Hillary avoids Iraq consequences
The New York Times takes note of the fact that while U.S. Sens. Hillary Clinton and Joe Lieberman had similar positions on the Iraq war, he is having difficulty in his re-election effort this year and she is not.
Why?
It is not simply because she faces token opposition; unlike Mr. Lieberman, who has long resisted turning against the war or President Bush’s handling of it, Mrs. Clinton has consistently tried to distance herself from her initial vote without repudiating it, becoming increasingly critical of Mr. Bush’s management of the war. ...
Mrs. Clinton has diverged from Mr. Lieberman at critical junctures, reflecting what her advisers cast as a consistent belief on her part that Mr. Bush mismanaged the war and its aftermath. Her advisers offered a chronology of her criticism dating back to 2003.
Unlike Mr. Lieberman, she joined 38 fellow Democrats last month in backing a resolution, defeated by Republicans, that called for American forces to begin exiting Iraq this year, without setting a withdrawal deadline. Last November, Mrs. Clinton voted for a Democratic amendment calling for a “phased redeployment” of United States troops from Iraq. Mr. Lieberman opposed that measure as well.
Of course, having "token opposition" doesn't hurt, either.



Comments
Well no - it is because she has been given "beyond scrutiny" status by the media. If Hillary was just some old girl from a small town who had clawed her way past a bunch of men and gotten elected on pure will and character she would be . . . .
Blanche Lincoln and hated by the left.
Instead Hillary is the former Goldwater girl from a big-time family who has reached star staus and is given a pass because of who she was married to. Every politician has a few bridges built to the other side. Not every politician has a husband who was president of the United States.
Posted by: To much Hype on Hillary | August 5, 2006 03:11 PM
Well, Hillary is slightly more nuanced than Kerry. After seeing him self-destruct, and watching Lieberman self-destruct on the other side, she has a limited range of options. Typically, she uses Clinton clauses to keep her out of trouble.
But really, does anyone doubt that she would CUT AND RUN if she were elected President? Really?
Her husband couldn't stay in SOMALIA in the face of a VERY LIMITED NUMBER of casualties. His cutting and running cost America deeply because the Islamo-nazis figured out that he was a coward.
If Hillary follows the NY Times, and continues to hypnotize Rupert Murdoch, she may well be elected President. But our Party - and our Country - will never be the same again; and we will all deeply regret the colosal mistake that would be.
I"m a Dem; but like many other Democrats in this State, I cannot support Hillary Clinton for President.
Posted by: For it, before she was against it | August 5, 2006 04:02 PM
Hillary, like Bill, cares not one whit about the rights and wrongs of the Iraq war or anything else---except gaining political power.
Her for it--against it dance totally lacks the integrity of either Joe Leiberman or Howard Dean on this issue.
The Clintons are the most cynical politicians of our time. They are revolting.
Posted by: jqpublic | August 5, 2006 04:14 PM
Ms. Clinton may regret her vote for George's war but she would be a fool to say so and she is not a fool. She has appropriately moved toward a reasoned and better informed stance on the war than anyone in the White House or any of their defenders. She continues to develop leadership qualities while the thugs in Congress and the White House remain devoid of any glimmer of statesmanship or even common civility. If politics is a dance, I want her for my partner. There is no other politician on our national scene now who can approach her style, skill, and intelligence (aside from her husband). Will she become president? I guess we'll have to wait and see how that turns out. Spit all you want. You cannot diminish her character.
Posted by: bodybybush | August 5, 2006 05:28 PM
It's a mighty hot weekend to be trotting out 2 Hillary threads. Look at all the Republicans pretending to be Democrats it's drawing out. At this point in the 2nd failed term of Bush's Presidency and with our failures in Iraq and with the whole Middle East about to explode, every Democrat in America should be cheering any peep of descent from a Democratic or Republican in Congress.
My goodness, as Rummy says, the Republicans are ruining the world and you fake Democrats on this thread want to find fault with Hillary. Oh...she's not earned her way.....oh...she's power hungry...she's greedy...her husband is a turd....she wants to cut and run.....damn no last name of her husband taking little bitch!
Bullshit! Lying sacks 'o crap Republicans using tired old Rovean excuses to steer the attention of the stupid away from the crisis's brought upon us all by Bush-Cheney. It doesn't matter who runs this fall, it will be a Democratic landslide like we haven't seen since the 60s. And then by 2008 the Bush administration will be gone, probably locked behind bars if they don't get the firing squad.
Drew Pritt will be able to beat whoever the Republicans run for President in 2008, because by then even the Wal-Mart shoppers will have had enough of the crooked Republicans in office. Mark Pryor will be joining his close personal friend Joe Lieberman in the washed up politician's rest home by then too.
This isn't about my team winning. This is about saving America and by doing so, saving the world. Shame on you bad Americans!
Posted by: Deathbyinches | August 5, 2006 05:36 PM
Ms. Clinton can not be held responsible for the misuse of power and incompetence of the Bush administration for her vote. Her vote was to get the inspectors back. I do not agree that her vote was for all out war. It is the responsibility of the executive branch of execute. There were a lot of other options than ones the administration took.
It became clear to me when they sent our troops into Iraq during the sand storm season and that our troops would then be facing 115 degree heat with no air and water for a full summer. Not to mention the sick and elderly citizens.
At the time of her vote no sane person could possibly have believed how sick, tormented and evil Bush is.
Posted by: Phaedrus | August 6, 2006 01:59 PM
With Hillary as commander in chief we can expect no military response and a predominant 'tea party' diplomacy response to all foreign policy issues. Hard core Islamist will enjoy that impotency from us. That will leave the world to them.
Posted by: Anonymous | August 7, 2006 07:31 AM
If Mrs. Clinton was 'duped' into supporting the war then how can we be sure that she won't be duped by our enemies when she is President?
Posted by: Anonymous | August 7, 2006 07:44 AM
Personally, I like Hillary's approach to the terrorist war. I think that diplomacy is the only way to deal with the problem and we should avoid any military action whatsoever. She seems to be pursuing that approach and I believe she would so as President. I think that just shows why we need a woman as President. Women know that you can only resolve problems by communications and not by fighting.
Posted by: Hillary supporter | August 7, 2006 08:05 AM
I miss Bill
Posted by: br549 | August 7, 2006 03:32 PM
Like I said any sane person knows, dupe me once shame on you, dupe me twice shame on me.
His bunch are our worst enemy.
Posted by: Phaedrus | August 7, 2006 04:01 PM
You won't miss bill when hillary is president. I mean he was only hitchhiking on her abilities anyway.
Posted by: hillary supporter | August 7, 2006 04:41 PM