Skip navigation.
The Texas Blue
Advancing Progressive Ideas

All Apologies

Recently, Hillary Clinton refused to apologize for voting in favor of the Iraq War. It sets the stage for some particularly interesting primary debates.

Edwards has come out and said he was wrong to vote for the war. He has said it several times, and he wants you to remember that he owned up to it. It allows for a contrast between himself and Clinton, and really between himself and any candidate for the Democratic nomination who doesn't agree that the war was and is an unqualified mistake. It is the smartest thing, politically, and it is not hard for me to believe it is also sincere. After all, who wouldn't feel that way after how things have turned out?

Obama throws in with the lot who have been opposed to the war from the beginning, but he was an Illinois state senator at the time, and since Illinois was not declaring war on Iraq, he didn't really vote for or against the whole deal. Obama, however, is included when Clinton says "[i]f the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that vote or has said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from."

I think it is also important to note that many media outlets are running that quote without the follow-up sentence, which was "But for me, the most important thing now is trying to end this war." That makes it seem less confrontational, even if it is still not an outright denial or confession.

Even Senator Chris Dodd has gotten in on the action of declaring that his vote was a mistake. Regret is the new hip accessory to wear during your campaign tours.

So is that a dealbreaker for most Democratic voters? Being who she is, while I don't think it helps, I also think it doesn't hurt her as much as is being projected. If she's being sincere, it makes more sense than if she's merely calculating or triangulating, casting about for something unique that will poll well. I think another point that seems to be lost on the people covering this story is that in some parts of a campaign for your party's nomination, you have to run for President of everyone, too. Even though they seem to be on the run, conservatives and pro-war or war-ambivalent people are out there, and you still need 50% +1 to win a state's electoral votes.

In all fairness to Obama,

In all fairness to Obama, even though he was not in a position to vote against the war at the time, he was rather vocal in his opposition to the war even before the vote. Edwards seems to be challenging Clinton on her turf, having come out with a comprehensive health care proposal.

Though it is disappointing, there are two very good reasons for Clinton to take the unapologetic stand that she has. The Republicans will hammer any sense of wavering, even if a change in position was predicated on Republican lies. There is also the issue of the penis that she lacks. Whether it is spoken or not, she will be perceived by most voters as being weak and indecisive because of her gender. I suspect that her stance, regrettable though it is, may be the wisest approach, and the first sign of her dealing with the gender issue.

Positions

I think that the position she's chosen to take is one that fits in with the centrist role she's sort of taken on in the last few years. If she suddenly went negative on her own vote, then she would be "another anti-war candidate" and that probably wouldn't work out so well.

Syndicate content