During campaign appearances in New Hampshire last weekend Hillary was peppered with some very pointed questions almost demanding that she admit her vote for the war was a mistake. She gave her standard stump answer which is basically "if I'd known then what I know now I wouldn't have voted for the war". That answer will never satisfy the antiwar wing of the Dem party - the very voters who will pick the candidate in the primaries.Is Hillary Clinton's campaign really trying to pretend, through vigorous Webbery, that she didn't support the war? That's what Matt Yglesias claims.** If true, that's a bit different than simply stubbornly refusing to apologize for your support; it's trying to deny that you have anything to refuse to apologize for! And it's kind of pathetic. Hillary's had a long time to think about what she'd say in this situation. Not even her husband could get away with that much slickness. He managed to position himself for-and-against Iraq War I, but only because he didn't have to vote on it (and because the war was over and old news by the time he had to stand before the voters). ... P.S.: Yglesias regards Clinton's stance as "an insult to the intelligence of liberals everywhere." Note to Matt: True. But what if her target audience isn't "liberals everywhere" but ... Iowa caucusers? Those people bought the "Kerry, electable" pitch, remember. Who knows what else they'll buy! It's about time someone insulted their intelligence.
**--What makes him so sure? He's got proof!
Even modern messiah Barack Obama is getting heckled by the antiwar crowd at campaign appearances, and he wasn't even in the Senate when the war votes were cast. The protesters are demanding that he promote an immediate cutoff of funding for the war, and again, they won't be satisfied until he does.
I think the entire Dem field will be faced with constant antiwar protests throughout the campaign, especially those candidates who are still in Congress and in a position to do something about the war funding.
No comments:
Post a Comment