Is Hillary Clinton Getting A Free Pass on Iraq?

[illinoisprogressive]

The 2004 presidential campaign taught us many lessons, and one of them was this: Being seen as a flip-flopper can be politically devastating. John Kerry's now-famous "I actually did vote for the $87 billion, before I voted against it" furthered the GOP narrative that Kerry was a weak, indecisive politician willing to say anything to get elected. And so far this election cycle, we've seen the press and pundits attach the flip-flopper label to Mitt Romney (on abortion, guns, and immigration), Giuliani (on partial-birth abortion and the public funding of abortion), and even Mr. Straight Talk John McCain (on taxes and Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell).

But Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton -- who was for the Iraq war before she was against it -- has been getting mostly a free pass as she's morphed into an antiwar candidate. Just check out today's Des Moines Register's coverage of her speech yesterday on Iraq. There's a picture of Hillary standing behind a lectern that says "The Plan to End the War." Then there's her quote: "Our message to the president is clear. It is time to begin ending this war -- not next year, not next month, but today." Yet the article doesn't mention that just a year ago, she said that setting a "date certain" for withdrawal was a mistake, which produced boos from the liberal audience that heard the speech. It also barely mentioned (in just one sentence) her 2002 vote to authorize the war.

And it's just not this Des Moines Register piece. When Clinton was asked at CNN's debate last month about her new antiwar views, she simply changed the subject. On her last-minute vote against the compromise war-funding bill, Clinton answered: "The differences among us are minor. The differences between us and the Republicans are major. And I don't want anybody in America to be confused." And when asked why she voted for every previous war-spending bill until that one, she responded: "Unfortunately, we don't have a president who is willing to change course. And I think it was time to say enough is enough… Everybody on this stage, we are all united... We all believe that we need to try to end this war."

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/

[ixion]

1. not from me, she isn't

and not for the rest of the capitulation that she's given to the DLC-GOP.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

2. Kucinich is the only candidate who has consistently opposed the war

Why single HRC out?

[frylock]

3. uhhhhh.. because the she's the front-runner?

[maximusveritas]

4. Yes, but that's Obama's fault too

He's said a few things here and there, but I think he needs to really put the pressure on those candidates who were pro-war until it became politically disadvantageous for them to explain themselves. They're going to try to deflect the questions and say we need to focus on the present, but I think the past can tell us quite a bit about the candidate they truly are, not just the one they're attempting to sell to us.

[maximusveritas]

5. Meant that post as a reply to OP m/t

[draft_mario_cuomo]

14. The problem is the vast majority of primary voters are not voting based on the IWR

Obama already has a monopoly on the IWR-based vote since Kucinich, the only real anti-war candidate in the race, is written off by all but 1% of primary voters. That leaves those votes with Obama by default, which is why a Gore or Clark entry in the race would severely damage Obama.

Obama's real problem is, as far as his rhetoric goes, he is running on abstractions ("unity", "new politics"). The only substantive thing he is running on occurred 5 years ago. He needs to find something he did in the senate in 2 1/2 years or come out with a unique proposal on an issue to arrest his decline in the polls.

==They're going to try to deflect the questions and say we need to focus on the present==

That is clearly what the vast majority of Democratic voters want to do. ;)

[earthlover]

6. yes, the media is giving Hillary a free ride so far, as they did with Kerry at this point...

AFter the nomination is sewed up, things will change. Some of us could see beforehand the problems he was going to have. We were drowned out by those who only saw him as electable.

The moment Hillary would be nominated, or would have it sewed up, every failing of hers will be amplified by the media.

What should be clear is that they want her to be nominated because they don't want a Democrat to win.

[karynnj]

13. Once the primaries are in full swing, it will be brought up

Kerry did NOT get a free pass in 2004. In early 2003, Kerry was labelled "anti-war" because of his many comments against going to war before the war started and after it started. Then in mid 2003, Dean was seen as the anti-war candidate, though he had not been unambiguously against the war in fall 2002 when the vote happened - he (like Kerry) preferred Biden/Lugar. Kerry had to convince people that he was not pro-war.

There were however two differences between then and now:

1) The fact is that the country has moved substially on this issue.

2) Before the war started, Kerry in Iowa and in a big Georgetown speech spoke against rushing to war. He also spoke against the war when it started - saying they should have spent more time on diplomacy. Bill in 2006, took Kerry's position (uncredited) and said all the Democrats voted to give Bush leverage with Saddam and to get the inspectors in. The difference is that Kerry said if Bush did not do this as promised, he would speak out. That would be the natural thing to do if someone abused your trust as Bush did. Hillary was silent before the war started - and positive about it in the popular early days of teh war. No calls for regime change from her. If you listened to Kerry he argued that the war was not a war of last resort. This was significant for two reasons - that means it was not a just war and how can you ask anyone to die when there are still alternative ways to handle things. To this day, Hillary has not condemned the war in terms anywhere near as strong.

Another difference was Kerry's history on issues of peace and war.

[Ethelk2044]

7. The media has been giving her a free ride.

[illinoisprogressive]

8. she's been getting a free pass on alot of things.

[Larkspur]

10. Hillary is bought and paid for by Corporate America

The Corporate Robber Barons will support her for Prez in 2008 because the Republican field is so weak.

[Kingstree]

9. All media outlets decided the day she announced

her candidacy that her run for the White House would be their media darling due to the Bill Clinton factor. Although she is the so-called front runner (based on media polls which are biased and not $$$) the intrigue of her being the first female president along with the possibility of being the first married Presidential couple in this country is a more compelling story to follow. It's all about ratings. Also, they don't press her with the hard questions regarding issues like her Iraq vote because many are Hillary supporters (they can't be totally biased, they vote too), they decide who to cover and they want her to win.

On the other hand, the Republicans are waiting in the bushes to pounce her at the precise moment on the issues per Hillary or Bill if she wins the Democratic nomination. It's better for her to answer the tough questions now and establish a position and quit changing the subject or deflecting answers on Iraq or other issues. Her campaign is being watched extremely close by the Republicans and all that was in the 90's will be rehashed. The Republicans may be a weak party right now but they are devious and will make it very uncomfortable for her. Remember Bill Clinton on Fox News with Chris Matthews? A win for Bill but anger portrayal or flip flopping during a Presidential run is not a good thing. We were all witness to that.

[Donna Zen]

11. Yes

Even here, at DU, if you mention it, you get called a hater.

[jefferson_dem]

12. You are right. There's quite a bit of revisionist history being pumped by some.

They should know better. We are not be fooled.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

15. The problem for BO is the vast majority of voters are not voting based on the half a decade old IWR

That is simply a fact. I think SaveElmer posted a poll on it. We can also look at the support IWR supporters have. In the latest national poll (I am using the figures without Gore, since he is not running right now) IWR backers had the support of 65% of voters. Those who did not vote for the IWR were supported by 29% of Democrats. That is a more than 2-to-1 advantage for IWR supporters...