Clinton Literally Applauds Troop Escalation

by: Chris Bowers

Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 06:46


Here is an important campaign difference:

Clinton and Obama's divergent views on the troop surge in Iraq, however, were plainly visible.

When Bush proclaimed, "Ladies and gentlemen, some may deny the surge is working, but among terrorists there is no doubt," Clinton sprang to her feet in applause but Obama remained firmly seated. The president's line divided most of the Democratic audience, with nearly half standing to applaud and the other half sitting in stony silence.

The most consistent criticism of Obama online has focused upon his rhetorical posture in relation to Republicans and conservatives: conciliatory language of unity, the use of right wing talking points on health care and social security, positing left-wing DFH strawmen (70's style, anti-military love-in was my favorite), triangulation that blames ideologues and partisans on both sides for polarization, etc. However, here is an instance where the roles are starkly reversed, as Hillary Clinton literally stands up and applauds George W. Bush for his troop surge, while Obama remains seated.

There are not many ways to interpret Clinton's remarks except as applause for the escalation she ostensibly opposed.  Even if she was applauding "the troops," that would imply that the Democrats who did not stand up were somehow against the troops, which is the most vicious right-wing talking point of all. This is should also be a stark reminder of the difference between Clinton and Obama on supporting and not regretting / opposing the war in the first place, on Clinton's general hawkishness, on ending the causes of wars like Iraq, and even on the continued presence of a residual American military presence in Iraq. If Clinton applauds the escalation, then why should I have any confidence that she will keep only a small residual presence in Iraq? This is a terrible move by Clinton, one that makes me feel as though more than five years have passed since the AUMF and nothing has changed, and that she is portraying her foreign policy views dishonestly during the campaign.

I think there are very clear differences between Obama and Clinton on this nexus of policy, rhetorical, and administrative issues. In the final analysis, it is why I definitely prefer Obama to Clinton in this campaign.

Chris Bowers :: Clinton Literally Applauds Troop Escalation

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Clinton Literally Applauds Troop Escalation | 39 comments
I noticed that too (4.00 / 1)
If her point was to "support the troops" - she had a number of other opportunities.  No other explanation than Clinton wanted to express support for the "surge" - genuine, or not.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
Oh please (4.00 / 5)
You have a knack for taking a nugget and using it to conclude some absolute meaning in a drawn-out essay which again bleeds from your bias.

At least Obama was a gentleman and turned his back on Hillary to shake hands. Maybe I'll write an essay on the personality characteristics of Obama based on this one act and conclude there is no other way to interpret it.

Talk about Body language.

Talk about over-the-top analysis.

Oy!

So, why did Clinton give the "surge" (4.00 / 1)
a standing ovation?


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
I get it (4.00 / 5)
Don't answer the charge, call the person pointing it out biased, and change the subject.

You seem to have internalized the Clinton campaign style quite nicely.
[ Parent ]
No you don't get it, but I'll answer (4.00 / 1)
your "charge".  Applause at that point would have been for the success of the US troops that have been sent into harm's way by the surge.  Not for the surge itself.

If a US Senator cannot applaud the success of the young service men and women doing their duty, what the hell have we come to in this country?  Your "charge" is despicable at best!

[ Parent ]
Case in point above (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
No (4.00 / 2)
The subject of the sentence was not the troops, but the surge. Our troops are not even mentioned in the sentence, but the surge is. It is clearly applauding the surge, not the troops.

And, even if you think she was applauding the troops, that still implies that the 50% of Dems who didn't applaud are somehow not supportive of the troops. The caucus was divided on this one, and Clinton was on the wrong side. 
[ Parent ]
Damn the caucus and it's split (0.00 / 0)
As for your scurrilous "charge", it's your opinion and I disagee. 
[ Parent ]
Extending your logic... (0.00 / 0)
... all of the people who vote for Clinton must support the surge too. And all of the people who vote for Obama are against the troops.

I agree with the commenters who say you are making too much of very little.

[ Parent ]
There were many other opportunities (0.00 / 0)
to stand up and honor the US soldiers - and in a far less divisive context.  But, I'll take your point - one standing ovation does not obliterate her many words. 

The contrast between the actions of Clinton and the bulk of the Democrats at the SOTU (including Obama) who did not laud the "surge" remains, however.



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

[ Parent ]
This stuff (4.00 / 1)
is making MYDD almost unreadible these days.

[ Parent ]
No Chris...YOU don't get it (0.00 / 0)
Greg is right. You take minor actions out of context and draw broad conclusions.

The fact is that you don't know why Clinton AND half of the democrats applauded. You have ZERO justification to say that they weren't applauding the fact that the troops have done a good job considering the horrible mismanagement of the Bush Administration.

Your problem is that you buy into this false dichotomy that either the troops "fail" or the Bush administration is right. No thats not the point. The point is that of course more troops will help provide more security for the Iraqi people in the short term. But the real question is, why has the Iraqi parliament failed to come together on enact important political reconciliation? Is it because of the insurgency and the terrorists? Hell no! Many members of the Iraqi parliament support the insurgents and protect them.


There are not many ways to interpret Clinton's remarks except as applause for the escalation she ostensibly opposed.

Clinton said that the surge was not a political solution to Iraq's problems. She was right. This is the same thing that military commanders said at the time the president was proposing the surge.

Even if she was applauding "the troops," that would imply that the Democrats who did not stand up were somehow against the troops, which is the most vicious right-wing talking point of all.

There was clearly no consensus among democrats whether they should applaud the troops or not. The article you cite points out that half the democrats stood and half did not. "The president's line divided most of the Democratic audience, with nearly half standing to applaud and the other half sitting in stony silence."
Thats hardly Clinton's fault. If Obama is so post partisan why didn't he ignore the dem vs rep political aspect and applaud the troops? The door for criticism swings both ways. It's was a tricky situation based on a vague line, and you could fairly interp the President's comment's either way. Stop trying to isolate Clinton so you can make a pariah out of her.

This is should also be a stark reminder of the difference between Clinton and Obama on supporting and not regretting / opposing the war in the first place, on Clinton's general hawkishness, on ending the causes of wars like Iraq, and even on the continued presence of a residual American military presence in Iraq.

As they say in logic, your conclusion does not follow from your premises. In fact you don't really provide an argument for why applauding the troops means that she won't withdraw or an argument for her being dishonest. The only dishonesty here is your intellectual dishonesty with making assertions with no evidence or justification.

[ Parent ]
You have a point here (4.00 / 2)
I'm an Obama supporter, but after umpteen times of (at the time) Edwards supporters netroots supporters doing Talmudic interpretations of x part of one of Obama's speeches, I certainly have gotten tired of generalizing from one statement, one behavior, one thing, that it marks "the secret", to that person and their behavior.

Nevertheless, Obama certainly is in a better relationship to Iraq than Clinton.  She is certainly more "pro-war", certainly has never apologized for her 2002 vote, and certainly there is a clear distinction between Obama and Hilary on this issue.

[ Parent ]
Applauding the troops success (0.00 / 0)
I believe she was supporting the troops and applauding their success.
So, then the "surge" is a success? (0.00 / 0)
And if not, then what "success" have the US soldiers accomplished?

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
The troops themselves have been (0.00 / 0)
somewhat successful in holding down violence where they are more concentrated.  That's all the success they're going to be able to achieve and all that's been asked.  Politically, it's a huge failure and that was doomed from the start.

There is no contradiction between saying the troops portion of the surge has been as successful as possible but the whole thing is a failure.

[ Parent ]
The Anbar Awakening (0.00 / 0)
the "completion" of ethnic cleansing in Baghdad, and the influence of al-Sistani and al-Sadr.

Based on what I read and hear, these are the roots of the "success".  Lauding the US military and/or the US soldiers for these simply plays into the hawk-view and I want no part of it. 

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

[ Parent ]
Clinton in the General.. (4.00 / 6)
Chris, I would advise you to go back and watch an exchange from the Democratic debate last week when Clinton and Obama mentioned how they would take on McCain in a general election. Clinton posited that she would be the only one strong enough to compete on national security against McCain, thereby implying that the others were doves who were too weak.  Obama countered that we must draw a stark contrast with McCain's hawkishness and that his calls for diplomacy and direct talks with our enemies and are friends will provide a key difference between he and McCain (as well as his initial opposition to the Iraq War).

I have said this before, and I will say it again, in a general election against John McCain, I suspect Mark Penn (remember, he ran Lieberman's campaign in 2004) will advise Clinton to focus solely on bread and butter issues and will either give McCain a complete pass on his absurd foreign policy positions, or will try to show how "tough" she is by taking hawkish positions.

Obama, on the otherhand, will be forced to defend his initial opposition to the Iraq War and his calls for direct talks with Iran. When challenged by McCain, he will state his case for a progressive foreign policy and win that debate over time.

Future GOP Attack Ad On Obama (4.00 / 1)
If Obama wins the nomination, look for the "unfit for Commander-in-chief" attack ad, in slow-motion black and white, showing Obama staying seated when Bush praised the troops.  The transcript will read: "When it was time for Senator Obama to stand up for the troops, he stayed in his seat.  Blah, blah, blah...".
What's your point? (4.00 / 1)
The GOP is going to run an attack ad like that against whichever candidate they face. They'd run that ad against Douglas McArthur if they had the chance.

Thing is, that's a bad subject for them. Their likely candidate is John '100 years' McCain. Any halfway decent candidate should be able to hit that one out of the park without even having to concentrate.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

[ Parent ]
Geesh (4.00 / 1)
No matter what Obama says. he gets to restate what he really means in endless rounds of What Obama Really Meant.  But Clinton stands at an SOTU and that means she loves the Iraq surge, no matter how many times she's said otherwise.
Is there video? (4.00 / 1)


John McCain won't insure children
Assume nothing when in Hillary land (0.00 / 0)
Please, its doesn't matter, Hillary will do whatever is expedient -

She voted for the war because it was the wise political move at the time -

She clapped and jumped up last night because it was the wise move at the moment -

She will all of a sudden change her mind on Iraq as soon as she gets the nomination because it will be the wise move at the moment.

Whatever she does is irrelevant right now because in the general election it will all change because she will do whatever is the wise move at the moment.

Just one of the resident HillBill haters who knows better to trust the Clintons -

Obama needs a 'Hawk' Element? (0.00 / 0)
He just has too...

What happens if Israel does attack Iran?  Will the American people YET AGAIN jump on the military bandwagon?

This made me ill when I first read it:

"...A majority of Americans, including Jews, now support military action to stop Iran's nuclear weapons program, according to a controversial new poll, reflecting what several Jewish leaders say are sharp shifts in Israel as well.

The national survey, conducted by Zogby International, shows that slightly more than half of Americans - and more than two-thirds of Jews - now favor a strike against Iran before it becomes a nuclear power..."

http://www.thejewish...

She's pandering, of course!
http://www.ynetnews....

But Obama really needs to come out with a 'strong' US military defense plan without having to go down the Clinton 'bring-it-on' rhetoric...

American Pride and War Bluster has always won in the past -- hasn't it?

He has (0.00 / 0)
See Obama's response to the SOTU.  He sounds very hawkish on Afghanistan.
[ Parent ]
I know... (0.00 / 0)
But I think you get my meaning...
[ Parent ]
Nope, I'm slow (4.00 / 1)
Sorry, but I thought that was exactly the kind of thing you were looking for.  If not this kind of stuff, than what?

I actually don't hold Kerry, Clinton and Edward's war votes against them as much as most folks here, but I think these votes really hurt them in the general election.  Four years ago Kerry said all the right things, but his own war vote undermined the message making the flip-flop charge very easy.

Obama can make a much stronger case that we are going after the wrong people and wasting our resources on a stupid war.  And as his SOTU response shows, that is what he is doing. 

[ Parent ]
OK -- fair enough... (0.00 / 0)
I watched the 4:40 min clip. Here's my take, just my opinion...

His speech had a strong economic message -- which is totally understandable because current polls are telling us the economy is the #1 issue Americans are concerned about...

HOWEVER, we all know polls can switch in a moments notice when the American people are presented with a National Security issue -- a 'fear' issue... works every damn time --

SO, eventhough I totally 'get-it' when you push Obama's foreign policy (economic) credientials, when Obama tells us his first priority would be putting troops back into Afghanstan to fight Al Quaeda (with Pakistan obviously being an issue aswell), and that a 'withdrawal' from occupied Iraq is rationally what we should be doing, he is missing his chance to address other 'Regional' disputes that might v. well blow up in his face.

These regional disputes that are extremely important to certain segments of the American people. 

If a regional 'incident' did happen to blow up -- just sayin' a 'withdrawal' talking point without the caveat, or having the foresight to know how to use our Armed Forces if such an incident should occur might well come back to bite him?

Hillary has covered her bases with her rhetoric, she knows it.  Remember Harold Ford said the same thing -- Americans want to win...  Obama needs to cover his bases -- IMHO he needs to bring some more national security talk into his speeches -- just in case.  He won't have a chance after the fact.  We can't afford another warmonger in the WH.

Reminder -- I think this is true...

SCOTT RITTER: "...when people say Iran is a threat, we agree. And this has been going on since 1979. So the American public, and indeed the American Congress, is preconditioned for war, for confrontation with Iran. That's why we can have a policy that transitions from dual containment under the Clinton administration to regime change under the Bush administration, without any significant debate taking place whatsoever.

..."Wait a minute, we're losing the war in Iraq, and there's 65% of the population that's turned against this war. Certainly we're not going to go to war with Iran."

Again, I mean to correct the American public here. 65% of the American public aren't antiwar. They're just anti-losing. You see, if we were winning the war in Iraq, they'd all be for it. If we had brought democracy, they'd be cheering the President. It wouldn't matter that we violated international law. It wouldn't even matter that we lied about weapons of mass destruction. We'd be winning. God bless America. Ain't we good? USA, USA! But we're losing, so they're against Iraq...
http://www.democracy...

Is Obama prepared for this scenario...  Will Economics still trump an attack on Iran?

[ Parent ]
More policy (0.00 / 0)
IMHO he needs to bring some more national security talk into his speeches

I think he needs more policy talk across the board, including foreign policy.  This is just another (good) example.

[ Parent ]
Maybe... (0.00 / 0)
Timing is everything ... but more 'talkingpoints' at least on national security issues is up there for me...

Hoping Gore comes out for him... and soon.

[ Parent ]
Another Clinton hate-fest (0.00 / 0)
on the blogosphere...
Lets interpret what she claps to rather than what she explicitly said at the debates - " that the surge wasn't working in what it was set out to do" 
and that of course the military be successful to some extent but that it wasnt the solution !

sigh

Well if it isn't working (4.00 / 2)
Then why applaud the liar-in-chief when he says it is?

The purpose of the surge was to give breathing room for a political compromise in Iraq.  That is as far away  as ever.  The surge didn't meet this objective.  Buying off some Sunni leaders may have reduced violence in some quarters, but at the cost of increased ethnic cleansing.

I agree that if nominated and if elected Hillary will feel the need to be tough and that will be bad for the US--just more of the same, in fact.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

[ Parent ]
Flexing Muscle (0.00 / 0)
We Democrats need to allow our candidates articulate a "strong on defense and national security" message. 

We can't win back the White House without it.

There's strong and there's smart (4.00 / 1)
At least 60% of the people have had it with  more and more war.  The ones who want it will vote for McCain.

Obama promises to be smarter and to reengage with our allies and enemies as well.  Most of the public has seen the error of tough for tough's sake over the last 7 years.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

[ Parent ]
Strong on Defense and National Security (4.00 / 1)
does not necessarily imply that Democrats have to applaud the "surge", does it? 

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
Obama (0.00 / 0)
The case that I make for Obama is that he generates extraordinary turnout at the polls among two demographic groups that have traditionally under-performed:  youth, and African-Americans.  Younger people are voting in the Democratic primaries at three times the rate they have ever voted before, and most of their support is going to Obama.  I'm not sure what the numbers are for turnout in the black community thus far, but they are massively bigger than anything else we have ever seen, and I think it is reasonable to expect that African-American participation in the general election will be even greater than it has been in the primaries if Obama is our nominee.

So, we take the Democratic base of liberals, enviros, labor unions, and various progressives, and add in a huge youth componenent, plus millions of newly energized black voters, PLUS the rapidly growing Latino consituency and, voila!  We have a recipe for a tidal wave that has the potential to make the Democratic Party the dominant political institution in this country for the next century.

There is no equivalent scenario on the Republican side; their 'big tent' is already in tatters, and they simply cannot produce the sort of turnout that Obama can.  Hilary Clinton and John Edwards do not attract huge numbers of previously disenfranchised voters into the pool the way Obama does.

The end of the Bush/Cheney era will be a beautiful thing to behold, but I think we ought to shoot higher and leap at the opportunity to have a transformative, once-in-a-millenium election that completly re-arranges the electoral dynamics in this country for the long term, and Obama offers us that chance.  There isn't a great deal of difference between our three candidates on policy; the principal difference lies in Obama's ability to dramatically expand the base demographic for the Democratic side and reduce the Republican Party to a quaint irrelevancy.

Body language interpretation here? (0.00 / 0)
Clapping for the troops as a reason to support her opponent?!

Really Chris, I love your analysis - am always pointing people to it, it's first-rate - but how about a calm analysis of their respective Senate votes on funding the military in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Leave the clapping analysis to those quacks on Matthews.

so when will we see the viral ad? (0.00 / 0)
if obama is forced to explain himself whenever nitpickers decide to take him out of context and twist his words then why shouldn't clinton?

as with humor, spur of the moment reactions often betray the carefully manicured exterior.  just as this spur of the moment reaction betrayed HRC's true feelings about this war and its escalation.  and just as obama's artful turning of the back to HRC betrayed the deep antipathy between the two camps.

get cracking obamaniacs out there with video editing skills and a bit of creativity!

Liebermaneque (0.00 / 0)
This is really scary and the first time I've considered voting for Obama over Clinton.

Banned for posting five straight diaries.
Clinton Literally Applauds Troop Escalation | 39 comments
Donate to Open Left









QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox