Hillary's Attempt to Rewrite History Again

[illinoisprogressive]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/another-chapter-in-hillar_b_48982.html


In a 1939 radio address, Franklin Roosevelt declared, "Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth." When it comes to Iraq, Hillary Clinton is doing everything in her power to prove him wrong -- repeatedly trying to rewrite history and belatedly catch up with public opinion against the war.

She did it during the first Democratic presidential debate, and she was at it again this morning on the Today show.

The issue was former president Bill Clinton's campaign trail complaints that it's unfair for Barack Obama to be characterized as more antiwar than his wife since they hold essentially the same position on the war.

Matt Lauer quoted Obama's retort that that was true "if you leave out the fact that she authorized and supported the war there and I said it was a bad idea" and played a clip of him saying "I think it is fair to say that we had a fundamentally different opinion on the wisdom of this war. And I don't think we can revise history when it comes to that."

Lauer then asked Hillary, "Was there a fundamental difference in 2002 between you and him?"

Instead of honestly explaining her transformation from pro-war supporter to cheerleader of the war's progress to tentative opponent of the war to her current incarnation as long-term opponent of the war, Hillary skipped right over the unpleasant past and tried to talk only about the future: "Well, you know, Matt, I think the important thing is for the Democrats to be united in trying to either persuade or require this president to change this direction now -- that's what all of us in the Senate are trying to do." Sure, why answer the question when you can divert attention and blur the differences between you and your opponents?

Hillary also dutifully hit her talking point that she's been "saying for a number of years" that we should bring our troops home -- trying to rhetorically paper-over the fact that for most of those years she was actually trying to have it both ways on Iraq: dipping her toe in the rising anti-war tide by voting for a phased redeployment of troops while steadfastly arguing against setting any kind of deadline for bringing our troops home (for instance, less than a year ago, in June 2006, she said she did not "think it is smart strategy to set a date certain. I do not agree that that is in the best interest of our troops or our country").

This broad-brush, who-cares-about-details approach to Iraq is a favorite of pro-war Democrats desperately trying to align themselves with the majority of the American people, at least until the election. Are we forgetting Joe Lieberman, who claimed during his campaign against Ned Lamont, "No one wants to end the war in Iraq more than I do"? And there he is now, Tweedle-Dee to John McCain's pro-surge Tweedle-Dum.

As the Democrats continue to push for an end to the war, the devil will most certainly be in the details -- and pretending everyone is on the same page will do little to help voters decide which candidate to support. Which is exactly how Hillary wants it.

She's even trying to turn her chronic shape-shifting on Iraq into an asset, telling Matt Lauer that she's "put forth a number of approaches." See, she wasn't trying to cover all her bases -- she was putting forth a number of approaches.

Hillary obviously was paying attention during Bill Clinton's master class on rewriting history. Take his claim, made on a fundraising call with Hillary supporters in March, about the unfairness of the contrasting depiction of Hillary and Obama on the war: "To characterize Hillary and Obama's positions on the war as polar opposite is ludicrous. This dichotomy that's been set up to allow him to become the raging hero of the anti-war crowd on the Internet is just factually inaccurate."

Hmm, let's see... Hillary voted for the war and Obama passionately opposed it. Characterizing that as "polar opposite" hardly seems "factually inaccurate." Indeed, one might say it was "factually accurate." But when Lauer asked Hillary about this, she said, "I think he was referring to the voting records most Democrats have." Which, of course, he absolutely wasn't. He was talking about Obama.

Regarding her husband's claim, Hillary also told Lauer, "You'll have to ask him exactly what he meant..." -- which I have a sick feeling is going to be a phrase we are going to hear over and over and over in the months ahead as Bill Clinton tries to clear Hillary's path to the White House.

In the facts-at-our-fingertips age of the Internet, Hillary's blur-the-past strategy on Iraq takes a lot of chutzpah.

[David Dunham]

1. This election is about 2009 and onward, not 2002

[Bucky]

6. Exactly right. We can safely ignore the past. It tells nothing about tomorrow!

A person's track record for forthrightness is no sign of where she/he will stand in the future. Hell, people change opinions all the time. Just look at Clinton's statements on Iraq, for example.

[MethuenProgressive]

2. Bill Clinton told the truth:

"To characterize Hillary and Obama's positions on the war as polar opposite is ludicrous. This dichotomy that's been set up to allow him to become the raging hero of the anti-war crowd on the Internet is just factually inaccurate."
It's not surprising the Obamaramaites are crying over such accurate statements.

[SaveElmer]

3. Bingo...nt

[Alexander]

7. Right, because Bill Clinton always tells the truth...

Particularly when the subject is his own wife. :eyes:

Nope, it's Bill who is factually inaccurate. Hillary only recently regretted her vote on IWR, and only very recently - in the past 6 months - stated that she'd end the war.

Keep in mind I'm not supporting Obama either - he's something of a lightweight right now.

But I do take issue with people pretending Hillary was some kind of anti-war crusader when she was only too happy to vote for, support and fund this fiasco until her foray into presidential politics.

[MethuenProgressive]

13. Bashing Hillary with Bill/Monica references?

It'd be nice if some people could forgive Mrs Clinton for her husband's affair.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

16. HRC even tried to take credit for Saddam's capture when the war was still popular in 2003

[draft_mario_cuomo]

15. Obama publicly opposed the war in 2002 while HRC was cheerleading for it and voting for it

Obama was courageous (70% of people supported the war at the time) and correct in 2002. Sadly, the same cannot be said about HRC, Biden, Dodd, Richardson (who said he would have voted for the war), and yes, Edwards too.

[CTLawGuy]

23. Obama was right when it counted

and Hillary was, in typical Clintonian fashion, thinking about how she would be perceived.

Personally, we need someone without an IWR vote he or she has to explain away.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

29. Being right now does not count?

[CTLawGuy]

32. not as much

the best solution to the iraq problem? Not going there in the first place!

what we have now is the best of bad choices. When we leave, the government will probably collapse, sooner or later, and goodness knows what will replace it...

[karynnj]

40. He told the truth - but only because he created a strawman

No one was saying that Hillary's and Obama's positions were polar opposites. What they were saying was that Hillary did vote for the authorization and did not speak out against Bush when it was clear he was going to war. Obama in 2002 argued against the IWR and he spoke out against going to war.

That is a difference, but that difference doesn't exist over the entire 2002 - 2007 time period. What is also true is that Obama and Hillary both voted against Kery/Feingold and at that time sounded somewhat the same.

Hillary's current position, if one assumes that the long NYT interview is accurate, recommends more involement in Iraq than Obama's plan.

From my perspective there are three comparisons:
- October 2002 through at least March 2003:
where Obama was publicly against the war and Hillary could reasonably have been seen as supportive of going to war because of her vote and her silence in the start up to the war. (Edwards went beyond this and was an active supporter of the war then.)

- January 2005 - at least June 2006:
Obama and Hillary did vote almost the same way. (Edwards in this interval did disavow his vote, but his November 2005 plan was nowhere as aggressive in ending the war as Feingold's August 2005 or Kerry's October 2005 plans. He also did not publicly support Kerry/Feingold. Unless an Edwards fan has a link, I do not think we know how he would have voted had he still been in the Senate.)

- Now - Hillary has a plan that includes a larger on going role in Iraq than Obama or Edwards.

Bill Clinton wants you to ignore the first comparison and the third, when comparing Hillary and Obama - concentrating only on the second. While this is a period where you can objectively compare them when they are in the same position, it doesn't mean the first comparison doesn't count. The third comparison is, if anything more important.

(As a known Kerry supporter, I add: In 2004, it was fair to question Kerry's vote and it was questioned. Without that vote, he would have been the obvious anti-war candidate given his history and his experience. He, unlike Hillary, did speak out against the war in January 2003. Also, Dean had been far less anti-war than Obama in his September and October comments. So, the contrast between them was considerably less. It also seemed to me that Kerry would get us out of their faster - and in fact Kerry's 2005 proposals were more agressive in getting out than the Korb plan that Dean backed.)

[Gman]

4. Obama was an obscure state senator in 2002

He didn't get a record, much less a grant of superlative wisdom because he won an election against Alan Keyes. My twice convicted of grand theft auto Brittany-Cocker mix dog could have beaten Keyes in 2004. This all happened before Obama was "born" on the national scene.

Obama has no significant record to speak of.

[William769]

8. 2002 a obscure State Senator,

2007 a obscure U.S. Senator.

[CTLawGuy]

24. ha

hanging neck and neck with a woman riding on the coattails of her husband.

[Honeycombe8]

34. Obscure state senator has more wisdom than well-known current U.S. senator?

How is it such an ignoramus, obscure state senator like Obama knew so much better than Clinton, a nationally known U.S. Senator, back in '02? Apparently he did. Doesn't speak well for Clinton's wisdom and cajones to block the war.

I'm not liking this backstabbing of the Dems of each other....but let's be fair. The cold, hard fact is....Clinton was stupid, in hindsight, to have voted for the IW, and Obama was right in his position on it. Another cold, hard fact is that Obama didn't have to actually vote on it, while Clinton did. Nevertheless, Obama spoke of his position on it at the time, which he didn't have to do. Cold hard fact....Clinton's position that the past is the past, and what matters now is how we handle it now...that's a valid position. Another cold hard fact....Clinton's having been stupid enough to be duped by the administration into voting for the war, or chicken enough to be scared not to vote for it, disqualifies her for the presidency.....that's a valid position, too.

[enough already]

36. Obscure, perhaps

Yet clearly wiser than the oracle known as Hillary! in 2002, as well as today.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

17. Obama had a record in 2002--a record of publicly opposing the war

Yes, he was a state senator. And? He was a public figure and publicly spoke out against the war when it was a very popular idea. Him being a state senator is irrelevant. Many private citizens were able to see through Bush's lies. The notion that Obama's opinion didn't matter in 2002 because he was not in Congress is very undemocratic and contrary to fundamental Democratic principles. Are we supposed to be like Republicans and simply take our cues from "our 'leaders'"? Or are we supposed to be thinking citizens who make our own judgments on the merits?

[Gman]

20. Public figure?

I'm sure he was well known up to maybe and maybe a few more than 50 miles from Illinois.

The guy's a lightweight.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

22. State senators are public figures

Yes, Obama was "only" a state senator. He came from modest means and had to earn everything he has gotten in life. Not everyone can be handed a U.S. Senate seat on a silver platter or a governorship...

Obama a lightweight? How? He has more experience as an elected official than HRC does by the way.

[enough already]

37. I'll take a staunch anti-war "lightweight" any day over Hillary!

How many kids have died thanks to her pro-war vote and her continued support of this disaster?

[jefferson_dem]

18. Isn't this country grand - that an "obscure state senator" can inspire such imagination

and excitement among the public...and he's not even part of the stodgy old political establishment, or the spouse of a former president or anything...

[Gman]

21. This obscure local politician that's never been challenged in a statewide race

doesn't inspire any imagination nor does he inspire anymore excitement than anyone else that recites the common talking points everyone else uses.

The guy's a lightweight. Aim higher and expect more from a candidate.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

30. It is ironic to see a HRC fan criticize someone for never being challenged in a statewide race

HRC was handed the senate seat in a state she did not even live in on a silver platter because she happened to be married to the incumbent president. You seem to see nothing wrong with that yet claim Obama, who rose from nowhere to where he is now, has never truly been tested at the ballot box?

==doesn't inspire any imagination nor does he inspire anymore excitement==

That is clearly not the case. Obama has amazingly thus far ran a successful campaign virtually solely on his personality and biography. He has been able to do this because he captures the imagination of many people and inspires people.

As far as him being an obscure "local" politician, he is a senator from the nation's fifth largest state, which includes the most important city between the coasts, Chicago. HRC is a senator from the third largest state. Is HRC a "local" senator too then? Or is there really that much of a difference between 3rd and 5th in population?

[enough already]

38. I do expect more...

I expect more from my party than a warmonger "heavyweight" presidential candidate whose claim to fame is her husband.

[Tellurian]

31. If we're going to split hairs..

Obama has never been tested as election worthy. Both his Primary and Republican opponents withdrew from the race before election day.

Personal scandals broke out for both of them, weeks before the Primary and the GE..

[Gman]

33. Obama's original GOP opponent withdrew for reasons of corruption charges

I forget the guy's name off hand, but he was a legit candidate and had a shot at winning until his baggage caught up with him. After the GOP tried to recruit people including Mike Ditka who all refused, they settled on Alan Keyes who had to move to Michigan to run and then proceeded to remove all doubt as to whether or not he was a bonified nutcase or not.

On the other hand, the GOP couldn't find decent to run against Hillary in 2000.

[BeyondGeography]

35. And Hillary's two elections were against Rick Lazio and, um, who again?

How that adds up to Hillary being "tested as election worthy" is something that only a Hillarian would believe.

[enough already]

39. If we're going to split hairs....

....my dog could have run with the (D) after his name and won a statewide election in NY. Don't insult us all by thinking this translates to the ability to win nationwide.

[karynnj]

41. He wasn't that obscure - he was picked for the keynote speech

just as a little known governor of Arkansas was in 1988. In both cases, it was the potential of the individual rather than the actual record that put these men in the spotlight.

(I realize that being Governor is more than being a public advocate, civil rights lawyer and state senator.)

[papau]

5. I love Arianna - but she is as slanted as Hillary. Post Obama's election the votes are the same

except for the Casey appointment where Hillary did not Trust him and Obama did (a reverse of Obama not trusting Bush and Hillary trusting that a president would not lie to us about war).

"Hmm, let's see... Hillary voted for the war and Obama passionately opposed it. Characterizing that as "polar opposite" hardly seems "factually inaccurate." Indeed, one might say it was "factually accurate." But when Lauer asked Hillary about this, she said, "I think he was referring to the voting records most Democrats have." Which, of course, he absolutely wasn't. He was talking about Obama."

"Which, of course, he absolutely wasn't. He was talking about Obama" - as in Obama's voting record in the Senate, Arianna. spin -spin -spin ..... by everyone

It is going to be an interesting campaign.

Meanwhile, illinoisprogressive, did you hear Bill Richardson's speech and those proposals of his - like Medicare for all 55 and older with 54 and under getting the option of buying the Senate health care plan at the same price the Senators pay? Then he has total get out of Iraq and an energy plan that more or less is mandating plug in electric cars via its 50 mpg by 2015. This is not a small step fellow. I was very impressed.

I am finally getting policy proposal details to be a wonk/geek about - makes one feel a bit younger! :-) I am hoping for an Edwards/Richardson competition on who has the most detailed policies will inspire the others to get specific - and I am hoping detailed proposals on the left at least get a few more poll points (after Edwards released his detailed health idea, his polls dropped - which is neither good or bad - but I hope it is read as a response to his ideas rather than a flag warning others to not release detailed proposals.

In any case - the campaigns are finally getting interesting for policy wonks! :-)

[illinoisprogressive]

14. I like Richardson. He is my second choice. he is excellent.

[quinnox]

9. big surprise she attacks Clinton

I think Arianna is jealous of Hillary, and she wants to be in the spotlight. She is always going off on Clinton, does she have nothing better to do. I'm sure the right wingers will look to her site for material they can use if Hillary is the candidate. Same with that rag the Nation. Sometimes you wonder if these people are on the same side as the Democrats.

[SaveElmer]

11. She did the same to Gore...

Not a surprise...

[William769]

12. Arianna is getting back to her roots.

I wish she would stay there.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

19. Progressives tend to oppose HRC for some odd reason...

[William769]

10. Speaking of trying to rewrite history.

:eyes:

[sandnsea]

25. triangulation nation

That's the Clintons. I can't understand how some DUers can be so blind to her. She pushed the Democratic Party into this war, and now she won't take responsibility for it. I so don't want these two in the White House again, I'm sick of their lies.

[William769]

26. Oy vey.

:eyes:

[jefferson_dem]

27. Oh yea!

:applause:

[wyldwolf]

28. Arianna "I love Newt, I support McCain over Gore" Huffington?