Bill Clinton Challenges the Netroots "Anti-War Crowd"

[ProSense]

ARI MELBER
Bio
03.23.2007

Bill Clinton Challenges the Netroots "Anti-War Crowd"

In a conference call with major donors yesterday, former President Bill Clinton challenged the netroots for backing Barack Obama as an anti-war candidate, according to The Hill newspaper. While avoiding any direct criticism of Obama's statements, President Clinton said it was "ludicrous" to treat "Hillary and Obama's positions on the war as polar opposites." Then he tried to fact-check the netroots:

"This dichotomy that's been set up to allow to become the raging hero of the anti-war crowd on the Internet is just factually inaccurate."

The Hill reports that President Clinton continued, "It's just not fair to say that people who voted for the resolution wanted war," and he argued that Hillary's defense of her war vote is similar to Chuck Hagel, who remains popular in the antiwar community. It is true that Chuck Hagel also claimed the Iraq resolution did "not quite" say the US should attack Iraq, and inspections might have still prevented war. That blurry defense has been tried by everyone from Hagel to Hillary to Kerry. But it is not the argument that won Hagel support from the antiwar crowd, and it probably won't work for Hillary. (Blogger Matt Browner-Hamlin once derided the whole approach as Hagel doing his "best John Kerry impersonation.")

Americans don't want parsing history lessons, they want strong and principled leadership to end the war. That is why people support Hagel. And it's why people love Jack Murtha, who never spent time spinning his war vote. Once he determined the US could not achieve a military victory in Iraq's civil war, Murtha plowed all of his rhetorical and political energy into ending Bush's "flawed policy wrapped in illusion."

So Bill Clinton's historical focus is unlikely to sway the netroots. "President Clinton has every right to question the depiction of his wife in all forms of media but, when it comes to what's hurting her about the Iraq war, he's really missing the point. John Edwards voted for the same resolution and it doesn't appear to be a drag on his campaign and that's due largely to what Edwards has said about the war since," explained blogger Bob Geiger in an email interview with The Nation. Geiger believes that Hillary's "play-it-safe strategy" and "her failure to be a strong, aggressive voice against the Bush administration is what's dragging down her candidacy, not a vote she made in 2002."

more...

It's interesting that Clinton cites Hagel instead of Kerry or Murtha. I guess he didn't want to mention a Democrat who actually voted for the IWR, but has been speaking out against it forcefully and demanding withdrawal.

In 2004, Kerry not only won the nomination, but he also got the anti-war vote in the general election. Except for media spin, the IWR wasn't a factor then, but obviously, since Bill Clinton made it a point to address this now, acknowledging that it was wrong to trust Bush and inconsistency related to each candidate's position has a lot to do with 2008.

Kerry's position on Iraq has always been: Wrong War! He said no war in Jan. 2003. He advocated withdrawal during the 2004 debates. In 2005, He proposed a plan for withdrawal, which was the flurry of withdrawal plan in late 2006, including the ISG report. In June 2006, he introduced legislation setting a deadline for withdrawal, which garnered only 13 yes votes. Hillary Clinton voted against the bill. He co-authored the current legislation calling for a deadline.

If you missed Sen. Kerry on Hardball, the video is linked here. Gist: No permanent bases and Bush violate the IWR leading to one of the greatest foreign policy disasters.

[Colobo]

1. Bill is playing the centrist card

[Warren Stupidity]

2. Polar opposites? False dichotomy much?

I am not actually supporting either candidate, however the facts are that Clinton voted for the IWR and supported the war for quite some time, in typical nuanced Clintonian fashion, until the events of last november compelled an overt change in position. Obama of course did not have to vote on the IWR but is on the record as having opposed it. One vote for it given the opportunity, one opposed it but had no opportunity to vote on it.

[blm]

3. Kerry was against Bush's DECISION to go to war because IWR's weapon inspections were

working to prove military force was not needed.

Kerry always opposed the decision to go to war - and THAT is what separates those who voted IWR and backed Bush's war decisions and those who voted for the IWR and OPPOSED Bush's war decision throughout 2003 and 2004 AND actively work for withdrawal today.

[karynnj]

16. Kerry very clearly explained that on the Daily Show in 2004

Speaking of Bush abbusing the authority and the trust - not having a true coalition, not exhausting the other remedies - then he spoke of how to many people it not being a war of last resort meant something. (In 2006, he was more explicit - a war much be a war of last resort for it to be a just war per St Augustine. )

I had remembered the Letterman show and the NYU speech - but forgotten this part of the Daily Show. The video is on their main page because Kerry will be the guest next Monday - on his environmental book.

[IndianaGreen]

35. I remind you that it was Bush who pressured UN into withdrawing the inspectors

I will also point out that Hillary and Lieberman are the only two high profile Democrats to never have apologized for the war vote.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

4. I agree with the article. It's not the crime - it's the cover-up.

I can forgive anyone for initially supporting the IWR as long as they've come to their senses now. Trying to spin and justify your vote is wasting everyone's time and won't gain you any political favor. And Hillary makes it worse by supporting the continuation of the debacle.

[xkenx]

39. DEMS. KNEW B4 IWR VOTE THAT INTEL WAS BOGUS OR UNSUBSTANTIATED!

All Congressional Dems. had access to enough information to repudiate B**h claims about WMD, both biological and nukes. That is why Carl Levin, Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, and 20 other Dem. Senators voted "NO." At a Wes Clark PAC meeting which I attended in Nov., 2005, Levin spoke at length about that. Without actually ripping those who voted "YES," he made it clear that he felt that many "YES" votes were the result of the lack of political courage. I don't draw too much distinction between Hillary's political calculation and that of, say, Kerry or IWR co-sponsor John Edwards. Not fessing up to making a mistake is not different IMO than the further political calculation of "repenting" when it was safe to do so. IMO they are all disqualified. Why? Because I want a leader who will be smart, savvy, and courageous THE NEXT TIME such an issue comes up. No wet-fingers-in-the-political-wind. The crime and the cover-up are equally serious.

[MannyGoldstein]

5. Doesn't Mrs. Clinton Want Perma-Troops in Iraq?

To fight al Qaeda or something? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I continue to think that the Clinton and Bush families are getting way too close, in too many ways.

[gratuitous]

6. If you don't want war, don't vote for it

It seems to be a pretty easy equation to me, but I'm not a Rhodes Scholar. I realize Mr. Clinton is defending his wife, but criminatelies, does he think I'm retarded?

[ends_dont_justify]

7. Does his statement mean he supports the war, then?

If he's less interested in 'history' (the war in iraq being a total failure, lies, scandals, cover ups, coattailing), and more interested in a strong leader (strong being total support or mostly support of iraq), it sounds like he's stating that the war isn't a bad thing so long as your leader is certain of their stance on it...

[w4rma]

19. I believe he has, behind the scenes, supported the war fiercely. (nt)

[blm]

21. I believe so, too. He and Hillary always stayed closer to Bush throughout 2003-2004

on his military decisions on Iraq and terrorism and supported it PUBLICALLY more than they would their own party's presidential nominee.

They both knew Kerry knew more about fighting terrorism correctly than Bush could ever begin to know, but even in his convention speech, Clinton doesn't say a word about Kerry's contributions to fighting terrorism, while Gore EMPHASIZED Kerry's dogged pursuit of terror networks.

[w4rma]

23. In addition to that, I also noticed how Bill was advising Blair in the run up to the war.

And since then, Blair (who is basically a British DLCer) has given Bush his full support on everything dealing with Bush's wars.

[blm]

25. True - I think Bill was assigned the job of bringing Blair along with the war plans.

I also remember Clinton trying to sell the party as 'Blair Democrats' so they wouldn't feel like they were supportive of Bush.

At the time I thought it was clever - since reading his book and realizing the extent of his protective services for Poppy Bush, I see that move as pure manipulation of the Dem lawmakers AND Blair.

[w4rma]

31. Hillary must not be allowed to become the nominee. (nt)

[ProSense]

8. Edits:

In 2005, he proposed a plan for withdrawal, which was the basis for a flurry of withdrawal plans in late 2006, including the ISG report.

Makes more sense.

[SOS]

9. Speaking of "factually inaccurate":

"He (Clinton) said he had re-read the Iraq resolution last week, and that his wife had voted only for “coercive inspections.”"

Hillary voted "only" for something that is not contained in the text of the IWR?

Two problems with this spin:
1. The IWR has no legal requirement for any inspections, let alone coercive.
2. You can't vote for "only" the wishy-washy, meaningless Section 2, (1 and 2).

The word "inspections" isn't even in the law.

[mmonk]

10. Not everyone who votes for someone

other than someone that voted for the IWR is doing so for only that reason. They may actually like that candidate's positions and therefore the vote is "for" a person and not "against" another.

[Strawman]

11. Yeah, technically she didn't vote for an invasion

and technically he didn't fuck Monica Lewinsky either. It's disingenuous. I like Bill Clinton, but sometimes he is just a little too clever for his own good. Anyone who voted for that authorization knew or ought to have known they were green-lighting a war.

[Jacobin]

14. That says it for me

Bill did a decent job as president (compared to Bush, a spectacular job) and he has my thanks for that, but I'm tuning him out on his obvious bias to try to help his wife get elected.

She shouldn't have voted for the IWR, (like one third of congress who didn't) and having done so she should be ashamed of herself.

[ripple]

15. Yep, that excuse doen't fly

The writing was all over the wall in red, permanent magic marker. If all of us are completely honest with ourselves, there is no denying that WE knew what that vote meant at the time. How is it that our elected leaders didn't know?

It was a political decision, plain and simple. The legislators who voted for the war didn't want to be seen as being "weak on terra". Unfortunately for them (and for all the people killed, injured, or otherwise affected), it backfired badly.

[ripple]

12. I find it interesting that Bill is interjecting so early

in the race. I expected him to come in for the close a couple of months before the primaries, but pretty much stay out of things up until then. Granted, this is a lot different than being out there actually campaigning, but it's still interesting.

It doesn't exactly strike me as a show of confidence from Hillary's camp.

[Strawman]

17. Something smells about the anti-netroots demonization

Trying to link Obama with them, and now Bill trying to broad-brush online progressive political activists as irrational nuts here. It's almost Lieberman-like. Is Lanny Davis managing the campaign? How long before he's on Larry King standing up for the Clintons against these hateful bloggers hiding behind computers? These punks ruining civility and practicing the "politics of personal destruction." :sarcasm:

[cmkramer]

40. That's because a lot of them are irrational nuts

Also, Bill was involved in the 1968 presidential campaign where the anti-war crowd all but handed the election to Richard Nixon.

[Bucky]

22. This is the second time she's called in the B Team.

When Obama got better invites for the anniversary of the Selma march, she brought the hubby along to stir up the crowds for her. They're a great team, the two of them, but not even the Big Dog has eight year long coat tails.

[tkmorris]

13. Hillary Clinton = Chuck Hagel?

Gee Bill, are you sure that is the comparison you want to make?

[w4rma]

18. Shut up, Bill. (nt)

[Bucky]

20. This statement increases my respect for Hillary: if she can even turn the Big Dog into a whiner....

...she should have no trouble taming the likes of Putin, Hu, and Robertson! and any other national security threat.

Seriously, listening to to Bill Clinton whine about "it's not fair" because his chosen candidate did an inadequate job managing her own public image could almost move me to compassion. He loves her and has faith in her ability to do the job. That's nice to see. However Senator Clinton has gotten nonstop favorable treatment and far more frequent coverage from the broadcast press than any other candidate. But if she can't sell the public on her leadership under these conditions (huge name ID, huge warchest, and a leading opponent who's woefully underexperienced), all the donor arm twisting in the world isn't going to get her the nomination.

I wish her good luck. But I wait for a better candidate.

[Ethelk2044]

24. It just proves

Hillary can not hold her own without Bill fighting for her. It does not make either of them look good.

[Bucky]

29. You missed my subtext, didn't you?

[Cha]

26. I got your "ludicrious" right

here, Bill.

[Tom Joad]

27. Major donors = People that matter. Net roots (and everyone else) don't matter much...

[ShortnFiery]

28. True!

The Big Dog may find himself politically neutered if he continues to DIS us average American.

I fear that they honestly think that we are taking our orders from the scumbags and media whores who make up the M$M and the DLC.

Newsflash Big Dog: We peons within the Net Roots VOTE. Heel or face "the pound." :P

[beachmom]

30. I guess this is the thanks we get for defending him against PT9/11

Remember, it was the netroots that worked their asses off to defend Clinton's presidency on terrorism against that factually shoddy film Path to 9/11. He met with bloggers afterwards, which I thought meant he got what we were about. Obviously he doesn't. Hillary could turn this thing around if she wanted to. A little humility perhaps, a little soul searching on the morality of this war, a little "conversation", say on DailyKos (real conversation means back and forth including, as one great senator called it, the occasional "slings and arrows"). I'm not holding my breath.

[bemildred]

32. Clinton is a has-been and should take up "good works".

He was better than Bush the Elder, but he was still prone to stupid mistakes, and he never did give us the national health care we elected him for.

[Morgana LaFey]

33. Whining is unbecoming to Clinton

And AMEN, Bob Geiger!


You know, what KILLS me about these Washingtonians, which is what I call the inside the beltway powers that be, is how damned isolated, insulated and insular they are. THEY DON'T HAVE A CLUE about what goes on beyond the Beltway, and a comment/whine like this just proves it.

The whole freakin' COUNTRY is against the war. Where does he get off thinking it's something that's still up for debate? It's NOT. It's over: there IS no public support for the war, except among pathologically deluded idiots and retards (no offense meant to the regular and authentic mentally challenged) which apparently make up about a solid 30% of the electorate.

[IndianaGreen]

34. I detect panic in the Clinton camp

Kinda early to bring the heavy guns into the fray. The danger of having Big Dog engage Hillary's Democratic opposition, mostly grassroots rather than the investor class, is that it will make Big Dog less effective the longer he defends his wife's inability to come to grips with her war vote.

[Just-plain-Kathy]

36. When I think about who profitted most in the last twenty years...

I think of oil and defense corps and Wal-Mart. Clinton set up NAFTA which hepled Hillary's old employer Wal-Mart. ...And Clinton enacted the Iraqi Liberation Act in 1998, which pretty much laid the ground work for this war.

No more Bushs, no more Clintons

I wish we could have a grass roots effort to have a Feingold/Webb ticket.

[kdpeters]

37. Guess we'll have to take it out on Hillary Clinton

Oh, yeah. you know that Defense of Marriage Act you adulterating hypocrite? Hillary Clinton is going to pay for that one too. Proud of yourself?

[Bonobo]

38. Keep barkin' Big Dog...

But you're still not going to get the bone.