The 2006 election showed the Republican Party that opposition to the Iraq War was the dominant political issue of the year – trumping all others. Their failure to understand voter anger over the war cost them the majority in the House and Senate. Candidates are now learning that the war is continuing to trump all other issues. And a recent Gallup Poll shows that 7 out of 10 Americans say the war will be a key factor in whom they support in 2008.
The front runner in the Democratic primary, Sen. Hillary Clinton, is feeling the heat. Even though she will raise more money than any candidate in history, has universal name recognition and is building an unprecedented political machine – the Iraq War looms. While her allies are trying to portray her nomination as inevitable it is evident she now knows the Iraq War can undo her inevitability. Seventy-four percent of Democrats say the Iraq War will be a factor in their 2008 vote according to a February Gallup Poll and one out of two say it will be a major factor.
Wherever she goes the Iraq War follows her. She is starting to have public confrontations with voters about the war. At a widely reported town meeting in New Hampshire Roger Tilton urged her to apologize for her vote in favor of the use of force resolution and told her that voters can't hear all the good things is saying until she deals with the war. Anti-war voters, who are becoming an organized force, are letting her know – if you're wrong on Iraq you are wrong for America.
But, she doesn't want to look weak so she postures for the cameras. At another New Hampshire town hall when she was asked again about her vote for the war she said: "If the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that vote or said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from." She may live to regret that comment.
Clinton will not apologize pundits say because she wants to be seen as decisive, confident and strong, especially important because she is a female. But she did say that if she knew what she knows now she would have voted differently. That is a major step forward for a candidate who has been a consistent supporter of the war.
When it became evident that was not enough she took the next step and put forward her own Iraq exit strategy and in the press release announcing it said: "Now it's time to say the redeployment should start in ninety days or we will revoke authorization for this war. This plan is a roadmap out of Iraq. I hope the President takes this road. If he does, he should be able to end the war before he leaves office."
Sen. Clinton obviously does not want to be shackled with the Iraq War when she becomes president. More than once she has criticized President Bush for letting this war continue through the end of his presidency. And, at the recent Democratic National Committee meeting she promised "If we in Congress don't end this war before January 2009, as president, I will."
When I posted the Clinton plan to the VotersForPeace discussion list one person commented:
"Excuse me, but am I the only one who remembers how brown her nose was not too long ago? Is it me or do these politicians just change their minds with the flow of public opinion? I want a candidate that is strong on what they believe, not one that is blown with the wind. Tomorrow she may forget what her plan is if elected. I don't trust her anymore. She's changed her mind too many times as far as I'm concerned."
Another asked: "Could Hillary Clinton be in a hurry to play catch up due to the anti-war voices being so vocal at her Iowa appearances?"
Others have expressed concern about her willingness to support a military attack on Iran, particularly her comments to AIPAC, the hard right Israeli lobby: "We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons. And in dealing with this threat ... no option can be taken off the table."
These anti-war voters reflect the view of many who have serious doubts about Sen. Clinton's new anti-Iraq War stand. Not only did Clinton vote wrong on the initial use of force resolution, she has consistently opposed any discussion of exit strategies and has voted for every penny of more than $420 billion appropriated for the war. She has been a critic of President Bush but she has given this irresponsible commander in chief a blank check for war.
She is someone who saw the U.S. having a long term military stay Iraq. When she returned from a Thanksgiving trip to Iraq in 2003 Senator Clinton was asked on ABC's This Week how long the U.S. would be in Iraq. Her response was a reminder that the U.S. still has bases in Korea and elsewhere long after those wars had ended.
In December 2005 she wrote that she would not accept any timetable for withdrawal and would not embrace Rep. Jack Murtha's call for "redeployment of troops." Further, she called on President Bush to finish "this war with success and honor" restating her rejection of "a rigid timetable that the terrorists can exploit."
In June of 2005 she spoke to the progressive-Democratic "Take Back America Conference" in Washington, D.C. and was booed and jeered by progressive activists in the Democratic Party. As she left the podium people chanted "Bring the troops home; stop the war now." No doubt, she thought this might be a moment where she could show that she did not kowtow to the anti-war interests in the party. Norman Solomon described this as "premature triangulation."
Since 2005 she has moved at glacial speed toward her new "I'll end the war" position. The question for peace voters is, can voters opposed to the war trust her? Populist anti-war candidate, former Senator Mike Gravel, told the DNC Convention this year that anyone who voted for the initial use of force resolution showed they did not have the judgment to be president. The other clearly anti-war candidate, the only person running who voted against the use of force resolution, Dennis Kucinich also referred to the 2002 vote as a test at a candidate forum in Nevada "We had an audition for president in October, 2002."
No, of course not. Hillary is even more vile than Bush, in
some ways. Bush could plead with some plausibility that he's too dimwitted to fully grasp what he's done, but Hillary doesn't have that defense.
If Hillary's husband had any real decency, he would have come out opposing the war in Iraq, & he wouldn't be spending all his time gallivanting around the world & sucking up to Poppy Bush. He wouldn't have bombed Kosovo, either -- which was sort of a trial run for Iraq ("Let's see if the US can get away with bombing to smithereens a country that posed us no danger whatever.") These aspects of Bill certainly tell us plenty about Hillary -- let alone her own record of complicity with the Bush Jr regime.
Even if she wasn't so shamelessly ambitious and vile, it would be disastrous to have this woman become president. For then the US would have chosen, out of its 300 million citizens, members of just TWO families to be president for 24 consecutive years. By itself -- even before one considers the horrible crimes committed by the US in this period -- this would demonstrate what a farce American democracy is.
by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1120 comments)
on Friday, February 23, 2007 at 5:08:42 PM
It would be hard to more vile than Bush. But since she is "more intelligent", she likely would be more vile. And sneakier. Same for Obama. Same for Edwards. Same for anybody on the slate currently except possibly Kucinich (sp?) and Ron Paul.
by
richard (0 articles, 4 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 747 comments)
on Saturday, February 24, 2007 at 10:48:44 AM
Commenter signed up, placed two trollish, attacking, nasty, even threatening comments. He is banned.
More vile than Bush? Where were you in the 90s? Lost inside your bong? Jeeze, idiots like you give morons a bad name. But dont worry - youll have Nader to vote for again so you can pretend you know better than 'average folks'
The reason she wont apologize is simple. She has been saying since at least 8/04 (meet the press) that this the vote in congress would never have happened if the intel wasnt bogus...thats one ...two, she wont apologize cause its just a bunch of bolofascists that are demanding it. If she apologizes or could go back in a time machine and change her vote - would it have save one life - NO! So stop demanding something that is just a stunt!
by
Timl (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments)
on Thursday, March 1, 2007 at 7:33:04 AM
