New Republic: Did Taking Cues From Lobby Cost Clinton The Nomination?
John Judis in The New Republic writes that Hillary Clinton might have lost the nomination due to her efforts at "winning the support of the pro-Israel lobby."
Specifically, Hillary's big mistake was backing the Kyl-Lieberman resolution which targeted the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. That resolution was drafted by Dick Cheney's office and Congressional neocons as a part of the run-up to war with Iran.
"Like her refusal to apologize for the October 2002 war resolution, her vote on Kyl-Lieberman may have stemmed from her ignoring the primary and thinking about the general election, or--as Helene Cooper suggested in The New York Times--it might have been an attempt to win support from the pro-Israel lobby,' which strongly backed the resolution. Whatever the case, her vote was a political disaster. It confirmed the worst fears of anti-war Democrats about her foreign policy inclinations. Her rivals denounced her vote, and she had to answer for it in ads, mailings, and debates through early January. It gave Obama an enormous push at a time when he seemed to be floundering and laid the groundwork for his success in fund-raising and in the Iowa caucuses."
In other words, just as she was succeeding in overcoming the negative political effects of her vote authorizing the Iraq war, she seemed to climb on the Iran war bandwagon.
Let that be a lesson to other Democrats. A Democrat can only go so far in appeasing the neocon right. The overwhelming majority of Democrats are not neocons (nor are Republicans, for that matter). Democrats who support neocon schemes are not going to get past the primaries.
The web, and web-based fundraising -- plus wealthy LIBERAL ANTIWAR donors -- are sufficient to bankroll any campaign. Pandering to pro-war donors can be a very costly mistake.
Comments (58)
Speaking for myself, I was disinclined to support Clinton when the campaign began because of her support for AUMF and her unwillingness until very late to criticize the war and occupation. But her initial campaign posture certainly seemed better. However Kyl-Lieberman was her vote on AUMF all over again, not even benefiting from hindsight.
May 21, 2008 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bill Clinton's was the most peaceful presidency in American history.
Lest we forget.
May 22, 2008 6:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not so sure about that (Desert Fox, Somalia, Kosovo, Rwanda, Bosnia), but he isn't the one running --though he acts like he is.
May 23, 2008 12:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
If it's becomes a joint Democratic ticket - Obama/Clinton 2008 - it will be:
"Yes, We Can" "...obliterate"
Your friends,
Barack and Hillary
May 21, 2008 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
She has also been criticised for her vote in the autumn of 2006 against legislation to ban the use of cluster bombs in civilian areas.(Obama voted in favor)
May 21, 2008 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
dickerson3879, Clinton's vote on this was also quite likely the vote favored by AIPAC.
May 22, 2008 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
How about her and Bill's entire record over 20 years? That was her one mistake? How about all the others and Bill's too?
Iraq war vote? NAFTA? Finance deregulation and abolishing Glass-Stegall? Keeping Alan "Ayn Rand" Greenspan and his two bubbles? Signing statements and line item veto? Media deregulation and consolidation? Multiple wars? Screwing an intern and then lying about it and screwing the Democratic Party in the process? DLC weasels? Helping lose Congress during the 1990's? Hillary Care DOA? WALMART? Rose Law Firm?
On and on!
When are we going to stop pretending the Clintons are "Democrats" and stop pretending many Republicans are actually "Republicans." We haven't had a real Republican or Democratic President in decades.
We've had Corporate Presidents for decades. The Plutocratic Party.
They're DINOs and RINOs who just play Dems and Reps on TV dramas over wedge issues while passing a Big Business Agenda with "bipartisan" support, with almost non-existent opposition.
There are still good people in politics and room for reasonable and sincere disagreement on issues.
But overall we haven't had those debates because our government (and media) is bought and paid for by Big Business and various lobbies. For decades it's been the biggest whores who've excelled in that environment, in both parties, and that's why we've been so distracted by wedge issues that never get anywhere.
That's why Hillary is fighting so hard and sounds so much like McCain. They're in the same party and have been in control of government for decades.
That's what fundamentally needs to change.
May 21, 2008 7:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is one time I wish we still had comment ratings...on a scale of 1-5 I'd rate this comment a 50 if I could.
May 21, 2008 8:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I, too, would give it very high marks. Plutocracy has reigned since becoming the norm in the Reagan years.
May 23, 2008 7:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
kozmik --
I couldn't agree more with all your points! yes, exactly, on and on ...
May 21, 2008 9:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let me add my applause.
I've been tempted to borrow the line "It's your candidate, stupid" in some of the more heated discussions during the Dem Primary. Even for those of us who had fond memories of "The Clinton Years," the campaign has been an opportunity to take a more frank look back and reassess what that time period meant to the country. Senator Obama was roundly criticized for his remarks comparing the impact and scope of the Reagan and Clinton Presidencies, but I'm pretty sure history will reveal that he was right on the money.
May 22, 2008 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
kozmik, Exactly my thoughts!!! Which is why I fear this process is rigged, and it will be Hillary vs McCain this fall..
May 22, 2008 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
kozmik, nice rant. But that's also why it goes exactly nowhere.
(( Y A W N ))
May 22, 2008 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
The three Republican VP finalists are meeting with John McCain on his ranch in Arizona. What does the electorial map say???? It SAYS McCain MUST win Florida if he's to have a snowball-in-hells chance. Therefore, the bumper stickers and signs will probably be saying McCain/Gov. Charlie Crist of Florida. First runner up, Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana - won't be selected because he's "too new" to politics, and will make John McCain look even older than he already is - it would be the 'Bush/Quayle' mistake all over again except that, at least Gov Jindal knows how to spell "potato". Second runner up, Mitt Romney. His Mormon faith will do him in with the Christian Right.
May 21, 2008 8:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
mariann2:
I doubt these are the finalists -- it's too early in the process. IMHO, this is the first troika to be eliminated from the short list, and McCain has invited them because he prefers to inform them in person.
McCain doesn't need Gov. Crist to shore up Florida. Since 2000, it has become much more a GOP territory; worse, Florida will never vote for Obama.
Jindal won't be chosen for the reasons you mentioned; nor will be Romney, because he may repel the Independents who plan to vote for McCain, and because McCain dislikes him personally. (OTOH, all three are shoo-ins for jobs in McCain's Cabinet.)
May 21, 2008 11:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm inclined to agree. Usually, the first names to come out are the ones farthest from the top.
May 22, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
The term "Israel Lobby" appears in TNR without accompanying diatribe against Mearsheimer and Walt?
The End of the Age is near.
May 21, 2008 8:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
"However Kyl-Lieberman was [Clinton's] vote on AUMF all over again, not even benefiting from hindsight".
Lest we forget: the hindsight afforded by America's Vietnam debacle didn't register with Clinton, either. Unless a person is inclined to take her at her word, i.e., that she was "misled" in the run-up to the Iraq War resolution, a pattern emerges. Her vote on Kyl-Lieberman does not reflect well on her judgement pertaining to matters of war, or peace.
May 21, 2008 8:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am willing to cut some slack to those who voted for AUMF; it was very hard at that time to oppose the war party. And certainly it was very risky politically (although I am not sure Clinton would have been so endangered had she opposed AUMF). (BTW it makes us appreciate all the more those who did stick their necks out...Bob Graham, Kennedy of course, Wellstone, Byrd, and others). But having watched and been disappointed by Clinton's Iraq and foreign policy stands throughout this campaign and earlier, I now attribute it not so much to misplace political expediency but more to an accurate reflection of her deeply-held views on foreign policy, Clearly she is not Bush. But her foreign policy views are a continuation of the prevailing DC thought; she does not ever really break out of the accepted views which function like a straitjacket on American policy. Has ther been a single unexpected or thoughtful foreign policy idea she has unveiled during the campaign? Healthcare...yes. Foreign polict...no. If one hopes for a genuinely new approach to diplomacy, one seemingly will not get it with Clinton. (Even on Iraq, and she now promises to end the war there, has she ever clarified how many residual troops she will leave there? For how long? What about bases in Iraq?)
May 21, 2008 10:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I tend to disagree with the idea that it was risky politically to oppose the AUMF. Ultimately, for me that vote boils down to this: When history looks back on your actions, in that moment, you had to make a decision about whether or not you trusted George W. Bush to make sound, prudent choices that involved the lives of American Servicemen and Servicewomen. A vote for it means you trust Bush. It was an authorization to use force. It wasn't an authorization for Bush and Saddam to meet at a neutral site and fight it out. It was an authorization to really, seriously, totally, hella use diplomacy this time.
If you believe in your heart and your head that the military is only one part of any nation's foreign policy, your best judgment should be to use that part judiciously and only when the other implements have failed. That option was brought before Congress and a majority of our elected representatives deferred to George W. Bush. Even if it WAS risky, there is no reason why they shouldn't pay the ultimate political price for lacking the fortitude to do what was right. If you're willing to put other people's lives on the line, you should be willing to put your career and your legacy on the line.
May 22, 2008 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
And she actually said in Florida the other day, "Who will rebuild the economy and the war in Iraq....." Rebuild the war in Iraq?? Was that a freudian slip, or something?
May 23, 2008 7:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that her Iran vote reminded people she hadn't learned from the Iraq disaster. This - and not the sexism that Hillary is now complaining about - is what brought Hillary down. This is not to say there has not been some sexism directed at her, just as there has been some racism directed at Obama. Key point - Dems better unite or we get President McCain.
May 21, 2008 9:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
promises of 'obliterating' parts of the planet didn't sound very sane or wise either ...
May 21, 2008 9:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Her Kyl/Lieberman vote definitely hardened my opposition to her candidacy. But it never occurred to me that it might have undermined her entire campaign. Let us all hope that MJ's analysis is right -- this could be the end of Aipac's lock on ME votes in Congress. Could this mean the end of those 897 to 2 votes in the House supporting Israel's use of cluster bombs against the Lebanese?
May 21, 2008 9:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not a chance. All of the liberal Democrats who voted against Kyl-Lieberman are firmly in agreement with the main AIPAC positions, except for Sen. Robert Byrd and a handful of black Representatives.
May 21, 2008 10:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not just the liberal anti-war folks. It's also the regional difference in perspective on the war. Hillary had a north/south focus and the war has an east/west divide.
May 21, 2008 9:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton's foreign policy, which certainly harmonized well with AIPAC's even if it wasn't written specifically to match AIPAC's tune, probably did hurt her more than it helped her. However, I don't think you can credit Obama's win to Clinton's foreign policy weaknesses. Obama's strengths were far more important than any of Clinton's failings, and Clinton's most important failings weren't those of policy, but of personality. People voted for Obama because he was inspiring. People turned away from Clinton because she didn't seem fully sincere. Her triangulation on Iraq didn't help--but the fact that she was perceived as triangulating was probably more damaging to her than any particular details of the positions around which she was triangulating.
May 21, 2008 10:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think when time comes to write obituaries of Hillary's campaign, and we are not there yet because she hasn't conceded, the experts will conclude that it was not any one particular vote in the Senate or one particular stance on policy, but rather:
(a) tactical mistakes of the Clinton campaign, and there were many; and
(b) a gut feeling among the Dems that Hillary, although much better prepared for Presidency than Obama, is less electable.
Among the tactical mistakes one should mention the over-prominence of Bill Clinton on the stump, which both reminded people what they didn't like about the Clintons as well as diverted much of the media glare from Hillary to Bill. (Sadly for him, the Big Man at 60 is a far less attractive figure than he was while still in office.)
The other major tactical mistake of the campaign was betting heavily on securing the nomination on Super Tuesday. When this failed, Hillary's campaign had no game, and no money, for the rest of the states. They also faltered badly in the caucus states, seemed confused re: DNC's complex delegate allocation scheme, and relied too heavily on the super-delegates.
As to the Dems' gut feeling regarding candidate's electability, we have a pretty bad record: recall that in 2004, folks voted with their heads rather than their hearts -- for Kerry over Dean, because Kerry appeared more electable. Well, it took the Repugs all of 3 months to drive Kerry's negatives into the stratosphere.
Now, folks seem to be doing the opposite: many have fallen in love with Barack Obama, especially since Hillary's negatives are, and always have been in the stratosphere -- even among Dems.
Oh well, we shall see how it all plays out this time. After all, there's almost six months left 'till November -- plenty of time for dirty tricks, new revelations from the 1000-page opposition research portfolio the Repugs have on Barack, as well as for October surprises.
Lest anyone forgets: the Repugs will fall in line behind McCain. Why? Because that's what Repugs do: they fall in line and they play to win.
May 21, 2008 10:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent post, iaf, although I don't know how much of it I yet accept.
One point I'd like to add, though. MJ said
I don't think that was obvious before this Spring.
It seems to me that Hillary has calculated every major vote she has cast in the Senate since 2000 by considering how it would play in the 2008 general election. But the AUMF vote really raised the ire of a lot of Democrats and paved the way for an opponent.
Now the opponent could have been Dennis Kucinich, but Obama decided to give it a try, and he is a natural politician with as much ego and ambition as Hillary (that's called "fire in the belly.") He has also not had the Senator's disease - a long record of votes to defend and Joe Biden's incessant long-windedness.
Hillary has also been playing to the music of a long-term plan to run for President. It has been difficult for her to adjust to new and unexpected conditions. Obama has been adjusting on the fly, and his decision process has been a great deal more flexible than hers. Since this Primary season has been highly unexpected, that has given Obama a large leg up.
The other thing that may be true is that Hillary staffed with Washington experts who were loyal to her because they expected to get something from helping her become President. Mark Penn is a prime example. He is not helping America get better, he is furthering his career by working for her. Obama's staff is making America better. Some of that is the way each candidate manages their staff, and I just think Obama is a lot better at creating a cohesive organization than Hillary is.
Hillary, I think, has had a little bit of the Bush disease. She has chosen staffers for their competence and loyalty, but then she has not managed them and worked them into a team the way Obama has. That's a dangerous opinion for someone like me 1500 miles away to conclude based only on news reports from mostly management-ignorant reporters, but I'll present it as a tentative hypothesis. It would explain the greater smoothness, flexibility and coordination that has characterized the Obama staff over the Clinton staff.
Just some thoughts on the management of the two campaigns. It does seem clear, though, that both are a lot better than they were in January, and some of the negative appearances of the Hillary team could well be results of the loss of morale as they realized that for all their efforts - they are losing to Obama.
I'd bet that the corporate media is going to have to make a lot of excuses for the McCain staff errors and try hard to explain why Obama seems so much better able to deal with the campaign than McCain can. McCain is going to be running a startup against a smoothly running operation. It will show.
just some thoughts at this time in the campaign.
May 22, 2008 7:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Rosenberg, please learn how to read. Judis describes several reasons for Clinton's lack of success, of which her vote on Kyl-Lieberman was only one, and in his last paragraph summing up the reasons does not even mention that vote.
May 21, 2008 10:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry Judis troubles you, AIPACmember.
May 22, 2008 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great article, thanks MJ.
The Judis piece references an article by Helene Cooper in the NYT that describes more fully why Kyl-Lieberman was such a big mistake for Clinton: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/14/weekinreview/14cooper.html?em&ex=1192420800&en=87d744f5888a74ce&ei=5087
The vote was foolish for more than the obvious reasons:
Mr. Sadjapour, an Iranian-American, and some other experts argue that the rank and file of the Revolutionary Guard are far more representative of Iranian society than most Americans realize. So labeling Iran’s elite fighters as terrorists is a move that is more likely to drive the Iranian population closer to the hard-liners in Tehran.
Clinton was the only one of the Democratic candidates for the presidency that voted for Kyl-Lieberman, and in doing so she was siding with not only Lieberman, despised on the left, but Dick Cheney, who was pushing for the bills passage. A tone-deaf move on her part.
But it wasn't just that vote - Clinton seriously misjudged the mood of the Democratic primary voters and continued to sound far too hawkish on just about everything ("obliterate" Iran?). These sorts of statements may have played well for more conservative voters in NY and her big-money AIPAC supporters, but they turned off just about everyone else. I'm surprised that the famed Clinton ear-to-the-ground type of politics would allow such a huge error to occur.
May 22, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
But where is our war with Iran? Still to come?
May 22, 2008 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kyl-Lieberman cemented my distrust of Hillary. Kyl-Lieberman was obviously part of a neo-con propaganda effort, yet Hillary voted for it. Either she is stupid beyond belief or she is totally under the control of the neo-cons. Since I reject the idea that she is stupid, she must have realized that she was making a mistake. Most democrats saw right through the bill. That she voted for Kyl-Lieberman anyway indicates that she had no real ability to tell the neo-cons to take a hike. That the neo-cons and Israel lobby refused to give her a pass on the issue demonstrates that they are truly beyond stupid.
May 22, 2008 1:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
A third option is that Hillary knew that her vote would not be decisive on the bill, and she knew that she was the presumptive Democratic nominee for President with no apparent competition. In that case she would have been inoculating herself against attack in the general election.
I think that the key vote she cast was the AUMF vote, and she was making exactly that calculus. She was inoculating herself against the Republican slime machine in the general election. But with that vote she created the opening for a Democratic competitor and Barack was convinced to take the opportunity.
Then, based on my speculations above, if she was working based on a long-term and relatively inflexible plan to get the nomination and be elected President, she did not give Obama enough credit early on for his likelihood of defeating her for the nomination. By the time she did realize how dangerous he was to her plans, it was too late to stop him.
That would also explain why she refuses to quit. She still believes in her plan to get the Presidency and she simply doesn't believe the competitor, Obama - who she didn't even consider significant two years ago, could possibly succeed against her long term carefully planned set of moves. If that's the case then she should be frustrated and angry, and she has a long term pattern of not letting momentary apparent defeat deter her from continuing on. When angry, frustrated and facing apparent defeat, the Clinton pattern is to never give up and generally prevail in the long term. Again, that's just speculation, but it's a narrative that I'm comfortable with at the moment.
May 22, 2008 7:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you are right, her inflexibility renders her unfit to be President.
In political life shit happens. The politician who can't adjust is doomed.
May 22, 2008 8:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Richardxx writes:
That's a very good explanation, and it definitely accounts for the Clintons' tenacity and stamina -- qualities that most Americans respect. However, there may be something more ominous behind Hillary's refusal to concede before the Convention.
I'm speculating here, but suppose Hillary's campaign is in possession of something about Sen. Obama that could derail his bid for the Presidency. Now, the Clintonista won't use it themselves -- it'd be too divisive and would doom Hillary's chances as well. Yet, they're unsure whether the Repugs are privy to the same info. What if they are, and are withholding it until Obama becomes the official nominee?
The reason I raise this possibility is the strange behavior of the super-delegates. Indeed, for almost 3 months now the electoral math clearly points towards an Obama victory, yet the number of super-delegates committing to him has been a trickle, not a watershed.
Now, all the super-delegates are political animals, i.e. they know that jumping on a winning bandwagon early, before the candidate is walled-off by a hoard of sycophantic gatekeepers, is crucial to one's political future. Yet, many (too many?) super-delegates hesitate. Do they know something that we don't? Frankly, it makes me extremely anxious.
May 22, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting thought.
Frankly, I doubt that the Clintons have any such big bomb to drop on Obama. But if they do, he gets the nomination, and teh Repubs drop such a bomb and the Clintons did not advise the Obamites that it's out there, Hillary has ended her own future politically on the national stage.
As for the remaining Superdelegates, I have heard but cannot confirm that almost all the current holdouts are members of the DNC. If so, it makes sense. Whoever gets the nomination is going to be their new boss, and they hold jobs at the whim of the new boss. The Superdelegate who chooses the wrong one is looking for new employment.
Such DNC members would also have a lot less pressure from constituents to make a quick decision, so they have the luxury of waiting until it is clear which side will prevail and can then jump on the bandwagon.
Also, that lack of constituents means their focus (besides their own jobs) is on the long term advancement of the Democratic Party. While I think it is clear that Obama has the nomination, How he takes it and How Clinton is is told she didn't make the top cut makes a lot of difference in what it takes to bring the Democratic Party into a state of unity for the general election. Taking time right now to make sure all that is handled in the best way possible is a real positive. Not only is there no real negative to a final announcement of the nomination being delayed, the very delay keeps the media focus on the Democrats and removes the wind from McCain's sails.
I also think that the Clinton camp has fought a really hard fight, and are now in the process of coming to grips with the fact that their candidate - who was the expected victor last December - instead came in second for the single front position. Their morale has to be at rock bottom right now. The emotional outbursts of some of those disappointed individuals is the only news available now, so that's what we are reading and hearing. It'll last until the official decision of the nominee is presented in whatever form that takes.
By the way, iaf, thanks for your thought-provoking posts. You always get me thinking. I appreciate that.
May 22, 2008 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am not buying the "voting to look tough" meme. The truth is she has been beating the war drum just as loud as any neocon for quite a while.
Check this out. JedReport has her words back to back with Bush and Cheney's on tape.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFZL33nPoEU
Scary isn't it?
May 22, 2008 8:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
That is the problem with Youtube. You get to hear their actual words unfiltered by Wolf Blitzer and crew.
Yes, it is scary.
May 22, 2008 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Kyl-Lieberman seems to be the back-breaking straw for many, but Clinton wasn't the only one supporting it or taking a hardline on Iran.
May 22, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don: I'm far from an expert on the differences between the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007 (S.970) and the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment, but have spent about an hour now looking through a variety of documents to try to understand why Obama may have supported one but not the other.
It appears to be an issue of the different language of the two pieces of legislation; the former deals primarily with sanctions, while the latter contains quite a bit of verbage that sound suspiciously like a justification for war.
Judge for yourself. Here's a link to the actual text of S.970: http://www.theorator.com/bills110/text/s970.html
And here's one to Kyl-Lieberman: http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/issues/kyllieberman.html
S.970 specifically states,
while Kyl-Lieberman has no similar statement.It was clearly Obama's concern that Bush might use Kyl-Lieberman, as well as other previous legislation to claim an authority to wage war with Iran. In October, 2007, Obama introduced legislation specifically stating that the Congress had granted no such authority to the President: http://obama.senate.gov/press/071102-obama_introduce_20/
May 22, 2008 9:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don, the totally significant difference between this bills is that Kyl-Lieberman tied itself to testimony on Capitol Hill about what was happening in Iraq, and allowed for conditions in Iraq to be the justification for war with Iran. S970 provided no such handy short-cut for the Bush team to attack Iran.
May 23, 2008 8:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
The record of Hillary Clinton is littered with a trail of MISTAKES, most of them whoppers.
The AUMF vote was a political mistaake, and she made a "shrewd" calculation and was seriously mistaken about the popularity of the war and its political blowback.
She voted Kyl-Liberman to pander to AIPAC and the Jewish voters, but this again is a failure in judgment. The anti-war Dem base turns against her.
And don't get me started about her campaign - a costly $135 million mistake upfront with mind-boggling tales of waste, tactical mistakes to bet it all on Super Tuesday, to discount caucuses, management mistakes hiring her loyal but incompetent retainers and firing them, organizational mistakes in not having a grassroot network in place, fund-raising mistake in depending on deep-pocket donors, media mistakes insisting on the "reality" of her heroic Bosnian antics.
Mistake after mistake after mistake...and she's an intelligent person!
Do you really want her in the WH????
May 22, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Qwerty writes:
I think you are being unfair to Hillary -- with a heavy dose of Monday morning quarterbacking.
To remind you, all the Dem. Senators at the time (!) who had plans to run for President -- Kerry, Edwards, Dodd, Biden -- voted for AUMF. Even Obama claims that he doesn't know how he would have voted, had he been U.S. Senator in 2002. (Bob Graham and Russ Feingold voted 'No', but their presidential bids were very long shots.)
Again, to be fair to Hillary, she is a Senator from NY, where the 3.5 million Jews are about 18 percent of the State's population, probably 80 percent of whom are Democrats and who vote in MUCH larger numbers than the rest of the population. I think what Hillary did and does in the Senate is not called "pandering": it's called "serving one's constituency."
As to the anti-war Dem. base, I'll be charitable and say that the jury is out on how many times this important and valued Party constituency actually helped the Dems to win elections, as opposed to how many times it's been detrimental to the Dems' electoral prospects.
Sadly, instead of converting ever larger numbers of Americans to the anti-war POV, the anti-war activists are most successful at punishing our "infidel" elected officials. This fratricide is counter-productive and it must stop.
May 22, 2008 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
So???? Kerry, Edwards and most other Dems AND many Republicans regret their votes and admitted to their MISTAKE. There were also a number of Dems and Republicans who voted AGAINST AUMF - they were farsighted, centered, concluded that the "intelligencce" available did not justify this authorization and saw the danger of giving carte blanche to a puppet CIC surrounded by NeoCons.
I was vehemently against that war and that authorization and marched against it. I made a more decent judgment based on the publicly available factual reporting and counter arguments I read up at that time from weapons inspectors and experts!!!
This was a MISTAKE on the part of all those who voted for it. Having a lot more fellow politicians make that mistake does not exonerate Hillary's INABILITY to judge, or her mistaking her political calculation would pan out.
She made a MISTAKE there. No whitewashing.
Another erroneous point of your argument is your CONFLATING the concerns of that Jewish voter base in New York with the agenda of AIPAC and the Likud wing of Israel!!!
That is a blatant insult to that Jewish base. You are assuming that they care more for Likud's agenda for Israel than the interest of America in ensuring a stable Middle East, or that they are hawks and cannot be persuaded that diplomacy is a workable solution, or that OTHER political parties, groups and approaches in Israel and America itself may have sway with Jewish voters, or that they will not heed an American president with non-AIPAC links.
This is pandering to the extreme right of AIPAC, NOT serving the constituents as you claim, and your allegations of their allegiance to Israel's Rightwing over American interests is sacriligeous.
The most amazing fact of all is that Hillary HAS NOT repented. It means she makes mistake after mistake after mistake and refuses to admit to or regret them until blown off by the FORCE of negative public opinion.
She is seriously behind the curve, even over a small matter like Snipergate.
In the end, a presidential nominee from the Democratic party CANNOT be a weak water-carrier for the most extreme, hawkish, lobbyist-beholden NeoCon Administration that has made so MANY MISTAKES. Hillary went along with almost every of their foreign policy disaster and many of the domestic ones.
Hillary in the WH = 4 more years of Bush foreign policy mistakes/NeoCon hold on American foreign policies.
She is either seriously judgment impaired or erroneously politically pandering to the WRONG base. Either way, she has demonstrated appalling failure and even worse, a Bush-like propensity to ignore these mistakes and failures and hoping they will go away. Where's that testicular fortitude when principles are at stake???
Out Hillary, out.
May 23, 2008 12:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Qwerty writes:
Nope, I assume that America's interest of insuring a stable ME will suffer a lethal blow if Israel, our only true ally in the region, is weakened.
Accusing AIPAC of advocating a Likud agenda is ludicrous: AIPAC never stood in the way of peace negotiations in the ME. AIPAC does object to applying undue pressure on Israel -- for the simple reason that we can, and because neither we nor the EU have any leverage over the Pals, especially Hamas. Talking to them means babkes, as Carter's recent trip demonstrated in spades.
Again, read my above -- I don't see any conflict of interest between the U.S. and AIPAC's advocacy, and most Americans, not merely Jewish Americans agree with me. This is also why AIPAC is so phenomenally effective -- on both sides of the aisle: they have many members and activists.
You claim that the majority of [fill the blank] agree with you. Well, if that's true, then the advocacy groups which represent your POV must be uniquely inept.
Same thing re: Israel -- the public opinion there is full-throttle against the solutions that you, Posenberg and other Peaceniks promote -- here's the most recent poll on the Syrian track.
How much money do you want to bet on Obama's foreign policies being substantially the same as that of all previous Administrations, Dem. or Repug.? There may be somewhat friendlier-sounding rhetoric, more consulting with allies, but not much else.
May 24, 2008 12:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Having only read the title of your post and not the rest I was immediately reminded of all the speculation that gays had cost Kerry the election in 2004. It's always tempting to seize on one issue and make it the deciding one. But the same could be said that his delayed response to the swift boaters cost Kerry the election. In fact, any number of issues could be blamed. In any close election, all issues count, and no particular one can be said to be "the one". So I didn't read your article today. Besides, it seems to me that just the other day you were saying that it was Hillary's "vote for the war" that cost her the nomination. I think maybe you just like talking about her losing. Perhaps we can expect a similar "here's why Hillary lost" post from you for each and every issue in this campaign.
May 22, 2008 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
You could tell that she was about as in the pocket of the Israel lobby as Lieberman, and their hawkish stands show it. Not what I would call a leader. More like panderer-in-chief, or spineless sellout.
May 22, 2008 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Judis' not-very-original thinking is not really particulary informative either.
What is interesting is his willingness to admit that he and his fellow reporters were/are in the tank for Obama. He openly reports that "as Clinton began treating Obama as just another politician (i.e.; having a campaign against him), they (reporters) recoiled and threw their support to him."
And their bias was obvious.
Read:
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh052208.shtml
May 22, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, that surely was a mouthful.
Mrs. Clinton is the author of her own misery. She consistently tries to have it both ways on every issue. The circus rule has overtaken her.
She no longer has the ability to fool the voters.
Many of us do want to see some major change in national politics. We are hoping to see some serious, substantive debate on topics like health care, rational regulation of corporate interests and a serious effort to bring the overreaching conduct of the Bush-Cheney out into the light of day.
We have some confidence that Obama is likely to try to bring about these changes.
We have ZERO confidence that Hillary Clinton will make any effort to get beyond the toxic political tactics she has used in this campaign.
My favorite is being asked whether Obama is a Muslim. She said something like, "I think he's Christian...at least that what he claims."
May 22, 2008 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are distorting that interview a whole bunch. A better reteeling (without putting in the effort to actually get the quotes) is this:
She was asked once and she answered clearly and simply that he is not.
She was immediately asked a second time by the same questioner the same question. She again answered quite clearly that he is not and then added words the effect of: As far as I know, there is no information to contradict what I'm telling you: that being he is not a Muslim.
Her "As far as I know" comment was spoken in exasperation to being asked the same question by the same questioner as if she was not telling him all that she knew. It was somewhat lawyerish, but it was in no was a wavering or a hedge calculated to instal doubt in the mind of the listeners.
Hillary has done plenty to complain about in this campaign, but this particular episode is not one of them.
May 23, 2008 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe that Hillary's AUMF vote was a political cover your ass vote, and that is beyond doubt. She voted to send people to war for two reasons:
I favor #2:
1- She didn't have the balls in that climate to say no.
2- She felt the war would be over quickly, and since she was going to run for President she could establish herself as tough on terror.
Personally, as a war vet, I'm ecstatic that she's now paying the price for her irresponsible and wreckless vote. To me, those who were about to die or be maimed for life were the sacrifice she made to the War God for her coming election to the Presidency.
Count your blessings when a politician is made to pay for a vote they shouldn't have cast.
May 22, 2008 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
King David Hotel. We're all terrorists. Give 'em back so pride and some land and make peace.
May 22, 2008 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
You do realize that the "King David Hotel" was a British military base at the time of an incident that you seem to be referring to, don't you?
As for making peace, that's a great idea. But I think you will find that both sides will remain too paranoid to do so as long as folks like yourself continue to distort the historical record.
Since both the Israelis and the Palestinians need to provide painful concessions, it seems most appropriate for their supporters to stop fanning the flames.
May 23, 2008 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
How can people be so stupid to condemn Hillary Clinton for her Iraq Vote. Hillary Clinton had no choice on that vote. Hillary Clinton shared information with Bill Clinton that may have led to the US involvement in Kosovo. How can Hillary Clinton that try and upstate George Bush and his war effort? It would have been political suicide for Hillary Clinton to go against George Bush at that time.
The Clintons have constantly been put into damned if they do, damned if they don't positions several times by widely differing factions, that's why I trust the Clintons more than most other groups.
http://www.Hillary-Wins.com
May 23, 2008 1:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Poppycock.
NO ONE IS OBLIGED TO INVADE ANOTHER COUNTRY UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES! Even when a gun is pointed at their head!
Lousy spin.
May 23, 2008 4:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, Kyl-Lieberman, and yes, AUMF. And a few other things too. But two other reasons strike me as more important:
1. Obama grasped the mood of the American people better, and figured out that this was an election about making real changes. Clinton did the same old same old DLC line, and sounded stale.
2. Obama's campaign whooped her ass in Iowa and other early-primary states (excepting New Hampshire) by out-organizing her on the ground. They had many more local organizing committees, many more on-the-ground volunteers, and just played better ball than Clinton's people. The fact is that Obama is a remarkable combination of new-politics ideals/rhetoric and old-fashioned precinct-level political skill. It's a potent combination, one we haven't seen in a Democrat since, dare I say it, RFK. (And if a lot of that precinct-level came from Axelrod, so be it. Knowing which adviser to trust is a big part of being a successful politician.)
Peace,
Paul
May 23, 2008 2:21 AM | Reply | Permalink