Hillary Clinton Takes “Responsibility” For Her Vote For War
New York Senator Hillary Clinton, the favorite in the (early) polls to gobble up the 2008 Democratic Presidential nomination, has taken “responsibility” for her vote for the war — yet another step in trying to satisfy those in her party who continue to clamor for her to express regret for her earlier vote.
But will it be enough?
New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton blamed President Bush on Saturday for misusing authority given him by Congress to act in Iraq, but conceded “I take responsibility” for her role in allowing that to happen.In an interview with The Associated Press, Clinton also said she would not cede black votes to Barack Obama and that she had proven as a U.S. senator that gender is irrelevant.
Of her husband, the former president, she said he would have a role in the campaign but “I’m the one running for president.”
Clinton was making her first campaign swing through this early nominating state, which twice voted for Bill Clinton for president. She met with key activists and held a raucous town hall meeting with 1,500 cheering backers and hundreds of journalists.
“I have said clearly and consistently for quite some time that I regret the way the president misused the authority,” said Clinton. “He misled Congress and the country on what he was seeking and what he intended to do.”
The responsibility Clinton said she accepts was helping clear the way for Bush’s path in Iraq.
“I take responsibility for having voted to give him that authority,” she said. “My focus is on what we do now. That is the proper debate.”
In more normal times, that would be enough. But if you listen to some pundits, nothing short of “I BEG YOU — please accept my apology! I was wrong! (Sob!) I was wrong!” will do.
The problem with that is this whole line of argument assumes that all the politicos who voted for the war did so out of political self-interest or were going along to get along, or were not as wise and skillfully analytical as those who opposed the Iraq war at the very outset.
Just as many politicos and Americans supported the war for a variety of reasons, Americans seemingly opposed the war at the outset for various reasons. Some looked and studied the info, data and official justifications and felt it just didn’t add up. Others were offended by the craven way in which the Bush administration used approval of the war as a wedge issue against Democrats (if they didn’t support it, it was implied they were soft on terrorism — after all those mushroom clouds might be seen over American streets..). And then there were those who would oppose almost any war and those who simply would not support Bush or believe anything he said. For some of those, it was not opposition based on analysis but on acting on gut instinct and personal dislike.
What proportion do you find on each side on this? How many supported the war because they really felt it was the thing to do? And how many opposed it because they truly did an analysis and found it simply didn’t add up? We’ll really never know.
But we do know one thing.
If you go back and read the early news stories, some politicos — and most Americans, if you look at the history of the polling on the war — gave the administration the benefit of the doubt. Bush enjoyed widespread credibility after his early 911 speeches and the Afghanistan war. Americans were not used to (a)being so misled by their government in recent times and (b)being fed information that later turned out to be false.
The question facing Ms. Clinton: are those who will demand “I supplicate you, I plead with you forgive me on my vote!” the ones she needs? Or will her strong poll numbers, effective use of her hefty campaign chest, intricate political network, be enough? Will there be a new Howard Dean of the Left — someone that’ll come racing out of the primaries to set the Democratic party’s progressives on fire? Will charisma-packed Obama split the centrist vote? And what happens if former Vice President Al Gore surprises/doesn’t surprise (choose one according to your own political bias) everyone by entering the race?
Could and should Hillary Clinton go beyond this statement on the war? And, if it’s being demanded, is the demand that she indulge in what American political culture has become — a big, fat demand for politicians to SPIN. Because it’s clear that at the time Ms. Clinton believed she made the right choice. Will it help if she spins and finesses a judgment she made at the time that she felt was the right one, after weighing the information and giving Bush the benefit of the doubt? Times have changed: today, George Bush today isn’t getting much of the benefit of the doubt from some in his own party.
Hat tip to Hinessight
18 Responses to “Hillary Clinton Takes “Responsibility” For Her Vote For War”
Hillary Clinton Takes “Responsibilityâ€? For Her Vote For War…
…
Italics wasn’t turned off. Have fixed that now.
Yawn. Another story on Hillary. Where are the stories on McCain? Did I miss them?
sorry Hillary, too little too late. You flunked the biggest test of your life and tossed the car keys to a drunk to drive this country off of a cliff. Al Gore in ’08.
http://minor-ripper.blogspot.com/2006/12/why-al-gore-will-vanquish-hillary.html
“And what happens if former Vice President Al Gore surprises/doesn’t surprise (choose one according to your own political bias) everyone by entering the race?”
This would put Hillary even more on the defensive regarding her Iraq war vote. Having been wrong on this most important issue is her biggest handicap. How would she want to convince voters she’s the right choice when there’s another popular candidate who was right on the war? And she even would have to show restraint in attacking Al, because it wouldn’t look good if she smeared her own husband’s VP. Though the polls don’t reflect it yet, maybe because Gore hasn’t announced his candidacy, I’m sure Al would win a significant lead over Hillary in the primary.
Gore for president!
Clinton’s position on the invasion of Iraq is certainly a major handicap but don’t forget her calculated triangulations on reproductive rights, faith based initiatives, and other issues. Many politicians lose their “claims to authenticity” as they become more well-known and are examined more closely. Clinton is starting this campaign with an already low “authenticity quotient” and her naked ambition and clever shape-shifitng are not going to change the popular perception or bring her the nomination.
“don’t forget her calculated triangulations on reproductive rights, faith based initiatives, and other issues”
Exactly those triangulations make me think that Clinton actually has a weak standing. ‘Triangulated’ opinions offered by politicians haven’t exactly been enthusiastically embraced by the population recently. Such a calculated positioning seems to be more of a weakness than an asset.
Did she really walk out of the WTC just before 9/11? Rumor is she bought it in New York and got into Congress early over security concerns and got seniority.
The bottom line is that Hillary is still the captive of the DC/DLC consultants and focus groups. You know, that ones that led to a string of Democratic defeats until they were somewhat marginalized in 2006.
I wholeheartedly hope that Hillary remains in the Senate. Until she demonstrates voter’s support from middle America, I think in the long run, her presidential ambitions are hurting the Democrats. Not because she’s a woman, but because she is so well-known by the right and will be an instant target to galvanize their voters to go to the polls. Also, she definitely lacks the wow factor.
There are other worthy candidates that will be overlooked because of Hillary and Obama. That is a great loss for my party and the voters.
I think if Hillary would focus on the Senate she can contribute mightily to the good of the country. It would be far better than running for the Presidency which would still be divisive even now.
Joe, I think criticism of Clinton has more to do with just that fact that she voted for the war and only belatedly admitted that it was a mistake to do so. I think much of the anger surrounding Clinton from opponents of the war comes from:
1) She criticized in very strong terms those Democrats who were calling for withdrawal 2 years ago. Unlike Clinton, Senator Russ Feingold didn’t vote to go to war with Iraq, and he’s been a consistent critic of the war. When he proposed a timetable for withdrawal, one of the most forceful critics of the resolution was Senator Clinton, who even went to such lengths as adopting the Bush Administration’s rhetoric to criticize her fellow Democrat.
2) Why now? Why has Clinton chosen to admit she was wrong to vote for the war now in January of 2007 when she could have done so in January of 2006?
The answer is obvious. Political opportunism. The American people have turned against the Iraq War in droves, and Clinton is right there, tailoring her political position according to the prevailing winds of voter sentiment.
Call me a cynic, but I think the results of the midterm election had more to do with Senator Clinton’s change of heart than an honest reappraisal of the war. What if instead of picking up 6 seats in the Senate and 30 seats in the House, the Democrats had picked up 0 seats in the Senate and only 1 or 2 seats in the House, thereby assuring continued Republican control of both houses of congress? I’d be willing to bet that had that happened, Senator Clinton would still be supporting the war in Iraq.
The way I see it is, if we’re going to criticize President Bush and the Republican Party for the War in Iraq, we need to continue criticizing the Democratic Party. Democrats such as Senator Lieberman and Hillary Clinton are EVERY bit as responsible for this war as their Republican colleagues who supported it.
Arguing that the President “misused his authority” sounds like a cop out to me. She says that she takes “full responsibility” for her vote. But doesn’t taking full responsibility for her vote mean admitting that she was wrong and apologizing to voters, as Senator Edwards did?
I’m glad that Hillary Clinton has finally come around and seen the light. But jumping on the anti-war bandwagon 4 into the war isn’t leadership. It’s pandering.
That second to last sentence should read “But jumping onto the anti-war bandwagon 4 years into the war isn’t leadership.”
“Just as many politicos and Americans supported the war for a variety of reasons”
I’d like to know the reasons for other people, why they supported the war and if they did any reading about the history of the area, the history of Iraq or took the time to study the recent history of the region…or did everyone just think “well, GW is the Presidnet, he must know what he is doing.”
It seemed to me (and I ain’t the brightest buld in the lamp) that everything the administration was saying was factually wrong and historically ignorant. I read one or two histories of Iraq and looked into the Iran, Iraq war a bit. Adding o that was a clas I had in college about the imperial actions fo Britain and the US in the middle east, especiallly in forming the current countires and boundaries.
And one more thought, you never know the outcome of a violent situation, and along the way a lot of horrible things happen to people that you don’t control. War should be the very, very, very last resort and yet many people in this country seem to think it is all glory and only bad guys get blown up real good. Can any on of you who supported the war tell me you think our actions were worth say, 300 children being killed in Iraq? Would you feel the same way if a large part of your family was accidently killed if say, Canada decided to liberate America? Do you think you would say “well, sure my kids had to die and my brother had to have his arms blown off and my mother lost her legs, but Canada had to do it of the US would have (add nebulous threat here)…”
What reasosn did people have for supporting the war?
“Why has Clinton chosen to admit she was wrong to vote for the war now in January of 2007 when she could have done so in January of 2006?”
Nic, read her statement another time, with more suspicion. Essentially, she hasn’t really said she’s sorry. What she said is something like ‘I only voted this way cause the pres lied to me. Everybody else would have done the same under those circumstances’ (ignoring that there have been Dems who showed better judgement). She did never say she didn’t look into the issue deep enough, or anything else that might be construed as if she made an error. She regrets Bush lied, great. And she take responsibility, but doesn’t say she did anything wrong. How lame is this?
Oh, and what do you make of this sentence:
“My focus is on what we do now. That is the proper debate.�
Well, that’s a diplomatic way of saying ‘get over it’. Clinton wants the public to discuss how to get out of the mess and ignore whose misjudgement was responsible for this crazy adventure in the first place? Yeah, sure, she would love the voters to simply forget that it would have been much harder for Bush to get approval for his Iraq fantasy if prominent Senator Clinton would have spoken against it. But it’s on the record, it will be a campaign topic and her incredible lame excuse won’t satisfy many liberal voters. All the millions in her war chest won’t get this out of the debate.
Clinton wants the public to discuss how to get out of the mess and ignore whose misjudgement was responsible for this crazy adventure in the first place?
I have to agree with her here. One doesn’t put out a fire by arguing over who held the match / spilled the kerosene / fanned the flames.
“I have to agree with her here. One doesn’t put out a fire by arguing over who held the match / spilled the kerosene / fanned the flames.”
Of course. Don’t misunderstand me, pm, that’s the right thing to do in discussing future Iraq strategies. But this is about the campaign for president, and imho US voters would be ill advised to disregard the question who has been right and who wrong on this important issue when weighing the qualifications of a candidate. It would be nice to see a person at the helm of the US for a change who has shown sound reasoning in the past.