This is a Democratic Primary, Right?

by: Matt Stoller

Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 16:30


I just got off a weird conference call with Hillary Clinton surrogates pushing this article from the New York Times on Obama's failure to vote while in the Illinois state legislature.  Congresscritters Anthony Weiner, Joe Crowley, and Stephanie Tubbs Jones slammed him repeatedly.  Clinton spokesperson Harold Wolfsen was also on.  Unlike most surrogate attacks, these three sounded really really mad, like it offended their pride as legislators that Obama would dare to vote 'present' instead of yes or no.  The essential argument was that Obama did not play the game by the rules they thought were fair.

Anyway, color me confused.  I thought there was a better story to jump on and use against Obama.  Obama slipped up by saying he'd appoint Republicans to his cabinet, like Arnold Schwarzenegger, who called Democrats 'economic girly men' in 2004 at the Republican national convention.  Democrats don't like Republicans, and Democratic primary voters especially dislike them.  So then I looked at an ad Hillary Clinton released today bragging about working with a Republican Senator, Lindsay Graham, to move legislation.  Both Obama and Clinton are psyched about Republicans.  And Edwards has already said he'd appoint Republicans to his cabinet.

I don't get it.  This is a Democratic primary. Shouldn't they pander a little bit before we have to eat shit for the general election?  What the hell? 

Matt Stoller :: This is a Democratic Primary, Right?

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
This is a Democratic Primary, Right? | 41 comments
I don't think... (0.00 / 0)
the nation writ large, nor even the standard party-identifier (Dem or Republican) is nearly as partisan as you guys think.  And I think you guys greatly underestimate the public's distaste for partisanship right now...
yeah (0.00 / 0)
Sure, that's right Republican ads are constantly attacking Hillary Clinton and every direct mail piece I get goes after Republicans as a way of getting me to give.  Because partisans don't like partisanship.
[ Parent ]
heh (2.00 / 2)
You guys really don't take kindly to being disagreed with.

Who said partisans don't like partisanship?  Not every Dem identifier is necessarily a partisan, is the point.  I'm a registered Dem, who votes for Dems pretty much across the board, and hates Bush, and...find partisanship kinda silly.

Labels have nothing to do with why I prefer politician X to politician Y.  For example, Paul Rosbenberg was going off on a similar note in an early post, and even upset about the mention of Lugar and Hagel.  This confuses me.  Nobody (and I mean nobody) has been better than Lugar on non-proliferation...why wouldn't you want this guy at the table when issues relating to proliferation come up in front of the President?  Simply b/c he has an "R" in front of his name?

Just seems myopic.

[ Parent ]
classy (0.00 / 0)
I like Lugar and Hagel, but neither should be a cabinet member in a Democratic administration.  Schwarzenegger is another story; he's an unethical problem.

I like disagreement, it's why I mix it up on the blogs.  Next time though you might want to include evidence in asserting that Democratic partisans don't like partisanship.

[ Parent ]
Cabinet members of theother party (0.00 / 0)
All recent presidents have appointed members from the other party to show that they are non partisan in solving the nations problems.

Matt you aretoyoung to remember Eisenhower, JFK and Johnson. Look up their cabinet secretaries

[ Parent ]
I'm very bipartisan... (0.00 / 0)
so let's put the Postmaster General back in the Cabinet and give it to, say, Susan Collins after she gracefully bows out of the Senate and Arnold, a natural for the new Cabinet Post as the Secretary of Physical Fitness.
[ Parent ]
Perhaps.. (4.00 / 1)
...Republicans are playing to their base and Democrats are looking towards the general? I mean, Edwards is certainly playing towards the party's left, but Clinton and Obama both seem to be acting like they are the nominee - wooing centrist/swing/nonpartisan voters.

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra
[ Parent ]
Edwards (0.00 / 0)
also promised to put GOPers in his cabinet.  They all have.
[ Parent ]
Make's you proud, don't it? (0.00 / 0)
Makes me just itchin' to volunteer to hit the pavement and knock on doors to get the vote out. Especially after the fine job the congressional Dems have been doing to stop the Bush crime family.

I am just filled with something but it's not enthusiasm.

Oh, I just figured it out, it's...despair.

"Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it." - Mark Twain

I don't get it either (4.00 / 2)
Clinton and Obama are both pushing how bi-partisan they are. Dodd and Richardson have done the same with their TV ads in the past. It is bizarre. Why is this supposed to appeal to Democrats, again?

It also makes me feel better about decided to vote for Edwards. Among all Democrats running, he seems to be the only one who doesn't talk that way.
Care to re-evaluate? (0.00 / 0)
Edwards promises to name Republicans to his cabinet

  John Edwards vowed Monday to include Republicans in his Cabinet if he's elected president.

"Here's why: because I'm looking for the strongest, most capable, most independent-minded people I can find. I want people around me who will say, 'You're wrong about this, and you could do grave damage if you do it. Mr. President, you need to change your mind,' " he said. "Because I'm not perfect, I'm capable of making mistakes."

Traitorous!

[ Parent ]
Forgot about that (4.00 / 1)
Ugh. Matt reminded me of that too.

What is their collective problem? One of the main reasons to vote for a Democrat, if not the main reason, is to get rid Republicans out of power. And so Democrats tell us they will keep Republicans in power. Gross. 
[ Parent ]
I really think (0.00 / 0)
There's a fundamental difference between the way the NetRoots (in general) see politics and the way Dems and the national voting population see politics.  I'm just guessing here (though the near-uniformity of the candidates' positions seem to bear this out) but I would think the typical voter in Iowa is less concerned with sticking it to the GOP than they are with "solving problems".  Now, for many of us, those two things are one in the same.  No problems will be solved until the Dems stick it to the GOP.

But I just don't think that's the case in the voting population at large.  I can't find it right now, but I saw a poll recently that claimed ~70% of Americans felt that there was too much partisanship in Washington or disapproved of the partisan atmosphere or some such thing.  I wish I could find it...sucky

[ Parent ]
70% also say (4.00 / 2)
That they want politicians to stick to their beliefs. I've written about this before. People want bi-partisanship and for politicians to stick to their beliefs. In other words, they don't know what they want.

As far as most Dems in Congress and the netroots seeing things differently, well, yeah. Obviously.
[ Parent ]
What if a candidate believes in bi-partisanship? (0.00 / 0)
Seems that they could fulfill both requirements.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
why? (0.00 / 0)
Bipartisanship is fundamentally a process argument about how people in DC should treat other people in DC.  It is largely irrelevant to anyone except people who care about how elites interact with each other.  To those people, it is very very important.  To anyone else, it doesn't matter.  For instance, I work with Republicans, but bipartisanship isn't important to me.  It's a tool. 

To put forward an analogy, few people really cares whether the CEO at GM makes decisions by consensus or by fiat, they only care if GM cars are good. 

[ Parent ]
I don't think that's what "bipartisanship" is. (4.00 / 2)
That is what is meant when the word is used in DC, yes.  It's been bastardized to mean something that has not much relevance to anyone outside the Beltway.

But, the word has another meaning besides the Broder one, and that is, understanding the parties to be two collections of constituencies, most of which are valid and legitimate, bipartisanship is the tendency to look for solutions that are more win-win and take-into-account-all-valid-interests, as opposed to the tendency to deliver 110% to your constituency groups and engage in a scorched earth campaign to destroy those on the other side.

And that, looking for solutions that work for everyone instead of looking to destroy your opponents, is regarded highly and seriously by ordinary voters outside of DC.

So, for instance, the medical-malpractice "reforms" that the GOP has instituted around the country were as partisan as can be, because they were intended not just to hurt Democrats, but to categorically destroy trial lawyers as a community.  No one practices med-mal law in Texas anymore cause there's no money in it (damages capped at $250,000, split between plaintiff and lawyer)(I think).

Whereas Obama's refusal to declare outright war on the insurance companies is bipartisan in the meaningful sense.  Unfortunately it's also poor policy (Edwards seems to have the right idea: single payer by slow gradual attrition).  But it is a conscious decision to not declare total war on an industry that employs 1%+ of the American population, and there is some value in that.

Now it's true that the GOP, at the height of its power/arrogance/stupidity/absurdity/cusp-of-decline, has very few reasonable demands to offer.  So we're at a uniquely unipartisan moment, where the representatives of the other party have almost nothing sane on their wish-list.  (Although American business has some sane-ish demands on immigration.)  But that's far more an abberation than the norm.  In general, voters recognize something of value, which often carries the label "bipartisan."  And they're right.

[ Parent ]
In fact, I should have said (0.00 / 0)
even Edwards' health care plan is fundamentally bipartisan: it gives private insurance companies that already exist a chance to compete with the government (giveaway 1), and if they prove unable, it gives them a twenty-year window or so in which to unravel themselves slowly and less painfully (giveaway 2).  Contrast to a full Single Payer system that if passed by Congress, throws these companies out of business immediately.  The first plan takes the legitimate interest of insurance companies in their own existence into account, the second one doesn't.

As a consequence, the first one would be a lot easier to pass than the second one.  Major side benefit of being somewhat "conciliatory."

[ Parent ]
Here Here (0.00 / 0)
And that's exactly why, as much as I enjoy reading netroots blogs, I don't identify myself as a member of the netroots: because, it seems to me, the emphasis on partisanship is in tension with a view of democratic (small-d) values on which there are real, substantive reasons to want policies to be viewed as justifiable to more than a bare majority of citizens. 

My sense is that Obama gets this, and that the netroots often don't (or, perhaps more accurately in some cases, think that 40% of the country is so batshit crazy that there's no hope for consensus). Edwards might also, though I'm less sure. Clinton, I think, just doesn't: her form of 'bipartisanship' seems to me to be entirely poll-motivated (witness how it went away for much of the primary).

[ Parent ]
The netroots think this: (0.00 / 0)
"that 40% of the country is so batshit crazy that there's no hope for consensus."

The more accurate statement of that, in fact, is that while most of the constituencies within the R umbrella can be dealt with successfully and quasi-honestly, the representatives they elect in the form of The Republican Party cannot be.  So the only solution for Democrats is to ignore the wierdos wearing the R tags in Congress, and attempt to cut deals directly with their constituency groups.  Which, incidentally, they're starting to do.  But while some of their constituency groups are not insane, others are (Dobson?), and their elected representatives are almost uniformly so unreasonable as to be de facto insane.

And, unfortunately, going behind the Rs' backs and cutting deals with their constituency groups doesn't get you votes from Rs on the floor.  All it gets you is a release of pressure on the conservative Ds, and no effective pushback in the press, because the press is in contact with the constituency groups themselves just as much as they are with the Rs who represent them.

I dunno, maybe I could be reading the whole thing wrong.  But, if the GOP represents at least some legitimate constituencies, AND is temporarily insane, then that's the only solution to the problem.  Cut the GOP out of the loop and make your own deals.  As long as the House and Senate GOPs are drifting further to the right, there's nothing else to do.

[ Parent ]
I think your view is too limited (0.00 / 0)
"Bipartisanship is fundamentally a process argument about how people in DC should treat other people in DC."

What about those of us outside the Beltway?

Even within your narrow view that fundamental bipartisanship is only relevant for folks in DC, I think you're badly misguided and the analogy about GM is only relevant for those of us that might be a "constituent" of GM.  In which case, we might VERY WELL care how decisions - especially those that directly effect our daily lives - are made. 

This statement: "For instance, I work with Republicans, but bipartisanship isn't important to me.  It's a tool. "  Is confusing.  Why would you use a "tool" that is "not important"?

To me, "bipartisan" is not limited to DC, nor is it limited to working with Republicans.  Its about including and considering the views of all the constituents  - even those that are not members of your own party.  I won't reiterate the posts of texdem - just indicate my support for those views.



"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
There's also a huge difference between ... (0.00 / 0)
Rethuglican elites and many people who identify Republican.
We really do want to bring in people who identify Republican but are more at home in a progressive Democratic party.

The trick is to win them over without compromising our progressiveness.  Edwards and Obama get this; Clinton, not so much.  Economic and political populism vs. centrism (especially on foreign policy and corporate influence).

We need to somehow get beyond these 50+1% "victories" and losses because deadlock on issues like health care, getting out of Iraq, the environment, etc. maintains the status quo--and that is, after all, the opposite of progress.

Careful, principled gestures of reasonableness, openness, goodwill toward the minority of Republicans willing to play OUR game instead of Rove/Delay/McConnell/Bush/Gingrich/Cheney is absolutely essential to discredit the right and get all the things we really want.

IMO.

[ Parent ]
Maybe its not intended to appeal to Democrats (0.00 / 0)
All the bi-partisan bluster and talk of possibly putting Republicans in their cabinets seems more directed at setting themselves up for the general election.  [I realize that many on this site think that this calculation is wrong - but that doesn't seem to have stopped the practice.]

I mean, "good" Democrats will go and vote for whichever nominee gets the nod, right?  YOUR vote is certain. They calculate that they need to expand their appeal and start running against the Republicans. Theoretical talk about running mates and cabinet members is a fairly non-threatening way to lay some ground-work on that front, no? Non-threatening because the only folks that will be upset are the Leftists (or what passes for Leftists) in the Democratic base - and, as has been made astonishingly apparent, the party leadership takes the base for granted. 

Besides, in this three-way race (with others breathing down their necks) the last remaining tactic for the primaries is the negative approach - and who wants to get nasty during the holidays?  No, better to get in a little snipe hunting by playing to the "moderates" - non-aligned voters can caucus and vote in IA and NH, yes?

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
Why is Arnold in the news today? (0.00 / 0)
I mean besides this manufactured nonsense.  Can you tell me?  Is it a good thing or a bad thing?
Time Honored Tradition (0.00 / 0)
Clinton isn't going after Obama on having a token member of the other party in the cabinet b/c it is a time honored tradition.  Bush had Norm Minetta as his Transportation Secy for 6 yrs, Clinton had Bill Cohen as his Defense Secy for 4 yrs, etc.  Now if I were Obama I wouldn't have mentioned the idea during a Dem primary but it is not anything out of the ordinary.  Whether or not it is a good idea is completely different issue.

Re The Article On Obama's votes in the IL legislature - I read it and at first I found the voting present strange.  However, the article said it was not uncommon in IL, especially when you are trying to give cover to some vulnerable members.  I know it is not done in my state but every place is different.  Slow news day if this is the best thing campaigns have to talk about it.

Ever Heard Of.... (0.00 / 0)
Open primaries or changing your party identification even on the day of the caucus or primary?  It's called voters and it's best that our candidates not neglect them--even if you folks don't seem to grasp the concept.  And, yes, that is sarcasm.

Missouri is on Super Tuesday and the voter ID here has no party identification at all.  The voter goes into the polling place and asks for the party ballot (Republican, Democratic, Green, Libertarian, etc.) or the "issues" ballot which has zero candidates on it.  No one cares what party you think you belong to. 

Missouri is not alone.  I do wish the sites--like this one--that set themselves up as political blogs would at least get a minimal level of knowledge about the primaries and caucuses.  It is shallow analysis without this knowledge.

OK Genius (4.00 / 1)
If you really want to get into pissing match over knowledge of voter partisan self-identification in primaries and caucuses, then I assume you are aware that 65-70% of all people who self-identify as independent actually consistently favor one party over another. that means that even in open primary states like New Hampshire, only 80% of all participants in the Democratic primary will either be self-identified Democrats or independents who almost always vote Democrat but don't self-identify. In Iowa, over 90% of Democratic caucus goers will fit that description.
[ Parent ]
Obama-mania (4.00 / 1)
I've presumed that Obama's media love has pushed Edwards and Clinton to sound less partisan.  Obama has been pushing his post-partisanship crap and the media licks it up with a spoon.  Now Hillary "Polarizing" Clinton and John "Angry" Edwards need to show they can play nice, too. 

We wouldn't want some nasty, partisan for the Democratic nominee, would we?  The Republicans are thinking about nominating that nice Mike Huckabee (religious zealot) or straight talking John McCain (rightwing pandering warmonger).  So they don't need to reach out to Democrats.  But those nasty Democrats have only given Bush 99% of what he wants and that's just, like, totally mean and unfair.  And now they might nominate Hillary Clinton, who is completely hated by rightwing Republicans, or John Edwards who sounds, like, really angry over the Republicans having totally screwed over the country.  How incredibly mean of them.  When will they give us someone that conservatives like David Brooks and Andy Sullivan can love?

Edwards was really angry (0.00 / 0)
when he sent us off to war.  Or was he? I know I was.
[ Parent ]
But apparently not angry enough (0.00 / 0)
to not support a guy who is in Congress, and has done nothing to lead us out of the war. But hey let's play parse the war like a good Obama-maniac.
[ Parent ]
when a republican says they'll appoint a democrat (4.00 / 2)
call me an ambulance, I'll be lying on the floor in cardiac arrest.
Hillary Sucks (0.00 / 0)
Hillary called Obama and JRE Bush today.  How low is this??  Also, the Clintonistas are the ones who smeared JRE on The National Enquirer story.  I will not vote for Hillary under any circumstance and specially after she said that a vote for Obama and JRE was a vote for Bush.  She is the worse democrat we could ever have as a president.  If she is the nominee I will work against her.  I have been a yellow dog democrat all my life, and this is the first time that I have ever disliked a democrat running for office.  The things that the Clintonistas have been doing to Obama and JRE is lower than anything I have seen any democrat do to another democrat. 
About as Low as Obama (4.00 / 1)
Obama was, I believe, the first democrat to compare one of his competitors to Bush, calling Clinton "Bush-Cheney Lite."

I didn't like it from Obama and I don't like it from Clinton, but let's not pretend that Clinton is somehow so much lower than her competition. 

I started out really liking all the candidates and now I only kind of like all the candidates.  Every one of them has made attacks that I think are beneath them.  But that's primary season.

[ Parent ]
National Enquirer Smear (4.00 / 1)
Unless there's some news about the origin of the story, I don't think there's been any indication the Clinton's were behind that B-S National Enquirer story about Edwards.  And it wasn't in her best interest - if she doesn't win Iowa, she needs Edwards to, which is why her fire has been so focused on Obama.  There's no reason for the Clinton people to push that crap.  The one campaign with a known history of pushing sex stories and who would benefit from Edwards tanking in Iowa is Obama. 

Having said that, after reading how little there was to the story, I honestly don't believe Obama's campaign is behind it.  If you're going to push a story like that there needs to be enough to it to be worth any possible blowback. I'd like to think all three top Dems know to push smears that have some chance of sticking and not to waste their time on weak crap like that NE story.

I suspect the National Enquirer's source was some local, North Carolina, Edwards' hater. 

[ Parent ]
HRC's campaign has repeated lies r.e. Obama's (0.00 / 0)
supposed Muslim schooling.
  That and the was-he-drug-dealing stuff are at a different level than anyone else has gone in this race. Both smack of racism and don't belong in the Dem. party.
[ Parent ]
Oh please.... (4.00 / 1)

If she is the nominee I will work against her.

Go ahead, go volunteer for Romney.

Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.

Grow up.

[ Parent ]
I think you mean.... (4.00 / 2)
...............'Preacher' HuckaBee!

By the way this person has an absolute right to do as she sees fit with her time and effort.

Failure to understand that principle is a failure to understand what democracy is really about.

I won't support Senators Cackle and Compromise under any conditions. Why should I?

They don't support my agenda for the nation. In fact they go out of the way to marginalize my positions on just about every significant issue. They do this because they've been hired to do so. Neither of them has any interest in anything other than getting elected so they can begin the big payback to their backers. Free Left Blogistan has come to understand that in the last months. Neither of them could be elected dog-catcher here. One hopes that the voters are starting to understand this in time. Edwards rise in Iowa might indicate that they are.

I will not be blackmailed into supporting either of them because of the possibility that Romney/McCain/Huckabee  might be elected. If the Senators C want my support they have to deserve it.

And based on their campaigns.....

They don't.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

[ Parent ]
Extortion (0.00 / 0)
"Take what we offer, shut up, and vote for any old Democrat we care to wheel out - because those Republicans are so damned SCARY".

I'll go bi-partisan and quote a Republican: "Fuck off!"

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
Hope and fear (4.00 / 1)
I think candidates tout "bipartisanship" because their polling picks up that some voters want something they aren't getting in elections -- they want to feel that they are casting their vote in a way that accords with their hopes rather than their fears. Obama is clearly banking on these folks heavily.

Recent elections have been all fear -- we're getting a reaction. For those of you who've actually done voter contact (or even better, volunteer recruitment) haven't you heard for years the complaints of voters who want to be inspired, to cast a vote "for" someone, rather than against someone? "Bipartisanship" is a lightweight, phony, response to that, I think.

I'm pretty sure that on a tactical level, fear still trumps hope as a voter motivator, but if anyone could actually tap hope, they might go far. Note -- I don't think Obama will actually pull this off, nor do I have much confidence he'd live up to his promise if by some miracle he did.

Can it happen here?

Richardson Attacks Clinton on Iraq Flip Flop (0.00 / 0)
Richardson has been consistent from Day 1 of the campaign that he would promptly pull ALL US forces out of Iraq.  Clinton has refused to make any firm commitment to a time line on withdrawal. 

What has Richardson gotten for being consistent, repeatedly raising the issue of the war during the campaign and showing the courage to tell it as it is on Iraq?  He gets accused of pandering and being unrealistic (attacked by many in the MSM that thought invading Iraq was a great idea). 

Here is his press release. 

CEDAR RAPIDS, IA-- New Mexico Governor and Democratic Presidential candidate Bill Richardson today issued the following statement on Senator Hillary Clinton's drastic change to her position on the Iraq war:

"Senator Clinton's statement that we could 'certainly get all the troops out within a year' is a stunning flip-flop from what she has been saying all along. She consistently has called for leaving troops in Iraq to fight al-Qaida, train Iraqis, and protect U.S. assets. Has that suddenly been abandoned? If so, why has she changed her mind?

"In a September debate, she said that she could not commit to getting our troops out in five years, let alone in one year. Has anything changed about the logistics besides her position in the polls? It is clear that she is responding directly to my latest ad and my statements that she repeatedly has called for leaving thousands of troops in Iraq indefinitely. Rather than defending her position, apparently she simply has changed it."

Since entering the race, Governor Richardson consistently has called for bringing all of our troops home from Iraq, a monumental diplomatic effort to reach a political reconciliation that could be enforced by a multinational peacekeeping force, and a donor conference to infuse the capital necessary to rebuild Iraq.

Recent statements on Iraq by Senator Clinton:

  *

  "Clinton: U.S. troops needed in Iraq beyond 2009"
  http://www.cnn.com/2...
  March 15, 2007.

  "If elected president, Sen. Hillary Clinton said, she would likely keep some U.S. forces in Iraq in a supporting role after 2009 because America has "a remaining military as well as a political mission" that requires a presence there."

  * "A Duty to Mislead: Politics and the Iraq War." By Ted Koppel. All Things Considered. June 11, 2007.
  http://www.npr.org/t...

  "But I ran into an old source the other day who held a senior position at the Pentagon until his retirement. He occasionally briefs Senator Clinton on the situation in the Gulf. She told him that if she were elected president and then reelected four years later, she would still expect U.S. troops to be in Iraq at the end of her second term."

  * "Democratic Field Says Leaving Iraq May Take Years." By Jeff Zeleny and Marc Santora. The New York Times. 12 August 2007.

  "Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York would leave residual forces to fight terrorism and to stabilize the Kurdish region in the north … But she has affirmed in recent months remarks she made to The New York Times in March, when she said that there were ''remaining vital national security interests in Iraq'' that would require a continuing deployment of American troops."

  * "Democratic Rivals Caution Against Swift Iraq Pullout; Little Rancor Seen in Iowa Debate." By Anne E. Kornblut. The Washington Post. 20 August 2007.

  "Clinton, Edwards and Obama said in effect that they supported Biden's position, cautioning that it will be necessary to leave some troops behind to assist Iraqi forces and Iraqis who have helped Americans on the ground."

  * "If Iraq Falls." By Josef Joffe. Wall Street Journal. 27 August 2007.

  "Listen to Hillary Clinton, who would leave "residual forces" to fight terrorism. Or to Barack Obama, who would stay in Iraq with an as-yet-unspecified force."

  * "Democrats' Struggle to Change Course in Iraq Had Produced Much Debate, Few Results." By Shailagh Murray and Dan Balz. The Washington Post. 10 September 2007.

  "Asked on Jan. 17 whether she supported a recommendation by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group to remove all combat forces by the spring of 2008, Clinton replied, "I'm not going to support a specific deadline.""

  * "General Gets Rough Ride as Senators Fight for High Ground Over Election." By Tom Baldwin. The Times (London). 12 September 2007.

  "Indeed, both Mr Obama and Mrs Clinton -- despite promising to end the war -- acknowledge that they would retain a "residual force" in Iraq for some years."

  * "Planning for Defeat: How Should we Withdraw from Iraq?" By George Packer. The New Yorker. 17 September 2007.

  "In the view of most Democrats, the inevitability of reduced troop numbers, the political stalemate in Baghdad, and the dwindling of public support in America require that a withdrawal begin soon. All the Democratic candidates for President have declared that they will end the war… The report did not impose a timeline, but others have tried to do so. In the Senate, two Democrats -- Jack Reed, of Rhode Island, and Carl Levin, of Michigan -- have introduced an amendment to a defense-appropriations bill which would require troop withdrawals to begin within four months of the bill's passage, leaving behind only a "limited presence." Among its co-sponsors are three Republican senators and three Democratic Presidential candidates: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Joseph Biden."

  * "Clinton: I won't fund Iraq war without withdrawal plan" http://beta.cnn.com/.... September 23, 2007.

  "Clinton said, if elected president, she would end the conflict 'as quickly and responsibly as I can,' but said some U.S. forces would likely remain as trainers, to protect Americans and to battle Islamic militants loyal to al Qaeda."

  * "Hitting All the Sunday Talk Shows, Clinton Says a Lot but Reveals Little." By Anne E. Kornblut. The Washington Post. 24 September 2007.

  "Asked by ABC's George Stephanopoulos whether she would withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq during a first term as president, Clinton (D-N.Y.) gave a simple answer: She did not know."

  * "Clinton's Game of Dodgeball." By David S. Broder. The Washington Post. 30 September 2007.

  "During the debate, she rarely came out of a defensive crouch, as if determined to protect her favored position. Answering the first question, she said her goal would be to withdraw all American troops from Iraq by 2013, but "it is very difficult to know what we are going to be inheriting" from the Bush administration, so she cannot make any pledge -- as Richardson and others feel free to do. Troops might be needed for counterterrorism work for many years."

  * "Democrats Try to Play Up War Stance." By Angie Drobnic Holan. Saint Petersburg Times. 2 October 2007.

  "As time has gone by, Clinton has urged more forcefully for withdrawal. During the most recent debate, she said she would begin redeployment immediately if elected. Nevertheless, Clinton resists setting deadlines or timetables for withdrawal."

  * "The Value of an Exit Strategy; Clarity on Iraq Could Make Biden and Richardson Contenders." The Washington Post. 2 October 2007.

  "At a debate last Wednesday, each of them refused to pledge that American troops would be out of Iraq even by the end of her or his first term. If the troops will still be there, what strategy would they be advancing?"

  * "Clinton's 2008 Lead is Clear, Though Her Policies Often Aren't." By Peter Nicholas. Los Angeles Times. 4 October 2007.

  "We must begin to end the war in Iraq and bring our troops home as quickly and responsibly as we can," the New York senator said. Her call to "begin to end the war" left Clinton substantial maneuvering room -- and since then she has refused even to commit to withdrawing all U.S. troops by 2013, the end of the next president's first term."

http://www.richardso...

More of Arnold at the RNC 2004 (0.00 / 0)

This is a Democratic Primary, Right? | 41 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox