Clinton Dodges Political Peril for War Vote

The NY Times ^ | August 5, 2006 | ANNE E. KORNBLUT

[neverdem]

There was a time when Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s position on the Iraq war seemed to place her in the same political peril afflicting Senator Joseph I. Lieberman.

The senators, both Democrats, voted to authorize the military invasion and both refused to apologize for their votes as the occupation began to falter and opposition to the war swelled. Both were labeled as hawks within Democratic ranks.

But while Mr. Lieberman, his party’s vice presidential nominee in 2000, has wound up vulnerable to an antiwar challenger in his re-election race in Connecticut, Mrs. Clinton has suffered few, if any, serious consequences in her campaign in New York.

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.

That process crested on Thursday at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, where Mrs. Clinton bluntly and publicly castigated Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld over the war, in an exchange that drew a considerable amount of news coverage.

“Yes, we hear a lot of happy talk and rosy scenarios,” Mrs. Clinton said to Mr. Rumsfeld during the hearing, “but because of the administration’s strategic blunders and, frankly, the record of incompetence in executing, you are presiding over a failed policy.”

Even those remarks have not satisfied the most ardent opponents of the war. Her antiwar Democratic primary opponent, Jonathan Tasini, dismissed them as “more bluster” and said Mrs. Clinton was “trying to obscure her record by shifting the focus to Rumsfeld.”

Still, Mrs. Clinton has diverged from Mr. Lieberman at critical junctures, reflecting what her advisers cast as a consistent belief on her...

[Argus]

Her fans know she's just shamming to fool regular Americans into thinking she's one of them, when she actually remains a fully committed communist and will prove it once she's securely in the White House again.

[Bigh4u2]

"Rules for thee, but not for me"

[alloysteel]

Is the Shadow President running for some political office this year?

Is there ANYBODY else competing for the same elective office?

Are we ever going to learn the name of this potential rival?

[fso301]

Mrs. Clinton has suffered few, if any, serious consequences in her campaign in New York.

The clintons political history is one of inept opponents. They must have cut a deal decades ago. Oh well, they won't live forever and repayment will be demanded.

[lionheart 247365]

Was she for the war before she was against the war ???

[doug from upland]

There is a demonic presence protecting this woman.

[Chode]

LOOK... it's TouristSenator!!!
It shows up in more places than TouristGuy did only with less style and substance...
she's Vaporware, just an empty crusty.
(Please spread me around like the parasite that i am...)

[upchuck]

just an empty crusty.

LOL!!

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Far be it from me to complain of Secretary Rumsfeld being shy, but there would be a nice way to stop this nonsense of Democrats calling for his resignation.

Next time they try it (and Hillary would have been the perfect target for this), he should simply agree with her or him. The president should accept Secretary Rumsfeld's resignation the minute he has a better person on tap for the job. The Democrats have only to propose someone who would be a better SecDef than Rumsfeld, and Mr. Rumsfeld would happily retire and enjoy the fortune he accumulated in the private sector.

But considering the track record of Democrats as Secretary of Defense in the past half-century or so (Kennedy-Johnson: Robert S. "Vietnam" McNamara, Carter: Harold "Arms Control" Brown, Clinton: Les "Mogadishu" Aspin), Democratic politicians have ample reason for diffidence when it comes to the naming of a Secretary of Defense.