vote for the IWR! Talk about a poor memory. :eyes:

And on what planet is Bush "being held responsible?" Every time Mr. 28% calls their bluff, they back down. They're scared of the most unpopular man on the planet and his mighty wurlitzer.

Wishful thinking to believe otherwise

And polls back her up!

voted for the war and she leads in the polls.

It is much much more important for her to convince
the Media she knows how to get us out of Iraq.

It is the Media more than American People who
drank that Republican Kool-Aid. Only Republicans
can lead on Defense, National Security and Foreign
Affairs.

Most Americans just want the fighting to stop.

From the recent Marist poll...

when applied to Hillary but Edwards gets the green light ...

It is that lack of consistency that proves to me that that 'tude is constructed of papier-mache and bullshit.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Its delusional.

To anyone that was paying attention the votes on the IWR are very important as is the candidates defense or lack of defense for that vote ever since. Thousands of people took to the streets to protest that vote and our rush to war if she thinks people motivated enough to go out in the streets and protest, at a time when you were called unpatriotic or worse for doing so, will forget that so easily she is sadly mistaken.

If she instead said not enough people were or are paying attention to have it affect the vote enough to ruin her chances I might agree.