Hillary the Hawk

Meanwhile, just as Barack Obama's more centrist economic advisors are telling people he wouldn't really withdraw from NAFTA, it seems that Hillary Clinton's more hawkish advisors are telling people she won't really withdraw from Iraq. It's hard to know what the truth is here. From 2002-2006 or so, Clinton went out of her way to cultivate an image as a hawk, forging relationships with the Michael O'Hanlons and Kenneth Pollacks of the world, hanging out at Peter Beinart's book party, getting herself labeled one of Jeffrey Goldberg's "national security Democrats," having Richard Holbrooke brag to reporters that "She is probably more assertive and willing to use force than her husband," and so forth.

More recently, she's talked a lot about ending cowboy diplomacy and ending the war in Iraq. If she becomes the nominee, will we start hearing again about how beating the drums of war with Iran is the way to shift into "general election mode, when she must guard against critics from the right"?

Comments

The antiwar dems are all Obama and Iraq looks to be on the back burnder, so she figures she'll reinvent herself yet again. Should make for some interesting youtube videos as we compare January Hillary with March Hillary.

Posted by Helter | March 4, 2008 3:21 PM

Who knows? She is completely incoheren on foreign policy. I think the wise assumption is that she has no core beliefs; it is all political opportunism with her.

Posted by blah | March 4, 2008 3:23 PM

I disagree, blah. I think that she's a hawk at heart. the 2004-2006 time period would hav been the one where it was most advantageous, politically, to take an anti-war stance, and she just doubled down on her hawkish stance, and she declined the opportunity to throw a bone to the anti-war base when she voted in favor of Kyl-Lieberman. I think this points to someone whose core beliefs are hawkish.

Posted by Tyro | March 4, 2008 3:26 PM

Well, at least Hillary wants to ban the use of mercenaries in Iraq while Obama doesn't. Question for Barak: why would we need mercenaries in Iraq if we're planning to get out?

But yeah, MY, Hillary's a hawk. What gave you the first clue? Was it when she refused to vote for banning the use of cluster bombs in civilian areas or when she voted for an AIPAC-written bill called "Kyl-Liberman?"

Both Obama and Clinton (and Bush!) want to expand the military by 92,000 troops.

Obama is a hawk. Hillary is a more hawkish hawk.

Posted by David Mizner | March 4, 2008 3:27 PM

This is related to what I said in a earlier comment about Obama not being forceful in his current anti-war advocacy. Unfortunately, I think Hillary is not 100% committed to ending the war in Iraq. However, I don't think Obama is either. I don't even think he is more likely to withdraw; he might even be less likely if McCain turns him into "Obambi" and he over-compensates. If you assume we will stay in Iraq in the short term, I think Hillary would be the more competent commander -- this might be a big reason why I am supporting her. Rhetorically, I think a Hillary general election will be very annoying, with "tacks to the right" as you say. But it might play better to have a resolute-sounding flip-flopper than a scared-sounding principled objector, if that makes any sense.

Posted by Ryan | March 4, 2008 3:29 PM

of course we will see her once again shift position...it's what the Clintons do.

The really sad thing is the good young folks of places like Ohio and Texas will be more likely to lose their lives because of it.

It just makes me so incredibly sad that voters are still fooled by these sorts of politicians. I can only hope and pray that somewhere there is a thread of decency left in HRC that will disallow her from screwing with the lives of our grand young people.

At least McCain would wage war because it's what he knows and what he believes in his core. To take any chance on a *leader* that would do so in a cavalier method of political gain is beyond any sort of conscience.

Posted by G Davis | March 4, 2008 3:30 PM

It's hard to know what the truth is here.

Is this some deep epistemology point? Because it sure doesn't look like it.

But it might play better to have a resolute-sounding flip-flopper than a scared-sounding principled objector, if that makes any sense.

It doesn't.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | March 4, 2008 3:31 PM

$10 says if she wins the White House she wears a codpiece on the inauguration platform.

Posted by steve duncan | March 4, 2008 3:38 PM

From a friend in the know.

EARLY EXITS:

OH: 58 Clinton, 37 Obama, 4 JRE
TX: 56 Clinton, 43 Obama

Disclaimer: This is only first round of EE polling, so beware, HRC #'s could be lower, or even higher. Either way looking very good for hillary.....

Posted by James M | March 4, 2008 3:40 PM

Not buying it, James.

There were actually people who believed Hillary wanted to withdraw from Iraq? Anyone that gullible must use all their mental energy remembering to breathe.

Posted by ChuckE | March 4, 2008 3:44 PM

Not buying it, James.

Me either. I'll wait from leaks from someone with more credibility. Ambinder should get something sooner or later, no?

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | March 4, 2008 3:47 PM

Its not hard to follow this. Clinton was either for the war or pandering to the right when she voted for the AUMF. Thats all she's doing now. For a hilarious attempt by Michael O'Hanlon to support the occupation while trying to retain his place in line for a job with the dems, listen to today's Diane Rehm Show . The show is on the cost of the war and is quite good, despite O'Hanlon's presence. His announcement that he is a democrat and his gyrations to keep up with democratic spin is priceless.

Posted by Peter Driscoll | March 4, 2008 3:49 PM

"If she becomes the nominee, will we start hearing again about how beating the drums of war with Iran is the way to shift into "general election mode, when she must guard against critics from the right"?"

Why not? She has already proven that she is willing to triangulate on war, the most important matter of principle. If she could triangulate on Iraq in 2002-2003, she can literally say anythng if she judges it in her interest.

Posted by Junius Brutus | March 4, 2008 3:57 PM

No one is going to "withdraw from Iraq". Not Obama, not McCain, and certainly not Hillary. Any president who leaves without insuring that Iraq doesn't look like a defeat would have their entire first term consumed by a firestorm, and there wouldn't be a second. We already did Jimmy Carter, and there will be no re-runs.

The "anti-war" posture is simply a fashion statement, including by those who don't have a clue about when, why, and how it started. Everybody's anti-war. The people who get called hawks are just those who recognize the war's reality.

Posted by Robert Powell | March 4, 2008 3:57 PM

Re Robert Powell

Actually, the defeat in Vietnam occurred on Gerald Fords' watch, not James Earl Carter, the worst president in American history.

Posted by SLC | March 4, 2008 4:03 PM

Accidentally reading a Robert Powell post is like having Richard Simmons surprise you from behind with a reach around.

Thanks, but no thanks.

Posted by The Fool | March 4, 2008 4:03 PM

Speaking of James Earl Carter, heres a link that will raise the blood pressure of all the Israel bashers on this blog.

mms://ca11.cast-tv.com/list_vod_jpost/2008-03-04-dershowitz.wmv

Posted by SLC | March 4, 2008 4:06 PM

Speaking of things that are like Richard Simmons surprising you from behind with a reach around, here's a link about Israel from SLC.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | March 4, 2008 4:09 PM

"Senator Clinton is very knowledgeable about national security and is probably going to be strong on defense," he said. "I have no doubts whatsoever that if she were president in January '09 she would not act irresponsibly and issue orders to conduct an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, regardless of the consequences, and squander the gains that have been made." Mr. Keane added that he could not imagine any president in the White House making that kind of decision.

Posted by anon | March 4, 2008 4:18 PM

So Obama would act irresponsibly and conduct an immediate withdrawal regardless of consequences?

Posted by Almost Decided | March 4, 2008 4:56 PM

Yeah I don't understand how people like Krugman would write column after column about how Iraq was the biggest disaster in human history and then go ahead and effectively work to elect Hillary. Hillary is using Rove's playbook to try to scare voters into voting for her. Definitely displaying good core Democratic values!

Speaking of things that are like Richard Simmons surprising you from behind with a reach around, here's a link about Israel from SLC.

I wonder who Richard Simmons is endorsing... All of that positive can-do energy, he has to be for Obama!

Posted by Peter K. | March 4, 2008 4:57 PM

"It's hard to know what the truth is here. "

No it's not. Obama/Clinton will not pull out of NAFTA and Obama/Clinton will not pull out of Iraq.

Posted by romerocker | March 4, 2008 4:57 PM

So Obama would act irresponsibly and conduct an immediate withdrawal regardless of consequences?

Posted by Almost Decided | March 4, 2008 5:08 PM

Actually, if Senator Obama were smart, President Obama would take a page from the Richard Nixon playbook and Iraqize the war, just as Nixon Vietmized the war in Vietnam.

Posted by SLC | March 4, 2008 5:15 PM

EARLY EXITS FROM AN INSIDE SOURCE:

OH: 51 Clinton, 49 Obama
TX: 54 Obama, 51 Clinton

Hillary looks to be toast

Posted by Ken | March 4, 2008 5:21 PM

Anyone know where these exit-poll leaks are coming from or the people who are posting them?
Just curious.

Posted by John | March 4, 2008 5:28 PM

TX: 54 Obama, 51 Clinton

???

Posted by Kevin | March 4, 2008 5:29 PM

TX: 54 Obama, 51 Clinton

Damned illegal immigrants!!

Posted by Swopa | March 4, 2008 5:36 PM

Anyone know where these exit-poll leaks are coming from or the people who are posting them?
Just curious.

People are making them up. The real exit polls are locked up tight until polls close. These procedures were put in place after the 2004 debacle when leaked exits showed Kerry winning.

They will release some info soon, e.g. percent women/men.

Posted by Mike | March 4, 2008 5:45 PM

It's hard to know what the truth is here.

No, it's quite easy to know what the truth is here.

As you said, Matt, "[f]rom 2002-2006 or so, Clinton went out of her way to cultivate an image as a hawk,", but in 2007, Hillary started saying "if President Bush doesn't end the war in Iraq, I will."

A nice phrase, to be sure, but lacking specificity regarding a timeframe. I've never, ever, anywhere seen anyone point to a place where Hillary said she'd have all, or nearly all, of our troops out of Iraq anytime before 2017.

She said she'd begin to withdraw troops shortly after being inaugurated, but hell, Nixon did that too. Didn't mean he was in a hurry to pull the rest of them out.

So Hillary's dovishness has been limited to ringing statements that sound great, but give her plenty of room to be the same hawk she's always been.

I've been saying this over and over, including a few times in comment threads here. If it hasn't sunk in yet, I'll say it a few more times. To quote Arlo, I'm not proud...or tired.

Posted by low-tech cyclist | March 4, 2008 5:53 PM

From 2002-2006 or so, Clinton went out of her way to cultivate an image as a hawk, forging relationships with the Michael O'Hanlons and Kenneth Pollacks of the world,

She actually started this at least as early as 1999, saying "I am very pleased that this president (WJC) and administration have made democracy promotion one of the centerpieces of our foreign policy...America's military involvements should not be limited to splendid little wars."

If you go by her biography, she's been a Neoconservative hawk (as opposed to a McCainian to-hell-with-the-bastards hawk) for much longer.

Some more of her greatest hits:

Rwanda

""I believe if I had moved (invaded) we might have saved at least a third of those lives. I think she clearly would have done that."-Bill Clinton"

Balkans

"I urged him to bomb. You cannot let this go on at the end of a century that has seen the major holocaust of our time. What do we have NATO for if not to defend our way of life?"-Hillary Clinton

Sudan

"Action by the United States, in concert with the international community, is long overdue. We need to respond quickly to the African Union's request for UN peacekeepers in Darfur, and we need to provide those peacekeepers with a strong mandate and the resources required to protect civilians."-Hillary Clinton

I'd include all her earnest calls for Iraq or Iran invasions, but that would probably crash the Atlantic servers.

Posted by Shinyk | March 4, 2008 6:07 PM

Any Democratic nominee is going to have talk tough in the general campaign against John McCain. Sorry, but that's how the game will be played. And if they're smart they'll show McCain up not as tough but as reckless.

I really don't have a problem with rhetorical saber-rattling. It's when the guns really start shooting that we have an issue and I don't see either Democratic candidate as trigger-happy.

Posted by JonF | March 4, 2008 7:14 PM

Sorry, Jon, but I disagree.

People can see that our ground troops in other countries just isn't a workable idea - costs lots of lives and tons of money, and for what?

The thing that's missing is a believable alternative to the 'tough guy' approach for people to vote for instead.

Posted by low-tech cyclist | March 4, 2008 9:07 PM

re: People can see that our ground troops in other countries just isn't a workable idea -

Do you see anything in my post suggesting the US should continue the Bush policy of invading other countries on trumped-up causi belli? All I said is that in the general election it will be necessary for the Democratic nominee to sound appropriately tough-- something like "I will resolutely oppose with due and proper force any outlaw group or rogue government that harms the United Sates, its allies or its vital interests." That's a normal and safe and, yes, sensible, thing to say. It certainly does not translate into "Yee-haw! Bombs away!" but it sounds a lot better "I'll just go talk to the meanies and hope they play nice."
I have to say I really do not understand this weird meme that Hillary Clinton is the second coming of Genghis Khan. Surely John McCain does warmongering far better than any Democrat, and the old coot probably means it too.

Posted by JonF | March 4, 2008 9:40 PM

Hillary Clinton is an AIPAC stooge, because that's where the money comes from. She WILL attack Iran, because she's been paid to do so and she has no clue about why not.

Obama is trying to pander to AIPAC, but as somebody suggested the other day, may be throwing in the towel on that since Clinton has that sewed up. Nonetheless, if elected, he will pander to some degree. He is also clueless about why not to attack Iran, and why not to throw more troops at Afghanistan and Pakistan.

And neither of them have committed to ending the war in Iraq in their first term - only to "beginning" to do so.

McCain will attack EVERYBODY in the first six months of his Presidency, so if he's elected, run for cover.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | March 4, 2008 11:07 PM

low-tech's "believable alternative to the 'tough guy' approach" was Jimmy Carter. Been there, done that.

For the last sixty years we have been spending kazillions on defense, for most of that time with the stated objective of maintaining a military establishment that could win two major wars in different parts of the world at the same time. Although this always struck me as fanciful, I'm quite certain that the American voting public is not going to accept the formulation that we can't even support two popularly-elected allied governments at their request, in the permissive environment of their own countries, with low-intensity conflicts against a small, chaotic, and unpopular collection of terrorists. Any more than they would support a president in Carter who couldn't seem to find a dozen helicopters that would work when we needed them.

I guess the Hillary-as-Nixon formulation is fair as far as it goes--"secret plan to end the war" and all that. But Iraq is not Vietnam.

Posted by Robert Powell | March 5, 2008 4:44 AM

low-tech's "believable alternative to the 'tough guy' approach" was Jimmy Carter. Been there, done that.

For the last sixty years we have been spending kazillions on defense, for most of that time with the stated objective of maintaining a military establishment that could win two major wars in different parts of the world at the same time. Although this always struck me as fanciful, I'm quite certain that the American voting public is not going to accept the formulation that we can't even support two popularly-elected allied governments at their request, in the permissive environment of their own countries, with low-intensity conflicts against a small, chaotic, and unpopular collection of terrorists. Any more than they would support a president in Carter who couldn't seem to find a dozen helicopters that would work when we needed them.

I guess the Hillary-as-Nixon formulation is fair as far as it goes--"secret plan to end the war" and all that. But Iraq is not Vietnam.

Posted by Robert Powell | March 5, 2008 4:47 AM

Shinyk-thanks for the useful quotes, but I don't believe you can produce any that amount to "earnest calls to invade Iran".

Surely you don't credit the risible assertions that her vote for Kyle-Leiberman had anything to do with invading Iran? Only those who are hopelessly misinformed, cynically disingenuous, or both say this. No one in their right mind has advocated invading Iran, and the chances of that happening because of Kyle-Lieberman are less than zero in that this act probably makes an attack on Iran LESS likely in real-world terms.

Posted by Robert Powell | March 5, 2008 4:55 AM

Hillary says what she means and means what she says... The "New Democrats" are the Centrists of which HRC is one.

Obama - Nafta-gate?

Obama - The Farrahkan Connection?

Obama - Foriegn Policy Adviser resigns in Disgrace.

Obama - Rev. Wright displays core ideology to Louis Farrahkan.

Clinton Wins TEXAS, OHIO and RHODE ISLAND!

Suddenly, It's Hillary...

"The Kool-Aid is wearing off."

Posted by Randy | March 7, 2008 4:41 PM