Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Iraq Issue Follows Clinton to Concord

CONCORD, N.H. -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) spent much of her second town hall of the day as she did the first: Defending her position on the war in Iraq and her work in the Senate to limit the scope of the conflict.

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton answers a question from the audience during a campaign stop Saturday in Berlin, N.H. (Reuters photo)

"We are working to change the president's policy," she said in response to a question that insinuated that she had taken a pass on pushing for a real change of direction. "Getting change in our system is difficult," she said. "I'm still in the arena. I'm still fighting."

Clinton pointed out she did not believe her 2002 vote was an authorization to conduct a war in Iraq, adding, "He should not have been trusted with the authority we gave him."

She also noted that she has advocated capping the number of U.S. troops in Iraq at the January 2007 levels and supports measures to make clear to Iraqi security forces that the American commitment is not unending.

The question lingering over Clinton's pragmatic approach toward a way future in Iraq is whether Democratic primary voters, who are strongly anti-war, will accept it as a strong enough stance. Clinton's two main rivals for the nomination -- Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) and former Sen. John Edwards (N.C.) -- are making strong opposition to the war a focal point of their campaigns.

Aside from the pointed exchange about Iraq, the queries were quite friendly. She deftly answered questions regarding the rising cost of college tuition, immigration reform, abortion, stem cell research and other issues.

Several women in the audience praised the historic nature of her candidacy; one woman prefaced her question with a "You go, girl." And Clinton -- during her opening remarks -- brought up her gender and the unspoken questions about whether a woman can win the White House. "We'll never know until we try," she said to a roar of applause.

The event was held in the Concord High School gym where the wooden bleachers packed from floor to ceiling with people interested in catching a glimpse of the New York senator, former first lady and potential first woman president. She stood in a sort of theater-in-the-round -- separated from the crowd by a series of red cordons.

Clinton has no other public events today. She will participate in a series of house parties tomorrow. The Fix will be there.

By Chris Cillizza  |  February 10, 2007; 6:08 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Clinton Explains Iraq Vote in Berlin, N.H.
Next: Clinton on Clinton


Mrs. Clinton ($enator Clinton) will say anything and pander to any group to get $ellected into the White House. It'd be nice to have a woman serve as President, but she's not the one.

Posted by: Guy Fox | February 12, 2007 10:11 PM | Report abuse

for all who have been curious, i just did some googling. still in the dark...

"Tim Kalemkarian
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Tim Kalemkarian, Timothy Charles Kalemkarian, is a major candidate for US President, US Senate, US House. Kalemkarian is a member of a major political party. Kalemkarian is a natural born US citizen. Kalemkarian was born in the United States. Kalemkarian is middle age and is at least 35 years old. Kalemkarian lives in Moorpark California, US. Kalemkarian has run for US President, US Senate and US House many times. Kalemkarian ran for Mayor and City council. Kalemkarian supports love, joy, truth and freedom. Kalemkarian's goal is: to do the best I can and to do the best I can to have proper relationships. Kalemkarian supports the US Constitution. Author : Tim Kalemkarian"

well, at least now we know that tim can't write that well, but should take comfort because he is at least 35 years old.

Posted by: fyi | February 12, 2007 3:11 PM | Report abuse

"Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) spent much of her second town hall of the day as she did the first: Defending her position on the war in Iraq and her work in the Senate to limit the scope of the conflict."

I agree that this was indeed a misleading statement. I saw HC in Concord and I heard snippets of her defending her vote. Indeed, if she only received two questions on Iraq out of many, many questions, how can you say this was "much of her day"?

Posted by: Martha From NH | February 12, 2007 11:10 AM | Report abuse

US President Tim Kalemkarian, US Senate Tim Kalemkarian, US House Tim Kalemkarian: best major candidate.

Posted by: anonymous | February 12, 2007 12:05 AM | Report abuse

Donkeymore, you are so right. I could not have said it as well myself. Please continue to point out to Americans the errors of our ways. It is a shame to see a great country being made into a laughing stock by this President.

Posted by: Southern Girl | February 11, 2007 11:10 PM | Report abuse

I really like both Edwards and Obama. I hope to vote for both of them for president one of these days.
I commend them for their opposition to the war. Hillary's call, to vote for the war, was not what I wanted. I don't understand why she voted for it, but I take her word for her reasons. Still, she is on the right track now.
Given that she is now against the war, I like her even better, because, once the war is over, she has plans and programs for restoring our country to a wholesome one.
Hillary has always been a strong advocate for children, health care and care of our country's ordinary people, even more so than Bill. I think her presidency will be different from Bill's but excellent in its own way -- more on education, child welfare, and health care.
And we know her positions because she has a long record.
I look forward to voting for Hillary, and Edwards and Obama, too, in good time.

Posted by: Southern Girl | February 11, 2007 10:33 PM | Report abuse

Bush 's yearning for war with Iran.
As a social theorist rather than a historian the academic of tomorrow will look and wonder how America went blindly into Iran.
It is searingly obvious that as each day passes their president is pulling more demonic rabbits from the hat; yesterday is was that Iran had nuclear arsenal ; today it is that Iran supplied the insurgents in Iraq with weaponary to shoot down US soldiers.
The irony is probabaly thet the weaponary which has thus far slaughtered most US combatants is US made , having been supplied to Saddam when he was the putative puppet , and his was the regeimen thought to cause most menace in the Middle East in the US 's favour.

Future generations will judge us all less kindly as we in the West have presided over this disturbed president and his deluded machinations . It is within the grasp of Congress , one hopes to at least refuse to finance any overt move against Iran; we can only pray that they will be more resolute in their determination and decline to facillitate Bush's latest percieved mission .
But the wory escalates by the day ; Now Bush is turning to Lebanon again to aportion blame for the unrest there on Iran; it may well be that Iran has it's many sympathisersw in the Shiite community ; so much the pity but the Lebonese elected the Hammas party to rule ; and this must be factored in to any political resolution; Even the Saudis appreciate that to take the Bush line and keep taggeting Iran in Lebanon is just tautology .
It is more ; it is tendentious .
It is the mercilless beat of the war drum .
Could Israel be persuaded to carry out a preemptive attack ? It would be convenient for the administration , but with Israel still smarting from its recent debacle in Lebanon it would seem to be an unlikely development .
With a Russian Putin desperately trying to throw up a smoke screen over his alleged involvment in the killing of his former spy Litvinenko with polonium in London it seems probable that he will supply Iran with some hardware ; most likely planes in order to counter US air supremacy in the region.And this in turn may feed in to the president's paranoia , which may for a time seem justifiable.
Again and again we must face that axiom that war is the failure of politics, diplomacy , civilisation.
But this time we are edging closer to a conflict which will spread far beyond the Midddle East , will destabalise oil supplies, and in turn world economics.
It may even be of such a scale as to eclipse the concern about global warming for a generation.
Who said '' I dont know what the next war will be fought with ; but the one after will be fought with bows and arrows.''

Posted by: donkykemore | February 11, 2007 6:38 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is a worthless, congenital liar. She cannot campaign for more than a year (almost two years) and not be caught, repeatedly, LYING like the (female) dog she is.

Posted by: Thor | February 11, 2007 1:50 PM | Report abuse

For uncensored news please bookmark:

Senator Wants Probe Into Fla. Election
U.S. Video
Buy AP Photo Reprints

SARASOTA, Fla. (AP) -- Sen. Dianne Feinstein on Wednesday called for an investigation into the electronic touch-screen voting machines used in a disputed congressional race in Florida.

Feinstein, chairwoman of the Senate Rules Committee, said that problems with the machines in last year's elections were most serious in the Sarasota area district, where about 18,000 ballots cast on the touch-screen machines didn't record a vote for Congress.

"At this time, officials have been unable to account for what happened to these votes because there is no independent record," said Feinstein, D-Calif.

The voting machines did not leave paper records of the results between Democratic candidate Christine Jennings and Republican Vern Buchanan.

Jennings contends the machines lost the votes and is challenging the 369-vote victory by Buchanan in the race to succeed former Rep. Katherine Harris. Jennings has filed a lawsuit in state court and a complaint with Congress. The House has seated Buchanan pending the outcome of the challenge.

The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, would be joined by the National Institute of Standards and Technology in examining the voting machines.

Gov. Charlie Crist last week proposed spending $32 million for new equipment that would leave a paper record of votes in the 15 Florida counties that now have touch-screen machines. Other Florida counties use machines that scan paper ballots.

Posted by: che | February 11, 2007 7:12 AM | Report abuse

were we always this retarded?

Posted by: Anonymous | February 11, 2007 1:55 AM | Report abuse

"We're for freedom, we're for the future, and in order to do that, we need leadership that uplifts us and moves us toward the future,"

positively brilliant oratorical skills... we're for 'freedom' and 'future' and so we need to be 'uplifted' and moved toward the 'future'..

o christ wake me when this kindergarten debacle is over...

Posted by: Anonymous | February 11, 2007 1:54 AM | Report abuse

Here you have it, folks -- another president on a Mission From God. A Serial Adulterer and Transvetite on a Mission From God. Ready for it?

'Former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, arguing that America is in desperate need of a Ronald Reagan-style optimistic vision, told California Republicans on Saturday that he wants to be a president who will "win the world for a set of ideas ... that I believe come from God."

"We're for freedom, we're for the future, and in order to do that, we need leadership that uplifts us and moves us toward the future," Giuliani told the lunchtime crowd at the state GOP convention, all but formally declaring his candidacy for his party's presidential nomination. "You get to decide who that leader is going to be -- and I wish you'd decide on me."

Asked by reporters afterward when he would make a formal announcement of his 2008 presidential campaign, Giuliani joked, "If you listened to my speech, I may have announced it."

Posted by: the biggest ho in politics so far.. | February 11, 2007 1:49 AM | Report abuse

I swear that I am not making this up. Rep. Dana Rohrbacher (R-CA) said the following during a hearing on global warming last week, talking about a previous point in the Earth's history when greenhouse gasses were also amassed and caused widespread extinctions and a period of substantial warming and change across the planet (via ThinkProgress):

"We don't know what those other cycles were caused by in the past. Could be dinosaur flatulence, you know, or who knows?"

They have the video, and you can watch Rep. Dinosaur Flatulence actually say this. Out loud. Now, I know it was probably some sort of smart-assed retort to protect whatever pollution-friendly interests were funding whatever was making Rohrbacher happy in the moment but...hello?!? Yes, I'm certain that we can all stop for a moment in our day to pause and reflect on how dinosaur farts could, indeed, be the cause of a mass, global extinction. Now THAT is some powerful tooting, if you ask me.

There is this whole branch of study that I like to call "science." Perhaps the Republican party might consider delving into it a bit more before violating Mark Twain's axiom if idiocy: "It is better to be silent and thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."

Posted by: Anonymous | February 11, 2007 1:25 AM | Report abuse

President Clinton's televised address to the nation December 16, 1998 sat in motion his "strong sustained series of airstrikes against Iraq".

..but he didn't invade iraq and trap us into an unwinnable war, did he?

Posted by: Anonymous | February 11, 2007 12:59 AM | Report abuse

You guys don't seem to give Ms.Clinton credit for all she learned while co-prez.

She silently stood by her man, in 1998, while he was "protecting" us from Saddam's "weapons of mass destruction".

President Clinton's televised address to the nation December 16, 1998 sat in motion his "strong sustained series of airstrikes against Iraq".

She supported the war to "degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction"

Now that he has been "degraded", guess it's too late to speak up.

Posted by: sam | February 11, 2007 12:26 AM | Report abuse

The photo you used of her CC, was so silly, so buffonish, taken with a wide lens from a low angle, such a childish, cartoonish caricature..

yawn... is this the best you can do? can you really not be a little more sophisticated with your character assasination attempts?

Posted by: drindl | February 10, 2007 11:52 PM | Report abuse

'concerned' troll ---

'What does this even mean? She willing gave Bush authority that she doesn't think he should have been trusted with? '

She understands NOW that he shouldn't have been trusted with it, because he so recklessly misused it.

What about that do you not understand?

Posted by: drindl | February 10, 2007 11:47 PM | Report abuse

"Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) spent much of her second town hall of the day as she did the first: Defending her position on the war in Iraq and her work in the Senate to limit the scope of the conflict."

This is a highly misleading paragraph. She didn't spend "much of her day" defending her vote. She received two questions about Iraq out of several dozen. How can you characterize this as "much of her day"?

Posted by: Don | February 10, 2007 11:21 PM | Report abuse

On the Saturday broadcast of WJLA's Sunday morning "Inside Washington" panel, NPR's Nina Totenberg said that Senator Clinton will turn off many voters with the strident sound of her voice for large audiences if she doesn't change it, and suggested voice lessons. Chris Matthews noted the problem last week too. Repeat after me: "The flock in Iraq must now come back!"

Posted by: Jeff Spangler | February 10, 2007 10:58 PM | Report abuse

Clinton pointed out she did not believe her 2002 vote was an authorization to conduct a war in Iraq, adding, "He should not have been trusted with the authority we gave him."

What does this even mean? She willing gave Bush authority that she doesn't think he should have been trusted with? Someone get that woman a masseur -- she needs a rubdown after all of those rhetorical gymnastics.

Posted by: Concerned Va Democrat | February 10, 2007 9:40 PM | Report abuse

For one thing, Barack Obama's announcement was only historic by a technicality--he's been openly running for several weeks.

But the main reason The Fix is concentrating on HRC is because he's WITH her in New Hampshire. One can hardly expect a blogger to ignore the story he's attending to write about something anticlimactic happening halfway across the country--something which is being covered fully by other employees of the same newspaper.

Posted by: Iva Norma Stitts | February 10, 2007 9:22 PM | Report abuse

John-- I was actually just about to make the same comment. The front page story is Obama making an historic declaration for the presidency in front of an enormous crowd-- and chris leads with two stories about Clinton talking to small groups in New Hampshire about essentially the same thing. And ending each post with "The Fix will be there" honestly just begs the question: WHY???

Posted by: JD | February 10, 2007 9:03 PM | Report abuse

On the day of Barack Obama's historic announcement, not surprsingly, you post two entries about Senator Clinton. Why are you seemingly so biased towards her? I've seen you on MSNBC and you repeatedly tout her as the overwhelming front runner. Yes, she currently leads in the polls. But in contrast to Obama, there is virtually NO passion behind her candidacy. Who are these people that want her to be president? I mean other than members of the Democratic Party establisment and Washington insiders such as yourself? All the money, organization and favors called in by her husband won't make up for the fact that people simply don't like her and, in the end, won't vote for her when presented with a more charasmatic and hopeful option.

Posted by: John - Fairfax, VA | February 10, 2007 8:58 PM | Report abuse

Well I guess the 'librul media' is set on course to crucify Hillary, by ignoring what she said on the floor of the Senate before the resolution, which was:

"A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President. And we say to him: Use these powers wisely and as a last resort."

She was doing what most Senators thought was right -- giving the president bargaining tools. But he was the one who chose to use it instead as a bludgeon for war.

I would ask that Democrats and independents please not allow themselves to be used by the radical right and manipulated into to eating our own.

Posted by: drindl | February 10, 2007 8:41 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is BORING .. nothing is worse than BORING ...

Posted by: AH2 | February 10, 2007 8:30 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Ivan Johnson | February 10, 2007 8:23 PM | Report abuse


Sen. Clinton seems to be trying to claim the mantle of being the new "Flip Flopping Florio." She may win that battle but not without a fight from Sen. McCain.

Posted by: J. Turtle | February 10, 2007 7:17 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company