What would be the effect if Clinton came out strong against the Iraq war?

[BlooInBloo]

And admitted being mistaken, taking responsibility for her mistake, and made constructive suggestions on how to get the hell outta there, a la Murtha?

Would this result in a substantial congealing of the Democratic party around her?

I sorta think it would. But on the other hand, it seems to me there's a lotta Dems who use Iraq as their "public" rationale to not like her, but even if she recanted, they would find some other reason to dislike her. And of course they would say she's simply lying about her recanting.

So I'm not sure what the overall response would be.

(Disclosure: I'm personally neutral about Clinton-as-President - there are Dems I like more, and Dems I like less.)

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1. It wouldn't be pretty.

But it's the best possible option in the long run.

[Gato Moteado]

2. she'd be called a flip-flopper

my opinion is she jumped on the wrong side of this war and it's too late for her to pretend to be anti-war.

[BlooInBloo]

5. In your opinion, the only possibility is that she be "pretending"?

Do you have a similar opinion of all the others who have changed their minds and acknowledged error? Or only her?

Wasn't Murtha originally for the war? Is he just "pretending" in your estimation?

Of course it's all hypothetical - I'm just wondering if there's something about Clinton in *particular* that excludes her from the "possibility of forgiving an error" club. I get that feeling a lot on DU, and I'm not sure why. A glance at her voting record makes it obvious that she's as liberal a Senate voter as anyone...

[Gato Moteado]

9. i never looked at her voting record but i have no doubt it's good....

...but i can't help to think that she's just another opportunistic politician that was betting on the iraq war to be an issue to side with for future political purposes (i.e. a run for pres in 2008). she bet wrong.

i could be wrong...that's just how i feel.

[BlooInBloo]

11. But WHY? That's what I've never understood.

I assume that neither you nor any Democrat will ADMIT to falling for the tweety-republican "nobody likes a know-it-all woman" line...

Why doesn't her voting record matter?

[Gato Moteado]

33. her voting record DOES matter....

...but so does the fact that she appears to have supported a war to enrich halliburton and friends.

and the fact that you say i wouldn't ADMIT to falling for the "nobody likes a know it all woman" is a huge insult. who the hell are you to say that about me?

i like hillary. but let's face it, she's a politician. she was wrong about the war. the war is a horrible disgrace. why would anybody in their right mind support it? unless i can assume you wouldn't ADMIT to falling for the "weapons of mass destruction" lie or the "saddam was involved in 911" lie.

furthermore, hillary is too polarizing of a figure to run as a presidential candidate. she should pull her head out of her ass regarding the iraq war and concentrate on being the best senator she can be. maybe someday if the stupid half of the country grows a brain, hillary could be a potential candidate...but at this point she ain't.

[Djinn]

34. I wont "admit" it

because it's trash. Hillary may be progressive compared to some Dem's or even all Dem's (not I statement I'd make but anyway) but she sure as shit aint progressive from where I sit.

Her "mistake" in supporting the war is bullshit political expediency, it's not popular now so she decides she's against it, poll driven not soul driven.

If she really was simply "mistaken" or "tricked/lied" into supporting the war then she is abominably stupid and WAY WAY too dumb to be elected.

[DemonFighterLives]

3. I'm kinda neutral too

It would sound phony even if true. She has stuck by bushco so long.
A last minute conversion is better than none at all depending on how hard she goes after the neocons.
:crazy:

[Placebo]

4. God dammit Hillary...

I know she's a smart woman—one of the smartest to every come through government—and so I know she has to know in her heart of hearts that this war is wrong, it was wrong from the beginning, and the best option among many bad options before us, is to pull out now.

But she won't admit it.

She won't admit it because she's scared. Scared of offending the handful of votes that might make the difference in swing states, so says her pollsters and consultants I'm sure. Scared of giving ammo to the talking heads in the MSM who already call her "whiny" and "angry" and "b*tch" as it is (I'm sure she'd hate to have "weak on national security" added to that).

But god dammit Hillary, don't let your good name be left in the dust bin of history along with this war and this administration. Stand up and take a stand once and for all like we all know you're capable of doing.

[bluestateguy]

6. She's boxed herself in

If she did as you suggest, she'd be denounced as a flip flopper, with all of the baggage that comes with flip floppery. If she stuck to her stance, she continues to alienate the Democratic base, she can't criticize the war because she voted for it, all the while right wing superhawks still won't vote for her.

[ktlyon]

7. Yes she is boxed, because she didn't do the right thing at first.

but now if she gets it right then she can use the truth to smash them back. We need to start learning to use the rethugs meanness against them paint them as rigid and on the wrong path. Make the war and the run up to it an issue, how we were miss lead and all by the evil republicans.

[WA98296]

8. She couldn't still be a Republican then....

[BlooInBloo]

10. This sounds like nothing more than deliberate ignoring of...

... her voting record...

Even though I'm not an active fan of (Hilary) Clinton, I swear I'll never understand the pariah status she's achieved, even with her voting record.

It's as though people DON'T ACTUALLY CARE about her voting record. I wonder what it is they DO care about then?

[WA98296]

12. Well, I care about her affinity for...

Veri-chips for people (a campiagn she lauched with BUDDY Bill Frist), her and her and hubby's friendship with the Bush crime family.

Really, what has SHE acheived? What REAL leadership has SHE ever shown? Where was she during Katrina -- those precious first days afterwards? Rather than trying to do something, anything with whatever power and influence she has, she was doing a Meet and Greet and the NY State Fair. Her "event' and possible fund raising came first. Sorry, but if the repubs are successful in putting her onto the ballot with a D-label, I'm honestly not going to vote for the first time in 30 years. She makes a worthy senator, and that's where she could do the country the most good. But, with judgement like she's shown so far, she really is more like a novice senator than a great prospect for president of the United States -- a United States that has lost its way, lost it's democracy.

[BlooInBloo]

13. Ok. Put you down in the who-cares-about-voting-record column.

[Terran1212]

30. FLIP FLOPPER!!!!

That would come from the media, and I'd still dislike her for being so boastful about a war when her position obviously was changing for election year politics.

[LittleClarkie]

14. Once again, I dislike the assumption

that, like the freepers accuse us of being with Dubya, we hate them because we hate them, without reason. We're just Clinton haters, or Chavez haters, or America haters, or "whoever someone happens to like who's controversial" haters.

We hate just to hate and will find a different reason to hate if our current reason for hate is gone.

Do you really think we're that simple-minded?

The problem with Hillary is that she's just like Bill, but not as good at hiding it as Bill was. She appears to take positions mechanically. There's no art in her politics. The seams are showing.

I don't hate her. But if I can help it, I ain't voting for her in the primaries either.

[BlooInBloo]

15. Sorry - I meant to be ASKING what the reason was....

... Because the reason is NOT her voting record, which is very strong on progressive stuff.

That's why I isolated the Iraq question. It seems to me that for MOST politicians, the following equation roughly holds:

Dem support = liberal/progressive voting record + right stance on Iraq.

Clinton has one piece of that, and I asked about what, hypothetically would happen if she got the other.

I was (and still am) under the impression that her detractors would STILL hate her. And I just don't know why.

You say she's "just like Bill". I didn't realize that was a bad thing. I thought it was agreed almost unanimously that, OVERALL, Bill was an excellent president.

[LittleClarkie]

16. But he was above all, a politician, and a good one as well

I liked him as prez, but he didn't have a way of triangulating positions and playing politics with the issues a tad much. Hillary sometimes looks as if she's making moves purely for political reasons, as opposed to convictions. That's what bugs me.

And if you look at anything but his war stance, Lieberman has a pretty good progressive record as well. But most people still consider him Republican-lite.

The thing Hillary would have to do to win over several people here is renounce her DLC membership.

[BlooInBloo]

20. The two voting records aren't even remotely close to comparable.

That's just asinine.

76% to 91%? That's the difference between an A and a C.

That's comparable to you?

http://www.progressivepunch.org/members.jsp?search=selectName&member=NYI&chamber=Senate&zip=&x=44&y=7

http://www.progressivepunch.org/members.jsp?search=selectName&member=CTI&chamber=Senate&zip=&x=47&y=10

If you're gonna search all the "progressive voting record sites" for one that give the closest match between holy Joe and Clinton, rock on. I'll just compare average scores.

[LittleClarkie]

21. You're using the word "comparable". I never did

Nor did I say they were all that close. But subtract his Iraq stance, and alot of Joe's stances are progressive. Not in comparison to Hillary. And not according to some progressive site with it's own criteria. I use only one site: www.vote-smart.org

They give the approval scores for several groups. IIRC, Joe does pretty well in most of them. Here ya go:
http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=S0141103

But saying that a politician is progressive except for one stance doesn't work so well if that stance is a biggie.

Kerry is one of the most liberal Senators in the Senate, and yet his war stance had him labeled as Republican lite for a while there too.

[BlooInBloo]

22. You don't have to use the word "comparable" to say THAT...

... they're comparable.

But as long as you're trying to wiggle out of the comparison, tell me: why DID you bring up Lieberman, if not for the purpose of comparability?

:rofl:

[LittleClarkie]

25. Because of one comment you made

which was to say that, gee, she's quite progressive if you subtract that Iraq war postion.

I've seen people say the exact same thing about Lieberman.

But that was not to say that their positions are comparable. Joe scores a bit less than Hillary. But many of his positions are still in the progressive realm.

[BlooInBloo]

27. And that's just plain false.

NEITHER voting record % would change appreciably by a change in ONE vote.

"a bit less" is just plain false as well. Unless you think getting a C on a test is "just a bit less" than getting an A.

Why you continue to insist on comparing them is beyond me. You should be contrasting them - especially when my hypothetical is considered.

"I've seen people say" - ROFL! Just like "some say" - the call of those who want to say something but are too scared to take responsibility for saying it themselves. But what the hell - I'll take it at face value. You've "seen people say", you say. Fine. Is it TRUE, in your estimation?

Sheesh.

[LittleClarkie]

32. You asked why. I told you. You insist that I'm comparing their records

I'm not. If you'd like me to dig up the post where someone said that Joe was actually pretty progressive when you take away his Iraq stance, I can. But I consider zeroing in on that aspect of my post a red herring. The point is that one position on one issue can change the perception of a candidate.

And changing that position might not help that perception. It would depend on whether someone looking at Hillary could see how she came to that new position, or if it looked like it came out of the blue. When John Kerry came out against the war, I could see it coming a mile away, and so had an answer for those who said he'd just done it for politics. Those who watch hillary would have to let us know the same if we were to see a change in her position on Iraq as anything more than pandering.

[BlooInBloo]

23. ROFL! "some progressive site"! Um, what kind of site...

... do YOU think should be the one judge about things progressive?

:rofl:

[LittleClarkie]

26. Couldn't fit it into one post, dear

I'm not letting any site judge about "things progressive". I look at a neutral site, and judge for myself.

[BlooInBloo]

28. ROFL! Who, pray tell, is "neutral", and who judges THAT?

ROFL!

Sorry bout the 2-post thing tho - just didn't think about the 2nd when I wrote the first - you're welcome to consolidate if you like.

[LittleClarkie]

29. A neutral site is one that tells me how someone voted

without putting a score next to it to tell me what that vote meant to the progressive community. A neutral site tells me what both liberal and conservative interest groups think of the politician in question.

So, did you ask the original question to have a discussion, or a good giggle?

[WA98296]

18. Right, sorry, I'm just frustrated and tired.

[LittleClarkie]

19. I think you apologized under the wrong post

Doesn't seem like you were talking to me.

[ThomWV]

17. Nothing Would Happen

It would not change one thing.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

24. It's just a matter of time (and the polls) until she does.

After she wins her senatorial race, she'll be slipping, sliding, and spinning.

Hopefully, the Dems won't buy what she's selling and nominate somebody I can vote for in '08.

[upi402]

31. "flip-flop" label would begin for one

much of the activist base would not bother

me for one.
i don't like the DINO half of the corporatist party.

[BlooInBloo]

35. Didn't Murtha initially support the war?

I don't recall for sure.