Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

The Fix's Take on Clinton in N.H.

Chris Cillizza writes in today's Washington Post:

"KEENE, N.H., Feb. 11 -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) touted the politics of the possible Sunday during her inaugural visit to New Hampshire as a presidential candidate, a message that found an energetic but not ecstatic reception in town-hall meetings and house parties across the state."

Read the full story: "Clinton's Search for Common Ground Gets Mixed Reviews in N.H."

What do you think about Sen. Clinton's first trip to the first-in-the-nation primary state? Sound off in the comments area below.

By washingtonpost.com Editors  |  February 12, 2007; 9:27 AM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Clinton Insists She Is The Strongest Democrat
Next: Huckabee Makes a Splash in S.C.

Comments

I am part of the Democratic base: progressive, pro-peace and justice, environmentalist. Thus, I cannot vote for Sen. Clinton. She was in favor of this war until 48 hours before she announced her "exploratory committee." She says that if we are still in Iraq in Jan. '09 and she's president, she'll get us out--and I hear, "I will do nothing serious about the war until then and I will tell you nothing about my "secret plan to end the war" until after the election."

I haven't made up my mind between the progressives in this race: Kucinich, Richardson, Edwards, or Obama--but I know I don't want another Clinton.

Posted by: Michael Westmoreland-White | February 13, 2007 1:54 PM | Report abuse

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

Posted by: anonymous | February 13, 2007 12:03 PM | Report abuse

Thanks meuphys for hitting the nail on the head about HRC. When millions of Americans could see the rush to war was BS. HRC was misled by these clowns in the White House?Scary. That's why her vote isn't ancient history but a damnation of her judgement.She's either too conniving or too stupid to be President.

Posted by: Mike D. | February 13, 2007 8:21 AM | Report abuse

B20: For accurate information with a lot of laughs check out Keith Olbermann on Countdown.

Posted by: lylepink | February 12, 2007 10:55 PM | Report abuse

> IS THERE A BIGGER RIGHTWING HACK THAN KURTZ ANYWHERE?

I've been saying this for years now. Kurtz has dodged left and right to avoid talking about how the press has let several key lies of Bush's slip into the public consciousness completely unhindered by the facts that would have put them to bed. Bush convinced the public that Saddam was behind 9/11, that the insurgency and the people who want to kill us are one and the same, and that it is just an unfortunate happenstance that there is now a pro-Iran regime in Baghdad. None of these mistruths would have gotten the least beit of traction in the American mind without the express complicity of our moribund, intimidated media. With Howard Kurtz to guard the door of their hiding place.

It makes me sick when I hear people naively refer to Kurtz as a "media critic". He'll write till he's blue in the face on the tabloid issue of the day (which sometimes is in the political arena, to make it look superficially like he's willing to speak truth to power). But on any of the bigger elephants in our national living room, he appears to be bound and gagged. I can never decide whether he's a wimp and a weasel, or simply a loyal neocon apologist. Perhaps only God and he knows.

Posted by: B2O | February 12, 2007 9:35 PM | Report abuse

6 posts in a row on Clinton, on the weekend that Obama announces and is on 60 minutes? Come on, Chris, can we try to spread the coverage a little bit? We like your analysis, but you know as well as I do that the frontrunner this far out is gonna have a much harder time than anyone else, especially one with as little charisma as Hillary.

Posted by: matt | February 12, 2007 9:22 PM | Report abuse

We need someone who negotiates when necessary, and who goes to war when necessary--I don't approve of most of what this administration has done, but in the case of Iran, they (and, if you're right, HRC) are correct: everything IS on the table.
****************************************
I do realize that opposition to the Iraq war isn't all on the left, but this silly nitpicking over HRC's exact answer over her vote in 2002 is coming from the left. Mainstream opposition to the war is in very much the same place HRC is: open to the idea at first, angry over the misleading grounds given as justification (the "If I Knew Then What I Know Now" concept), opposed to "the surge," and ready to pull out. It's the lefties who are obsessed with her wearing a hair shirt or flogging herself because of the 2002 vote.

Posted by: Iva Norma Stitts | February 12, 2007 6:36 PM | Report abuse

Iva: You pretty well summed up what I have been saying for what seems like ages now. The easiest thing to do in politics is to be critical of someone. Some of the comments remind me of "Concrete thoughts". The meaning of which is "Throughly mixed uo and permanently set." A lot of folks put me in that catagory.

Posted by: lylepink | February 12, 2007 6:17 PM | Report abuse

Doesn't it bother any of you that Hillary, in giving a speech to the Jewish lobby group, AIPAC, said "every option is on the table" ith regards to Iran? Doesan't this sound suspiciously like the exact thing she said about Iraq? I don't know about you, but I think we need a negotiator, not a warmonger.

Posted by: ellen | February 12, 2007 6:04 PM | Report abuse

for jd - easy, tiger. but i will say that without in any way trying to insult you, drindl is right - the 'class warfare' thing was if you remember a stock piece of bush's spiel last time around. and i don't think anyone doubts that you are a hard worker - but the working class IS being treated unfairly by the economic policies currently in place - as is the middle class also, undoubtedly. latest stats show that the difference between the top + bottom of the economic ladder is now truly obscene - top makes 600x what the bottom does. consider that in light of rove's comment. he's an arrogant fata$$.
and i will add - respectfully - that i tooo think we have said quite enough about hillary already. i will vote for her if she's the nominee, but not until then. she has done NOTHING to convince me she would be the best leader available, and quite a bit that smells like "mid-life crisis," or "My turn!"

Posted by: meuphys | February 12, 2007 5:40 PM | Report abuse

I'm a 'repug' am I? Hmm, and the lefties out there say the right wing is 'mean spirited'... Actually I'm a registered independent and quite moderate, thanks for asking.

Dwelling on redistribution of wealth, envy, and Gore's "fairness for the working class" is a loser, I'm telling you. I wouldn't be considered "working class" by his standard, but I work my a$$ off.

Just a little friendly advice for someone who obviously doesn't like HRC. You going with Nader I presume, when she gets the nod anyway?

Posted by: JD | February 12, 2007 4:54 PM | Report abuse

JD

we've been talking about Hillary for what seems the last eternity. and people pretty much say the same stuff over and over.

i can tell you're a repug by your 'class warfare' remark -- but i dsagree. i think that middle class peoople are finally starting to realize how much they are hurt by republican policies, which always favor the wealthy and foreign corporations over our own citiziens who work for a lving.

for instance, just about everyone recognized that the privatization of social security was just a cheap ripoff, a con, to hand over the middle class' retirement funds to the tender mercies of banks and brokers.

Posted by: drindl | February 12, 2007 4:39 PM | Report abuse

hey drindl, way to try the attempted threadjack. We're talking about Hillary today.

PS the class warfare argument is traditionally a loser for the left, I'd recommend against it

Posted by: JD | February 12, 2007 4:23 PM | Report abuse

Iva, Hillary's problem is that opposition to the war is not limited to the left. A huge majority of the country is unhappy with the war. It's the most important issue in the campaign to many people. And she's basically handwaving it away.

I realize that the vote was several years ago, and under different circumstances. But I'd like to see her give a concrete position on the war. She could say that in retrospect she realizes it was a bad vote. Or she could say she defends her vote and that the war was carried out badly. The problem is that she isn't saying anything concrete. And it seems like she's doing that in order to not offend anyone. It seems dishonest.

Posted by: Blarg | February 12, 2007 4:19 PM | Report abuse

And then there are the two major subjective reasons people will not vote for Sen. Clinton (which also apply to every other candidate to one degree or another):

1) they do not feel comfortable with her; and

2) they don't trust her

Like it or not, that's what a lot of people will be voting on.

You can prove that the candidate is Superwoman or Superman; if people feel uncomfortable or don't trust them, they won't vote for that candidate.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | February 12, 2007 4:00 PM | Report abuse

ABC News' Karen Travers Reports: White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove explained the Bush Administration's guest worker program and immigration policy at a luncheon Thursday by saying, "I don't want my 17-year-old son to have to pick tomatoes or make beds in Las Vegas."

The statement appeared on The Corner, National Review's blog, and has been gaining steam ever since.

White House Deputy Press Secretary Dana Perino told ABC News that the White House does not deny that Rove made the remark but claims it has been taken out of context.

Rove was speaking at a Republican women's luncheon and was talking about the President's immigration policy and the need for a system where willing workers get paired with willing employers, Perino said.

Rove talked about how there are so many vacant jobs in this country and how many of them are in low-skill, low-wage sectors of the economy.

Rove was not insulting those people in those jobs, the White House explained, he was, according to Perino, saying that every parent wants their child to have a high-skilled, high-wage job'

God forbid that a fat lazy rich white republican boy should do a day's work--this is the republican party of today -- they despise people who actually work for a living. Can't imagine doing it themselves...forget the military -- they don't even want their kids to get their fat pasty little white hands dirty.

Posted by: drindl | February 12, 2007 3:59 PM | Report abuse

I don't think it really matters whether HRC actually trusted the President to be slow and careful in his pre-war dealings with Iraq or whether her vote was a cynical move to burnish her bonafides on the anti-terror issue. The point I was making earlier is that it was years ago. She can't unmake the vote, and she's pretty much in the same place the rest of the party is now. And that single vote isn't even close to being a dealbreaker for me. I'm not ecstatic about any of the candidates this time (the ones I liked the best took a pass), but it looks more and more to me that HRC is in the best position to win both the nomination and the Presidency. And while that would be true were she male or female, I also like the idea that we might elect a woman.

In the long run, it may turn out to be a help to her candidacy that she's being attacked from the left. The wingnut GOPpers are obsessed to the point of neurosis with the erroneous idea that she's a flaming liberal. And there's nothing like being cricized by looneys on both extremes of the political spectrum to make one look like a centrist.

Posted by: Iva Norma Stitts | February 12, 2007 3:58 PM | Report abuse

You have yet to see a valid reason not to support Hillary? That's crap. People give valid reasons all the time. You just ignore them, and keep repeating that you think Hillary will win the election.

Here are some of the reasons people keep bringing up why they don't want to support Hillary:
1. She voted to authorize force in Iraq, and hasn't said she regrets that vote.
2. Her candidacy will motivate the Republican base, who hate her and have years of experience attacking her.
3. If elected, she would be part of an unbroken line of Bushes and Clintons going back to 1988. People want someone new.
4. She panders to centrists so much that it's not clear what her own ideas are.
5. She hasn't presented much in the way of specific policy.

I could go on and on. But don't say that nobody has any reasons to oppose Hillary. You're the one without the reasons; you just keep repeating that you like her, and never address any of the criticisms raised against her.

Posted by: Blarg | February 12, 2007 3:52 PM | Report abuse

While it is plausible to imagine McCain and Rudy as a team,, they both are so enormously egotistical and notoriously petty and ill-tempered it's hard to imagine them spending much time together.

Of course, it's true that when Rudy would dress up in drag, he would seek out the most macho guy in the room to come on to, so maybe you're onto something there.

Posted by: NYer | February 12, 2007 3:50 PM | Report abuse

I really and truly think and believe Hillary will be the next POTUS and what strikes me as sort of odd that some of you are supposedly strong dems are the ones that are most against her. I can pretty well figure out some of your thinking but am at wits end to understand how you can come up with a good arguement against her. I have yet to see a valid reason not to support her after reading and re-reading the comments.

Posted by: lylepink | February 12, 2007 3:44 PM | Report abuse

This is big -- Gen. Pace refuses to support the phony propaganda about Iran that Cheney and his minions are peddling...

'The top American military officer, General Peter Pace, declined Monday to endorse the conclusions of U.S. military officers in Baghdad, who told reporters on Sunday that the Iranian government is providing high-powered roadside bombs to insurgents in Iraq. General Pace made his comments during a visit to Australia, and VOA's Al Pessin reports from Canberra.'

Posted by: drindl | February 12, 2007 3:32 PM | Report abuse

'Joe fixin' to come out of the Republican closet? TPM Reader GD points out this Joe Klein prediction from this weekend's Chris Matthews show ...

This is just a guess, but it's an educated and a reported guess. The Democrats in the Senate are getting really, really angry at Joe Lieberman, especially because he's been accusing them of undermining the troops' morale. And Joe Lieberman isn't too happy with the Democrats, either. I think there's going to be an explosion and perhaps a party switch pretty soon.'

He's the biggest DINO in the Senate... a treacherous turncoat, a toady of cheney's. Ggood riddance -- maybe the dullards in the CT democratic party can find a real dem to replace him.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 12, 2007 3:27 PM | Report abuse

comment from a "discerning reader" -
based on MikeB's history, he is referring to Edwards.

Just thought you'd like to know that, Chris, since you may need to have things spelled out for you very clearly (according to MikeB). You probably weren't able to read the writing on the wall during your intensive NH visit on-site. It's a real blessing that you have the Fixers to clue you in.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 12, 2007 3:22 PM | Report abuse

'The accusations were welcomed by Sunni politicians, who have long maintained that Tehran supports Shi'a death squads and militias. "We diagnosed this problem a long time ago," Salim al-Jabouri, a prominent Sunni member of Iraq's parliament, told TIME. "It was expected that the Americans would come to the same conclusion."

But Shi'a politicians, who comprise the largest block of the parliament and have close ties to Tehran, dismissed U.S. claims as propaganda by a Bush administration seeking to deflect blame for the American military's failure to curb the growing violence in Iraq. An official in the Prime Minister's office questioned the credibility of U.S. intelligence, pointing to recent reports of evidence-fudging at the Pentagon in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq. "They need a scapegoat, so they conveniently point to their old enemy, Iran," said the official. But these days American intelligence is a discredited commodity. Who can believe them?"

Nobody in the world, except the dumbest, most gullible americans, believes a word this administration says. So tell me how we're going to 'win' in Iraq again?

Posted by: lark | February 12, 2007 3:21 PM | Report abuse

Chris, as you can see from the comments by your more discerning readers, Hillary is pretty much washed up. She is anti-labor, anti-worker, pro-big corporations, wrong on Iraq, wrong again on Iran, out of touch with Western voters, and is so much into the pocket of globalization interests that she doesn't have a chance. To be sure, Carville and her campaign crew are masters of spin, but you can't spin a the clothes this country needs out of a whole lot of cr*p. We really need a Democrat as President, not a Naderite, not some feminist more interested in money than anything substantial, and not another special interest representative in the pocket of investors and big money.

Posted by: MikeB | February 12, 2007 2:52 PM | Report abuse

I want to know if she put plants in the audience to boo the guy trying to ask her a tough question.

I want someone to ask her:
1) Does she think family dynasties in the White House are good for America?

2) What does it mean to "take responsibility" and who else would that kind of taking responsibility apply to besides politicians? If I run a red light and get caught, having hurt no one, I get to take responsibility, pay a fine and have my insurance go up.

3) Does she understand how important it is not to make any more messes in the Middle East that cost American lives and the lives of innocent people and blow hundreds of billions of dollars? Does she understand how direct the threat has to be to the American people before doing any more attacking and invading or being complicit in same.

Posted by: Andra | February 12, 2007 2:48 PM | Report abuse

so, hillary voted to authorize the use of force in iraq thinking that bush would use good judgment and good intelligence information in deciding whether or not to do so. and his track record inspired in her this faith in his judgment - how?

if she really was thinking along these lines, she ain't as bright as some have been insisting she is. in fact, many americans, even those who suspected that saddam may have been up to something nefarious, would have preferred to allow international inspectors the time to figure it out. i'm not sure whether this is a good omen for her judgments as president...

but the alternative is even worse, and that is that she doubted bush's sincerity, but voted for the action anyway to protect herself from being seen as "soft on terr'r." then, she may have reasoned, if things were to go badly - as they in fact have - she could back away and claim that she had only voted to keep the option of force on the table. well, things have indeed gone badly, and we now see the bush junta repeating the same pattern with iran - and hillary cannot deny her complicity.

so, is she incredibly naive? or incredibly cynical? either way, it doesn't say much for her judgment.

Posted by: meuphys | February 12, 2007 2:30 PM | Report abuse

I'm hardly a Ned Lamont person. I'd just like some straight forward addressing of the Vote matter by Sen Clinton.

I'm not one demanding apologies. But, remember, she was a "poster girl" for those supporting the invasion. For a long time.

Which made it easier for those pushing invasion to try to demonize anybody opposed. She only changed her position when it was convenient to do so.

She's playing lawyer, not leader.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | February 12, 2007 2:23 PM | Report abuse

Lylepink... Trust. Hillary has to gain my trust. I don't think I'm different from many others. You can't gain it on her behalf. She has to earn it herself. As long as she triangulates and equivocates on the issues I don't trust her.

In her case, since CC loves to talk about the campaign staff, I think she had too many handlers. Where's Hillary?

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | February 12, 2007 2:20 PM | Report abuse

Lylepink... Trust. Hillary has to gain my trust. I don't think I'm different from many others. You can't gain it on her behalf. She has to earn it herself. As long as she triangulates and equivocates on the issues I don't trust her.

In her case, since CC loves to talk about the campaign staff, I think she had too many handlers. Where's Hillary?

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | February 12, 2007 2:19 PM | Report abuse

Lylepink... Trust. Hillary has to gain my trust. I don't think I'm different from many others. You can't gain it on her behalf. She has to earn it herself. As long as she triangulates and equivocates on the issues I don't trust her.

In her case, since CC loves to talk about the campaign staff, I think she had too many handlers. Where's Hillary in this picture?

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | February 12, 2007 2:18 PM | Report abuse

To Blarg: I'm not saying people should ignore the issue of Iraq generally. My point was that Hillary basically agrees with what I called the "Ned Lamont Democrats" now. They just want to punish her for voting in favor of it several years ago (or actually, voting in favor of authorizing the President to up the pressure on Iraq, which he took as carte blanche to invade). They're beating a dead horse.

To J.D.: Chris is reporting entirely on HRC's trip to New Hampshire, as he told us beforehand he would be doing, because he went to New Hampshire with her. It is his job for the period of time she's there to follow and report on what she's doing. Other Post staffers are handling other events.

Posted by: Iva Norma Stitts | February 12, 2007 2:14 PM | Report abuse

To Blarg: I'm not saying people should ignore the issue of Iraq generally. My point was that Hillary basically agrees with what I called the "Ned Lamont Democrats" now. They just want to punish her for voting in favor of it several years ago (or actually, voting in favor of authorizing the President to up the pressure on Iraq, which he took as carte blanche to invade). They're beating a dead horse.

To J.D.: Chris is reporting entirely on HRC's trip to New Hampshire, as he told us beforehand he would be doing, because he went to New Hampshire with her. It is his job for the period of time she's there to follow and report on what she's doing. Other Post staffers are handling other events.

Posted by: Iva Norma Stitts | February 12, 2007 2:07 PM | Report abuse

Interestingly, in general conservatives believe about Hillary what liberals won't-that she is far left of center. While unduly discontent, the liberals in this case are correct. Hillary is more centrist than Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reily would admit. As a Republican, I like Hillary a great deal and would vote for her above any of the other democrats in the race and above more than half the Republicans. She has had moments that disappointed me. Her anti-flag burning bill was blatant unprincipled populist pandering as was her opposition to the UAE acquisition of a US port. If I thought for one moment that she were sincere with respect to these issues, I would have no respect for her whatsover. I am willing to forgive, however, the political necessities that drove her to symbolic actions with little real consequences. She would make a fine president, but there are better candidates out there.

Posted by: Ben | February 12, 2007 1:44 PM | Report abuse

I don't see any accomplishments, I see media hype. I will NOT vote for Hillary, and if she gets media hype until they force the Democrats to lose with her, it will be the fault of the media AGAIN.

I do not owe my vote to someone I think has no right to run. I owe my vote to THE BEST and I am waiting for SOMEONE ELSE who EARNS the vote for President.

Posted by: Elizabeth | February 12, 2007 1:28 PM | Report abuse

Truth Hunter: Where have you been girl? I'm going to convince you even if it takes another week or so. [mountain man] states it quite clear in his 11:32am post that same question will be asked by those that oppose her. Another thing to really, I mean REALLY think about is how the repubs want to run against Hillary.

Posted by: lylepink | February 12, 2007 1:05 PM | Report abuse

Lylepink.... I think the GOP would like nothing better than to run against Hillary. In line with points about celebrity, likeability is also important and she still has high in-cement negatives.

I agree a centrist is the way to go, but she still has to convince me she's that centrist.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | February 12, 2007 12:45 PM | Report abuse

Senator Clinton would make, I believe, a very good peace-time President. She, like her husband, is smart, a consensus builders and a moderate that would seek to bring the country together and work hard to find common denominators for progress.

Problem is we are at war. A country at war does not need a consensus builder, it needs a leader, someone smart enough to articulate a vision for ending the war and strong enough to lead the country down the path to peace.

I fear Senator Clinton, as President, would be too concerned about the ebb and flow of public opinion and to seeking the correct politics to maintain her popularity and electability at the expense of pursuing the correct and courageous course.

Posted by: Vance Fort | February 12, 2007 12:43 PM | Report abuse

Anyone who doubts it's HRC/Obama vs McCain/Rudy is smokin something. And I think this will be a close race, actually.

The only thing to be decided is who is on the top of each ticket. I'd guess it'll be in that order, though.

Posted by: JD | February 12, 2007 12:41 PM | Report abuse

For all of you that do not support Hillary: This is a choice all of us make about who we would like to be the next POTUS. I find Hillary to be the best choice the dems have in 08. With Warner or Bayh as a running mate, it will be very hard for the repubs to find a ticket that will make the election even close. Least we forget this is quite early and anything can and most likely will happen. IMO, the 08 vote will mainly be from the centrist position and that is where Hillary is the strongest.

Posted by: lylepink | February 12, 2007 12:37 PM | Report abuse

Good point about celebrity worship. All the more reason to break the Bush/Clinton political-bling-bling revolving door.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | February 12, 2007 12:32 PM | Report abuse

The bomb-sniffing dogs are back in Grand Central...

Posted by: Anonymous | February 12, 2007 12:31 PM | Report abuse

The Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton sequence has less to do with dynasties than with The seeming helplessness of American voters -- who are consumers after all -- in the face of a famous name.
It is this celebrity worship that worries me. What's next? Paris Hilton for president?

Posted by: Viejita del oeste | February 12, 2007 12:19 PM | Report abuse


For uncensored news please go to:

otherside123.blogspot.com
www.wsws.org
www.onlinejournal.com
www.takingaimradio.net

Hillary Clinton: Congressional debate on Iraq is over means, not ends

By Bill Van Auken

During a Sunday breakfast meeting with members of the US Army's 10th Mountain Division in Afghanistan, New York Democratic Senator Hillary Clinton told the troops that however sharp the differences expressed in the debate over the Bush administration's war policy, Democrats and Republicans share the same essential aims.

"I hope that when you hear the debate in Washington that you understand that whatever our differences over the means, we are all agreed on the end," she told the soldiers at a military base in Kabul.

It would be difficult to more clearly characterize the nature of the differences between the new Democratic leadership in Congress and the Bush White House. While criticizing Bush's plans for an escalation of US troop numbers in Iraq, the New York senator declared her own preference for a "surge" in Afghanistan.

"I wish we were discussing additional troops for Afghanistan," she said. "We are hearing increasingly troubling reports out of Afghanistan."

Clinton, considered the front-runner in the contest for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, made the remark during a four-day, three-nation tour of US war fronts. The New York senator received private briefings from American military commanders, participated in photo-ops with the troops, and had audiences with the top officials of the US puppet regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan--Nouri al-Maliki and Hamid Karzai--as well as with Pakistan's military ruler, Gen. Pervez Musharraf.

Clinton was accompanied by Democratic Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, who, like her, voted for the Iraq war and continues to support it, as well as Congressman John McHugh, a Republican from New York.

What is the meaning of Clinton's statement that she and fellow Democrats disagree with the Bush administration solely on the "means" it is employing in prosecuting its wars, and fully agree on the "end?"

The first question is this: what ends are being pursued through these wars? The Authorization for the Use of Military Force against Iraq, which Clinton and Bayh both supported in October 2002, affirmed that Iraq "possessed a significant chemical and biological weapons capability," was "actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability," and was "supporting and harboring terrorist organizations." Given these "facts," the resolution claimed that a US "preventive" war was justified in order to defend "national security."

In the five years since that resolution was passed and implemented, every claim it made has been proven a lie. Clinton, however, continues to deny that the Bush administration deliberately and knowingly concocted phony "intelligence" to justify an unprovoked war. In an interview with Jeffrey Goldberg published in the January 15 issue of the New Yorker magazine, she was asked if she thought she had been lied to. She replied, "I have to tell you, I think they believed, as I believed, that there was, at the very least, residual weapons of mass destruction . . ."

This absurd contention is aimed at concealing the criminal conspiracy in which she participated to terrorize the American people and justify a war of aggression.

For the rest please go to:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/jan2007/clin-j16.shtml

Posted by: che | February 12, 2007 12:16 PM | Report abuse

Hillary needs a Sister Soulja Moment. She should consider distancing herself from a obscure left-wing blog on some issue regarding Iraq or impeachment or something.
It worked for Bill and she could come off as more moderate and not beholden to the left.

Posted by: gomer | February 12, 2007 12:14 PM | Report abuse

Nor'Easter & Pierre.... I never said they "ruled" alike. A dynasty is a sequence of rulers from the same family and thus a concentration of power in too few hands. That's the problem with dynasties, dictators and Deciders.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | February 12, 2007 12:07 PM | Report abuse

Talk all you want about Clinton, but I bet you that the random person, when asked to spontaneously name a Democrat presidential candidate after this weekend, will say Obama, if anybody. Obama didn't seal a nomination this weekend, but he came first in the news order and that says something at the very least.

Posted by: jojo | February 12, 2007 12:06 PM | Report abuse

'What are we fighting for? Don't ask me, I don't give a damn; next stop is Teheran. The Independent (02.12.07): "The United States is moving closer to war with Iran by accusing the 'highest levels' of the Iranian government of supplying sophisticated roadside bombs that have killed 170 US troops and wounded 620. " The allegations...are bizarre. The US has been fighting a Sunni insurgency in Iraq since 2003 that is deeply hostile to Iran.'

I say, enough already for chrissakes about blaming whoever for Iraq. Let's move on. The US is planning an attack on Iran -- a country 4 TIMES THE SIZE OF IRAQ with about ten times the population... that will make our little sojourn in iraq actually look like a CAKEWALK in comparison.

The whole rest of the world knows it, and we sit here quibbling about hillary while baghad and soon tehran will be burning... don't think they won't hit us back -- and hard... here.

you think 9/11 was something? just wait. cheney and exxonn mobil and halliburton can't wait to unleash the dogs of hell...

Posted by: drindl | February 12, 2007 12:04 PM | Report abuse

Apparently there is a disconnect between what the politicians voted for regarding the "authorization to use force and to investigate further" and what they contend is the intelligence they relied upon to make the decision for the vote. The facts are, even without the miscabobbled arrangement of excitable evidence protrayed by Bush and Company, there was plenty of areas of discovery that would or should have made any knowledgable politician weary of the vote. Especially so when other asture politicians held to the principal that the intrusion was absolutely not warranted and only grief would follow a yea vote. And, without sufficient self assessment, those who voted for the authorization are now apologethic somewhat and want apathy from the American people for making the worst mistake of maybe their career.

The ones who said "if I knew then what I know now" are simply seeking forgiveness from the people who put trust in them in the beginning and voted for them. Now they are pleading "non-ignorance" which is not appropriate.

Lets get the blame where the blame needs to be inserted.

Posted by: william clemons | February 12, 2007 11:57 AM | Report abuse

"I have no problem with somebody new, but does anybody think that Bush 43 has been anything like Bush 41? Not even close."

Fair point

Posted by: Pierre | February 12, 2007 11:56 AM | Report abuse

Sorry for the double post.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | February 12, 2007 11:49 AM | Report abuse

I'm getting tired of the, "we have a problem with royal presidencies, Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton; we need somebody new."

I have no problem with somebody new, but does anybody think that Bush 43 has been anything like Bush 41? Not even close.

Hillary is much more likely to be like Bubba, than George W. has been like George H. W.

If Hillary is the best candidate available, then we should vote for her. If Jeb is the best candidate available, then we should vote for him. I see no royal families.

Now if Neil or Uncle Bucky were to run, then we should be worried!

Posted by: Nor'Easter | February 12, 2007 11:48 AM | Report abuse

I'm getting tired of the, "we have a problem with royal presidencies, Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton; we need somebody new."

I have no problem with somebody new, but does anybody think that Bush 43 has been anything like Bush 41? Not even close.

Hillary is much more likely to be like Bubba, than George W. has been like George H. W.

If Hillary is the best candidate available, then we should vote for her. If Jeb is the best candidate available, then we should vote for him. I see no royal families.

Now if neil or Uncle Bucky were to run, then it would be a different matter!

Posted by: Nor'Easter | February 12, 2007 11:47 AM | Report abuse

Chris, please explain to me why the last SIX pieces you have written for The Fix have been about Hillary Clinton??? Barack Obama announced in front of thousands of people, and you chose instead to cover a small Clinton speech. OTHER THINGS ARE GOING ON-- please give us a little more information about the important things that are happening in politics. From reading your blog, a person could only assume that Clinton was the only person in the race.

Posted by: JD | February 12, 2007 11:39 AM | Report abuse

Iva, that single issue is pretty important. At least, a lot of people think so. You aren't talking about voters who only care about gay marriage or property taxes. The war in Iraq has cost a lot of money and a lot of lives. And if you listen to the President, it's part of the great ideological struggle that defines our time. Whether or not you support the war, how can you say it's not important?

mountain man, I agree that Hillary did what she thought was right!!! But the majority of the country thinks that the war wasn't a good idea!!! It's her responsibility as a candidate to actually address that!!! And the wacktivist ultra-liberals make up a large portion of the primary voters, so she'd better pay attention to them!!!

Posted by: Blarg | February 12, 2007 11:38 AM | Report abuse


'If you read nothing else tonight read this article in this week's New Yorker profile of Rush Limbaugh's great pal Joel Surnow, creator of the TV show "24." It's sad and laughable and frightening all at once.

I think you'll especially like this part, since we've spent almost the entire day discussing Iran hereabouts:

--Although he is a supporter of President Bush--he told me that "America is in its glory days"--Surnow is critical of the way the war in Iraq has been conducted. An "isolationist" with "no faith in nation-building," he thinks that "we could have been out of this thing three years ago." After deposing Saddam Hussein, he argued, America should have "just handed it to the Baathists and . . . put in some other monster who's going to keep these people in line but who's not going to be aggressive to us." In his view, America "is sort of the parent of the world, so we have to be stern but fair to people who are rebellious to us. We don't spoil them. That's not to say you abuse them, either. But you have to know who the adult in the room is."

Surnow's rightward turn was encouraged by one of his best friends, Cyrus Nowrasteh, a hard-core conservative who, in 2006, wrote and produced "The Path to 9/11," a controversial ABC miniseries that presented President Clinton as having largely ignored the threat posed by Al Qaeda. (The show was denounced as defamatory by Democrats and by members of the 9/11 Commission; their complaints led ABC to call the program a "dramatization," not a "documentary.") Surnow and Nowrasteh met in 1985, when they worked together on "The Equalizer." Nowrasteh, the son of a deposed adviser to the Shah of Iran, grew up in Madison, Wisconsin, where, like Surnow, he was alienated by the radicalism around him. He told me that he and Surnow, in addition to sharing an admiration for Reagan, found "L.A. a stultifying, stifling place because everyone thinks alike." Nowrasteh said that he and Surnow regard "24" as a kind of wish fulfillment for America. "Every American wishes we had someone out there quietly taking care of business," he said. "It's a deep, dark ugly world out there. Maybe this is what Ollie North was trying to do. It would be nice to have a secret government that can get the answers and take care of business--even kill people. Jack Bauer fulfills that fantasy."


The Baby Party strikes again. "Please have Secret Government Daddy quietly 'take care of business' or I'll just die of fright!" And they admit to this embarrassing need for a big strong man to solve all their problems while Surnow refers to "foreigners" as children whom we musn't "spoil." Oh my god, what ridiculous people.

And, you can't help but choke a little bit on the idea that the son of an advisor of the Shah of Iran is influencing Americans about the need for torture. Cyrus "SAVAK" Nowrasteh is quite a guy.

Posted by: the mental illness of the american right | February 12, 2007 11:36 AM | Report abuse

New Hampshire voters are no different than the rest of the electorate... they are leary of a Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton more of the same.

We don't need deciders, dictators or dynasties... we need leaders.

The cautious people of NH are asking if Hillary is the real deal, especially since she is over-handled and over-scripted.

Like all of us, they are looking for straight answers to straight-forward questions.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | February 12, 2007 11:32 AM | Report abuse

Hillary is right on the money! All the wacktivists may not like her, but so what. These wacktivist ultra liberals haven't decided an election yet so why should she bow to them. She did what she thought was right and good for her for sticking to her guns!!!

Posted by: mountain man | February 12, 2007 11:32 AM | Report abuse

It's truly a shame, but HRC will continue to face this ridiculous re-re-re-questioning about her Iraq position for the foreseeable future. She will be unable to satisfy the "Ned Lamont Democrats" no matter what she says, because pestering people about that single issue is their [i]raison d'etre[/i]. The minute they stop asking that question, they cease to exist as a "movement."

Posted by: Iva Norma Stitts | February 12, 2007 11:22 AM | Report abuse

Hillary, Schmillary. I am sick of her already. As a Democrat, she is my last choice for the nomination. Perhaps I simply get past the entire carpetbagger phenomenon (though New Yorkers apparently can), but whatever the cause, I do not believe her and find her remarkably bloodless. She reminds me of the dull, humorless academics with whom I work.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 12, 2007 11:20 AM | Report abuse


Hillary Clinton: Congressional debate on Iraq is over means, not ends

By Bill Van Auken

During a Sunday breakfast meeting with members of the US Army's 10th Mountain Division in Afghanistan, New York Democratic Senator Hillary Clinton told the troops that however sharp the differences expressed in the debate over the Bush administration's war policy, Democrats and Republicans share the same essential aims.

"I hope that when you hear the debate in Washington that you understand that whatever our differences over the means, we are all agreed on the end," she told the soldiers at a military base in Kabul.

It would be difficult to more clearly characterize the nature of the differences between the new Democratic leadership in Congress and the Bush White House. While criticizing Bush's plans for an escalation of US troop numbers in Iraq, the New York senator declared her own preference for a "surge" in Afghanistan.

"I wish we were discussing additional troops for Afghanistan," she said. "We are hearing increasingly troubling reports out of Afghanistan."

Clinton, considered the front-runner in the contest for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, made the remark during a four-day, three-nation tour of US war fronts. The New York senator received private briefings from American military commanders, participated in photo-ops with the troops, and had audiences with the top officials of the US puppet regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan--Nouri al-Maliki and Hamid Karzai--as well as with Pakistan's military ruler, Gen. Pervez Musharraf.

Clinton was accompanied by Democratic Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, who, like her, voted for the Iraq war and continues to support it, as well as Congressman John McHugh, a Republican from New York.

What is the meaning of Clinton's statement that she and fellow Democrats disagree with the Bush administration solely on the "means" it is employing in prosecuting its wars, and fully agree on the "end?"

The first question is this: what ends are being pursued through these wars? The Authorization for the Use of Military Force against Iraq, which Clinton and Bayh both supported in October 2002, affirmed that Iraq "possessed a significant chemical and biological weapons capability," was "actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability," and was "supporting and harboring terrorist organizations." Given these "facts," the resolution claimed that a US "preventive" war was justified in order to defend "national security."

In the five years since that resolution was passed and implemented, every claim it made has been proven a lie. Clinton, however, continues to deny that the Bush administration deliberately and knowingly concocted phony "intelligence" to justify an unprovoked war. In an interview with Jeffrey Goldberg published in the January 15 issue of the New Yorker magazine, she was asked if she thought she had been lied to. She replied, "I have to tell you, I think they believed, as I believed, that there was, at the very least, residual weapons of mass destruction . . ."

This absurd contention is aimed at concealing the criminal conspiracy in which she participated to terrorize the American people and justify a war of aggression.

For the rest of this article please go to:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/jan2007/clin-j16.shtml

Posted by: che | February 12, 2007 11:20 AM | Report abuse

...just in--Zalmay Khalilzad was the second anonymous briefer at the Iraqi press conference.

Reporters' cellphones and recorders and cameras were taken away. The Ambassador and the head of Iraqi PR refuse to identify themselves.

WHY ON EARTH SHOULD WE BELIEVE ANY OF THIS!

WHERE IS THE CREDIBILITY, FOR GOD'S SAKE?

Posted by: cassandra | February 12, 2007 10:38 AM | Report abuse


'So Multi National Forces-Iraq spokesman Major General William Caldwell was reportedly one of the anonymous briefers in Baghdad yesterday on the Iran in Iraq claims. It's hard to understand how the identity of the briefers can be confused with possibly endangering sources and methods for the information that is being presented at what was after all an international press conference.'

Here's a PR guy who won't even publicly stand behind the claims he's making. Why should anyone believe them then? If what he is saying is true, why is it anonymous?

Are Americans really this stupid? Are we really going to fall for this again?

Posted by: cassandra | February 12, 2007 10:34 AM | Report abuse

Former undersecretary of defense for policy Douglas Feith on Fox News Sunday: my office never said there was an operational relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda.

Perhaps he has forgotten this leaked Feith memo, cited favorably by the Vice President, and published by the Weekly Standard: "OSAMA BIN LADEN and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for al Qaeda--perhaps even for Mohamed Atta--according to a top secret U.S. government memorandum obtained by THE WEEKLY STANDARD.

The memo, dated October 27, 2003, was sent from Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith to Senators Pat Roberts and Jay Rockefeller, the chairman and vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Posted by: The Lying Liars | February 12, 2007 10:30 AM | Report abuse

'Once I found out that the House sergeant-at-arms had requested her plane--and I don't know why she didn't get that out right away-'

Here's the Post's Howie Kurtz. Supposed to be a 'reporter'. So he picks up a rightwing smear about Pelosi, takes it and runs with it -- smearing her publicly WITHOUT CHECKING THE FACTS -- then blames HER for 'not getting that out right away; -- IS THERE A BIGGER RIGHTWING HACK THAN KURTZ ANYWHERE?

Posted by: KURTZ THE HACK | February 12, 2007 10:24 AM | Report abuse

Sorry, the 10:04 post should have been my own preview to revise but I hit the wrong button. The 10:10 post is the correct one.

Posted by: Gail Mountain | February 12, 2007 10:16 AM | Report abuse

Hillary doesn't have to say that she thought it was a mistake. She just has to say SOMETHING. Her response of 'If I knew then what I know now blah blah...' isn't an answer. It is an attempt at hand waving the question away. If she doesn't think her vote was a mistake then she should say "I don't think it was a mistake and these are the reasons why...".

If she does think it was a mistake (which is what she wants us to believe) then she should apologize. Until that happens the folks in New Hampshire and Iowa are going to hound her with the same question over and over again.

All in all I didn't see anything that is going to endear her to the hearts of the Granite Staters but I would love to hear what folks from New Hampshire have to say.

Posted by: Andy R | February 12, 2007 10:16 AM | Report abuse

Elections are just as much about voters as they are about candidates -- and right now we can't be sure how many people who are commenting are actually voters, hence we wait for the vote. In the meantime, we are having a great discussion. Here's my take: People claim that want politicians to tell the truth and when they tell the truth and they don't like it they whine because it was not the truth they wanted to hear. I'm with Hillary on this one, if you are going to use the mistake word put it where it belongs, squarely on Bush and Company and no one else. That's the real truth in starting the war against Iraq and in escalating the war against Irag. All of the presidential candidates have evaluated their decisions made based on misleading information and it is time for them to move on and to tell us not only how they will get us out of Iraq, without leaving a destroyed country behind that was attacked without provocation, but also how they define the war on terrorism and how they will fight it. 2008 needs to take us forward, not backward and Congress needs to deal with how it was mislead into war.

Posted by: Gail Mountain | February 12, 2007 10:10 AM | Report abuse

Why are US officials hiding behind the cloak of anonymity when presenting 'evidence' that Iran is supplying anti-US forces in Iraq with weaponry?

After weeks, if not months, of US official planning to present a damning "dossier" of incriminating evidence against Iran, and after this same US administration presented us with lopsided, erroneous information about the capability and evil intentions of the Saddam Hussein regime, the best the US government can give us today is incendiary evidence presented at a Baghdad news conference by three US officials who refuse to be quoted by name?

That's disgraceful and unacceptable. The American people deserve straight talk from identified US officials.

If US officials are so sure of themselves -- if they have actual evidence -- then they should agree to be identified publicly and take responsisiblity for their allegations.

But, wait, one of the three supposedly unnamed US officials apparently has been outed by an Iraqi news service, Voices of Iraq, whose report on the Baghdad news conference identified one of the three speakers as Major General William Caldwell, who is a PR operative, who holds frequent news conference and grants one-on-one interviews.

So, if the VOI report identifying Caldwell is correct, why did every other news organization apparently agree to grant anonymity to the general who's the official spokesman of the US-led Multi-National Force in Iraq?

Why would Caldwell insist on not having his name associated with these allegations today? Does he fear becoming the next Colin Powell?

After the bogus Iraq evidence debacle in 2002 and 2003 -- allegations that led to war, tens of thousands of lives lost, and hundreds of billions of dollars spent -- only a fool would accept as the gospel supposed evidence against another country that's presented by officials who insist on making their allegations anonymously.

We deserve better from the US government. We deserve better from the western news media. Fool me once...

Posted by: cassandra | February 12, 2007 10:10 AM | Report abuse

Elections are just as much about voters as they are about candidates -- and right now we can't be sure how many people who are commenting are actually voters, hence we wait for the vote. In the meantime, we are having a great discussion. Here's my take: People claim that want politicians to tell the truth and when they tell the truth and we don't like it we whine because it was not the truth we wanted to here. I'm with Hillary on this one, if you are going to use the mistake word put it where it belongs, squarely on Bush and Company. That's the real truth.

Posted by: Gail Mountain | February 12, 2007 10:04 AM | Report abuse

1) 'We must continue the war to prevent the terrible aftermath that will occur if our forces are withdrawn soon.'

Reflect on the double-think of this formulation. We are now fighting to prevent what our invasion made inevitable! Undoubtedly we will leave a mess -- the mess we created, which has become worse each year we have remained. Lawmakers gravely proclaim their opposition to the war, but in the next breath express fear that quitting it will leave a blood bath, a civil war, a terrorist haven, a "failed state," or some other horror. But this "aftermath" is already upon us; a prolonged U.S. occupation cannot prevent what already exists.

Posted by: we can't prevent what's already happened... | February 12, 2007 9:52 AM | Report abuse

Her problem is that too many democrats don't trust her, are afraid that she will simiply carry on the same self-destructive neocon/corporate foreign and domestic policies.

This country is in a hole. W're not sure whether she's hiding a shovel. We need her to show what's behind her back...


'The story of how Bush conducted the war, and how that conduct led to the on-going fiasco and catastrophe, which is Iraq, is the story ALL Democrats should be telling, over and over, until nothing else can be heard in this country, and the U.S. gets out, out, out.'

Posted by: Anonymous | February 12, 2007 9:51 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company