How Anti-War Were Democrats?

Matt Stoller takes a trip down memory lane to explain why Hillary Clinton can be so popular without apologizing for her vote to authorize the Iraq War:

There are a good number of Democrats that straight up opposed the invasion, but many of us were what I'll call 'antiwar but'. In March, right before the invasion, a CBS/NYT poll asked whether the US should take military action against Hussein even if the UN voted against it. 42% said yes, 55% said no. An antiwar majority, sure, but hardly overwhelming. In February, according to a Time/CNN poll, Democrats opposed the invasion by a 42% to 50% margin. Once again, an antiwar majority but not overwhelming. In early February, an LA Times poll found a 42% to 50% margin among Democrats. I'm struck by how the Democratic base had around 30% composition at that time that trusted Bush's instincts. So while being antiwar made you slightly more popular within the Democratic Party at the time, both antiwar and prowar positions were mainstream Democratic positions.

Interesting stuff. Similarly, I recall that just after the war -- late march and April 2003 -- the war polled well enough that it was pretty popular among Democrats.

Comments

it'd be nice to know the %age of people who were paying close attention to the issue, vs. those who got a couple of minutes' news every hour on the hour from their local secretary-rock radio station.

Posted by cleek | July 14, 2007 1:26 PM

The fact that her "if I knew then what I know now" line polls well with the majority who half-heartedly supported the war is understandable.

But it doesn't make it any less intellectually dishonest.

Posted by Brautigan | July 14, 2007 1:32 PM

I agree with Stoller and I have been saying the same thing. Hillary does not have an "Iraq problem" because she is where most people are on this issue.

Hillary was never a Lieberman. She didn't cheer on the war. She had all kinds of objections. Her position was that we ought to give inspectors more time, build a meaningful coalition and if all else fails go to war as a last resort. This was the position of most Americans. So it is not surprising that people are not upset with her over Iraq.

As we approach 2008 people are looking at who can get out us out of this mess responsibly. They are looking at experience. This is also why I am not writing off the GOP in 2008. If the GOP candidate can sell himself as the most qualified and experienced candidate to get us out responsibly he can win.

It is not enough to be antiwar. You have to convince the public that you can end the war responsibly. Vietnam was unpopular in 68 and 72 and yet Nixon won both elections.

Posted by DonB | July 14, 2007 1:37 PM

You're being fairly generous Matt. That Stoller article focuses on why Obama can't use this issue to move his current polling numbers against Hillary, with the quote as support.

The more interesting question in this respect is what percentage of people know that Obama was against the war from the beginning. I think it's still very early to make sweeping conclusions.

Posted by ProfD | July 14, 2007 1:38 PM

"what percentage of people know that Obama was against the war from the beginning."

I don't think it matters.

People will be looking at who can get us out with minimum damage. This was Nixon's strength in 68 and 72. He convinced the voters that he had the strength of character and experience to end the war without US humiliation.

Whether people supported the war or opposed it they still don't want to see US humiliation on world stage. They want some kind of face saving "peace with honor". They will not accept defeat.

Posted by DonB | July 14, 2007 1:47 PM

Hillary Clinton: the next Nixon! A winning slogan if I ever heard one.

Posted by Christmas | July 14, 2007 1:58 PM

From my reading, a certain 'pony plan war' was somewhat popular among Democrats, the idea of UN authorization and a competent invasion.

Posted by Matt Stoller | July 14, 2007 2:40 PM

I suspect that most Democrats simply believe any of their candidates will adopt any position on Iraq as convenient. Ditto WOT.

So, you cast your primary vote based upon other factors. It is pretty clear where Hillary stands on affirmative action, immigration law, gays, health care, education, etc.

She may blunder, otherwise I think the only way for a Democrat to beat her is on charisma. It won't be enough.

Posted by K | July 14, 2007 2:54 PM

I suspect that most Democrats simply believe any of their candidates will adopt any position on Iraq as convenient. Ditto WOT.

Let's face it: most Democrats, like most voters, aren't paying attention to the details, especially this early. The "residual force" issue is incredibly overlooked this far out. There's plenty of opportunity for Obama or Edwards to outflank Clinton on her left and make an issue of her massive, massive vulnerability on the war. As it stands now, though, Clinton is simply offering the public a lie - "I'll pull the troops out on my first day in office" - and her top-tier competitors aren't willing to call her on it because their positions don't substantially deviate from hers.

If Obama or Edwards actually decide to move to endorse a full withdrawal, then they can attack Clinton as endorsing an endless occupation. Democrats don't want fifty to sixty thousand troops stuck fighting in Iraq for the next decade, and that's a point one of Clinton's competitors can really drive home. Combine that with her refusal to apologize for her war vote - and the fact that she's just not nearly as good on camera and in person as Obama and Edwards are - and Clinton becomes a lot more vulnerable.

Posted by Christmas | July 14, 2007 3:16 PM

DonB,

I fear you are right and it is very depressing. Some of us are so disgusted with the Dem leadership right now that we will probably vote Kucinich in the primary...but on the other hand it is hard to fault Obama and Hillary for triangulating given the media landscape and popular prejudices. It's a rigged game.

It seems increasingly clear that the added executive accountability from the post-Watergate and post-Vietnam reforms has pretty much evaporated post 9-11, and it will take a large-scale political movement to restore minimal democratic accountability.

Posted by Scott Kern | July 14, 2007 3:18 PM

Nixon ran on his "secret plan to end the war," a war which had been started by Democrats. This war was started by Republicans and none of the viable 2008 GOP candidates are running on ending it. Bad comparison.

Posted by Aaron S. Veenstra | July 14, 2007 3:25 PM

No one's going to go after HRC on Iraq until September, or whenever it is that Petreus rolls around. Until then, I think it's mostly tread water time.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | July 14, 2007 3:43 PM

I don't particularly care what Clinton says about her vote in 2002. She's just a slimy pol, so whatever she says will be bullshit anyway, and the result of some calculation about what will play best with the electorate.

I'm more interested in the years 2009-2013, and what I want to know is this: What will four years of a Hillary Clinton-directed foreign policy and national security policy look like, particularly in the Middle East, but in other important places as well?

What do people think? Personally, I don't like what I envision.

Posted by Dan Kervick | July 14, 2007 3:47 PM

She'll be better than the Republicans, but only mildly. I think she's a creature of the DLC (or the DLC is a creature of the Clintons), and those guys are scary as hell. It'll be a force-based, honor-respecting foreign policy. Basically more of what we've seen so far, but with a month of hemming and hawing added in. And all those DLCites will move up a bit, so that they'll be at the head of the class for the next Democratic Administration.

I think she'll be pretty bad on domestic policy, as well. I console myself by assuming that she'll at least be pretty good for white women. That's really not nothing. That group usually votes Republican, but not by a gigantic margin, and maybe that changes a bit under HRC.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | July 14, 2007 4:11 PM

"She'll be better than the Republicans, but only mildly. I think she's a creature of the DLC (or the DLC is a creature of the Clintons), and those guys are scary as hell."

Yeah, sure, remember all those 'preventive wars' Bill Clinton started during his 8 years in office. Remember all those American troops killed by enemy fire under his DLC-inspired watch?

Or not.

Posted by Andruw | July 14, 2007 5:26 PM

Stoller:

I remember 2002-2003 as a very confusing time. I knew the situation was more complicated than Bush made it out to be, but Very Important People like Tom Friedman and Ken Pollack were advocating for the war. I still trusted these people.

It doesn't take long to see that Thomas Friedman doesn't bother looking at reality, but just makes up stuff that supports whatever his agenda is. Why does anyone even take him seriously?

That's not a rhetorical question. I'm interested in anyone's thoughts on the matter.

I wonder if Stoller even noticed that Friedman didn't support Bush's case for the war. Friedman was disdainful of the whole WMD business. He supported the war on the 'give the Middle East a random shake' theory.

In my opinion, while Bush's arguments were dubious, Friedman's were downright loony.

Posted by David Tomlin | July 14, 2007 7:49 PM

DonB:

I disagree. Hillary couldn't have been more of a cheerleader for the war if she had donned a miniskirt and picked up a pair of pom-poms.

It wasn't simply that she voted for the thing in 2002, but that she continued to vociferously support the war in 2004, 2005, and 2006 when it was perfectly clear that it was a disaster.

Even now, she supports continuing to murder brave American servicemembers indefinitely, as well as the construction and occupation of permanent military bases in Iraq.

So there should be no illusions that Hillary Clinton was or is anything other and a fullthroated supporter of the senseless killing of American servicemembers in Iraq.

Posted by Dilan Esper | July 14, 2007 8:38 PM

I think that most of the commentators here must be Washington beltway people with their noses stuck so far up their asses that they can't smell the roses: you are ALL absolutely wrong that people out in the "hinterlands" aren't aware that Barack Obama is the only (viable) candidate who was ALWAYS against the war. You are also wrong that the smarmy compromises of Hillary Clinton aren't on the radar of MANY voters throughout the country. Man, are most of you going to be surprised to see who actually DO emerge as the voters' choices in the primaries!

Posted by digbydolben | July 14, 2007 9:07 PM

I think I posted this on Matt Stoller's former site, but I think there was a sizable hidden pro-war contingent. There were people who just wanted to crack some heads after 9-11 and were happy about the war because it meant killing Arabs. They also knew that this was a pretty shameful position, so when they were polled on the subject they lied about it.

I think this is the best explanation of why the anti-war candidate Dean did so well in the polls, only to lose to the pro-war candidate Kerry (or essentially the non-Dean candidate, it just as easily could have been Gephardt). This may also explain why the exit polls showed Bush losing reelection, when he won. I realize that fraud is an alternative explanation, but the biggest pro-Bush swing in the country was in the white middle class parts of the New York metropolitan area, which makes no sense in terms of electoral fraud (it got Bush no electoral votes) but a good deal of sense in terms of people liking Bush because he killed a bunch of Arabs.

I'm not sure if these people have had their fill yet, but the Democrats in this group are capable of supporting Hillary while giving other reasons than that she is the least anti-war Democratic candidate. The Republicans, of couse, are supporting Rudy.

Posted by Ed | July 14, 2007 10:40 PM

Aaron S. Veenstra,
Eisenhower started it. He was the first one who sent military advisors.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | July 14, 2007 11:40 PM

After 9/11, the country threw a patriotism party and most people, including the democrats, checked their reason at the door.

But there were some of us who opposed the war BEFORE the invasion, when it really might have made a difference. I have no respect for people who enable the war with their House and Senate votes when its popular, but then turn against it when it goes badly and becomes unpopular. That cuts no mustard with me - by then its just too late.

Posted by kafka | July 15, 2007 12:32 AM

Dilan Esper,

"Even now, she supports continuing to murder brave American servicemembers indefinitely, as well as the construction and occupation of permanent military bases in Iraq."

1) Hillary does not support permanent bases.

2) She supports a small residual force in the region, just like all the other Dems running, except Bill Richardson.

Posted by DonB | July 15, 2007 12:46 AM

DonB:

1. Show me one statement of Hillary in which she has promised that there will be no permanent military bases in Iraq.

2. You contradict yourself here-- where is that residual force going to be based?

In any event, she has never said it will be a small force. Indeed, she has hinted that it will be a large force.

And most importantly, the correct number of American troops to be in Iraq is zero. Anyone who supports any number greater than that, by definition, advocates the continued murder of American troops.

As for what all the other Democrats running, that's kind of the point. There is a combination of lack of guts to advocate a complete pullout and dreams of projecting power in the region. That's why we have to move the debate.

But most importantly about Hillary-- what the heck was she doing fully supporting, even under your definitions, the war all the way through 2006? Either she thought "looking tough" and "centrist" was more important than the lives of our brave servicemembers, or she is a complete idiot who is unqualified to work on any foreign policy matters.

Posted by Dilan Esper | July 15, 2007 1:51 AM

DonB:

Whether people supported the war or opposed it they still don't want to see US humiliation on world stage. They want some kind of face saving "peace with honor". They will not accept defeat.

I'd like to see some elaboration on this. First, what exactly do you mean by 'peace with honor' and 'defeat'? Second, what is your evidence for the sentiments of 'people' on these matters?

Here's one set of polling data:

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

It seems only 39% are ready to withdraw all troops, while those who want to send more, keep the same number, or withdraw some but not all, total 53%. However, the number who want to withdraw them all has been trending upwards, so I wouldn't take this as strong evidence for what people 'will not accept' in the not-too-distant future.

Separating out those who oppose any reduction from those who want a reduction but not a complete withdrawal, we find the former are 33% and the latter are 24%.

I wonder what kind of 'peace with honor' the 24% are expecting, giving how little has been achieved with present troop levels. Maybe maintainig a token U.S. military presence until the war burns itself out, in ten, twenty, or thirty years?

Posted by David Tomlin | July 15, 2007 2:09 AM

Similarly, I recall that just after the war -- late march and April 2003 -- the war polled well enough that it was pretty popular among Democrats.

Of course it did. That was at the time the war began, even if you opposed the war you wanted it over and done quickly and as silly as it is, many people will get all jingoistic in the early stages of a war once the die s cast. It's an easy and lazy way to feel like you are "supporting the troops".

Those are always false positives.

Posted by attaturk | July 15, 2007 7:03 AM

Shorter Matt: "why, it's perfectly reasonable in every way to believe the opposite of what you know to be true."

Posted by Garuda | July 15, 2007 10:27 PM